Embargos to combat destructive players.

  • I'm surprised that you would skip 7 paragraphs and only latch on to the last one. Perhaps, when you actually read those 7 paragraphs you would be able to understand better my point and analogy.


    ...



    Since we all know black is the greatest color ever, I have the following great ideas to fix the game.


    1. Get rid of the colors and make everything gray scale. This will greatly enhance the feel of the game, and you will make a lot more money because everybody loves black.


    2. There is nothing better than black easter eggs. The only thing better than black easter eggs is going on an Easter egg hunt for black Easter eggs on an asphalt road! Next time you hide easter eggs on the map, you should make all the easter eggs black and only hide them on the black parts of the map,


    3. Just want to emphasize that you will need to make the grayscale map have lots of really black places so that you can hide the black easter eggs!


    4. Oh, the oceans should be totally black. You could hide lots of easter eggs there because the oceans are big, and once they are black, they will be perfect for hiding black easter eggs.


    5. With so much black on the screens, it will make it easier for me to get to sleep at night because the screens are too bright. All those bright colors keep me awake and everybody needs to sleep. So make sure the oceans aren't the only things are black, because we need to sleep.


    6. Anybody who doesn't like black is like a team of cricket players trying to play baseball.

  • Heh.


    Check out the 'Embargo' thread under suggestions. The other team could use another player. :)


    edit:


    TL;DR summary of the other thread:


    It is far more likely that the player has some other objective that they are focused on and it just appears to be harassment from your perspective. It is a fight that occurs in every game and you are not alone in feeling persecuted by individuals whose only purpose in life is to make you feel miserable Even if such people do exist (I haven't met one in 5 years playing) it is still part of the challenge of the game..

  • Your fear of a player like myself controlling YOUR play that impacts on OUR play is groundless if you are not one of teh players I described. Yet you seem to want to be seen as such.


    So let me ask you...


    1] Do you have multipple accounts?


    2] Do you use them on teh same server in the same location?


    3] Do use use a BOT program?


    4] Do you use those accounts to disrupt other players games without needing to ie deliberately hauling to negate a GH? or other tactic that gains you nothing in either pp or cash, but hinders others?


    If you are claiming to be one of those anarchic players who play to dsirupt rather than play to win then yes I would use sanctions against you.... in fact I'd go further If Icould prove you were playing against the rules on mutiuple accounts or BOT use I would hope you were banned, although how practical such a ban might be is another question. Therein lies another reason why I feel the sanctions need to come from within the game. The costs of policing errant accounts is almost certainly too great for us ot hope RN would do so with any assurance they can't cvome back easily.
    Whereas a balanced sanction system with limited Support assistance could cut out a lot of teh rogue play with little impact upon rogue players who do not abuse the freedoms they already have.


    If you are a player who hunts for pp but does not attack other players plans needlessly and without a gain in prestige or cash then I would consdier you a rogue player and would want ot keep players such as yourselef in the game as challenges to be met. If that is you... then all you need fear is that occasionally a rogue with an agenda worse than yours will take control and cause a delay while you use teh controls built in ot get rid of tehm. Whereas teh game offers no current controls over YOUR play.


    Just why should you get to play as you want, at the cost of others?


    Incidently your baseball anology fails miserably as I have zero interest in the game and have never aquainted myself of its rules. Sounds like that is a good move on my part as Idon't like theft being part of any game I play and do not deliberately make use of it.

  • the only problem is :


    you want to give tools to someone to combat rogue players, but they can use them to combat PP hunters - people they don't like.


    Even though your goal (delete multiple accounts) is great and I support it. The means you propose can be abused to actually bully a lot of people. That is the issue, and that is why we are so much against your proposition that would ruin this game.

  • Can you suggest an amendment that offers more protection for normal rogue play? I suggested that a the sanctions on abuse of this power would be strong enough to deter many and there are many more players who would not abuse teh power.


