BD Game Rule Feedback


#1

Hey Dawners,

Thank you for showing interest in the new rule proposal :slight_smile:

Any feedback is welcome, we especially welcome suggestions to make it better.

However, please keep it constructive. To improve and get somewhere with the rules, we need to make sure it doesn’t derail or turn into a battle of past experiences (versus designing a good future), complaints and mistakes.

As such, anything off topic, insulting, personal or otherwise non-constructive will be removed from this thread.

Please do take your time to read it as much as you can. :slight_smile:

Also please give a shout out for everyone in the maintenance team for helping with this (massively) in their spare time without any rewards! Any attempt to help is always amazing.

Thank you. An explanation of things follows below.


Please can some one explain the SPamming rules
#2

Criteria for rules


To prevent situations where the admin ends up affecting the era in an unpredictable way, the aim is for as many of the rules as possible to be black and white without any murky definitions or workarounds (“I’m not a sub, but a brother! No wait, an ally!”).

Additionally all rules must be adequately enforceable (or there’s no point having the rule… Cheaters benefit and fair players end up crippled) .

In return, the list must be complete (everything you do in game that may reasonably cause a problem should be listed) and as short as possible.

To explain as short as possible:

Ideally you just play, there are no rules. You have fun, enjoy yourself. Any rule should be something that cannot be solved (for now) with an update, that cannot be countered by players and that structurally threatens the (fair play of the) game.

Rules should never be a major part of the Battle Dawn experience, everything you can come up with that does not sound like cheating should not be against the rules (and should certainly not be bannable!) when possible.

Explanation of Rules


No swearing or personal threats (some banter is of course fine!)
We want a friendly, non-hostile community. Joining a game to find a bunch of people insulting each other puts people off.

Additionally people should always feel safe in game. If you can’t backstab without being afraid of real life repercussions, this isn’t a game anymore and it will grow unsustainable.

No placing/owning colonies or having friends place/own colonies purely to farm (XP, Outposts).
Simple. Being on a world just to give someone XP or Outposts would quickly unbalance the game. The advantage is just too great.

In case of doubt, when the player is not serious, admins should just remove. It’s a competitive game in the end, and competitive play comes first.

You are allowed 1 account and 1 colony per world only. You can not control any others for any purpose.
No multi’s. Duh.

You cannot in any way (intended or otherwise) benefit the alliance that has you conquered currently beyond the “tribute” resources. Namely you can not spam their enemies or purposefully create outposts you cannot defend.
Prevent OP farming the easy ways, prevents un-relocatable colonies.

The word “namely” is used for a reason. Be creative. No, conquering people just to have them stop someones expansions would also benefit said alliance beyond tribute resources. This also puts a lid on (extremely bad?) players who keep suiciding into their conqueror giving free xp. Sadly this does mean some degree of admin judgement, but if you’re conquered, the effect should be limited and these cases shouldn’t make a difference for an era.

No sharing your password to any other players for any reason whatsoever.
Wouldn’t want people to sell accounts, do account give aways, or let others play on them, would we now. Also a massive part of our ToS :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

If for some reason one can not complete an era due medical problems or otherwise insurmountable and unpredictable inconvenience, permission may be asked (up front) to the admin to switch the ownership of the ruler on that world to a different (currently not placed) account

We’re humane. Someone may get hurt. Someone may be hospitalized. Provide evidence and we’ll try to not let that be any worse than it already is.

**If a team has won a world and are simply stalling it for score or any other reason, the admin reserves the right decrease the tick limit. **
In this situation the admin can start a vote and if successful this will result in an early tick limit. The minimum tick limit is 1000. You share your world with other players – please be mindful of your peers and don’t hurt the game!
1000 ticks is a more than fair bit to stretch a useless era. There’s hundreds of players every world, some stick to that one world every era.

Having one stretched for score or whatever is incredibly painful as it means a lot of bored players and essentially a useless world. If it happens too often, the game has a real problem as after these eras, the world often ends up empty.

