invalid Prevent saboteurs from joining my side

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

  My concerns are as I have stated they I worry about an excess of mults playing in my games because they can not play in yours.  Don't forget that other players will also be successful with complaints bout mults.

They can play in my battles. Just not on my side.

Any one account will only be restricted to one side of team game at any one time. It's practically business as usual. There won't be hordes of stampeding game violators restricted from many battles at once so they all have to plague the battles you play. It doesn't matter if one account is limited or 100 at any one time, they can all access 100% of the team games on tanki, same as before. I fail to see your worry.

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

They can play in my battles. Just not on my side.

Any one account will only be restricted to one side of team game at any one time. It's practically business as usual. There won't be hordes of stampeding game violators restricted from many battles at once so they all have to plague the battles you play. It doesn't matter if one account is limited or 100 at any one time, they can all access 100% of the team games on tanki, same as before. I fail to see your worry.

OK you have my support.  Consider poling it.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

"unreasonable" 

You declined every one of my idea and probably glanced and wrote a pointless sentence or two about them just to make others believe you actually considered them.

They weren't your ideas. I already detailed them. No need to rewrite them or mention them twice.

 

The suggestion is solid so don't get hung up on semantics and minor details that can be altered. What is important is that a problem is identified and a solution has been given that has virtually no impact on tanki or any other players. Now you can argue all day where I put commas and full stops if you want but I'm done with you.

 

ps,

Only saboteurs would object to it and the players who have as many accounts as you do. Maybe you're the type of player I'm trying to stop harassing me. Thanks for the one star rating.

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

They can play in my battles. Just not on my side.

I would preffer if the mult may not play in the same battle as the reporting member; no matter on which side.

Because if he plays on the "reporters" side, he is likely to mult to revenge himself.

But if he plays the "other" side, he is likely to target you primarily, and give all he's got to make this battle non-enjoyable for the reporting member.

 

It's actually quite simply to follow players through battles, once you have a more or less simmilar rank. I also know players, that have been haunted like that for almost a week.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

I would preffer if the mult may not play in the same battle as the reporting member; no matter on which side.

Then they couldn't play together even if they needed to.

[snipe3000 678]

 

 

ps,

Only saboteurs would object to it and the players who have as many accounts as you do. Maybe you're the type of player I'm trying to stop harassing me. Thanks for the one star rating.

Oh, so now you're calling me a saboteur? I have many accounts because I get bored playing on snipe3000. I also have an account to play with my friend, Samuel, who I invited to tanki. Snipe8000 is my backup account for snipe3000, and Snipe3000_Alt is the backup for snipe8000, MeowMeow3000 for snipe3000_alt. My karma on all accounts has no blocks, there has never been an attempt at a report for sabotage, and I probably have a better ban history then you. 

 

BTW, you are the on fueling this conversation. If you stop replying to my comments, I would probably stop replying to your topic. And for your information, I am the type of guy who reports saboteurs. 

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

What I cannot understand, is why their is so much hostility between two players who both apparently detest mults.  We should be all looking for ways to rid the game of them completely or to make the mults life less attractive and enjoyable for them.  Can we please put what ever it is aside and move on so that we can make some progress.

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

Then they couldn't play together even if they needed to.

If the reporter has the option to switch the lock on and off by the means of a mechanism close to todays ignore list, the issue would be solved.

 

So if I report someone, he is automatically added to the blocked list, and can not join my battles any more.

• If - for which ever reason - I need to play with him, I write something like "/disable_mult_lock member_name" and the lock is set out.
• If I need to enable it again, I can write something like "/enable_mult_lock member_name" and we are locked away from each other again.

After his period of 90days is over, he is removd from the list automatically.

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

What I cannot understand, is why their is so much hostility between two players who both apparently detest mults.  We should be all looking for ways to rid the game of them completely or to make the mults life less attractive and enjoyable for them.  Can we please put what ever it is aside and move on so that we can make some progress.

Multing adds real money to Tanki.. which is maybe the reason why they where never "as effective as they could be" if it comes down to mult-hunting.

 

Still tanki faces the problem, that mults scare off other paying customers... so they at least have to do something. Therefore I think that proposals that "make the situation less worse" are more likely to be implemented, then solutions that "solve the situation completely".

