TwoDee

OOC: Can we nip this "withholding batreps" tactic in the bud?

436 posts in this topic

Thank you very much @Beasts of War - Warren.  I expected as much from all the info you so kindly have been giving us during this whole debacle.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This community is brilliant, it just gets stuck in and makes great battles and great content (the nomads party videos totally crack me up) and does the IC stuff with good humour 

From time to time there are missunderstandings, as you would totally expect giving the wide cultural and language spread of the community, but most resolve very quickly.

It's so dissapointing to see what is a fabulous and supportive community be 'protrayed' (because thats all it is a protrayal) as anything less by anyone :(

Unfair to the hundreads of great folk who participate with such good nature and humour, and equally unfair to the truth!

(Anyway im starting to sound like a presidential twitter account lol)

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wotanvfefe?

(Anyhow, for the record, I do wish that next time there is some way to limit batrep hording and releasing. Just my individual opinion though. I think that would be good for the campaign experience, broadly. Others may not agree. That's okay. Cool. Done.)

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DiceHex said:

Wotanvfefe?

(Anyhow, for the record, I do wish that next time there is some way to limit batrep hording and releasing. Just my individual opinion though. I think that would be good for the campaign experience, broadly. Others may not agree. That's okay. Cool. Done.)

There will likely be a limitation on an induvidual being able to carry it out solo , it doesnt work but can give the appearance of working, so 'johnny rambo syndrome' will be curtailed. :)

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Beasts of War - Warren said:

There will likely be a limitation on an induvidual being able to carry it out solo , it doesnt work but can give the appearance of working, so 'johnny rambo syndrome' will be curtailed. :)

This would be a very positive change, and one which I have advocated for some time.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Beasts of War - Warren said:

 

Other than that, time just spent dealing with support issues, we have had no one contacting us to say the have been exploited by an infinity vet to secure points for one of the great powers fighting at wotan. But be assured when we do, we have rescue helicopters on stand by!

Surely you mean a waaaaambulance... 

 

But in all seriousness, the idea that you shouldn't play anyone because you have more or less experience than them is entirely ridiculous, and just a little bit insulting imo. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, AdmiralJCJF said:

This would be a very positive change, and one which I have advocated for some time.

Our implementation is not quite what you were after, we will limit the number of active missions you can have at anyone time, not the total number of games you can play during a campaign. This is specifically geared to limiting publishing bursts by a single user. If they play and publish regularly they can still do that.

Just so we are clear :)

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Beasts of War - Warren said:

Our implementation is not quite what you were after, we will limit the number of active missions you can have at anyone time, not the total number of games you can play during a campaign. This is specifically geared to limiting publishing bursts by a single user. If they play and publish regularly they can still do that.

Just so we are clear :)

It's ok, I actually suggested a bunch of things and this is one of them.

That any of them are being implemented is a positive step.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2017 at 1:41 AM, Beasts of War - Warren said:

Ok lets have another go at clearing this up. At its most basic the platform enables people to just play games. We built in soft rewards (xp) and hard rewards (bonus points by historian) for reports that on balance were likely real games and esspecially those well liked and constructed. Garbage is very difficult to intercept fully so we gamify it and say your in the heat of battle and your intel has margin of error.

We have natural safe guards in the system that makes surges hard to succeed built right into the historian code even back in flamestrike (so flr it yo be efective it requires a lot of coordination) on top of that we have manual ways of dealing with spam, so as it stands even 20 reports by one induvidual in the situation mentioned above would have failed when processed through the ai historian. (Would have been narratively a decoy such as the fields full of inflateable tanks in ww2)

And yet, didn't the 10 reports appear to change the ownership of the location, if only temporarily?

 

The narrative idea you have is pretty cool (and I like it!), but we are all relying on CB to run with the narrative stuff.

