Feedback International Fort Battle Championship 4

[Syntex]

ALL battles experienced SAME issues.

No other team was given the same opportunity. Not even defending team was involved in the discussion.

There are quests which require you to participate in battles, get hits/dodges, now this team can complete some of them and have better gear for their first main event fort battle. We are not even their opponents but i find it really disgusting you don't care about that.

What steps will be taken to eliminate the unfair advantage, and why was no one informed about the battle. No communication, no announcement, wasn't offered to any other team.

What leaders are responsible for what exactly? There is no mention in rules that we can message you about extra battles.
Why exactly did the team who won anyway request a compensation battle and didn't even contact the enemy team?
Their only purpose was to get ahead, on which they suceeded.

Looking forward to your next reply

We stated that if you have problems, please contact us. If the battle could not be played due to an error, is logic we can replay it. This goes also to tournament battles. If no one contacted us, we assumed there was no need for redoing the practice battle. In case a leader contacted us, we assume they discussed it with the other leader.

If you had the same server issue, please contact us, and we can reschedule it for between May 1 and May 5.

Also, it was requested to have Awesomia / large battles in order to make it possible to play on more battle for everyone. We will do some during the break.

 

[Jason Bourne1]

can we make practice during may brake?

 

[Henry Higgins]

Can we have clarification on Awesomia battles during break pls. How are 4 battles supposed to occur simultaneously each day, granted 10m apart on their start time? It says advised divisions, but no restrictions either? The language of this post is hard to understand. Thank you

 

[Henry Higgins]

Also, while that's being cleared up if awesomia fort or other larges (and whom will be owning towns), would also be nice to have forts passed out for maneuvers. Not that there's enough small forts (14) for each team, but something might be worthwhile. Certainly don't leave half in one groups hands and others without a fort to maneuver in, please.

 

[JWillow]

Sorry Henry, I know you don't like it when I answer stuff for the mods but for one question maybe this part will make it clear. (so while called awesomia battles, think he just means mod dug larges) But it is fine to put me back in my place no matter if helpful or not.

Howdy Fort Fighters,

Practice Awesomia battles:
These battles happen in large forts, without join restrictions. There are 4 after each other, so if the previous battle turns out to be full, you will be able to join the following one. However, we advise for certain division to sign up, e.g. first 2 teams to attack, the other 2 on defense. It is up to the leaders to organize these between them.

 

[Syntex]

There are 4 battles, so all players can participate. If we do only 1, many will be left out. No restrictions, but we added just a recommendation about how teams should join, but is up to the leaders to decide between them.

What is your suggestion to give the forts evenly with 15 teams and 14 forts? Currently we were thinking to put them back to admin town.

 

[Henry Higgins]

There are 4 battles, so all players can participate. If we do only 1, many will be left out. No restrictions, but we added just a recommendation about how teams should join, but is up to the leaders to decide between them.

What is your suggestion to give the forts evenly with 15 teams and 14 forts? Currently we were thinking to put them back to admin town.

Yes, 1 of course would have to be a different size. But, I'd rather not suggest anything that could interfere with fort disbursement. It sure is a lot of swapping and renaming you folks have to do. Thank you for the fill-in battles during break and a good first stretch!

 

[Henry Higgins]

Ah, and just seen your solution. Looks great and well-thought, thank you!

 

[Syntex]

Thanks for the feedback, glad to hear! Enjoy the break!

 

[rel1]

• 2.4. Banned players cannot be replaced.

Can you tell us Syntex how is it possible that PL2 has 3 new characters in the town, which by the way are not even same characters as the banned players (1 adventurer, 2 soldiers replaced by 1 soldier and 2 duellists). This is not fair at all and I am really curious what you have to say about this

 

[Syntex]

• 2.4. Banned players cannot be replaced.

Can you tell us Syntex how is it possible that PL2 has 3 new characters in the town, which by the way are not even same characters as the banned players (1 adventurer, 2 soldiers replaced by 1 soldier and 2 duellists). This is not fair at all and I am really curious what you have to say about this

Replaced players get banned and removed from the town. We do not replace players if they have been previously banned permanently. If the replaced players did not play during the IFBC or if the exchange request was during the preparation stage (before the first fort battle started), the new players got a totally new character, like a new player, and not the replaced player's character. All this information has been communicated to leaders via tickets.

From 24 Apr, 20:32 team replacements will happen as follow:

• If the REPLACED player was inactive and did not claim their starting chest:
  
  • Level: 150
  • IFBC 4 chest
  • Can choose any class
• If the REPLACED player was active before and used the IFBC4 chest:
  
  • Level 150
  • Will receive the character class and inventory items of the replaced player.

If you believe those accounts are not falling in any of the categories mentioned before, please report them on support, so we can check that. Thank you!

 

[Paatryk02]

@Syntex Okay, but what about this part of announcement, published on March 18, 2024?