This rule is to protect the game, so no eras end pre-emptively, the admin is always the kickstarter (and can be informed a backstab is upcoming or such) and the players always confirm it (giving them a last chance of input, the team a form of notice to start hurrying up if they don’t want it ended for them, with of course a fair margin so they can collect all relics if they stop stretching. Potentially the poll might overlap with this margin, but obviously any countdowns can be ended).

Any attempts, threats or even jokes about hacking, attacking, harming or compromising the admins, the game or other staff members will not be tolerated. Same for any threats on players. We all love the game - nobody should feel unsafe and if you don’t like the game, you should simply find another one.
This is mostly to have a way to get rid of incredibly toxic people who think it’s funny to create hoaxes that get rid of players and acceptable to make others feel unsafe.

No using a VPN or shared IP (including internet cafe’s or IP’s you know may connect to someone else eventually) without first receiving permission.
This includes siblings and so on. Please understand that to protect competitive play, we can not tolerate all potential scenarios around top players. Always ask permission up front, do not expect a warning.
There are a lot of school kids, younger players who end up logging in together. This doesn’t really matter if they’ve no idea how to play and aren’t capable of waging a war.

But they may end up pros one day. :slight_smile:

Additionally some use internet cafe’s (and should definitely ask up front! Or else every single cheating will be "Oh sorry was in an internet cafe!) and while we disagree with the mantra that you dont need a VPN if you have nothing to hide (it’s good practice), we do need to make sure we dont end up with hundreds of people playing “from a VPN” on a team. :wink:

Some form of verification…


What’s not there?

Anything we really just cannot adequately enforce or make solid decisions on. Yes, I know you dislike subs. So do we. No, we can not ban them. We’ll never be able tell them apart from an ally without brainwashing everyone.

Crystal Farming - Honestly we’ve gone overboard with this. Obviously some worlds will have different rulesets (expect it from E5, for example), but on regular (team) worlds it’s better for players to deal with this. If crystals move to a new team, you should just kill the new team. If they transfer between allies or a main team, ditto.

Ultimately there’s so many workarounds otherwise… What constitutes a war? Just killing their army? OK sit on colony, nuke kill… No? Then what? And how does the admin know what is an ally? How about trading them for peace? What if a team does not want to defend, is not defending an offence for either party? What if they just really suck and didnt get on in time to defend? How would you tell?

No decision made for crystal farming can be fully fair, as such, suggestions for that should probably be structural (change how crystals work).

Spamming - When does someone have good cause to spam? For who are they spamming? How to prove that?

It’s not a clean tactic, but ultimately you can defend, ultimately the larger your empire is, the more difficult that becomes (thus being more advantageous to smaller, albeit more diplomatic/popular, teams. Reputation isn’t negative per se, if you constantly behave like a jerk in game, perhaps it is fair you’ll have to hide a bit. If you constantly help people and act respectful, perhaps it is fair a few more people will come to help you. Notice the perhaps :stuck_out_tongue: )

Backstabbing - Part of the game. Deal with it. Even your own team.

How to deal with it? Call them out, make a topic. Kill them. Every era. Honor is also part of the game, but only to the degree players uphold it. Administration should not be forcing that, players however should. Just don’t go too far now :stuck_out_tongue:

There is a lot more, but the general jist is and remains:
EVERY RULE MUST BE ENFORCEABLE. EVERY RULE MUST HAVE CLEAR “LINES”. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT A BAN WHILE PLAYING FAIR.

And finally, because something could happen does not mean it will. We should not cripple every era because theoretically Mrs C with 3000 friends could make a sub empire and fill the whole world upfront. If an edge case becomes common, we can add it later. We can however not undo the damage from crippling everyone to protect from an edge case that may never occur.

The less rules needed to protect the game, the better.


On admin actions:

We do reserve the right to put some restrictions on players to prevent cheating, in ways that do not (seriously) affect the outcome of the era (e.g. send us a message for ops you raze, for example, if youve been razing questionable ones).