    With Support providing teh ultimate sanctions for abusive play I suspect that players like yourself will not need to fear anything. Yes you'll get warnings but the game could also issue a warning to an errant Mayor or President that abuse of thier power would result in intervention from RN. A clear definition of what IS allowed could be part of that warnning to both parties.


    The truth is I recognise the game would stagnate if we all chase teh records adn reach them totally unhindered by rogue play.


    However, nobody has offered a soluition that would fix teh current imbalance which is imho, and in teh opinion of many, a grossly unbalanced element of the game. Rogues should be able to disrupt a little here and there. With the team players able to develop and deploy working strategies to reduce a rogues impact. What should not happen is that normal rogue or team play is allowed to totally ruin the others style of play.


    Many of teh warnings and sanctions could be limited to within Assocs with rogues excluded from those sanctions as long as they are not within an Assoc and have not adopted ccertain play styles the game could recognise. There has to be some comprommise between the two styles of play as teh current free for all is only free for the destructive players.

  • I think the opening post in the thread was very clear that this was not directed towards PP-hunters but rather the players, or in many cases multi-accs, that are typically way outside the top 1000 players on the server, doing things that do not gain anything to themselves and only destroys things for others.


    The thread was a direct response to the behavior that was observed on the SoE server "M1.201 Scandinavia" where 6 players joined by multi-accounts of which only 1 player amde it into the top 500 last time I checked, and other than him, the rest had less total sum prestige than the average member in our association, were acting specifically to ruin the regions chances to compete in every way they could.


    On another server, COM201 Big Ben, there is plenty of normal PP-hunters, several of the ones that run through our region are top 10 (the #1 and #2 included) and these don't pose much of a problem. Sometimes they click 1 more times than the majority could handle, they say "oops" and we take it back and it all works fine. No big deal. No sanctions needed.


    But for the destructive behavior above, in most other games, when the whole group together is less powerful than 1 player in your own group, you just kill them until they've lost too much to keep up the behavior. This type of self-defense is not available in this game right now, which means that the single destructive, outside of rank 1000 player with a couple of multis has more power to destroy the competitive chances of an association of 15 rank top 100 players, with no effective way of responding whatsoever.


    Samisu and others who claim that this would mean any type of control over others is willfully misreading suggestions offered in the opening post. In no way does any of the sanctions sugested relieve any player of the control over their accounts actions or allow any player who is not an assigned sitter to change any of another players actions. The only thing they would do is to give an even, balanced playing field between associations trying to pursue one goal and those who try to hinder it.


    In real life, if you are standing in the subway with 25 of your football team-mates and 1 scrawny drunk idiot comes to pick a fight, you don't just all lay down and wait to get your faces kicked in 1 after the other, you shove him away, hit back or make a civil-arrest and hand him over to security/cops. Right now the mechanics of RN means you all lay down and get your faces kicked in.
    It's that ALL the power is ONLY on the side of the anti-team players, which is neither the PP-hunters nor the new beginners, that is the problem. There needs to be some kind of balance.

    Now excuse me, I've got a train line to run!

  • Locomotius Prime wrote:

    I think the opening post in the thread was very clear that this was not directed towards PP-hunters but rather the players, or in many cases multi-accs, that are typically way outside the top 1000 players on the server, doing things that do not gain anything to themselves and only destroys things for others.


    So, once again, lemme explain clearly what is wrong with the 1st suggestion, because apparently you don't understand.


    and yet still push city- levels when they shouldn't, and destroy waiting times in endgames etc.


    In order to change this I would like to propose some simple fixes to enable teams to stand up for themselves.

    Is it written anywhere that pushing city levels is prohibited, off-limits, and reason enough to ban a player from the game ? I call it strategy when you do it to another region. Don't forget the guy had to pay 100M just to get to your region. If you paid for the special track, too bad. You just helped him outplay you.
    If he was from your own region, then why is the city more yours than his ? Did you have any privileges when signing up ? Or is it because you have a bigger corp, therefore more friends that can vote for you ? What you omit is that yes the mayor position gives many advantages, but no it does not mean the city belongs to you only.


