You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to Bitefight EN. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

Bluefox

I'm Living In A Box. I'm Living in a cardboard box.

  • "Bluefox" started this thread

Posts: 1,612

Date of registration: Jan 25th 2008

Location: Never never land, second star to the right, straight on till morning.

Occupation: Being kitsune

  • Send private message

1

Tuesday, June 29th 2010, 9:28pm

Game Rule interpretations - Disscussion

Well, since the colleagues and I agree that this would be useful not only for us but you players as well.

Here let us have a little discussion of the rules, tell us YOUR interpretation of the rules, how you view them, or in other words. How would you interpret and apply the rules if you were in our place.

This must be said however, what is said here is NOT OFFICIAL, The ideas expressed may be wide and cover all of just the GAME RULES, any mention of the Board Rules will be met with removal of the post made. This is not a place to make slanderous remarks or personal jabs at staff members or Game Forge. This is not for criticisms or talking about your ban or bans period. it is ONLY to get your view of the rules and what you think they mean.

Otherwise normal rules for the board apply here. If the Mods want they can make their own thing for the Board Rule discussion or perhaps combine the two here, but until then. No Board Rule discussion. No ban discussion. No implying or slander remarks to or about staff.

mr.vuk

Spammer over all™

Posts: 1,104

Date of registration: Oct 31st 2007

Location: Bitola Macedonia

Occupation: my ocupation is to make miself feel good

  • Send private message

2

Tuesday, June 29th 2010, 10:15pm

I think that the rules have good concept, and they are mostly clear. But still the I have one q for the clan bashing rule. What are the limits then you are the same clan? It is the only rule that makes me confused.

3

Wednesday, June 30th 2010, 2:33am

Well about the clan bashing, the rules is pretty fine like it is currently. No need to define it when the limits can be interpreted by the users themselves. If the defender is targeted for his gold and his health is severally damaged at multiple times by user from the same clan, it clearly a clan bashing issue. The interpretation and the application of this part of the rules might change according to the Game Operator and the different cases reported.

Need to contact us regarding ingame matters ? Raise a ticket !
Speed TEST server

Daemonus

Spammer

Posts: 1,712

Date of registration: Apr 10th 2008

Location: a very dark place

Occupation: I like apples

  • Send private message

4

Wednesday, June 30th 2010, 2:40am

great idea for making this

clan bashing well i cant really object too, its clearly defined in the rules
many times it happens accidentally but i guess that has more to do with poor team work

if there is something that needs to be discussed about it, it would be
if a clan is being attacked by a person do they have the right to protect themselves
personally im fine either way but that seems to be the only big issue with it

BiteFight= where the forum is more fun than the game


Bluefox

I'm Living In A Box. I'm Living in a cardboard box.

  • "Bluefox" started this thread

Posts: 1,612

Date of registration: Jan 25th 2008

Location: Never never land, second star to the right, straight on till morning.

Occupation: Being kitsune

  • Send private message

5

Friday, July 2nd 2010, 7:46pm

Clan bashing in it's most basic form in my opinion, is Two or more players from the same clan attacking the same individual on at least two consecutive days.

Intent can be determined later or by a pattern of attacks.

Since this is a thread where the player (that means all of you who read this) gets to talk about any number of rules here and say what they (the player) thinks the rule means so that everyone can start getting the same idea about certain rules so that forms a consensus. This way we can start evening out what might be a widely varied interpretation of the rules as a whole.

6

Friday, July 2nd 2010, 9:16pm

clanbashing rule, at my point of view, should be active for some kind of level range. I mean above level 100-200 there aren't much people who you actually hit, less are the farms, so no point in ban for clanbashing if the player who is attacked give good gold to the attackers

Angelus007

Belgian Beast

Posts: 423

Date of registration: Jul 3rd 2008

  • Send private message

7

Saturday, July 3rd 2010, 10:32am

Clanbashing rule: according to me this should be applied in case the victim is shared in the clan for gold or to lower health. However, in case there is no conversation between clanmembers, it is my opinion that this should not be considered clanbashing (whereas sometimes bans are given).



