BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Topic started by: Chaotrance13 on April 07, 2012, 01:13:48 PM
-
First off, as a note and general request: This is not the place to be discussing the merits/demerits of clans or other OOC groups. Tom has already stated here (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,2228.msg49411.html#msg49411) that he believes it is time to implement such a policy. This thread will undoubtedly get heated - if you see any of the behaviour displayed by several posters in the "Fontan's Surprising Strength" thread, please use the "Report to Moderator" link at the bottom of the offending post instead of responding to it.
So, as stated above via the link provided, Tom believes that it is time to implement an Anti-Clan policy based on the evidence in that thread. I am opening this thread to provide a place for a discussion to take place so that a proposal can be established and submitted. When we reach a point where we have a degree of consensus on the issue, I will edit this post with details of the proposal.
Now, first off, yes I do feel strongly on this issue. I have played games where I had to be up at 6am GMT to attack my opponent without fail in tandem with two other players, and communicate out-of-game via IRC. I also had to orchestrate these attacks as the equivalent of a Marshal/General in BM. Those were generally called "Alliances" in that other game, but they were essentially clans. I don't want to do that all over again. I don't care about losing characters, or losing a war in BM. I do care about losing a war when, as stated by Anaris before, clans have a 1.5x-2x advantage on your average realm.
That, to me at least, goes against the "Fair Play" section of the Social Contract. The question of whether to refer the issue to the Magistrates or Titans has plagued me of late, but I decided not to because seeing what people were capable of in that thread made me think I would become an OOC target - that players would target my in-game family purely because I raised the issue with Tom in the first place or because I dared to challenge their behaviour.
To me, that is part of the wider issue. If you go against an OOC group, you will become a target. And eventually, if nothing is done, you will probably give up and leave what is a very enjoyable game. So, you either submit and let them destroy your fun, or you fight back and risk being marked because of it. So, I say "no more".
To kickstart the discussion, we need to understand what the goal of such a policy would be, why we need one, where it would be placed, and what the punishment is for breaking it. This is just a basic framework, and changes would be welcome. I'll start off with giving my personal answers to these questions.
What is the goal of an Anti-Clan policy?
To quote Tom:
The goal needs to be that no realm is ever controlled by any group of OOC friends, no matter if they call themselves clan, not-clan, classmates, family or whatever.
Why do we need such a policy?
Simply put, clans can have a polarising effect on the playerbase, usually on the negative end of the spectrum. There are some, like Revan, who argue that they do have some beneficial effects. But the issue is that OOC groups tend to have the goal of working towards power and victory, rather than fun. They may see what they are doing as a lot of fun - but it is at the expense of other players. That is a contravention of the Social Contract, specifically section two. Tom and the Devs have stated before in other threads that this is not a game which is suited for powergaming in even the slightest degree. You can't win BM, that has been said time and time again. We need a policy like this so that we can empower ourselves as the players to stop any OOC group from taking away our enjoyment of the game. By having such a policy, we can enable Tom/The Devs to be able to use the tools at their disposal to help in that aim.
Where would it come under?
Part of me believes that it should be an addition to the Social Contract. Rather than creating a completely new document, we already have one which governs how players should behave towards one another. Why not modify the Social Contract to include such a policy, either as an addition to a currently existing section, or a completely new one in its own right. That way it would implement some safeguards (e.g. making accusations with no proof being against the rules).
What would the punishment be for breaking it?
I would firstly say that the "one chance" rule is still kept in effect. Tom has warned one specific group of players about 2-3 times about their behaviour, as an example - that should be that one warning used up. After that, action can and should be taken if there is enough evidence that something is clearly wrong. Punishments for breaches of the Social Contract (assuming such a policy is placed there) go from temporary account locks to permanent account locks. That may also include deletion of characters that are proven to be in an OOC group, but I would most likely say that may have to be decided by either the Titans, or the Magistrates.
Over to you.
-
Wasn't something like this added to the social contract already?
Perhaps we should make a rule like "no more than 4 people who know each other IRL should play in the same realm."
Weaknesses? Would they simply form a bunch of tiny federated realms?
-
Wasn't something like this added to the social contract already?
Perhaps we should make a rule like "no more than 4 people who know each other IRL should play in the same realm."
Weaknesses? Would they simply form a bunch of tiny federated realms?
This is a commendable effort. That kind of a rule might be a good one to have. Even if they formed tiny realms, they would have very hard time securing the support of the majority of these tiny realms, as there would be other players there as well. Or, they could do so, but then they would need to include the players as well and do it well enough to discourage a switching of the government.
They could still form a secret society and try to manage things from behind the scenes, but that already is a whole lot more difficult aspect.
And - of course - there would be difficulties in enforcing the rule. But it might at the very least make it harder to get away with it. I don't have the slightest idea on how it could be enforced or even detected, but if it is viable, I am sure some others have ideas.
-
seriously.. what does it mean "know 4 people irl"?
you see 10 people in same irc channel.. does that disqualify them?
i don't think this is something that can be dealt with by anything other than "tom sees dodgy clan. bye dodgy clan."
-
1. How do you identify clans? Short of people owning up to it, how do you prove that a group of players constitute a clan? What is the difference between a clan and a group of friends who are playing together without power-gaming? How do you prove that power-gaming is taking place? How do you distinguish a clan from an elite army formed by the most active nobles in a realm? When looking for a realm to join, I tend to go for realms with players that I already know. Does that make me a clanner now too?