International Fort Battle Championship 4

This is the winning idea of Dan1el789, Contii, BlackWizard, Sancho, WLAN-Kabel and Don-Vallsy! Howdy Fort Fighters, It has already been 3 years since the last International Fort Battle Championship, and now it has come again! The 4th edition of the IFBC is brought by YOU, the lovely community...

forum.events.the-west.net

§3. Team information

1. Each team must have between 50-60 active players during the event.
2. Teams can replace players that are inactive, if they can name a replacement player who isn't participating in the event.
   • 2.1. In this case, the new joiner will start at level 150 and will receive the character class and inventory items of the replaced player.

 

[Zajecza Lapka]

That's obvius that you can replace they player that is inactive.

The issue with PL2 is that those players were active, they've claimed the chest and had been banned. And still, replaced players got diffrent classes.

Now some clarifaction should take place who we consider inactive.
I'm aware of the situation that happend and i understand why those three players recived a "fresh start" and starting chest but i dont see any reason why they're able to switch classes. Fort battles had already tooke place by that date so they got competetive advantage with those switches.

 

[EREWAN]

 

[Syntex]

That's obvius that you can replace they player that is inactive.

The issue with PL2 is that those players were active, they've claimed the chest and had been banned. And still, replaced players got diffrent classes.

Now some clarifaction should take place who we consider inactive.
I'm aware of the situation that happend and i understand why those three players recived a "fresh start" and starting chest but i dont see any reason why they're able to switch classes. Fort battles had already tooke place by that date so they got competetive advantage with those switches.

I have checked and that is not true, the new players after the battle started have the same class as the replaced ones. Also, the replaced players get banned because they got replaced. All replaced players got permanently banned from the event. Replacing players is not possible only if the player has received a permanent ban for breaking the game rules. However, still, if the leader contacts us, based on the circumstances we may still be able to assist (e.g. if the player resigned from the event, or turned out to be there in there to backward the team/scout/help another team - these actions are not a direct violation of the game rules, rather an unethical way of influencing the outcome of the event - however the exact reason will never be communicated to the requester, because of data protection, but we may assist with the request).

And again, replacements which happened before the battle started were considered as new players. Reason is that 99% of requests were for inactive players or abusive players. Regardless of the case, those players had not contributed to the team. So to be fair, we had given the possibility for all teams to change members and pretend the new joiners as totally new players. Also, during the preparation phase many teams first asked players to be removed, and after days have provided a new player.

 

[EREWAN]

I have checked and that is not true, the new players after the battle started have the same class as the replaced ones.

Can you provide some evidence for this claim? Such as names of players who you have removed?

For example player "Gaping Dragon" is Adventurer class and was part of PL2 Team, but there is no new Adventurer in PL2 Team. How does that allign with your statement?
What adventurer was this guy replaced with?

 

[rel1]

gaping dragon - adventurer
aphasing - soldier
agata - soldier (banned players)

versi
mariposa
gaja 2
leos (everyone duellist, character created day or two after the banned players got banned)

 

[Zajecza Lapka]

Also, the replaced players get banned because they got replaced.

I'm sorry but that's so not true. (I'm speaking about PL2 rreplacements)

 

[selakano]

What about 4 more battles in big forts for Monday? @Syntex

 

[Der Vogel]

Hi,

sorry for asking the same question that has been previously asked but I would like to understand something about incactive, banned, permanently banned, replaced players.

These are the rules:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

• 2.2. A player is considered inactive, if:
  • they haven't logged in for 5 days, OR
  • they have missed/refused to participate in the last 3 battles, OR
  • they have resigned from the event.
• 2.3. Only the team leader can contact us with the replacement request.
• 2.4. Banned players cannot be replaced.
• 2.5. Important! A replaced player gets disqualified from the event.
• 2.6 Addition: other special justified reason by the leader (e.g lack of cooperation with the team).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From my understanding:

2.2 If a player is inactive the player can be replaced via a contact from the TL to you, correct?
-> As per https://forum.events.the-west.net/i...l-fort-battle-championship-4.52477/post-57516 the new player can chose any class and will recieve the starting chest if the replaced player was absolutely inactive until the notification of the TL. If the replaced player used the starting chest and was active (means at least one 15sec work) the new player takes over the class and inventory of the replaced player.

Correct?

2.4 Banned players cannot be replaced.

-> Actions that lead to a ban are:

* usage of forbidden scripts/bots
* usage of upgraded items
* wrong language in Saloon Chat
* lack of cooperation with the team
* other violations as outlined in TW guidelines (e.g. insults, multi-accounts)

Correct so far?

Question:

How do you decide if a player gets permanently banned without the option to be replaced?

I am mainly concerned with the penultimate point “lack of cooperation with the team.” How do you decide that if only the TL can comment on this, but this TL may be the reason for “lack of cooperation with the team”?

Question #2

How could it be that one or even more players who were NOT inactive according to the above rules were replaced?

For me (possibly others too), it looks as though teams are simply regrouping themselves after a few unsuccessful continued battles, using the rules to exchange players and you justify this in front of the community by pointing out these rules.

Sounds like a self-fulfilled prophecy

Edit:

Question #3

Can you please show me the rule that describes the difference between a ban and a permanent ban?