The hamartia of Battle Conquest

While I can only speak for myself, I thought I'd take the time to report some things which seem to undermine the basic viability of Battle Conquest.  I doubt any of it is new, but sometimes repeat mention serves a purpose...greasy wheels and all.  I don't assume anyone else will agree with me and do understand that a lack of clear response from Agincourt Gaming would be consistent with an implication that the behaviors below are intended to be enabled as features, rather than unintended short-comings.  Hence, placement in "General Discussions" rather than "Bugs."

I've been bothered since the very first minutes of playing Battle Conquest by the crude, immature, and harassing comments of multiple users in the ingame chat.  Of course, no one can change human nature, but it would seem to me that a development team which seeks to prevent such characterizations from becoming synonymous with their product would provide their users with tools to shield exposure to offending content, should the users so desire.  At present, the only tool I have been able to uncover is the hide chat button, which must be pressed each and every time the city view is entered.  A major annoyance, but one that is certainly more tolerable than enduring the debatably-literate content frequently found in chat.  It has also been something I've interpreted to reflect the relative levels of interest in implementing features which provide an a sustainably enjoyable game environment for users versus implementing features which provide ready profit centers for the creators.  The fact that other games take a wide variety of approaches to dealing with this issue serves as evidence that there's no perfect solution.  It also serves as evidence that it is a problem often deemed worthy of addressing.  Regardless of whether casting a blind eye to chat behavior is relevant to the function of in-game communities, the limitations on players' ability to abstain from unwanted interactions detracts from other aspects of gameplay.

Limitations, in part or in whole, upon players' ability to avoid harassment in Battle Conquest is not unique to the chat component.  In co-op games, friendly fire from allies can drastically increase unit healing costs and sabotage MVP awards, if not change the battle outcome entirely.  There are numerous players who are known to be unconscionable in employing friendly fire at their allies' expense.  There are other players who selectively utilize the game mechanic to extend their bullying started elsewhere.  It's hardly a rare occurrence, but a recent example was so blatant in premeditation and scope that I figured, if someone is going to serve up their guilt on such a silver platter, I'd be remiss to simply discard the meal.  Screenshot links are below.  The first reveals the player's admission of prior intent to use friendly fire for a purpose unproductive to cooperative play (if I'm mistaken about the meaning of "co-op," please let me know).  I interpreted the use of "FINALLY" (capitalization original) to refer to the fact that the player had been intending, if not hoping, to exploit this opportunity for quite some time.  In other words, the premeditation far exceeded the start of the battle.  The second screenshot shows the friendly fire metric, by one player only, for the battle in question.

The failure of the product to encourage a sense of community is evident in at least one other way as well.  In the lead up to the Guild Wars release (kudos on today's first bit of functionality), large numbers of players diverted their attack resources to areas uncontested in the faction war.  While I do not doubt that the varietal avenues for alternative warfare strategies are viewed as an enriching aspect of the game, all indications are that player behavior in this case was related to something else entirely.  Communications about the timing and mechanics of the Guild War update were either lacking or misinterpreted.  This, rather than some indirect, second-order strategic ploy, was the motivation for the sub-optimal usage of world map commands.  As I was repeatedly hiding the ingame chat window, I noticed a wide number of players vociferously expressing their exasperation at this development.  In Kongregate chat too, where there is a fantastic "mute" feature that could serve as a model for future Battle Conquest functionality, players were bemoaning this perceived misallocation of conquest points.  I believe player frustration on this issue could have been significantly reduced, if not wholly eliminated, through improved communication.

In the context of a potential Battle Conquest community, each of the above better serve to foster "a house divided," than a positive and welcoming environment.  Is this actually a nuanced ploy to make a subtle and ironic political statement through such conditions accompanying a war game?  If not, is there any plan to address the above issues?  If so, what steps will be taken to deal with violators, past, present, and future?  Should those of us bothered by any of the conditions identified continue to devote resources to Battle Conquest?

https://2img.net/h/oi39.tinypic.com/2z8nic2.jpg
https://2img.net/h/oi42.tinypic.com/hvuzqp.jpg

seegn0me wrote:

While I can only speak for myself, I thought I'd take the time to report some things which seem to undermine the basic viability of Battle Conquest.  I doubt any of it is new, but sometimes repeat mention serves a purpose...greasy wheels and all.  I don't assume anyone else will agree with me and do understand that a lack of clear response from Agincourt Gaming would be consistent with an implication that the behaviors below are intended to be enabled as features, rather than unintended short-comings.  Hence, placement in "General Discussions" rather than "Bugs."