2. This is a PvP game. I should care about whether players in my own realm are having fun, but why should I care about the feelings of players in opposing realms? Would you concede a chess match if your opponent tells you that losing at chess hurts his feelings? ::) If they're not having fun while losing, they can surrender the war or leave the realm. Surely winning does not breach "Fair Play". So when would you declare "Fair Play" to be breached by an opposing realm?
3. What if my realm is winning simply because my realm's players have better activity? What if my realm just happens to be full of turn-junkies? What level of activity would trip off people's "clan detector"? What if the enemy realm accuses my realm of being a giant clan? Are we innocent until proven guilty? Guilty until proven innocent? How do you even prove this either way? How do you prevent punishments going to innocent players?
My problem with your complains so far, Ravier, is that your main complaint is NOT that some clanners are allegedly taking over Fontan, and depriving their players of fun. A few players in Fontan have indeed complained about this, and I am much more sensitive to such complaints. You do not even have a char in Fontan, have no stake in it, and would not even notice if some clan started taking over the government.
Your main complaint is that your realm is losing because your opponents are more active than you are. And before you say "because they're a clan", yes, they admit it in this case, but what about the general case in the future, where an actual clan would surely deny it to evade punishment? It all goes back to: How in the world can you tell the difference between a clan and a regular realm? Why should I risk being punished and labeled a clanner just because my realm is more active than yours? Where do you draw the line?
-
1. How do you identify clans? Short of people owning up to it, how do you prove that a group of players constitute a clan? What is the difference between a clan and a group of friends who are playing together without power-gaming? How do you prove that power-gaming is taking place? How do you distinguish a clan from an elite army formed by the most active nobles in a realm? When looking for a realm to join, I tend to go for realms with players that I already know. Does that make me a clanner now too?
2. This is a PvP game. I should care about whether players in my own realm are having fun, but why should I care about the feelings of players in opposing realms? Would you concede a chess match if your opponent tells you that losing at chess hurts his feelings? ::) If they're not having fun while losing, they can surrender the war or leave the realm. Surely winning does not breach "Fair Play". So when would you declare "Fair Play" to be breached by an opposing realm?
3. What if my realm is winning simply because my realm's players have better activity? What if my realm just happens to be full of turn-junkies? What level of activity would trip off people's "clan detector"? What if the enemy realm accuses my realm of being a giant clan? Are we innocent until proven guilty? Guilty until proven innocent? How do you even prove this either way? How do you prevent punishments going to innocent players?
My problem with your complains so far, Ravier, is that your main complaint is NOT that some clanners are allegedly taking over Fontan, and depriving their players of fun. A few players in Fontan have indeed complained about this, and I am much more sensitive to such complaints. You do not even have a char in Fontan, have no stake in it, and would not even notice if some clan started taking over the government.
Your main complaint is that your realm is losing because your opponents are more active than you are. And before you say "because they're a clan", yes, they admit it in this case, but what about the general case in the future, where an actual clan would surely deny it to evade punishment? It all goes back to: How in the world can you tell the difference between a clan and a regular realm? Why should I risk being punished and labeled a clanner just because my realm is more active than yours? Where do you draw the line?
So you are now attacking me because I've done what Tom asked in the other thread and opened a discussion? If you maybe read what I have said constantly - I don't !@#$ing care if Westmoor wins or loses at this point. If it gets destroyed, if Ravier dies, it's only bloody pixels and I'll make the most of what time that character has left if the end is inevitable. What part of that do you not understand? Or are you just biased because I have two characters in a realm you hate? Then again, you've already said as much by saying "I don't give a damn about players in other realms". No surprises there from you, frankly.
So I'm not allowed to speak if I don't have a character in a realm where there is potential powergaming going on? Do you want to report me for speaking my mind while you're at it? I'm clearly guilty of thought-crime, it seems. And your solution to the problem is "leave the game you !@#$ing pussy, we don't want you here". Since when do you get to decide who plays and who does not?
That power is reserved for Tom and the Devs. Not you. Not me. But if Tom asks for a proposal or discussion, then that can be done. The call is his at the end of the day, he can choose to listen, or not. I opened the discussion because he asked for someone to do it, I took the initiative, if you don't like it, then take it up with him.
-
Yes, yes, yes. Accuse me of ad hominem attacks. Play the victim card. Put words in my mouth, like my non-exist hatred for Westmoor or demanding that you leave the game. I am familiar with how an internet forum works. Thanks. :-\
Can you please skip all that and address my main complaint against your points? Namely, how do you tell the difference between a clan and a group of players who just happen to be more active than you are?
So you don't care about what happens to Westmoor. Great. Guess what, I don't care what happens to Fontan either. I care about you proposing changes to the Social Contract that wouldn't even make sense in Bizarro world. If it's not provable, you'll just turn BM into "accuse the other realm of being a clan first". I have zero interest in playing that game.
-
Easy, ladies. To answer your question, GoldPanda, you can tell it's a clan when said families are always in the same realm, always work to support each other's characters without much if any IC talk, operating more like one mind than that of several individual people. They show up in the same realm all at once, rather than at random intervals like most new arrivals.
-
I too would like to see answers to GoldPanda's questions. They are pertinent to the question; indeed, they must be answered before any sort of policy can be created.
Ravier, there was no attack on you. GoldPanda merely restated and emphasized what your primary complaint is.
