View Poll Results: Choose the rule you prefer. Note: One of these rules WILL be implemented.

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • Bed-Free Forts Rule

    15 50.00%
  • Two-Block Path Rule

    7 23.33%
  • Abstain

    8 26.67%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 89

Thread: Proposed Fort Changes

  1. #41

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    What is the option for "NO!" to all? I think the community is going down the wrong path even considering these rules.

  2. #42

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Yeah the abstain option should be considered a "no" option really.

  3. #43

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Beny1995 View Post
    Yeah the abstain option should be considered a "no" option really.
    If abstain is a no, or a permanent abstain, then that's my vote.


  4. #44
    Aanker's Avatar Concordant
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    7,071

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by firebird1170 View Post
    What is the option for "NO!" to all? I think the community is going down the wrong path even considering these rules.
    We've been going down the opposite path of having no rules at all for several servers now, and I think it is fair to say that the gameplay experience has diminished during that time. Let's implement some of these constructive suggestions, make them work, and make the server a great place to have fun again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adar View Post
    Russia have managed to weaponize the loneliest and saddest people on the internet by providing them with (sometimes barechested) father figures whom they can adhere to in order to justify their hatred for the current establishment and the society that rejects them.

    UNDER THE PROUD PATRONAGE OF ABBEWS
    According to this poll, 80%* of TGW fans agree that "The mod team is devilishly handsome" *as of 12/10

  5. #45

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Multiplying rules does not create Utopia. What, we've had no rules at all in our servers? Guess I missed that, my mistake.

  6. #46
    Aanker's Avatar Concordant
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    7,071

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by firebird1170 View Post
    Multiplying rules does not create Utopia. What, we've had no rules at all in our servers? Guess I missed that, my mistake.
    It was evident I was talking about fort rules specifically. How is adding one rule 'multiplying' rules? Especially since both Brogan and I argued against introducing more fort regulations before appreciating the effects of this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adar View Post
    Russia have managed to weaponize the loneliest and saddest people on the internet by providing them with (sometimes barechested) father figures whom they can adhere to in order to justify their hatred for the current establishment and the society that rejects them.

    UNDER THE PROUD PATRONAGE OF ABBEWS
    According to this poll, 80%* of TGW fans agree that "The mod team is devilishly handsome" *as of 12/10

  7. #47

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Adding a No Option to this poll would be about the same as adding a "Please end the server" option, hence why there is not one.

    Administration has decided something WILL be done about gamey forts, and these were the ideas that were put forth. If you have a better idea with the same goal by all means, debate them and they will be considered. Doing nothing however is not an option being presented.

  8. #48

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Ditronian View Post
    Adding a No Option to this poll would be about the same as adding a "Please end the server" option, hence why there is not one.
    Opinion. Again, moderation already had (and has going forward) the power to deal with the situation discussed, under spirit of the server and griefing rules. If the problem is insufficient moderation enforcement, making more rules to enforce (and inspect for), will not fix it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ditronian View Post
    Administration has decided something WILL be done about gamey forts, and these were the ideas that were put forth. If you have a better idea with the same goal by all means, debate them and they will be considered. Doing nothing however is not an option being presented.
    They've already been discussed, and apparently rejected. So Administration will steam down the railway tracks with the momentum it has. Which it has every right to do, btw. Just, a bandwagon running down the street doesn't mean better options aren't there, or weren't discussed.

    For the record, there is no such thing as a "gamey fort". Only those who whine and are too lazy to figure out how to attack what others have cleverly built. There is always a way.
    Last edited by firebird1170; August 15, 2016 at 01:12 PM.

  9. #49

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Literally the most deplorable poll I have ever seen in the entire history of the server.

  10. #50

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Well I can vote now so I'll stop complaining as option 1 isn't a big deal really. However one minor issue:

    Does this also mean attackers can't have beds in their siege towers? Otherwise the attackers can easily overrun the defenders.

