invalid Prevent saboteurs from joining my side

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

When a player sabotages your battle you can report them and if the report is successful, a ban will ensue.  But quite often, that player holds a grudge and is back to sabotage you once again which could be a day, a week, a month or more depending on their karma.

 

So here is my suggestion;

 

Stop players who have been successfully banned for sabotage from joining the same side as the player who reported them for an additional time of 90 days or whatever is deemed sufficient.

 

It would be easy to implement and wouldn't take long to program. 

 

Once the initial block is over, the saboteur is free to play in all battles still, he's just not able to join the side of the player who reported him as detailed above.

 

Think about it please. It would deter all this individual targeting nonsense and make players think twice before engaging in game violations.

 

Abs

 

ps, please read carefully, this is not about banning from all battles.

 

[vltr]

[Sr.I3oSS 2,546]

Report them again and they'll be blocked. GG.

[DarkOperative 5,580]

I remember Canadian_Eh's topic about such a subject back in 2014. It had a good run and many players visited and commented on it.

 

http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=217363

---

 

90 days is way too much. Plus it is unlikely that developers will ban players from entering battles for such a long period of time. It's not as easy as one simple command-execution, they want the players engaged with Tanki's main aspect; battling/combat.

 

If such is to be implemented, I'd suggest in-game fine. It's not hard to do plus is in use for many popular games. In-game fines(crystals deduction) might make the saboteur think twice before doing such an act, especially if he's been collecting crystals for a good deal of time. In case of no crystals, the player should be banned the usual way.

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

I remember Canadian_Eh's topic about such a subject back in 2014. It had a good run and many players visited and commented on it.

 

http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=217363

---

 

90 days is way too much. Plus it is unlikely that developers will ban players from entering battles for such a long period of time. It's not as easy as one simple command-execution, they want the players engaged with Tanki's main aspect; battling/combat.

 

If such is to be implemented, I'd suggest in-game fine. It's not hard to do plus is in use for many popular games. In-game fines(crystals deduction) might make the saboteur think twice before doing such an act, especially if he's been collecting crystals for a good deal of time. In case of no crystals, the player should be banned the usual way.

In game fine, that is an interesting idea.  Perhaps a Law code of offenses might be drawn up and each have a range of penalty depending on each crime and the severity of each crime. This can be printed out as a Law Code.  Fines and suspensions for some of the worse offenses.  If players are repeat offenders then the punishments should be harsher.

 

I must say that in life, I would tend towards progressive rehabilitation and education, unless the crime and those who committed them proved unsuited for such a liberal approach. 

[DarkOperative 5,580]

Of course. It's our top priority to educate players and prevent them from violating the rules in the most humble yet straight-forward way possible; let it be in the chat lobby, forum or social media of Tanki. We do not chase bans and have been told to only use such power when most necessary.

 

Bans are primarily based on the player's karma. Repeated violations, indicating the player repeatedly ignored warnings, will obviously result in ensuing a long-term ban to that player. Repeated violations of the same rule clearly shows that the player is not effected by a liberal approach.

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

Of course. It's our top priority to educate players and prevent them from violating the rules in the most humble yet straight-forward way possible; let it be in the chat lobby, forum or social media of Tanki. We do not chase bans and have been told to only use such power when most necessary.

 

Bans are primarily based on the player's karma. Repeated violations, indicating the player repeatedly ignored warnings, will obviously result in ensuing a long-term ban to that player. Repeated violations of the same rule clearly shows that the player is not effected by a liberal approach.

Indeed!

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

Repeated violations of the same rule clearly shows that the player is not effected by a liberal approach.

Which is why I'm pursuing this idea. If they're persistently sabotaging then soon they'll run out of battles they can join because the players that reported them can play happy in the knowledge the violator will not be joining them.

 

 

Report them again and they'll be blocked. GG.

and they come back again and do it again.

 

 

90 days is way too much. Plus it is unlikely that developers will ban players from entering battles for such a long period of time.

Only the battles of the players he has sabotaged. Not every battle.

 

 

I remember Canadian_Eh's topic about such a subject back in 2014. It had a good run and many players visited and commented on it.

 

http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=217363

And you'll have noticed he's not been on much.

Mults and saboteurs, cheating and dishonest play got to the point this game was no longer fun him and Canadian_Bandit. They've both left and will only play now on the most boring of days. Proof that not enough is being done.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

Sequence

Player A sabotages Player B and is reported.

Player A gets his ban, 1 day, 1 month or whatever it maybe.

On his return, he is not allowed to the enter the battle of the player that reported him for x days. 90 or whatever is considered reasonable.

 

Process

Player B submitted the report.

Player A gets reported for Block.

The tech people block him and add Player B's name to a list in Player A's profile.

 

Programming

When Player A logs in to a server, this list is loaded.

Player A sees Player B and tries to join him he can't because he is blocked from entering his side.

 

It's not one line but it's not a day's work either.

It's an added deterrent that would help this game immeasurably.

[DarkOperative 5,580]

What if the player A wants to join a clan battle in which player B is an opponent. Player A plays a major role for his clan, so it is a must for him to join — even if player A is banned for sabotage from chat. What in that case?

 

Blocking players from entering battles, as convenient it might sound, just can't work too well.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

What if the player A wants to join a clan battle in which player B is an opponent. Player A plays a major role for his clan, so it is a must for him to join — even if player A is banned for sabotage from chat. What in that case?

 

Blocking players from entering battles, as convenient it might sound, just can't work too well.

There is nothing stopping the reporters joining the saboteurs as they have no restrictions, so let Player A join first and Player B joins him. You have to admit, this is a simple idea that would deter a lot of nonsense. It would work very well and I'm confused by the resistance to it as those who violate can still access all of battles. We should be striving for cleaner fairer battles, no?

 

 

           Also they have plenty of alt/mult accounts, specially at middle/low ranks...

and? Surely they'd learn not to sabotage once they realise there are additional consequences but if they did it again with an alternative account they know what to expect.  You can find all kinds of reasons not to have this but it's fair and doesn't stop convicted saboteurs from playing.

[DarkOperative 5,580]

All I'm trying to do is seek all overseen minor points about such an implement. It's basically a constructive way to accomplish perfection for the idea. Not saying that we should look for other options and drop this particular one instantly, more like find ways to make it better and feasible.

 

Nope, not as easy as that actually. Clan battles, esp between those who envy each other, always tend to have one side seeking an opportunity for taking advantage on the other side. Not all players are polite enough to listen and let the once-reported saboteur enter and play the clan war. Sure some would be open to do such an act, but not all players.

 

It's not just about clan battles; any battle in which friends play together, or groups of players battling each other.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

All I'm trying to do is seek all overseen minor points about such an implement. It's basically a constructive way to accomplish perfection for the idea. Not saying that we should look for other options and drop this particular one instantly, more like find ways to make it better and feasible.

 

Nope, not as easy as that actually. Clan battles, esp between those who envy each other, always tend to have one side seeking an opportunity for taking advantage on the other side. Not all players are polite enough to listen and let the once-reported saboteur enter and play the clan war. Sure some would be open to do such an act, but not all players.

 

It's not just about clan battles; any battle in which friends play together, or groups of players battling each other.

and this is what this forum is for. Doing what you say and fine tuning in the hope a dev listens and says there might be something in that.

 

I'm not holding my breath.  I recently wrote to help@tanki about one such persistent saboteur who joins my side and that of my friends with the sole purpose of doing what he can to make us lose. His last ban was a month but it only took him a couple of days before he's banned again but not until I could collect the required evidence first and that's not always easy. If this idea was in place, he wouldn't have been able to join us and would have had to choose another battle.

 

The outcome of my email was they thought I was the guy been banned for sabotage and pointed me to the rules. :blink:

I was wanting to know why he wasn't banned permanently yet!

 

I can't see the down-sides you're seeing. I can't see any.

[Sr.I3oSS 2,546]

and they come back again and do it again.

I don't think they're gonna jump to a high rank to sabotage again. And even if they manage to, report them again. How many high-ranked accounts could they possibly have? 

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

I believe, that if the penalty was increased after each new offense within a reasonable time frame, that would have a much better outcome.  If  person is an important part of a CLAN, then it would be within their mutual interests to contain that player or drop him!  Most normal people would take the hint and reform or move on.  If an abnormal person then continued his bans wold be so long that no one would see them for a very long time.  I doubt that it would come to that.  No doubt after what I have heard, the authority would rather he continue to play an issue very small penalties.  What the authority might not realize, is that failing to deal properly with these issues, actually in the long run will looses good will from the rest of us and ultimately just adds up to our grievances and we then leave.

 

It would be very interesting to know is, if the offenders or rather constant repeat offenders, actually pay real money towards Tanki or do they just operate freely?  I do have my own thoughts on that because it has transpired that those who constantly call for reducing supplies/drugs ar in the main free users!

[III_Dope_III 319]

How about he is not allowed to join a battle with the same IP of his own, so he therefore cant mult and help his brother or friend.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

How about he is not allowed to join a battle with the same IP of his own, so he therefore cant mult and help his brother or friend.

This is not about any of that.

 

This is to deter players from repeatedly targeting certain individuals. Thought that was clear by now.

 

 

I don't think they're gonna jump to a high rank to sabotage again. And even if they manage to, report them again. How many high-ranked accounts could they possibly have?

There are plenty of haters out there that do this for kicks.

I'm not sure what relevance the number of accounts has got to do with this.

Each act of sabotage would be dealt with the same way giving some extra relief to those targeted and deterring similar acts in the future.

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

Ban all from same IP.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

Ban all from same IP.

Ok I'm out.

[The-Operator219 1,929]

image hosting

[snipe3000 678]

With this idea:

1. Being banned for any long amount of time from all battles is just a deterrent from playing tanki. For instance, if I was trying to get a player back for constantly multing and sabotaging me, and he reports me for like 3 pushes, and is successful, then I would be blocked from all battles for 90 days? I would most likely quit tanki totally and play BTD5 BMC slither.io or agar.io.

2. As stated above, there are some mandatory battles that would need to be fought with another player who might be on a "blacklist". I highly doubt a clan would take the trouble to contact help, have the players be able to join a battle for one day and make a clan war. They would just battle with another clan. 

 

A few questions:

1. Would there be a way to check who is on the "blacklist"?

2. Me, I have almost 20 alts so if I got banned… 

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

Please read AbsoluteZeros post and try and understand what he is saying. He is not on about other accounts and to block IP's. He wants the sabotaging player to be banned from entering the same battles as the player who reported the saboteur.

 

It is an increasing problem that certain players single out other players to sabotage there battles over and over again. 

I know what he is on about.  I am offering a suggestion.That is all.  Lots of players get plagued by troll type behavior.  I have seen it since the early days of signing on to the game.  It does not even need someone to get some one banned to receive that.  So I can easily imagine what it might be like.  Plainly the banns are not long enough if people are having little respite.  The idea of banning all from the same address is to prevent this sort of behavior carrying on under another account or nickname.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

With this idea:

1. Being banned for any long amount of time from all battles is just a deterrent from playing tanki. For instance, if I was trying to get a player back for constantly multing and sabotaging me, and he reports me for like 3 pushes, and is successful, then I would be blocked from all battles for 90 days? I would most likely quit tanki totally and play BTD5 BMC slither.io or agar.io.

Who said anything about being blocked from tanki from all battles for 90 days? Who? This is the problem with most of you here, you're not willing to read what's in front of you. Other people read your post and think, hmmm, yeah, being banned from all battles is a bit much and then the downward cycyle of ignorance continues. Don't feel bad, you're not alone. Many people fail understanding the most basic of concepts.

 

So knowing that you've TOTALLY MISUNDERSTOOD the proposal, what now?

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

I know what he is on about.  I am offering a suggestion.That is all.  Lots of players get plagued by troll type behavior.  I have seen it since the early days of signing on to the game.  It does not even need someone to get some one banned to receive that.  So I can easily imagine what it might be like.  Plainly the banns are not long enough if people are having little respite.  The idea of banning all from the same address is to prevent this sort of behavior carrying on under another account or nickname.

I don't want an ill-considered, alternative suggestions that have been mentioned time and time again, that indiscriminately bans family members. Even then people don't always have static ips. I want logical and practical responses to my specific idea and I would like it implemented.

 

I don't care about other nicknames or alternative accounts. The bans we currently have are incremental and deemed sufficient. I'm wanting to add another layer to that. A layer that does not restrict the saboteurs movements to any real degree, simply stops him from joining me for an additional time.

 

If you think this is wholly unreasonable, say so and be done with it, or point out a flaw in it if you can.  I can't see any.

[Phoenix.Rising 2,519]

Awesome idea from AZ. I sometimes see the same noob in my battles multing.

 

+1 from me.

[The-Operator219 1,929]

Aside from the occasional gold sitter, I don't see multing all that commonly. Or maybe I'm just oblivious.

Anywho, nice topic.