#Inconsitent enforcement of rules by CWL employees

1 messages · Page 2 of 1

stray pivot
#

maybe im poor at explaining but the system im refering simply is a timeout if jury believes it is worth punishing them. players can decide vs having actual moderators come in in a social mmo setting

opaque umbra
#

"We want to create a friendly community... let's do what League of Legends does"

summer musk
#

.. im pretty sure it had nothing to do with that system

#

lol

#

i feel like the problem with league is once you start losing, you are stuck losing for the next 20-30 minutes. gives players a lot of time to stew

#

things are a lot more friendly in ARAM

vale rivet
#

yea NA players should learn from KR and FF15 every game depending on who's ahead.

#

clearly that's the solution to toxicity in league

ruby pasture
#

lets goo League discussion thread 😄

opaque umbra
summer musk
#

¯_(ツ)_/¯ i never had that many issues

frail comet
#

@honest needle In the interest of rule discussion, I want to know where threatening to steal resources from your claim stands.

image.png
summer musk
#

i believe that subterfuge was already mentioned to be allowed in a previous discussion

#

I will try to find it for you.

fair falcon
#

We just wanted to bring this a a bargain chip since one of your members came to us with this soo might wanna go through your members

summer musk
#

heres something from the website about the game including 'social strategy' which one would assume involves betrayal

image.png
fair falcon
#

Im all over the social strategy did it in eve and star citizen

undone lynx
#

Can I terraform as much as I want now?

#

I need to block these supply lines

lament dawn
undone lynx
#

The rules call this out as "not griefing", as shown in my OP.

#

However my terraforming (done in wartime, to disrupt and distract the enemy) is also "not griefing"

vale rivet
#

CWL needs to figure out if this is a cozy crafting game or a social anarchy game real quick tbh

undone lynx
#

In the interest of fareness though, since I was moderated against unfairly anyone who does this above should also be moderated against unfairly.

summer musk
#

its too vague to be used here

lament dawn
#

It is very misleading. You cant say "Empire v Empire is free for all" but also say Empire system isnt suppose to affect the world. Claim terraforming/paving/whatever is not an opt in thing. There are plenthy of people in claims and Empires who dont want to be in wars and drama, they just wanna grind.

vale rivet
#

naughty you do know if you just want a crown, you can grab land literally anywhere else too? it would be way cheaper

#

or is this not actually about a crown anymore

lament dawn
#

^

summer musk
#

wiz this stopped being about a crown a while ago

vale rivet
#

glad you admit that you're doing this just to be an ass then ig

undone lynx
#

You misunderstand, he only weaponizes the moderation team against other people. Not himself, what he's doing is perfectly ok 😛

long zephyr
lament dawn
#

GAME DRAMA IS NOT TO BE DISCUSSED IN THE DISCORD TAKE IT ELSEWHERE GUYS

fluid delta
#

if its not anout the crown why did u ask to rediscuss buying a tower

undone lynx
#

This was sent out of game

#

It is perfectly fine to talk about

summer musk
#

well, i would accept the crown to end this farse

lament dawn
#

Im talking about the "Its not about a crown anymore" Pk

summer musk
#

so i guess it is

lament dawn
#

<@&564286519192584239>

undone lynx
#

Damn you gotta bring the whole CWL team in here

#

Voxel had it covered lol

summer musk
#

really tamo, you think im the only one in here breaking that guideline?

undone lynx
#

I hope all the time you spent helping this dude out at his claim was worth it lmao

vale rivet
lament dawn
#

Why do you think I am pinging mod? The bitcraft discord is not a ground to be talking about game drama

frail comet
strong cipher
#

I really need to make a dramacord

frail comet
#

This is important to know.

eternal hamlet
terse gate
frail comet
#

Please don't derail the thread. Please don't grandstand your position of 'well we're justified in this because something else happened.' The creation of this thread was because of poorly defined 'griefing' rules.

Someone received a ban because of 'griefing', that was written as 'allowed' inside the CWL rules because it was reversible. Thus, something that was previously allowed is not allowed.

So, I'll ask again:

@honest needle In the interest of rule discussion, I want to know where threatening to steal resources for the sole purpose of griefing your claim stands.

image.png
undone lynx
#

"for the sole purpose of griefing you claim" is a point of contention I want to address as well.

#

We are just going to say "I'm doing this to disrupt my enemy in-game following the rules as outlined"

#

Rather than just say the quiet part out loud

#

Like, Naughty can't and isnt going to be able to win a fight using the in-game mechanics. They're going to slowly, consistently, pester over and over and over again until it's too soul-draining to deal with. That's currently the only real option available to players at the moment.

To be as persistently soul draining as possible to make your enemy just quit the game entirely.

somber patrol
#

And what's the solution?

#

To prevent that*

long zephyr
#

¯_(ツ)_/¯

undone lynx
#

Well, as outlined above in the thread, we need ways to swat at players who declare war.

delicate tendon
#

tell them to prove it by taking an item XD

stray pivot
#

Real answer :reverse thier griefing. Hehe

delicate tendon
#

yea just go to thiers and screenshot thier chests and be like "I gOt sOmEonE oN tHe INsIdE" derp

limpid palm
#

They are threatening to grief you? Which is against the rules currently right? If so, then I believe the threat should be technically allowed. As the rules are not broken. When/If they do act on that threat, they will be banned.

Hate speech is against the rules in most games, you don't see it being against the rules to threaten someone with "I'm going to call you bad words if you don't give me your items"

#

(I read the threat a while back so not fully caught up bare with me)

undone lynx
#

The point of the thead is "inconsistent enforcement of rules"

normal pendant
#

Players stealing from guild/clan banks in other games usually sits in a sorta grey area where it is a regrettable outcome but GM's generally lay the responsibility at the owners feet who gave them the permissions to do so in the first place.

undone lynx
#

Which we've all acknowledged together as an issue already in this thread.

#

And what is probably needed to fix it

#

But the game continues on while deliberations occur

#

And this is another example of things occuring

delicate tendon
#

I agree they are inconsistent in rules, or rather just communication of rules on many things

umbral warren
limpid palm
#

I agree that the griefing rules are vague and because of that its up to the dev's judgement who is banned. I don't think its manageable to be honest. Either have a free for all and no griefing rules or make some damn well systems to never let it happen in the first place

lyric condor
#

Just my two cents purely for the purpose of discussion - houses are specifically designed to allow user permissions to prevent stealing incidents.

I swear 1-2 months ago I've seen something said by mods along the lines of "stealing is allowed and part of sandbox experience".

delicate tendon
#

same on banks/houses etc no communication till way after the fact, ive heard partners hardly get communication on anything either

strong cipher
#

Hey guys I’m unclear on the current rules. Hypothetically if I were to pave all around someone’s claim is that against the rules? If so please tell me why

delicate tendon
frail comet
#

But that was banned

#

Because it was griefing

somber patrol
#

Oooooo he got you thereeeee

frail comet
#

Thus, the OP.

delicate tendon
#

I struggle to want to play this game at real launch with this kinda wishy washy

limpid palm
#

I mean technically if you pave around a claim preventing resources from spawning it would be considered griefing by the rules, or not, up to interpretation

delicate tendon
frail comet
#

Thus the OP.

strong cipher
limpid palm
#

Okay how many tiles out is okay, and how many tiles out is griefing

strong cipher
#

That’s not up to me to decide

limpid palm
#

Exactamundo

strong cipher
#

I’m just asking for hypothetical reasons entirely

delicate tendon
#

thus the op

#

helping

mossy solstice
limpid palm
#

Everyone quiet lutra is typing

marble adder
#

Dude threatening to have a mole steal from them isn’t cool :/ what the heck

normal pendant
#

i mean it'd still be a not nice thing to do idk why you'd want to

delicate tendon
mossy solstice
#

Iron out the rules is what I meant

delicate tendon
frail comet
marble adder
#

Ironing out the rules needs to happen but why are we out here trying to find the worst possible things that can be done within the guidelines

lyric condor
frail comet
#

And it was banned.

#

Because it was deemed 'griefing'

strong cipher
frail comet
#

Even though it has a full remedy and is fully reversable, they 'will not take action'.

warm thistle
frail comet
#

Thus, the OP

lyric condor
frail comet
#

Yeah, I get it

cerulean vigil
undone lynx
frail comet
#

Just sucks that we had moderators weaponized against a player, the creation of the whole thread, then we agreed that we would stick to the Empire system, then not 2 days later we're getting threatened on the settlement level with absolutely no recourse allowed

delicate tendon
#

game would be so much less drama with no empires T.T

visual latch
#

Hello everyone.

I think the best way around this is to build a really big list of the rules you wish to know, then I can send this list to the team,

This will also help us pad out our rules.

So if you can think of the top 10+ if not more griefing rules you want to know that will be a big help.

mossy solstice
frail comet
visual latch
frail comet
#

I do not blame any mod who was pinged to look at this thread lol

undone lynx
terse gate
#

mods

magic terrace
#

In my opinion which counts for maybe nothing. Sneaking another player into a claims ranks in order to cause insecurity and threats shouldn’t be allowed. There is an empire system that allows for war mechanics via feeding and destroying towers. My point of view is biased as I joined this game because MY takeaway from the original trailer I saw was a game that appeals to community focused and friendly players. The Empire system being purely cosmetic and having a war option is fine but anything that turns into impacting the player experience such as causing annoyance with terraforming, stealing from claims, or just trolling in general really doesn’t fit with what I personally want from this game and is not something I will ever support or participate in. That’s my feedback for the devs as someone that I think 100% fits the niche type of player you are looking for. 950 hours of play time so far this EA.

fair falcon
#

we didnt sneak in anyone the person came to us

vale rivet
olive sapphire
#

I mean given we're already dealing with players actively doxxing other players

frail comet
olive sapphire
#

Mind you the punishment for literal doxxing is at worst an hour mute from everything I've seen

#

I note this as someone who has personally had to kick someone out of my own settlement for doxxing another player

The fact that we the players are doing more about this than the moderation team is an absolute joke, especially given how many times we reported that player lol

#

This is why I'm very supported of a form of lower, volunteer moderation

#

I will note however, it's not a perm fix, and a larger solution will have to be addressed for the full release, but player-volunteer-based (selected by the team) moderation would be fine for the amount of players we have right now

snow chasm
#

doesnt doxxing go beyond even the game? i thought doxxing was illegal or at least against discord TOS

frail comet
#

Lutra did say they were getting more hands soon

olive sapphire
#

I'll address something that's a common point of tension in region 3

The game devs consistently build for a game they don't have yet instead of dealing with the game as they do.

One big example of this is of course the 9 regions, frankly 4-6 should've been the max, kill the sapwoods if need be.

Not to mention the particular scale of the upgrades amongst other things.

They want to have a much bigger playerbase than they do right now, and these are why you usually use configs, so you can tweak later on when you do.

#

This is self evident in certain systems as well, like of course moderation, they built for a bigger team than they currently have

#

Or hell even the combat update trying to push "protectors for the gatherers"

That's not something that's feasible with 1.6k concurrents

frail comet
#

1.3k now

olive sapphire
#

I'm gonna be real with you, the biggest change they need to make, is toning down the effort points a bit, and a frankly halving the current supplies rates.

#

The previous temp supply drain should've been the perm until the game perked back up

#

Effort points required poop

#

Not the effort points from tools

lyric condor
#

It really doesn't take that much to supply your claim..

