You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to Holy-War. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

itsjustme

Professional

  • "itsjustme" started this thread

Posts: 559

Location: Over Hill Over Dale

Occupation: Pot Stirrer

  • Send private message

1

Tuesday, May 14th 2013, 4:54pm

Order Blocking Natural Progression

Just had a thought about the recent survey regarding Order Blocking and Grief Play...
Two rules were created not long ago:
1) G@S implemented a rule that booted anyone out of an order that hadn't logged in in 30+days, claiming they were trying to make it so not a bunch of dead orders and keep active players
2) Around the same time they implemented that OMs or ACs must be premium to declare battles

I have been playing HW for over 4 years and there have always been orders with 1 or 2 active players and the rest were friends from other worlds who created accounts in that world just to get to the 5 member minimum to declare. (Seems at one point in HW history you could declare even if you were in an order alone, haven't verified that but some conversations lead me to believe this to be the case) Someone, somewhere along the way didn't like this or deemed it inappropriate play and began implementing the rules above to eliminate it.

Now...follow me on this hypothesis...

So, now...when they implemented the Premium OM/AC requirement, that eliminated some of the orders that only had 1 or 2 people playing sporadically (or possibly multi-accounting purposes) from declaring battles. The OM/AC had to buy premium. You can effectively play 2 accounts from 2 different IPs if you work it right or if you say one is your spouse, but to have 2 accounts paying for premium with the same bank card/paypal/account would look even stranger and thereby reducing some of these orders.

Then add in automatic removal of inactive members and you could no longer effectively have your friends from other worlds maintain your minimum order requirement unless they logged in every couple weeks resetting the inactivity clock. Someone not really playing would likely eventually just no longer bother.

So these 2 rules eliminated or at least made it much harder to have an order of just 1 or 2 people and they be able to declare battles.

The World Merge brought in some new dynamics that effectively negated the effects of the first 2 rules.
I could actively play 5 accounts in 5 worlds, create an order and in effect have a one man order declaring battles at will.
- we all agree that would be explicit circumvention of rules and would be illegal
The "friends from other worlds" came back into play a bit because of the grouping they may already be in a world group anyway and not have to create a "dummy account"
When someone created an order in a world group with a character in a world different than their main character and had others sign up the original issue became prevalent again and that someone/somewhere who didn't like orders declaring based on just 1 or 2 people decided to implement Order Blocking rules, i.e. the survey

So my "conspiracy theory" is someone trying to regulate who can declare through these rules.

I think the order blocking rule attempt was a natural progression, but went too far as was pointed out in the survey so they backed off and said in order to declare it must be at least 5 different IP's, have 5 members who are active at least once in 30 days, and have a premium OM/AC.

I wonder what the next "natural" step will be when orders with the same people start battling each other and getting huge hauls.

Is it just me or does someone else see a pattern here?
Just here to spread hate and discontent


OK, moving on now...

2

Tuesday, May 14th 2013, 5:28pm

I am just a lil irked about a supermod OM battling against another one of her orders then the claim this was done before rule change, which in fact the rule was around since the merge.

My problem is what will happen? What sanction? No one will ever know if there was or wasnt a true investigation when she admitted that was against the rules. Claiming she didnt press the button is a poor excuse, is there absolutely no communication in that order?

This is why the pillory should be in fact reinstated. Whether was just a warning or severe punishment, other players should take those consequences into consideration should they think about doing something

itsjustme

Professional

  • "itsjustme" started this thread

Posts: 559

Location: Over Hill Over Dale

Occupation: Pot Stirrer

  • Send private message

3

Tuesday, May 14th 2013, 5:51pm

Agree on the pillory...if someone breaks the rules, their reprimand should be public as well....Ability to publicly comment on it may be up for debate, but transparency is enabled with such a mechanism.
Just here to spread hate and discontent


OK, moving on now...

4

Tuesday, May 14th 2013, 6:57pm

maybe... are the reasons for all this rulez to find in the way of playing in other worlds.
and has nothing to do with you personal ;)

to the second thing... the battle we dont talk about... it happened... she said she informed admin... i doubt she did what she works so much against as mod... she has my full trust,that there was nothing wrong with gold in that battle... and maybe is now the moment to get over it...
she is doing such a good job as mod... quick helping if she can.
and just because one of you,had issues with her...is now this big drama here...
also mods are human..a mistake can happen... end of story... my :wacko:

itsjustme

Professional

  • "itsjustme" started this thread

Posts: 559

Location: Over Hill Over Dale

Occupation: Pot Stirrer

  • Send private message

5

Wednesday, May 15th 2013, 12:04am

OK, back on topic if you please...

