We need options for player regulation

There always seems to be one or two players who just can't get along, wont follow the rules, and can not quiet seem to figure out that they are 1 person out of 500+

Unlike the Real World where we can throw them in jail, kick them out of the country, or send Seal Team 6 to execute them, we do not have those options in Battle Conquest.

I want them!

There NEEDS to be a mechanism to help bring uncooperative players into alignment with what the Faction's wishes. Will also be a fun addition to Guild Wars.

I suggest the following as Faction Only PVE that only members of guilds can do:
Warehouse Raids - Send in your best team, cause you will be fighting up to the best 12 units the enemy has. You get 10% of what is in their warehouse if you win. There is no 30% Rule for the target they get their highest AP (with gear, not heroes) units.
Barracks Burning - Fight vs the best 14 units the enemy has. Should you win, they loose a level of barracks for a week (or permanently?).
Assassination - Fight vs the enemies 16 best units. Should you win that player is kicked out of their guild. They can not create a guild during their 3 day wait. Only guild leaders (General, Chancellor, Vice Leader, and Leader) can be targeted for Assassination.

Target player looses nothing else. Their items do not loose durability, etc.

I like idea of raids, but everything else is bullshit

I think it would be allot of fun.

Maybe it will be given a try.

ST

ExtoZi wrote:

I like idea of raids, but everything else is bullshit

For me all is bullshit (no offense ExtoZi)

I would really rather prefer that this game kept the whole city raids out of it.

The base idea is great and it has been asked for many times. Which indicates there was a reason to ask for it many times
And i like the assasination part, however there is still the question to how is it decided who is an outlaw and who is not. If we give such option to anyone, it will just be chaos. Needs some thought, but definitely very very needed.

If poorly implemented, this will be used as a predator mechanism instead of for the better of the game. Because of that, I don't agree with this suggestion. I think the answer for "player regulation" would honestly be a moderator, however I don't know when that would happen, if ever. But more importantly, I don't think it's even really necessary with the current player-base. Could that change later? Maybe, but I don't think raids and kicking players out of their guild and destroying their ability to play the game (degrade their barracks) is the way to do that. ESPECIALLY if anyone in a guild can do this to anyone else just because they are bigger and stronger...

What about players are we asking to be regulated?

Is this chat behavior, cooperative battles (not actually cooperating in any fashion, perhaps deliberately sabotaging a match or at least their partner), something else?

If we are talking about truly egregious cases (something that would have to be defined in advance by the devs), there could be specific appointed players that have the ability to vote on silencing a player. Enough votes (perhaps 3) leads to the offending party being silenced in Faction, Global and Trade chat for X number of days for the 1st infraction, Y for the 2nd, etc...

If the problem is cooperative behavior, allow players to rate one another after a cooperative match (they can vote up, down, or abstain). If you give a down vote to a given player you will not coop with them for X days. If you fight with them after X number of days, you may fight with them again and vote again. If that vote is negative again, the restriction is set back in, but for a longer amount of time. The third such occurrence will allow the player to permanently prevent cooperatives with the other player.

Additionally, such votes by the community will give each player a cooperative score (positive reviews +1, negative -1). Each player may contribute at most +/- 1 point to the player score, even if they have given said player multiple negative/positive votes. Other players in the community are then allowed to set a minimum cooperative score, anyone below that threshold will not match with you together UNLESS you have given them a positive review, in which case your own review will supersede this rule.

---

The above is just an outline...the point is to punish the specific offense and to not allow abuses of power (like raiding a warehouse) in the name of "player regulation."

It also may not address other issues, but I'm not entirely sure what other issues should be regulated further.

ALL IN! whohooo

I had a blast reading those suggestions. Sure those things would be really funny, but I think it would entail chaos and anarchy and we would just watch which faction destroys itself first.

So by all means implement it, cause as far as BC history goes the light side was always more prone to self destruction than the dark.

Either the biggest guilds reign in terror or total annihilation by self destruction. The more I think about it ... this would be just great .

I think the dev's should focus on making the game a pleasant experience to play, especially if the expected rush of new players are going to happen(23/3-25/3?). As it is now, it has been a disappointment, yes the new map has "great" potential, but the casual gaming part has been ruined by the new fighting mechanisms(we don't all have fast cavalry units for scouting yet  ) I personally feel like punching myself in the balls after each fight, it's that annoying really, and I'm normally a pretty calm person.

Besides are the players in the game that bad? I may have experienced about 2 players being annoying and selfish in a fight, and I've been playing about two months. There will always be the new player who has to learn the basic tactics in a fight, there is no way around that. When it comes to faction or global chat, I've experienced very little hate between players and the two factions, although I have to admit, I don't like how the Everos players communicate with each other on the chat or on the forum. But that's just my opinion of course.

