SUBTERFUGE Forums

The rules are prominently displayed in several places. That's a good start. The problem is that they are unclear in some places, and seem to have no hope of enforcement. That's a serious problem for an extremely social game like this.

Clarification:
What constitutes "harrassment"?
(TLDR:)Am I not allowed to get mad at someone for screwing me over? What if I use the F word while I get mad? - This ambiguity isnt as bad as the next one(hopefully it leads to players just playing it safe and being nice), but still worth noting.

What is a "multi-game deal"?
(TLDR:)Jesus, this is such a problem. Obviously we want friends to play together, as this is how word of mouth spreads, and maximum amount of fun is had with the game. But isn't that a multi-game deal on the DL so long as at least the majority of the room is strangers? Maybe we didn't agree outright "we are always on a team," but isn't there clearly an implied team when faced against a room full of strangers? If your answer to this is "no," you may want to reassess your view on reality.
_____

Enforcement:
Is there any enforcement at all? Or are we relying on the Honor System in a game titled SUBTERFUGE? Or is enforcement resting entirely on the backs of our 2 devs to maintain thousands and thousands of players?
_____

Suggested Solutions:

Randomly match Ranked games to avoid multi-game deals.
(TLDR:)Maybe leave public games alone and let people make their own servers, because while deals will still hurt honest players in pubs, they always have the power to forfeit or out-diplomacy and take the power away from the deal makers. I know you might be thinking "then in Ranked, people will just que at the same time, and probably get matched together anyway because there are only so many games to get placed in at a time." Answer: "random" matching will allow the devs to build in parameters to prevent the same players playing together repeatedly, by ensuring they end up placed in separate matches. I strongly believe this is critical for the longevity of the game in a competitive sense. Currently I'm hesitant to even play ranked at all, because of the potential to abuse multi-game deals.

The above solution to ranked matching is something like a soft solution. It only fixes one problem, kind of. I think its an essential minimum.

Volunteer Moderators:
(TLDR:)I know there has been problem with abuse of systems like this when games implement them. People can go on power trips, or develop strong biases. Honestly, I think that can be dealt with and is preferable to the Honor System that seems to be in place now.
______________
I'm in lawschool, so maybe I have an unnatural obsession with rules. However, problems with the rules and their enforcement seems like the single biggest problem with the game right now. And the more popular the game becomes, the bigger these problems get. Deal with them now before it starts to have a negative impact.

Harassment should be self explanatory. This is a tense game, so it's understandable that sometimes tempers run hot. There's no rule against swearing, so I wouldn't worry about that. Just don't spew a stream of vitriol, or join a game just to make trouble for another player. Rule of thumb: if you're not sure whether something would constitute harassment, it probably does.

The rule about multi game deals, though... The intent is obvious, everyone should be on equal footing at the start of the game, and deals outside the game interfere with that. Laudable, but there will always be "friendship bias", and the rule is essentially unenforceable. Players are on the honor system.

kalzekdor wrote:The rule about multi game deals, though... The intent is obvious, everyone should be on equal footing at the start of the game, and deals outside the game interfere with that. Laudable, but there will always be "friendship bias", and the rule is essentially unenforceable. Players are on the honor system.

The honor system is just so useless, esp when it comes to the added incentive of ranking. Maybe an honor system rule might deter strangers from working together a little bit, its going to have virtually no effect on RL friends ganging up on strangers. None.

^This sort of exists in a ideological conflict. 1. You want everyone to start on even footing. 2. You want friends to be able to play together, even if they cant fill a game themselves (2/3/4 players).

Thats why I propose the compromise of letting friends join pubs together, but putting a system in place specifically to stop that in ranked games. (A bonus side effect of this is that solo players frustrated by getting ganged up on have another incentive to become pay players and join ranked games.)

I think I feel the same way as kevlargolem here. While I love having the ability to play with my friends, it is definitely unfair. Even if I don't ally with my friend (I actively enforce that on myself sometimes. Besides, stabbing your friend in the back can be so satisfying...), I still know my friend better than anyone else in the game. It's an inherent imbalance.
But, like kevlargolem said, we also want people to have the ability to play together.
Kevlargolem's solution sounds a lot like the disorganized thoughts I've been having on the topic, and I also think it's vital to this game's survival.

kevlargolem wrote:

kalzekdor wrote:The rule about multi game deals, though... The intent is obvious, everyone should be on equal footing at the start of the game, and deals outside the game interfere with that. Laudable, but there will always be "friendship bias", and the rule is essentially unenforceable. Players are on the honor system.

The honor system is just so useless, esp when it comes to the added incentive of ranking. Maybe an honor system rule might deter strangers from working together a little bit, its going to have virtually no effect on RL friends ganging up on strangers. None.

^This sort of exists in a ideological conflict. 1. You want everyone to start on even footing. 2. You want friends to be able to play together, even if they cant fill a game themselves (2/3/4 players).

Thats why I propose the compromise of letting friends join pubs together, but putting a system in place specifically to stop that in ranked games. (A bonus side effect of this is that solo players frustrated by getting ganged up on have another incentive to become pay players and join ranked games.)

Wasn't trying to imply that the honor system would prevent people from breaking that rule. I specifically called that rule unenforceable. It may keep some people from doing so, though. Even if that's only a tiny percentage of players, it's worth keeping the rule around.

