WOA Guidelines - Shall they be dropped?

[Ruddertail]

http://staronesw.no-ip.org/faf/forum/in ... topic=1974

The guidelines in question. The choice is in your hands, FAFers.

- Rudder

[Ruddertail]

Btw, please feel free, even [s]required[/s] encouraged, to say why you voted as you did...

[Rid Zeal]

It shall be dropped. Even i'm knew here. But, as you can see with 450turns at max plus 100 on bank and few players. What could we do with 10 attack max?

[bjornredtail]

I've been aginst the rules to start with... In fact I played for a bit to aid those under attack by the vigalante committee that enforced the rules. Didn't work out all that well, but it was fun.

[Slasher]

I've been aginst the rules to start with... In fact I played for a bit to aid those under attack by the vigalante committee that enforced the rules. Didn't work out all that well, but it was fun.

The guidelines kind of make it boring

[Freenhult]

I don't want to see the rules completely dropped. I still feel that some order of conduct while attacking is required.

[The Beatles]

I voted against but I'm naturally follow the results of the voting. I voted against because the original reason for the guidelines was that the other servers were too kill-happy.

However, I'm most in favour of just renaming them "Etiquette" instead of "Guidelines". As it is, with so few players, 10 attacks is too little. But if we had more players, 10 attacks would be very reasonable.

[Ruddertail]

I voted against but I'm naturally follow the results of the voting. I voted against because the original reason for the guidelines was that the other servers were too kill-happy.

Beatles - No, kill happiness had nothing to do with it. That was the reason for removing the personal war function. The guidelines were in the hopes that 5 - 7 attacks would make the game more fun and enjoyable, and attract a bigger player - base. My guess is that, if anything, they've done the opposite - at least where the player-base is concerned.

Also, it's 5 - 7, not 10. 10 is war...

Freen - there still are some "order of conduct" as far as attacking. Basically, you don't go STDing, onlining, murdering etc. in landgrabs. But I don't think it's necessary - and with the small number players, not even prudent, to limit it to 5 - 7 attacks.

Further, most people just don't see any reason to stick to 5 - 7, especially when the worst that can happen if they don't is getting 21 back, something they would have been expecting, anyhow.

[The Beatles]

Well, when you put it that way, I'm convinced. Swing my vote.

Besides, newbies will likely not have so much land that they would be attacked mercilessly.

[Ruddertail]

And if they are, there's always the appeal to the community at - large, or to a specific ally/group of players.

So... 4 - 2 for dropping them, then?

[Freenhult]

Alright, I'm for it as long as some etiquette is followed. So 5-1 then.

[Ruddertail]

Of course there would be some etiquette. All I propose dropping are the rules governing how many times you can attack.

Perhaps we could replace it with a written rendition of the unwritten code? Don't online except in war, don't camp all day and scream onlining when you're not even running, don't standard people except for war, that kind of thing? Though... meh, that even sounds too formal. Perhaps "Game Etiquette - How to avoid making enemies you didn't intend to make"? Put that in the guide, and it'd be a good reference for new players.

Meh, that's almost unanimous. Good to hear...

[The Beatles]

They weren't ever rules, just etiquette or guidelines. I thought I had made that clear. The only enforcers were vigilantes, and nothing stops them now.

[Ruddertail]

Ah, yes. Slip of the tongue... My mistake. You'd all better study up, or you'll get stuck in Iraq!

[The Beatles]

Who gave you permission to make this poll???