-
Easy, ladies. To answer your question, GoldPanda, you can tell it's a clan when said families are always in the same realm, always work to support each other's characters without much if any IC talk, operating more like one mind than that of several individual people. They show up in the same realm all at once, rather than at random intervals like most new arrivals.
My characters--through random chance--seem to find themselves in the same realms with the Jeckyl family over and over. I don't know Andrew outside the game, nor do I coordinate with him where I play my characters. We apparently like playing for similar realms. But a check for family connections could flag us.
As for little IC talk, well, that would fall under the activity IR, right? Some of the realms I play in have very little chatter, or bursts of chatter for a few days and then silence for weeks. That doesn't mean that clans are in those realms.
Now, the multiple realm arrivals we could maybe check, maybe even put some automated warnings in place for Tom to get.
-
Easy, ladies. To answer your question, GoldPanda, you can tell it's a clan when said families are always in the same realm, always work to support each other's characters without much if any IC talk, operating more like one mind than that of several individual people. They show up in the same realm all at once, rather than at random intervals like most new arrivals.
Well, my chars tend to stick together with a few prominent families that they like and trust from experience. The Cheniers. The Forbes. The Telrunyas. The Bjorns. And so on. If you join several large realms, you're going to get overlaps in the families. There is no way around that.
My chars generally support these families because they know that the favor would be returned someday, without prompting, promises, or even a formal acknowledgement of mutual assistance. And if, gods forbid, one of our realms get pwned, we'll probably all end up retreating/migrating to some allied realm together.
So:
[X] Always in the same realm.
[X] Help each other without IC messages.
[X] Show up in a realm at around the same time.
How do you tell me apart from the clanners? :(
-
1. How do you identify clans?
By their behaviour. The Dev Team does have the tools available to make such a call once a potential group has been pointed out to us. We don't do any kind of automated checking, which I think is fine because unless a group has a noticeable impact on the game so someone asks us to look into it, there isn't a problem.
I'm against any kind of hard limit such as "x players who know each other". There are many families, people from the same school, etc. who play the game with no negative impact.
For me, a "clan" (or whatever other word you want to use) is not just people who know each other, but who also actively collaborate and who play as a group more than as individuals.
The reason this is detrimental to the game is that the second point removes internal politics from the game, and social dynamics is a much larger part of BattleMaster than strategy and war gaming. It turns BattleMaster into something it is not.
2. This is a PvP game. I should care about whether players in my own realm are having fun, but why should I care about the feelings of players in opposing realms?
Because their characters are your enemies, but the players are not.
3. What if my realm is winning simply because my realm's players have better activity?
That is a different discussion that has nothing to do with this. Your actual point is already sufficiently covered under question 1.
-
Can you please skip all that and address my main complaint against your points? Namely, how do you tell the difference between a clan and a group of players who just happen to be more active than you are?
It's damn difficult. I don't deny that in the slightest, that is why this discussion was opened, so we as a playerbase could look at the pitfalls of any changes that could be made as well as any advantages to it.
The issue of whether a group of players is a clan or a bunch of active people is probably the single biggest issue to enforcing any punishment against suspected players. That is the other side of the coin, and if we cannot find a solution that is reliable and fair, then there's no point in implementing any kind of policy. And that's how it will have to be if it comes to it. But we had best look at every angle before coming to a conclusion.
What I have taken offence to is the idea that I am doing this for personal gain or profit. And at the core of it, I have concerns based on previous encounters more than anything else. What would we do if, say, the GOONS (or GoonSquad, I think) came to BM? They'd mass-join a realm and probably alter the fabric of it completely. I've seen what groups like that do, and it isn't pretty. There are probably mechanics and statistics that can be used to ring the alarm bells and have it stopped before it starts, though. Something similar may be available for emigrating to a specific realm, or a mass creation of characters to a realm as well.
-
It's damn difficult. I don't deny that in the slightest, that is why this discussion was opened, so we as a playerbase could look at the pitfalls of any changes that could be made as well as any advantages to it.
Sometimes, you don't have to be sure if the actions are adequate.
My promise was to break apart clans, not to kick them out of the game. If - just a thought - the reaction to finding a clan were to randomly deport half of them to some randomly selected other game worlds, that clan's influence in the realm would be broken. If we are wrong and they weren't a clan after all, then nobody has lost a character, and while it's probably not something they will thank the Dev Team (or Magistrates or whatever) for, if you weren't in that realm because of your clan then finding yourself somewhere else isn't that horrible.
And, to put that to rest, I think the Magistrates would be a good place to sort this out. The Dev Team can support them with a few numbers, but the points I outlined above are not a code matter and warrant some discussion.
-
always work to support each other's characters without much if any IC talk,
ic talk... just because they don't include everyone and their dog in their messages.... i mean. you don't even need irc or external communications, all you need some script that select certain individuals and communicate ingame or failing that.. just a lot of clicks...
-
I don't think we need to worry about someone scripting messages to avoid being detected as a clan. That's a bit of paranoia, I think.
-
I have a simple question then.
what about Families that play together? My wife, my step son and I all play BM and have for years. My wife and I even have characters that are married in game. We try to support each other but each of us has a distinct personality. My character Jon Paul is married to my wife's character and has been for a very long time and though we support each other, we do as any family will have disagreements in game that can put us at odds with one another. for example her other character Zadek does not like Jon Paul, thinking he is an arrogant buffoon. (she is right about that too, he is or was long ago) My character Sasha is their daughter in game as well. so we have legitimate in game reasons to support each other publicly. And where my characters have little interest in power above ruling a region, hers have in the past aspired to bigger and greater things.
