Discussion of the Proposed Fairplay Rules for UK Server

ang1243 (GB1) · 16.10.2016

Hi all,

As the topic went far off the meaning behind the creation of the original thread, I split the comments away from the old thread and put them here, as the discussion it moved onto was a very relevant topic, just not relevant to the thread it was part of, keep discussing and fleshing out the proposed fairplay rules, always good when players are battling fairly in my opinions

This discussion was created from comments split from: BSK.

Angus

MightyHawklord (GB1) · 15.10.2016

........I would encourage all alliance leaders to sign up to them and lets return to normality.

i've heard about these rules, but never actually seen them - has anyone else ?

i've never had an in-game message saying "look at these, what do you think ?"

my alliance rules are based on what appears to be the 'fair play' rules, but i ain't a clue if they are or aren't,
we play by these but it appears others don't, maybe thats due to not signing up to the rules,

if there is going to be fair play rules then i really think they involve everyone and yes, try it at our level,

Mikeshot2 (GB1) · 15.10.2016

MightyHawklord (GB1) said:

........I would encourage all alliance leaders to sign up to them and lets return to normality.

i've heard about these rules, but never actually seen them - has anyone else ?

i've never had an in-game message saying "look at these, what do you think ?"

my alliance rules are based on what appears to be the 'fair play' rules, but i ain't a clue if they are or aren't,
we play by these but it appears others don't, maybe thats due to not signing up to the rules,

if there is going to be fair play rules then i really think they involve everyone and yes, try it at our level,

I would suggest you all ask your diplo's to enter discussions and despite all the spin from the likes of HND - they are a cooperative set of rules written by Fuji - with the assistance of every alliance diplo who have taken the trouble to participate -

http://empire-app.co.uk/fairplay.asp

EN-1 (UK) codes of conduct

The codes of conduct are designed to manage the conduct on PvP play between all alliances who are willing to sign up to them (signatory list at the bottom of the page).

Draft version until agreed

1. Attacks on burning castles* are not allowed unless an incoming attack has been launched from the castle in question
2. No attacks on resource villages in ice, sand or fire
3. No attacks on castles or resource islands in storm
4. Cooldowns for individuals are as follows: Attacker wins - 7 days; attacker loses - 5 days; evacuations - 3 days; open gates - 3 days.
5. 3 hits maximum per day from any alliance, or any individual player, on another alliance.
6. Open gates and evacuations do not count towards the limits imposed in rule 5
7. No attacks from 20 clicks or less are permitted.
8. If any RV is used as a launch pad for an attack of any distance, the RV (or another as a substitute from that alliance if the original is dropped) is forfeit to the Alliance being attacked.
9. No hitting players more than 10 levels below your own prior to level 70, with the exception of direct retaliations
10. No hitting players below level 70 from players already at level 70, with the exception of direct retaliations
11. No tool cleaning/sweeping attacks to be launched on any player
12. No deliberate changing of defenses to sweep an attacker's tools contrary to the setup at attack launch (such as evacuating and putting a small handful of farmers on all three flanks if you were previously defending on a single flank)
13. No deliberate offline setups designed solely to remove the tools of an attacker at very low cost (e.g. 1-1-98 with tools only on the right flank)
14. Wars should be kept to single alliance vs single alliance fights where possible, with further escalation only if one side tries to surrender and the other continues the action
15. It is up to an alliance to decide how to respond to breaches of the codes of conduct, but it is assumed that diplomatic resolution will be the first course of action, and further responses will be expected to be proportionate

* A burning castle is defined as any castle currently with flames, and not clearly "leaving" them to avoid attack.

Unresolved issues

Allowing some form of unarranged mass attacks between similar sized alliances, with an opt out and restrictions, was discussed but not agreed on. Some feel it is a better alternative to war, others feel it legitimises bullying, but it would be useful if a compromise could be reached.
To restrict hits on weaker alliances, it was suggested that hits per day increase to 5 at tournament time as that means more will hit stronger alliances capable of handling the hits. This met objection from mostly the mid to upper strength alliances who felt that it was already too hard managing the 3 per day, and that 5 would be too much.
The precise definition of a burning castle that is valid to hit (some gamesmanship going on to deter attackers by leaving fires etc) is still down to alliance discretion.
At the moment, with the exception of 1v1 being promoted as important, wars are effectively free for all - who can be declared on, why, and what conduct is acceptable is entirely undefined at present.
Rule 5) has attempted to address people hitting three times from one alliance and three from another, all on the same target to get around hit allowances and cooldowns. The possibility of "24 hours must pass after joining an alliance before engaging in PvP", but no consensus was reached.
The "don't hit someone more than 10 levels above you" has always been frowned upon, but the official line is it just allows a retaliation regardless of level difference. Discussion was made over disallowing hitting >10 levels above, but no consensus was reached.