[dj112_TURBO 388]

i will never got one thing straight 

 

if report function is for chat voilations

 

why does many people even at high rank say "i will report you mult" 

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

If the reporter has the option to switch the lock on and off by the means of a mechanism close to todays ignore list, the issue would be solved.

 

So if I report someone, he is automatically added to the blocked list, and can not join my battles any more.

• If - for which ever reason - I need to play with him, I write something like "/disable_mult_lock member_name" and the lock is set out.
• If I need to enable it again, I can write something like "/enable_mult_lock member_name" and we are locked away from each other again.

After his period of 90days is over, he is removd from the list automatically.

Too complicated. It has to be simple. The more you add to it the less likely to be considered, never mind implemented. There is nothing wrong with the original proposal. There is no harm being on the opposite side because players on the opposite side do what they need to do to win. If you think they are more likely to follow me in battles then so be it. That happens already and I have the choice to leave it. Tanki do not like restrictions at the best of times because that means players not playing and by extension not spending. Therefore this idea already goes against the grain so the less complicated the better in my opinion. I'm not looking to keep adding until we achieve perfect utopian gameplay. I'm just realistic. Programing controls would make this more work so I don't agree. My idea serves the common good and is simple.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

i will never got one thing straight 

 

if report function is for chat voilations

 

why does many people even at high rank say "i will report you mult" 

unrelated to this topic.

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

Too complicated. It has to be simple.

I agree on the simplictiy aspect.

 

I still have my issues with beeing followed. You might not share them, as your garage and gear seems to be strong enough to withstand / or at least compete with almost everyone.

 

Can you explain, what reasons might arise, that a player "has to play against the reporting party", except for clan wars or esports events?

I actually would not mind, if players that have been successfully reported to be a saboteur, have their problems to participate in such events. They have demonstrated their "non sportsmanship" by sabotage, and getting cought on it.

 

If we take a system where the saboteur can not join no side in my battles, but I can join his battles at any side I want - what negative side effects would you see?

 

edit: exchanged the word "mult" by "saboteur", as it makes more sense

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

If we take a system where the mult can not join no side in my battles, but I can join his battles at any side I want - what negative side effects would you see?

The problem is; how to deter a violator continually breaking the rules by sabotaging the same players over and over again which not only causes distress for the players reporting the violator but for the other people on his side too.

 

If the violator joins the same battle on the opposite side, he can no longer sabotage the person who reported him. This is not a problem because no rules are being broken. Being followed is not against the rules, but, if rules are being broken then feel free to report them once again.

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

I think I understand your point, but I do not agree.

 

I understood the motivation of this topic as a meassure to

• protect the reporting party
• from longer lasting revange actions of the saboteur.

 

If the saboteur wants revenge ( = original assumption of the topic), but can not simply continue his sabotage in a more subtile and sophisticated way then he will search for other means to revenge himself (my assumption). He will not simply sit still, he will become creative. And following a player and targeting only him is very easy and very, very efficient if you wanna annoy someone (especially vs light or medium tanks).

 

Each reporting player that was target of such actions for a longer period of time will think twice before he reports again... and this should not be the case.

 

Therefore I would preffer to lock the reported saboteur from entering each battle, where the reporting player is already in.

This efficiently cuts the saboteur off any effective possibility to revenge himself - and follows the idea of protecting the reporting players.

 

edit: exchanged word "mult" by the word "saboteur", as it really makes more sense

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

I think I understand your point, but I do not agree.

 

I understood the motivation of this topic as a meassure to

• protect the reporting party
• from longer lasting revange actions of the mult.

Not to protect the reporting party exactly, more to give him and the players he plays with some added peace from further sabotage.

 

 

If the mult wants revenge ( = original assumption of the topic), but can not simply continue his sabotage in a more subtile and sophisticated way then he will search for other means to revenge himself (my assumption). He will not simply sit still, he will become creative. And following a player and targeting only him is very easy and very, very efficient if you wanna annoy someone (especially vs light or medium tanks).

I wish you wouldn't keep saying mult although mults will fall into the category of sabotage and no, it's not simply just about revenge but that is part of it.

 

The saboteur can follow me all he likes as long as he is on the opposite side. There he can legally target me. I'm fine with that as this is how the game is played as he can do little wrong to my side other than play. I'm not sure what it is you think he can do. Being annoying is part of the enemy sides tasks!

