Could the DEVS please confirm the following

  • On global chat on the Chichen Itza server one player is telling others that sending multiple spying missions or multiple single warrior attacks to another player is against the rules.


    Is this so? If so the RULES should be updated as there is nothing in the rules to say this is the case.

  • I have contacted admin privately with a copy of the chat comments to which TaneMahuta refers and also concerning another player's actions, the latter being the reason I raised the issue in chat, in the (unsuccessful) hope of preventing further action.

  • I am not saying I agree with players bombarding another player with spies but it is NOT against the RULES as they are currently stated.


    Having played other very similar games I foreshadowed this and another attack feature called 'slow attacks' on a much older thread and M0H0 said it was not against the RULES.


    So I think unless the RULES have changed it is not right for players to claim that sending multiple spying missions to ONE player is against the RULES.

  • It may come as no surprise that the player to whom TaneMahuta refers is me. As stated above, I have emailed a private copy of the chat comments to the admins. It is clear from those comments what was said and why. I hope that Tanemahuta will contact admin in private if he has any further problems concerning me.

  • Hi i would like to agree with tanemahuta. players are getting banned for something that s not stated in rules. if it is an act that should not carry out why does the game itself allow this to happening, and is not in the rule book so how is it braking the rules. but players can attack the smaller players everyday for days and this may be the only way that they can hit back. i have played other games and it is seen as part of the war game.
    but clearly if against the rules of this game it needs to be stated in the rules

  • GRIMM I doubt if the DEVS will discuss why a player was banned on the forum. IF a player in your Tribe was banned then it is best to discuss this in private with the DEVS. It could well be that the player was banned for another reason than seding multiple spy missions at another player. IF a player was banned for ONLY sending multiple spy missions at another player then given it is not stated that this is against the RULES it is not correct.


    Hopefully the DEVS will address my original question and that will clarify this issue.

  • Hi Grimm,


    First of all, one player was banned for continuous spying (and he chose to broadcast this in chat). My understanding is that spying is allowed for the purposes of the game when undertaken to seek information from the opponent to enable a decision to be made on whether to attack/withdraw etc. Most players are aware (or ought to be) that five spies is normally the minimum needed to obtain information (possibly ten if the spied player is of a high level etc), depending on the level of each player's watchtower and espionage. Players might send an initial spy mission before an attack, then perhaps a couple more spy missions during the time the attack takes to arrive, to check whether any changes have taken place in the city and to enable them to decide whether to continue with the attack. That is 'normal' game playing as intended by the developers. A player who chooses to send one spy on each of ten consecutive spy missions (i.e. within a second of each other), and then when each mission ends sends a further ten one-spy missions and so on for long periods of time is not doing so to seek information in order to play the game and ought to be fully aware that he/she will gain no information at all and will undoubtedly lose their spy each time. Thus, it is open to the developers/admin to decide whether that player is doing so for other reasons, for example to deliberately cause annoyance to their opponent. If the developers decide that the player concerned is deliberately trying to cause annoyance to another player (taking into account the number sent and the length of the period concerned), it is for them to decide what punishment, if any, to deliver. In my view the game rules cover this and that action might be taken against a rule-breaker.


    Secondly, the game prevents one player spying or attacking a 'weaker' player in the game. The developers have decided a level at which one player should be deemed 'weaker' than the other. Thus if the game permits one player to spy or attack another then the attacking player is doing nothing wrong and is attacking purely for game purposes, chiefly to obtain resources. The game allows for players to attack the same player within (I believe) 24 hours or so. There are so few players on the Chichen Itza server that those who are playing the game are bound to attack weaker players at some point and maybe more often than their opponent would like. However, it is not difficult in my view to send one's troops and resources away when going off-line or when on-line and becoming aware of an incoming attack. There is also information on this forum on how to do that and I would assume and expect that tribe leaders would advise and assist their members to do so. Weaker players also have the option to join with other players and share troops to assist them in battles against stronger players.

  • We consider extreme cases of intentional gameplay hindrance to other players punishable, and will update the game rules to reflect this accordingly, but it should not come as a surprise that if a players attacks or spies to another player more than 150 times in the time span of four days we are going to notice it. Sending "dummy" spies/attacks is fine, just don't take it to an extreme and send hundreds of them in a row.

  • I think it would be good to quantify this.
    That is to say how many dummy attacks one is allowed to do against another player.
    If you are going to deal with this on a cse by case basis then some player might get upset.


    Personally I don't think that it is necessarily in the 'spirit' of the game for players to 'gang up' and send spies at another player just to fill up their 'in-box'.


    That said since this has not been stated in the rules to ban a player for it might not be fair unless they were warned and chose to keep doing it.

  • I am concerned that if the Tentlan team state what is an acceptable number of spying / attack missions, it may lead to some players using that figure to 'hide within' when all along they are purposely attempting to hindrance gameplay for another player. However, if it is deemed helpful to give some guidelines, I would suggest it shouldn't be necessary to send more than one spy mission to any city at one time and it should only be necessary to send a first spy mission, maybe one or two after an attack mission has been sent (during the travel period) with possibly another spy mission prior to attack (depending on the travel time involved). Perhaps three or four spy missions a day would be acceptable as players may wish to establish whether a player is in game at different times of day. Similarly, it should not be necessary to send more than a couple of dummy attacks at any one city or any one time. In my view sending any more than this is deliberate gameplay hindrance.

  • This game is going a strange direction : the smaller players have less and less options to continue gaming. The small players are getting farmed on daily based loosing their troops and resources by people like Foxy. So they have to be happy with building a few troops and sending small amounts. To my opinion that is there only defence. Banning people for it very strange in my opinion!