You may also consider the other way around. What with someone targetting the members of one clan. That is allowed.



Sometimes the rule of clanbashing can be useful but in the end, the game is bitefight and you should not be punished for being in the same clan and having the 'bad luck' of being in the same hitrange.

Leshrac

Bestest Poster Ever!!!

Posts: 1,597

Date of registration: Sep 19th 2009

Location: Antarctica

  • Send private message

8

Tuesday, July 6th 2010, 8:23pm

1. Clan bashing rule = Outdated joke.
Why? It just punishes players in the same range to be in one clan. It imposes super restrictions on any 2 or more players who are in the same range in a clan.
The only exception in which its actually useful is if players of a clan are bashing other players just because they are in a specific clan. But that should fall into special case bashing (unprovoked attacks).
If said players leave the clan they'll have a lot less restrictions on them, but if two friends want to be in a clan its going to be hell for them.
How can you ever justify this rule(other than the exception pointed out)?

2. Game Staff interpretation:
Optimally, the rules should be black-and-white. But I understand thats not possible, as there are too many different scenarios that can happen. But if the GOs are going to be making all decisions, they should at least be more explanatory as to why they chose to ban players rather than just quoting the rule in every ticket.

3. Zeroing players:
I would change this. You need some knowledge of the game to realise that banning for zeroing players is wrong in mid levels 20-65 where players already have less health and all major equipment gives +% strength. With the best equipment in those levels resulting in over 1.5k damage per hit, one cant help but zero others.

4. Rule clarity:
even if the rules cant be black-and-white, they should be more clear. Especially the special case bashing rule. How can we avoid breaking it if we dont know where it extends till?
Board Rules
Game Rules
New Suggestion Section Rules

If you have any more questions, feel free to PM me and I will re-open your thread

SpeCimen

Forgotten one

Posts: 14

Date of registration: Apr 13th 2010

Location: Portugal

  • Send private message

9

Thursday, July 8th 2010, 6:06am

Clan bashing rule = Outdated joke. <-- OH SOOO TRUE!

What is, since the begining, the main purpose of this game? To attack and to be attacked by players from the opposite race. Stealing them gold, enjoying the fact of being stronger and beating the crap out of them. When the clans appeared, this purpose had been mantained and brought to a higher level. A level where I could team up with same race partners, so we could attack in group and defend in group. That is the main spirit of a clan, to protect our owns.

Considering the fact (which I also think of as a joke) that there is a rule called bashing rule (general to the majority of the Gameforge games), which already limits sufficiently our gameplay, we also have to deal with this clan bashing rule, contradicting the main objective of being in a clan. Yes, i'm sure this has already been entitled to tons of words discussing this matter, but it will always be very subjective and inconclusive. But, trying to pass beyond this problem: if one player carries a lot a gold and gets attacked by another player, the maximum times allowed in one day, why shouldn't he tell his clan partner about this "faty boy"? It is the purpose of this game! To steal other players their gold, alone, or together, as a clan! Energy comes and goes, so does the gold!

The problem with the energy, ok, I have accepted it, because it gets complicated to play, one being obliged to use potions all the time (the church, for low levels, is useless). But that was specially in the past, when we could attack oponents from any range of levels, not now, where we a limited one.

This brings me to one question about the "-/+10 level attacks bashing rule". If i'm level 67, what is the logic in being allowed to attack someone 5 times per day, from levels 68 to 76, but only 2 times if the level is 77? If the player has 10 more levels, it is natural to assume that he may have a better way of dealing with this attack, than the players from the levels below. You'll probably justify this by presenting the reverse case, where it is the level 77 player attacking me, level 67, and I may be too weak for him. So, if one could attack the other only 2 times per day, the same should happen for the reverse, right? Then abolish this detail, it makes no sense. From level 67 up, generalize the maximum of 5 times per day (6 for levels higher than 100) and everybody is happy, for not having to carry a calculator to play this simple game!