The patternized effect of these indicated rules/changes...The issue they are trying to address is what?

1) One person having the ability to be in an order, basically by themselves, and declare battles
2) Keeping only active, paying customers in orders
3) Eliminating the continued creation of accounts that are dead within a month
4) Creating an effect of concern for "fair play" (what's fair could likely lead to a separate discussion)
5) Force more people into orders
6) Create fewer, larger orders

Any, some, all, none?

I don't necessarily think the rules are bad, just wondering what it is they are trying to get at. I see a pattern developing in the herding methods of the rule creation getting the players to move in one direction or another.
If you want things to go a certain way, create rules and incentives to get people to go that way and they likely will is all...

Then maybe it's just my conspiracy theory mind at work...
Just here to spread hate and discontent


OK, moving on now...

6

Wednesday, May 15th 2013, 1:08am

It is my opinion that the all the changes to the rules concerning orders were implemented to discourage the suicide orders, comprised of multi accounts.
~ Mod 322 ~

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Penelope" (May 15th 2013, 2:53am)


itsjustme

Professional

  • "itsjustme" started this thread

Posts: 559

Location: Over Hill Over Dale

Occupation: Pot Stirrer

  • Send private message

7

Wednesday, May 15th 2013, 2:59am

It is my opinion that the all the changes to the rules concerning orders were implemented to discourage the suicide orders, comprised of multi accounts.


Yeah, so that's # 1 above basically I think you're saying. That being said does the 5 diff IP's rule suffice in doing that and do we need the other still? Or are there other reasons as well?
That certainly has been an issue I've seen over the years: 1 person creating an order to just be a pain for everyone, not really helping or benefiting another order, just someone being a well...rhymes with G@S 8) 8o
Certainly has been used as a tactic as well, and think it's a legitimate one, though I don't really like it, its is one in reality so might as well be one in this fictional world we play, just need to work around it as an OM.
Just here to spread hate and discontent


OK, moving on now...

8

Wednesday, May 15th 2013, 3:40am

The premium to declare deal was done years ago, while i was here the first time. I dont remember the 30 day inactivity boot being around while i was still here.

Regardless, if the premise was to get rid of dead orders, they should have disbanded all orders where anyone not logged in within X amount of months was booted.

While the original order block suggestion made sense, the formulas were just too off. What they need to do is install a far stiffer penalty for people creating order multiaccounts, farmers, etc to truly discourage people from attempting all that

itsjustme

Professional

  • "itsjustme" started this thread

Posts: 559

Location: Over Hill Over Dale

Occupation: Pot Stirrer

  • Send private message

9

Wednesday, May 15th 2013, 11:22am

The premium to declare deal was done years ago, while i was here the first time. I dont remember the 30 day inactivity boot being around while i was still here.

Regardless, if the premise was to get rid of dead orders, they should have disbanded all orders where anyone not logged in within X amount of months was booted.

While the original order block suggestion made sense, the formulas were just too off. What they need to do is install a far stiffer penalty for people creating order multiaccounts, farmers, etc to truly discourage people from attempting all that


So one for for getting rid of dead accounts and orders (basically # 3). Yes I agree, not sure why they stopped at booting order members at OM. So now we have lots of 1 man orders with just the dead OM account. I understand the idea that the OM may log back in after a year and be upset that his order is no longer there, but I mean really???

And a swing at multi-account elimination, 1 person with multiple accounts. (#1) Yeah I think rules for multi accounting are different and none of these rules really get to the root of that problem, though it is possible that's why they were created.
Just here to spread hate and discontent


OK, moving on now...

10

Wednesday, May 15th 2013, 12:11pm

I dont have a problem with people having accounts in all worlds, making an order and declaring with an order of himself, but there should be some sort of requirements for a "1 man" order to declare such as premium in all worlds deal.

That may sound extreme, but if someone is willing to pay 4 extra tixx a month to be able to declare, then they should be allowed to with a 5 man order of his characters regardless of level

itsjustme

Professional

  • "itsjustme" started this thread

Posts: 559

Location: Over Hill Over Dale

Occupation: Pot Stirrer

  • Send private message

11

Wednesday, May 15th 2013, 1:29pm

I dont have a problem with people having accounts in all worlds, making an order and declaring with an order of himself, but there should be some sort of requirements for a "1 man" order to declare such as premium in all worlds deal.

That may sound extreme, but if someone is willing to pay 4 extra tixx a month to be able to declare, then they should be allowed to with a 5 man order of his characters regardless of level


I have a little problem with it, not much but a bit. It allows one person to in effect be an attacking order. As far as I know, that has never been allowed (though it may have at the very beginning as I stated in my first post, some conversations I've heard leads me to believe this...some old timers would have to chime in).
You have always at least had to get some friends to make a dummy account, and while it has always been frowned upon, the order would not have much of a chance and was somewhat tolerated.

With what you're saying, someone could purchase mega accounts and have a very strong 5 man order. I think the progression of the rules attempted to deal with that primarily. (Just one of the things, and just my opinion, from looking at the effects)
Just here to spread hate and discontent


OK, moving on now...

Captain ApeX

GameArt Support DE

Posts: 1,282

Location: Berlin

Occupation: Mensch

  • Send private message

12

Wednesday, May 15th 2013, 2:17pm

Allow me to chime in here, real quick:

You have always at least had to get some friends to make a dummy account, and while it has always been frowned upon, the order would not have much of a chance and was somewhat tolerated.

It may have been tolerated by the players, but officially, it has always been against the rules set up by GameArt Studio.


Regards,

CApeX

itsjustme

Professional

  • "itsjustme" started this thread

Posts: 559

Location: Over Hill Over Dale

Occupation: Pot Stirrer

  • Send private message

13

Wednesday, May 15th 2013, 3:39pm

Allow me to chime in here, real quick:

You have always at least had to get some friends to make a dummy account, and while it has always been frowned upon, the order would not have much of a chance and was somewhat tolerated.

It may have been tolerated by the players, but officially, it has always been against the rules set up by GameArt Studio.


Regards,

CApeX


Interesting, so it is against the rules for me to create an account in a world, join an order and then not log in for....what is the time period there? At what point does creating an account become against the rules? When the account isn't played in "its best interest"? That's the only rule I can see that I think could be stretched to apply in this situation.

This is getting touchy for me so I might better just not divert into this side discussion.

If that, stopping people from creating accounts to effectively allow one person to be the order (# 1 in the list), is the purpose of these new rules, changes, and it's always been against the rules, why create more rules?
The OM must be Premium to declare doesn't really add any enforceability...
The boot after 30 days inactive does help by making it harder to achieve...
The 5 IP doesn't really impact it one way or another...

So while it may always be a rule, it has never really been enforced or factualized other than a subjective call on the part of someone as to what's the best interest of the character...
Just here to spread hate and discontent


OK, moving on now...

14

Wednesday, May 15th 2013, 3:54pm

Captain, i have never heard of a 5 man order with 5 different people (4 of them level 5 created by friends of a different world, all different people/IP) to be against any rule. It always fulfilled the requirements of order size and multiaccounting avoidance.

Itsjustme,
If someone purchased 5 strong accounts, all in different worlds and kept them all premium, i personally do not see a problem with that. I really dont see the big tadoo about equipment sharing either. They arent in same world so multiaccounting isnt the issue, why would it be wrong to sell your equipment at min/max as people do that all the time anyway.

Captain ApeX

GameArt Support DE

Posts: 1,282

Location: Berlin

Occupation: Mensch

  • Send private message

15

Wednesday, May 15th 2013, 4:56pm

Captain, i have never heard of a 5 man order with 5 different people (4 of them level 5 created by friends of a different world, all different people/IP) to be against any rule.
And it never was. Until these accounts weren't actually played and were only created to bypass a hindrance implemented in the game. Like four dummy accounts created to bypass the hindrance that an order needs to have exactly five or more members to declare battle. In that case, the moment such an order declared battle, it broke the rule not to cheat. And "Do not cheat!" has always been a rule of the game.

Regards,

CApeX

itsjustme

Professional

  • "itsjustme" started this thread

Posts: 559

Location: Over Hill Over Dale

Occupation: Pot Stirrer

  • Send private message

16

Wednesday, May 15th 2013, 6:05pm

Itsjustme,
If someone purchased 5 strong accounts, all in different worlds and kept them all premium, i personally do not see a problem with that. I really dont see the big tadoo about equipment sharing either. They arent in same world so multiaccounting isnt the issue, why would it be wrong to sell your equipment at min/max as people do that all the time anyway.


It goes against the natural game play of Clan warfare. The dynamics of having at least 5 different people is different than having just 1 person. Their work schedule, their tendency to moo in battle, etc etc

Like I said, I don't have a big problem with it, just a bit. It changes the dynamics of the game quite a bit I think. THink about how many different worlds are in a world group...you could have 13 different world characters in WG2, that could make a very powerful order if full of purchased characters by one person.
Just here to spread hate and discontent


OK, moving on now...

itsjustme

Professional

  • "itsjustme" started this thread

Posts: 559

Location: Over Hill Over Dale

Occupation: Pot Stirrer

  • Send private message

17

Wednesday, May 15th 2013, 6:17pm

Allow me to chime in here, real quick:

You have always at least had to get some friends to make a dummy account, and while it has always been frowned upon, the order would not have much of a chance and was somewhat tolerated.

It may have been tolerated by the players, but officially, it has always been against the rules set up by GameArt Studio.


Regards,

CApeX



Captain, i have never heard of a 5 man order with 5 different people (4 of them level 5 created by friends of a different world, all different people/IP) to be against any rule.
And it never was. Until these accounts weren't actually played and were only created to bypass a hindrance implemented in the game. Like four dummy accounts created to bypass the hindrance that an order needs to have exactly five or more members to declare battle. In that case, the moment such an order declared battle, it broke the rule not to cheat. And "Do not cheat!" has always been a rule of the game.

Regards,

CApeX


Not sure I understand.
You said in response to my post that creating a dummy account has always been against rules of G@S. Dummy being defined by creating an account in a world, getting to lvl 5, joining an order and never logging in again. (In effect getting the order to minimum declaration requirements = one character getting premium does the same thing in effect, it gets the order to achieve the minimum requirements for declaring so is that illegal as well?)

Then in response to Kinji you said that creating it and joining an order is fine, it's when that order declares that the rule is broken, and the rule broken is do not cheat.

So couple things immediately come to mind...
1) Which is it, or perhaps better WHEN is it that the rule was broken? Upon creating the character? Upon joining the order? Upon not logging in? Upon the Order declaring?
2) Well, exactly how is it "cheating"? To cheat you have to break a rule or try to gain an unfair advantage I think is the best way to summarize that word. To say you broke the "do not cheat" rule is a bit disingenuous to say the least.


I think we are getting off my intentions here at any rate for this thread

But you bring up some interesting points Cap'n to say the least.
Just here to spread hate and discontent


OK, moving on now...

Forge

SB Moderator / Forum Mod

Posts: 340

Location: KOP, PA, USA

Occupation: Inaugural High Priest of the Cult of Falcotron

  • Send private message

18

Wednesday, May 15th 2013, 6:51pm

So I have two accounts, one in 10DE and one in 12DE, that were created specifically to help a friendly order reach the five player minimum. By my understanding of the discussion here, I am obligated to delete them, yes?
W1EN - Forge - tc
W2EN - Forge - tc
W7EN - Forge - WBS
W2PL - Forge - WBS

Captain ApeX

GameArt Support DE

Posts: 1,282

Location: Berlin

Occupation: Mensch

  • Send private message

19

Thursday, May 16th 2013, 3:22pm

1) Which is it, or perhaps better WHEN is it that the rule was broken? Upon creating the character? Upon joining the order? Upon not logging in? Upon the Order declaring?
The moment the order declared. What I wrote to you was under the assumption that the dummies in the order were actually helping the order so some degree in the game. If the order was just standing around doing nothing, then it could be filled with dummy accounts, of course. In that moment, it was no different than a one-person-order, doing nothing.

Quoted


2) Well, exactly how is it "cheating"? To cheat you have to break a rule or try to gain an unfair advantage I think is the best way to summarize that word. To say you broke the "do not cheat" rule is a bit disingenuous to say the least.
An order can only declare with 5+ members. If four of these accounts are not actually being played, the order is bypassing a game rule. Four zombie accounts are not "members". They are numbers to bypass a rule.

This is somewhat different now, because:

Quoted

So I have two accounts, one in 10DE and one in 12DE, that were created specifically to help a friendly order reach the five player minimum. By my understanding of the discussion here, I am obligated to delete them, yes?
According to the rules update, if at least 5 accounts in an order are played under individual IPs, it is not a rule break.


Regards,

CApeX

itsjustme

Professional

  • "itsjustme" started this thread

Posts: 559

Location: Over Hill Over Dale

Occupation: Pot Stirrer

  • Send private message

20

Thursday, May 16th 2013, 4:08pm

Key word is "playing" or "active" in Forge's example I suppose?


If I create an account in a world, play it to level 5, join an order and don't log in anymore and the OM declares a battle, He is breaking the rules.

If I create an account in a world, play it to level 5, join an order, go on vacation for 2 weeks while the OM declares a battle, He is ok (as long as I log back in at some point)

If I create an account in a world, play it to level 5, join an order, log in twice a month to play it, the OM can declare battles and not be in violation.

