Implemented Trolling - Tower Defence Missplacing

[Shotgun]

Trolling - Tower Defence Missplacing ​

In this thread I want to suggest a rule change regarding Tower Defence. There are certain tactics that can't be used because of the trolling (missplacing) rule.

Current Situation - Missplacing Rule​

In the current situation you will be punished if you misplace 4 or more towers. The punishment track is as follows: Warning → 1 day ban → 7 day ban → 30 day ban → Permanent ban
CapitanGato explains that the maximum towers allowed to be missplaced has been changed from 1 - 4 because of the Auto Centering feature.

CapitanGato:
"placing a 3x3 tower in a 5x5 is misplacing too, and that's why they are allowed to claim 3 spots. Level 15 or less aren't allowed to misplace anymore after the latest TD update, so we aren't receiving missplacing reports for stone players learning how to play anymore. Since only players with a certain level can turn off the autoplacing is the reason I changed our rule to 1 to 4"

However, this rule still has consequences for gameplay, below are these consequences explained.

Consequences - Ice Placement​

In maps like High Hills it could be more effective to place Ice Towers on 5x5 Spots. This is not allowed and will be punished, however, such placements are strategic and can give you an advantage.

Consequences - Spot Switching​

Spot Switching as explained by @CrystalDrop in this video is in no way allowed. If you switch up spots it would be the same as missplacing 8 towers. This strategy is used by many players and is very useful, it can even be the difference between winning or losing a game.

Solution 1 - Efficient Missplacing​

What I want to suggest is allowing efficient missplacing. The missplacing rule can be reduced to a maximum of 2 towers as you don't need more Ice Towers on 5x5 spots in most cases. The following situations will be considered as efficient missplacing:

Spoiler: 3x3 on 5x5 Spots

Building 3x3 towers on 5x5 Spots in an efficient way without unnessecary wasting space as showed below.

Spoiler: 5x5 on 3x3 Spots

Building 5x5 towers on 3x3 Spots in an efficient way without unnessecary wasting space as showed below.

Spoiler: Switching up 3x3 and 5x5 Spots

Switching up 3x3 and 5x5 Spots in a way in which no space is wasted as showed below.

However, the following situations is clearly trolling and wasting space in an unnecessary way.

Spoiler: 3x3 on 3x3 Spots

Spoiler: 5x5 on 5x5 Spots

Spoiler: 3x3 on 5x5 Spots

Spoiler: 5x5 on 3x3 Spots

Solution 2 - Switching up 3x3 & 5x5​

This solution only allows the complete switching of 3x3 with 5x5 Spots as showed below. The missplacing rule can be reduced to a maximum of 2 towers as you don't need more Ice Towers on 5x5 spots in most cases.

Spoiler: Discord community votes

There are already 8 people in the Discord community who agree this has to be changed.

Solution 3 - Maximum Usage by @dartz42​

This solution requires 3 criterion for the placement to be "strategic". It would result in 3 questions which all have to be answered with "yes" before the player is punished. If any of these questions can be answered with "no", then the misplacing can be considered strategic and the player will not be punished.

1. Has the placement created an area on which no other towers can be built?
2. Are the towers placed less in numbers than the maximum amount that could be placed?
3. Is the number of towers missplaced equal or more than 2?

A few examples:

Spoiler: Example 1

Question 1: Yes -=- go to Question 2
Question 2: No -=- the missplacing is considered strategic, the player will not be punished.

Spoiler: Example 2

Question 1: Yes -=- go to Question 2
Question 2: Yes -=- go to Question 3
Question 3: Yes -=- the missplacing is not considered strategic and will be punished
(Short explanation for Question 3: there are actually 2 towers not placed correctly here, 1 case of missplacing, 2 towers misplaced)

Spoiler: Example 3

Question 1: Yes -=- go to Question 2
Question 2: Yes -=- go to Question 3
(explanation: there is a possibility of 3 3x3 towers to be placed on that area, this means it doesn't equal the maximum amount of towers which could be placed so it will be considered as non-strategic missplacing)
Question 3: Yes -=- the missplacing is not considered strategic and will be punished

 

[Marieke2001]

Voted for solution 2 since that is easier Moderation wise

 

[dartz42]

I voted for solution 1 only because it's closer to what I believe to be the correct solution, though I could have just as well voted for neither. I hope to bring up points of agreement and further details as to which criterion should be used for misplacing.