#

Peeps be lazy

olive sapphire
#

I'll be real with you, the amount of single person claims from former great empires strongly disagree with you, we aren't one of them of course, but I'm in consistent contact with many, and frankly it's getting grating for many of them and will just burn out many

#

we're at the cusp of losing a ton of players, frankly psychic jakyls killed the game for basically a third of the base

lyric condor
#

I'm not saying your point isn't valid but I just don't see it that way; we've been solo / duo supplying 4-5k tile settlement without any problems...

olive sapphire
#

shrug to each his own I suppose

brazen trail
#

rather than decrease the total effort needed for certain crafting/gathering activities, I would rather the devs implement more ways to increase the crafting/gathering speed. Equipment doesn't have a lot of depth atm. Tool power being predominately tied to rarity, which is an rng system, is also a point of contention

olive sapphire
#

Oh for sure that'd be great too

#

frankly the rarity needs to be doubled for the moment

#

Even if only temporarily

#

and the rarity needs to matter a hell of a lot more, I mean the legendary and mythic rarities are a joke

lyric condor
#

Why do y'all want to rush through the game? 😅

olive sapphire
#

For reference doubling it alone would just make it a change from 1 to 2% for legendaries and 0.5 to 1% for mythics

#

or so anyway

snow chasm
#

yea i dont think tuning up the mechanics by 10x will fix any of the griefing/missing features etc

#

if anything we'll just have more claim spam and terraforming battles

brazen trail
#

we are kind of getting off topic

olive sapphire
#

My man we're going to continue to have more claim spam regardless

lyric condor
olive sapphire
#

True I did get off topic, my underlying complaint was the devs continuing to dev for a playerbase that isn't there

snow chasm
#

the current policy says getting insided is permissible, so clearly adding more granular settlement permissions systems for abilities and storage containers is the next priority (this has been a feedback item since before EA and its now coming to a head)

olive sapphire
#

yeah storage perms should've existed eons ago

lyric condor
brazen trail
#

I've seen minecraft servers with better storage permissions than Bitcraft XD

snow chasm
#

after that, i think they need to reevaluate the griefing policy which says the players "intent" matters. this definition has human moderation built-in, its impossible to create game rules or automated systems to evaluate player intent

olive sapphire
#

Personally we've dealt with it before so we have our policies, but many people are just 2-4 player settlements trying to get even 1 person more having to compete with the massive empires desperately trying to claw away death

brazen trail
#

The housing system helps a little bit, since you have more control over house permissions and the storage within

olive sapphire
#

For sure, the vault system, we did something similar using claims pre-housing

lyric condor
frail comet
snow chasm
#

if we had granular controls over settlement chests and stuff, then you wouldnt need to vet people you would just assign them the appropriate level of trust

#

inside jobs will still happen but they will be mitigated. tons of mmos out there have people who play as loyal members of the guild for many months only to pull some crap later on (see Albion Online drama, or even hardcore classic WoW where people wipe the raid on purpose in Naxx), but at least with these controls you mitigate a good amount of that behavior up front

snow chasm
lyric condor
#

RIP to the "wild west" of BitCraft ya softies!!! 😅

Joking, but only to a certain degree..

frail comet
#

Well it says any claims with sole the intent of blocking another is disallowed

#

But yeah

mortal mason
balmy sky
#

im fine with the game being self governed, but CWL cant tell us to self govern when theres almost 0 features that allow it. I know things like greater permission depth has been requested since the alphas...

#

Also side gripe; people abused sailing xp by botting/scripting but the people who were punished were the ones who played legit because you turned xp off... leaving those who abused it with significant xp gains and 0 punishment.

#

Its EA and everything will be wiped, but its a dangerous precedent to set allowing clear rule violations going unpunished (and also punishing people who in your own words didnt violate the rules)

summer musk
#

also I would hope that the punishments for threatening to do something and actually doing something would be held to different standards.

#

after all, social warfare is something that was mentioned as being part of this game.

summer musk
# frail comet Just sucks that we had moderators weaponized against a player, the creation of t...

I believe that if you take time to think about things, you will find that you are in fact able to retaliate against me without resorting to less savoury methods.

  1. Simply by continuing to defend your towers and preventing us from having a tower of our own, we are unable to assign officers in our empire. This prevents us from sharing a sizeable chunk of the work involved in the war. Additionally, this prevents us from benefiting from the fact that empires with their names on the map will naturally attract more players, improving both trade and recruitment efforts.

  2. (I'm aware there is nothing you can do about this) Simply by being at war with some of the largest empires/streamers in the game, we have had fans/zealots among the ranks sabotaging literally all of our recruitment efforts across both discord and Reddit. So much so that I have pulled them down and given up for the time being.

Again, I am not expecting you to do anything about this, but simply mentioning that it does play a role.

  1. Players are often apprehensive to trade with us, or to spend time in our settlement for fear of retaliation.

these are just a few of the things I thought of when considering the issue, and as much as I dislike helping an enemy during war, I will admit that simply continuing to defend against us is recourse in and of itself.

I hope this makes you feel more comfortable with the empire system currently in place. It is far from perfect, but I am under the impression that giving large empires more methods to fight smaller claims would be a mistake.

warm thistle
#

some counterpoints:

  1. trade in many big empires actually sucks (and you yourself just go use the market in dragons head all the time too, don't you?)
  2. i didn't see any of that negative sentiment while visiting naughtingham yesterday, tbh
  3. if you want your name on the map, there's plenty of small empires that won't fight you for a tower
summer musk
warm thistle
#

as far as negative sentiment toward you/aurora goes, what i've seen in r5 region chat is mostly people just wishing you'd stop with the endless drama...

undone lynx
#

Guys please help, I keep punching myself in the face.

summer musk
summer musk
warm thistle
#

if what you were talking about would be inconsistent rules applications, then you'd have to admit that admitting to doing things for the purpose of annoyance should get the same actions against you as against pk, right?

summer musk
#

No. I believe that threatening to do something falls under the category of social warfare, while PK griefing our settlement for an entire day would not. That being said, it is up to the devs to decide that sort of thing.

There is also some other stuff that makes that situation different, but I can't get into it here.

honest needle
honest needle
#

Right now it's a matter of actually having something well thought out written up. There's a lot of thoughts and feelings going around that just need a bit of drafting.

#

The design intent is that, wherever possible, it should be easier to undo griefing than it is to grief. The balance of that design goal is not where it should be, and there are many systems in the game where there is no "home field advantage" and two people end up in a standstill with how long they decide to stay logged into the game as a determining factor, which obviously leads to the super $#%&y situations players often find themselves in.

#

Between terraforming, pavements, etc there's a lot that needs to be considered for how we want to move forward addressing these frustrating moments, and conversely using that direction to inform more clear lines in what is / isn't allowed (rather than leaving things up to just vibes)

honest needle
honest needle
# balmy sky Also side gripe; people abused sailing xp by botting/scripting but the people wh...

It wasn't just botting/scripting. We're currently in the process of working on a way to gain sailing exp, but we view a lot of the sailing exp botting/scripting as a consequence of us having a system that was far too easy to "optimize the fun out of". I think sailing exp as it existed before can return, provided it isn't optimal and the way we are working on is both more engaging and efficient.

honest needle
honest needle
# magic terrace In my opinion which counts for maybe nothing. Sneaking another player into a cla...

I think, even without the Empire system, there would be those who would work their way into claims and try to steal stuff for their own gain. I think better systems for item protection 100% should be worked on, but even those could only go so far at preventing social warfare. If not Empires, people motivated by being the richest settlement, or something else, would sneak its way in.

While we want the game to be community focused, part of that is being careful to not put too much trust and permissions in bad actors. (And again, we do need and plan for more in depth settlement permissions)

delicate tendon
#

I do think there would be a ton less drama without empire though and it could actually be a cozy/friendly game then. I’d still be down to support some form of cash shop solely for cosmetics though

honest needle
# strong cipher Hey guys I’m unclear on the current rules. Hypothetically if I were to pave all ...

It's still under discussion, but things seem to be heading in the direction of;

Disruptive terraforming and removing/placing pavement is not inherently problematic, but doing it right outside a claim with the intent of disruption is moving towards something we want to action on. We're still discussing reasoning, what we want to change in the future systems wise, what kind of boundaries are set, etc. to help facilitate this.

A shared world means having conflicting interests, however its very clear to anyone that camping outside a settlements walls and being disruptive is a form of harassment, and that something should be done to remedy this problem.

frail comet
#

One is a few hours to reverse, and the other can have irreparable harm to a community.

vale rivet
#

i just had 40 t8 codices in my hands 5 minutes ago. would have taken me 2 seconds to drop and destroy them. probably thousands of hours of work among dozens and dozens of people.

sand ore
#

for the first one, you need to give them permission to take your stuff so it's up claim owners to decide who to trust
for the second one, that's just something anyone who wants to harass anyone else can do at any time

cerulean thorn
#

Someone could empty every chest in a town before anyone noticed.

vale rivet
#

terraforming? takes one person a few hours to undo.

vale rivet
slender birch
#

It's a matter of "It's part of the game" vs "No griefing should be allowed in a cozy game"

honest needle
honest needle
# frail comet How is targeted intent to get into a claim and rob from it to screw a person / c...

While I think some form of social engineering will always be unavoidable, and stealing of items from shared spaces, the direction we want to move towards is definitely one where players have a larger variety of options for item security (such as the reasoning behind adding settlement banks & item recovery, and personal caches). Moderating "he stole my stuff" is inherently much more challenging than moderating changes to the game world or player behavior, but it is at least worth having more internal discussion about for if we want to do anything until storage permissions are in a better spot.

#

I appreciate you bringing that discrepancy up. :>

slender crane
cerulean thorn
#

From what Voxel just said it wouldn't be griefing to have someone steal and destroy it.

vale rivet
#

well, wouldnt be against the rules at least

#

would certainly cause plenty of grief

slender crane
#

every scenario should be considered in the what is and not against rules (and how to replace items lost)

snow chasm
#

you can read the current policy in the game-news channel; its a post by ⚙ Minch — 7/2/2025

cerulean thorn
#

Yeah they've gone back on this

#

Terraforming is now griefing even though you can remedy it

slender birch
#

I think the team's direction is making the system very tight to the point where it becomes the player's responsibility for getting griefed, and not taking actions. Player harrassment on the other hand is not stoppable by system, therefore requires actions.

snow chasm
#

they consider the settlement permission systems to be "under player control" so destroying codex is not griefing

cerulean thorn
slender crane
#

it's good to have these discussions now... get systems in place.

snow chasm
#

because they decide on the fly when something turns into "harassment"

cerulean thorn
#

Which is why this thread exists so we don't have to decide "on the fly" and can have rules that are written down and we can look up

snow chasm
#

I think the topic of trust/permissions is distracting from the real issue.

Betrayal happens in every mmo, it's just that those mmos usually have more features to help manage it (e.g. permissions). There have been some epic long cons in mmos like Eve online or hardcore classic WoW - in those games, the game company takes no action. There is no industry precedent for the company to be involved in in-game drama/politics among players, and that's how it should be.

Cases where the company/GMs get involved in-game have caused huge scandals, destroying the company reputation, trust and alienating players. Just google "pantheon mmo GM scandal" to see a recent example from the indie mmo called Pantheon.

It may sound wild to think of having 100s of hours deleted by a disgruntled Scholar, but think of the alternative. Hands-on intervention by human moderators is fallible, not scalable, and is even itself vulnerable to abuse. I'm not saying anything about the CWL staff, I'm talking about human nature. Allowing GMs to hand out reparations in-game sets an extremely dangerous precedent imo.

Corporate conflict of interest policies typically cover cases whether they are perceived or real, so managing perception when it comes to hands-on moderation is extremely important for CWL imo.

#

That aside, we have other truly puzzling situations and policy statements that need to be explored and clarified.