By the way, a little detail about this link: Bashing Levels (till level 99)

The colors should be corrected, for they induce people to error.

For example:80 << 85 << 94 >> 103 >> 108

If I would interpret this, without reading the rule itself, i would think that only 2 attacks were allowed to levels 80 and 108, for they are in red, and all the other levels were in the range of 5 attacks - from 81 to 85 and from 103 to 107. From 86 to 102 is what: my level? The colors of the « » signs are wrong. The correct ones should be:

80 << 85 << 94 >> 103 >> 108

(also, you could use more distinctive colors, instead of those similar red and orange)


P.S. - I'm sorry if this is more an opinion towards some of the rules themselves, rather than to any doubt in their interpretation, but all those details with the maximum daily attacks give me nausea, for they complicate something that should be simple, as simple as the game itself. For all that matters, these are the reasons why I don't play in the .org nor the brazilian servers: too complex bashing rules.

WolfHunter

Forgotten one

  • "WolfHunter" has been banned

Posts: 28

Date of registration: Oct 24th 2009

  • Send private message

10

Friday, July 30th 2010, 12:01am

What can be a differing interpretation of the Bashing rule? I thought it was very clearly written yet I was banned for obeying this rule.

The SGO has his own interpretation of it being at any time within a 24hr period not what is written as the official rule:



§2. Bashing Rule



Bashing is calculated from 00:00 - 23:59. - SERVER TIME


Bluefox

I'm Living In A Box. I'm Living in a cardboard box.

  • "Bluefox" started this thread

Posts: 1,612

Date of registration: Jan 25th 2008

Location: Never never land, second star to the right, straight on till morning.

Occupation: Being kitsune

  • Send private message

11

Wednesday, September 8th 2010, 10:13pm

Wow, this was a long time in reply to WolfHunter.

Anyway, 00:00 to 23:59 server time is 24 hrs. Just not the old form of the rule where 24hrs meant 24hrs from the first to the last attack regardless of the days it happened on. That was how it used to be, now bashing gets calculated for a single day - 24hrs of server time between 00:00 and 23:59-

That being said, is it legal to attack someone the maximum allowed number of times between 00:00 and 23:59, then wait for the server clock to change over to the next 24hr cycle and attack two more times? Yes, it is legal. It's mean, but legal.

What such does not do is put the attacker into a good light with the staff, especially when complaints are voiced here on the forum and flood our message boxes about something we have no legal grounds to put a stop to. That is until just one stray step over the line which brings down the hammer of ban. After such time suddenly we're the bad guys for not banning this player in the first place, and for being 'petty' with the rules enforcement.

Over all thought, a decent question and concern, even if it was replied to late.

Slypire

Fade to Black

Posts: 1,971

Date of registration: May 4th 2009

Location: Bosnia/Serbia

Occupation: Economist

  • Send private message

12

Sunday, November 7th 2010, 10:04am

Let me give my two cents regarding clan bashing rule interpretation.

A 2 players attack same individual during consecutive day, 2 times each day. So total of 4 attacks per day is counted as clan bashing. (let's say level is above 130)
B 1 player from other clan during the same time period, attacks that same player 5 times per day, So total of 5 attacks per day, and this is allowed.
Now which of these does more damage to defending player. (well none does him any damage since it's really high level but if we think a bit it's option B.


Now for me to interpret this, Clan bashing should be counted with level restriction, checking the attack pattern (which I think no one does even tho it's stated here), so that this example I gave wouldn't be active anymore, since only conclusion I have is that I will leave all my present clans since if there are two persons in close level in a clan they can break clan bashing rule couple of times each day.

So on all this I suggest three options:
1. removing of clan bashing
2. defining clan bashing in the rules since no one knows it's like this
3. redefining the rule to be considerate to level margins

Leshrac

Bestest Poster Ever!!!