MightyHawklord (GB1) · 15.10.2016

Mikeshot2 (GB1) said:

MightyHawklord (GB1) said:

........I would encourage all alliance leaders to sign up to them and lets return to normality.

i've heard about these rules, but never actually seen them - has anyone else ?

i've never had an in-game message saying "look at these, what do you think ?"

my alliance rules are based on what appears to be the 'fair play' rules, but i ain't a clue if they are or aren't,
we play by these but it appears others don't, maybe thats due to not signing up to the rules,

if there is going to be fair play rules then i really think they involve everyone and yes, try it at our level,

I would suggest you all ask your diplo's to enter discussions and despite all the spin from the likes of HND - they are a cooperative set of rules written by Fuji - with the assistance of every alliance diplo who have taken the trouble to participate -

my diplomat would have entered, if we would have known,

we cannot enter discussions if we don't know about them, this is my point,
and obviously my diplomat can't go messaging every other diplomat with 'are we having fair play rules talks ?' when i was led to believe the rules were for top 20 alliances only

but thank you for the list

ps. what about all those alliances that do not come into the forum, so cannot know about this ?
or indeed know about this site http://empire-app.co.uk/ when its not a ggs site and not advertised

Big Ste (GB1) · 15.10.2016

Mikeshot2 (GB1) said:

MightyHawklord (GB1) said:

........I would encourage all alliance leaders to sign up to them and lets return to normality.

i've heard about these rules, but never actually seen them - has anyone else ?

i've never had an in-game message saying "look at these, what do you think ?"

my alliance rules are based on what appears to be the 'fair play' rules, but i ain't a clue if they are or aren't,
we play by these but it appears others don't, maybe thats due to not signing up to the rules,

if there is going to be fair play rules then i really think they involve everyone and yes, try it at our level,

I would suggest you all ask your diplo's to enter discussions and despite all the spin from the likes of HND - they are a cooperative set of rules written by Fuji - with the assistance of every alliance diplo who have taken the trouble to participate -
http://empire-app.co.uk/fairplay.asp
EN-1 (UK) codes of conduct
The codes of conduct are designed to manage the conduct on PvP play between all alliances who are willing to sign up to them (signatory list at the bottom of the page).
Draft version until agreed
1. Attacks on burning castles* are not allowed unless an incoming attack has been launched from the castle in question
2. No attacks on resource villages in ice, sand or fire
3. No attacks on castles or resource islands in storm
4. Cooldowns for individuals are as follows: Attacker wins - 7 days; attacker loses - 5 days; evacuations - 3 days; open gates - 3 days.
5. 3 hits maximum per day from any alliance, or any individual player, on another alliance.
6. Open gates and evacuations do not count towards the limits imposed in rule 5
7. No attacks from 20 clicks or less are permitted.
8. If any RV is used as a launch pad for an attack of any distance, the RV (or another as a substitute from that alliance if the original is dropped) is forfeit to the Alliance being attacked.
9. No hitting players more than 10 levels below your own prior to level 70, with the exception of direct retaliations
10. No hitting players below level 70 from players already at level 70, with the exception of direct retaliations
11. No tool cleaning/sweeping attacks to be launched on any player
12. No deliberate changing of defenses to sweep an attacker's tools contrary to the setup at attack launch (such as evacuating and putting a small handful of farmers on all three flanks if you were previously defending on a single flank)
13. No deliberate offline setups designed solely to remove the tools of an attacker at very low cost (e.g. 1-1-98 with tools only on the right flank)
14. Wars should be kept to single alliance vs single alliance fights where possible, with further escalation only if one side tries to surrender and the other continues the action
15. It is up to an alliance to decide how to respond to breaches of the codes of conduct, but it is assumed that diplomatic resolution will be the first course of action, and further responses will be expected to be proportionate
* A burning castle is defined as any castle currently with flames, and not clearly "leaving" them to avoid attack.
Unresolved issues
Allowing some form of unarranged mass attacks between similar sized alliances, with an opt out and restrictions, was discussed but not agreed on. Some feel it is a better alternative to war, others feel it legitimises bullying, but it would be useful if a compromise could be reached.
To restrict hits on weaker alliances, it was suggested that hits per day increase to 5 at tournament time as that means more will hit stronger alliances capable of handling the hits. This met objection from mostly the mid to upper strength alliances who felt that it was already too hard managing the 3 per day, and that 5 would be too much.
The precise definition of a burning castle that is valid to hit (some gamesmanship going on to deter attackers by leaving fires etc) is still down to alliance discretion.
At the moment, with the exception of 1v1 being promoted as important, wars are effectively free for all - who can be declared on, why, and what conduct is acceptable is entirely undefined at present.
Rule 5) has attempted to address people hitting three times from one alliance and three from another, all on the same target to get around hit allowances and cooldowns. The possibility of "24 hours must pass after joining an alliance before engaging in PvP", but no consensus was reached.
The "don't hit someone more than 10 levels above you" has always been frowned upon, but the official line is it just allows a retaliation regardless of level difference. Discussion was made over disallowing hitting >10 levels above, but no consensus was reached.

