Multi Rules

[Dwynn]

Ok, I'm bringing this up because it's been bugging me all this time and it bugs me even more every time a report comes up.

 

Something needs to be done about the multi-rules. Right now they're so super wishy washy, and there is absolutely no consistency. I feel a thread is necessary for the community to discuss options that could be in place for the multi rules.

 

My suggestion:

 

1) If you're sharing unique ID, there should be no interaction, ever. No trades, no coordinated wars on targets, etc.

 

2) If you're on a unique ID that someone else has been on, it should be systematically in place to NOT allow trades between nations. I know this can be done, because currently you cannot register from a uniqueID that is currently in use in the game. Take it a step further.

 

3) No tolerance. None of this wishy, washy "I investigated it and it looks fine". Especially because similar situations occur and the results are reset or bans. This just lends to the ability of the player base to claim mod/admin bias.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Micheal Malone

[Vincent]

Frankly i dont think this rule will work, CHEATERS being what they are will just look for a way to get around it.

[Shellhound]

Frankly i dont think this rule will work, CHEATERS being what they are will just look for a way to get around it.

And that's why you have rules that don't allow a way around it. Using a proxy? Alright, can't really do much about that unless it's plainly obvious. But the rules for people who are caught trading and have the same ID's should be pretty strict.

[naTia]

I think this might just make it more difficult for players who log on in public places to play and enjoy the game. A cheater could always use a smartphone and a computer, or just use one account on a certain IP, then use the other on another IP. For example, if people go to the same university and know it, they are obviously more apt to want to be in the same alliance and help each other out. You could just as easily coordinate this with two people over the internet and never have to share the same IP. My biggest concern is that it is restricting people who are recruiting RL friends and family to the game, keeping the spread to internet contact. I really understand where this is coming from, considering a fair amount of multi reports that have been let go. I definitely think the rules need to be refined, but I'm afraid that making them too strict would cause more harm than good.

 

Edit: May want a forum change, I didn't even notice this was non-discussion.

Edited December 11, 2014 by The Captain Nao

[Phiney]

I agree with Malone. To use the resent example, nations have been reset for less in the past and this lack of sticking strictly to the current rules could easily been seen as admin bias for older nations. Just because nations have been doing it for a long time without being caught doesn't make it fine.

 

If you're going to have rules in place they need to be kept strictly in my opinion or there is no point.

[Ren]

College age people are a large part of the demographic of this game. A blanket rule that would prevent two people from playing from the same residence halls simply won't work. A case by case approach, one that assesses the unseen information like email addresses, is the best way to deal with this. It's pretty easy to see the difference between a nation that is simply dumping all of it's starting materials into another, and someone giving a sweet deal to their buddy.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Ren

[stealthfox2]

I agree, college age people are the big target for this game, and banning same IP simply does not work. In fact im leaning towards opening up registration so that when you make an account it doesnt prevent someone else from making an account on that IP so that we can attract more players. Also meh brothers would like that

Edited December 11, 2014 by stealthfox2

[Ashland]

I don't care what policy Sheepy wants to take (that's not true, I do, but let's pretend I don't for the sake of theory).  But whatever it is, treatment should apply the Hot Stove Principle (which is a Human Resources Concept):

 

1. When you touch the hot stove, you burn your hand. The burn was immediate. Will you blame the hot stove for burning your hand? Immediately, you understand the cause and effect of the offense. The discipline was directed against the act not against anybody else. You get angry with yourself, but you know it was your fault. You get angry with the hot stove too, but not for long as you know it was not its fault. You learn your lesson quickly.
    

   You had warning as you knew the stove was red hot and you knew what would happen to you if you touched it. You knew the rules and regulations previously issued to you by the company prescribing the penalty for violation of any particular rule so you cannot claim you were not given a previous warning.

   The discipline was consistent. Every time you touch the hot stove you get burned. Consistency in the administration of disciplinary action is essential. Excessive leniency as well as too much harshness creates not only dissatisfaction but also resentment.

   The discipline was impersonal. Whoever touches the hot stove gets burned, no matter who he is. Furthermore, he gets burned not because of who he is, but because he touched the hot stove. The discipline is directed against the act, not against the person. After disciplinary action has been applied, the supervisor should take the normal attitude toward the employee.

[Odin]

 

2) If you're on a unique ID that someone else has been on, it should be systematically in place to NOT allow trades between nations.

 

That's done fast if you've active wifi on on laptop or smartphone, zack... shared ip. You could do saved id's/nation, to save every country-id a nation  had since implemention. But that's like embargoing everyone you know irl.

 

Then better back to implement trades, that can't differ too much from the normal market price. And introducing a propper system for cashtrade, not 1 food for 1m$ ...