We have been publicly accused of being clanners. Would our situation fall into the negative aspects of a clan or acceptable in game play. We do our best not to ruin the fun for others in the game and mostly use it for RP purposes when Jon Paul and Katalynfae are in the same region. (as they rarely get to see each other as their duties keep them apart.)
My step sons characters he plays and votes as his heart decides. He mostly plays characters that do not get involved in politics and just follows orders. he gets on IRC as I do on occasion and refuses to get on the forums as he uses IRC to ask questions and get ideas on how to handle things in game from more experienced players than he.
together we have a total of 6 characters on EC and on Dwilight my wife is in a different realm than My character and my sons. Though we all tend to go in the same political circles in game, that is mostly IG politics and loyalties to in this case Lady Allison (Kabrinskia) on Dwilight. My son and I have strong loyalties to her and my wife is the Duchess of Aegir in Morek. We all have separate goals and desires.
So I guess what I am asking is the type of "clan/family" ties that our characters have destructive to game play. I do not believe it is, but with all the discussion about it lately I need to know if we need to change how we are doing things.
Respectfully,
-
what about Families that play together?
As long as it's not some 30-member extended family all playing together, there shouldn't be any problem.
-
Thanks that puts my mind to rest.
-
Yeah, we should add something to the effect of "a larger group of players" to the definition of a clan. I don't think anyone is worried about 3 or so people.
-
Two things.
1. I think Tom has it right - we can rely on people reporting the type of behavior we are looking to discourage rather than going out and conducting witch hunts to look for it.
2. In the past I have been against attempting to criminalize 'clanning', if only because it is extremely difficult to define what exactly that term means in such a way that you can pass judgment. As Katyanna and GoldPanda have alluded to, many players have forged OOC connections with other players that they met through the game and many other players play with RL friends and family including myself, but most such players do not engage in the kind of activity that is the focus of this discussion.
I still have concerns about this. I think if we do add something like this to the social contract, the cases we get are going to be extremely divisive. Competing isn't a crime. Where do we draw the line between playing well and power gaming? This is very much going to be a case by case thing. There's no way we're going to be able to establish sufficiently precise criteria in advance. "We'll know it when we see it" is going to be what it comes down to. Such lack of clarity can and will contribute to making these cases more divisive however.
-
If - just a thought - the reaction to finding a clan were to randomly deport half of them to some randomly selected other game worlds, that clan's influence in the realm would be broken. If we are wrong and they weren't a clan after all, then nobody has lost a character, and while it's probably not something they will thank the Dev Team (or Magistrates or whatever) for, if you weren't in that realm because of your clan then finding yourself somewhere else isn't that horrible.
I hate clans more than most, but I disagree with this idea. I realise it's just a thought, but I don't believe being randomly teleported to another realm "isn't that horrible". My characters don't change realms much. I have a ruler in Arcaea who's been there for some 18 months, RL, worked his way up the ranks, made friends, enemies, etc. I would be extraordinarily pissed if I got teleported to some other realm and told, "Oh, sorry, you're not a clanner, we made a mistake, suck it up." If that were the punishment, I would want you to be very sure they're clanners first.
-
I hate clans more than most, but I disagree with this idea. I realise it's just a thought, but I don't believe being randomly teleported to another realm "isn't that horrible". My characters don't change realms much. I have a ruler in Arcaea who's been there for some 18 months, RL, worked his way up the ranks, made friends, enemies, etc. I would be extraordinarily pissed if I got teleported to some other realm and told, "Oh, sorry, you're not a clanner, we made a mistake, suck it up." If that were the punishment, I would want you to be very sure they're clanners first.
I have to agree.
-
Yeah, we should add something to the effect of "a larger group of players" to the definition of a clan. I don't think anyone is worried about 3 or so people.
That depends. Three people with two characters apiece could easily control the government, dukedoms, and armies of a small or even medium-sized realm.
People who play in a group become a problem when they actively exclude others from that group. If you can't get a leadership position in your realm because you don't belong to the OOC cabal that runs everything, that's bad. But I'm not sure how exactly you'd distinguish that from the IC cabals that naturally form as people play together for years.
I'm not a fan of cliques and clans. But I would rather not see witch hunts against OOC clans, especially since accusations of clanning are so easy to abuse.
-
if you weren't in that realm because of your clan then finding yourself somewhere else isn't that horrible.
There are some cases where it would be, if a realm in Dwilight was formed as a democracy there would be reason to want to go back there. Dwilight or any other island that you fancy for a certain reason might only have one or two realms that have something you really enjoy like being a republic or democracy. Darka has the whole realm being a mercenary thing, D'hara is a merchant republic etc. Realms usually have something that make different than others and thus you would want to be there.
-
I hate clans more than most, but I disagree with this idea. I realise it's just a thought, but I don't believe being randomly teleported to another realm "isn't that horrible".
First, you'd get deported to an island. The choice of realm is still yours.
Two, it is definitely better than losing the character, or the account, don't you agree?
Three, yes of course we'd only do it if we were sure. But even if we are sure, mistakes happen.
-
First, you'd get deported to an island. The choice of realm is still yours.
Two, it is definitely better than losing the character, or the account, don't you agree?