Additionally if cheating is done, we’ll go as far as possible undoing the effects (including indirectly (such as removing the res gained from deleted outposts) to an extent. Reviving/Compensating dead armies is often not possibly fair due the many factors involved and should not be done in indirect cases. “The cheating distracted me” or “I wouldnt have took that battle if said farm had not done x/y” or “That sharer used a spy on me, my lack of spy protection wouldnt have mattered otherwise!” are not valid cases. Your mistake remains your mistake and so on. Of course there’s also examples of the contrary, if you lose your army due a bug that we didnt know yet, that cannot be countered and/or that we will fix/add to the rules, obviously we’ll need to compensate. No, this does not include the myriad of undocumented tricks that admins (and vets) know of. Those are part of becoming a top player).

Finally as for punishment: Nothing is fair, everything is fair. If we’ve undone the effects of a cheat, I guess a ban is a nice bonus but that’s certainly not the purpose. The purpose is to have a fair game environment.

If people help out a lot, make an honest mistake, are honest about what they did, we’ll usually go easier on them.

If we fear they’re cheating a lot more, we may go much tougher on them.

A temp ban may turn permanent because we don’t think he’ll ever stop cheating.

if you dont want to get banned, do not cheat. Your cards are already played at that point. Whatever you get at that point, you’ll just have to suck it up and deal with it. You’ve failed to contribute to a positive (and free) game environment and potentially hurt many other players, whatever happens next is mercy.

That said, overall we’re quite forgiving… We just want people to play fair, nobody gains anything (except maybe some outposts I guess…) from revenge.


E2-Era 76 (Annon doesnt know what he is doing)
#3

So according to the current wording of the rules, it seems legal to have friends plant to be conquered for the tribute resources and power boost. I’m not sure if this is just myself being cynical about the rules or if you just see no possible way to enforce people placing strictly to be conquered.


#6

Anyone could easily say they just planted on their own accord, but you can catch people xp farming :slight_smile:


#7

“I didn’t ask them to place, didn’t know it was them, but conquered them” is not something we can confirm. Many cases, it’s true.
BUT if that person starts spamming for your cause halfway through the era, or joins your alliance or continually makes armor units you keep attacking, etc. that is bannable.


#8

Pretty much this.

Forbidding it would only stop the stupid ones (who you can beat in game anyway).

Besides, imagine placing just to take a look, boom, banned for conquer farming…

I’d wager the (slow and fairly small) effect a conquer has, nowadays with AI conquers in place, just doesn’t weight up to the problems forbidding it may cause.

If desired we can still try of course, but I reckon if we really want to stop it, a more indirect way may work better.

e.g.: AI Colonies always give income, but player colonies give income based on how much they killed through the era/tick they placed. Could also make newbs a bit less tempting for snacks.

…or a myriad of other suggestions could work there :slight_smile:


#9

So taking crystals is allowed from everyone including own teammates?
And on Tom world’s as well right.
Except E5 or maybe event if the need arises

Plus about the spammers. Well this rule gave people a really big advantage. Now we can call unlimited spammers for one time spam. They die. Call no. 2 .then next and so on. Or did I get it wrong?
I agree it.may be hard to prove whether someone is a spammerbut sometimes people plant right in middle of war. Start spamming as soon as are I ts ready. Then quit for good. Untill called on for wave two. In that case I think it is easy to figure out when 15 or 20 colonies do the same for people.

About the conquers. On a world like solo also cab happen In normal world you may have conquered a decent player in who isn’t trying because he knows he will just be nuked. Well what if we strike a deal for help in exchange for liberating.on world’s I kill a pretty good team…later I ask them for help in exchange for then to get in top 3 finish?. Isn’t that diplomacy?
Plus can I liberate a person and the he/she spams for me.?

Can I ask friends implant near me at tick one for free score??

Just want it clarified no mean to be an ass and create problems . Better known now than become issue later.
Would be great if someone responsible relied
@Alexander @Theo @MaliceWolf @admins
Sorry joe don’t know your forum. @joe ?


#10

Correct.

Exceptions may (would) exist but will be advertised as per example in the thread, so you know what you’re getting into.