    Mayor embargo
    Allow mayors to select up to 50 players who do not receive any credits for delivering to the city. Instead all credits are donated to the local landmark or to other landmakrs in the region if it is full, or lost if they are all full.

    How in hell are those 50 players supposed to play ? they cannot do shit anymore. You remove all of their income to contribute to landmarks, which YOU feel is the way the game should be played.

    Erik1234 wrote:

    Association Embargo
    Allow each association to list up to 50 individual players who get 30 minutes added to waiting times in each industry they visit. Embargoed players who take goods from an industry owned by the association also lose 1% of maintenance on the engine each time they pick up goods.

    That one is a funny one. 30 minutes come on. You know a downside of this ? An association could regroup 25 really rich and really good people, that would take up any majority they feel like taking, and banning them to a region. Like a monopol. I can't wait to have this option with my team of friends and just take control of all era 6 goods across the map. The endgames are gonna be so fun, Lasting 1 month and all. AHAH

    Erik1234 wrote:

    Endgame embargos
    Mayor: Select up to 50 individuals who cannot pick up any good in any industry the geographically belongs to the city.
    Association: Select up to 50 players who can not pick up any good in any industry where they have majority.
    This would shift the balance from always being on the side of the destructive players to the side of the productive players.

    Again, what if an association of really rich players decided to render electronic chips "off-limits", taking the majority with 200M or more on each industry. It is not that difficult to do with the right teammates. How in hell is a city gonna finish that RQ ? With instant boosts ? Do you know of any city that has enough instant boosts to deliver 150k goods or more ? I don't.



    Now did you understand ? I am totally fine with support removing those multi-accounts, hell I hate them, some accounts are created in your region just to leak your strategy to the opposing team, and you can never have any proof of who did it. But well, giving tools that can totally destroy the gameplay of someone is not a way to remove the problem. Someone is just gonna abuse your tools to get back at you in the end.


    I don't think there is any way to trully punish those "trolls", except maybe if support has a way of getting better tools to track multi-accounts. But don't try to give the players a mean to get justice or revenge, just like you don't let the people decide who is guilty and who isn't, you have a judiciary system for that, with judges and all. Here, the support are the judges, let them do something.

  • I think the opening post in the thread was very clear that this was not directed towards PP-hunters but rather the players, or in many cases multi-accs, that are typically way outside the top 1000 players on the server, doing things that do not gain anything to themselves and only destroys things for others.

    Yes. But of course, those of us who have already had the existing tools used against us knows, that what is said is very different than what is done.


    No solution is needed for multi accounts beyond reporting them.


    If reporting them does not yield the results you want, it is more proof of my point than yours.

  • "If reporting them does not yield the results you want, it is more proof of my point than yours."


    Either you are ignorant of the technical difficulties and costs involved in stopping them. Or you wish it to retain them as part of the game.


    It absolutely does NOT prove anything in your comments.


    Whilst it is inevitable that any tools provided in the game will be employed by some as a means to attack allowable play, that is not a good enough reason to stop such tools being deployed so that the majorioty of players who want a more peacable game can do so. This is especially so when sanctions againat such use of the tools can be strictly applied. For at the moment the abusers have the upper hand.

  • Whilst it is inevitable that any tools provided in the game will be employed by some as a means to attack allowable play, that is not a good enough reason to stop such tools being deployed so that the majorioty of players who want a more peacable game can do so. This is especially so when sanctions againat such use of the tools can be strictly applied. For at the moment the abusers have the upper hand.

    So what will happen ? You will punish someone for using a tool that is developped in the purpose of stopping other players, because apparently he doesn't use it the right way ? Man come on, your arguments don't make sense. You just say "some people abuse tools, let's make new tools to punish them, which in turn can be used to abuse 100x more".


    Where do we stop ? When the tool is "ban up to 20 players from your server" ?