    But Foxy threatens/complains and the devs feel it necessary to set up a rule to protect Foxy even further. To my feeling new rules are created for the benefit of 1 player.


    Remark:
    I'm not a small player, nor I have tribe members or close friends involved in this problem, but from a neutral point of view it seems like Foxy has the devs in his/her pocket.

  • in ALL games similar to this I have played if one is attacking another player then one should be allowed to send as many spy missions as they like.
    The reason is this.
    A player under attack can get his/her friends to group defend them (in this game they have to donate the troops to that player) during an attack. So the attacker needs to be able to see till the very last minute if the other player has managed to get extra troops from others or another of his/her Cities to help against the attack.
    The attacker should also be able to slow down the spy that he/she should send seconds before their attack lands so if the defender has times it to the last second to have troops at his/her City they can see that and can abort the attack.


    I don't think sending hundreds of spying missions at a given player to annoy a player is in the spirit of the game but as I said since it has not been forbidden in the rules to ban players for doing so before the rules have been updated might also be unfair. BUT if they had been warned and chose not to heed the warning then the ban is fair.

  • Hi TerraG,


    All players have the option to move their troops and resources away when they are off-line or when they are on-line and see an attack coming.


    As has already been stated on here by the Tentlan Team, if you have any personal complaints about me or you believe that I have broken any rules, please send them to the Tentlan Team privately. I will do the same.

  • Hi TaneMahuta,
    Personally, I don't think this Forum is (or was intended to be) the place to discuss punishments given to players. For one thing, there will always be a lot more to a situation that warranted a punishment than might be admitted by the player concerned. Rightly, the Tental Team does not publicise that information. In my view any discussion on a punishment given should be between the Tentlan Team and the player concerned only and in private. Secondly, I have every trust in Tentlan Team's impartiality and objectivity and I trust that they will always given proper consideration to any complaint and subsequent punishment.

  • I never said punishments should be discussed in public.
    The point I was making ws to GRIMM and it was exactly along the lines that there might have been more to the ban than the players in his tribe who got warned or banned told him.


    In some ways it would be nice for a Tribe Leader to be told by DEVS why a player was banned so that they can then decide what to do with that player themselves - as in kick them from the Tribe warn them etc.

  • Unfortunately, despite the clear content of M0H0's post, a player continues (as I type) to send 10 consecutive attack missions to my main city, each consisting of only one lancer. Those missions are not being sent to gain information with a view to an attack. They are being sent deliberately to hinder another player's gameplay. I have emailed the Tentlan Team yet again with details.

  • Hi TaneMahuta,


    In my view your first post discusses punishments. However, we can agree to disagree on that point.


    If I was a tribe leader and found out that a player had been banned (it can be seen on their city) I wouldn't hesitate to remove them from my tribe. I also think such things should remain confidential between the Tentlan Team and the player, particularly to avoid any tribe leaders/players divulging personal information about others and making hostile comments about them in the public arena.

  • smaller players dont have a chance to play the game and they are and want to leave as they dont have a chance to grow as they are being farmed so much. there is no way to send troops to another city so they can be protected as they can recall them themselves and no way of knowing what has been sent,also it can take too much corn to walk troops the time span that they are off line, so they end up having to give them away and hope they can get them back or leaving them and pray. with constant attacks on players taking goods and killing troops the player has no way to fight back, and if it is not in the rule book there is no limit and that was the only poss way, they get banned and with out warning how can this be fair, then other small players are threatened with being reported. what is the point for the small player to play, as they are just going to be constantly knocked down and i know that players have left the game as they dont see the point of playing any more. and if these players left this game what would be left??? players want to enjoy the game as it is to relax, make new online friends, chat and not to come on and be stressed as what they have done has gone with one go and to the same player as they are being used as a farm, what fun is that


    i have never played an online game and i have played many where spy mission has had a limit on it

  • I am not sure what post you are reading Foxy but this is my FIRST post and it does NOT mention anything about punishments


    On global chat on the Chichen Itza server one player is telling others that sending multiple spying missions or multiple single warrior attacks to another player is against the rules.


    Is this so? If so the RULES should be updated as there is nothing in the rules to say this is thecase.


    The following was my next post


    Quote

    GRIMM I doubt if the DEVS will discuss why a player was banned on the forum. IF a player in your Tribe was banned then it is best to discuss this in private with the DEVS. It could well be that the player was banned for another reason than seding multiple spy missions at another player. IF a player was banned for ONLY sending multiple spy missions at another player then given it is not stated that this is against the RULES it is not correct.


    Hopefully the DEVS will address my original question and that will clarify this issue.


    and it is addressed to GRIMM and again I make it clear that I don't expect the DEVS to discuss punishments in public.


    If you are going to keep feeling the need to reply to every thread I post in could you at least get your facts right.


    It is so so so tiresome.

  • @Foxy :
    1) I dont have this option, too many troops LOL
    2) this is not a personal complaint, my point is I dont need/want this rule and to what I understand from the above thread you are the one being protected by the rule (I just build further on what was already told here), so general speaking this rules is good for 1/few and bad for many, where the one is not even in a position that he needs more protection than what is already available (see below)


    @ Tane :
    spamming troops can create a smoke screen for a bigger attack, the only way to catch online players (not sure you are referring to that) -> this reason has no relation with annoying people, but the rule will kill that option too


    General speaking, when 2 players work together, being one that buys 100% protection for maybe even 1 year (nice money for the devs) and the 2nd player keeping his account small enough and takes only few of the gather troops at the first player to attack the smallest possible players on the server (bending the 1/10 rule protection to the limit). This way even the smallest players are not protected by the 'smart' way people bend the rules. And apparently those players are not protected enough, so new rules are needed to protect them even further.


    This game needs oxigen and more player URGENTLY!!!