Feature Request to Avoid Certain Players

.

Good point about maintaining your own list. (Five paragraphs to say it, LOL.)

I agree with you, @Diabolical. While backstabbing is an essential part of this game, it shouldn't be allowed to happen too frequently, because the game loses enjoyability for the backstabbed. I like the idea of a reputation list. I'd like to suggest to keep it simple: you can either 'like' or 'dislike' a player. If a player has more 'dislikes' than 'likes', his name would be shown in red. If he has more 'likes' than 'dislikes', his name would be shown in [color=#00FF00]green[color=#000000]. However, it would have its problems, as many people would just dislike the winning player.[/color][/color]

If you are backstabbed frequently, that maybe says something about you. Either your diplomacy is bad and you choose bad allies all the time, or your gameplay is bad and you appear weak to those who you are allied with and they see their opportunity.

While I was never betrayed by those who I had share map with, I was few times attacked (didn't end well for them) by people who have agreed to non-aggression between us. However, I was both time aware about the possibility for them to do this and it is something everybody should think about. Honestly, one of those backstabs really made me upset because that game was part of Players league and had some unofficial rules which were not followed by that player. I would very much like to put that player on any black list if they existed, however, he was not heard about anytime later in Players league.

Back to the topic... If you don't see betrayal before it comes or you are not prepared for it, you will be surprised and it is your fault, especially if there is shared map. If you have shared map with someone and you don't see when they start moving to your lands or their goals are different than yours, then perhaps you should be more prepared for this kind of situations or reconsider your level of trusting other players (or real people, because this is not much different than real world).

I do not like the idea of blacklists because it would make gaming expirience of those players worse even if they probably deserved it. This is just a game after all and maybe it would be too radical.

Like others said before: Backstabbing is part of diplomacy and therefor part of the game. If your a great diplomat, you can either use this to make lots of trustworthy friends or you become a master of pretense. You can go either way and win either way. Its just your own style. But taking this precious feature away just to make you feel less threatend? No, thanks!

HUNDMiau wrote:

But taking this precious feature away just to make you feel less threatend?

The freedom to do so is. There is nothing better in a game than freedom. Only the players decide, what happens. That's a great thing for me. If they betray you, they become less reliable and you will avoid going in alliance with them later. Others who witnessed this will probably stay away from him or are likeminded and become allies. The more things are player based, the better

HUNDMiau wrote:

The more things are player based, the better

But the freedom you gain is combined with the loss of your enemys freedom. You force your way of gaming through non-gameplay features upon him and punish him if he doesn't want to follow your way.

Which is more important? The majority of player's enjoyment of the game or some select players who betray and back stab others?

Both is equally important. And it seems that not all people are for blocking someone just because he knows how to use the system for his advantage. Like I said before, it is part of diplomacy and therefor an essential part of this game. If I get backstabbed, I deserved it. If im not, then YAY. If you're a diplomatic type of player, use this to your advantage. Gain information and use them for your own goal. If you don't want to backstab someone, that is fine. If you don't to get backstabbed, don't join alliances with strangers. Its that simple. No need for a feature or a kind of punishment for people with other playstyles. If you take the freedom away, to be "bad", please remove spies. They're giving someone an unfair advantage and doesn't make the game fair. Its a war game. Backstabbing is allowed and common. Because we're at war and a nation, therefor the player, wants to win and become strong. How many people do you think Bytro loses, when they implement this feature? Too many. (BTW, this is just my opinion on the game, not on real life social interactions, some people might not understand the diffrence, thats why this sentence is existing)

HUNDMiau wrote:

If I get backstabbed, I deserved it.

Fair? No. Deserved? No. Nice? No. But you still have to live with it. You can't build a wall around him. Not in real life and neither should you be able to do so ingame. You're not Donald Trump. (only he can build walls around people he doesn't like). But I meant that If I got backstabbed, I didn't see the details and accepts his wits.

wit¹

wɪt/

noun

noun: wit; plural noun: wits

1.

the capacity for inventive thought and quick understanding; keen intelligence.

Stabbing someone in the back does not require wit.

HUNDMiau wrote:

accepts his wits.

Im sorry, I thought it meant something else.

