Unfortunately, my time with RedFox’s games has come to an end. There are multiple reasons for my departure, but the main ones are: Unreasonable moderation standards Two-tiered system for players Lackluster events 1. Unreasonable moderation standards I recently received a temporary suspension for allegedly revealing another player’s private information. The messages in question were (roughly): “[Martial Arts] master [Instructor Name]!” “sup [Instructor Name]” (a typo; intended as “super,” meaning praise) “[Instructor Name] is a very good [martial arts] instructor” These comments referred to a martial arts instructor whose name is publicly available outside the game. At the time, I had no knowledge that this individual was also a player. Importantly, I did not state or imply any connection between a real-world instructor and a player account (for example, I did not say “[Instructor Name] is [PlayerName]”). Despite explaining this during the appeal, the suspension was upheld. From my perspective, this amounts to punishing a player for something they could not have reasonably known. It is not realistic to expect players to avoid mentioning publicly available information on the off chance that it may correspond to someone’s in-game identity. That is an impossible standard to comply with in practice, and it effectively turns ordinary conversation into a moderation risk. To illustrate the issue: under this interpretation, any publicly known name, like a local politician or singer, could potentially become prohibited if someone happened to make a ticket about it. Players have no practical way of knowing which names fall into that category, making the rule difficult to understand and comply with. That is not a reasonable expectation for players and highlights how overbroad the standard becomes when applied this way. As a result, the outcome felt like it was due to something I had absolutely no way of anticipating or preventing. A far more reasonable way of dealing with this would have been a written warning that the instructor's name I mentioned was a player on Rumble Fighter and not to say the name again. If I mentioned the name again after receiving that warning, then a suspension or other penalty would be reasonable because I would have been informed that the name was associated with a player. 2. Two-tiered treatment of players I have submitted two reports regarding players being abusive in chat. These reports are now two months old, and I have not received any response, even after following up on the tickets multiple times. I was also not informed of any action being taken. In contrast, my account was suspended within hours of my messages praising an instructor. The only response I received was that privacy issues are taken seriously and that the matter had been handled, but I was not given any clarification or update regarding the outcome of my past two tickets. From my perspective, this creates a noticeable inconsistency in how reports and moderation actions are handled. While I understand that support teams may have varying workloads and priorities, the difference in response time and communication is difficult to reconcile- 2 months with no response for me, a response within hours for someone else. In effect, this creates what feels like a "two-tiered system", where some players receive prompt action while others receive little or no response. 3. Lackluster Events The core ideas behind Rivalry Rumble and Sunday Showdown are not bad. Rewarding players with higher-value rewards is a good concept. The main issue is that both events require an excessive amount of playtime as Dittoo has mentioned before. Rivalry Rumble requires 250 matches in a month, while Sunday Showdown effectively requires players to participate for the entire hour and perform consistently well if they want a realistic chance at the top rewards. Rivalry Rumble also requires Teams Mode, which currently has a significant toxicity problem. Toxic behavior and chat abuse are common, and I have not seen much responsiveness to reports regarding these issues. As a result, the event encourages participation in a mode that many players already find frustrating. Another concern is the removal of Fisticuffs. Fisticuffs provided a consistent way to earn valuable permanent rewards without requiring such a large time commitment. Players also had a reasonable chance of success (3 out of 7 participants would win), and each round became more accessible as winners were removed from future rounds. To be fair, not every recent event has been disappointing. Happy Hour has been a good addition because of the Ori Shard rewards, and the changes to login events were also improvements. Overall, the problem is not the reward structures themselves, but the amount of time required to earn them. Events should encourage participation without making players feel like they need to dedicate an excessive number of hours to remain competitive. The use of strict liability moderation is a design choice by the developers. However, it’s also a reasonable choice for players to decide whether they want to participate in a game where accidental violations can still result in punishment, particularly if those rules are not clearly intuitive or consistently communicated. While privacy enforcement is the developer’s responsibility and may justifiably be treated as high priority, it is understandable from a player’s perspective to lose trust when their own reports receive no response for extended periods while other actions are handled rapidly. This perceived imbalance in responsiveness can make continued participation feel less worthwhile. The events are also way too much investment for not enough reward, which drives away people who don't have the time to play a lot. All of these moderation and event decisions are RedFox’s to make. However, I do not feel the current rules and their enforcement are player-friendly, fair, or transparent enough for me to continue playing. It's unfortunate that a game that has a very good core gameplay is unenjoyable for so many reasons. I don't expect RedFox to respond to this thread, but I certainly hope you at least understand some of the feedback and use it to improve.
UPDATE: RedFox did actually respond to my 2 reports of chat abuse, but still, having to wait 2 months for a reply to a ticket is absurd when others get a response immediately.
While it is disappointing to hear that you have chosen to take a step back from Rumble Fighter, we appreciate that you took the time to relay us your feedback time and time again. I will be sharing this feedback with our support and management teams involving sanctions and ticket response consistency windows. For your feedback on our events, I think you've already shared most of the same information as before so I won't comment much in that regard. Either way, thank you again for your feedback and hopefully one day we will be able to meet your expectations for a great gameplay experience.
Just wanted to let you know that I was informed that your ticket was on hold due to requiring developer intervention and you should have received a response (or response soon).