Points I hope to resolve (not necessarily in this order) with my point of view:

1. Tower 'claiming'
2. Placing 5x5s on 3x3s
3. Placing 3x3s on 5x5s
4. 5x5 and 3x3 'Swapping'
5. 'Efficient' misplacement

But before I address these I think it makes sense to bring up what I think is a decent starting criterion. If you disagree with it, please reply, as I don't claim to know everything about misplacements.

The Criterion for Punishable Misplacing
The general outline of the procedure I am suggesting is as follows:

1. Determine if a tower or group of towers can be labeled as misplaced.
   
   Spoiler: When is a tower misplaced?

   There are two means of determining if towers are misplaced. The obvious one is that they are not placed in the grid lines as the game presents. However, this runs into the issue of 5x5 and 3x3 swapping as Shotgun describes:
   
   Switching up 3x3 and 5x5 Spots in a way in which no space is wasted as showed below.
   

   

   
   
   To avoid this confusion (and to allow for 5x5 -3x3 swapping), towers should only be labeled as misplaced if they 'waste space.' That is to say, a tower is misplaced if there is a space between that tower and another tower or non placeable area, which is not a multiple of 3x3 or 5x5 spacing. Shotgun also gives examples of this above. This means that a 5x5 placed on 3x3s where there is no swapping is considered misplaced (as there will always be a line of 5x1 left out) But whether this misplacing is punishable / efficient is a different issue.
2. Determine if that misplacing is efficient / acceptable or inefficient / punishable.
   
   Spoiler: What is efficient / inefficient?

   I will suggest a rather simple criterion for efficient misplacement that should address the confusion or difficulty of managing reports on the issue of misplacement. Here it is: A tower misplacement is efficient if the maximum number of towers that could be placed in the space occupied by those towers is equal to the number of towers placed there. In other words, if it's not the maximum, then it's inefficient, and thus punishable.
   
   This means that 5 3x3 towers placed on 3 adjacent 5x5 squares is efficient (since 5 is the max), and thus allowed. However, under my criterion, 3 5x5s would not be allowed to be placed on 10 3x3 squares (since 10 is the max and 10 > 3). Note that all of this excludes 5x5 - 3x3 swapping still, as those towers are not considered misplaced.
   
   I understand that this is a possible point of contention as some like to place a leach on 3x3s on certain maps, but even this is still possible to do without getting reported (see the next section). Moreover, as to whether 3 5x5s are better than 10 3x3s, I believe most experienced players should know that this is not the case, and there are generally many other places for 5x5s anyways. I understand that this means there is a slight favoritism of 3x3s over 5x5s when regarding misplacing, but this is warranted, as the best tower (imo ice) among others are 3x3.
   
   Another consequence of this is that a misplaced ice on single 5x5s (as can be the best on Zen, Desert, and High Hills) is also considered efficient.
3. If they have inefficiently misplaced more than X towers, they are punished.
   
   Spoiler: How many inefficient towers is punishable?

   This is another point I am unsure of exactly what X should be, but my strong opinion is that X=1 makes the most sense. This would allow for a leach misplacement on maps without being punishable. So, you can effectively have a single, inefficiently misplaced tower (at any given time) without being punished for it.
   
   This prevents doubly misplacing the front of maps with mage and quake, and prevents claiming too many 5x5s (at least inefficiently) with single 3x3s.

Overclaiming
The latter point that has not been brought up but is a separate point altogether is what I can only call 'overclaiming.' I define this as the proper placement of 'too many' level 1 towers, so as to claim the defense for other towers or at least for to be upgraded in the future. The simplest example is the placement of archer (either path) on every single square on a map, but then to sell later and replace or to upgrade later. I wouldn't mind myself if they were path 2, and if they left space for other necessary towers, but I have to be willing to accept some level of claiming.

It is worth noting that this should not apply to other levels of towers, since new players can only build level 2 for many of their towers. The idea is to slow down claimers by at least 2 fold (money and time-wise) so as to allow players to react, threaten a report if they don't stop, or build their own defense elsewhere before it's all claimed.

It should be clear that this is separate from misplacing, as you can claim the entire map with towers that will still and should still be considered trolling, without a single misplaced tower. The discussion is therefore only guided then to how many is too many?

I personally don't know the best number for this, but I suspect that 10 is reasonable. This is mainly because I wouldn't want to have to record 40 or more towers with name placements every time I have to report (nor do those handling the reports want to look at them). This is another point of discussion that should be handled by no single players opinion.

