Feature Request to Avoid Certain Players

This is a World Herald post where I have left a match after nearly 4 months of game play. In that match, I was the first place winner and had mercifully spared one enemy to become an ally and rescued the other ally from the alliance that the first ally was a part of. Thus the three remaining nations (including myself) were allied with each other and were prepared (or so I thought) to vote to retire the match. However, the player that I rescued from defeat then betrayed me and actually allied with his former enemy against me. Though I had nearly half of the entire world and most of the economy and military, the shock of the betrayal was enough to bring me down and I lost that round. This is that final message:

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

If no one cares for the great things I did for them, then so be it.

I've appealed with every right and righteous aspect of both other players remaining in this match. I have proven my worth and I played triumphantly and did not waver in my resolve to continue playing honestly and forthrightly. I've continued also to show good strategy even in the face of treachery and have already achieved a moral victory in this match.

That I would be denied any Gold even in third place is a testament to the cold-hearted nature of those who remain after me. I've been civil and I've been noble. The same cannot be said of the other remaining players.

When I generously proposed to share my total victory with the others -- giving up my prestige as the one true winner in this match -- I bore my good nature to them. When I was betrayed by both, not in the spirit of the less-favorable aspects of this game, but in the spirit of cruelty, I was slow to respond in the most carefully calculated way and I've lost solely because of that one mistake.

When I was mocked for my way of playing and even my way of being, I did not retaliate except to point out honest observations of each of my would-be assassins.

Know this: that word of your treachery has reached the ears of others and will continue to do so as I endeavor to work outside of this match to ensure that the insidious behavior of two remaining players will not go unpunished in the Call of War community. Gamer Reputation is far more important than any player score and the reputation of those remaining has been and will continue to be negatively impacted by their continued acts of wickedness.

I have stated the truth of things and this message goes out to the remaining players without addressing either of them specifically for neither of them have earned even an ounce of my respect and neither of them are worthy of my personal attention.

Thus I am leaving this match. If I get no Gold, I will no longer mourn the actions of my would-be betrayers. The lack of gratitude of each has not been forgotten and I will strive hard to avoid them in future matches. However, should I ever end up in the same match with either of them, I will rally the entire in-game group of other players against them to remove them swiftly from such matches.

I have stated my peace. I have not accepted defeat. I was the winner already before I was betrayed. That is why I claim the moral victory. In my mind, the actions since that day are irrelevant to that fact. They can mock me if they wish. But I know the truth and so do they.

Remember this: a victory by betrayal is not a victory. It is only a pox and a shame upon oneself that they must bear before the stiff-glazed eyes of those who would judge them.

As I have stated. I am done. I will offer no more resistance. I will build no more units. I will command no more forces. What has been done is done. There will be no further interactions by me.

To that end, I am leaving and will no longer monitor this match. So, whatever vitriolic responses this message may engender shall go unseen by me, the true winner.

So, as the true winner of this match, I can finally say only this:

*blows raspberry and makes faces.

It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.
The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
R.I.P. Snickers <3

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

74 Replies

Why do you always use blue typing that has a larger font?

Barrimann wrote:

I just want a way to identify someone as a player who kept trust or broke trust 6 months or more previously. I want to play both with and against trust keepers; that's fun. Trust breakers I REALLY want to play against; I want to make games miserable experiences for them. They will probably start spending their allowance trying to beat me, so Bytro makes some coin. Eventually they'll run out of coin, then Bytro won't care either way.

(I play a lot of games and meet a lot of people. Can't remember who the occasional good or bad guy was and I don't want to spend time doing list maintenance; so give me the green and red buttons for my gated gameroom.)

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
-Winston Churchill
Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching.
-George S. Patton

Man, this really IS a hornet's nest!

I happen to like big blue typing.

It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.
The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
R.I.P. Snickers <3

Barrimann wrote:

I just want a way to identify someone as a player who kept trust or broke trust 6 months or more previously. I want to play both with and against trust keepers; that's fun. Trust breakers I REALLY want to play against; I want to make games miserable experiences for them. They will probably start spending their allowance trying to beat me, so Bytro makes some coin. Eventually they'll run out of coin, then Bytro won't care either way.