 

And this has nothing to do with garage strength either. It's just a simple solution to deter nonsense giving extended relief to players who are constantly having to report violators. I get the feeling you don't like some legal aspects of gameplay and these are the aspects you want to control. But that is for another suggestion and not this. Please try not to conflate these. I see no reason to lock him out of the battle completely.

 

Tanki already have an incremental ban system and I doubt they'd make drastic changes to it but this idea adds another layer and will allow him to play battles without further sabotage to the players he loves to hate.

[Maf 32,305]

Valid

[vltr]

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

 

I wish you wouldn't keep saying mult although mults will fall into the category of sabotage and no, it's not simply just about revenge but that is part of it.

 

I've edited my last couple of posts and replaced the word "mult" with "saborteur" - it really makes more sense, thanks for the hint.

 

--

 

Regarding my concern: it has nothing to do with "disliking some legal aspects of gameplay".

It is more about the situation, that the saboteur seeks out the reporting player, and continues to "love to hate him" in a very efficient way:

 

 

The former saboteur equips an M3 Medium hull (mobilty) and a Shaft or railgun and drugs DD (single shot kill ability), and waits for the reporting M2 player to spawn. And then spawnkills him, and only him, over and over again.

 

Of course just and only him, so that other players do not even get the idea to seek out this shaft. If the Shaft never kills anyone else he is likely to not to be noticed by other players, and so he survives longer, and can be more of a pain for the player he "loves to hate".

 

 

The garage of the reporting player matters as much as his rank, because if the reporting player preffers a mammuth with a strong shaft paint, then he has not much of an issue. But not all players preffer heavy tanks. Light tank users are used to the risk to die earlier and more often, that is ok. But the fact to die each time within 5 seconds because of a personal vendetta is a different story.

 

Not to mention that the former saboteur, that shaft, is now actually sabotaging his own team: he has to play less efficient, and kill only his "new best hated friend", as this increases his chances to survive on the battlefield, as it makes the other tanks not notice him, not hunting him.

So he can very efficiently keep a single player annoyed, while his contribution to the battle is actually sabotage to his own team, while it is very hard to detect (has little score, but has kills, and has good k/d ratio).

 

 

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

The former saboteur equips an M3 Medium hull (mobilty) and a Shaft or railgun and drugs DD (single shot kill ability), and waits for the reporting M2 player to spawn. And then spawnkills him, and only him, over and over again.

 

Of course just and only him, so that other players do not even get the idea to seek out this shaft. If the Shaft never kills anyone else he is likely to not to be noticed by other players, and so he survives longer, and can be more of a pain for the player he "loves to hate".

 

 

The garage of the reporting player matters as much as his rank, because if the reporting player preffers a mammuth with a strong shaft paint, then he has not much of an issue. But not all players preffer heavy tanks. Light tank users are used to the risk to die earlier and more often, that is ok. But the fact to die each time within 5 seconds because of a personal vendetta is a different story.

 

Not to mention that the former saboteur, that shaft, is now actually sabotaging his own team: he has to play less efficient, and kill only his "new best hated friend", as this increases his chances to survive on the battlefield, as it makes the other tanks not notice him, not hunting him.

So he can very efficiently keep a single player annoyed, while his contribution to the battle is actually sabotage to his own team, while it is very hard to detect (has little score, but has kills, and has good k/d ratio).

 

Well what you are describing here is legal gameplay and you would be hard pressed to find a violator mod who think rules were being broken.

 

Tanki is full of friends and enemies and the enemies do what they can to get under the skin of other players, (without breaking rules if they can). This happens every day at the top level. Every single day!

 

There are loads of players I don't like and if they've mocked or laughed at me I will retaliate given the opportunity but my Karma is clean. I think in my whole time here, I was chat banned just once for a post here in the forum where a mod didn't have a sense of humour and I think I may have been warned for flooding once or twice when my keys got stuck in.

 

But if a player is breaking the rules, report them!

[Rocket_Raccoon_XXX 1,507]

YEA
!
 

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

How on earth did this idea get put under review? :rolleyes:

[Quincie 531]

What if you are on the team when that sabotager has a friend on and Doesn't wanna sabotage you and just play along his friend ?

[Aunty_Entity 245]

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.

On the other hand, perhaps the violator/abuser should have thought about that before.  Do the crime... do the time... as they say.