 

[rezlang]

Voted for solution 2 since that is easier Moderation wise

Although I agree with solution 1 more, ease of moderation is a real concern and if it is better for staff to do solution 2, then I think it is the better option.

 

[zMigi_]

I voted for solution 1 because I've did some of them with my friends, but is @Marieke2001 says the second one is better moderation wise I think that's the best option

 

[heavenly55]

I voted for solution 1 only because it's closer to what I believe to be the correct solution, though I could have just as well voted for neither. I hope to bring up points of agreement and further details as to which criterion should be used for misplacing.

Points I hope to resolve (not necessarily in this order) with my point of view:

1. Tower 'claiming'
2. Placing 5x5s on 3x3s
3. Placing 3x3s on 5x5s
4. 5x5 and 3x3 'Swapping'
5. 'Efficient' misplacement

But before I address these I think it makes sense to bring up what I think is a decent starting criterion. If you disagree with it, please reply, as I don't claim to know everything about misplacements.

I also voted for option 1 because it makes more sense to me than option 2.

The Criterion for Punishable Misplacing
The general outline of the procedure I am suggesting is as follows:

1. Determine if a tower or group of towers can be labeled as misplaced.
   
   Spoiler: When is a tower misplaced?

   There are two means of determining if towers are misplaced. The obvious one is that they are not placed in the grid lines as the game presents. However, this runs into the issue of 5x5 and 3x3 swapping as Shotgun describes:
   
   Switching up 3x3 and 5x5 Spots in a way in which no space is wasted as showed below.
   

   

   
   
   To avoid this confusion (and to allow for 5x5 -3x3 swapping), towers should only be labeled as misplaced if they 'waste space.' That is to say, a tower is misplaced if there is a space between that tower and another tower or non placeable area, which is not a multiple of 3x3 or 5x5 spacing. Shotgun also gives examples of this above. This means that a 5x5 placed on 3x3s where there is no swapping is considered misplaced (as there will always be a line of 5x1 left out) But whether this misplacing is punishable / efficient is a different issue.
2. Determine if that misplacing is efficient / acceptable or inefficient / punishable.
   
   Spoiler: What is efficient / inefficient?

   I will suggest a rather simple criterion for efficient misplacement that should address the confusion or difficulty of managing reports on the issue of misplacement. Here it is: A tower misplacement is efficient if the maximum number of towers that could be placed in the space occupied by those towers is equal to the number of towers placed there. In other words, if it's not the maximum, then it's inefficient, and thus punishable.
   
   This means that 5 3x3 towers placed on 3 adjacent 5x5 squares is efficient (since 5 is the max), and thus allowed. However, under my criterion, 3 5x5s would not be allowed to be placed on 10 3x3 squares (since 10 is the max and 10 > 3). Note that all of this excludes 5x5 - 3x3 swapping still, as those towers are not considered misplaced.
   
   I understand that this is a possible point of contention as some like to place a leach on 3x3s on certain maps, but even this is still possible to do without getting reported (see the next section). Moreover, as to whether 3 5x5s are better than 10 3x3s, I believe most experienced players should know that this is not the case, and there are generally many other places for 5x5s anyways. I understand that this means there is a slight favoritism of 3x3s over 5x5s when regarding misplacing, but this is warranted, as the best tower (imo ice) among others are 3x3.
   
   Another consequence of this is that a misplaced ice on single 5x5s (as can be the best on Zen, Desert, and High Hills) is also considered efficient.
3. If they have inefficiently misplaced more than X towers, they are punished.
   
   Spoiler: How many inefficient towers is punishable?

   This is another point I am unsure of exactly what X should be, but my strong opinion is that X=1 makes the most sense. This would allow for a leach misplacement on maps without being punishable. So, you can effectively have a single, inefficiently misplaced tower (at any given time) without being punished for it.
   
   This prevents doubly misplacing the front of maps with mage and quake, and prevents claiming too many 5x5s (at least inefficiently) with single 3x3s.

I agree with the points that you brought up because there are multiple strategies that can be used where efficient misplacing is required. However, I often see "inefficient" misplacing done to claim towers. If option one will be considered, it is important to determine when switching 3x3 and 5x5 towers is acceptable, as well as when placing towers "efficiently" means. Overall, I think you did a great job identifying these issues and providing an explanation.