  11. #51

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by firebird1170 View Post
    Opinion. Again, moderation already had (and has going forward) the power to deal with the situation discussed, under spirit of the server and griefing rules. If the problem is insufficient moderation enforcement, making more rules to enforce (and inspect for), will not fix it.
    Fact. If Administration pulls chocks, or we are kicked from TWC, you are literally left without a server. Addressing Gamey Forts, curbing Forum misbehavior, and shuffling in and out moderators are our list of priorities at the moment.

  12. #52
    Aanker's Avatar Concordant
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    7,071

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by firebird1170 View Post
    Opinion. Again, moderation already had (and has going forward) the power to deal with the situation discussed, under spirit of the server and griefing rules. If the problem is insufficient moderation enforcement, making more rules to enforce (and inspect for), will not fix it.
    This has been the course so far and there was disagreement even in moderation as to what the spirit of the server appeared to be. So instead of discussing something for ages and not coming to a conclusion, this course presents us with a chance of acting and changing things for the better.

    They've already been discussed, and apparently rejected. So Administration will steam down the railway tracks with the momentum it has. Which it has every right to do, btw. Just, a bandwagon running down the street doesn't mean better options aren't there, or weren't discussed.
    Opinion. My impression is that there has been a lot of support for suggestions to limit gamey forts.

    For the record, there is no such thing as a "gamey fort". Only those who whine and are too lazy to figure out how to attack what others have cleverly built. There is always a way.
    Another opinion, and I wouldn't call it 'lazy' to put down hours of time into making an obsidian siege tower only to be disappointed by the minutes-long actual attack that follows.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adar View Post
    Russia have managed to weaponize the loneliest and saddest people on the internet by providing them with (sometimes barechested) father figures whom they can adhere to in order to justify their hatred for the current establishment and the society that rejects them.

    UNDER THE PROUD PATRONAGE OF ABBEWS
    According to this poll, 80%* of TGW fans agree that "The mod team is devilishly handsome" *as of 12/10

  13. #53

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Aanker View Post
    This has been the course so far and there was disagreement even in moderation as to what the spirit of the server appeared to be. So instead of discussing something for ages and not coming to a conclusion, this course presents us with a chance of acting and changing things for the better.
    It appears to be a solution in search of a hypothetical problem to solve which isn't actually happening. As well as a stacked-deck, railroaded poll to provide cover for changing things. You can do whatever you like, just don't pretend its a must, because it isn't. And I think you are running the risk of in the rush to solve a hypothetical problem, causing a real one which actually *does* make the server worse for people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ditronian View Post
    Fact. If Administration pulls chocks, or we are kicked from TWC, you are literally left without a server. Addressing Gamey Forts, curbing Forum misbehavior, and shuffling in and out moderators are our list of priorities at the moment.
    You don't need to invent a reason to close the server, change the rules, nor does TWC need a reason to kick us out. But far as I have seen, there hasn't been significant forum misbehavior, nor a problem with so-called gamey forts. Which again I assert is not a "thing" at all, but rather someone's arbitrary, subjective opinion of someone else's build, which I don't believe should be legislated on.

    But again, getting back to the original problem, the only issue at hand seems to be one faction unhappy with something another faction did in their base. Simple issue, simple solution. /f unclaim..., and tear down the siege tower, if moderation believes its griefing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aanker View Post
    Another opinion, and I wouldn't call it 'lazy' to put down hours of time into making an obsidian siege tower only to be disappointed by the minutes-long actual attack that follows.
    Not sure what the example shows here. Perhaps clarify.
    Last edited by firebird1170; August 15, 2016 at 03:29 PM.

  14. #54

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    What do you need to rule change for?

    1. Option 1: Banning beds, prevents a small faction for fighting a protacted battle in a fortress. Anyone who dies for any reason would be forced to risk tranversing their base to reach the top. Also note that with the banning of unclaimed bases, there are few options for a defender to respawn. They cannot respawn in a unclaimed cave, nor can they respawn in any area that is "designated" as a fortress. So outnumbered factions may as well just quit.