Allowing 30 day inactivity boot to address this situation...

I just am curious as I have several accounts in various worlds that I rarely play, but log in when I want to contact someone from that world or to just peek in and see what's happening. I am in orders on some worlds like this and not on others. The orders I'm in have more than 5 members so I am not the deciding member for declaration. I would not be breaking any rules in this case would I?


It just seems we are going down a very treacherous and subjective path. Should be fairly simple...if there are 5 members in an order, played from a different IP, then no rules are being broken, even if some of the players haven't logged in for 20 days. Let the current rules and game mechanics boot them in 10 days and leave the subjective "You are not playing an account in its best interest" out of it.
If 30 days is too long, make it 20 and have a vacation setting option available that adds 20 days of available activity or something. Set your status to "Away" and you get 40 days inactivity before being booted, else if you don't log in in 20 days you get booted.

If that is indeed the purpose and progression of these rules, to prevent people from creating accounts to sit idle, address the idle accounts, not people playing occasionally or differently.
Just here to spread hate and discontent


OK, moving on now...

Captain ApeX

GameArt Support DE

Posts: 1,282

Location: Berlin

Occupation: Mensch

  • Send private message

21

Thursday, May 16th 2013, 4:54pm

Please have a look at this. It contains all active rules that I am aware of regarding orders in world groups, at present. As long as you are following those, you should be fine. (That said, being idle for 30 days and getting kicked is not a rule break, nor punishment. It's just a game mechanic.)


Regards,

CApeX

itsjustme

Professional

  • "itsjustme" started this thread

Posts: 559

Location: Over Hill Over Dale

Occupation: Pot Stirrer

  • Send private message

22

Thursday, May 16th 2013, 5:22pm

Allow me to chime in here, real quick:

You have always at least had to get some friends to make a dummy account, and while it has always been frowned upon, the order would not have much of a chance and was somewhat tolerated.

It may have been tolerated by the players, but officially, it has always been against the rules set up by GameArt Studio.


Regards,

CApeX


Then this is incorrect.

Nothing in your link in any way refers to this situation as being illegal or against the rules or cheating.
Just here to spread hate and discontent


OK, moving on now...

itsjustme

Professional

  • "itsjustme" started this thread

Posts: 559

Location: Over Hill Over Dale

Occupation: Pot Stirrer

  • Send private message

23

Thursday, May 16th 2013, 5:28pm

Please have a look at this. It contains all active rules that I am aware of regarding orders in world groups, at present. As long as you are following those, you should be fine. (That said, being idle for 30 days and getting kicked is not a rule break, nor punishment. It's just a game mechanic.)


Regards,

CApeX


Yes, correct. It is a game mechanic introduced to reduce the number of people creating dummy accounts to meet the 5 member threshold for order declaration. Which is kinda the purpose of this thread. The progression of rules and game in one way or another...

This game mechanic is an excellent example, same as the OM must be premium, which I think was done for very similar purposes, but with another objective in mind as well.
THese 2 mechanics, while I disagree with them to a certain extent, are truly objective and I cannot argue with their actions.

So continuing the thought process and the recent 5 IP rule, what is it that is driving it? Or what is it driving us to? and would it be better served with a game mechanic than a subjective call on the part of a person looking at perhaps not all the data?

I am just on a hypothetical rabbit trail to some degree but I think a lot of things have been brought up that are good for discussion
Just here to spread hate and discontent


OK, moving on now...

Captain ApeX

GameArt Support DE

Posts: 1,282

Location: Berlin

Occupation: Mensch

  • Send private message

24

Thursday, May 16th 2013, 5:29pm

Quoted

Then this is incorrect.

Nothing in your link in any way refers to this situation as being illegal or against the rules or cheating.
As I wrote already, I assumed that your wording "the order would not have much of a chance" meant that it would somehow actively participate in battles. I assumed as much, because an order that doesn't participate at all typically has no chance at all, by default. (Also cannot come up with a single good reason why an order that does nothing should be frowned upon.)

That aside, the link I posted are the rules as they are in effect now. I was refering about how it was before. Which is why I refered to the statement in the past.


Regards,

CApeX

itsjustme

Professional

  • "itsjustme" started this thread

Posts: 559

Location: Over Hill Over Dale

Occupation: Pot Stirrer

  • Send private message

25

Thursday, May 16th 2013, 5:34pm

Very well, sorry then.
Just here to spread hate and discontent


OK, moving on now...