I put my concerns in a post 3 weeks ago called "Griefing policy is inconsistent / makes no sense", which raises similar concerns as this thread. Namely, confusion around statements such as:
⦁ "doing something using in game mechanics which has the express purpose of bothering another player and has no in-game remedy for that player to take, is considered griefing"
⦁ "blocking resources from players, including entrances to caves, is permitted"
⦁ "We do not intend for Empires to affect or do battle with Settlements and vice versa."
⦁ "Terraforming to block off easy trade routes of empires, removing roads, making it more difficult (but not impossible) to get to a watchtower are still things not considered griefing."
⦁ "Terraforming for actual gain (blocking a trade route for an empire, for example, or making it more difficult to access a watchtower) is understandable. Express intent of making a player & their settlement worse without any other motive also escalates it to a harassment issue."
⦁ "Individual actions such as removing pavement, terraforming, etc are not considered griefing."
⦁ "Accumulation of different actions can move from griefing to player harassment"
⦁ "Using a claim totem to prevent another claim from expanding [is griefing]."

Some of the statements are confusing and/or don't match up, but also some don't align with moderation actions we've seen being taken

#

@visual latch asked us to come up with our top questions about rules and things needing clarification, here's mine:

⦁ Why does player intent matter?
⦁ How will player intent be determined?
⦁ If intent matters, how will such a concept be supported by in-game systems that minimize the amount of moderation required?
⦁ Does CWL envision a highly and actively moderated game in the future? Is that part of the vision/design?
⦁ If intent is defined as doing something for "actual gain" versus "the express purpose of bothering another player", how will the game / moderators know the difference?
⦁ Do actions that plausibly confer "actual gain", but are performed in order to "bother another player", constitute griefing?
⦁ Will there be in-game verificaiton/validation to confirm that actions are performed for "actual gain"? Example: if blocking access to a cave, will there be in-game verification that the players are actually utilizing the cave?

⦁ What is "actual gain"?
⦁ Why is worsening other players infrastructure/capabilities/experience considered "actual gain" for the offending party, when they have gained nothing?
⦁ Is the empire system really not supposed to impact normal non-empire gameplay?
⦁ Why/when is it permissible to worsen gameplay for players that are non-aligned or unaffiliated with any empire?
⦁ Why are infrastructure and resource access considered to be part of the empire system?
⦁ How will situations be handled where two competing empires affect gameplay for nearby non-aligned or unaffiliated players and their settlements?

⦁ What is bullying/harassment?
⦁ What is the threshold or criteria for when normally permissible actions become harassment?
⦁ Who/what will determine when normally permitted actions have become harassment?
⦁ Will this concept be able to be supported by future in-game systems that minimize the amount of moderation required?

olive sapphire
#

Yes and I can tell you what the solution to people stealing resources is, because we’ve dealt with it.

The answer? People may not like it but it’s absolutely destroying that person’s reputation

#

If they steal, you let everyone in your region know, and even prospective settlements they intend on joining

#

It’s an unfortunate thing, but it’s the only way to prevent it on the player side.

Of course you can take measures to help prevent it like using a housing vault, and giving less people storage perms, but those aren’t foolproof

vale rivet
#

and then they make another account and do it again. are you running background checks on people irl or something? how long does it take a new player to earn enough trust to do something destructive "enough".

lyric condor
#

Wow, bad things can happen in a social MMO?

Idk wiz, you sound smart but this take is off imho

vale rivet
#

what, that a person's reputation isn't actually that important?

olive sapphire
#

But no system is perfect like I said but a system having flaws isn’t an indictment

ruby pasture
# olive sapphire Yes and I can tell you what the solution to people stealing resources is, becaus...

I agree with your sentiment but it does not work in this game. Without mentioning the users by name to avoid breaking the in-game drama rule, there are two specific Region 5 players that I'd like to bring up:

  1. A player who sets 1hex buy orders for extremely expensive items & sells turn-in quest items such that 9 have a normal cost and the final tenth is 30x the price. In both cases, their entire strategy is to catch people not paying attention - they produce nothing of value.
  2. A player who goes around taking ownership of settlements, even when that settlement has active players that are attempting to transfer ownership.

In both cases, the names of these players have been strongly and repeatedly dragged through the mud, both in game and here on the Discord. The result? Absolutely nothing. Both of them continue to operate, enjoying the profits from their crappy behavior.

If this was a different game, where there were any avenues whatsoever to counteract problem makers, this would not be a problem. But as it stands now, if you dislike what these players are doing, you have two options: suck it up, or follow them around 24/7 and do the exact same thing they are doing but faster. That is not a feasible approach, and it's why I think this game needs moderation at least at this current stage.

olive sapphire
#

People have actively started sabotaging him though I’ll note

#

So you can’t say reputation doesn’t matter at all

#

I will say though, GreenPill is a massive outlier in general. And frankly someone that the devs should’ve done something about already.

Likewise frankly the situation is different for every region, but region 5 in general is rather full to the brim of those types anyway

#

I will note, we’ve, as a community, managed to chase him off this server as well. And one day I hope we can chase him completely out of the game

#

Frankly you’d think the devs would do something about him themselves given how many people he alone drives from the game

opaque umbra
#

There are several players that come to mind that you'd think the devs would've stepped in on at this point, but haven't yet

summer musk
brazen trail
#

The issue with claim-flippers is that what they do is technically not against the rules. The problem is more about lacking game mechanics than bad actors; claim co-owners, then officers, then members should be given first dibs on decaying claims before anyone else. But atm it doesn't work like that. What the devs have to decide is if their list of rules should be tailored to the game in its current state or the game with its intended future mechanics

cerulean thorn
summer musk
#

so that would be +1 more reason to not allow it, but if we put too many restraints on the market I do think trade would suffer in this game

#

feels like a slippery slope

short grove
#

shouldnt those be "quality listings" instead of scams ?

summer musk
#

if they are unreasonable, no one will buy/sell for them and the numbers will stay high

#

is the point

#

pretty sure DH used that method early on to pump their numbers up, though the prices werent thaaaat unreasonable

short grove
#

1 hex buy orders are benefiting from DH because market is established, if you do it in non established market it is pointless

summer musk
#

its why they blew up as a trade capitol

#

^

short grove
#

hmm I dont think thats what happened tbh

summer musk
#

i remember noticing something like that when i stopped there early on

#

it could ahve just been like 1-2 of each item at slightly unreasonable prices though, it was a while ago and i don't remember the specifics. I do remember thinking it was a smart idea though

#

i dont need to go like super high for ppl not to buy it, just higher than ppl are willing to buy/sell at

#

it would be hard to draw a line anywhere without damaging the market though, how would the devs be able to keep up with the super volitile prices that are currently existing

short grove
#

currently just add 3 pop up confirmations - DO YOU WANT TO SELL THIS ITEM FOR YYYY price ? lol later on depends on how it develops

summer musk
#

yeah, something like that. or maybe one of those buttons you need to hold right below what you are buying and what it costs

olive sapphire
summer musk
#

i also think that there should be an option to opt out of the added steps for the market though, if you mess up at that point it is your own fault

cerulean thorn
# summer musk pretty sure DH used that method early on to pump their numbers up, though the pr...

No we were just around day 1 and were rushing for settlement Tier ups so people came to us since we had one of the highest tier settlement with workstations they could use. Also close to spawn so people gravitated to us. We also put some time into the look of the place so it was visually pleasing to be in. Then from that the market got large on its own but there were def people putting in large sell orders of items as they were using it as temp storage before houses.

wide lake
cerulean thorn
summer musk
#

Also I am not trying to take away from all the effort you put into the settlement's looks or other things you did to help. Just making an observation. it is most likely a method that i will use to stimulate traffic next map wipe

#

(not like charging 10k for a shrimp, but maybe like 3x what i think things are worth or whatever)

#

and then having normal priced orders that i actually want to sell

snow chasm
# vale rivet what, that a person's reputation isn't actually that important?

this tbh. in old school style mmos like pantheon or everquest, reputation mattered more, but the extent was extremely limited. in the end poor etiquette like stealing camps, training, abandoning your party, etc, were not really mitigated at all. you could keep your own personal blacklist to remember who you dont want to party with and that was about it.

the only games i can remeber where reputation truly mattered were ones like ARK and Last Oasis, probably because the populations on any given server were less than 100

umbral warren
#

Noted so the 5head gameplan is to get each region to sub 100 players first, then rep would sort out all the social conflict aspects of them game

brazen trail
#

Some regions are already there

lyric condor
vale rivet
#

reputation isn't stopping people from abusing systems and making bank or causing grief.

#

our claim-sniper and order-stuffer extraordinaires may be infamous, but it's obviously working or they'd have stopped by now

#

perhaps in alpha, with a smaller player base, no split regions, and no "anonymous" marketplaces, reputation may have been more of a factor. but as much as people like making questionable arguments about player count, many people outside of region 5 probably have never heard of much of these things

snow chasm
#

right. and there are even more prolific claim snipers out there that for whatever reason aren't on people's radar, not part of the discourse

snow chasm
olive sapphire
#

Of course the reputation system matters a lot more for people like GreenPill because he actively tries to sell settlements he takes

#

but it doesn't effect those as much who sell in common markets

snow chasm
#

Yes, they're very public about it

lyric condor
snow chasm
#

Stuff like this is really, really easy to fix though, and I'm confident it will be fixed eventually. Claim abandoment can be changed so that the members with higher permissions have a priority window to claim the settlement, for example. There's many opportunities for them to put in objective hardcoded rules that eliminate all of these problems without moderation or debate.

What concerns me is the definition of certain rules that leave open the window for ambiguity, or *require * human intervention to resolve. Those types of rules by definition cannot be mitigated by new features, and that's what worries me the most.

vale rivet
lyric condor
#

Yeah fair 👍 they should sort out the direction they want to take and maintain the rules across the board

olive sapphire
open phoenix
olive sapphire
#

It kinda can be though with proper housing vault enforcement

lyric condor
olive sapphire
#

My main thing is PvP, while on one hand it'd be nice, on the other hand I think it would stomp on this game's neck harder than psychic jakyls

#

There just needs to be ways to remove people from your claim, and prevent them straight up from entering it tbh

summer musk
#

I'm not sure I agree with this

#

This pushes things in the direction of no one ever warring and pretty much first come first serve mentality

opaque umbra
#

if someone is going to be a nuisance and a pest to a group and their players, I don't think they should get to benefit from that group's effort in building and maintaining a useful claim imo

summer musk
#

but it's not really all their effort. every single player who has chosen to trade there has put effort into how popular it is

opaque umbra
#

I was not talking about the popularity of a settlement

summer musk
#

ahhh you mean the benches and stuff? that sounds toxic.

opaque umbra
#

I'd argue it's more toxic to be forced to accomodate players who actively work to make you and your groups game experience worse

summer musk
#

im trying to get a tower

#

thats part of the game is it now?

opaque umbra
#

I am not specifically talking about you here

#

but to speak on that

#

it's a bit weird that you can actively be at war with a group

#

and then just, still use their stations and markets

summer musk
#

if this gets pushed into the system, players are going to start getting pushed out of settlements for some petty reasons

#

i think that would just make the game worse

#

like "ok you undercut me on leather? bye."

opaque umbra
#

I feel like a group doing that would quickly have their reputation ruined

#

and it's harder for a group to avoid a reputation than it is for an individual player

summer musk
opaque umbra
#

I mean, if a group decides to start banning several people for very nothing reasons from their claims, it's likely going to spread amongst the community fairly quickly

summer musk
#

anyways, if you pushed people out of your settlement when you went to war or whatever, they would lose access to all of their things

vale rivet
#

recovery system already exists

summer musk
#

yeah sure, you going to do like 1000 trips back and forth? xD

#

what if they werent even the agressor

#

thats toxic

#

realistically if all my stuff were to be bumped out of the market in dragonhead as an example, since this discussion isn't about that it would take me hundreds of trips

#

if they added that at the beginning of the next wipe when people are aware of it though, that wouldn't be the worst idea.

brazen trail
#

I think the ability to "outlaw" players from your claim would turn toxic pretty quick. Outlawing enemy empire members would be the tip of the iceberg. Imagine the highest tier claim in a region outlawing any outsiders they come across and charging them a fee to use their stations. Reputation wouldn't matter if you hold the keys to the only claim of a high tier in the region. Or if your claim is the only convienent processing spot for a certain resource

vale rivet
summer musk
#

who here didn't complain about it then?

