Regarding the first point, it is very simple. If anything, feel free to ask me. And potential problems can be honed. In any case, it will be more effective than admin control.
The second point. (Sorry, I am writing with a translator, so there may be inaccuracies)
Now the built-in anti-rambo script looks something like this: when a player hits, his distance to all bots on the map is checked, however, if the next bot from the cycle does not belong to the player’s squad, then the check is not performed. And if the player is alone, then the check is not performed at all, and therefore he freely strikes. The idea is that the player could not inflict damage far from allied bots, even without bots in the squad.
I suggest simply replacing the condition "if the bot is from the player’s squad" by "if the bot is from the player’s team." These are 1-2 lines, I don’t remember exactly what this script looks like.
As for true rembing, I agree, distraction is a problem. But I was 100 times faced with the fact that my cavalry detachment, for example, was taken by 1 player. And I have never seen a warning for such a violation. As a result, there is absolutely no fight against distraction, and a very ineffective fight directly against single attacks. By the way, I also have an idea how to avoid distractions. It is also very simple, but I do not want to overload the message now, I will definitely present my ideas in a separate post. At the very least, anti-rambo will allow you to avoid exactly the attacking component, this is a plus.
"if all would be on their best behavior we would not have any need for admins" it seems to me that this is a very big "if"
But this, of course, is logical.
I repeat, the point is not to cut the rules, but to shift the details not to the players themselves, but to the scripts as much as possible. And let the rules be something like a constitution, and, for good, the implementation of 1 point will allow you to clear the rule regarding ramboing, save the admin chat from flooding, and everything that is necessary can get into the game rules.
Do you think this is a very clear rule? )
"If you had charged with your men, and all of them were killed, you are allowed to keep fighting on the horse, but when the charge ends you must dismount and join friendly line."
After the introduction of changes, 1-4 rules are no longer needed (1 - and so the rudiment, it only confuses players)
And regarding the insults. I am not a supporter of prohibiting insults, it smacks of restriction of freedom of speech and moral dictatorship, but this is not the main problem. You can easily insult anyone, but for insulting the admin you catch a ban. An admin is an player with more power. If he was insulted as a player, then what right does he have to use powers that his opponent does not have? And if he reacts like an admin, then how could you insult him precisely as an admin? I see this as a contradiction, but this is my personal opinion. You either ban for ALL insults (agree, this is unrealistic), or indicate in the rules that admins are elected, and no one can insult them.
Or give players freedom
Sorry for the volume, too caring for the mount&blade )
The second point. (Sorry, I am writing with a translator, so there may be inaccuracies)
Now the built-in anti-rambo script looks something like this: when a player hits, his distance to all bots on the map is checked, however, if the next bot from the cycle does not belong to the player’s squad, then the check is not performed. And if the player is alone, then the check is not performed at all, and therefore he freely strikes. The idea is that the player could not inflict damage far from allied bots, even without bots in the squad.
I suggest simply replacing the condition "if the bot is from the player’s squad" by "if the bot is from the player’s team." These are 1-2 lines, I don’t remember exactly what this script looks like.
As for true rembing, I agree, distraction is a problem. But I was 100 times faced with the fact that my cavalry detachment, for example, was taken by 1 player. And I have never seen a warning for such a violation. As a result, there is absolutely no fight against distraction, and a very ineffective fight directly against single attacks. By the way, I also have an idea how to avoid distractions. It is also very simple, but I do not want to overload the message now, I will definitely present my ideas in a separate post. At the very least, anti-rambo will allow you to avoid exactly the attacking component, this is a plus.
"if all would be on their best behavior we would not have any need for admins" it seems to me that this is a very big "if"
But this, of course, is logical.I repeat, the point is not to cut the rules, but to shift the details not to the players themselves, but to the scripts as much as possible. And let the rules be something like a constitution, and, for good, the implementation of 1 point will allow you to clear the rule regarding ramboing, save the admin chat from flooding, and everything that is necessary can get into the game rules.
Do you think this is a very clear rule? )
"If you had charged with your men, and all of them were killed, you are allowed to keep fighting on the horse, but when the charge ends you must dismount and join friendly line."
After the introduction of changes, 1-4 rules are no longer needed (1 - and so the rudiment, it only confuses players)
And regarding the insults. I am not a supporter of prohibiting insults, it smacks of restriction of freedom of speech and moral dictatorship, but this is not the main problem. You can easily insult anyone, but for insulting the admin you catch a ban. An admin is an player with more power. If he was insulted as a player, then what right does he have to use powers that his opponent does not have? And if he reacts like an admin, then how could you insult him precisely as an admin? I see this as a contradiction, but this is my personal opinion. You either ban for ALL insults (agree, this is unrealistic), or indicate in the rules that admins are elected, and no one can insult them.
Or give players freedom
Sorry for the volume, too caring for the mount&blade )