[Ashland]

There are still a lot of ways around that.  One of the services I offer at my Bank is giving money that's in your bank account to other people if that is your desire, in case you want it done at a given time that you won't be able to log in or whatever.  People could easily abuse my services to get around these rules.  And I don't like that idea, but... I can't be expected to police it myself.

[Tenages]

College age people are a large part of the demographic of this game. A blanket rule that would prevent two people from playing from the same residence halls simply won't work. A case by case approach, one that assesses the unseen information like email addresses, is the best way to deal with this. It's pretty easy to see the difference between a nation that is simply dumping all of it's starting materials into another, and someone giving a sweet deal to their buddy.

 

 

 

I don't care what policy Sheepy wants to take (that's not true, I do, but let's pretend I don't for the sake of theory).  But whatever it is, treatment should apply the Hot Stove Principle (which is a Human Resources Concept):

 

1. When you touch the hot stove, you burn your hand. The burn was immediate. Will you blame the hot stove for burning your hand? Immediately, you understand the cause and effect of the offense. The discipline was directed against the act not against anybody else. You get angry with yourself, but you know it was your fault. You get angry with the hot stove too, but not for long as you know it was not its fault. You learn your lesson quickly.
    

   You had warning as you knew the stove was red hot and you knew what would happen to you if you touched it. You knew the rules and regulations previously issued to you by the company prescribing the penalty for violation of any particular rule so you cannot claim you were not given a previous warning.

   The discipline was consistent. Every time you touch the hot stove you get burned. Consistency in the administration of disciplinary action is essential. Excessive leniency as well as too much harshness creates not only dissatisfaction but also resentment.

   The discipline was impersonal. Whoever touches the hot stove gets burned, no matter who he is. Furthermore, he gets burned not because of who he is, but because he touched the hot stove. The discipline is directed against the act, not against the person. After disciplinary action has been applied, the supervisor should take the normal attitude toward the employee.

 

 

This is my biggest issue and concern with the rules. I don't care what they are, so look as they are easily understood, and clearly and consistently applied to every single member of the game.  Speaking as someone who was staff for another very similar game (first as a game moderator charged specifically with policing this kind of cheating, and later as a game administrator) the problem with a case by base basis, is that it is wildly subjective, and will inevitably lead to eroded confidence in the game administration, and growing, clamorous cries of admin bias.

 

Let's take the most recent case I reported as an example. I don't know that there was any actual cheating or intent to cheat going on (in fact the claims of being college friends is very easily believable.) But it is a simple fact that other nations have in the past received punishment (warnings and resets) for this exact, or even lesser behavior. That's the problem with an case by case by evaluated solely by how the game staff views each case. It will inevitably lead to different outcomes for different offenders, sometimes for legitimate reasons, but also for reasons such as "Ah this guy's been playing for a long time, I trust him." Or because the staff in question was having a bad day, and was thus in a harsher mood one day then they were another day.

 

 

What approach is taken is less important that that the same approach is taken every time. And there are multiple ways to do that. Let me throw out a few ideas, just as conversation starters.

 

   1) In many games of this nature, there are no rules against multi-ing. Everyone can have as many nations as they want.

 

   2) In OGame (and I'm sure others) the rule is simple: larger nations can send as many resources as they want, for as much or as little compensation as they want, to smaller nations. Smaller nations, however, when sending resources to larger nations, cannot send trades to larger nations that are lopsided.

 

   3) You could do the above, but change or tweak the restrictions once a nation reaches a certain size, or age. Maybe at 300 score (or whatever) they've been playing long enough, and grown enough, to clearly be a legitimate nation that can have the restrictions lifted. 

 

  4) Malone's idea

 

  5) You could tweak Malone's idea. No hard-coded restriction between nations on the same IP trading -- but they maybe they aren't permitted to send trade deals that are more the than a certain % outside the market value.

 

  6) Another thing you could do is one of the approaches we tried in PT -- there was a blanket ban between nations playing on the same IP and interacting. If you wanted a waiver for that rule, you could get it, but both nations had to apply for the waiver, in a public thread on the forums. Game staff would then evaluate both nations, and decide whether or not to give the waiver. If it was given -- both the public and the game staff knew of the nations -- and there was heightened scrutiny on them. There were now multiple eyes watching all the time to make sure they didn't cheat. 

 

 

These are just off the top of my head. But like I said, I think the ultimate rule is less important than that it's clear, easily understood, and consistently applied to every nation in the game. 

Edited December 11, 2014 by Tenages

[Phiney]

Completely agree with Tenages. It's not at all about the outcome, but much more about the inconsistency. Set the rules then follow them to a T, that's all I ask. I very much like option 6 that Tenages suggests. At the moment we seem to have option 6 but without the thread, and if this is the case then any offender should have been warned, reset or banned (again, not clear enough in the rules). 

[Ashland]

Yes.  Disparate treatment is clearly the biggest issue.  For example, Gaius Iulius' offenses were, arguably, much more easily explained away, occurred comparably briefly, and had a much smaller impact.  And yet he got his account reset.