Three, yes of course we'd only do it if we were sure. But even if we are sure, mistakes happen.
How about the usual lightning bolts + barring all suspected clan members from positions and voting for a while? Then they aren't forced to leave their realm but still lose all political power.
-
There are three different matters we should differentiate:
1) Activity Levels:
I don't want to do that all over again. I don't care about losing characters, or losing a war in BM. I do care about losing a war when, as stated by Anaris before, clans have a 1.5x-2x advantage on your average realm.
That, to me at least, goes against the "Fair Play" section of the Social Contract.
Sorry, but this is basically you saying "Oh no! They are too many and too active, they should accommodate to our speed of playing!". Sorry, but they should not, if you want to play it slow and still win then go to the Colonies, in where there is only one turn per day, or advocate for a larger island with that pace. It makes as much sense that you have the same right to play at a slow pace than that you have the right to be extremely active. And this comes from someone who couldn't care less about the military aspect of the game.
If you don't have time to wage a war and win it then you should not be focusing on that, specially if you don't have enough nobles in your realm.
2) OoC Friendships:
My chars generally support these families because they know that the favor would be returned someday, without prompting, promises, or even a formal acknowledgement of mutual assistance.
No offense, but I personally consider this of poor taste. Not a crime, nor something that should be punished, but certainly something I would try to avoid. It makes one think all those characters are extensions of the player, without individual goals, dealing with extensions of the other players.
But that is also associated with the objective one has in mind. If what you seek is military and political victories with all of them, winning in general, then it makes sense. I try to have different levels of ambition and trustworthiness in my characters, and different goals. I would certainly not recommend a good friend of one character to necessarily trust the other, for they might find a nasty surprise. And that is one thing I like about BM's social game: the uncertainty.
3) Clans:
That depends. Three people with two characters apiece could easily control the government, dukedoms, and armies of a small or even medium-sized realm.
People who play in a group become a problem when they actively exclude others from that group. If you can't get a leadership position in your realm because you don't belong to the OOC cabal that runs everything, that's bad. But I'm not sure how exactly you'd distinguish that from the IC cabals that naturally form as people play together for years.
Indeed, there are two factors to consider, size of the group and level of OoC friendship.
A clan of only 3 players and 6 characters should not be a major concern, in my opinion. There are much worse IC cliques around. If six players decide to make six characters run around as the biggest buddies, I have no problem with that. It can be considered a clan, but it's of little impact. Why cannot RL friends not play together as friends IC? But if they decide to make all of their characters as the biggest buddies, in a short time in the game summing up between twelve and eighteen nobles that always share the same realms and work at a group level... Well, then they are creating problems, and should try to play with people outside their bubbles.
-
2) OoC Friendships:
No offense, but I personally consider this of poor taste. Not a crime, nor something that should be punished, but certainly something I would try to avoid. It makes one think all those characters are extensions of the player, without individual goals, dealing with extensions of the other players.
But that is also associated with the objective one has in mind. If what you seek is military and political victories with all of them, winning in general, then it makes sense. I try to have different levels of ambition and trustworthiness in my characters, and different goals. I would certainly not recommend a good friend of one character to necessarily trust the other, for they might find a nasty surprise. And that is one thing I like about BM's social game: the uncertainty.
You should also clarify OOC friendships because the quote you talked about that player is not ooc friends with them but know the family will return the favor if he helped them. (Also not one character helped a family, and the family returned the favor on a different continent)
-
Please note this quote:
By their behaviour. The Dev Team does have the tools available to make such a call once a potential group has been pointed out to us. We don't do any kind of automated checking, which I think is fine because unless a group has a noticeable impact on the game so someone asks us to look into it, there isn't a problem.
Tom has always been one to err on the side of caution, with good reason. There aren't going to be automated anythings with regard to this. Can we stop worrying about how to tell if there is a clan, when Tom's already said what will happen is that someone clues the Devs in, who will look at it, and tell him and/or the Magistrates/Titans whether the group qualifies based on the tools they have?
I'm for bolting/position removal if it's at the ruling clique stage (might happen if they have multiple realms, say). That'll wake people up, and might get them to be inclusive with others in the same realm as they won't have any choice. If we're talking about the majority of the people in the realm being part of a clan, then force-deporting makes sense, but not until then.
-
What about a dozen realm members from, say, Beluterra, deciding IC to abandon their realm and migrate to one specific realm on another island? Would that be legitimate IC action--basically a cross-island invasion--or would that be considered 'clanning', even if it's all planned entirely IC? For example, when the War Islands sunk, there was a plan in Toren to have everyone move to Morek. Would that be considered clanning?
-
I'm against any kind of being nice and hoping people will change their ways. That means keeping an eye on them and pretty soon we will have a full-time job of watching clans.
No, here's what I think we need:
- A clear anti-clan policy with explanations why
- A place where clans who want to play the game and accept the rules can register themselves and their members. This is voluntary (of course, we can't force anyone), and is basically a demonstration of good faith
- If we discover clan activities, we can check the clan register. If we find a matching clan, they will get a warning. We reward good faith with the benefit of doubt. If we don't find a matching clan, we will break them up, right there. If they whine, they can get the !@#$ out.
I've really had it with people who destroy the community and other players' fun in order to compensate their ego problems by feeling cool and powerful. There is one and only one practical difficulty I see and that is clearly identifying these people.