#

at least, among the players who had those levels

vale rivet
#

all of the people who said "we should be able to block them from our settlement back"

summer musk
#

i think that threatening to block them back would also be considered complaining

vale rivet
#

no, because this thread is about consistency/equity

summer musk
#

i don't know where this is going

#

im going to drop it

normal pendant
#

Blocking off your own stations physically is already allowed not too far of a stretch to just be able to make it members only access. Blacklisting individuals might be a bad option though

open phoenix
# summer musk yeah sure, you going to do like 1000 trips back and forth? xD

i think that is what would happen, yes. i don't know you and maybe i know who lanidae was talking about, but if you ("you" since you're talking about your possible future experience in the game) will be blacklisted from a settlement and had to recover thousands of items in the nearest starting town, you will recover those items and you can do nothing about that other than following the (new) game rules

open phoenix
summer musk
#

that's why i said it wouldnt be a terrible idea next wipe, but doing it now would be a horrible idea.

#

people would just use their own markets more especially

lyric condor
#

Everyone will have their own opinions and their own way of being "toxic"

I suggest - 0 controls, 0 cencorship - let people (mis)behave

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY "AYE"

KEKW

opaque umbra
#

no.

lyric condor
#

That's so offensive.

#

I hate how soft we've become as a community... Any kind of setback is treated as an existential treat...

#

How about you take some ownership and stop bashing devs for extra features (some bashing and some features are ok...)

opaque umbra
#

I feel like asking for very basic moderation in a game that people sink hundreds of hours into isn't "becoming soft" as a community

lyric condor
#

Lol, if u sink 100 hours into game and can't be bothered to put that "SINK" into managed house with perms - it's your own issue.

We have a saying in Lithuania -stupid one is beaten even at church

vale rivet
#

this is derailing the thread

#

go make a feedback thread that this should be a full anarchy game or something so we can ignore you properly

summer musk
#

this thread is about peoples opinions on the correct forms of moderation

#

i would say that this is exactly where something like that belongs

vale rivet
#

if CWL wants to make a full anarchy game, then they need to make that clear and not construction-ban people for terraforming in ways that may-or-may-not be griefing

#

"i think it should be a full anarchy game" is off topic otherwise

snow chasm
# summer musk like "ok you undercut me on leather? bye."

Stuff like this has already happened:
#1400657057946013796 message
#1398407267656663263 message

And this was not even within the context of an empire dispute. Imagine giving players of this mindset more abilities to do this kind of thing. For this topic, it's not just about griefing, it's about the health of the economy and equitable access to gameplay for all.

Some key criteria and guiding questions for any new feature as they relate to this thread are:
⦁ Would this feature increase or decrease the occurrences of player disputes requiring hands-on moderation?
⦁ Would there be cases where player "intent" matters, and if so how will that be evaluated and moderated?
⦁ How will the feature affect the game's "meta", what side-effects and emergent gameplay will come about, and do these align with the developer's overall vision for the game?

summer musk
#

again wiz, there are reasons outside of what has been talked about here that contributed to that situation. please stop bringing it up as an example of how things should or should not be done

lyric condor
#

I think the thread has derailed a long time ago wiz, at this point it's a chat room

#

But I take your point

#

Also just for the record: I'm not advocating for any kind of anarchy, I'm just advocating for freedom of operating and some form of real-life actions & consequences. If I had to be a cu*t, I'd say you're preaching for controlled environment where big boys rule and u have no recourse (social or otherwise) to fight against them

More freedom (provided more game system options exist) is a good thing

summer musk
#

honestly i would be all for the kicking people from your claims thing, on a fresh wipe

vale rivet
#

was that in response to me

lyric condor
#

I think we're both preaching for different kind of things and it's fair enough. It's beautiful to live in a community where differences in opinion exist.

I think threads like these help devs crystalise what approach they want to take

vale rivet
#

i'm not preaching for any particular game direction though?

lyric condor
#

Ok, sorry for misinterpretation :shruggies:

vale rivet
#

i'm preaching for CWL to figure things out and communicate them properly

lyric condor
#

I'm with u sir 👍

vale rivet
#

i hope i never actually said something that implies my own position is that this game should be more anarchy or more "controlled environment". my point is only that CWL's intentions, communications, and gameplay systems need to align.

lyric condor
#

You probably didn't. I'm human and I read into things 😄

vale rivet
#

"if cwl wants this to be a cozy crafting game, they need moderation/systems to discourage/prevent x" "if cwl wants this to be anarchy, they shouldn't moderate y"

summer musk
#

again, i think you are referring to that other situation. DM me so i can explain why that situation was already covered by the rules.

vale rivet
#

i'm not referring to any situation

#

stop making this about you

summer musk
#

ok ok sorry, i thought it was since you brought it up a couple minutes ago

lyric condor
#

It's a big strech to call what I proposed/want for the game "anarchy"... But that's a personal discussion we can have in VC or chat. Poop out

summer musk
#

my mistake

vale rivet
#

and "anarchy" here is my own abbreviation for the "opposite" of "cozy crafting". simply contrasting both ends. not saying what you want specifically is anarchy.

#

of course i expect it to be somewhere in the middle

summer musk
#

I think the important thing is that it doesn't affect other players

snow chasm
#

The main topic of the thread is how hands-on moderation is applied, is it consistent with the stated policies and are the stated policies clear and comprehensive enough.

We need to help them further develop the policies and missing features that will mitigate disputes.

The "anarchy" argument is actually not far off base. Pretty much all mmos operate in that state because the in-game features are robust enough to allow it. It's anarchy in the sense that the game's systems are well defined enough that an "if you can, then you may" approach will not lead to incidents most of the time.

It's not feasible nor desirable to have high amounts of hands-on moderation as a built-in game design decision. I'm referring to the ambiguous definitions of "player intent", "harassment" and so on, which essentially guarantee a large amount of incidents requiring a human moderator to step in. Imo this is what CWL really needs our help with and what everyone here is essentially talking about in one shape or form.

summer musk
#

^ i will also say that it works well in other games because not many of them have this much freedom with this number of players

#

which i'd guess is what drew most of us here in the first place

open phoenix
# snow chasm Stuff like this has already happened: https://discord.com/channels/5584396860839...

CWL worked to make the trading system be trustless (as in that you don't need trust of any kind in order to make multiple successful trades), the trading system itself still need work but it is indeed trustless, so i can trust them to implement more features to help a few specific situations (like in the situation that happened in the threads linked in the message i'm replying to which could have been solved easily if we could move the personal trader stand like moving buildings, with a cooldown, instead of having "collect" and "deploy" as the only options available, and before someone says it: "move off claim" wouldn't have worked in that and many other situations because the bad actors specifically left the hex the trader stall was in unclaimed)

hoary rapids
#

If you are the aggressor in a 'war', there should at least be some implied consequences to being the aggressor - being locked out of your target of aggression's stations & market seems well within reason.

summer musk
#

While I do agree, it will be another thing that keeps the world map held by an early group with tons of members. if they can attack you, and you can't attack them it feels like putting more power in that direction again

#

since u can't make as high of tier frames, meaning you cant get supplies as easily

#

it would effectively lock the empire system behind tier 10

hoary rapids
#

I don't think that is relevant to how the rules should apply generally. The amount of effort put in to the claim would validate the consequence of attacking it. And would appropriately incentivise decentralization.

summer musk
#

ehhh, this really only benefits like 1% of the game population and it does indeed lock the empire system behind tier 10 though for anyone else does it not?

#

even players who just happen to join at a later date would never be able to catch up

hoary rapids
summer musk
#

because if they cant use the higher tier frames, they are fighting an uphill battle. they are sooooo much easier by tier as they go up

hoary rapids
#

So you are saying that being a T1 claim warring against a T10 claim should be on equal terms?

summer musk
#

im saying that a T5 claim fighting a T6 claim shouldnt have a huge disadvantage

hoary rapids
#

If those were the only two claims in the world.

vale rivet
#

note that tiers are logarithmic

#

t6 claim has roughly twice as much input as a t5

summer musk
#

you don't need to travel back and forth as often, the mining process takes roughly the same time, the supplies granted are higher

vale rivet
#

also supplies granted by cargo aren't linear either

summer musk
#

yes, it is slightly harder to mine them, but not as difficult as the supply increase would dictate

hoary rapids
#

I would think that is a fair consequence of being the aggressor. And keep in mind that there would be more then one claim/empire of relevant tier.

summer musk
#

i mean yeah i do think that would be fair. i was just pointing out how it would effect the game

vale rivet
brazen trail
#

We also have to consider how the empire system is intended to function. Empires serve more of an aesthetic role than a functional one. Conquering territory gives no benefit other than your name on the map and a crown on your head. CWL has stated in the past that Empires are meant to be on a separate "layer" than claims and aren't meant to interfere with them. In practice this is hazy, since claims fund Empires and that incentives players to sabotage those claims. But looking through the lense of "Empires shouldn't interfere with claims", enemy Empires being allowed to use each other's stations is consistent with CWL's current stance

hoary rapids
#

My point is to have consequences to evaluate before going to the step of warring, you plan, you get some allies if you are warring a bigger settlement. There should be a 'win condition' first, before war is to become an option.

summer musk
#

and if the 3 largest empires and a bunch more are allied?

#

then where does said claim get thaaaaat many allies

#

especially when fighting on significantly different terms as far as supplies/effort goes

hoary rapids
#

Well this is the point of allies, isn't it? If not to consolidate strength and allign goals, then why make them?

summer musk
#

thats cool, i think if you can at least put the same amount of effort per supply

#

otherwise its like hey, go fight this bigger claim that only needs to do half as much work as you

#

better tools + better supply/work ratio

#

kinda rigged

#

so yes i think no one would bother

#

freezing the empire system

#

until people start hitting tier 10

brazen trail
#

Im just glad that the current bottleneck is supplies and not hexite shards. Because hoooooo boy that can of worms is going to come home to roost after EA ends and paying players become the minority

summer musk
#

mmm well you can still pay peoplef or hexite shards

#

with ingame cash

hoary rapids
#

I could understand your point of view if the game was a 2 claim game. And one can monopolize higher tiers. But its not, right?

summer musk
#

but if the 3 empires with the highest tiers all ally up..