Overclaiming
The latter point that has not been brought up but is a separate point altogether is what I can only call 'overclaiming.' I define this as the proper placement of 'too many' level 1 towers, so as to claim the defense for other towers or at least for to be upgraded in the future. The simplest example is the placement of archer (either path) on every single square on a map, but then to sell later and replace or to upgrade later. I wouldn't mind myself if they were path 2, and if they left space for other necessary towers, but I have to be willing to accept some level of claiming.

It is worth noting that this should not apply to other levels of towers, since new players can only build level 2 for many of their towers. The idea is to slow down claimers by at least 2 fold (money and time-wise) so as to allow players to react, threaten a report if they don't stop, or build their own defense elsewhere before it's all claimed.

It should be clear that this is separate from misplacing, as you can claim the entire map with towers that will still and should still be considered trolling, without a single misplaced tower. The discussion is therefore only guided then to how many is too many?

I personally don't know the best number for this, but I suspect that 10 is reasonable. This is mainly because I wouldn't want to have to record 40 or more towers with name placements every time I have to report (nor do those handling the reports want to look at them). This is another point of discussion that should be handled by no single players opinion.

I completely agree with this, and I think that "overclaiming" should be seen just as bad (potentially worse) as misplacing towers. The reason being that certain essential towers are disregarded, as all the tower slots can be taken by someone simply correctly building level 1 towers (any kind) all over the map. This can leave that same team vulnerable to cave spiders, skeletons, etc.. I would also really appreciate some clarification on this, as well as some type of repercussion given when this is done. I am also curious to know if it has ever been considered before/ was ever against the rules? I think 10 is reasonable, and as you stated, it should not apply to >1 tower levels, since some players do not have paths unlocked.

 

[Sardonyq]

My issue with this idea is that there are players who might not understand that this is a negative thing to do. Many players go through the tutorial without really taking time to understand what's happening.

I do think that it's a problem in specific lobbies, but I think that there are other ways to implement an idea like this.

 

[heavenly55]

My issue with this idea is that there are players who might not understand that this is a negative thing to do. Many players go through the tutorial without really taking time to understand what's happening.

I think this is true. I would suggest possibly providing video tutorials or guides for new players to watch/read and understand what is okay and what is not. I'm not sure if this ideas is feasible, but I think it could improve the understanding of the game for other players. I am open to hearing from others what they think would be best to help solve this issue.

I do think that it's a problem in specific lobbies, but I think that there are other ways to implement an idea like this.

What other ideas do you have in mind?

 

[Shotgun]

I voted for solution 1 only because it's closer to what I believe to be the correct solution, though I could have just as well voted for neither. I hope to bring up points of agreement and further details as to which criterion should be used for misplacing.

Points I hope to resolve (not necessarily in this order) with my point of view:

1. Tower 'claiming'
2. Placing 5x5s on 3x3s
3. Placing 3x3s on 5x5s
4. 5x5 and 3x3 'Swapping'
5. 'Efficient' misplacement

But before I address these I think it makes sense to bring up what I think is a decent starting criterion. If you disagree with it, please reply, as I don't claim to know everything about misplacements.

The Criterion for Punishable Misplacing
The general outline of the procedure I am suggesting is as follows:

1. Determine if a tower or group of towers can be labeled as misplaced.
   
   Spoiler: When is a tower misplaced?

   There are two means of determining if towers are misplaced. The obvious one is that they are not placed in the grid lines as the game presents. However, this runs into the issue of 5x5 and 3x3 swapping as Shotgun describes:
   
   Switching up 3x3 and 5x5 Spots in a way in which no space is wasted as showed below.
   

   

   
   
   To avoid this confusion (and to allow for 5x5 -3x3 swapping), towers should only be labeled as misplaced if they 'waste space.' That is to say, a tower is misplaced if there is a space between that tower and another tower or non placeable area, which is not a multiple of 3x3 or 5x5 spacing. Shotgun also gives examples of this above. This means that a 5x5 placed on 3x3s where there is no swapping is considered misplaced (as there will always be a line of 5x1 left out) But whether this misplacing is punishable / efficient is a different issue.
2. Determine if that misplacing is efficient / acceptable or inefficient / punishable.
   
   Spoiler: What is efficient / inefficient?

   I will suggest a rather simple criterion for efficient misplacement that should address the confusion or difficulty of managing reports on the issue of misplacement. Here it is: A tower misplacement is efficient if the maximum number of towers that could be placed in the space occupied by those towers is equal to the number of towers placed there. In other words, if it's not the maximum, then it's inefficient, and thus punishable.
   