-
No offense, but I personally consider this of poor taste. Not a crime, nor something that should be punished, but certainly something I would try to avoid. It makes one think all those characters are extensions of the player, without individual goals, dealing with extensions of the other players.
I don't see how this goes into OOC friendships. It's not as if I go drinking with those players after work.
Not every family has "the crazy" swimming in their gene pool. If one of my chars have had pleasant dealings with Joe Bob on one island, and pleasant dealings with Jane Bob on another island, he's more likely to trust John Bob on a third island. I certainly don't see it as meta-gaming.
It's a risk, of course, but it's a calculated risk. He's no worse off than trusting the other complete strangers on the island he's just arrived at.
-
I don't see how this goes into OOC friendships. It's not as if I go drinking with those players after work.
Not every family has "the crazy" swimming in their gene pool. If one of my chars have had pleasant dealings with Joe Bob on one island, and pleasant dealings with Jane Bob on another island, he's more likely to trust John Bob on a third island. I certainly don't see it as meta-gaming.
It's a risk, of course, but it's a calculated risk. He's no worse off than trusting the other complete strangers on the island he's just arrived at.
OOC Friendship I do not see a problem with unless is a large group of them taking over a realm. as in the case of Fontan. where 16 characters played by 11 players. destroying the fun for the rest of the realm they goto.
-
You should also clarify OOC friendships because the quote you talked about that player is not ooc friends with them but know the family will return the favor if he helped them. (Also not one character helped a family, and the family returned the favor on a different continent)
Nope, I am talking about entirely made IC friendships too. When you treat a family not as a collective of members, but as a single entity, as the player behind it.
I don't see how this goes into OOC friendships. It's not as if I go drinking with those players after work.
I don't see any problem with players going to drink with other players after work. It is not something that should be punished. The point is not the relation outside the game, but the one inside it.
Not every family has "the crazy" swimming in their gene pool.
Not referring only to crazy characters, though they are one possible kind. Some are more social, and want to make friends, some want approval and recognition from those above, some want to be the ones in command and won't accept orders, some want to take advantage of others at any opportunity, some are religious zealots and want to spread their faith, some don't care about politics and only want to win their war, some don't care about war and only do about politics, some just want to serve their ideal of a realm (here there are many possibilities), some are very paranoid and/or scheming, some want to put forward pacifist/lenient policies, some want to go for aggressive ones. And so on and on.
If all those kinds of characters can trust all those kinds of characters from another family then something definitely is wrong, wouldn't you think?
If one of my chars have had pleasant dealings with Joe Bob on one island, and pleasant dealings with Jane Bob on another island, he's more likely to trust John Bob on a third island. I certainly don't see it as meta-gaming.
Generally in my family unless Char McChar has met Brother McKepler himself, instead of him being a friend or acquaintance of one of his relatives, he won't go to Kepler McKepler and treat him as someone he knows. With exceptions to the very good friends, who might be close to the family (and usually not /all/ of it), my characters don't know who my other characters have met. And if they do, their relationship with them will depend on what their relationship with the relative was like.
But this is how I play, and what I think, and in no way a rule or the likes.
It's a risk, of course, but it's a calculated risk. He's no worse off than trusting the other complete strangers on the island he's just arrived at.
Honestly? I think it's the contrary, it's a lack of risk, a way to play it safe. But if that's the way you like it, good for you. I just don't like the tendency that creates to close doors for new players.
- A place where clans who want to play the game and accept the rules can register themselves and their members. This is voluntary (of course, we can't force anyone), and is basically a demonstration of good faith
You had suggested something like this before, but was not that well received. Right now I agree it might be a very good idea. Would it imply in opening a new war-like island?
OOC Friendship I do not see a problem with unless is a large group of them taking over a realm.
As with everything it's more of a linear than a binary value. Not just clan/not-clan.
-
I'm against any kind of being nice and hoping people will change their ways. That means keeping an eye on them and pretty soon we will have a full-time job of watching clans.
No, here's what I think we need:
- A clear anti-clan policy with explanations why
- A place where clans who want to play the game and accept the rules can register themselves and their members. This is voluntary (of course, we can't force anyone), and is basically a demonstration of good faith
- If we discover clan activities, we can check the clan register. If we find a matching clan, they will get a warning. We reward good faith with the benefit of doubt. If we don't find a matching clan, we will break them up, right there. If they whine, they can get the !@#$ out.
I've really had it with people who destroy the community and other players' fun in order to compensate their ego problems by feeling cool and powerful. There is one and only one practical difficulty I see and that is clearly identifying these people.
Wait, so now we want to formalize them? I don't know that I like that. It says, in some way, that clanning is normal, that it is ok, that it can be acceptable. I don't think it's any of those things, at least not in this game. I don't like the concept of them as applied to BM, and I don't want to encourage them.
I have a question. Are we, as I suspect we are, engaging in this discussion based purely on the actions of one particular clan within the game? Or is this behavior more widespread than I am aware of?
-
Subject:
The anti-clan Thing is not so clear, since of course the game start as a team(clan) oriented game, that's why we cant forbid the team play of the game. But we have to protect the integrity of the game itself with fair play, and equal to everyone, so everyone can have fun playing BM, since you can't win the game, but have fun on it.
I have given my opinion many times about small groups taking over realms, but since the Mailing List is gone i suppose i say it again:
"There is no way that an small group can take over a realm".