MIke,
when is this to start?

Batten (GB1) · 15.10.2016

Not a cat in hells chance of signing up to that and I would encourage MH and VV and all small alliances to avoid any blanket acceptance of them. Seems to me a very clear case of welcome to the Resistance. Had the alliances seeking to set the rules not broken them they may have the moral authority to impose them, they have failed to comply with their own rules clearly so why should we, knowing they will be ignored when convenient. There are points in their which would significantly limit the ability of your players to take reasonable steps to defend themselves and their colleagues when under attack. I for one and not being told by an attacking player how to set my defence or by a defensive player how I can attack. Given the level and strength differential that's suicide for smaller alliances. You sign up to that you follow BSK and others out of the game. Every alliance and every player has the right to defend themselves as they fit and whilst there are rules borrowed from early fairplay rules older players were consulted on and agreed on this adds things in which have never been agreed outside of two or three top alliances in their intermittent wars. It's like Brexit BSK over time negoitated settlements with each alliance individually and in some cases collectively, those agreements are null and void now and if you want them reinstated their is a reasonable expectation you would show each alliance a similar degree of respect rather than seeking to impose a set of rules, rather than negotiating with 27 countries you have 200 plus alliances to get round. Good luck with that.

Mikeshot2 (GB1) · 15.10.2016

MIke,
when is this to start? @Big Ste

The last I heard was implementation Sunday - This is with Diplo's - in a democratic discussion - to which many who sit and critique - have no interest in participating - I will ignore and not react to the personal attacks - and just give relative information on the efforts to make the game a better place.

@MightyHawklord - yes mate point taken - which is why I posted the proposals -it has always been an issue getting that info out - as it is not gge driven - but player driven -

Mike

hornby19 (GB1) · 15.10.2016

seeing as this has turned into a thread about new fairplay rules i would like to say that i am sure if any diplo out there wants to be part of the decision making process, then they should mail Mike, or any diplomat or leader in a senior alliance and im sure they would be happy to invite you to the diplomats room.
These rules are about making this server work for everyone, we took down bsk because they were trying to be server police, we have no intention to replace them

MightyHawklord (GB1) · 15.10.2016

implementation on sunday ?

so there is no 'meeting' to discuss it, iron out any outstanding points ?

when were the current rules made to be implemented on sunday, who was involved,
is it only for certain alliances

Plum II (GB1) · 15.10.2016

MightyHawklord (GB1) said:

implementation on sunday ?

so there is no 'meeting' to discuss it, iron out any outstanding points ?

when were the current rules made to be implemented on sunday, who was involved,
is it only for certain alliances

They aren't being imposed on anyone. Alliances have the option of signing up or opting out. I believe Sunday is implementation day for those who have signed up to it.

UltraFlavoured (GB1) · 15.10.2016

They are basically current/common sense fair play guidelines,

However this one in particular will be exploited and most likely reviewed
6. Open gates and evacuations do not count towards the limits imposed in rule 5

As we know some players just wont defend 6 wave attacks - and what happens when you evacuate is you lose tools.
Which will just make you want to rehit that alliance... Before you know it 20 hits have gone out yet none have counted towards it.

The problem with having rules & regulations is someone has to impose them - its just how it works.
It should really matter who does as long as players think they are workable.