We can very easily detect (and removed) any who arent real players (placed by vpn or whatever as per one of the rules), actually finding enough players for such an impact is easier said than done (and can be countered obviously… If that loses you the era you had way more problems than that :stuck_out_tongue:)

By going about it this way, it’s more clear cut (no admin deciding "well, I guess since he was around 10 ticks upfront, 'tis no spamming then!!) and doesn’t end up hurting fair players, while cheaters will always find some crappy excuse. Your spammers join a sub right away, problem solved. Enemy ends up with even more of a headache.

A solution for the issue of spamming out of the blue (besides placing antispams all around) can also be suggested. Keep in mind not everything has to be a rule to prevent it… We could for example put a limit on the amount of squads you can send out after tick 100 based on some constraints (e.g. 1 + 1 per conquer, or 1 per 12 ticks you placed…), or increase the cost of oil involved or or or…

If you liberate him and then he helps you, that’s diplomacy.

If you keep him conquered, nobody can kill him until you die though :stuck_out_tongue:

That said maybe thats reasonable on Solo?

if you think so, it should probably be a world specific rule advertised underneath, later :slight_smile:

According to the rules as current, yes. It may change still of course, I hope to see good discussions on it. :slight_smile:

The only request:

Even if you feel the game should be played in certain ways, keep in mind its useless to make it a rule unless it can be enforced in a clear and predictable manner.


#11

Ty for the quick response :kissing_heart:
Not a good idea limiting attacks…
Obvious spammers in my opinion should be permanent banned. Spammers who play afterwards till end maybe unbanned will need admins to check all the tjme and they have better to do than this.
So Idk. We will have to figure it out. Problem with spammers is you don’t knowledge they are for revenge. And they get away
And getting spammers is easy if you’re part if a family.like 4e :stuck_out_tongue:


#12

It’s a mere example. Again, could probably come up with a dozens of way to solve it. One of them is bound to work out.

And yeah… By the time you’d know for sure it’s a spammer or not, it’s too late :stuck_out_tongue: And punishing after the matter isnt very effective either…

Nor does any of it matter at all to the team affected… Wether they end up guilty or not later does nil for them now. So you end up with early era restrictions.

In the end, it was legal for a very very long time. I remember when I complained to Ilona I was being spammed, she told me some people should be spammed, probably referring to my fairly dominant lead :stuck_out_tongue:

It’s not the end of the world, people have dealt with it and can deal with it. Nor is it completely unfair, people don’t just spam out of randomization usually. Usually one party did a good job getting a good reputation (which is work, and part of this game), or another party really hasn’t been acting very nice (which is also part of this game, and so are consequences … :P). Finally, the smaller the territory, the more difficult it is to have any impact as a spammer (who do have limited resources), meaning ultimately it makes the game a bit harder for dominant teams (who have it a bit easy :P) but not for smaller ones.

Does not mean it’s desirable either though. I think I am of the opinion that it may be worth fixing this in another method, through an update. A sustainable and predictable manner.

Thinking about it, maybe a part of why “honor” is becoming so rare in BD, is because there simply is very little real consequence for not having it…?

Edit: As for families, ultimately any big family (like TLA, indeed 4E, previously GML…) can indeed bring in many. But they also would have 0 issue just calling it a sub instead. Having sub members place strategically isnt exactly something we can punish either!


#13

Is conquering subs illegal?
If no .Fine
If yes then well change tag Mark red. And conquer.
So yeah better if it’s legal


#14

You wanna promote farming, no thanks piss off.


#15

Just a suggestion for spammers
What if we decide a particular number of ticks before which a person can’t mass spam unless of course the mentioned person is himself involved in a war

The biggest problem with spammers is their “surprise factor”, that they caught the team off guard
But if someone is planted in an era for long enough and isn’t conquered by your enemy there isn’t much u can do to stop him from spamming
It sucks but that’s diplomacy and/or nice planning

@Alexander @Greeny @Sakrie @TheBurner


#16

Everybody knows @sasuke96 and myself aren’t exactly friendly… but this makes sense to me.