Posts: 1,597

Date of registration: Sep 19th 2009

Location: Antarctica

  • Send private message

13

Sunday, November 7th 2010, 11:18pm

1. Clan bashing rule = Outdated joke.
Why? It just punishes players in the same range to be in one clan. It imposes super restrictions on any 2 or more players who are in the same range in a clan.
The only exception in which its actually useful is if players of a clan are bashing other players just because they are in a specific clan. But that should fall into special case bashing (unprovoked attacks).
If said players leave the clan they'll have a lot less restrictions on them, but if two friends want to be in a clan its going to be hell for them.
How can you ever justify this rule(other than the exception pointed out)?


Let me give my two cents regarding clan bashing rule interpretation.

A 2 players attack same individual during consecutive day, 2 times each day. So total of 4 attacks per day is counted as clan bashing. (let's say level is above 130)
B 1 player from other clan during the same time period, attacks that same player 5 times per day, So total of 5 attacks per day, and this is allowed.
Now which of these does more damage to defending player. (well none does him any damage since it's really high level but if we think a bit it's option B.


Now for me to interpret this, Clan bashing should be counted with level restriction, checking the attack pattern (which I think no one does even tho it's stated here), so that this example I gave wouldn't be active anymore, since only conclusion I have is that I will leave all my present clans since if there are two persons in close level in a clan they can break clan bashing rule couple of times each day.

So on all this I suggest three options:
1. removing of clan bashing
2. defining clan bashing in the rules since no one knows it's like this
3. redefining the rule to be considerate to level margins


Since it's a discussion, I would LOVE to hear what the Game Team has to say about the quoted points
Board Rules
Game Rules
New Suggestion Section Rules

If you have any more questions, feel free to PM me and I will re-open your thread

Kinork

Awesome man

Posts: 706

Date of registration: Apr 8th 2008

Location: A small country in the centre of Europe!

Occupation: Project Manager

  • Send private message

14

Sunday, November 14th 2010, 6:42pm

Well Leshrac you wanted someone of the game-team to reply here.

On a personal level i agree with all that has been said. Saying that it is an outdated joke is a bit rash but i understand you wanted to make a point. The goal of the 'clan bashing rule' was noble in that it was initially there to protect those players who where 'targeted' by (most likely stronger) players of another clan just because they were in a certain clan. But i (on a personal level) agree that the fact that you can attack a player (and harm a player's gameplay) more when not in clan with members in the same hit range, is not logical.

For me Clan bashing means that a player is hit by two or more players from the same clan (on at least two consecutive days) and that those players had a certain intent in doing it. But it is difficult to determine this so i understand where you are coming from.

Slypire suggestions aren't so bad. Removing the clan bashing rule might be a bit too much but giving level restrictions on clan attacks is something i wouldn't say no to immediately. For example: all level 120 and higher members of a clan can do x attacks a day or per two days on a certain player (with x a certain amount of attacks and of course all other bashing rules would also apply). For lower levels there would be lower limits of course.

Leshrac

Bestest Poster Ever!!!

Posts: 1,597

Date of registration: Sep 19th 2009

Location: Antarctica

  • Send private message

15

Sunday, November 14th 2010, 6:57pm

Well once again, what about this:

Quoted

Why? It just punishes players in the same range to be in one clan. It imposes super restrictions on any 2 or more players who are in the same range in a clan.
Players can just leave a clan and carry out their maximum number of attacks. I'd rather not be in a clan and be able to attack players 4 times a day than to be in a clan and be restricted to an attack a day.

Effectively, this rule screws over any two or more players who are in the same level range.

So where is the protection now? When players can just leave and attack?

Clan bashing rule WAS useful when there were no level restrictions on attack. Its TERRIBLE now.

Also, can you tell me how many attacks constitute as clan bashing? Can you tell me that each GO will treat clan bashing exactly the same way?

Rather than try to defend it, why dont you guys just come out, admit it is a joke and change it?
Board Rules
Game Rules
New Suggestion Section Rules

If you have any more questions, feel free to PM me and I will re-open your thread

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Leshrac" (Nov 14th 2010, 6:59pm)


Posts: 151

Date of registration: Jul 25th 2010

Location: Brod, Republic of Serpska

  • Send private message

16

Monday, November 29th 2010, 10:07pm

Clan bashing rule gives advantage to players without clan. They can attack all members from one clan but he can be attacked only by one player. Beside, it is allmost impossible to count attacks made by your clan members. You can get ban before you are aware that you are breaking rules.

Bahing rule is clear and ok. Special bashing I part is ok, but II and III is not clear. I have much problems with that.

2.If a player is suffering from unprovoked attacks with purpose of keeping his health points down so he/she can no longer be able to hunt/raid/quest**.

3.In any other situation that the defender’s gameplay is severely harmed.


Unprovoked attacks??? Is capturing gold unprovoked attack?

Purpose? How can anyone know what is other player purpose?

Severely harmed? If much stronger player attack weaker his gameplay must be harmed.

If you are much stronger than opponents you will zero them often. Does this rule means that you can not raid if you are strong? Where is limit? Strong raiders could be baned every day without knowing that they broke rules before they get ban. I am against all unclear rules. There is left too much at will of BF team.

gdevil

Demon

Posts: 238

Date of registration: Feb 23rd 2009

  • Send private message

17

Thursday, March 24th 2011, 1:59am

i guess there is no point in discussing further the bashing rule .....

so i will talk of other parts of the rules.
my main issue is the rule
I. Multi-Accounting
Every player is allowed to play only a single account per Server.

and my main objections is that since it is possible, for those who know how, to have multi accounts why this is not changed and let everyone have more than one accounts.
(i would just like to just say that in the terms and conditions there is something about minors joining the game but since it is not possible to check it, it is just small letters with no actual meaning.... multi accounts are the same. for those who know how it can not be checked....)
anyway i will not elaborate more on that for now but i will write about other things

- Players can not trade items from the market between each other while sharing the same network and registered as ip sharing users.
Same thing here.
having a rule that cannot be checked if it is breached or not should result in deletion of that rule.

II. Content
Ingame texts may not cause any offense to players of Bitefight by being of unacceptable quality. This is in particular the case
when someone is insulted

.

.
But also in other cases. It is up to the judgment of gamestaff to decide if a content is bannable.
"when someone is insulted" is definately unclear.
i might be insulted if u call me bad player. u may not be insulted by that.
i may think it is an insult to call someone else noob. some staff member judging my report may think it is not.
so who defines what actually IS insulting?
it would be best if there was a list of examples. as nikola78 said unclear rules are bad rules.

"But also in other cases."
after having the list of examples this "other cases" should exist. there is always room for more insults. but in this "other cases" i think the player should not be penalised immediately. he should have the privilege of defending himself in that case. maybe what the one reporting him is wrong. maybe he has something to say that is important.


IV. Spam
Sending messages with the purpose of annoying other persons or spamming them is not allowed. This includes
repeated sending of empty messages
sending the same message a couple of times
sending messages that are clearly spam.
sending bitelinks

a lot of ingame messages and profiles are with only reason to annoy others. not insult them. not spam them. this "annoying" has no reason to be in the rules. further more what this rule includes is spamming. not annoying.
as a last remark (for now) on the rules is this.
Say someone is banned for a long time.
in this case the player cannot delete his account.
he also cannot open another account. (or he will be penalised for multi)i think there should be a provision IN THE RULES for what this player can do if he wishes to.
(for example write to a GO asking for his banned account to be deleted)
this comes to no contradiction with something from the general Terms and Conditions.

for now i guess these are enough said from me
:)
I expect Nothing. I fear Nothing. I am FREE

Kazantzakis

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "gdevil" (Mar 24th 2011, 2:06am)


Bluefox

I'm Living In A Box. I'm Living in a cardboard box.

  • "Bluefox" started this thread

Posts: 1,612

Date of registration: Jan 25th 2008

Location: Never never land, second star to the right, straight on till morning.

Occupation: Being kitsune

  • Send private message

18

Thursday, March 24th 2011, 11:11am

I thought folks were ignoring this but apparently not.

Anyway, I'll address these as i have time but for now, since I've been up for better than 24 straight hours. I'm tired enough to be seeing things. I'll say this, all staff members have discretion on the rule, especially ones that provide for warnings instead of bans. Even with bans, they have discretionary views to apply the set numbers for the offense.

Spamming and insults.

What may be on the order of what is called in my city of residence "fighting words" in one country, may not be in another. it may be common slang for something else, yet be offensive elsewhere. So often the context is viewed int eh format of the reported offense. That usually determines the outcome.

Multi-accounting.

You have one account with allot of gold. someone has ten accounts, each one can attack you five times a day. Would that be fair to you? How would you know it was one person and not ten people all attacking you? that's why it's against the rules.


Trading items.

Again it takes unfair advantage of people that share ips (brother sister, friends, etc) enabling one to get all the best gear for another level up and coming. Gear that would normally have to be acquired peacmeal. Such a you share your computer with a friend, you buy hm some fantastic piece of equipment for one price but sell it to him/her for next to nothing just so they can have it. if you're sharing an ip, that's giving that person an unfair advantage that others do not enjoy.

gdevil

Demon

Posts: 238

Date of registration: Feb 23rd 2009

  • Send private message

19

Thursday, March 24th 2011, 11:46am

i know exactly why there is this rule about multi.
the thing that i strongly object with this rule to the point where i think it should be changed is that there are ways someone can have multi accounts and not be caught.
few know those ways.
so the rest are in seriusly inferior position.

the same objection is about the ipsharing and selling items.
there is no way someone can check what the rules says.
(and i think there has never been someone penalised for breach of that rule)
so what is the point of having a rule that can not be checked?

And this is why in the beggining of my previus post i wrote about the minors and parental consent that exists in the terms and conditions. it is something noone can check. so there is nothing mentioned in the rules. the same should be done for everything that either cannot be checked at all or can be checked for only some players.

PS pls excuse me if i am writting in a confusing way..... i am doing my best not to...
I expect Nothing. I fear Nothing. I am FREE

Kazantzakis

Bluefox

I'm Living In A Box. I'm Living in a cardboard box.

  • "Bluefox" started this thread

Posts: 1,612

Date of registration: Jan 25th 2008

Location: Never never land, second star to the right, straight on till morning.

Occupation: Being kitsune

  • Send private message

20

Thursday, March 24th 2011, 8:02pm

For minors playing this game.

We're not their parents, we have not parental obligations, delegation of parental duties to us because a child was offended I consider to be better spent answering the question of 'why were you allowing your child to play an on-line game in an international format?' Yes we have children in this game, we find them through various means, mostly because a parent begins arguing that someone did something to their child and we should do something.

For those that cheat and use proxies to have more than one account.

We still find them, they may think they are slick, but they do make mistakes and we punish harshly for it.

Players cannot claim to not know about certain rules after they have read them and taken the time to do their due diligence under the rules. It's the catch-22 effect. Which is why we have them written and posted, especially the trading items part. It's right there with the declared share part of the rule. Can't read one without the other, so they wouldn't be able to claim that they didn't know they couldn't trade items after they declared sharing an ip together.

We make players check a checkbox that has the following in it: I accept the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy.

Those have links in it that are click-able. Every time someone logs in, it reads effectively: With my login I accept the terms and conditions.

If someone doesn't take the time to go look at the Terms & Conditions. It's not our fault, just like if a person doesn't take the time to read the rules, it's not our fault. All games have rules in some form.

I'm not going to say who has or has not violated the rules, or how they are checked. Just that if it's posted as a rule, it is done so for a reason.