(I play a lot of games and meet a lot of people. Can't remember who the occasional good or bad guy was and I don't want to spend time doing list maintenance; so give me the green and red buttons for my gated gameroom.)

This is the exact reason we can't allow this kind of thing. Just read his text. And then tell me, what will this create? A parallel "society" (I didn't find a better word, sorry). He want's to know who's a trust breaker so he can make em suffer. It will turn out in a kind of punishment system. Just give me one good answer: Why exactly do you want to know who will do what in a game? If you want to know what will happen next, why don't you watch a movie? Or the other way around: Why do you want to play video games, who lack the most iconic and defining feature of video games, the power to do something. The power not to follow patterns. Lets just create a game where everyone will do just what they're supposed to do: Allies will stay allies till the end, everyone else will stay an enemy. No event that can change the fate of the world. You will go down with your allies or win. So much tension, wow. I couldn't think of an more boring multiplayer game. And thats, what this kind of feature in any way would bring us. A predicable game without tension due to forseeable actions. And now, some might argue with: But then, only your skills are important. Yes, that's true. But only, if you think that skill is only deploying the right unit at the right spot at the right time. Fun fact: It's not. Spyes, not only ingame spies but player spies as well, need a lot of skills to be useful. These player spies need so much skill to keep their cool and gaining trust and information. Why do you want to dismiss this kind of skill? And where would the tension go? I go to war. I lose. New game. I go to war. I win. I go to war. I win. You get what I'm trying to say. No tension, because there is no possibility for surprise. Because you know exactly who is the enemy and who's not. So tell me one benefit, that would enrich the game for everyone. And don't forget: THIS IS A WAR GAME. It is absolutely against any kind of logic to take away one of the most basic features of war, the egoistic (ab)use of diplomacy. Its like a martial arts with an clone as an opponent. Possible, but boring and predictable. How can someone even get the idea of punishing normal warlike methods outside the one hundred man world we play in.

HUNDMiau wrote:

This is the exact reason we can't allow this kind of thing. Just read his text. And then tell me, what will this create? A parallel "society" (I didn't find a better word, sorry). He want's to know who's a trust breaker so he can make em suffer. It will turn out in a kind of punishment system. Just give me one good answer: Why exactly do you want to know who will do what in a game? If you want to know what will happen next, why don't you watch a movie? Or the other way around: Why do you want to play video games, who lack the most iconic and defining feature of video games, the power to do something. The power not to follow patterns. Lets just create a game where everyone will do just what they're supposed to do: Allies will stay allies till the end, everyone else will stay an enemy. No event that can change the fate of the world. You will go down with your allies or win. So much tension, wow. I couldn't think of an more boring multiplayer game. And thats, what this kind of feature in any way would bring us. A predicable game without tension due to forseeable actions. And now, some might argue with: But then, only your skills are important. Yes, that's true. But only, if you think that skill is only deploying the right unit at the right spot at the right time. Fun fact: It's not. Spyes, not only ingame spies but player spies as well, need a lot of skills to be useful. These player spies need so much skill to keep their cool and gaining trust and information. Why do you want to dismiss this kind of skill? And where would the tension go? I go to war. I lose. New game. I go to war. I win. I go to war. I win. You get what I'm trying to say. No tension, because there is no possibility for surprise. Because you know exactly who is the enemy and who's not. So tell me one benefit, that would enrich the game for everyone. And don't forget: THIS IS A WAR GAME. It is absolutely against any kind of logic to take away one of the most basic features of war, the egoistic (ab)use of diplomacy. Its like a martial arts with an clone as an opponent. Possible, but boring and predictable. How can someone even get the idea of punishing normal warlike methods outside the one hundred man world we play in.
Let's play Jeopardy!!

Given the following answer, what is the question?

>>> "white space" <<<

Anyone? .... Anyone? ....

It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.
The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
R.I.P. Snickers <3

I see there is definitely a need for compromise. The back-stabbers want to find losers that will trust them. The honorable want to find players that won't back-stab them.

How to get them to unite?