   This means that 5 3x3 towers placed on 3 adjacent 5x5 squares is efficient (since 5 is the max), and thus allowed. However, under my criterion, 3 5x5s would not be allowed to be placed on 10 3x3 squares (since 10 is the max and 10 > 3). Note that all of this excludes 5x5 - 3x3 swapping still, as those towers are not considered misplaced.
   
   I understand that this is a possible point of contention as some like to place a leach on 3x3s on certain maps, but even this is still possible to do without getting reported (see the next section). Moreover, as to whether 3 5x5s are better than 10 3x3s, I believe most experienced players should know that this is not the case, and there are generally many other places for 5x5s anyways. I understand that this means there is a slight favoritism of 3x3s over 5x5s when regarding misplacing, but this is warranted, as the best tower (imo ice) among others are 3x3.
   
   Another consequence of this is that a misplaced ice on single 5x5s (as can be the best on Zen, Desert, and High Hills) is also considered efficient.
3. If they have inefficiently misplaced more than X towers, they are punished.
   
   Spoiler: How many inefficient towers is punishable?

   This is another point I am unsure of exactly what X should be, but my strong opinion is that X=1 makes the most sense. This would allow for a leach misplacement on maps without being punishable. So, you can effectively have a single, inefficiently misplaced tower (at any given time) without being punished for it.
   
   This prevents doubly misplacing the front of maps with mage and quake, and prevents claiming too many 5x5s (at least inefficiently) with single 3x3s.

Overclaiming
The latter point that has not been brought up but is a separate point altogether is what I can only call 'overclaiming.' I define this as the proper placement of 'too many' level 1 towers, so as to claim the defense for other towers or at least for to be upgraded in the future. The simplest example is the placement of archer (either path) on every single square on a map, but then to sell later and replace or to upgrade later. I wouldn't mind myself if they were path 2, and if they left space for other necessary towers, but I have to be willing to accept some level of claiming.

It is worth noting that this should not apply to other levels of towers, since new players can only build level 2 for many of their towers. The idea is to slow down claimers by at least 2 fold (money and time-wise) so as to allow players to react, threaten a report if they don't stop, or build their own defense elsewhere before it's all claimed.

It should be clear that this is separate from misplacing, as you can claim the entire map with towers that will still and should still be considered trolling, without a single misplaced tower. The discussion is therefore only guided then to how many is too many?

I personally don't know the best number for this, but I suspect that 10 is reasonable. This is mainly because I wouldn't want to have to record 40 or more towers with name placements every time I have to report (nor do those handling the reports want to look at them). This is another point of discussion that should be handled by no single players opinion.

Thanks for the feedback, I like your solution and prefer this one above the ones I provided. I added it to the voting options and thread.

About overclaiming, I think this can be considered a different issue and would require a different rule / feature. I will reply to this later. Though I already got something in mind which wouldn't require more rules but a little update to the game itself .

 

[Keanu]

am not going to reply on the suggestion itself since i dont play td hence can’t give my opinion, but please keep in mind that we can’t make the rule too difficult because i already see stuff like efficient misplacing and blablabla. the rule shouldn’t be that difficult. players need to understand and we as moderators can’t and shouldn’t get a 6 hours lecture just on a single td rule which we barely get reports about.

 

[Deleted member 469419]

I'll be honest, this is a really well-prepared thread. You've worked a lot on it, and I respect that. Just because it, I gave you a like (same with the comment of dartz). But, even though I've tried to read it, I couldn't understand because I barely play on TowerDefence, I even didn't know there was a rule lol.

I agree with Keanu though.
(Didn't vote on the poll)

 

[dartz42]

am not going to reply on the suggestion itself since i dont play td hence can’t give my opinion, but please keep in mind that we can’t make the rule too difficult because i already see stuff like efficient misplacing and blablabla. the rule shouldn’t be that difficult. players need to understand and we as moderators can’t and shouldn’t get a 6 hours lecture just on a single td rule which we barely get reports about.

It seems that there are two main opinions on this issue of misplacing.

1. TD misplacing reports should be expedited, even if that means the cost of warnings / bans of more experienced players who are on the leaderboards as they may be using better strategies.
2. TD misplacing reports should be handled with care so as to not unfairly discriminate against their most loyal and thoughtful players.
3. (Somewhere in between)

I myself and many others I know have received a warning for misplacing, when others who do worse, have also been reported and not punished. It's easy to say that the process should be simple, but when lack of attention to detail costs a player a warning or a ban, it suddenly doesn't sound so great.