Reason:
Simple, the current players aren't blind, and normally one or two of these people start complain about the realm and protest, etc. and in the end they end leaving or banned. Unless of course the realm is around 20 nobles and they win the rebellion, since they have half of population, but 90% of the time i see them banned.
Also, the other realms aren't blind, the in-game politics is a must, and if a realm notices something fishy with other realm, then he ask his allies for support and they all join against it, is not too bad if 4 realms want to make a wasteland of another.
As well, if they really want to take over a realm and the continent, a new formed realm would be more beneficial, because everyone is new, instead of a long standing realm with a stable council and 10-20 players who knows each other for years. But still new realms are formed mostly by the same old realm with different names(recycled) or conquered by other bigger realm (buffer) where those realms have old players on power.
And, it takes tines to some one to get decorations to be ranked up in a high position, and even so older nobles who didn't receive merits with same time on service, will notice and will complain, and will be made noticeable and most likely this newly ranked noble get stabbed in the back (or something).
What we can't do:
We cant forbid players to join the game, it doesn't matter if is a entire neighborhood into a realm, i would be happy to see new players on the game, in the last couple years BM have been a recycling of realms forming and going, with the same people, with the same realm structure, etc. etc.
What we must do:
Most of us have more than 5 year on this, is our job to control this in each one of our realms, i'm not saying that we become the BM Inquisition, we have just to open our eyes because these kind of activities are easy to notice. there is always some one who points a hint:
"why that man was duke before me, i have claim of the city and i have served longer" i saw that on Epollyn today.
"That man is younger than me, and now is vice-marshal" a running Fontan´s issue.
There are many things that can alert you, of something strange, of course, is not wrong but is strange. that is the time when we have to check the character, as stated before if they are not alone they will have companions that support him, then again who is and where he/she came from, etc.
Uh oh.. is lunch time... well, i continue later, but in resume, there are ways to solve things with unnecessary rants or divine intervention, we cant control who joins or leaves realm, their class, their unit, etc. But we can check on their behavior.
Peace
-
16 characters from 11 players isn't a small group though...
-
Disclaimer: I have not read the entire thread.
I see people saying, "What if you randomly find yourself always on the same side as somebody else?"
Two examples come to mind that I've noted recently:
1. Myself and Perth - we know each other OOCly (I introduced him to BM), we usually end up "on the same side," and even in many of the same realms, but we have never done OOC coordination that was not ICly motivated and replicated, and we have always gone out of our way to include others
2. Bellators and Anaris' - Not to pick on these players, but they're always on the same side. Or consider Cheniers and Lefanis': they're always opposed.
So: are these "clanning" concerns? As far as I can tell, most of you say "no."
But I find myself compelled to scream "HELL YES!"
Frankly, if you always find yourself with the same players' characters as your characters' enemies, and the same players' characters as your characters' friends, you should make a new character who will take the opposite side. Implicit clans based on long gameplay within BM are just as bad as explicit clans based on long relationships outside of BM. Long-term BM players have a duty to the game on the whole to actively break down clannish behavior within the game.
What does that mean? That means I try with all of my characters to stir up trouble for Perth. So far it hasn't worked very well; we can't force idiotic RP just to break OOC clans maybe. But we can still try to limit these things.
If experienced players would be more proactive in ensuring an open playing environment (not always playing in the same set of realms, making new characters in former enemies' realms, becoming allies of long-term foes), finding REAL clans would be FAR easier.
And to that end, I would suggest that all that is necessary to find a clan is to find a very high correlation between their patterns of immigration and character creation. From there, you have a baseline measure of OOC coordination (you cannot ICly coordinate a character's creation outside of pregnancy RPs maybe, but those are rare and could easily be found by devs or magistrates if a case was raised; you can ICly coordinate immigration, but, in my experience, it seems rare, and mostly revolves around Beluaterran cycles). Then you start with the biggest clusters, look and see if they have below-average message traffic simultaneous with either high levels of cross-continental gold-funneling, or voting correlations, or suspicious gold transfers...
The task is not theoretically difficult. Its difficulty arises in the amount of data analysis required compared to the amount of time available for devs and magistrates.
-
I don't think we need to go that far. I prefer "we'll know it when we see it". Violations of this policy should be rare - it should not be sweeping in nature. I know of only one group of people in this game whose behavior has led to this discussion. Until they came along, we never needed a policy. It is my great hope that once they've either changed their ways or left the game, we will never need one again. Because of this, whatever policy is put down ought to be in very general terms, with perhaps only the consequences discussed in much detail.
-
I don't think we need to go that far. I prefer "we'll know it when we see it". Violations of this policy should be rare - it should not be sweeping in nature. I know of only one group of people in this game whose behavior has led to this discussion. Until they came along, we never needed a policy. It is my great hope that once they've either changed their ways or left the game, we will never need one again. Because of this, whatever policy is put down ought to be in very general terms, with perhaps only the consequences discussed in much detail.
My point was that I think even common BM behavior is destructive, and if long-term players would act less clannish, finding real clans would be waaaaay simpler. If we all took a moment to look around our realms at people in them, and ask ourselves, "Of the people I have interacted with in more than 3 separate BM settings, how many of them have been allies/enemies every time?" And then we worked to change that? It'd make spotting real clans easier.
-
This is rapidly going off-topic. Please return to the topic, thank you.
-
I don't see how its off-topic, they are trying to define clans better.