Well, how about this: Let's give it a try!!

Bytro implements a player rating system. This system is community-driven. The rating system gives you the ability to thumb's up or thumb's down a player (or scale) based on perceived player traits: skill, cunning, deception, and other various styles (as I mentioned in a previous post). Then there's a comment section but all comments must expire after a couple weeks or maybe a month.

Then there's the part about selecting matches. In searching for existing matches, there should be an option to select whether to include matches where you've been blacklisted by someone in the match and an option to include where someone already in the match has been blacklisted by you. But, while you should be able to add players to blacklists, any name on the list should be automatically removed after 2 months (or less?).

But this blacklist should not be publicly available. It should only be your private list (not hand-written paper on your desk, mind you) and you should have the ability to share it with your alliance.

Now, for the part that will make Bytro pay attention:

They should implement a feature that allows people who've been blacklisted by you to mask their identity in a match until AFTER you've joined it. Therefore, your ability to not see matches where someone has been blacklisted gets overridden. And, of course, the only way to make this feasible -- and to make it Bytrician-approved -- is to require Gold to mask yourself from blacklist detection.

Then, to make EVEN MORE MONEY FOR BYTRO, let a player have an override-blocker that they can spend Gold on that will reveal the identities of all players in a match that have paid Gold to hide their blacklist-status. Thus there is a back-and-forth that makes Bytro happy while the players that are more adamant about hiding or revealing the hiders can spend some of their boughten and/or earned Gold.

Therefore, [usually] the nice guys win, the haters win, and Bytro wins.

EVERYBODY WINS!!!

And everybody knows.

"And knowing is half the battle."

It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.
The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
R.I.P. Snickers <3

Ratings can be just as abused as trust is. Both honorable and treacherous players would be making rating calls and I know the treacherous will rate me badly, consistently, and continually. I approve of back-stabbing as a tactic as I do clubbing baby seals. I understand these folks have just as much a right to play as I, but I think if I'm able to recall their previous behavior (from months ago), not only will I avoid turning my back to them, but I'll let them glean the just results of their previous malicious moves. In time they can either avoid me, or learn to play honorably. We all have choices.

My suggestion has been to make all ratings temporary. Also, I personally believe that the malicious raters will be outnumbered by the honest raters and the rating system would have to report an aggregate of overall ratings over recent history of the player. Thus, your fears of an unjustly bad rating have a serious affect on you sound unjustified.

It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.
The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
R.I.P. Snickers <3

I'll try whatever system occurs, then time will tell. NP

They probably read one of your long posts @Diabolical , then decided to rid you from the game... lol

Sincerely, wildL
EN Mod
Report a problem

wildL SPQR wrote:

They probably read one of your long posts @Diabolical , then decided to rid you from the game... lol
This is why, we need a triple like Button

If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye

Diabolical wrote:

My overall point -- and this is true of many of the ideas I propose -- is to present a better balance of realism crossed with idealism. To offer a way of thinking that benefits most players in a manner that doesn't hurt those whom perceive the ideas as not beneficial.
Wow, this guy is so deep. I can't believe there is someone in this forum that reasonable. I mean, his ideas are incredible and fantastic. I've read one of his posts where he said he isn't a part of the crew working at Bytro. But he should be! This is a person that clearly knows and understands what Call of War is all about. He should be the game master, or whatever kind of person is in charge of the game design over at Bytro. If I were a programmer working at Bytro, I'd want to listen to him.

He's just frickin' awesome!

Diabolical wrote:

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

Wow! Did I mention this guy is funny, too!

I keep a list under my mouse pad. If I really enjoyed playing with someone I just met I write there name down on the left. If I decide I prefer not to play with someone again I write their name on the right. Anyone else does not get written down. In 5 months of playing I have 4 names on the left and 1 on the right. It works for me.

"A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr.
"Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda

Peter Mat wrote:

I keep a list under my mouse pad. If I really enjoyed playing with someone I just met I write there name down on the left. If I decide I prefer not to play with someone again I write their name on the right.

...

:thumbup:
Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money ..
..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game <<
.... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps.
Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

Back to Suggestions
Quick Launch