Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Update to Rules and Policies Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Update to Rules and Policies

    Fodderboy has just posted a new devlog: Update to Rules and Policies.
    In preparation for our free to play launch we have updated our General and In-game Rules and Policies. This isn't a major re-write of our rules - most of the changes are clarifications and additional information.
    You can read the article here, and then share your comments in this thread.

  • #2
    Uh...where's the beef?

    changelog plz^

    Comment


    • #3
      In General Rules & Policies, Code of Conduct, 1.xiii, you say [emphasis added],
      "Defrauding a Customer Service Representative, Flying Lab Software Employees or Pirates of the Burning Sea Community Member. Fraud is defined as falsely representing one’s intentions to make a gain at another’s expense. Examples of this activity include but are not limited to offering to drag the corpse of another player to safety but instead hiding it deeper in the dungeon as well as using flaws in a secure trade window to deprive someone of one of their items. "

      Suggest that you replace the bolded text with an example germain to the PotBS game. The italicized text merely indicates that I wasn't aware that PotBS had BOTH secure and unsecure trade windows.

      Further, since the Code of Conduct is apparently copied, without much change or even thorough reading, from another game, perhaps you could let us know from which game gave you "pirated" (pun intended) the text.

      The reason for telling us where you got your new Code is so that players who played that game previously can relate examples of how the rules actually worked out in that game in practice. This should save considerable time and effort (on your part) in understanding the implications of some of the rules.

      Continuing my read ...
      Last edited by ozziefudd; 11-16-2010, 01:28 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Account mulligan.. lol.

        I lost a first rate dur to NPC's due to network connectivity loss TWICE, and was told to **** off both times..

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by chado View Post
          Account mulligan.. lol.

          I lost a first rate dur to NPC's due to network connectivity loss TWICE, and was told to **** off both times..
          The only time that would matter is if it was FLS's network connection, ie the data center with servers having a network outage...which is pretty damn rare.

          Otherwise if I get outclassed I just pull the ethernet from my computer and get free ship replacement.

          Use some common sense.

          Comment


          • #6
            I've never known anyone to get dura replaced due to a DC, which would include pulling the cable. I have had dura replaced due to server or client crashes where it's been proved via log files.

            That's the way it should be IMO. Gifting dura due to DC will encourage everyone to pull the cable whenever they are loosing a PVP fight. Not good.

            Comment


            • #7
              In the In-Game Rules and Policies, Multiple Accounts, you state 4 bullet points. The second and fourth bullet points are as follow.

              "... you may not:
              #2 Use alternate characters to grief other Nations and/or sabotage battles with other players, including shot blocking or impeding movement.
              #4 Use one of your characters to maliciously manipulate the Conquest system in favor of another of your characters that has a different Active Nation"

              In #2 I suggest that you delete the word "alternate", as it is unclear which character would be considered an alternate character. It also impliedly requires that one character be identified as a "primary" character, and there is no game mechanism to do so. IF the intent of the word "alternate" is to mean "any", then it would be better to use the word "any", since in MMOG usage, the term "alternate character" connotes a character of lesser interest or importance to one's own gameplay. Use of the word alternate also implies that it is permissible to use one's "primary" character to grief other Nations or sabotage battles with other players, etc.

              #4 avoids the primary/alternate designation dilemma that plagues #2. However, the term "maliciously manipulate" is extremely vague and overly broad, especially within the general context of your first sentence of the section. Similarly, given the many changes in the game since launch, the term "Conquest system" is also vague and overly broad. In fact, it would likely be difficult to justify having characters of different nations active on the same server, as you invite, without one or all being considered to be engaged in a malicious manipulation of the Conquest system (whatever it is) to the benefit of a different nation's character of one's own.

              #4 mainly makes it seem as if you don't understand how your game works. Needs major revision; or the policy on active characters of different nations on the same server does. Perhaps some examples of non-malicious manipulation would help?

              Comment


              • #8
                In the In-Game Rules and Policies, Official Correspondence, you say [emphasis added],
                "We ask that you do not post, broadcast or reproduce in-game, without express written permission, any private correspondence between official representatives of [FLS] ..."