[naTia]

the problem with a case by base basis, is that it is wildly subjective

 

one of the approaches we tried in PT -- there was a blanket ban between nations playing on the same IP and interacting. If you wanted a waiver for that rule, you could get it, but both nations had to apply for the waiver, in a public thread on the forums. Game staff would then evaluate both nations, and decide whether or not to give the waiver. 

 

It seems this is exactly the problem. Going on a case by case basis can be, as you said, seen as bias and come with its select problems but so can having an unwavering rule. You yourself display this difficult to find middle ground with this, albeit mild, contradiction. There are too what ifs and buts in these situations to justify an unwavering rule.. "We are brothers, but we will not cheat", or "We normally don't use the same IP, but he came he used his laptop on the IP I usually use" and so on. Do you we just tell these people that only one of them can play, or that they can only have one nation? This seems even more unfair than allowing cheaters to get away with cheating.

Edited December 11, 2014 by The Captain Nao

[Alex]

This is a hot topic and there are valid points on both sides. I've started revising the game rules to create a more consistent and transparent basis for judging what is and isn't cheating, and I'll be keeping an eye on this thread as I review/rewrite the rules.

 

On a related note: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/3849-attacking-and-beiging-allies/

[Alataq]

Ok, I'm bringing this up because it's been bugging me all this time and it bugs me even more every time a report comes up.

 

Something needs to be done about the multi-rules. Right now they're so super wishy washy, and there is absolutely no consistency. I feel a thread is necessary for the community to discuss options that could be in place for the multi rules.

 

My suggestion:

 

1) If you're sharing unique ID, there should be no interaction, ever. No trades, no coordinated wars on targets, etc.

 

2) If you're on a unique ID that someone else has been on, it should be systematically in place to NOT allow trades between nations. I know this can be done, because currently you cannot register from a uniqueID that is currently in use in the game. Take it a step further.

 

3) No tolerance. None of this wishy, washy "I investigated it and it looks fine". Especially because similar situations occur and the results are reset or bans. This just lends to the ability of the player base to claim mod/admin bias.

1.Nation ID's are based on when the nations are created. If nations were made back to back the nations would be 1 ID apart. I don't get how that would be a give away.. :/

2. I  agree. But that seems a little ridiculous. 

3. It's investigating, if a moderator finds it NOT to be a multi then they don't think it's a multi. No wishy, washy there. They investigated and found nothing.

[Grillick]

UniqueID and Nation IDA are not the same thing.

[Alex]

What if we started out with an in-game restriction preventing nations under X score (300? 200?) from sending out money. Maybe they're prevented from depositing anything into banks, and can't buy resources for less than $100/unit. That would prevent a lot of these issues to begin with.

[Atzuya]

300 and 200 is way too high for that though, it'd just kill off the smaller alliances who don't have many members over that score just yet...

[Alex]

300 and 200 is way too high for that though, it'd just kill off the smaller alliances who don't have many members over that score just yet...

 

Why does a nation with one or two cities need to sound out 50-100K or whatever? The only way it'll really get used it to cheat. Small nations would still be able to buy resources at reasonable prices.

[naTia]

Knowing past systems, a smaller nation might need to dump into the bank as part of a loan, to help out with a resource drive, or to get rid of excess money that could be stolen.

[Atzuya]

Why does a nation with one or two cities need to sound out 50-100K or whatever? The only way it'll really get used it to cheat. Small nations would still be able to buy resources at reasonable prices.

In the first week of this game, some people were pooling cash in a single nation so it can buy a second city right away. Surely it's not hard to imagine that the simple idea of 'teamwork' would come across the mind of newbies who had just joined. Even moreso when they came from a tight-knit group of friends and one of them is fairly savvy for this kind of game

[naTia]

In the first week of this game, some people were pooling cash in a single nation so it can buy a second city right away. Surely it's not hard to imagine that the simple idea of 'teamwork' would come across the mind of newbies who had just joined. Even moreso when they came from a tight-knit group of friends and one of them is fairly savvy for this kind of game

Yeah, but I'd say a lot of it was to make their alliances quickly.

[Atzuya]

2nd city = instant 30 NS for an alliance, along with greater scale of production. It is very affordable and makes a lot of sense if a group is planning to play for a long while. Sending 50k-100k sum of money at early phase of the game is a surefire way to shoot yourself in the foot, but it can be beneficial for the greater good of the whole.

 

Yeah, I know multis and the many many ways to exploit them are bad, but isolating the newbies and effectively putting them at the mercy of larger players that are at least 4 months old is just no way to do things. There's gotta be a better way

[stealthfox2]

please dont do that:

it would screw over my business

i myself am under 200 and not being able to send out money would be a huge detriment to not only my growth and my business, but tons of nations' growth