There's no way to prevent friends from joining the same ranked game if they all have L2. They just need to open the game list, pick a game with a couple empty slots, and all of them join it. There's no way for the game to know who is friends with whom. You might be able to make a matchmaking system, so that you don't choose the specific game to join, but there are only a handful of games starting at any point in time. If they enter the queue at the same time, odds are good they'll be assigned to the same game. Additionally, if I recall correctly, there's no penalty for leaving a game before it starts, so even if they don't get in the same game, they could leave and try again. So, unless you're going to absolutely forbid players from playing in the same game as someone they did before... A matchmaking system also comes with its own problems, given the small user base.

There's just not much that can be done about it. Maybe if someone admits it in chat you can report them.

Bottom line, it's just a game. There's nothing on the line but bragging rights. I wouldn't be overly concerned about it. Report them if there's an obvious violation, otherwise, just outplay them.

I'm about done playing subterfuge. Love the game, but hate the unfair alliances. Already had 2 people in separate games admit they entered with 2 of their friends. I got smoked both games. That's quite frustrating. They win, and get 1st, 2nd 3rd because they all help each other. It turns into a 3v1v1v1v1v1. Or most often a 3v2v2vME.

I came up with the same solution. Random ranked games. Basically, play public with your friends, do whatever you want. However, if you want to play ranked, you can't pick your allies before the game.

It's really essential. I'm not interested in joining any more games because public is too easy and ranked is a team game. In fact, what I might do is get some of my buddies and start doing the teaming up on. They say if you can't beat em join em. =p

I'm not sure how games with two or three allies are really taking over so many games.

Most ranked games have 8 to 10 players, having a team of 2 or 3 should not be insurmountable. Couldn't you ally with the others to take on what is the minority of players? I've at least one game where I mentioned in the public chat that two players are IRL friends and were pulling ahead due to fully trusting each other. I gifted two of my specialists to my neighbours to help take them down. In the end I got second place.

kalzekdor wrote:...there are only a handful of games starting at any point in time... Additionally, if I recall correctly, there's no penalty for leaving a game before it starts... So, unless you're going to absolutely forbid players from playing in the same game as someone they did before... A matchmaking system also comes with its own problems, given the small user base.

A large pool of players makes it easier to make matchmaking work properly, this is true. That doesn't mean it can't work with a smaller number of players.

First, the ELO ranking system this game already uses inherently factors in skill when it rewards the winners and losers, so matchmaking doesn't even need to factor skill very heavily when matching.

Second, it takes hours to get a game started in the first place. If you give the matching system hours to match people up, I'm confident it can sufficiently do what it needs to do to keep mutli-game dealers apart. There is a small player base, but it seems like plenty of servers are going up over the course of hours. If not, the matchmaking system can create a new server for a player if theyve already been matched with someone recently who is also in the que.

Third, there needs to be a penalty for quitting before match start, and that regardless of this matchmaking suggestion. People shouldnt join if they dont want to play, and if they quit it should be reflected on their ranking. Those dead outposts left by quitters are another imbalance that unfairly gives (nearly)free outposts to the lucky neighboring players.

kalzekdor wrote:...Maybe if someone admits it in chat you can report them.

This is what I'm trying to point out with this thread. You can't. Or I guess you can, but nothing will come of it. If a tree falls in the woods...

kalzekdor wrote:Bottom line, it's just a game. There's nothing on the line but bragging rights.

I have to disagree with you here. People play a game almost soley to have fun. A game quickly becomes unfun when other players cheat (multi-game deals are against the rules, aka: cheating). If the point of a game is to be fun, and the fun is taken away unfairly by someone cheating, not only is that not "nothing on the line," in fact, everything is on the line.

Also, paid tournaments are an already planned upcoming feature. Will we still be relying on the honor system for that?

therealben wrote:I'm not sure how games with two or three allies are really taking over so many games.

I mean, look at the post right above yours. Ucross' post is exactly what I'm talking about. This is an incredible game, he points that out himself, but he is at the brink of quitting all together because of the exact problem I am talking about.

therealben wrote:Couldn't you ally with the others to take on what is the minority of players?

Sure, that is totally possible. It is also possible in a FPS to kill a guy from behind while he is using aimbot. Just because something isnt an automatic win doesnt mean it isnt inherently unfair and detrimental to the game.

therealben wrote:I'm not sure how games with two or three allies are really taking over so many games.

Most ranked games have 8 to 10 players, having a team of 2 or 3 should not be insurmountable. Couldn't you ally with the others to take on what is the minority of players? I've at least one game where I mentioned in the public chat that two players are IRL friends and were pulling ahead due to fully trusting each other. I gifted two of my specialists to my neighbours to help take them down. In the end I got second place.

It's simple. With everyone for themselves you don't know for sure who is your ally. You leave drillers on your borders 'just in case' and so you don't look tempting. Your allies may turn on you at any moment. With real life friends you can often trust them implicitly and do combined 3 person attacks on someone. If you do that at the start of the game it's really hard to be getting owned and ask others to ally with you let alone help you attack these 3. Really it's quite decisive. They can share specialists, gift drillers, etc.

When a player quits the game before it starts, does the map regenerate? I know it does if the game is started with less than the maximum players.

And, while blatant violations of that rule would indeed be frustrating and damage "fun", minor violations wouldn't cause me to have less fun, even if I lost because of it. Do you only have fun when you win? Do you assume that when you lose someone must be cheating?

Paid tournaments are a bad idea for a number of reasons, which have been enumerated in other threads.

Ranked matchmaking might be a good idea for other reasons, but it has a lot of costs associated with it, and I don't think it would do much to prevent this problem. If it's implemented, it should be for other reasons, such as matching players of similar skill. But you don't even want to do that, so I don't get it.

The only real solution is to report players that you think are violating this rule, and have a moderator go over game history / chat logs. Maybe if people are clearly allied, but there's no discussion of an alliance in their logs, a mod can take action.