Pablo22510 wrote:

I agree with you, @Diabolical. While backstabbing is an essential part of this game, it shouldn't be allowed to happen too frequently, because the game loses enjoyability for the backstabbed. I like the idea of a reputation list. I'd like to suggest to keep it simple: you can either 'like' or 'dislike' a player. If a player has more 'dislikes' than 'likes', his name would be shown in red. If he has more 'likes' than 'dislikes', his name would be shown in [color=#00FF00]green[color=#000000]. However, it would have its problems, as many people would just dislike the winning player.[/color][/color]

I think the Player Rating System (PRS) would have to have two parts. The first part would be multiple sets of four radio button issues. For example:

Stance.............Positive.....Neutral.....Negative.....Not Applicable

Loyalty................x.............O.............x.................x

Honesty...............x.............x..............x.................O

Cunning..............O.............x..............x.................x

Skill...................x.............O.............x.................x

Aggressiveness.......x.............x..............O................x

Sportsmanship.......O.............x..............x................x

Then, maybe an optional section could implement a comments section which could also be reported to block profanity and other violations of Bytro's rules.

Your feelings about the player:

"I thought she was a very challenging player. She was my ally towards the end of the match. Along the way, from what I saw, she was particularly cunning and I would think twice about declaring war on her if you aren't very prepared. I also thought she was a good sport and I appreciated some of the banter we had in the match. I would have her as my ally again."

That was my overly-worded way of saying what the multiple selection might indicate. But a comments section might need to be only for review by other players but not affecting any automatic settings like "auto-avoid".

Paramunac wrote:

Back to the topic... If you don't see betrayal before it comes or you are not prepared for it, you will be surprised and it is your fault, especially if there is shared map. If you have shared map with someone and you don't see when they start moving to your lands or their goals are different than yours, then perhaps you should be more prepared for this kind of situations or reconsider your level of trusting other players (or real people, because this is not much different than real world).

Aha!! You presume that treachery can only come from outside. But what if they've been sending forces through you to a mutual enemy. Then, when the war is half over, their forces en route suddenly turn hostile amidst your nation. Or, perhaps you were away for a day and a half and you've come back just before the system decided you were inactive and you return to see that they've moved forces up to your unguarded borders and they have a day and a half headstart on you. By the time you can react, you've already lost a far-too-significant portion of your nation to be able to survive the war when -- had you seen them coming earlier -- your preparations would have made the difference.

Or, maybe you spend hours typing long messages like this one and you finally remember to check your matches to see that you've been stabbed in the back for the umpteenth time and you're so sick of it you make the controversial suggestion of a Player Ratings System (PRS) (I think I should copyright that so I can get a chunk of the action should Bytro implement my idea

HUNDMiau wrote:

The freedom to do so is. There is nothing better in a game than freedom. Only the players decide, what happens. That's a great thing for me. If they betray you, they become less reliable and you will avoid going in alliance with them later. Others who witnessed this will probably stay away from him or are likeminded and become allies. The more things are player based, the better

HUNDMiau wrote:

But the freedom you gain is combined with the loss of your enemys freedom. You force your way of gaming through non-gameplay features upon him and punish him if he doesn't want to follow your way.

HUNDMiau wrote:

Fair? No. Deserved? No. Nice? No. But you still have to live with it. You can't build a wall around him. Not in real life and neither should you be able to do so ingame. You're not Donald Trump. (only he can build walls around people he doesn't like). But I meant that If I got backstabbed, I didn't see the details and accepts his wits.

**********************************************************************************************************************************

One thing that I find annoying is how some people want to force their ability to not be hidden from others as if that should be a right. But that is backwards thinking. That is a negative right...more commonly called a wrong. To have the ability to shun another does not take away the rights of that other person as much as it is to deny the right of the first person to shun. In other words, if you take away my rights to ignore you, then you've overstepped your rights and invaded my personal liberties.

It's like with the concept of free speech. I have a right to shout to the masses. But you have the right not to listen to me. Without your right to ignore me, my freedom of speech is meaningless and instead becomes a freedom of propaganda which benefits no one. Freedom of speech only means to be able freely express yourself regardless of other's choice to listen to or ignore you. But there is no freedom of being heard. That is not freedom. That is tyranny. That is exactly what dictators practice.

But you can take that too far, too. This whole idea of safe zones where people can be in public and yet not have to hear other's as-perceived controversial statements. There are college campuses that are creating these public areas where the rights of free speech are curtailed and this is in direct violation of the first amendment here in America. The colleges need to teach the kids that the way you avoid hearing others is by going to private property, whether that be in your dorm room, a hotel, your rented room, your trailer, your tent at a campground, your RV, your house, or even your friends homes. But, the right not to be heard does not apply to public spaces -- only to private spaces or wherever there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Know the difference.