 

On 6/24/2017 at 1:41 AM, Beasts of War - Warren said:

We keep it as open as we can to facilitate lots of different types of folk and let them just enjoy their hobby. Some of the issue arises when some say 'hey they dont play to my expectations its not fair' we say dont worry that will not have an effect because it will be catered for by the historian, they say 'how exactly', we say 'sorry but we cant say exactly as that makes it easier to circumvent and its not worth the hassle', they say 'i demand to know' etc etc etc

You have also misrepresented me in the statement  "it's a war, anything goes," as if you re read my posts you will see im not saying that at all. Thats dissapointing that my words are still being twisted even at this stage.

Twisting?  No.

 

If I was sufficiently motivated to play games (hard to do with a bad back some days), you can bet that Major Ramos would be all over the damn map, building up battles against people and trying to run up the score.  I'm not quite enough of a dick to actually do the massive report-dumps, but I'd probably consider coordinating among the gaming group to pick a target and go after it.  Say, PanO's Sygtyr platforms.

It is in the nature of my mind to look for ways to "break" a rulesystem.  I just generally don't exploit those ways.  Other people are less inhibited than I am, and not only look for ways to break a system, but also actively use that exploit for their personal (or in this case, factional) gain.

 

Poorly-defined codes of acceptable conduct ALWAYS lead to someone pushing the limits until punishments happen.  This is an established fact of human behavior, it's covered in Sociology 101 and Business Ethics 101.
 

On 6/24/2017 at 2:17 AM, John Tenzer said:

Well, 

as far as I understand, what is actually called for by the more reasonable critics is an act of active and palpable moderation (=GM)  to be seen during the course of a campaign, including more flexible, reactive storytelling - which CB doesn't like to provide seemingly - and swinging the banhammer publicly to reassure the law (=RAI) abiding factions of players that they don't get taken an advantage of by the aggressive WAACs. 

This measure of action would calm down the worries of RAI players significantly and reduce the complaints drastically of being left alone without any real instruments to fight perps themselves. 

You could consider more active moderation a political or populist act in this "society", but sometimes these measures are indeed needed to enforce guidelines of conduct on spot and thus keep the peace. 

Exactly.

At a minimum, you will need to post a message across all the Wotan Warconsole sections that you have banned a user and invalidated their battle reports for [reasons].  You don't need to name the individual, but you DO need to say what it was that got them banned in black and white.  You should also post a message about the user warned for report quality, and what it was about his reports that caused the warning.  But you don't need to name the individual, what matters is the actions that earned them the warning.  In fact, you should NOT name the individual(s).

 

There are times when "justice" must be seen to be working, and this is one of them.

 

17 hours ago, Beasts of War - Warren said:

Our implementation is not quite what you were after, we will limit the number of active missions you can have at anyone time, not the total number of games you can play during a campaign. This is specifically geared to limiting publishing bursts by a single user. If they play and publish regularly they can still do that.

Just so we are clear :)

So, you mean a limited number of unpublished reports, right?  Would be good to let people know what that is (assuming that it's getting implemented in Wotan).  Well, actually, I'm pretty sure someone will find it pretty quickly, but it'd still be nice to know what that is ahead of time.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"And yet, didn't the 10 reports appear to change the ownership of the location, if only temporarily? " - Section 9 (sorry not sure how multi-quote forum thing works yet.)
"Appear" is a good word for it. There was a Player/Faction social reward at the time, but an actual campaign reward? Who knows? There was a social penalty though. That's the game.
That event might never have actually happened, objectively, when the data is curated at the end. It might have simply been believed to have happened, as history is always told later, by someone else... (perhaps the Vietnamese have a different "history" about the war there, than the US does?)

"I'm not quite enough of a dick to actually do the massive report-dumps" - Section 9
Do you see that is a subjective value-judgement? It is a preference, and mine is the same, but it does not mean it defines what ought to be, just because we prefer it. It is clearly an accepted tactic in this system right now.

"It is in the nature of my mind to look for ways to "break" a rulesystem.  I just generally don't exploit those ways.  Other people are less inhibited than I am, and not only look for ways to break a system, but also actively use that exploit for their personal (or in this case, factional) gain." - Section 9
If we assume many people will try to break it, that makes us and them more likely to break it... or more accurate than that; assume it is broken. The assumption is the key social driver, not facts... yet.