I've been bothered since the very first minutes of playing Battle Conquest by the crude, immature, and harassing comments of multiple users in the ingame chat.  Of course, no one can change human nature, but it would seem to me that a development team which seeks to prevent such characterizations from becoming synonymous with their product would provide their users with tools to shield exposure to offending content, should the users so desire.  At present, the only tool I have been able to uncover is the hide chat button, which must be pressed each and every time the city view is entered.  A major annoyance, but one that is certainly more tolerable than enduring the debatably-literate content frequently found in chat.  It has also been something I've interpreted to reflect the relative levels of interest in implementing features which provide an a sustainably enjoyable game environment for users versus implementing features which provide ready profit centers for the creators.  The fact that other games take a wide variety of approaches to dealing with this issue serves as evidence that there's no perfect solution.  It also serves as evidence that it is a problem often deemed worthy of addressing.  Regardless of whether casting a blind eye to chat behavior is relevant to the function of in-game communities, the limitations on players' ability to abstain from unwanted interactions detracts from other aspects of gameplay.

Limitations, in part or in whole, upon players' ability to avoid harassment in Battle Conquest is not unique to the chat component.  In co-op games, friendly fire from allies can drastically increase unit healing costs and sabotage MVP awards, if not change the battle outcome entirely.  There are numerous players who are known to be unconscionable in employing friendly fire at their allies' expense.  There are other players who selectively utilize the game mechanic to extend their bullying started elsewhere.  It's hardly a rare occurrence, but a recent example was so blatant in premeditation and scope that I figured, if someone is going to serve up their guilt on such a silver platter, I'd be remiss to simply discard the meal.  Screenshot links are below.  The first reveals the player's admission of prior intent to use friendly fire for a purpose unproductive to cooperative play (if I'm mistaken about the meaning of "co-op," please let me know).  I interpreted the use of "FINALLY" (capitalization original) to refer to the fact that the player had been intending, if not hoping, to exploit this opportunity for quite some time.  In other words, the premeditation far exceeded the start of the battle.  The second screenshot shows the friendly fire metric, by one player only, for the battle in question.

The failure of the product to encourage a sense of community is evident in at least one other way as well.  In the lead up to the Guild Wars release (kudos on today's first bit of functionality), large numbers of players diverted their attack resources to areas uncontested in the faction war.  While I do not doubt that the varietal avenues for alternative warfare strategies are viewed as an enriching aspect of the game, all indications are that player behavior in this case was related to something else entirely.  Communications about the timing and mechanics of the Guild War update were either lacking or misinterpreted.  This, rather than some indirect, second-order strategic ploy, was the motivation for the sub-optimal usage of world map commands.  As I was repeatedly hiding the ingame chat window, I noticed a wide number of players vociferously expressing their exasperation at this development.  In Kongregate chat too, where there is a fantastic "mute" feature that could serve as a model for future Battle Conquest functionality, players were bemoaning this perceived misallocation of conquest points.  I believe player frustration on this issue could have been significantly reduced, if not wholly eliminated, through improved communication.

In the context of a potential Battle Conquest community, each of the above better serve to foster "a house divided," than a positive and welcoming environment.  Is this actually a nuanced ploy to make a subtle and ironic political statement through such conditions accompanying a war game?  If not, is there any plan to address the above issues?  If so, what steps will be taken to deal with violators, past, present, and future?  Should those of us bothered by any of the conditions identified continue to devote resources to Battle Conquest?

https://2img.net/h/oi39.tinypic.com/2z8nic2.jpg
https://2img.net/h/oi42.tinypic.com/hvuzqp.jpg

very long and boring It's only lighties who do that and yes a mute button would be nice. It seems like you are saying people have to pay to play. NO one has to do that.

Scaren wrote:

It seems like you are saying people have to pay to play.

Nope.

Summary I saw Vena excited on his huge FF on you, the question is

What's wrong between you and Venatorraptor to make him FF heavily your army this way?
Have you talked to him with a private message?

I personally hate bullying behaviours because I experienced bullying on myself dealing with very bad bulls in my whole entire life and I know it may be frustrating, however you have to deal it personally with the bull to understand what's wrong between you and him.

Battle Conquest is designed to create a community, sure, and it does pretty well, there are always persons with high Ego that wants to act like kings because they fail in their real life, bullies are frustrated persons and the only way to deal with em is a friendly conversation

If you feel uncomfortable with your own faction feel free to ask to developers a reset mantaining your progress, and come to play in the dark faction, there are many friendly persons here who can welcome you with the respect you deserve

I cant focus all but what Imma saying is, you kinda unlucky to met friendly fire player.

neither you can tell him to stop FFing. hiding chat or such a keep silent in game wont do much. why you expressing ur thought [pretty much] here instead direct to the person or on chat? (well if you get very uncomfortable respond from the person, you can ask dev to warn him)

====

In my case, I'll do FF on purpose only if my partners retard (run away) or pissing me off. Imma might be bad for FFing my partners, but I do punch em with lesson to not loafing around. (cannon, yay~) :p

Most of cannon users will try to evade FF, and few 'try' to score high FF.

well personally I like if my partner said 'dont worry to FF me' :p (GL users, most of em.)