    This thread didn't make a lot of sense since the beginning, but it is becoming stupid to keep arguing over and over. Drama and me showed you quite clearly why it is not feasible. You keep arguing that the problem are the multi-accounts, THEN the objective should be to remove those multi-accounts. And the only people that can do something about that are the support, because otherwise there is 1/ no proof and 2/ no way of knowing that the tool will not be abused to remove players that are playing by the rules.

  • I do like your summaries Sacroima. :)


    But the cheesy response had a more fun angle to exploit.


    • Drama is naïve because he does not know how difficult it is to eliminate alternate accounts
    • But it would be easy for them to build a tool that lets ME do it for them
  • @ sacroima


    Firstly if you want to summarise my post please stick to MY posts. I have not defined any number of players. Also you would need to quantify how many players were using any BOT accounts as in my book the controlling player only counts as one. Nor have I said anything about removing them from the game. I DID say they could be penalised.


    My argumnent makes perfect sense. The problem is that teh mechanism exists now for one player to destroy the efforts of many and Support can do little about it in some cases. Far better to provide the tools to ALL players that redress the balance a little. Yet provide within those tools a means of recording abuse and Support taking action against the abusers miusing the tools.


    The difference is that the tools can include the record of abuse, whereas the current state would require a lot more effort on the part of player s to reporet abuse and would require investigation by Support before action could be taken.


    So in summation having offered innacurate summary of my posts your argumnent falls as it against things I have not said. However, you have at least tried to make solid argument.


    @DramaMagneTSorry your summation repeats the error sacroima made, then you boast of exploiting it. I take it you have nothing constructive to offer? Rather than being a magnet for drama it appears you are trying to create it.


    Neither of you have offered a workable solution that redresses the balance for all players, rather than the handful of current abusers. A solution that has inbuilt protection from becoming part of a cycle of abuse yet reduces the abuse possible by one player against many. My suggestion could be a catalyst for usch a mechanism.

  • .. The problem is that teh mechanism exists now for one player to destroy the efforts of many and Support can do little about it in some cases. ...


    The difference is that the tools can include the record of abuse, whereas the current state would require a lot more effort on the part of player s to reporet abuse and would require investigation by Support before action could be taken...


    I see how I completely misrepresented what you were saying now.



    For the record, I completely understand how removing the requirement to research and prove wrongdoers are in fact actually wrong doers, greatly simplifies the process. I feel safe in stating Sacroima and many others also understand how that pesky burden of proof thing is both difficult and yet necessary.

  • @ Drama


    Thank you.


    Perhaps Ishould make clear that Ihave no real objection to players having mutilple accounts so long as those accounts are not used to damage other players legitimate efforts in the game.


    Personally I doubt I will ever use them. I don't need to. Using the Sitter option I have 2 accounts under my control that belong to freinds. Those freinds are currently too committed to their RL work and don't have the time to do the littel things daily that keep teh pp flowing. So Ido that for them and they come in when I neeed them to do instant UPG and such. However their accounts belong to them and as such anything I do in thier name might embarass them.... so I am not tempted to use their accounts to do anything the player themselves would not do. Iamalso keen to earn them pp as it helps my Assoc.


    The costs of producing an effective sanction code would still be costly, but imho they would redress the balance and improve the game. We might even see a benefit with newbies entering an environment that may be freindlier and less likely to put them off in their first week.


    Anotherr idea Ihave is that the sanctions and the warnings are made in a tabular form with an on/off switch. So a Region might decide they will never sanction hauling against the call but might sanction taking maj if you are not hauling teh RG in question. This could add a whole new layer of teamplay and could even be voted upon by the Region players. With their vote turning to Null if they fail to visit the server at least once every 3 days. I'm confidant you would understand the implications of this suggestion, and perhpas now you will contribute some ideas too?