If the mods think that my long-form style of post is too confusing, I'm sure myself, heavenly55, Shotgun or others could explain this to anyone handling these kinds of reports in a call 15 minutes or less.

 

[Keanu]

Keep in mind that we've got an entire moderation team who would have to be trained in this. Not just a selected group of mods, no, every single mod and (future) helpers plus moderation admins. I personally don't feel like it's worth spending 15 minutes on a sub-rule (because this is a sub part of trolling rule).

If you get reported and banned for such a thing ~ which I doubt since like only more experienced players report, and I assume these understand the tactics you're using ~, you could just explain it in your appeal, and I guess we can be more lenient with TD appeals coming from people who 'misplaced' as a tactic instead of making this rule so extremely complicated.

Don't get me wrong, as a moderator I really appreciate the fact you guys are willing to help us out with explaining, but I simply don't think it's realistic.

 

[InkAsriel]

Level 15 or less aren't allowed to misplace anymore after the latest TD update, so we aren't receiving missplacing reports for stone players learning how to play anymore. Since only players with a certain level can turn off the autoplacing is the reason I changed our rule to 1 to 4"

i kinda hate the fact its based on someone their level, in stead of wins/games played. a level 60 player could turn off this option, but never played TD before and still mess everything up without realizing it. a player with... lets say 50 wins, would understand how the game works and how "misplacing" could be used as strategy.

im personally not a fan of this strategy at all, but i think solution 3 could actually work, but a tutorial would be extremely useful for this so people actually know how it works and when something is or isnt seen as strategy

 

[Shotgun]

@Keanu​

Keep in mind that we've got an entire moderation team who would have to be trained in this. Not just a selected group of mods, no, every single mod and (future) helpers plus moderation admins. I personally don't feel like it's worth spending 15 minutes on a sub-rule (because this is a sub part of trolling rule).

Isn't their a possibility to just assign 5-10 moderators (who already play TD) to this rule and forward all reports to them?

which I doubt since like only more experienced players report, and I assume these understand the tactics you're using

This is unfortunately not the case... not only experienced players report those things, if so, Dartz42 wouldn't have gotten a warning for it.

you could just explain it in your appeal, and I guess we can be more lenient with TD appeals coming from people who 'misplaced' as a tactic instead of making this rule so extremely complicated.

I thought a rule was a rule and appeals wouldn't help anymore because of the renewed rules. But if this is possible then everything I said doesn't matter anymore, however, there is still one problem. If an actual troller appeals with a story which looks like a good explanation, most moderators would then accept the appeal even if it's actual trolling.


This is indeed a sub-rule, though isn't the Among Slimes section pretty complicated too? And TD has 150% of the AS player base and far more loyal players, so I would say it deserves the attention...

@InkAsriel​

In fact, the requirement isn't levels but wins, you need 15 wins to disable the Auto Centering.

As a note​

Solution 2 is actually the same as 3, it's just that solution 3 is more detailed and specific, this means that solution 3 works better in the end but will cost more time for the moderation team.

 

[InkAsriel]

In fact, the requirement isn't levels but wins, you need 15 wins to disable the Auto Centering.

ohh, i was confused cuz it says level hahaha x3 15 sounds like a good number in that case

 

[Marieke2001]

Isn't their a possibility to just assign 5-10 moderators (who already play TD) to this rule and forward all reports to them?

Definetely not. It would mean we'd have to revamp the entire Moderation team if this really becomes a thing. It would be a waste of a lot of time + it would decrease the response time on reports, which is not something we'd like to see.

 

[dartz42]

@Keanu and @Marieke2001

Is there anything that we can do as a community to change your mind on learning/training for the new TD misplacing guidelines? What amount of time would be reasonable or how simple of a rule would be reasonable?

 

[Sardonyq]

@Keanu and @Marieke2001

Is there anything that we can do as a community to change your mind on learning/training for the new TD misplacing guidelines? What amount of time would be reasonable or how simple of a rule would be reasonable?

The developers could change the tutorial, talking about how you don't want to put 3x3 on 5x5 and what not.

 

[Shotgun]

The developers could change the tutorial, talking about how you don't want to put 3x3 on 5x5 and what not.

That'd only add 5 minutes of tutorial and cause new players to leave while watching the tutorial cuz it takes too long