-
I'm against any kind of hard limit such as "x players who know each other". There are many families, people from the same school, etc. who play the game with no negative impact.
A concur. No effort to define precise hard criteria by which to identify a clan is going to come up with something perfect. I prefer the below definition, which I think clearly defines in simple terms the reason why we want to discourage clans.
For me, a "clan" (or whatever other word you want to use) is not just people who know each other, but who also actively collaborate and who play as a group more than as individuals.
The reason this is detrimental to the game is that the second point removes internal politics from the game, and social dynamics is a much larger part of BattleMaster than strategy and war gaming. It turns BattleMaster into something it is not.
Let that be the measuring stick. I am fine with Tom's suggested resolution of deportation, though I will point out that making sure that they don't simply take over some other realm after a couple weeks when they can all emigrate again is going to require more active monitoring.
-
Please keep in mind that I added to it that it needs to be a somewhat large group, so make it clear that we're not worried about 3 friends playing together.
-
If larger groups are the concern, there's a simple expedient as long as they don't all stay in one realm all the time (that is; as long as they are around for a while, or have multiple characters): just look for correlations in arrival date, realm, and then subsequent changes in realm or second/third character locations. Find an above-normal correlation, look around. If folks is chatting about it negatively (and not just a "we lost the war" negativity) with the same incidence as a group with highly correlated loyalties... bingo. Clan.
-
I would like to point out that I got into this game because my friends were playing. And I joined realms they were in. I believe this is the best way we gain new players. If we discourage people from inviting their friends to play, we will stop having new players. When people enter the game because of a friend, they will clearly join the realm of the friend, because that friend is having fun in that realm-they want the same fun.
Occasionally we discussed what was going on. If one of them was up for election I voted for them. I do not believe we wrecked anyone's fun. There were some people who left some of those realms because they did not like some of our political stances. But show me a realm without some controversy.
I have had success in associating with characters from the same family, but I have also had some unfortunate experiences where I forgot it was not the same character.
As a side note, I don't think any of them are still playing. I would also have been willing to register in a "clan".
-
I would like to point out that I got into this game because my friends were playing. And I joined realms they were in. I believe this is the best way we gain new players. If we discourage people from inviting their friends to play, we will stop having new players. When people enter the game because of a friend, they will clearly join the realm of the friend, because that friend is having fun in that realm-they want the same fun.
I completely agree.
However, there is a big difference between joining as a bunch of friends, and playing as a clan.
I've seen several players spread BattleMaster to large numbers of their friends, bringing in enough new players in a relatively short time that they could have pretty easily formed a clan if they were so inclined. Most of them even joined the same realms.
But they played as separate people, interested in their own things, friendly with the original person (and each other), but not beholden to them.
That's the difference.
-
@Charles:
Re-read my definition of what I consider to be a "clan". Your case wouldn't qualify for any of the checks.
-
By their behaviour. The Dev Team does have the tools available to make such a call once a potential group has been pointed out to us. We don't do any kind of automated checking, which I think is fine because unless a group has a noticeable impact on the game so someone asks us to look into it, there isn't a problem.
I'm against any kind of hard limit such as "x players who know each other". There are many families, people from the same school, etc. who play the game with no negative impact.
For me, a "clan" (or whatever other word you want to use) is not just people who know each other, but who also actively collaborate and who play as a group more than as individuals.
The reason this is detrimental to the game is that the second point removes internal politics from the game, and social dynamics is a much larger part of BattleMaster than strategy and war gaming. It turns BattleMaster into something it is not.
There was a secret society that acted in this way in a realm I was in. How would that be different? They grouped together, attempted to have dukes, council members, etc. removed in order to have their own elected in their place.
Is this not the purpose of a secret society? To manipulate realms as a group.
As a side note, I found that secret society to be very frustrating in retrospect. I would also support anti-clan policy, but in-game mechanics support the formation of "clans."
-
It's not clanning because Secret Societies are an official, in-game mechanic. Secret societies are things that can be discovered, infiltrated, exposed, etc., all completely IC. Membership in it does not depend on an OOC relationship.
Now, it is perfectly possible for a clan to use a secret society, or for membership in a secret to be restricted based on OOG clan affiliation. That would also be against the Social Contract.
The difference is between OOG and IG. If promotion, membership, power, voting, etc. are based on OOG affiliation rather than IG affiliation, then chances are there's a clan involved.
-
There are three different matters we should differentiate:
1) Activity Levels:
Sorry, but this is basically you saying "Oh no! They are too many and too active, they should accommodate to our speed of playing!". Sorry, but they should not, if you want to play it slow and still win then go to the Colonies, in where there is only one turn per day, or advocate for a larger island with that pace. It makes as much sense that you have the same right to play at a slow pace than that you have the right to be extremely active. And this comes from someone who couldn't care less about the military aspect of the game.
If you don't have time to wage a war and win it then you should not be focusing on that, specially if you don't have enough nobles in your realm.
Where does it say you can tell me where I can and cannot play? For your information, before my PSU died I was on the game constantly, ready to issue orders or offer my point of view on a strategy. Now I've repaired my computer, I can do that again as I wish. I have plenty of time to wage war as I wish, and focus on it.
Either way, the Magistrates have ruled against the core group of players who prompted this discussion. As such, that matter is dealt with and doesn't really need to be referred to here. But what we may now need to consider is whether the ruling sets a precedent that should be encompassed in a policy like Tom has referred to.