The history has shown that few selected individuals can create a lot of chaos, leading the faction to fail. The idea is to give the faction a way to reduce their havoc potential. That is the theory
How exactly the faction would be doing that .. yet to figure out

Tibr wrote:

The history has shown that few selected individuals can create a lot of chaos, leading the faction to fail. The idea is to give the faction a way to reduce their havoc potential. That is the theory
How exactly the faction would be doing that .. yet to figure out

Can only be done by using democratic methods or else it could lead to a lot of nastiness and hurt feelings. How to implement that I don't know as a lot of guild members are inactive or only log on once in a great while, guess the leader, vice-or chancellors would have to kick inactive guild members in order to create a fair vote. But ok, I haven't been around long enough to witness the stuff that went down on the Everos map, before I joined the game. The couple of months I've been playing on the Olympus map there was a good atmosphere, with the exception of a few incident's, but I think that got resolved with restraint and a bit of time passing. This clearly has to be thought through before being implemented!   

If the 49% go along willingly with the 51% in a democracy, then everything is OK.

The problem is when 1-3 idiots decide that they are going to spend their next 2 days off trying to prove a point about how much they think their guild deserves some spot or how everybody owes them respect and/or resources.

They spend those 48 hours screwing over their factions efforts completely and setting them back days or weeks. After they have had their little temper tantrum with everybody begging/bribing them to stop, they can't be bothered to spend enough time or effort to fix what they broke, if that is even possible.

In real life, a petulant 3 year old gets a swat on the butt when they throw themselves on the ground and scream about some toy they want.

What do we have here? NOTHING.

I want SOMETHING so that the collective efforts of 100's of other players are not fracked by few people who decide they want to act like petulant 3 year olds.

instant of adding ways to bother other players I rather add private pvps with code or write the specific name of the player or players you want fight, to prevent sniping and a challenge option with private pvps can be added, for example you write the name of the player or players you want to fight (is he/she online) and you bet something, a fragment, a item (weapon, armor, artifact, banner of any kind and rarity), recourses etc. and he have the option to press yes or no, is you press yes you bet something of the same value and start fighting, the winner get all, would be good to increase pvp rewards for bet like YU-GI-OH when you bet your cards.

PD: can do private coops too, to dont get sniped for players who love do FF and make you lose all the time

Alternative:

In order to sabotage a region (or control command on a region that is already owned), a guild must pay X amount of each resource allowing them Y number of cycles in which to carry out the assault. If the attack is successful and they gain control (or unseat the current owners, even if control does not go to them), all of the resources are returned to them, if they are unsuccessful then the resources are lost to the guild controlled the region that is under assault.

If the guild is unsuccessful they may attempt the assault again, but each additional attempt costs an ever increasing amount of resources.

Ulises21
How does that help the vast majority regulate the tiny minority? It doesn't and can already be supported by in game mechanics where a trusted 3rd party (guild) holds the 'bet' in question if it is an object or resources.

There is no amount of resources that can make up for 15,000 CP spent attacking a region, which must be defended by another 15,000 CP when you are fighting a war where 1000 CP is the difference between a region changing sides or not. Add on to that the fact that an extra 15,000 CP is enough to give the other faction a nice fat bonus to their CP production and you just spelled out the loss of 5-6 Erevos regions. Maybe 15 Hades regions.

We so have to have a method of hamstringing players who just can't get along with everybody else and has to bring everybody else down if they don't get what they want.

In the Real World, they are JAILED or EXECUTED. We need options to deal with them by force.

ysosad wrote:

Alternative:

In order to sabotage a region (or control command on a region that is already owned), a guild must pay X amount of each resource allowing them Y number of cycles in which to carry out the assault. If the attack is successful and they gain control (or unseat the current owners, even if control does not go to them), all of the resources are returned to them, if they are unsuccessful then the resources are lost to the guild controlled the region that is under assault.

If the guild is unsuccessful they may attempt the assault again, but each additional attempt costs an ever increasing amount of resources.

I like that. Maybe even a guild could make 110% of the total resources they put into that conquest? Raiding and pillaging and all that.

Than0s, i'm iffy on ur suggestions, but i agree we need SOMETHING. I'd settle for a faction wide vote where if a player got over 50% negative votes they are forced to switch factions or failing that out of any guild so the can't institute guild war and hurt the rest of the faction. we of the Erevos light faction went through this last time, and i want an option if this bull crap happens again.

I agree with this general direction.

Whether players as individuals, or guilds, there needs to be repercussions.

There was nothing thread previous about regionless guilds having no risk, and there is still true.

There is no way to 'counter-attack' a guild without a region. They have everything to gain (or destroy) and nothing to lose.

I made another suggestion somewhere else to do with a 'defend' or 'bounty' system.

Where by a bounty can be placed on a players head. Players who choose to attack this player, get a portion of the bounty.

If the player being attacked is offline, the PvP AI system would take place. The player being attacked MUST** then fight that battle manually before he/she can perform any other battles. (They would get some kind of reward from winning still of course).

Battles would queue up and only when all offensive actions against them have been 'defended' against, can they then perform battles on another region of their choosing.

**Or CHOOSE to defend. If they choose NOT to defend, their warehouse is raided or some other negative affect to their city is applied.

This could even be applied at a guild level as well.

End of the day, something needs to be done.
When there is NO RISK involved, people will cause all kinds of trouble.
There needs to be a recourse.

This would be pretty neat, but I feel like its a whole second tier of guild warfare in itself. Linking this with actual guild commands would be an interesting addition to BC, obviously there would need to be caps on something like that.

Something like the attacker has to be within a certain CP range of the opponent to minimize abuse.

I think the ideas put forth by Ulises21, Ysosad, Feraith, Xviper, and metalsigon where awesome.

I hope the devs take a look at those ideas and do something.

Again most impressive.   

ST

So, we would let a game community decide who enters the game and who leaves the game, as a player? That idea rather scares me.

People often, not always, tune by. If not, they switch sides and start a new guild there.

Remembering this happened to me, and my guild during the incidents we had with joyce, ruach or whatever you want to call her. We were capable to establish our foothold, eventually resulting in the creation of the strongest guild on olympus, and a nice addition for RG, but utilising this game mechanism would mean we would have been washed away a long time ago.  

Ergo, a predator mechanism, or a slave mechanism. "You dont do this, I kick you out." Or, an easy income of resources. Ill farm that guild on a daily basis, and they cannot book progress.

It appears to me, as something to keep the established order up there. What decides who is the winning party? the stronger players do, not the one with the correct point of view/standpoint. And the stronger players get stronger and stronger due to nice loot....

Lastly, it would lead to a smaller pool of players, which is something we all have been hating upon, until the servermerge, and even now there could be more players.

Nobody said that MV could not play or have regions. We said that you had to grow bigger and prove yourself before larger established guilds would be willing to hand stuff over or let you take regions uncontested.

Every player that logs in with their 100 fame account can make a guild. Knowing what to do with one is a completely different story. None of the people that came into MV behaved like total morons and/or @$$holes that I ever saw. That you got to deal with one of the 'problem' players that we are discussing early on should have told you something about how we need to be able to self-regulate our own factions. She literally set the Light Side back MONTHS. Kicking the crap out of that account early on, letting that player know that that players 'style' was NOT acceptable would have saved the Light Side about 4 months in our efforts to take the Dark Capital.

Don't worry about that small player pool in this game. If the Dev's don't come up with a means of dealing with malcontents and miscreants, that wont go along with the vast majority of other players in their faction, the vast majority of players will self regulate themselves to another game.

Not only will players leave, they will leave with a bad taste in their mouth and that leads to disparaging remarks in chat rooms, blogs, and social media. Good luck once that happens....you will end up like the Go Bots.

Wave_Rida wrote:

So, we would let a game community decide who enters the game and who leaves the game, as a player? That idea rather scares me.

People often, not always, tune by. If not, they switch sides and start a new guild there.

Remembering this happened to me, and my guild during the incidents we had with joyce, ruach or whatever you want to call her. We were capable to establish our foothold, eventually resulting in the creation of the strongest guild on olympus, and a nice addition for RG, but utilising this game mechanism would mean we would have been washed away a long time ago.  

Ergo, a predator mechanism, or a slave mechanism. "You dont do this, I kick you out." Or, an easy income of resources. Ill farm that guild on a daily basis, and they cannot book progress.

It appears to me, as something to keep the established order up there. What decides who is the winning party? the stronger players do, not the one with the correct point of view/standpoint. And the stronger players get stronger and stronger due to nice loot....

Lastly, it would lead to a smaller pool of players, which is something we all have been hating upon, until the servermerge, and even now there could be more players.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks over-moderation would be a very dangerous thing! People, when given too much power tend to abuse it. This is how many of the most deadly governments on the planet have been created and I would hate to see BC even dipping it's toes in that territory. Some small form of moderation could work, but I don't want to see BC become a game where the community is a predator of itself.