#

we come back to that again

#

OR it drastically increases your travel times, which still creates that effort/supply problem

#

just with a different type of effort

hoary rapids
#

Well, my argument was that if you agress Empire 1, you automatically get shut from Empire 1's stuff. And Empire 2 & 3 would still be fair game. It would not be a system of choice, but of implicit consequence.

summer musk
#

which is why i added what is above ^

#

it doesn't change anything

#

at least with the tier difference you are getting exp for the extra work

hoary rapids
#

Well, you cant have it both ways. Effort needs to mean something. And you apply effort to gain strength. Invalidating effort because its 'not fair' is not a valid argument in my honest opinion.

summer musk
#

listen, I am only telling you how it would effect the game

#

i wouldnt have bothered

#

in my current situation, and i dont think anyone else would either

#

so empire system would be endgame mechanic

#

which is a very very far away endgame

#

and in the meantime, the very first players to be here would have a huge advantage in traffic and recruitment

#

meaning they would only get bigger and better

#

and when we finally get to T10 and we can think about it, they are only the stronger for it

#

it would essentially kill the empire system

hoary rapids
#

Your situation is at best a edge case. Getting a 'no' should have been the end of it, in a measured ruleset. I know it's harsh (specially coming from a toad), but by shear numbers alone the difference in strength is to steep. But we are not machines, and emotion is a fickle b****

summer musk
#

my problem is just the advantage

#

if we were getting the same effort/supply it would be cool

#

but you are just asking for more handicaps

sand ore
#

Seeing a lot of people talking about blacklisting from stations and markets
The stations I can get behind (though the potential for abuse is insane and would get toxic fast)
I dont think anyone should be blocked from any market though. There should be a free market throughout the game imo
If it was a global market then sure block people from your towns market lol
Otherwise keep free trade available for everyone everywhere

hoary rapids
#

I am saying that without allies, war against a much bigger foe, that has the higher ground as well, is, and should be, folly.

summer musk
#

and i am saying that you also get a handicap in that situation

#

bigger isnt all there is to it

#

bigger sure, i can get behind that. but if we were the same size?

#

you would still have a huge advantage

#

i don't necessarily believe that newer players should always be at a disadvantage

hoary rapids
#

If we were the same size, there is an advantage of being first. But shouldnt there be?

summer musk
#

i do not believe that the oldest settlments should always hold an advantage

#

i think that asking for that is toxic as hell

hoary rapids
#

If we were the same size, I dont think that advantage would mean very much though.

summer musk
#

it would mean enough

#

not only would you get higher Edit: rarity tools easier, you would also get more supplies per ingot

#

seems kinda elitist to me

#

like not only can you already do higher tier stuff in general because you got here first, but you also need to have the material advantage in the personal progression sense as well?

#

how easy do we need to make it here

hoary rapids
#

I think you are missing the point. I am talking about rules of the game, and not individual effort in the current state of the game(edit: added current state as argument). Maybe we both got derailed here, but ill pivot back now.

My argument is that there needs to be consequences to being the aggressor, and losing access to stations and markets of the claims you attack I would still think is fair. Mind you, I am not talking about your edge case, but fundamentally.

summer musk
#

and i was simply telling you how it would effect the game as a whole. not in my edge case

hoary rapids
#

Ok, then I do not agree with your assessment of the outcome of a rule like that. And lets leave it there.

summer musk
#

there would be 0 pvp until tier 10

#

agree to disagree then

hoary rapids
#

Items could still be in the market, but locked until the war concludes. Or retrieved by the owner.

summer musk
#

it really does feel like a handicap for the initial empires though

hoary rapids
#

If you are dependant on a claim to go to war, that might be a sign to not go to war with said claim.

summer musk
#

right, so exactly like i said

#

no one would ever fight the oldest claims. at least not for like a year at least

#

if ppl are going to fight, they are going to fight near their base. and the oldest claim near their base is always going to be the one they use for higher tier stuff

#

if thats the direction they way to go, that's cool

#

just dont change it until a wipe xD

hoary rapids
#

I realize whatever I say, you are basically defaulting to the current state of things. Ill leave you to it 🙂

summer musk
#

i keep hoping you will understand what i'm saying

#

prob best to leave it

hoary rapids
summer musk
#

what about it?

#

if i understand that maybe we can clear it up >.<

hoary rapids
#

The "unfair" advantage to established claims

summer musk
#

oh we we just disagree on if it's fair or not

#

ok nvm

#

im cool with how it is nowwww

#

i just think adding more unfairness would be silly

#

more advantages*

#

i think that would be unfair, but if you want to pile the advantages onto the oldest claims, its easy to say that from your position i guess

hoary rapids
#

And I think its necessary to have effort based advantage. But that does not mean I think a new/small claim should be held back because its new/smaller. If the effort is equal, I would expect the advantage be too.

summer musk
#

wait, so how would we be able to add advantages to the oldest claims, but also have new/smaller claims not be held back

hoary rapids
#

But saying advantage can not excist because it will be unfair, is counterproductive

cerulean thorn
#

There should be bans and claims that "we can't use high tier work stations" is dumb as there are other Settlements that can accommodate you

summer musk
#

yes, at a much larger cost in travel distance

cerulean thorn
#

so

summer musk
#

so, thats giving the attacking players a disadvantage

#

is my whole point

#

specifically when it comes to the oldest cities

cerulean thorn
#

if you attack someone where you have your gear in their place then thats on you

hoary rapids
summer musk
#

and i don't think that any player should have an advantage over another simply because they were here first

cerulean thorn
#

"Hey I'm going to attack and take your land but let me continue to live in and use your stuff"

summer musk
#

at least not an advantage via game mechanic

hoary rapids
#

So I should be able to plop my claim ontop of yours, even if you had it first?

cerulean thorn
#

They don't but they also built their settlment up first

summer musk
#

im not on top of yours, i think that expecting no one to plop their claim down on half of region 5 is rediculous

cerulean thorn
#

No one is saying that though

summer musk
#

thats litterally what poest just implied

cerulean thorn
#

Poest could you confirm what you are saying as I took that to mean something else

summer musk
#

what did you take it to mean?

hoary rapids
cerulean thorn
#

I thought he was talking about putting it right on top of your claim like exagerating the point

hoary rapids
#

Specially in regards to early claims

hoary rapids
summer musk
#

agree to disagree. i think the older empires have enough advantages as it is

cerulean thorn
#

we have it because we had to work to make them what they are now

summer musk
#

lol it took u like half a day to take over half the continent

cerulean thorn
#

it really didn't

summer musk
#

it could ahve

cerulean thorn
#

and it would have taken just as long to take it from us

#

we can do it now as we have the tools to get supplies we need

#

Back then we were still trying to tier up so it took time to get land and to get resource for tier up

hoary rapids
#

Lets not go down the could have been / should have been route of arguing

summer musk
#

topher, i was in umb cordis

#

i know exactly how long it takes to claim half a region

#

and if we all focussed on it, it would have taken a day after we had the empire set up

cerulean thorn
#

Placing towers would have been quick but taking them would have been just as quick

summer musk
#

no other players were near you in tier

#

so they wouldnt have been

cerulean thorn
#

Whenever we tiered up there was someone tiering up within a day

#

infact the later tiers we've been behind everytime

summer musk
#

yes, the 3 empires you were allies with

cerulean thorn
#

Yeah we made use of the social part of this game

frail comet
# summer musk and if we all focussed on it, it would have taken a day after we had the empire ...

This is revisionist, try and win a war you start re-writing history.

Every step of our journey is well documented because it was streamed. The reason our market is big is because of location, and we were one of the first to push the claim in the region. Tortuga intentionally didn't have one at a time, so they came to us.

Jaruud also almost placed exactly where DH was. You know what they did? Said 'lol!' and then went to where he was. Then we made friends.

If you focused entirely on expanding towers, that's what Trisp did. They intentionally focused on land and not towers - look how that ended up.

We have historically been last in tiers.

Stop making it out like making friends and allies people is some negative competetive advantage. You can easily do it too.

summer musk
#

anyways this is getting off topic even more than before >.<

frail comet
#

We have the smallest land out of all the three, because while we were tiering up two communities in the west popped up and kindly asked for land before we took it.

summer musk
#

listen man, all im saying is we shouldnt give large empires more advantages than they already ahve

frail comet
#

So we went north where there were nobody.

sand ore
summer musk
#

i dont care how you got here

#

im arguing for the sake of the rule

cerulean thorn
#

that's just you not wanting to lose anything

#

you already said do it next wipe

summer musk
#

why are you guys asking for a handicap

#

i dont get it

cerulean thorn
#

you don't mind the rule as long as you aren't negatively effected by it now

summer musk
#

like chill, just do the war thing

frail comet
frail comet
summer musk
#

teloril

#

we are talking about adding MORE advantages

#

i dont care that you already have some

cerulean thorn
#

no we are talking about settlment management

summer musk
#

but asking them to add more is embarassing

cerulean thorn
#

WE DON'T HAVE ANY TO BEGIN WITH

summer musk
#

yes, right after you guys harassed me for being in your town

cerulean thorn
#

what managment do we have now

summer musk
#

try to type that again

cerulean thorn
#

what managment do we have now

summer musk
#

the advantages that you have now are that your players are higher levels, you have had more time to establish your market, your name on the map draws people to you

cerulean thorn
#

So because we've been around longer and are bigger we shouldn't have any advantage over those who are just starting out

summer musk
#

i know, and im saying i dont have a problem with those. what i am saying is that they are advantages

#

im saying you dont need more

hoary rapids
#

Honestly, thats a subjective problem, not an objective one

cerulean thorn
#

What we want is to be able to manage our settlment

#

We should have the right to prevent someone from using it

summer musk
#

you want an advantage against older claims during war

#

specifically during war

#

is what this has all been about

#

i can quote it if youd like

#

against newer claims*

cerulean thorn
#

Yeah we do want that as the most recent example

summer musk
#

why do you think you need more advantages?

cerulean thorn
#

Why do you think we don't

summer musk
#

im done

#

this is rediculous

cerulean thorn
#

you throw a stone at someone's house and then want to go in and watch tv there

summer musk
#

go back and read what you are saying when you've calmed down maybe? idk

cerulean thorn
#

If someone starts a war then why do they get to use that capitals stations?

#

Make that make sense

summer musk
#

ive explained it above

#

go back and read

frail comet
#

All I'm reading is more derailment 'Toads are evil' in a thread about consistency in CWL's rulings.

summer musk
#

thats not at all what this is about

#

its about trying to give large empires more advantages than they already have

#

its rediculous and elitist

cerulean thorn
#

so from what I can skim (there's like 5 hours of chat I'm not reading through to find your point) is that higher tiers get better supply packs

#

thats it

summer musk
#

higher tiers get more supplies/effort

hoary rapids
#

Then become higher tier?

cerulean thorn
#

Yeah if you are going to pick a fight against a higher tier you should know that

summer musk
#

you are trying to cut off anyone who attacks larger empires a disadvantage

#

from having the same work/supplies

#

like what?

#

im not saying its inherintly a bad system

cerulean thorn
#

because its not

summer musk
#

but, it will kill empire warfare until ppl start hitting tier 10

#

and i think that is bad

#

i know i sure as hell would have waited xD

frail comet
#

The issue is that CWL has asked us to self moderate and we have no controls. At all.

summer musk
#

but adding that control will give you an advantage

#

a sizable one

cerulean thorn
#

Hey Naughty what about an empire that has more people in it. isn't that unfair since they can have more workers?

hoary rapids
#

but its not

cerulean thorn
#

isn't that an adavantage

summer musk
#

if we had the same number of players

#

and you were able to instigate this system

#

you would have an advantage

#

that is the problem

#

another advantage*

#

im saying that no one would bother in that situation

cerulean thorn
#

that's not a problem

summer musk
#

and therefore pvp would die until t10

cerulean thorn
#

this isn't a 1v1 duel

summer musk
#

ok im done, im going to screenshot this whole thing to give the guys some lols and call it good

#

leaving chat

cerulean thorn
#

So settlements who worked hard to tier up shouldn't have an advantage against T1 settlements.

Oh and you're fine with banning people from settlements as long as it doesn't happen this wipe as it would negatively effect you.

#

Glad to know that you are just selfish and don't actually care about what's fair.

#

Let me edit that as the player thing was about the tiers and not # of players in a claim

frail comet
#

It shouldn't an issue anyway Topher, according to him 50% of the game hates me.

cerulean thorn
#

I thought that was a response to my comment about players size and I was wrong

frail comet
#

That's way bigger than any empire

summer musk
#

a lot of players wouldnt use other ppls markets if they could get locked out

#

id need to haul like 500 carts worth of stuff back to my base

cerulean thorn
#

except a lot of players aren't going to be banned

summer musk
#

right, but they could, and might in the future if they decide they wanted a tower

#

so yes, a lot less players would

cerulean thorn
#

If you want to attack the empire who's capital you do bussiness in then thats on you

summer musk
#

whatever guys, if u want the oldest empires to have more advantages, go for it. (edited because i was getting heated. same idea though)

cerulean thorn
#

there's a reason any claim can have a market

cerulean thorn
frail comet
wispy thunder
#

i feel like if you choose to go to war with someone that should impact trade relations?

summer musk
#

and i dont disagree, which is why i wouldnt mind if they did it after a wipe

cerulean thorn
#

only because it would effect you now

#

your point is 100% selfish

lyric condor
#

can you all stop now? they are obviously not gonna implement any market-limiting perms so why even bother clashing here?

#

wiz said it went off topic before

#

now it seriously did

vernal summit
#

The thread contents today, while mostly off topic, have convinced me that the ability to ban or otherwise hinder specific players from interacting with your claims (including all stations, market, bank) or joining your empire should be in the game. And just like nature reclaims the land, these restrictions should be on a timer and automatically expire unless manually renewed. This feature, while controversial, would enable a degree of community moderation.

hoary rapids
undone lynx
olive sapphire
undone lynx
#

You lost stranger?

#

nevermind

#

Bruh did you just delete your comment

#

thats hilarious

#

Well that happened

marble adder
#

It’s a public thread idk if anyone here can be called lost but I think it’s good it’s being discussed at least. Banning people from your settlement sounds good for player moderation but it could also be kinda damaging if used as a tool of war especially with the fencing off of caves being allowed. I’m not totally against it but it’s something to think about that I hadn’t considered before bceThinkPonder it might be good to have other ways to discourage war. Like if you have control over resources people want or have the only settlement near them you wouldn’t have to be large to keep a small claim on the map.

undone lynx
#

Sorry guys, they need to make another alt rq.

lunar pond
#

DID YOU DELETE THAT TOO

#

COME ON 'STRANGE'

undone lynx
#

Why should someone who is actively trying to make the game less enjoyable for you get to benefit off of the work of your claim?

marble adder
#

I think it’s kind of a neat idea that even small claims and empires could use as a tool to protect their map claims

#

If they’re near a valuable resource

undone lynx
#

Yep

umbral warren
#

all is fair in love and war Nodders until a geneva convention is in place or it affects me directly

summer musk
#

i may have posted that on the wrong account >.< sorry

undone lynx
#

Especially once they make remote outposts a thing, etc.

#

lmfao

summer musk
#

but as i was saying, feels like u are trying to step on the little guy :/

lunar pond
marble adder
#

But yeah I was saying it might be a good thing in the long run, I just hadn’t thought of it being able to be used like that yet

undone lynx
#

Bro removes those comments too

#

Crazy tbh

summer musk
#

sheeeet tbh i though u had another convo i split with that account. no im 100% guilty of using him to get my recruitment thread rolling >.<

#

but i do mix em up some times, thats true

undone lynx
#

Gotta get all these alternate personalities straightened up

summer musk
#

okie

undone lynx
#

no slips when you're pushing propoganda!

summer musk
#

xD well i mean tbf, no one was responding to my thread when i was starting out :[

#

i gave up on discord eventually though for recruitment

#

its dead

marble adder
#

I’ve been an advocate for more settlement access settings for awhile, especially since there have been some instances of walling things off in the past and that’s allowed. Which is fine but I don’t really like systems that feel one sided. More chest access settings and settlement access settings have more benefits than downsides I think bceThinkPonder maybe lower cost outposts can’t set the same restrictions though so that people can’t toss cheaper outposts all over just to lock things down? Idk it’s hard to discuss that before they’re released x3

undone lynx
#

Being able to just blanket ban everyone seems kinda meh. But like, people actively at war with you? Probably fine..

#

People can already kinda toss outposts to lock down resources though

#

Since you can't harvest on a claim without being a member.

summer musk
#

the devs did mention it is legal to block off resources anyways

marble adder
#

Yeah but I mean locking down the stations on top of a mine kind of deal

summer musk
#

^

#

i agree

undone lynx
#

They can just build a fence around their station

#

Same difference

#

Just makes the game more annoying that you can't handle those permissions in a proper permission system

marble adder
#

Because large groups could cheaply produce a lot of outposts and that seems kinda unbalanced bceThinkPonder

#

If they make outposts cheap

#

I think a full cost settlement is fine doing that

undone lynx
#

Large groups have the benefit of having more people

#

Having more people will always give you an advantage in everything that you do

#

There is no way around that

marble adder
#

Yeah but I think to sorta balance it make them use the more expensive one if they’re wanting to lock it ya know? They have the people to do that anyway

summer musk
#

i could be reading into it too much, but i really do think it would kill pvp

#

thats my issue with it

marble adder
#

Outposts are supposed to be smaller specialized claims for small groups and individuals from what I thought had been discussed but they’re not out so idk if it’s worth talking about yet lol

undone lynx
#

Nothing is for smaller groups specifically.

marble adder
#

It’s a small downside for the small group that chooses it too, they wouldn’t be able to lock people out shrug

#

I mean sure anyone can do anything but I was under the impression they were adding it to satisfy smaller groups wanting specialized claims

#

Again I could be wrong

undone lynx
#

It'll make it easier for them, sure

#

But larger groups will be able to do the same thing if they want. I think it's a net positive improvement overall.

marble adder
#

Agree to disagree there bcaYaya3 I think the systems that are already in place sorta support large groups and having outposts not be geared towards large groups but have their own downsides would be more balanced. I don’t think outposts should be as strong as a settlement and probably shouldn’t be able to have any empire features from an outpost only. I think that should be reserved for full settlements

#

Otherwise what’s the point of making another type of claim ya know?

undone lynx
#

It'd be an overhaul to how claims work overall

#

You're free to listen to their podcast too, they go over their ideas a bit during it.

marble adder
#

Yeah I listened to some of them but didn’t catch the most recent bcaYaya3 so I might have missed some things

undone lynx
summer musk
#

maybe they can find a way to work it out so that you can kick ppl off, like i said, i do think that you should be able to do that, but i also think they would need to change a couple other things to make it work well

#

mostly, maybe make it so that supplies do not ramp up with tiered items as quickly as they do

marble adder
#

Idk ramp up for tier kinda makes sense imo bceThinkPonder I think they need to add more high tier caves though if they’re allowing walling them though. I don’t think we have any t8 caves even in r5 do we?

summer musk
#

secondly, figure out some way to access their market stuff to at least pull it out during a war

#

no, there are only like 4 of them

#

and they are all super right and left of the map

marble adder
#

Yeah reclaiming market stuff or bank stuff could use a rework because walling that off could cause silly issues lol especially with bitjita having that info publicly available right now

undone lynx
#

Would need to allow withdrawl.

summer musk
#

^

#

i can agree with that

undone lynx
#

And just shift all buy/sell orders to claimed tab

marble adder
#

Or at least let you send it to one of the ruined cities

summer musk
#

but isnt the issue that im in your city?

#

id be there a lot more if i was trying to move stuff all day

#

all week more likely

undone lynx
#

It's less that you are there and more that you are using the stuff

#

And benefiting from it

#

Watching you have to haul stuff away (or better yet, realizing you don't want to do that and not attacking in the first place) would be fine.

summer musk
#

honestly ive been thinking of moving my market to naughtingham for a bit now anyways, it may happen at some point here

marble adder
#

Come on don’t start stuff we’re discussing mechanics changes x3 bringing that up doesn’t help the thread or encourage healthy discussion

undone lynx
#

It's relevant to the discussion

#

I don't think we're heated atm

summer musk
#

sorry i was using it as an example for the problem

marble adder
#

My bad it sounded like it was going that direction when it was brought up bcaGuiltyCaught I just want this thread to have some good discussions so we can get some changes hopefully :3

strong cipher
#

I’m going to be so real once I get blacklist perms I’m blacklisting anyone I don’t like from my city. Unfortunately this is the precedent that Tyler bitcraft has set when he allowed tortuga to wall off stations. It’s your claim so you can do what you want, including the exclusion of people. This also aligns with their self governable stance. Stuff should go to recovery chests or a grace period to take things out.

undone lynx
#

I think that kind of thing will self-regulate tbh

marble adder
#

I mean if they add a system for it then you’re free to do that and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, because others can do the same and it’s not one sided bcaYaya3

summer musk
#

i do think that the ramping up of supplies would cause an issue with pvp not being viable until T10, but if they did the outposts that could be a thing

strong cipher
#

Most people are fine in the community but for the tom scammons it’s a necessary tool. He’s already making the market ui unbearable for some people.

marble adder
#

lol fair enough, didn’t think about it but yeah it would help regulate that too

strong cipher
#

It might entirely discourage people like him as well. If he can’t access any of the large markets then it might just not be a viable strategy

undone lynx
#

Yeah but you shouldn't be able to blacklist someone that's competiting with you on prices or something and is not affecting you otherwise.

#

That just kills the "free market" idea.

olive sapphire
#

Not really because you can just make a market next to that market

#

and there's always the starter markets

undone lynx
#

Convenience is a thing

#

I think advocating for blanket market bans is a good way to get this idea shot down entirely

marble adder
#

Yeahhh I don’t think there’s any way to allow one but not the other. But if a group is known for doing that I think they’d become a less popular market anyway over time right?

summer musk
#

also, ive undercut you guys for a while now on a few things to test it out. cutting someone off of a market and having one right next to it wouldnt help too much

#

for me i can deal, because i can probably stock my market with nearly everything

#

but for the average player that is going to hurt

olive sapphire
#

You can cut someone off from a market right now btw

#

In a really cursed way

summer musk
#

oh yeesh

undone lynx
#

I mean just imagine that I'm selling rope for 250ea. Someone comes and sells for 200, I ban them because they are competiting against my price.

#

Sounds pretty toxic

umbral warren
#

how cursed are we talking

summer musk
#

^

marble adder
#

I think an all or nothing allowed to use buildings would also prevent that from happening because if they’re banning people for undercutting they’ll lose profit from people using stations and buying on the market too

olive sapphire
undone lynx
#

Stations are one thing, those should have straight blacklists allowed.

summer musk
#

in a situation like DH though, they wouldnt notice a difference

undone lynx
#

Market is another

strong cipher
marble adder
#

I don’t think a group with a reputation of banning people for undercutting is one that’ll keep enough people to be a problem

undone lynx
#

Yeah but transport/time/etc

olive sapphire
#

You would genuinely be surprised Katsy

undone lynx
#

There's a reason our market is so poppin'

summer musk
#

like i said though, ive had the lowest price for weeks now and no one has bought any of my things T.T

marble adder
#

I might be Jaf ^^;

olive sapphire
#

people are weird

umbral warren
#

and is it lowest or lowest in r5

summer musk
#

t1 bricks, few other things

strong cipher
#

Honestly I just want to blacklist like 10-15 people it’s not a big deal

summer musk
#

just lower than dh

undone lynx
#

For this example, I would say mod interaction is appropriate.

#

In my ideal world at least.

marble adder
summer musk
#

i do think that changing the rules mid-war isn't fair though

strong cipher
strong cipher
marble adder
#

Yeah I agree, you could give timeouts for people messing with your area and it would help the larger groups deal with the random grief they get some times. Makes the walling situation less one sided as well

slender birch
#

Blacklisting people in their own marketplace seems fair, but blacklisting people in the biggest marketplace in the world? That's nothing different from a nuclear really. They say they won't use it, but hey does that matter?

marble adder
#

Still would like to see them figure something out for paving though, kind of hard to regulate that when roads are beneficial to everyone. People only need t1 clay to do that so no processing needed and anyone can do it

summer musk
marble adder
#

Yeah but if it’s the biggest market and they start blacklisting for no good reason people probably won’t stick around and it can always be changed later

#

I get wanting it to be after a wipe but now is the time for them to try things and test it out not after the wipe :/ they said they’re only doing maybe one or two wipes right?

summer musk
#

if i knew people could lock me out of their market, i would have been using my own since day 1

#

xP

marble adder
#

I’d rather them try these systems out now and it be a pain than deal with them testing it on full release lol

umbral warren
#

blow up the market evilOwOA

summer musk
#

but we can't really know if it's an issue if we change it in a world where things may have turned out differently

#

at least not propperly

#

if the market was decentralized it might work a lot better than in a situation like this

marble adder
#

I’d argue getting any kind of preview of what it’s like is better than blindly throwing it at full release but I can see why it would maybe play out differently if it were in place from the beginning

summer musk
#

oh its not full release

#

they said they were going to wipe the map for some tests

#

one of those would work

undone lynx
#

We need PTR worlds, with accelerated rates and specific testing focuses.

umbral warren
#

better earlier than later tbh if they're gonna test it out pre release anyways

marble adder
#

They said they might I thought? Idk they do seem to change their minds lol

summer musk
#

they said there may be certain things that could not be tested without a map wipe

#

i heard from the rumor mill january maybe? but it could just be some random person was guessing

marble adder
#

I meeeean if they’re going to wipe anyway before full access that’s even more reason to just let it rip no? bcaGuiltyCaught

#

So they have more time to test

#

And because there will be more chances later anyway

#

Maybe the test it just a bit before a wipe first?

#

Then they get more info from it

summer musk
#

i think it would make a lot less people upset if they knew what to expect when they started a wipe

#

so i guess they need to balance that against whatever extra data they might get. it would essentially make dragonhead un-pvpable

#

i get that we are guinnea pigs, but if they want people here to test things they need to keep the game at least somewhat balanced

marble adder
# summer musk so i guess they need to balance that against whatever extra data they might get....

I think that’s just the downside of ea :< we don’t get to know what to expect exactly. They don’t have the mines closed off over there and aren’t close enough currently to do so, there’s nothing stopping another group from building near the mines they’re close to. I don’t really do a lot of market trading though so I’ll admit my viewpoint is probably a bit narrow in that regard

#

There’s also another t4 mine in the east as well (idk about t5s though)

summer musk
#

people have already built near them, no one could grab them all at the moment

umbral warren
summer musk
#

but as the game currently exists, i knew they couldnt stop me

#

so why not

#

xP

#

i still don't know how i feel about the whole keeping players out thing, but i won't argue if they want to give it a shot. preferably just not mid-war. that would feel icky

#

im going to go at that

#

need to get off for a bit

#

have a good night!!

strong cipher
#

Hopping on strange now or what

summer musk
#

O.o

umbral warren
#

economic sanctions are pretty valid for war tho Nodders it'd suck if the devs add it mid war and further lower your chances, but someone attacking you sounds like a very valid reason to block them off from benefitting off your market, even if it kinda goes again the free market and clam/empire being 2 distinct layers spirit

summer musk
#

true, but it would come off as favoritism

umbral warren
#

else there wouldn't be a lot of use cases, not a lotta tom salmons out there

summer musk
#

i wouldnt be able to fight it without my market income and DH knows that

marble adder
#

Get where you’re coming from, I don’t think they can/should wait for in game events to pass before making changes. It probably wouldn’t be a quick thing for them to change but they aren’t historically great at letting us know before something changes and it would be great to see them telling us before they do these big changes

summer musk
#

i honestly don't think they will go for it

strong cipher
summer musk
#

but if they do, later, i wont have an issue

marble adder
#

There’s no chance they would be doing it specifically to cost you the war and I think that’s the important thing there. Even if you won a tower in the war and they changed it after it would affect your ability to hold the tower too right? So I don’t think they can wait out the war if they’re going to make that change. I think they should make it based on when makes sense for their team which probably won’t be super soon anyway. If they even decided to go for it

summer musk
#

im honestly not worried, i dont think it would happen

#

ok, im closing discord so i stop getting distracted >.<

#

byeee

wispy thunder
#

I don't think that sort of change would need a wipe, but it should be communicated in advance to give people time to like move their stuff or whathaveyou

opaque umbra
#

For clarity, the only information we have about a wipe is that there won’t be one until 2026

neon vale
#

I'm personally against most/all forms of blacklisting players from a claim. Maaaaybe gon's suggestion here: #1386323577846104217 message.

Then again, housing grants us the option to block people from entering our house, so a solution is en route once that system comes to claims. Granular claim permissions + gates/benches that close/'lock' will do the job.

Then again, again: #1396010857082781797 message. Locking a gate may be more complicated. Locking a bench to group X permission level being able to start new projects? Fine, minimal Butterfly effect. Locking a player from a waypoint/Full-bank/many-BO/SO-marketplace/Cargo-filled-house/filled-deployables/multiple-benches-with-100k+-projects because they said something you don't like in chat? What does mute/bench-lock lack, that a claim blacklist would grant? Other than an inherently toxic selfish desire to be punitive against players we disagree/dislike?

I fear the player 'blacklist' mentality will feed into Empire/Personal conflicts and market control measures; which seems to lead away from cozy cooperative. Hopefully that fear is unmerited, but... this thread has highlighted it. I'd prefer cooperative ways to solve social issues or the neutral solution a 'mute' equivalent action would bring. The blacklist on a claim (with current mechanic structure) could oush players to find more ways to grief 'fight back'... which leads us back to the OP contention.

mortal mason
#

Just the general quality of discourse in this thread confirms to me that any system fostering conflict in this game actively depreciates the comfy and wholesome vibe CWL was marketing the game with. Just edit the store page to read "here's yet another crafty pvp game where the only remaining players are the ones bitter enough to stick around"
That or bin this dogwater empire system for something that actually meaningfully interacts with core game systems shrug

vital hazel
# neon vale I'm personally against most/all forms of blacklisting players from a claim. Maaa...

I hear that, but I think that's unfair. I've seen it and I see it, that people use a (bigger) claim in order to make use of its well-built facilities in order to sabotage that very settlement and supporting their own petty vendetta against it. Thus it would only be fair to ban these people from using anything in that settlement. At least it should be introduced as long as void settlements can be used to grab land endlessly as a single player without intention or capability to even develop it and without any recourse for a community on this land grap just to spite them (why would a single player need 6 claims at T2 without any infrastructure around a T7 town?)
It would suffice for my take to ban people from certain empires to use it (thus to make it part of the empire logic instead of personal)

neon vale
# mortal mason Just the general quality of discourse in this thread confirms to me that any sys...

See my comment on player freedom & Empire's here -> #1415632980671729734 message. Empire system just highlights/accelerates what creative 'bad actor' players will do (part of why I find the 'But Empires allow me too!" arguments to be weak/transparent; also see the Tortuga incident example). From my understanding, this is a common outcome of games that allow so much freedom; Players, uh.... find a way to 'PvP'. My brief stint in Palia, which I'd consider a controlled(limited in freedom) cozy PvE mmo-ish experience, has human conflict over Flow tree Etiquette.

If your idea is to remove 'any system' that fosters conflict... We need to remove the marketplace, terraforming, settlements, Ore caves, hunting herd static placements and paving. Because all of those have fostered conflict and would continue to do so if the empire system was removed. From a certain philosophical point of view, I agree; If we removed sports team competitions from human society, we would remove a form of conflict generation. Since my generous view of Empires is the 'competitive sport' nature, and the Roadmap showing us more Empire development appears to be locked in, I'm focused on feedback to see if the wounds the empire system infects can be 'fixed'. Once the roadmap empire features rollout and clearer Dev vision of Cozy vs Freedom... I may end up on the 'bin the empire system' stance. For now, I appreciate the accelerant the Empire layer provides.

mortal mason
#

The thing is, we can't have a social game with conflict-creating mechanics and no moderation performed by staff and a cozy, comfy wholesome game at the same time

#

If that's the crowd they want to target, more power to the developers, but in my book there are about a gazillion pvp/conflict driven multiplayer games and close to zero comfy, nurture and foster MMOs

#

and exactly zero that arent built on predatory f2p monetization

fair falcon
#

If we are going for cozy then there doesn't need to make a conflict system think the empire system is just causing to much toxic behavior

neon vale
# vital hazel I hear that, but I think that's unfair. I've seen it and I see it, that people u...

I need a more specific example of what sorts of sabotage you are talking about. I fail to see a scenario that blacklisting someone from a claim 'fixes' anything.

The ability for a big group to smash people they don't like is a FAR greater threat than one person using the claim to potentially grief it... especially when sticks are plentiful and locking a claim sprawler out of a settlement just encourages them to create all those t2 claims around the claim they've been blacklisted from.

fair falcon
#

This isn't a pvp game that's the issue it's a cozy pve game is how iv seen it marketed

lyric condor
#

This is funny to read. Go check who instigated the whole thread and try to gauge who’s against who.

Hurt egos hurt egos

neon vale
honest needle
mortal mason
honest needle
lyric condor
honest needle
lyric condor
lyric condor
mortal mason
#

regardless on where your focus lies I don't think you're gonna garner any admiration for equating people whose opinion runs counter to your own as "weak", "soft" or "crying" peepoShrug

normal pendant
#

I'm still under the belief it would benefit the dev team greatly to have an in-game moderator team whether its volunteer player mods or something else. To help keep the peace and pick up some of the burden on the dev team.

mortal mason
#

if you choose not to decide, you have still made a choice peepoShrug

honest needle
# marble adder It’s a public thread idk if anyone here can be called lost but I think it’s good...

I think when it comes to banning players from settlements, the important part on our end is mainly just clear communication to players. We have an expectation that if there is a claim, you can utilize it, and want to have incentives for public claims. Walling off claims already allows you to make claims a "whitelisted area" but it's A) done by a clear visual indicator on the outside (closed off area) but B) not clearly indicated through UI systems (no indication on the map, no other changes to the system to know before you see it in person, etc) and without a system designed around it, it feels like "going against the intent of the system."

I think some sort of members only/whitelisted system can be done, but we want to be very careful if we are to do something like that of making sure player expectations aren't being broken, and making a negative experience for those wanting to visit a settlement or use one and only after traveling for a good hour or so find out it's closed off. TLDR, like most things, systems needed to have clear communication to players.

cerulean thorn
# honest needle I think when it comes to banning players from settlements, the important part on...

I feel a members only/whitelisted system is a worse system to introduce then just being able to blacklist specific users. If you simply want to prevent someone who is harassing your claim or for instance putting in by orders in your market for 1 hex each or putting in sell orders for a mil each then whitelisting doesn't help as then you would have to whitelist EVERYONE in the game except that user to get the same effect.

honest needle
honest needle
# marble adder Maybe the test it just a bit before a wipe first?

There are also things to test without wiping too. Like, how can we manage to implement things in a way that doesn't require a wipe? A wipe is assumed to be needed at some point durring the Early Access, but we really want to wipe and reset progress only under absolutely necessary means.

lyric condor
mortal mason
#

I guess compassion is overrated nowadays pepeCryHands

honest needle
# fair falcon If we are going for cozy then there doesn't need to make a conflict system think...

Keep in mind, everyone does have a different definition of "cozy". Our perspective of "cozy" is one where you carve out a safe space in the world, with the parts of the world which have not been rebuilt serving as a contrast to that coziness. A "forge your own cozy" mentality. It's one of the reasons most of the issues with greifing are those around actively surrounding someone's settlement or destroying roads, or following people around to harass them; they serve as a way to actively destroy the coziness others have worked up to create, with not many systems in the game to actively fight against that.

lyric condor
honest needle
#

And I'm caught up now! (Kinda)

honest needle
open phoenix
#

this is more of a generic statement of mine, i wish that bitcraft "trustless" systems could expand so much that the game would also become "dramaless", as in that a player could complete every single objective the game provides while avoiding all kind of dramas related to people playing the same multiplayer game while giving opportunities to make friends of course since it's a multiplayer game after all.
with this i don't mean that if a player keeps bothering me then they should disappear (in bitcraft), i mean that if someone wants to create a problem against me then the game should provide a feature to solve that problem immediately, whether i know how to do it already or i go to a community like this discord server to ask a question. unfortunately terraforming, paving and placing claim totems as a form of griefing is unavoidable.

honest needle
# cerulean thorn Terraforming is now griefing even though you can remedy it

I'm talking with the team more about this. I think part of the issue with the terraforming is that, in a sense, you can't actually remedy it. At least, not if someone is online to actively stop you. There are some issues with the terraforming system that have been brought up with the design team, so hopefully some changes can be made so it's firmly in the "not griefing" category. As it is right now, terraforming is in a very grey zone constantly jumping between "something the players can remedy" and "a standoff where neither side can make progress". Our rules are one where we only want to jump in if players can't remedy it themselves, and terraforming being in this gray zone mean we need to fix it.

honest needle
# open phoenix this is more of a generic statement of mine, i wish that bitcraft "trustless" sy...

While forms of griefing like this are unavoidable, we want to move in a direction where it is easily to repair than it is to disrupt. Getting the balance right for that is very difficult, as tools to repair can be used to disrupt, but I'm confident that some of the ideas we have can help us move further in the right direction.

And yes, more trustless systems are features we want to implement. As an example of something people in the thread have mentioned when it comes to claim sniping, we do want to implement a system where based on settlement roles you can get "first dibs" for taking over an empty settlement. Settlements being abandoned by their owners and never transfering ownership to another member was something we greatly underestimated the frequency of. After all if you spend so much time investing into a settlement, you would think the owner would at least first hand things off. @-@

normal pendant
#

Hmmm... What if terraforming sites were similar to settlement claims where you'd need to make a codex and you get a temporary claimed area similar to the size of a t1 settlement large hex and it allows you to build terraforming dig sites within the temporarily claimed zone. Probably a dumb idea but I feel like something similar might help. Make it more expensive to terraform but faster?

honest needle
#

And I mean, we do have some ideas in mind to improve terraforming sites.

cerulean thorn
#

Yeah as someone who makes animal pens also for hunting I'd hate having to get codex for each of them

open phoenix
#

and then you destroy the terraform site thinking you finished using it, but you discover that you made a big giant mistake on how you terraformed many hexes (of course this never happened to me)

open phoenix
lament dawn
# neon vale I'm personally against most/all forms of blacklisting players from a claim. Maaa...

I understand the frustration of seeing someone who’s been harassing you use your market is annoying. But, in the grand scheme, when there is more people….it poses a risk of yet another thing toxic people can use. In all honesty? I think if muting someone also made them invisible to you on your claim or something like that? That could help. But full black list access? Ehhhh. Blacklist claim/empire join though? We need that

honest needle
honest needle
# cerulean thorn I feel a members only/whitelisted system is a worse system to introduce then jus...

While yes, a blacklist is better for user goals, whether or not it should be a whitelist or blacklist really comes down to what I mentioned earlier about clear UX and player expectations. Realistically, both a whitelist and blacklist may be needed in some capacity. While scripting isn't allowed, I'm sure someone would set up a script to blacklist every player in the game if a whitelist alternative isn't also available.

vale rivet
honest needle
lament dawn
#

Yeah, and while I understand CWL’s vision for the game, draw in cozy and pvp players….the thing is ‘anything goes in empire v empire’ doesnt really work. This isnt like games like EVE where you can just blow up someone’s ship. And so many players use the “The game allows it” as an excuse to just be a menace. A multi moderation layer needs to be set. Using the lack of rules to be a but is not good sportsmanship.
While I know moderation wise CWL doesnt have the man power atm, but the level of toxic Tel and others have faced because of people who skirt the line and take it too far isnt okay.
If the Empire system is opt in and not supposed to affect the world, terraforming outside claims is not opt in, and it affects the world. Thats just my opinion bcaShrug1

honest needle
lament dawn
#

Its just gonna get to a point that cozy gamers are gonna leave and we’ll just have another Albion game tamoga1Sigh

umbral warren
#

Fishing would still be pretty cozy once everything burns Nodders

lament dawn
#

Lmao

#

I stand corrected, Albion + fishing 😂

vale rivet
umbral warren
#

There's fishing drama? Foxy_Sweat_Nervous

vale rivet
#

is there anything in this game without drama

lament dawn
#

Theres no way to fully remove drama in a social game. People have opinions and people suck about it XD
But layered moderation on player and mod side can lessen it

opaque umbra
#

personally I think I should have the ability to haunt Tamo specifically wherever she is in game, I think that would be good to reduce drama /s

snow chasm
olive sapphire
#

player trackers are common af in the community

#

I mean even Bitjita does it

vale rivet
#

that's not really related tbh

#

data accessibility is a whole nother issue than what the client shows

#

and it's already been talked about quite a bit in other places

honest needle
#

But yeah, spacetimeDB restrictions are in mind and not the point of the moderation discussion

lament dawn
cerulean thorn
undone lynx
#

Just needs to show that you are blacklisted from a claim.

#

Big ole red x. Or a classy black border. Idk

#

Claims aren't rewarding really right now for people that own them, so fixing that will also self-regulate any claim permission social issues.

#

You'd ideally want as many people as possible to use your claim

brazen trail
# honest needle While yes, a blacklist is better for user goals, whether or not it should be a w...

I'm interested in what your/CWL's stance is on a whitelist/blacklist system being used for empire warfare. My understanding is that empires aren't meant to interfere with PVE gameplay but I think the ability to easily restrict specific players from using your claim would naturally end in claims blacklisting all members of empires they don't like or are at war with. This could become especially problematic at higher tiers, where resources become more scarce. Caves come to mind; for example, only 2 T7 caves exist in R3 and both are on islands, easily locked down by claims next door to them. How would the team reconcile a situation where a claim owner gatekeeps a scarce resource? Even if the cave itself isn't blocked off, losing access to crafting benches where materials can be packaged would also be a huge inconvenience. This ties in with comments the team has made on logistics, like how ships have a low cargo capacity to incentivize packaging raw resources at an outpost. A whitelist/blacklist system could easily be weaponized to hinder PVE gameplay

honest needle
lyric condor
undone lynx
#

I don't get how locking out an empire that has declared war on you from your stations is an "insane power"

summer musk
#

^ if big claims can lock players out, then no one can fight them fairly until T10

olive sapphire
undone lynx
#

Don't punch yourself in the face

#

maybe

olive sapphire
#

*sure would be

summer musk
#

it would make pvp end game

undone lynx
#

brother ive got a boat to sell you

umbral warren
#

If it's a cargo ship I'll take it

olive sapphire
#

We are honored to control the territory of both t7 caves in r3 though kek

honest needle
# brazen trail I'm interested in what your/CWL's stance is on a whitelist/blacklist system bein...

A lot of the points you mentioned of "losing access to a claim would negatively impact players because of XYZ", than XYZ is what should be addressed. Players already can wall off their claims, or find other ways to keep other players out, so empires are just an incentive for that behavior but not the sole cause or reason to do that type of behavior.

That being said, we are currently working on some changes to claims to help better facilitate player expectations of things like "I just want to make a fishing claim", or the desire for a system akin to outposts, as well as help better facilitate our intended design goal of players being able to have some nearby location to process materials before shipping them back.

We are also actively looking into/working on transport logistics to both make the act of transporting cargo more engaging (both land and sea), better balancing of cargo capacity and what items can be turned into cargo (and at what rates), etc

umbral warren
olive sapphire
#

Even if realistically no one could ever use them as is currently

#

the desert being near the southern one though is nice

undone lynx
#

If nothing changes or is adapted into an actual system, large claims will just be forced to build such that they can wall off sections as needed.

#

Which is just clunky and weird

#

The system should just support it naturally.

olive sapphire
#

I will also note, you cant completely encircle caves

summer musk
olive sapphire
#

Lotta examples of that one

umbral warren
olive sapphire
#

nope

opaque umbra
#

As someone who runs a large claim I don't want to wall it off to large segments of the community, I'd literally lose out on hexcoins by doing that. However, I do believe that, in the event someone decides to torment my group/my players I don't think they should be able to prosper from the effort that the group/those players have put into the game

olive sapphire
#

That's actually my thought as well for the most part

honest needle
olive sapphire
#

just a waste of money

brazen trail
opaque umbra
#

Being able to actively torment my group and then just be like "Anyway thank you for building this lovely claim that I will continue to use despite being an actual menace" just feels wrong imo

undone lynx
#

A "system" also has the benefit of being able to be a "flag" that can exist on a map and "inform" players on whether or not that claim is open to them.

#

As opposed to the forced player solutions, which make such a thing impossible.

summer musk
#

actively torment? who's doing that?

#

unless the game empire mechanics are tormenting

olive sapphire
#

well, not y'all but rather your leadership

#

Like the time I had to unbundle the r3 discord perms because BB for some reason removed all the emperors from being able to use emperor chat

honest needle
olive sapphire
#

Shortly after the VF fiasco

opaque umbra
#

let's avoid bringing in outside drama, it's not necessary to discussion

undone lynx
#

They can just tele in

#

Would need to remove waypoint too

summer musk
#

then stop brining it up

#

xD

olive sapphire
#

He didn't

undone lynx
#

They aren't even talking to you bro

#

Go complain in region chat

honest needle
# undone lynx Would need to remove waypoint too

Yeah, that's an issue anyway though. Teleporting to a place that is surrounded by walls, than either needing to tp home or use more tp energy teleporting somewhere else after the tp cooldown

undone lynx
#

Not uncommon for people to fence in waypoints

#

In certain...remote areas.

olive sapphire
#

Yeah like the Black Tower in r3

honest needle
olive sapphire
#

he declared war on his with his total 7.5k shards and thought walling us off from his settlement would stop us from defending ourselves

undone lynx
#

Theoretically you could surround a tower enough to make it impossible to attack or defend I would think.

lyric condor
honest needle
undone lynx
#

Why not just make it so you can't place it on a claim in the first place

honest needle
#

& where we look for system changes to prevent future instances

olive sapphire
olive sapphire
lyric condor
honest needle
vital hazel
#

Regarding terraforming, road building, claim laying: I suggest to actually couple empire territory to that somewhat more. Allow empires to mark 20% of the territory for purposes like road or claim or "no road" or "no claim"

olive sapphire
lyric condor
undone lynx
#

I mean, that was really the only option available to those players to conduct warfare.

vital hazel
#

and make claim support cost as much as the total of tiles the player owns, so that useless claims cannot be spawned anymore just to annoy others

undone lynx
#

It's no surprise that is what occured

#

That path led them to that conclusion

honest needle
#

Terraforming made it impossible to place a siege engine before as an example, which is when we added the ability to place siege engines from further away

undone lynx
#

Just need to terraform further then

vital hazel
#

currently it's relatively easy to spawn useless claims and annoy people

normal pendant
#

I do wish that there were alternative ways for empires to wage war or adjusting numbers in a way that allows the current system to be more viable of just who can stockpile more resources and capsules harder. At the end of the day it is a big factor in why people are incorporating the underhanded tactics/griefing in the first place.

honest needle
#

So terraforming more wasn't a part of the problem