Thus, with freedom of speech there must be the freedom to ignore. The same is true of a reputation system. I should have the freedom to ignore you (i.e., blacklist) while you have the freedom to join any game you want (you joined a match first so I don't see the match). Or, having the idea of a green/red naming system based on rep could make it simpler. In a game, I would have the right to ignore you (you use false diplomacy to try to gain my trust but I see that you are red and so I may choose to not grant you trust), but that does not take away your right to try to express yourself (you can keep bantering me with diplomatic messages...or maybe not, maybe I should be able to block your messages...but that would not preclude messages sent to the World Herald).

Anyway, this is clearly a contentious issue. I think the best course of action would be for Bytro to just give it a try. Then, as the community evolves one way or another, change/edit/tweak the system to find a better balance. The worst thing that could happen from trying a PRS would be to have it fail and they have to remove the feature. But you'll never know for certain until you make the attempt. Trying something to test a feature is not a bad thing unless it is not accepted in the long run and isn't removed. And if you don't try it, you might not realize how good of an idea it might just be.

I will not comment the part where you reply to my message because it says that you were not prepared which can be only your fault as I explained earlier.

One thing is being able not join games where there are people you don't want to play with. I agree with the possibility to do that. But there is a solution for this. Don't join random games or create password protected ones.

I read the part when you write about free speech and something connected to it. Problem with free speech is that once it is allowed somewhere, it will allways be abused and turned into propaganda and in that way it will stop being free speech. You somewhat explained it but you failed to respect your explanation. How? You say that there should be a right to say what you want (I think it is debatable, and most likely against the rules if you use the way you want, but let's say that it is granted.), and that other people should have the right not to hear you. But, if those blacklists (or PRS how you call them) are implemented, and they would be public, there will be no way for them not to be seen and people would be marked in the eyes of others. And that, for sure, IS against the rules.

Some users have already proposed things like better choosing games you join, or maintaining your personal list of people who you don't want to play with or other. I suggest you to try something like that.

Diabolical wrote:

Anyway, this is clearly a contentious issue. I think the best course of action would be for Bytro to just give it a try. Then, as the community evolves one way or another, change/edit/tweak the system to find a better balance. The worst thing that could happen from trying a PRS would be to have it fail and they have to remove the feature. But you'll never know for certain until you make the attempt. Trying something to test a feature is not a bad thing unless it is not accepted in the long run and isn't removed. And if you don't try it, you might not realize how good of an idea it might just be.

This reminds me of situation about some ideology from first half of 20. century. Imagine if that one was never tried.

Interesting idea.

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

thats part of the game loss..

cant just block players cos they are better than you..

not everyone can win, but everybody should have a go..

yea in the game..

I would nail an ally if that attacked me..

wipe them

not go around blocking them...

grow up, and act the part, it is a game, fight

instead of crying and blocking somebody cos he better than you..

figures

This really speaks about the kind of person you are.

I don't have much more to say other than a poll should be added @Diabolical because I've said that, in my opinion, it is fine to block someone you don't want to play with like it would be to block someone that you do not want to talk with on Facebook.

not Diabolical BTW....

as czar said.. its part of the game..

its a though part of the game.... but so is war,

if you dont like the fact that you may lose the game... dont play..

if you are worried about getting stabbed in the back, get an ally from your alliance and take the world with him...

My point about free speech is boiled down to this: that you have a right to speak freely in the public square. But if you want to practice your right to not hear someone else's free speech, you must go to your private square. Thus the gated community concept. A gated community is not public but private land. Of course, a communist would argue against the rights of privacy -- especially the rights of private land.

There are never perfect solutions. But, freedom of speech -- when not trounced upon by the authority and not shoved down your throat on private property -- is still the most valuable of all potential freedoms in retaining the ability to shape one's own government. Without free speech, you can't speak out against tyranny in government. That's why we have the Second Amendment to our Constitution, so we can protect the First Amendment from government tyranny.

If you read further, you hereby accept and affirm that you forgo your right to post "tl;dr" in response to this message. So, don't click on the spoiler and read further unless you want to learn something important about America.

************************************************************************************************************************************

Edit: I got smart and utilized the spoiler feature!

[continued in next message due to length...]