We need options for player regulation

There's a difference between trying to develop a bully mechanic and trying to develop a mechanic to deal with players trying to be bullies.

We want to do the latter. I in NO WAY justify pushing people around or bullying of any kind. However there's a huge difference in putting a trouble-maker in their place when they throw the first punch.

I understand your concerns Wave. However I think it is easy enough to develop safe-guards to prevent any such abuse, while still managing to achieve the objective for the harmony of all.

Why not Devs choose some players to be moderators? should be players who are active and good with other players, and obey all rules of the game and they can use silence and ban like kongregate moderators to control (trolls) in game chats or can add too a enemy, friend option, players in the enemy list (of any faction) cant send private messages, cant see your messages in chat, cant coop or pvp with you, like you are blocking they and cant bid our buy your items in market too (optional), and friendly players (can be of the opossite faction too) can do private pvps and coops and why not private trades too? but private trades can have limitations (optional)

Unfortunately no person is immune to making bad decisions based on emotion.

Putting power in the hands of a few players\people on the internet is probably not the best idea.

If the Devs themselves won't do these sorts of things, you can't expect that power to be given to a select few players.

I agree...especially since I know I have certainly ticked off many players in Faction...welp.

XViper wrote:

Unfortunately no person is immune to making bad decisions based on emotion.

Putting power in the hands of a few players\people on the internet is probably not the best idea.

If the Devs themselves won't do these sorts of things, you can't expect that power to be given to a select few players.

Then dont give any power, just bring the enemy list option or list of blocked players and will do the conditions I have sayed before

I love the idea

To moderate that no one gets over-done or abused, give a point that generates only once a day, max 3 points.

Each of those attacks/pillages costs 1 point each.


To moderate it more, whoever you attack will have a 12 hour cool-down before another person or you can attack him again.



The barracks downgrade idea can only be done to another faction, since if you do it to your own faction that's less CP.



We low fame people can finally attack high fame people and take their resources, lol.

I've said it before and i'll say it again. I don't want this game turning into a raid game of other players cities/resources. I may be the minority in this but i've never enjoyed those games especially since it's always hard for the new players as the older ones just crush them and take all their resources.

I think the way to handle this may be to allow for REAL guild wars. If a guild attacks another guild when they have no territory, they must build a siege camp which can be attacked by the defending guild. If the unterritorried guild are defeated they lose half their vault/seige camp price and can't place any guild commands for 5 days. If a territorried guild attacks another and then loses the territory they built the seige camp in they have the same thing happen. if the defending guild loses nothing happens to them except the lose of territory. This prevents larger guilds from preying on smaller since they get nothing for attacking someone else, but it also prevents smaller guild from attacking the larger with annoyance attacks since they'd stand to lose significately for doing so and would be barred from do it again for a decent amount of time.
Basically a guild must first attack someone else for the to be any consequences for them. this should prevent any predatory behavior.

ferarith wrote:

I think the way to handle this may be to allow for REAL guild wars. If a guild attacks another guild when they have no territory, they must build a siege camp which can be attacked by the defending guild. If the unterritorried guild are defeated they lose half their vault/seige camp price and can't place any guild commands for 5 days. If a territorried guild attacks another and then loses the territory they built the seige camp in they have the same thing happen. if the defending guild loses nothing happens to them except the lose of territory. This prevents larger guilds from preying on smaller since they get nothing for attacking someone else, but it also prevents smaller guild from attacking the larger with annoyance attacks since they'd stand to lose significately for doing so and would be barred from do it again for a decent amount of time.
Basically a guild must first attack someone else for the to be any consequences for them. this should prevent any predatory behavior.

The idea I had proposed was similar.

To sum it up:

When sabotaging or building influence on another guild's region(s) you have to put a down payment of resources. This allows the attacking guild a set unit of time during which to conduct the assault. If they are successful in deposing the ruling guild by the end of the set time period they receive their resources back, if they are unsuccessful the defending guild receives this payment directly into their vault.

If the assault is unsuccessful, they may try again immediately or whenever they wish, but the resources used in the down payment will be even higher and will continue to rise with each additional attempt.

An example for those that want to read the fine print: Guild A wishes to take Guild B's TG. They use a sabotage command and are given the option of a 1-day or 2-day assault at 25 or 100K/resource respectively. Extensions to assaults (whether immediately or 1 month from the last attempt) are doubled to 50K/200K and double for each unsuccessful attempt. This rule applies exclusively to the targeted guild, if they choose to attack a different guild those costs start at 25/100K.

Having an option to attack the guilds that do not have a region, but are attacking another guilds region(s) is very much needed. I think building the 'Camp' should require significant resources, half that necessary to go up their next guild level perhaps? If their Camp is 'destroyed' then they can not build another for X number of days is the most necessary part of this of this.

However, it still does not bring about a forced change in leadership for a guild. If a guild has a good leader, who gets kicked out due to being assassinated, then in 3 days that person will be back in the guild and back again as leader. However, if that Leader is not good, then they wont be accepted back in their guild again. Vice Leaders who get promoted would have 1 day of 'assassination protection' so they could choose a new vice-leader, but one that could not possibly be the old leader. Thus if 2-3 bad apples had a guild all locked up and the members wouldn't leave due to all the effort they put in, they could literally remove their entire leadership. Once you get 4 people together though, they could constantly alternate.

Since we are talking about 1-2 people in a whole faction, that are the problem, then that kind of thing should not happen.

THAN0S wrote:

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.

And exactly that "we" part worries me.

THAN0S wrote:

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.

Very true, then again, if they dont know, we got 1. guides on here, and 2. they will learn it the hard way.

Thirdly, this promotes hitguilds and seccond accs in command.

THAN0S wrote:

None of the people that came into MV behaved like total morons and/or @$$holes that I ever saw.

Thanks

THAN0S wrote:

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.

I can't judge that, since I wasn't there for her entire stay. Seccondly, we musn't forget, she was helpful in the beginning (donating resources), as were you and most guilds (excluding rolelf).

THAN0S wrote:

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.

Would it? Let's say we implement it now. It would be used as a tool to amplify politics. Example: between CK and diamond, hence the previous statement. Wouldn't that lead to/stimulate infighting?

THAN0S wrote:

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.

The ones that are dedicated enough to make guild, I would say are dedicated to stay. To leave the game over 1 or two people trying to ruin it, is not going to happen, since its (sadly) no more than common amongst online games for toxic, or unfriendly players to be present.

THAN0S wrote:

However, it still does not bring about a forced change in leadership for a guild. If a guild has a good leader, who gets kicked out due to being assassinated, then in 3 days that person will be back in the guild and back again as leader. However, if that Leader is not good, then they wont be accepted back in their guild again. Vice Leaders who get promoted would have 1 day of 'assassination protection' so they could choose a new vice-leader, but one that could not possibly be the old leader. Thus if 2-3 bad apples had a guild all locked up and the members wouldn't leave due to all the effort they put in, they could literally remove their entire leadership. Once you get 4 people together though, they could constantly alternate.

Since we are talking about 1-2 people in a whole faction, that are the problem, then that kind of thing should not happen.

What do you want to target? Take away the option for people to create a guild as an extension of their "supposed" ingame toxicty? Or the way people can use that guild ingame to bother others?

Seccondly, I would have some doubts about "dethroning" a guild leader. There are several guilds which consist around one person, who has invested big amounts of $ regarding resources which went into the guild vault. So basically taking away their $$$ in the vault, is something I would find a bit, dodgy.

I don't want to burn this topic to the ground, since I feel that far away there is hte ideal solution hidden in a corner. Looking at this, its a tough concept to work out correctly. How does one get the chance to "dismantle a toxic player" without the chance of vigilantism, or getting big differences between players using it?

Easy additions to prevent the influence of toxic guilds: A toggle for influence that can be placed in the relation(diplomacy) tab. Put a guild on friendly/allied and they can produce support cp, which would prevent the possibility to having your guild moved around unwillingly.

How does one prevent the influence though, a guild you dont want there? CP boosters for your own guild ( which could be purchased to a certain price, and have a standard effect regardless of guild rank)? CP reducers for your enemy? CP reducers which must be purchased by a guild (not exactly too cheap though), which have a standard influence regarding any spot, and which dont scale with guild level or member usage, but which can be supported/amplified by a seccond guild, aslong all of them have declared war upon the target?

Or, could the promised guild armies be a relief upon this issue?

In any case, would disagree with a heavy punishment of kicking someone out of a guild for 3 days, since there is a reason only the leader can disband a guild.