If "other" people are more likely to abuse this (lack of) system for personal gain, there are two contentions which need evidence to be cogent. One is how many there are, and the other is to what extent they are capable of such "breaking". I surmise that we assume their abuse is a thing, and assume it is a big thing, and assume worrying about it is a large concern. What if that's not true? What if the minority of unethical players don't have a large effect, because, the larger their effect, the more obvious it will be to both players and staff... that might be a self correcting social game mechanic. We look at infinity gaming, and can't abide cheating in our own games, but the campaign is a different beast than infinity. It is loose. Deliberately so. It is libertarian.

We tend to expect the worst, but that may be our own negative bias towards humans/gamers/human-nature/liberty. If such feeling is well founded, it will come out in evidence eventually. It hasn't yet. A self fulfilling prophecy can eventuate though. I wonder how many players think "everyone is a limit-pusher but me"...

"Poorly-defined codes of acceptable conduct ALWAYS lead to someone pushing the limits until punishments happen.  This is an established fact of human behavior, it's covered in Sociology 101 and Business Ethics 101." - Section 9
Sanctions against players are multi-faceted. Players can sanction with the report button, and even a faction backlash to perceived injustice (that's a mixed ethical bag). The larger the effect injustice has, the more likely the backlash will occur.

I suspect many of us are seeing an indeterminate minority as having inordinate power over the campaign result.
I'm not so sure that is true. I am sure that assuming it is true, will change the gamer culture based on facts which might not be... facts.
This happens because we may gravitate towards wanting rules, which would not be needed if players rated/reported/engaged/participated with integrity. The more players rate with integrity, and report (report button), the more likely it is that nefarious behaviour will be rejected from overall results. I'm not sure yet if we need an authoritarian regime to make the campaign fun. "Fair" is a different story, and that seems impossible.

"There are times when "justice" must be seen to be working, and this is one of them." - Section 9
Maybe. Right now, there is no problem. If there is a problem, can we worry about it then?
There is a social game element of justice which seems to be accepted in this campaign (much to my surprise). Hording and surging may bring your whole faction into disrepute, and prompt another faction to attack an response, in the campaign game. There is a libertarian/anarchy social backlash "system" which may not be fair, and that's why I keep calling this a social game. It is social, sub-cultural diplomacy, in more ways than it is stringent, apart from that we don't have to individually opt in to that side of things at all. Players can decide the social game is not their bag at all, and not bother with faction strategies, and still have their batreps matter.

I stopped looking at it as a game of numbers and winning, and started looking at it as something entirely different. I like numbers and graphs, but I conclude that is not what this is really about in its present iteration. This is moving sociology, not rules-defined, not points defined, and no, not every faction has equal chance of "winning" (whatever that means). That's okay.

In an online FPS full of jerks, quit, adapt strategy, or report.
My personal infinity game is not like that MMO FPS. I play a friend. My experience is good. The campaign experience is defined by some graphs and forums, and if I do the right thing, I contribute to making those results more accurate, even if I reject the social game. (remember the social game can be a socially constructed fiction, where facts don't matter, as the game of whispers spreads)

I'm having trouble expressing these complex ideas in written form. Thanks for your patience.
(Edited for clarity, LOL)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/06/2017 at 5:33 AM, Beasts of War - Warren said:

A surge only works mechanically if enough people conspire to make it work and the more that are involved the more likely it will be noticed.

Again it's a strategy I don't believe should be banned but rather gamified further. So we will introduce (down the line) further measures to make sure no single account can try it single handedly (it will fail under the current system but it can give the impression of success so we should be able to limit that) we will also be introducing more intel for thise further up the ranks including mobilisation intel for each theater showing an estimate of missions in progress by factions at each theatre.

I think a single account single handily won a theater for his faction winning 9 battles there. But there is still time to react as the phase is not over, so this is not really a last weekend splurge in itself I guess. We'll see who wins it. And then we'll see what the historian make out of it. Anyway, there is not much the system can do, or else the next time a single player will just spread it out on multiple accounts.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now