The Battle Dawn Rules page 3

63 posts

Flag Post

The problem with standardised bans is that it really depends on severity. In regards to ‘flaming’, I’ve had cases ranging from a couple of swear words in a message to a full blown racist hate-speech. Do you really think it should be a standard ban for both?

Same with multi/account sharing. The most common case with these is that it’s siblings who haven’t contacted me to inform me they were both playing. Do I ban them for the same as somebody who is genuinely multi accounting? Do I ban the guy with 1 multi for as long as the guy with 80?

The problem with standardised bans is that it doesn’t take into account that severity differs on a case by case basis, not to mention if there is a ‘standard ban length’ it gives players the ability to weigh up the pros and cons of cheating, and we certainly don’t want people thinking ‘okay, only 72 ticks? That’s worth it, I’ll do it anyway’

 
Flag Post

.. well i play tdp4 and well… u want cusing every time u die some one will cuse u out in russian english french lol its funny they call u the f adn the b and in between if ya now whatni mean , only thing i dont like abotu tdp4 is hackers. theirs lots of them thier

 
Flag Post

Photobucket

that’s half the people in this game xD

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Routhy:

The problem with standardised bans is that it really depends on severity. In regards to ‘flaming’, I’ve had cases ranging from a couple of swear words in a message to a full blown racist hate-speech. Do you really think it should be a standard ban for both?

Same with multi/account sharing. The most common case with these is that it’s siblings who haven’t contacted me to inform me they were both playing. Do I ban them for the same as somebody who is genuinely multi accounting? Do I ban the guy with 1 multi for as long as the guy with 80?

The problem with standardised bans is that it doesn’t take into account that severity differs on a case by case basis, not to mention if there is a ‘standard ban length’ it gives players the ability to weigh up the pros and cons of cheating, and we certainly don’t want people thinking ‘okay, only 72 ticks? That’s worth it, I’ll do it anyway’

Instead of standardizing bans, I think he meant more along the lines of giving a minimum ban. In ANY case ban for X offense for X amount of time. Then you can lengthen (not shorten unless proved innocent) on your own terms.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MoeBringerOfDoom:
Originally posted by Routhy:

The problem with standardised bans is that it really depends on severity. In regards to ‘flaming’, I’ve had cases ranging from a couple of swear words in a message to a full blown racist hate-speech. Do you really think it should be a standard ban for both?

Same with multi/account sharing. The most common case with these is that it’s siblings who haven’t contacted me to inform me they were both playing. Do I ban them for the same as somebody who is genuinely multi accounting? Do I ban the guy with 1 multi for as long as the guy with 80?

The problem with standardised bans is that it doesn’t take into account that severity differs on a case by case basis, not to mention if there is a ‘standard ban length’ it gives players the ability to weigh up the pros and cons of cheating, and we certainly don’t want people thinking ‘okay, only 72 ticks? That’s worth it, I’ll do it anyway’

Instead of standardizing bans, I think he meant more along the lines of giving a minimum ban. In ANY case ban for X offense for X amount of time. Then you can lengthen (not shorten unless proved innocent) on your own terms.

Moe the great Prophet +1

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MoeBringerOfDoom:
Originally posted by Routhy:

The problem with standardised bans is that it really depends on severity. In regards to ‘flaming’, I’ve had cases ranging from a couple of swear words in a message to a full blown racist hate-speech. Do you really think it should be a standard ban for both?

Same with multi/account sharing. The most common case with these is that it’s siblings who haven’t contacted me to inform me they were both playing. Do I ban them for the same as somebody who is genuinely multi accounting? Do I ban the guy with 1 multi for as long as the guy with 80?

The problem with standardised bans is that it doesn’t take into account that severity differs on a case by case basis, not to mention if there is a ‘standard ban length’ it gives players the ability to weigh up the pros and cons of cheating, and we certainly don’t want people thinking ‘okay, only 72 ticks? That’s worth it, I’ll do it anyway’

Instead of standardizing bans, I think he meant more along the lines of giving a minimum ban. In ANY case ban for X offense for X amount of time. Then you can lengthen (not shorten unless proved innocent) on your own terms.

Would it not be a waste of time if I said the minimum for any ban is an hour? I mean, I think I’ve banned for an hour for at least one case for quite a lot of rule breaks.

 
Flag Post

I think that would be fine. As long as there is a definite form of punishment. Then repeated offences could have longer bans.

 
Flag Post

What do you think about having tick 1 structures built instantly. As an experienced Battle Dawn player, I can tell you first hand how annoying it is to wait for the structures to build on tick 1, as I just want to get the good build, spam mines, and log off. If this were to happen, it would be a big improvement to Battle Dawn in my opinion.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by frostyicing:

What do you think about having tick 1 structures built instantly. As an experienced Battle Dawn player, I can tell you first hand how annoying it is to wait for the structures to build on tick 1, as I just want to get the good build, spam mines, and log off. If this were to happen, it would be a big improvement to Battle Dawn in my opinion.

that would make everything to easy

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by frostyicing:

What do you think about having tick 1 structures built instantly. As an experienced Battle Dawn player, I can tell you first hand how annoying it is to wait for the structures to build on tick 1, as I just want to get the good build, spam mines, and log off. If this were to happen, it would be a big improvement to Battle Dawn in my opinion.

I agree with this. The era is on tick 1 and your waiting for structures to build, so you can spam mines… It so annoying. I just wanna do what frostyicing said, good build, spam mines, then log off

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

There are no rules.

 
Flag Post

“I AM THE LAW!” Anyone? No? Ok.