I think what should be added is.

APART FROM MAIN.
No level 5 dwelling and fire cast to take tools as that set up is deliberate - what level 70 400+ needs a one level 5 dwelling.

~Ultra

Plum II (GB1) · 15.10.2016

UltraFlavoured (GB1) said:

They are basically current/common sense fair play guidelines,

However this one in particular will be exploited and most likely reviewed
6. Open gates and evacuations do not count towards the limits imposed in rule 5

As we know some players just wont defend 6 wave attacks - and what happens when you evacuate is you lose tools.
Which will just make you want to rehit that alliance... Before you know it 20 hits have gone out yet none have counted towards it.

The problem with having rules & regulations is someone has to impose them - its just how it works.
It should really matter who does as long as players think they are workable.

I think what should be added is.

APART FROM MAIN.
No level 5 dwelling and fire cast to take tools as that set up is deliberate - what level 70 400+ needs a one level 5 dwelling.

~Ultra

That is a valid point. I will raise it with the diplomats in the Diplo Room, and see what their opinion on it is and if it can be reworked with some restriction to exploitation.

Plum II (GB1) · 15.10.2016

@UltraFlavoured (GB1)

From Reblousou:

"This one was debated last time round on rule changes the opposing argument then to og's not counting as one of your healthy 3 a day was a good one, and one, An attacker chooses a target they choose to send a hit and they do this knowing they will use tools, The defender however does not have a choice they didn't ask to be hit (might argue that some do lol) so the defender OG or evacuating does risk loss for still for something they didn't initiate (honour, res if they cant move it fast enough etc) The game officially counts OG as a defeat and landing on an evacuated castle means defeat for the defenders. The attacker is the instigator they may lose a few tools but they knew that risk going into it and made the choice. hence OG and evacuations should count towards the three a day and not be disallowed just because the attacker didn't get the result they wanted."

Fortis (GB1) · 15.10.2016

Plum II (GB1) said:

@UltraFlavoured (GB1)

From Reblousou:

"This one was debated last time round on rule changes the opposing argument then to og's not counting as one of your healthy 3 a day was a good one, and one, An attacker chooses a target they choose to send a hit and they do this knowing they will use tools, The defender however does not have a choice they didn't ask to be hit (might argue that some do lol) so the defender OG or evacuating does risk loss for still for something they didn't initiate (honour, res if they cant move it fast enough etc) The game officially counts OG as a defeat and landing on an evacuated castle means defeat for the defenders. The attacker is the instigator they may lose a few tools but they knew that risk going into it and made the choice. hence OG and evacuations should count towards the three a day and not be disallowed just because the attacker didn't get the result they wanted."

This is a fair point, however, if this is imposed, during the alliance tournament what is the motivation behind defending one of those massive 6 wave hits? If you just OG on every hit then you give the attacking alliance 0 glory and once they reach 3 ,they can't hit you anymore, giving your alliance a better chance of making top5 or winning. Hence perhaps the rule should be implemented for the duration of the alliance tourney only.

vital viper (GB1) · 15.10.2016

interesting and thank you for the set of rules.
be good to see that rule 15 - diplomatic solution first before war - take off and by diplomatic solution i hope it means more then one quick message to our diplomat assuming he lives online instead of maybe being off making a cuppa or the toilet when the message comes in, then gets accused of not responding.
is there a reasonable time limit to a diplomat or leader outside the top alliances (less active maybe) coming online, sorting out what happened and taking action? custom and practice dictates that the big guys dont wanna wait for a solution - they have many mouths to feed and the smell of our bakeries drives them wild.
in the past if someone breaks the rules at say 6pm we would have red screens 2 hours later.
i reckon that will stay the same.
if anyone reads this they might well think or post back saying "dont have players in your alliance who break the rules then" - not as easy as it sounds though as we, like many smaller lvl 50 alliances have high turnover of players and we cant knock back say a lvl 70 guy with decent weekly loot - only to find a week later he has done something crazy and we all suffer.