I agree 100% that the big spammer problem is people placing then immediately dropping protection and rushing everything they can. I’ve played against many families that have 3-10 people do it at the exact same time and it does add up, and is just plain garbage.

I agree 100% that if an alliance doesn’t do their housekeeping and clean potentially hostile colonies they deserve to get spammed.

I don’t know if I’m too harsh but I’d like to see permanent bans for spamming in clear-cut situations, IP or account I don’t really know what your capabilities are.


#17

They kept this in mind while making earth arena , so u cannot immedietly plant there and start spamming , u need to build the structures to attack more than 4-5 ops in the next 3-4 days of your planting , but as Battledawn is a much older game and they cannot do much changes to it ,it might not be possible here. But if they can then awesome.


#20

Well that looks good.
But at start you spam a lot so maybe after tick 150 to 200.


#21

you allow spammers people are gonna get 20-30 people just to spam and every other farm you can think of. (oh wait just not XP and Outpost) :unamused:


#24

To me, that is inconvenience. Being caught off guard is not against the game rules. The majority of the time I played the game, spammers were always legit and I’d be told to get over it and deal with it. How did I manage to still win back then? Anti spams and preparation. Instead of rushing to win the era in less than 1000 ticks, I took the time to prepare by getting my team to set up a good network, get good amount of anti spams around, have players put TB’s in areas for preparation and assign defensive locations for each, AND i force relocated players out of territory that was high priority. This wasn’t a quick solution and nor should it be. If you wish to take risks, then don’t complain about the inconveniences.
I’ll give you 2 scenarios here to look at that are the ONLY 2 ways spammers occur.

  1. A new player places in your hive. They HAVE to use resources AT LEAST to level 3 structures in order to send out an attack (essentially, they HAVE to waste some resources prior to building). Then they HAVE to make barracks and any upgraded structures they want to attack with. If it’s an immediate spam job, they can ONLY create armor inf. There is no way around this otherwise. They cannot build that quickly simply due to the way structures are built. It takes time and that means you can prepare. If it’s ONLY armor inf they are making… if you can’t stop it… there’s something wrong on your end in preparation.
  2. The player is NOT new and has been placed on the map for hundreds of ticks. They have all the structures they want and a built up army. Why haven’t you dealt with them prior? If they can hit you where you don’t want to be hit, it means you left them there and “hoped” they wouldn’t attack you. Hope isn’t a tactic. It’s bad planning and it comes with ramifications if you don’t prepare.

Even if 20 people place to spam immediately, that’s 20 spammers of armor inf. To me, it still seems like it was more so a lack of patience and preparation. 1 dmg AI inf will kill any armor inf spams. Anti spam of 1 dmg AI tank can kill 10 armor inf. If you can’t afford to protect your network with these 2 things, then perhaps your trying to expand to quickly.

Everyone WANTS to win eras super quickly. I get that. But not doing the prep work in that regard shouldn’t be the admin’s fault. If it’s a multi account, then yes, it is our problem. If it’s simply an inconvenience? I think you prepping is a much better idea.

This is something we are willing to look into for change to help fix. Making it so that new accounts that place late into game have limited attacks. Any actual new player planting will not be greatly affected by a limitation of attacks mid era. We are open to hearing suggestions in this regard (such as unlimited attacks up until tick 100, then limited by ticks you are planted for afterwards as an example).


#25

The only way to fix the cancerous bd community is by not allowing people to place in more than 1 or 2 worlds. Of course this will never happen because tacticsoft is tacticsoft but if you cant place everywhere you cant say “I wasnt serious on that world cuz im focusing on this next one” and you cant say “ill plant for you here and you plant for me there”


#27

actually, in a sense, i personally wouldn’t mind something like this. I wish we had a way of forcing players to 1 account (like south koreans must use SSN’s). Obviously, not a easy solution in this regard though as that’s simply not reasonable for us. If you have any kind of idea that is reasonable in that regard though, i’d be happy to hear it.