                Suggest that you replace "We ask that you do not" with "You may not". "We ask" implies a request that need not be followed. If you want to be able to sanction such postings, the mandatory language "You may not" provides a much clearer basis for player expectations that such conduct is sanctionable.

                You DO make this explicitly forbidden in the website rules -- I suggest that the Game Rules and Policies, Official Correspondence section be consistent with it. Doing so will help avoid confusion.
                Last edited by ozziefudd; 11-16-2010, 02:29 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ozziefudd View Post
                  The reason for telling us where you got your new Code is so that players who played that game previously can relate examples of how the rules actually worked out in that game in practice. This should save considerable time and effort (on your part) in understanding the implications of some of the rules.
                  The majority of this code of conduct, including the part you highlighted, has been used by us since before launch in early 2008. It has also been available on our website since that time.

                  The changes Fodderboy is drawing your attention to are minor additions.

                  I agree that that section could do with a more PotBS-specific example. Some of our rules were originally drafted with the aid of our publisher, and that example makes more sense in the context of some of their games.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ozziefudd View Post
                    In the In-Game Rules and Policies, Official Correspondence, you say [emphasis added],
                    "We ask that you do not post, broadcast or reproduce in-game, without express written permission, any private correspondence between official representatives of [FLS] ..."

                    Suggest that you replace "We ask that you do not" with "You may not". "We ask" implies a request that need not be followed. If you want to be able to sanction such postings, the mandatory language "You may not" provides a much clearer basis for player expectations that such conduct is sanctionable.

                    You DO make this explicitly forbidden in the website rules -- I suggest that the Game Rules and Policies, Official Correspondence section be consistent with it. Doing so will help avoid confusion.
                    We agree with your suggestion and thank you for the input. This has been updated on the In-game Rules and Policies page.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Would really help if you told us exactly what has changed.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I'd like to see clarification on the whole "fail-ship" attacking rule.

                        I have heard two different tales:

                        A) You may not initiate an attack on another player with the express intention of running away (and thus tying them up in battle for 5 minutes without either side firing a shot)


                        B) If you are attacking or defending a port flip then anything goes. (e.g., if Spain is flipping a French port, it is okay for French to tie up the Spanish and vice versa because it's considered a valid part of port offense/defense)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Oh, same thing for port battles. I hear two different tales:

                          A) If there is no chance of winning, you must exit. e.g., 22 defenders vs 1 attacker, the attacker must exit or he is guilty of griefing (22 attackers versus 1 defender does not have this rule, though, since it's at least vaguely possible for 1 defender to turn an AvCom fight into a train-wreck)


                          B) There are no such rules. It's a 2-hour limit regardless so do whatever you like.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Slamz View Post
                            I'd like to see clarification on the whole "fail-ship" attacking rule.

                            I have heard two different tales:

                            A) You may not initiate an attack on another player with the express intention of running away (and thus tying them up in battle for 5 minutes without either side firing a shot)


                            B) If you are attacking or defending a port flip then anything goes. (e.g., if Spain is flipping a French port, it is okay for French to tie up the Spanish and vice versa because it's considered a valid part of port offense/defense)
                            Originally posted by Slamz View Post
                            Oh, same thing for port battles. I hear two different tales:

                            A) If there is no chance of winning, you must exit. e.g., 22 defenders vs 1 attacker, the attacker must exit or he is guilty of griefing (22 attackers versus 1 defender does not have this rule, though, since it's at least vaguely possible for 1 defender to turn an AvCom fight into a train-wreck)


                            B) There are no such rules. It's a 2-hour limit regardless so do whatever you like.
                            Agreed, i'd like to see confirmation on both of these shenanigans. And preferably use option A in both.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by stokes234 View Post
                              Agreed, i'd like to see confirmation on both of these shenanigans. And preferably use option A in both.
                              depends though....there have been cases where 1 player has held a port in avcom.

                              for defensive pb's i would agree, but for defensive pb's its far too hard to say how few players is enough to make it hopeless

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X