Thanks Souless and RiseKnight.  The original subject was to address the broader issue of failure of inclusiveness, not the nuisance of one or two negative player experiences.  A sense of connection drives player retention.  Beyond the more generic sources, there seems (to me) to be some clear BC-specific obstacles to this.

As you can see there are many mature and adult players in dark side that are friendly with each other, you always find bad persons in your real life and in the internet too, unfortunately they are everywhere, feel free to come and join us whenever you like

Don't be fooled by seegn0mes wordy, boring post. He has a smart-ass comment to everything a lightie types. He is very annoying and proof a mute button would be nice. However, the development of the G-dub is more important than a mute button, so please disregard one intellectually-challenged individual's complaint and keep up the good work.

I'll never trust someone else thought until I see it with my own eyes

Souless wrote:

I'll never trust someone else thought until I see it with my own eyes

Really? I mean you don't have to believe what Stink says of course but in our lives we believe a lot of other people's thoughts.

Stinkfinger wrote:

Don't be fooled...

It is in your honor sir, that I have named my newest hero:  Ad hominem.

Best wishes to you!

Souless wrote:

I'll never trust someone else thought until I see it with my own eyes

I can promise you that there is (some) merit in his words. Mostly it's a double-edged sword; This has to do with the guild advertising done in faction chat. Lighties in general are somewhat mocking of the continuous Guild advertising done through faction chat, in which Stinkfinger and Venatoraptor are the worst offenders. (e.g., they advertise the most)

However, most of us simply ignore the advertising, or laugh it off, or complain about how the "ad wars" have started again, but Seegn0me insists upon getting quite argumentative about how the guilds should silence themselves, and it usually devolves into a faction-wide argument about nothing in particular. O.o

However, the parties involved, SF and Vena on the one side, and Seeg on the other, have learned to hate each other with quite a passion; thus this also partly clears up why it would be, that Vena would be so gleeful about the chance to FF the daylights out of Seeg.

In the defense of those who advertise their guilds, it truly works- the more people hear the name of a product, the more they trust it; this is no different than hearing advertisements for a product in a commercial; For instance, even though I have never had anything to do with Empire flooring (whatever the name is), I've heard advertisements for them so much, that I'm at least familiar with the company, and know it's products.

In the defense of those who would rather NOT have to listen to the guild advertisements, the offending parties tend to advertise their guilds 24/7 when online. O.o

Realf Lantow wrote:

Souless wrote:

I'll never trust someone else thought until I see it with my own eyes

I can promise you that there is (some) merit in his words.  Mostly it's a double-edged sword; This has to do with the guild advertising done in faction chat.  Lighties in general are somewhat mocking of the continuous Guild advertising done through faction chat, in which Stinkfinger and Venatoraptor are the worst offenders. (e.g., they advertise the most)

However, most of us simply ignore the advertising, or laugh it off, or complain about how the "ad wars" have started again, but Seegn0me insists upon getting quite argumentative about how the guilds should silence themselves, and it usually devolves into a faction-wide argument about nothing in particular.  O.o  

However, the parties involved, SF and Vena on the one side, and Seeg on the other, have learned to hate each other with quite a passion;  thus this also partly clears up why it would be, that Vena would be so gleeful about the chance to FF the daylights out of Seeg.  

In the defense of those who advertise their guilds, it truly works- the more people hear the name of a product, the more they trust it; this is no different than hearing advertisements for a product in a commercial; For instance, even though I have never had anything to do with Empire flooring (whatever the name is), I've heard advertisements for them so much, that I'm at least familiar with the company, and know it's products.  

In the defense of those who would rather NOT have to listen to the guild advertisements, the offending parties tend to advertise their guilds 24/7 when online. O.o

Man i'm on darkside but you lighties better get your act together because us darkies are close to your doorstep

I have been very happy to help a nice guy like seegn0me and I wish him a good stay on our mature and relaxing faction, if any other light player wish to reset transfering everything just send me a private message and I'll gladly help. The game is meant to be an enjoyable experience and I'll help everyone in light faction to make it possible with a simple reset.

Your in the wrong one buddy that bellongs in ideas or what ever it is called at the bottom of the forums list

Williumwall wrote:

wrong one buddy

Thanks for you'reyour feedback!

seegn0me wrote:

Hence, placement in "General Discussions" rather than "Bugs."

Glad to help XD