UltraFlavoured (GB1) · 15.10.2016

Plum II (GB1) said:

@UltraFlavoured (GB1)

From Reblousou:

"This one was debated last time round on rule changes the opposing argument then to og's not counting as one of your healthy 3 a day was a good one, and one, An attacker chooses a target they choose to send a hit and they do this knowing they will use tools, The defender however does not have a choice they didn't ask to be hit (might argue that some do lol) so the defender OG or evacuating does risk loss for still for something they didn't initiate (honour, res if they cant move it fast enough etc) The game officially counts OG as a defeat and landing on an evacuated castle means defeat for the defenders. The attacker is the instigator they may lose a few tools but they knew that risk going into it and made the choice. hence OG and evacuations should count towards the three a day and not be disallowed just because the attacker didn't get the result they wanted."

That sounds a fair point, I have just seen thing escalate especially on Fire cast evacts. As even though they didnt want to be hit they did sign up to a war game so technically did, and wasting the attackers tools rather than 450 to open has got players backs up.
So thought it would be a sensible assumption.

~Ultra

gazz65 (GB1) · 15.10.2016

Seems like DMH are in same place as bsk75. they seem to have upset cg and others.
so I am guessing some time soon they will get a bashing.

As for the new rules are they much different from the last Rules.
Also you got to give credit to cg for taken advantage of 75 unrest because
any other strong alliance would have done the same.

end of war so move on in life.

Mario 999 (ASIA1) · 15.10.2016

Yep I agree apart from I have been "offered out" lol,Cans mate me and you go back a long way which is why it makes me think this is not even you lol. the rules are a joke as CG will never stick to them, Mike i do actually think your alliance will as will most of the top 20 but you say I don't know the game? 5yrs of watching CG break the rules says I do and lets see how long it takes, if I am wrong and 3 weeks from now they have not multi hit/more than 3 hits in a day/massed/or otherwise broke most of the rules lol, i will openly say oops might have been wrong. and disrespect Fuji, I would never have done that in the past but when he jumped into CG against BSK lost a little respect and made me look at how this fair play is being setup, Fuji who helps Cg, Preats who broke BSK and CG/Preats who massed DMH with the other 4?

Forgive me if i am wrong on the bottom half of that post but don't think I am, also Cans they lock your account while you leave now so sorry mate but cant pm you INGAME.

Mikeshot2 (GB1) · 15.10.2016

Mario 999 (ASIA1) said:

Yep I agree apart from I have been "offered out" lol,Cans mate me and you go back a long way which is why it makes me think this is not even you lol. the rules are a joke as CG will never stick to them, Mike i do actually think your alliance will as will most of the top 20 but you say I don't know the game? 5yrs of watching CG break the rules says I do and lets see how long it takes, if I am wrong and 3 weeks from now they have not multi hit/more than 3 hits in a day/massed/or otherwise broke most of the rules lol, i will openly say oops might have been wrong. and disrespect Fuji, I would never have done that in the past but when he jumped into CG against BSK lost a little respect and made me look at how this fair play is being setup, Fuji who helps Cg, Preats who broke BSK and CG/Preats who massed DMH with the other 4?

Forgive me if i am wrong on the bottom half of that post but don't think I am, also Cans they lock your account while you leave now so sorry mate but cant pm you INGAME.

Fuji simply put his time and effort into drafting the rules for debate in the diplo's and leaders chat rooms - posted in here earlier - some of us can appreciate and thank him for his personal time and effort in doing so - others will put some spin on other motives - such is the nature of many.

Monkey17179 (GB1) · 15.10.2016

Can someone please clarify rule 14? And can someone explain what are the situations over CoPs in a war ?

Mario 999 (ASIA1) · 15.10.2016

Only CG or Mike can answer that Monkey.

No spin Mike, please point out one thing i have said that is wrong as in facts? the alliances who massed an alliance are making the rules, the people who decided where the Cops went are deciding the rules?

Also mike, i have never said anything about your money in the game,you buying your way to the top or you buying accounts for your alliance or anything like that but you say I don't know the game after 5 years and your happy i am gone? really, no need, i did think you where a good thing for the game as you seemed fair but I dare to say a lot have lost respect as soon as you held hands with CG and started massing with them, and your Subs.

Please tell me I am wrong? without any spin, Fuji went to CG when they had the war with BSK? no spin fact, yet he sat and wrote the new rules for debate, would it not have been someone not involved with any of the last wars/masses who should have drafted it for ALL to have a say on?

Just saying

Discussion of the Proposed Fairplay Rules for UK Server

Comments

EN-1 (UK) codes of conduct

Draft version until agreed

Unresolved issues

EN-1 (UK) codes of conduct

Draft version until agreed

Unresolved issues

Leave a Comment