    The way I see it is that although costly a warning and sanction mechanism would save money in Support issues. The players would be developing teh environment and RN could eventualy hard code some play options that are unaimously popular. Maybe some players will vote for all sanction and warnings... play a couple of rounds at those settings then realsie how sterile thier game has become. So it could eventually guarantee the freedoms you cherish.

  • The player might also spam-invest because he/she wants to level up their career engine. People joins many different servers, but choose not to play on some of them, using them only to get achievements.

  • Now did you understand ? I am totally fine with support removing those multi-accounts, hell I hate them, some accounts are created in your region just to leak your strategy to the opposing team, and you can never have any proof of who did it. But well, giving tools that can totally destroy the gameplay of someone is not a way to remove the problem. Someone is just gonna abuse your tools to get back at you in the end.


    I don't think there is any way to trully punish those "trolls", except maybe if support has a way of getting better tools to track multi-accounts. But don't try to give the players a mean to get justice or revenge, just like you don't let the people decide who is guilty and who isn't, you have a judiciary system for that, with judges and all. Here, the support are the judges, let them do something.


    I shortened the quote to not make this ridiculously long...


    Here is the thing with rich association taking majorities; if they do that, fine, they've outcompeted me financially. I can totally buy that. Because in order to outcompete me and my association financially, they would have actually play as strongly or even better than us long term over the range of the 6 eras, as long as we're talking players mainly sticking to their main accounts. No problem, may the best player win.


    Here is the thing with support vs multi-accounts in all games, and I say this knowing several people who've worked support in other games saying exactly this;
    Having support personnel as the main feature against griefers is completely toothless, for a couple of reasons;
    * Real proof is seldom at hand even if the case is blatantly obvious.
    * The only rulebreakers that are typically easy to catch are those breaking language rules, i.e. talking sexual profanities, racism, and other content that comes in written comunications, like selling acounts or ingame currencies.
    * There is a given limit to the amount of support-members due to cost of hiring them and therefore the amount of personnel that can spend time hunting cheaters is limited way WAAAAAY belong what would be able to even handle the amount of reports etc there is.
    * Reports exist for players to "think they can do something about it" not to actually do anything about it, it's semantics, that's it.


    As for how a player is supposed to play under for example a mayor embargo?
    - Switch city for example?


    As for the other tools, of course they should be used both ways. If someone puts santions on you and you don't like them, well hit back then! take the majority, or make your own association and outcompete the other.
    You can't right now because there are no real tools to deal with accounts that only exist for the sole purpose of lagging down waiting times etc.
    Just look at endgames right now; they are 80% about who happens to have made a city where fewer people in completely other regions remembered to put a bunch of sabotage-accounts



    Here is my question to you, in which other games where you build something up over long periods of time does a player have more destructive power at their disposal after 5h of investment than the defensive power of a player that has spent let's say 150?
    In any balanced game the player that has built his base / account up for more than 2 months is usually more or less immune against the attacks of completely fresh account created the same afternoon if both have played let's say reasonably efficiently.

    Now excuse me, I've got a train line to run!

  • Proof is hard, clearly that shouldn't be mistaken for the possibility that the accusation is wrong.


    And yes, games like Travian, Evony, Grepolis... where your choices of play style were
    1. Join the biggest team
    2. Get farmed by the biggest team


    So much fun, hard to understand why I don't play them anymore.

  • I was referring to people who do things to get destructive attention or behavior.(game troll/agitator)when i was a game GM,we banned people for such behavior after warnings of coarse)


    instead of being a part of a possible winning effort ,
    they would rather try to disrupt it in any way possible.(you don't know if it is envy or just a hate for those that do well)


    you know it is o.k to not want to go through the grinding of city levels,
    dealing with the drama of a large group of people.(no one is saying you have to)
    (But why constantly try to kill anyone else's efforts?)


    last round we received 2x every comp. . . .until we stopped trying to get it.
    (because we were being attacked constantly for doing well i can only guess.)


    I could go on with a few sad stories of this game but i won't


    game needs better rules, better ways to combat disruptive people.(it is to easy to spot a troll at work)