Game administrators will soon have the ability to place player accounts into a limited mode known as "military sanctions". Player accounts under military sanctions will be subject to the following restrictions on the Express, Primary, and Tournament servers:

* Their current countries may be deleted.
* All future countries cannot leave GDI.
* All future countries cannot attack or spy other countries unless those other countries have attacked or spied them first.

A racing game analogy will be helpful to explain the motivation behind this change. Imagine an online racing game where players compete against other players. The goal is to be the first car to complete five laps of the race track. Eventually, some players give up on winning the races and start driving their cars backwards. They hope to ram other players and to ruin everyone else's experience. Eventually, the game developers implement some kind of restriction to limit the amount of backwards distance a car can travel.

However, that's not the end of things. The same group of players then starts driving in circles around the finish line. Eventually, the game developers implement some kind of countermeasure to that. Next, the same group begins to team up with other players to blockade the finish line. Eventually, the game developers implement some kind of countermeasure to that. In response, the same group of players begins driving side by side very slowly with other players to act as a blockade.

There are three different parties here who all have different needs and wants:

1) Most of the player base just wants to race without other players trying to ruin their experience. They would like to see occasional improvements to the core gameplay experience.
2) The game developers would like to implement cool new features for the community such as new cars or tracks. Instead, they spend their development time working on countermeasures to prevent griefing.
3) The griefers want to ruin the fun of others. They say things like "Driving backwards is fun for me", "If developers didn't intend for me to do this then it wouldn't be allowed", and "Someone rammed my car six months ago so I will ram any car I see in hopes that I can get back at that player".

At what point should the game administrators stop trying to writing code and instead take direct action against the small group of griefers? I've been watching the solo servers for the past few months, and it's become clear to me that there's a small group of players who play only to "drive their cars backwards" in Earth Empires. Military sanctions are the first step to combat that kind of behavior.

Military sanctions are applied at the account level and can only be enacted by an administrator. This is an extreme measure that will only be applied to the worst offenders who continually play to ruin the playing experience of others. Similar to moderator actions, we do not plan to typically made a public statement when a player is placed under sanctions. I would like to remind players that creating multiple game accounts is cheating and is a severe rule offense.

I understand that there may be some questions about what we consider to be acceptable behavior, especially in a game where players can benefit from taking resources from other players. Conflict is a welcome and necessary part of the game, but there's a clear difference in my mind between acceptable and unacceptable forms of conflict. Examples of acceptable behaviors on solo servers:

* Warring over an ingame issue that occurred this round or the last round.
* Landgrabbing other players in an attempt to improve your own networth.
* Running an offensively-oriented country and harshly responding to any country that attacks you.

Examples of not acceptable behaviors on solo servers:

* Starting the round with the intent to aggressively ruin the playing experience of other players. For example, landgrabbing a country in GDI over and over in an attempt to force it to give up its GDI protection so special attacks can be launched against it.
* Teaming up with other players outside of the ingame alliances framework.
* Repeated targeting of players due to issues that occurred on other servers.

This isn't an announcement that I make lightly. However, we need to do something to improve the playing experience for the typical player and to reduce the amount of admin and moderator time spent dealing with a small group of players who continually cause problems. I view military sanctions as a better alternative to deleting countries set after set. Ultimately, it is our prerogative to take actions that we believe will be best for the long-term health of the game.

Feel free to ask any questions that you have about military sanctions, including what is viewed as acceptable or unacceptable behavior.

Great work Slagpit and admins. That is good stuff there.

I like it!

sounds permanent for the worst cases

maybe something where you had to play a lot of sets under the restrictions without further bad behaviour before it got lifted automatically

so if i got punished for 2 sets of idiocy in express, maybe id need to play 4 sets worth of express turns without former idiocy before the punishment timer expired, and it could be set at admin/mod level so that the game would keep track of how much the punishment was winding down and wouldnt require further interaction except to increase it

with a sets worth of turns being set at normal turns for a whole set not bonus points perhaps

Very interesting indeed!

I wonder how you will differentiate between farming noobs who can't defend themselves vs. farming someone who has a chance to defend themselves, as it seems that is the main difference here. Attack someone more than once and they hit you back, and you can't do anything about that out of fear the admin will judge your "intent when you start the round". And speaking of "Starting the round with the intent.." How exactly do you determine what intent someone has when they start a round? Perhaps you read tarot cards as well?

Why not just be transparent and say you want to ban a few people because they play the game?

Also as I am sure you are aware, driving a car backwards in a race is against the rules where using the war room buttons is not against the rules.

I'd be sceptical of such a potent punishment being used for someone fooling around 1-2 sets. My guess from my years of experience on all solo servers is that in total less than 10 individuals that stand for the vast majority of the depravities on those servers put together both with regards to griefing and cheating behaviors and those that are in between. No one will miss the worst offenders. :)
Not to mention the signal value of this tool and if it ever gets used should in and of itself reduce such behavior in those who are not frequent offenders but sometimes are in an unproductive mood.

Nicely done Slagpit!, Are you playing F1 2020 on Xbox? If so add me, I use same name in every game, I'm easy to find!

He never stated what racing game it was.....

You can do it in almost any of them 😉 F1 has adopted very strict online rules.

Mario Kart has no rules....

Neither does wreckfest 🤐

This has to be one of the worst ideas I've seen in a long time Slagpit, more biased mod power and more subjective targeting.

I was really hoping you would bring positive changes to make the game less stagnant and more competitive between players but it seems that you just want to appease the small number of players who think this game should be player vs bot only or advanced player versus new/beginner player only.

A much simpler solution would be to show these special players where the market tab is so they can buy some turrets, and maybe some sdi, spy and medical tech while they are at it. You've stated before that you want to increase market activity... a great way to do that would be to allow all of the players to play the game against one another so that all of the aspects of the game become relevant again.

Your comparisons to a racing game are also very flawed because this is not a racing game, this is a much more complex game than that. It is a game of diplomacy and strategy where players are allowed to attack other players, and players are allowed to defend themselves and even contact one another via in-game messages.

The closest racing game to Earth Empires in my opinion would be mario cart, where I can shoot little turtles at the cart in front of me, or drop little bananas for the guys behind me.. and if someone else is in first place and I'd like to try to slow them down and pass them I have multiple options to try to do so.

If I attack a good player, and they retaliate against my attack, and then I choose to attack them again... well that means I have broken gdi myself and opened myself up to any type of attack that player wants to make against me.. if that player would like to continue to enjoy the protections of gdi they don't have to attack me again. If that player would like to avoid my nation attacking theirs again they can purchase defenses and technology to stop any future attacks I might try to make against them.

Also, there is something to be said for diplomacy amongst players and there is a reason that we have the in-game message option.

As an example, a few resets ago I top fed a top player in Primary and I got hit with a retaliation but I also got a couple of very nice messages along with an explanation as to why what I was doing was actually harmful to both of us and to both of our finishes in the game.. great, I appreciated the kindness and I did not attack that player again

Later on in the same reset I attacked another top player, and received a couple of rude and name calling messages in response as well as a retal.. consequently I decided to attack that player again with another land grab and they responded with special attacks and we fought a war against each other.

I don't believe that any of that is, or should be against the rules because it's all a part of the game and within the game rules.

What you are doing is basically destroying the game, and saying it is only okay to attack new players multiple times but it is not okay to attack good players.. and/or it is okay to attack bots but it's not okay to attack other people .. what a joke

I agree with a lot of this but being in the receiving end of snowflakes wrecking my netting set on server A because they got offended over something I said on server B is not healthy for the game either, I know more than half of dozen players who quit playing because of cross server fluff.

There's got to be some kind of balance.

It is only admins that have the option to implement this.

I dig it especially if it has the effect of making developments elsewhere more feasible. I would only bring up the same old SOTS debate, because of the "biased mod" comment.

I know there's not like a super easy fix, but anything you tell a mod they have to delete someone or in this new case, put them in jail, for an action they were allowed to do in the game, is going to make the players resent the mod. Weve seen it all the way back to SOTS on team like 8 years ago. Whenever a mod or even an admin is subject to a judgement call, and the end result is a person losing everything, you're putting that person in a position where they are generally angry at the mod for the judgement call going against them. And then they freak out about it.

I understand this seems to be only for extreme cases, and I can appreciate that, but I feel like it will still be problematic in almost all cases for an action allowed in game to had a judgement call made on, rather than a preventative mechanic.

Again would propose limiting hits and a timed clock for war over this, but I think it's a fine patch for the time being.

I absolutely
Fracking
Love
This
Idea!

+99!!

KoH..

When I hear people say, "someone wrecked my netting set"

What I really hear is.. "I didn't have adequate defenses for my country and I got caught and I got attacked"

What has happened is that the developers have catered to this group of players that only wants to attack bots, and only wants to attack new players (which drives new players away)... and the devs have listened to these players so much so that now it is the normal for a country to have tons and tons of acres and almost no turrets, 0 tanks, 0 troops, 0 sdi and 0 spy tech and very few spies. It's gotten so out of hand that it's almost impossible to win without running your country this way.. and this is madness because troops, tanks, sdi, spies, tech and missiles are ALL things that are supposed to be a part of the game.

I should be able to run a country that carries adequate defenses for sdi, spies, tanks and troops AND still have a chance to win a netgaining competition but the devs/mods have eliminated that from the game and made it so that if you want to win you can't also protect your country properly .. you have to do one or the other ..

You have to either go for the win and keep your expenses down and don't defend your country properly, or defend your country properly taking advantage of all aspects of the game and not have a chance to win because you are carrying expenses.

That is what needs to change in my opinion .. make Tanks, Troops and SDI great again

Yeah sure I get that, but you know me myself always carry decent defense, and when I got suicided it was well calculated anticipating my builds, you know the difference, I know you do.

There's a distinct difference between playing and targeting.

I think that is why premium accts have the ability to change their country name ....

This is also a good reason why open profiles is a terrible idea :)

Yeah I wouldn't know, I'm only Patron, I don't pay for perks.

Just go ahead and refund my patron...

If you're big in land and someone manages to lay one on you, where they come out on top even after you retal, well... that can suck, but what you're saying above could apply, sure.

But what if the original aggressor RORs, or is hitting multiple times? A good enough player can break anyone in the game, and can therefore deliberately derail anyone they want to off the netting track. That's not simply "opportunistic play" by that country anymore, though, since it's not going to benefit the attacker's finish once war breaks out. In reality it's just picking someone's round to ruin. That sucks when you're on the receiving end and it's a two-month game, especially if it happens in more than one round.

So with that said, I can fully understand this change.

Maybe only slightly related, but I also think that if someone breaks GDI against you, you should be exempt from humanitarian rules (ie, you should always be allowed to get your revenge even if they jump up out of range). Even as netters should be protected from griefers, I don't think they should be able to exploit game mechanics to protect themselves from countries they farm.

This right here. Anyway to code out Humanitarians if the offender breaks gdi?

I've had people break GDI on me in primary who then fall under my humanitarians range. If Im allowed to farm them all game because they broke GDI on me and I soon am one of the few who can do that it opens up the server to so much abuse.

And don't tell me it won't happen, not after we have seen the blatant cheating in tournament by ZEN and his friend(my guess i is Chevs) where ZEN's rep casher bought Agri, indy and weapons tech at 6500-9000 on the last day of the reset in obvious market transfers just a little over a week ago. The limits of how much collusion you can get away with is being actively tested in our current game, at a level we have not seen for years. So it would not be the best time to add very abuseable mechanics to the game.
I suspect this is also part of the reason for this change, to get rid of those things that are unwanted but cant be proven to be cheating with mod tools where players help their friends by suiciding the competition over and over again.

I was thinking the best way to work it would be by giving only the smaller player the "Declare War" button, which would lift humanitarians until peace is established. That way the bigger player can't farm them all reset just because they sent a missile at one point, but could strike back as much as they want until peace is declared.

Yes, this would still fail in the face of intentional collusion & cheating, but so do most things...

I do like that line where you say "we have not seen for years."
Are you talking about the Laf clan collusion where they would all team up to destroy competition in solo servers?

And you farming people and breaking GDI would only open you up for people under humanitarian range to fight back. It would make you ineffective at netting in a solo server having to constantly fight off ankle bitters that could run ops, and other harmful hits on you throughout the set.

I'm the last person who won primary with more than 80m NW with no GDI breaking. If anything my netting would benefit greatly from people like lightbringer, Tmac and Molotov being more severely punished for breaking GDI as I have never been as bold in those moves as them. I have not been fattest in primary any of the sets I've won in fact.

I'm sorry.. This is JUST for Express, Primary, and Tournament servers?

Waste of hdd space this thread is. Once the only admin who is currently invested in this game even slightly is over dealing with the fluffing bullfluff that extrudes itself from most of all your fingers I am sure that this will be another point of "mod abuse" that gets thrown around all the time.

But hey, at least it is change..

Why is FFA, Team and Alliance not in this?
So it's totally cool to be a pissant on FFA but if I do fluff on Primary you get upset about it?

Ask your question in a reasonable way if you want me to answer it. I'm not your doormat.

Dear Slagpit,

Could you please answer why the team based servers are excluded from this? (FFA, Team and Alliance)

You forgot to thank him, ungrateful fk!

I happened to recently read an old thread on AT that provides a helpful example. During that round, alliance A broke a pact and did a very early FS on alliance B. Alliance B obviously got crushed. A few people from alliance A posted on the boards and said that they would have preferred to have a proper fight later in the set (presumably without pact breaking) but leadership decided that they would FS early. As a player, the pact breaking offended me so I suicided alliance A a few times that set.

Who should be punished in that scenario? I'm sure that some of the members of alliance B felt like they were the victims of griefing. Should the leaders of A be punished? What about the rank and file members of alliance A who went along with it and simply followed orders? Or maybe I should have been punished because I played untagged and suicided them? I felt like I had a very legitimate grievance against Alliance A, but every suicider claims that, right?

I would say that no one should be punished by the game staff. If the people on that server disapprove of pact breaking or blindside FSes then they can sanction alliance A themselves. As far as I know, we've always let players decide what is right and what is wrong on the clan servers. We didn't delete tags in the early days of Team if they worked together even though it was contrary to what we felt was the spirit and purpose of the server, because it's up to the players.

Clan-based servers have always been dirty places. Some players infiltrate and spy on other clans. Some clan leaders break pacts and back stab their allies. Some players join a clan just to cause trouble. All of that is acceptable behavior in my eyes, as long as people aren't breaking the law or cheating by creating multiple game accounts.

Game mechanics should be used to add limits when needed to clan servers. For example, someone could argue that clan based servers are for clan-based play, so untagged countries should have some kind of penalty applied to them. If we decide to go in that direction then we can code that into the game. I don't see a place for something like military sanctions on clan servers. Military sanctions was a last resort solution for the non-clan servers because I could not think of a game mechanics solution that prevented some of the harmful behavior that occurred round after round.

let me give you a scenario then..

A group of players decide that they no longer want to play by any rules, and they hide untagged and pretend to be bots (non-clan so therefore no real relations can be made) then they decide to take out their issues on an unsuspecting clan and they smash a bunch of netters, either killing or maiming over half of a clan or even a few clans. The clan(s) potentially suffers loss of players, as does the game. Not just for the rest of the current reset, but once that happens a few times, players definitely stop coming back just to have their fun of the game be ruined by a bunch of players who want nothing but to hurt people with no attempt at making it a worthwhile engagement for either side.

Is this the same clan that had some peeps kill chevs for no reason?
Or was it the clan that leaked info to another clan causing issues?
Or the clan that celebrated a member detagging and side swiping?

Asking for a friend.

Is this the time MD fs'd the whole server?

LoL - war is war.

Mr. Rd - aka gains wants game staff to stop people from conducting war! How the mighty have fallen.

Edit for clarity: *war on team based servers

Sorry I didn't realise I had to explain myself to you as well. Actually was leaving the current BS out of it and asking as a theoretical response..

Oh, forgot about that one too..

Damn....

The drama is REAL

TCOB :)

Well we do need to look at all scenarios that are causing this behavior. Seems straightforward when a clan is preventing a player from playing the game that player will slowly gather a small coalition behind them to try and correct the clan.

QFT

Yes I guess that is true, but it wasn't intended by my original post.

Same answer as before: "For example, someone could argue that clan based servers are for clan-based play, so untagged countries should have some kind of penalty applied to them. If we decide to go in that direction then we can code that into the game."

In terms of what to expect in the future on clan-based servers, what I posted here is still current: https://www.earthempires.com/...hanges-49997?t=1618146293

I have no problems with wars, it brings activity back to the server when you have a proper war/grudge.

I was more wondering about people bringing things from alliance server to FFA.
Example: req got upset I won over him in most missiles sent.
He knows I run some countries netting away in ffa and go find me there and AB me. Telling me I should just give up cause he will continue this until I quit producing missiles on the alliance server

His buddies finds me in the team server and req gets all happy when they ab me there as well.

Ah nice. I won't be playing them servers lol

I'm surprised someone legitimately thinks this is a situation worthy of game staff involvement.