    2. Option 2: Again, based on a nonissue. "Gamey" builds have been built for the entirety of the server. Every single one of these builds has been capturing in battle, the Battlemoat on multiple occasions, and firebird's tower.


    I didn't realize it would come to this so I did not offer my opinion earlier, but I see nothing wrong from rules perspective of the actions of North Korea. Essentially all what this poll does is appeals to the masses who wish to restrict the gameplay style of certain factions.


    Both of these options are "shut down the server options", using Ditro's vernacular on the issues of the server.

  15. #55
    High Chunker Greens's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,508

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Buddydog View Post
    Both of these options are "shut down the server options", using Ditro's vernacular on the issues of the server.
    Don't be so melodramatic. The goal of this server is to be enjoyable for everyone; we're not turning this into some carebear's paradise, we're considering implementing rules which make the game more enjoyable for the majority.

  16. #56

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    You can respawn in literally any location that isn't a fortress and isn't unclaimed. Build a town. Or a ship. Or an inn, barracks, railway station, etc. etc. Yes, you have to risk making your way back to your fortress, but the enemy has to run the same risk when they die. They however don't have the advantage of being to build up or across their own territory without harm, or have the same intimate knowledge of the workings of your fortification that you do.

    North Korea defeated almost every faction in the server in a single war, in the aptly named NK vs. the World war, on account of the strength of a single construct, which decimated the massive attacking force, and dissuaded all further attempts on it. I don't mind the Battlemoat enough to want to see it banned, which is why of the two options I'd simply advocate for the beds option (which, in the urban twisting sprawl of Cobbletown they can still use the Battlemoat to great effect). But compared to anything before it, it is kind of an issue. Has it been taken? Yeah, absolutely. But every attempt we made on it during the Carazon War of Map 6 was such a devastating attritional grind that took at least four hours, with some of them probably extending to 6 hours, to conclude. With the ban on combat logging, this kind of requires players to take a solid 4-6 hours out of their day to bring the siege to conclusion, which, while again I'm not advocating banning the Battlemoat or its constituent features, is probably the main problem: the weight of time required to take the thing. Hell, I'd potentially go so far to say that's why NK prefers to take things on the offensive as often as they can, because it takes so much time on their end as well, though that is an assumption on my part. Anyways, to say there is no such thing as a "gamey" construct is stretching it: you wont find a fortress like the Battlemoat anywhere in the real world, at least. I'm just not in favor of forcing the issue with rules. But that's me.

  17. #57

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    My vote means "Hell No" to both.

    Let me get this straight. NK claims and builds a siegetower inside Northmen base area. Some people don't like that, and think its griefing. But instead of simply making them unclaim and tear down the tower, new rules on so-called "gamey" forts are rolled out. And if they aren't enacted, the server will close for some reason?

    You guys seem to be forgetting the large numbers of discussions and previous votes we've had about "gamey forts". Plus, exactly what fort on the server is considered "gamey". If none currently, then a non-problem is being solved, risking unintended bad side effects in the process. If we are talking NK's battlemoat, &etc, I can't see how selectively targeting an active faction is going to contribute to activity or greater enjoyment for the majority who play, given that NK is part of that majority.

    I find this whole thing very strange.

  18. #58

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Unless someone has drastically remodelled the battle moat to make it entirely out of beds since I was last there then it looks like its not gonna be affected any differently from the rest of the servers forts.

  19. #59

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Its not a siege tower.

    Also the conversation simply brought up another issue that the moderation felt needed to be addressed. They're largely unrelated, and the reason why the prior issue wasn't resolved is simply because we have a dearth of moderators not currently involved in the current conflicts and thus cannot act upon it without conflict of interest.

    And I haven't forgotten the discussions. I certainly haven't forgotten that it has been brought up on every map. It is something of an unresolved issue, this is an attempt to resolve the issue.

  20. #60

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Its been brought up.. and voted down on every map.

    So again, what situation or problem has arisen on the server this map which makes the new rules necessary.. so necessary that it is implied the server will be shut down if they aren't implemented?

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •