Player's Moderation: Kick2

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

@ @ELIZABETH1122 and @RustyNail

 

I helped design this idea with AZ so your point about not thinking of low ranks is a little unfair. I'm far from being a Generalissimo. I don't even own anything M3 yet or have an endless number of supplies, so I'm the "undeserving player" you are refering too. I understand your concerns, however even at my rank I should not be playing with Gens let alone a WO5. If my presence in a battle is causing  my team to lose then I should leave and find something more suitable for my rank, equipment, and skill level. That said, if I choose to stay, it does not require a lot of effort to maintain a high enough score or PPM to stay in the safe zone. You also have to remember that just because you're NOT in the safe zone, it doesn't mean you automatically get kicked. Players still have to cast a vote to kick you. Under the old system, which only looked at score, I only ever got kicked 3 or 4 times, which I deserved.  

 

When and if the devs are interested in testing still remains to be seen. So for now you just have to trust that we have done a lot of testing using spreadsheets and lots of scenarios to come to what we feel is a fair solution. 

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

"It says you can be well below average and still not receive votes. This seems to be lost on you."

 

No, it's not lost. Just, as I said, I can't really estimate what measure of a player's effort is this 55% you say.

 

Well it's dynamic so it's impossible to put a number on it unless you have all the teams scores in front of you.

See the spreadsheet example. The Safe Score and Safe ppm is there for that example.

 

This is the genius part of this idea. Your performance is measured against the team you're playing with, not any one individual, but the rest of your team!

 

Ok, maybe not genius... brilliant perhaps!

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

Well I had the idea long before I reached generalisimo.

One thing I noticed on my journey to generalismo level 30 is that the number of mults you encounter are proportional to your level. I see more at this level than I ever did at yours. When you get here you will know this too. I can spend an hour sometimes more searching for honest battles. I jump from server to server trying to get in a game only to see 3 players on the losing side all with 0-20pts, even after 15 minutes of me waiting. It's a shocking state of affairs!

 

The question of lower ranks seems to be of most concern so I'll address it for you.

 

If you are of a 3rd Lt. say, you have to ask yourself why would you want to join a battle where field marshals roam. What would you possibly get out of it if you are not even half the strength or power as your teammates. And don't you think that they would be a little bit upset with you for your lack of consideration. They will be battling hard against like for like opponents only for you to enter a gun fight with a pea shooter! It's extremely inconsiderate. The same would apply to WO1's playing with Brigadiers.

 

But this system doesn't demand that you fight to the same level as the rest of your team. It says you can be well below average and still not receive votes. This seems to be lost on you. This is the 55% figure I refer to. Remember that it's flexible. RustyNail is right to suggest it would need testing to find the right value but I've played with the spreadsheets and 55% seems to be a happy and more than fair medium.

 

Knowing that this system is in place should make players ask themselves the question before entering - Can I be effective at this level? If the answer is no then don't join it. If you join it knowing that you're worse than useless then you're inconsiderate and deserve to be voted for. If you can compete to a standard then great.

 

Would you be happier if I added a line in the suggestion that states kick2 would be disabled below the rank of master sergeant? This way, recruits and privates don't get booted and they have a chance to save up supplies and get better equipment.

You see this is a problem.  It only seems to be of concern, that lower ranks join a game of the much higher ranking player and not the other way around as well with games full of little guys invaded by the big bad wolfs.  Is that not inconsiderate also?

 

The fact is I have posted several times that the Rank range disparity is far too wide, allowing high ranking players to mix with the lower Ranks.  I even created a post talking about setting up  the game and what the default settings where and how inappropriate that was.  I even created a post on the very same thing. In "Gameseup, a request for revision"

 

 I have written also in the article about controls of supplies in reply to Semyon Kirov.  Very few read it and only a couple replied. In my reply to Semyon I had one reply and a compliment for that being a good idea

 

"That is a good reply well set out.  However there is also other discrepancy the game that also often results in certainty.  Games have far too wide a range of Rank range.  Players of low Rank, often end up in games with High Rank, many ranks above them.  I do not believe that it is healthy for the game, if some Rank General is playing against a Warrant Officer  It is bad for the mental health of the General and the physical health of the Warrant Officer.  :D  The disparity of Ranks should be smaller,  Might I suggest that when setting up a new game, that any setting player always should end up in the middle of Ranks and not by default at the bottom Rank, put at disadvantage, nor should a player be able to put himself at the top of available rank for that game to prevent deliberate entrapment of less experienced well equipped players.  This great imbalance is often used for exploitation by the highest Ranking player to make crystals and to Rank up far too easily. "

 

 It would stop the mixing of ranks to far apart in one stroke without having to resort to any formula.  However the formula together with this change might be a good idea As it is why the hell should anyone avoid a game that was open to a huge variety of rank just to suit a Generalissimo.  I said on another post that I have been in games that where occupied by moderate and lowish Rank and every one was having fun.  Eventually people left and the game was taken over by much higher Ranks.  Eventually I was one of the very few early players left.  I was abused by 2 high Ranking players of my own team for being in their game and spoiling it and pushed into a corner by one player and shot at even though they where the the new guys who had just squeezed most of us out.  Games are often deliberately set up to entrap junior players by having a wide spread of Rank , camping one of their own low Rank to lure in opposing unsuspecting players.  Opposing players come , the game progresses, then the much higher players come as planned and take over the game making an absolute killing and huge amounts of crystals purely to make crystals at their expense. It is a complete set up and happens most days.

 

Generally speaking it is not the fault of players of either end of the Rank spectrum for joining a game open to a wide spectrum.  Often many games are full, so they just jump in any game.  Sure if it is half full they have time to speculate on who is playing but when only one or two places are left, then their is no time.  Also the picture gram when one clicks on a game  shows  information as to what Rank the game is open for.  This is hardly visible it is so small.  Many players probably do not even realize the information is there.  So their are lots of faults even when starting up a brand new game, that if rectified would also help prevent some multing, camping by juniors game spoiling, game bullying by seniors and together with your plan rectified for rank would clean the game up immensely./

 

I like your ideas, I admire your tireless industry, I would support them but I think that just one plan may not be a total solution.  I would be happier if your plan was modified in some small way for the most junior.  I do not know what that might be, perhaps more than one stage say first stage and this is only an idea for the purpose of explanation, it could be disused, say Fledgling to Sargent,  Sargent to Warrant Officer then from their to General or God what ever then your full blow formula  You might after time want to modify the severity of the kick off point time to time, rank range dependent to improve matters.  That is only a very rough off the cuff suggestion but what I feel is that ranks at different ends of the spectrum might have different need an desires.  You could make the kick of point very high at the very highest Ranks for instance or even have a floating Kickoff point in competitive games.  Teams in competition only want the very highest caliber.  Maybe your plan will come in very useful if it was adjustable for various purposes, set by a game master perhaps.

 

​Please believe me when I say I am totally against bad play what ever it is and want to help get rid of it.  I want everyone except the deliberate bad guy mult ect to fully enjoy the experience at no expense of anyone or only to the advantage of only a very few.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

You see this is a problem.  It only seems to be of concern, that lower ranks join a game of the much higher ranking player and not the other way around as well with games full of little guys invaded by the big bad wolfs.  Is that not inconsiderate also?

No. Players, for the most part, can choose to play battles where their rank is the highest. If you choose to play battles with higher ranks then the onus is on you and not them.

 

I like your ideas, I admire your tireless industry, I would support them but I think that just one plan may not be a total solution.  I would be happier if your plan was modified in some small way for the most junior.

Well It can be disabled for most the junior to ensure they can't vote or be voted for.  I will add a line.

 

But I still think a fixed percentage figure of averages would be best suited with no sliding scales or formulas. This kick2 isn't a fix all. If you think that the rank range is too great and I should cater for that somehow then it just adds to the complexity. Other issues surface etc. It's best to campaign as your doing to get it adjusted.

 

Support kick2 or don't, it's entirely up to you. Nobody can design a system that detects and filters out those with dishonest intentions. You can however detect the signs and allow players to moderate their own battles accordingly. Having a system such as this one is infinitely better than the current one which is next to nothing.

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

AbsoluteZero said

"No. Players, for the most part, can choose to play battles where their rank is the highest. If you choose to play battles with higher ranks t Yes you can starthen the onus is on you and not them."

 

.

Yes you can set a game with your own Rank as the highest Rank!  In another account I have Rank First Lieutenant,  I can set a game with First Lieutenant as the highest Rank , fist Sergeant is the lowest! The default setting is Fist Lieutenant, it includes at its highest 4 star General.!

 

The default setting for lower ranks is with their own set as the lowest!

 

Therefore it is not the setting players fault by allowing the default and it is the senior players responsibility if he enters a game with more junior players  The vast majority of players  most probably do not even realize that this bar is even adjustable.  It allows far greater range of rank than is necessary!

[RustyNail 1,538]

...

Support kick2 or don't, it's entirely up to you. Nobody can design a system that detects and filters out those with dishonest intentions. You can however detect the signs and allow players to moderate their own battles accordingly. Having a system such as this one is infinitely better than the current one which is next to nothing.

 

But I think both ELIZABETH1122 and me are voting for this idea, except we point out certain issues or possible issues that need taking care of.

At least, that's my opinion.

It's not a matter of YES AS IT IS or NO, but a matter of YES BUT LET'S CONCIDER THESE DETAILS..

 

After all, it's true what ELIZABETH1122 says about sudden invasions of high ranks in previous middle ranks battles. I 've seen it too. Which means, it's not very clear always "Who's battle it is" and "Who is exploiting who"...

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

AbsoluteZero said

"No. Players, for the most part, can choose to play battles where their rank is the highest. If you choose to play battles with higher ranks t Yes you can starthen the onus is on you and not them."

 

.

Yes you can set a game with your own Rank as the highest Rank!  In another account I have Rank First Lieutenant,  I can set a game with First Lieutenant as the highest Rank , fist Sergeant is the lowest! The default setting is Fist Lieutenant, it includes at its highest 4 star General.!

 

The default setting for lower ranks is with their own set as the lowest!

 

Therefore it is not the setting players fault by allowing the default and it is the senior players responsibility if he enters a game with more junior players  The vast majority of players  most probably do not even realize that this bar is even adjustable.  It allows far greater range of rank than is necessary!

What has any of this got to do with kick2?

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

But I think both ELIZABETH1122 and me are voting for this idea, except we point out certain issues or possible issues that need taking care of.

At least, that's my opinion.

It's not a matter of YES AS IT IS or NO, but a matter of YES BUT LET'S CONCIDER THESE DETAILS..

 

After all, it's true what ELIZABETH1122 says about sudden invasions of high ranks in previous middle ranks battles. I 've seen it too. Which means, it's not very clear always "Who's battle it is" and "Who is exploiting who"...

But raiding parties are not against the rules. We may not like them but they are not violating rules.

So what's your point?

I've answered the rank range questions.

The onus is on you should you decide to join games with high rankers.

Should you not like the default ranges then sort it out in another topic, just not this one.

This topic is about Player's Moderation: Kick2.

Please keep it related.

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

What has any of this got to do with kick2?

It has a lot to do with this issue.  Players who are already in a game will be penalized if very much higher ranking players take over.  Before any new formulated plans are introduced the things I have highlighted need attending to first.   If players of certain ranks where not prevented from playing with each other due to having Ranks that are too far apart, then the lower Ranking players will be kicked out because they cannot compete.  Yet they may have started the game first and then been taken over.  That is discriminatory.

 

Also i agree with RustyNail, that it is not a case of voting for this or not.  It is not black and white unless that is the way you want things.  You have a good idea but it needs consensus and reasoned discussion and argument.  

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

It has a lot to do with this issue.  Players who are already in a game will be penalized if very much higher ranking players take over.  Before any new formulated plans are introduced the things I have highlighted need attending to first.   If players of certain ranks where not prevented from playing with each other due to having Ranks that are too far apart, then the lower Ranking players will be kicked out because they cannot compete.  Yet they may have started the game first and then been taken over.  That is discriminatory.

 

Also i agree with RustyNail, that it is not a case of voting for this or not.  It is not black and white unless that is the way you want things.  You have a good idea but it needs consensus and reasoned discussion and argument.  

Players already in the game will not get penalised. They should have accumulated a score before anybody else and therefore will be safe from scorevotes for a while. You can't get voted out based on score or ppm alone. I've thought of that. You need to be very poor on score AND ppm work-rate to get the votes necessary to put you on probation. It can't be any fairer than that.

 

Players should consider the battles they are entering.

Players moderation cannot help you be wise in battle selection. You need to understand that.

Choose wrongly and become an obstacle to your team then you should be voted out in my opinion.

Most of us, no matter what rank we are should be capable of achieving 55% of the average in a randomly spread out team.

And it's not just about not competing. It's about not competing to a level that is borderline mult behaviour.

 

Your concern about the tiny minority who can't play, don't have a good garage and who like to play in battles above their station is admirable.

[RustyNail 1,538]

Dude, the more I play (and think of your method) the more I tend to agree with you.

However, my doubts regarding lower ranks remain, because it's more important for me not to kick out an innocent player than to let a mult play.

What I say implies that I can't really estimate the accuracy of your mechanism, so I 'd love to give it a try on e tester map / server...

If it really works and can distinquish well meaning players from mults, then I 'm with you with all my heart.

 

 

But I think both ELIZABETH1122 and me are voting for this idea, except we point out certain issues or possible issues that need taking care of.

At least, that's my opinion.

It's not a matter of YES AS IT IS or NO, but a matter of YES BUT LET'S CONCIDER THESE DETAILS..

 

After all, it's true what ELIZABETH1122 says about sudden invasions of high ranks in previous middle ranks battles. I 've seen it too. Which means, it's not very clear always "Who's battle it is" and "Who is exploiting who"...

 

Is that ok?  My thoughts are not for you, basicaly they're for the TO Devs.

You, have done an amazing job and we say that your work should be tested , which is not an objection but an aproval. Am I clear now?

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

It has a lot to do with this issue.  Players who are already in a game will be penalized if very much higher ranking players take over.  Before any new formulated plans are introduced the things I have highlighted need attending to first.   If players of certain ranks where not prevented from playing with each other due to having Ranks that are too far apart, then the lower Ranking players will be kicked out because they cannot compete.  Yet they may have started the game first and then been taken over.  That is discriminatory.

 

Also i agree with RustyNail, that it is not a case of voting for this or not.  It is not black and white unless that is the way you want things.  You have a good idea but it needs consensus and reasoned discussion and argument.  

You are forgetting one thing. Even if 8 high rank players enter a battle where 2 low rankers have already been playing and accumulated a nice score, it would take a real long time before those 2 players would fall below the 55% of the average score.  All 8 players would need to score nearly double that of the low rank guys just to put them in danger of being kicked. That's assuming the low rank guys didn't score any other points. Don't forget even if "low rankers" falls below on PPM of all 8 "high rankers" , that only equals 4 votes (8 x .5) , they would still need 2 other players to be able to vote due to score. So in reality, even if "low rankers 1 & 2"  went and hid in the corner and did nothing they would be safe for a long time.

 If you want more numbers AZ can give some spreadsheet examples to prove the point. 

 

At the risk of sounding repetitive "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and in this case it is better to remove mults and saboteurs then to worry about the rare occasion of a low rank guy getting kicked unfairly.

 

Will there be a situation where someone gets kicked unfairly? Probably. But if we adjust it to protect them then the whole thing becomes pointless because then it starts to protect the very players we are trying to get rid of, the mults and saboteurs.

 

Above addresses your concerns of players already in battles. As for players joining battles where the level of play is high enough above their own current "level" that they can't compete, they really shouldn't be so inconsiderate and join a battle they have no business being in. There are lots of battles that are more suitable for them. This is a true statement no matter what ranks we are talking about.

[RustyNail 1,538]

@ Canadian_Eh

You said

"Will there be a situation where someone gets kicked unfairly? Probably. But if we adjust it to protect them then the whole thing becomes pointless because then it starts to protect the very players we are trying to get rid of, the mults and saboteurs.'

 

That bothers me.

 

That is, I disagree.

 

To me, it's the same line of thought with "to ensure safety some liberties must be suspended".... Nope, I don't like it.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

@ Canadian_Eh

You said

"Will there be a situation where someone gets kicked unfairly? Probably. But if we adjust it to protect them then the whole thing becomes pointless because then it starts to protect the very players we are trying to get rid of, the mults and saboteurs.'

 

That bothers me.

 

That is, I disagree.

Poor choice of words. I think he meant possibly and not probably. It is far from probable and I think you know that. Personally, I don't think anyone can get kicked unfairly.  If you're acting like a mult then you deserve to be kicked.  But we've said this a 1000 times now and if you don't understand it by now you never will. You have not found fault with the suggestion no matter how much you wish you have.

 

To me, it's the same line of thought with "to ensure safety some liberties must be suspended".... Nope, I don't like it

You're referring to a comment I made about Best Battle Buddies who sacrifice themselves for the team by just laying mines or performing other selfless tasks.  The worry was that these players might not score much and be voted for.  This has already been satisfactorily answered.

 

Do not to get hung up on those words. Instead, try to realise what would actually be real.

 

Selfless Player A will have to be a little selfish from time to time. He is unlikely not score at all but you're right, he could find himself to be a target for kicking. But this is where the 55% comes in. This is a sufficient amount of protection for this type of player. It's great if you're above average or even just average. It's okay to be below average. But being extremely below average (i.e. under the 55%), is unreasonable and is arguably multish beaviour. All I can say is, be selfish from time to time, stop picking on all the fat mamas and start picking off the skinny ones. I'd also say that if you are peforming these selfless deeds then you are more likely to be with friends that not. Those friends will understand what you're doing and not vote for you.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

 So in reality, even if "low rankers 1 & 2"  went and hid in the corner and did nothing they would be safe for a long time.

True for the main suggestion but not if system-vote was active. Sitting anywhere without scoring 10pts in 4 minutes and you'd be issued a system vote worth 5 kick votes in a 10v10 battle.

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

@ Canadian_Eh

You said

"Will there be a situation where someone gets kicked unfairly? Probably. But if we adjust it to protect them then the whole thing becomes pointless because then it starts to protect the very players we are trying to get rid of, the mults and saboteurs.'

 

That bothers me.

 

That is, I disagree.

 

To me, it's the same line of thought with "to ensure safety some liberties must be suspended".... Nope, I don't like it.

I'm very sorry you feel that way but you can't have it both ways. You can't design a system to weed out mults and protect low rank players. Most of the accounts that are used as mults are low rank, so as I said the system would lose it's effect. The real problem is that WO5 should not be playing with Generalissimos, but not from a skill level but an equipment level.

 

 

Poor choice of words. I think he meant possibly and not probably. It is far from probable and I think you know that. Personally, I don't think anyone can get kicked unfairly.  If you're acting like a mult then you deserve to be kicked.  But we've said this a 1000 times now and if you don't understand it by now you never will. You have not found fault with the suggestion no matter how much you wish you have.

 

You're referring to a comment I made about Best Battle Buddies who sacrifice themselves for the team by just laying mines or performing other selfless tasks.  The worry was that these players might not score much and be voted for.  This has already been satisfactorily answered.

 

Do not to get hung up on those words. Instead, try to realise what would actually be real.

No, I did actually mean probably, BUT the word "unfair" is from the point of view of the person kicked. Many will be kicked and think it was unfair, but as you say the chances of a truly undeserving player getting kicked, are really low.

 

True for the main suggestion but not if system-vote was active. Sitting anywhere without scoring 10pts in 4 minutes and you'd be issued a system vote worth 5 kick votes in a 10v10 battle.

Yeah, I kinda forgot about the "system-vote" , but my point was to illustrate that a player would remain safe from "score-votes" for a long time, even during a "raid".  Anybody should be able to score 10 points in 4 mins so the end result would be the same, our poor unsuspecting low rank players would remain safe as long as they continue to play.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

As I said in chat Shut your mouth and learn the rules.

I don't take kindly to this rude behaviour.

 

The "Kick" and was approved and was a failure and an "abuse".

I agree. So why did you vote kick2 down? You've not read it have you?

I get a "-1" from @jedica because the old system was a failure. Whatever next?

[Pathfinder 1,690]

 

Everyone must know the rules of the game called Tanki Online (which is a business to make money)Everyone must use the command VOTE.Which is NOT used for this benficiado by fraud.And if you do not use that command "MUST" be punished like the committing FRAUD.That people capable, intelligent, loyal, disinterested in the game, with many years of experience, with senzatez without prejudice of race, color, religion or friendship impose sanctions on those who commit "FRAUD" is needed.An unwritten rule is that NO must ask what happens ina battle by the spectator. But when they do know your pocicion Spectator.When should enter Silennciosos absolutely quiet and watch what happens in battle.Eliminated DIRECTLY to the hacker.Sanctioning rules established withthe other example. removes crystals and close range or directly from the account as the case and its background.The rules are only capable people who lack the imposing and capable people who claim them.And again I repeat to the author of this post leea rules. Otherwise purchase a Barby doll and Get to play otherwise.

 

Is it just me or does none of this make any sense?

 

I don't get the business bit. It doesn't matter if you look at Tanki as a business or a game, Tanki should aim to improve player experience for everyone...

[Mr.71 123]

The only trouble with it I see is the guy who defends he often don't pick up as many points as the person who gets and caps the flag. It could end up meaning no defence as you will need to be greedy if you points need to be raised.

[RustyNail 1,538]

The only trouble with it I see is the guy who defends he often don't pick up as many points as the person who gets and caps the flag. It could end up meaning no defence as you will need to be greedy if you points need to be raised.

It depends on the battle. In a ballanced battle all players can and do get kills / points. Pointless defence (that is, defence without many kills / points) exists only for heavy tanks in a overpowered (in comparison to the opponent) team that plays basically around the opponent's base. So, nobody tries to go to the "home" base and thus the mentioned heavy tanks get very few or no kills. In such a case battle is over soon and no need to apply this system...

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

The only trouble with it I see is the guy who defends he often don't pick up as many points as the person who gets and caps the flag. It could end up meaning no defence as you will need to be greedy if you points need to be raised.

If the defender doesn't get an opportunity to score points then clearly nobody is attacking. Nothing wrong with moving to midfield. Midfield is still the first line of defense. Still not scoring points and the tumble weeds are getting in your way? Find another battle where there is a little action.

 

I've been in loads of battles where I'm defending and I don't know the players I'm playing with. They drop flags for me. When I'm attacking and I see defenders, I drop flags for them. It's about doing what's best for yourself AND the team so that you all win.

 

I've said this before, if you find that nobody appreciates your selflessness then change your strategy. I'd leave if everyone didn't appreciate me.

You'd soon know this when they start voting for you. Just leave your post and go score some points. Make someone else defend.

 

Nobody should be able to get away with not scoring points or we allow mults to win.

[Mr.71 123]

If the defender doesn't get an opportunity to score points then clearly nobody is attacking. Nothing wrong with moving to midfield. Midfield is still the first line of defense. Still not scoring points and the tumble weeds are getting in your way? Find another battle where there is a little action.

 

I've been in loads of battles where I'm defending and I don't know the players I'm playing with. They drop flags for me. When I'm attacking and I see defenders, I drop flags for them. It's about doing what's best for yourself AND the team so that you all win.

 

I've said this before, if you find that nobody appreciates your selflessness then change your strategy. I'd leave if everyone didn't appreciate me.

You'd soon know this when they start voting for you. Just leave your post and go score some points. Make someone else defend.

 

Nobody should be able to get away with not scoring points or we allow mults to win.

I see your point, but it has happened before when i have left my post because i would not get a big enough part of the fund. next thing you know no one is defending and we lose.

 

Also was in a game the other day with a power leveler (thunder shooting wall and isida healing him) this system would not work to get rid of these people. So this is as bad as a mult as he is not playing to help the team but will take a large part of the fund.

[lordmostafa 3,821]

This is nice, to see players discussing like this, you don't see that a lot.

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

This is nice, to see players discussing like this, you don't see that a lot.

This is what happens when topics are allowed to stay open, and OP is allowed to maintain it.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

Also was in a game the other day with a power leveler (thunder shooting wall and isida healing him) this system would not work to get rid of these people. So this is as bad as a mult as he is not playing to help the team but will take a large part of the fund.

This system would work to get rid of these people if they were just power leveling. The thunder would be voted for in the first instance for not scoring points. Then if the isida decides not to help anyone else then he too would be voted for and then removed due to inactivity.

 

There will be the so call clever-mults that try to find the lower limits to do as little as possible but I have defined that line to make them compete to a degree. This system makes them work if they want to be safe from votes. The optional system-vote would speed-up the voting process too.

 

I know the original post is some reading because of the FAQs but the suggestion needs to be robust keeping flaws to a minimum.  We've covered most of the bases and ticked nearly all the boxes. There has been lots of good feedback which has made us rethink and rework the idea a bit but since it was revised, nobody has really challenged it.

 

You've come closest with defender scenario. eg, A mammoth in Dusseldorf cannot be expected to lumber from one base to another in order to score points so some behavioural changes might be wise, and also interesting, to develop new strategies when enemies can't break through a stubborn defense.

 

Mults cannot be allowed to win. No system is 100% perfect but we can all try to come up with solutions to get it as close as possible.