Game Update v2.057
#1
Posted 14 September 2012 - 14:24
We hope you like the new addition to the game and remember to use the reporting tool responsibly.
~ The Fallen Sword Team
#2 fs_labronnoc
Posted 14 September 2012 - 14:31
#3
Posted 14 September 2012 - 14:54
#4
Posted 14 September 2012 - 15:10
nice work cows :wink:
#5
Posted 14 September 2012 - 15:56
#6
Posted 14 September 2012 - 16:24
#7
Posted 14 September 2012 - 16:38
Wow seems there is alot of crybabies whom can't just play the game, but want to just report any and everything they feel is bad. Brown nose snicthes if you don't like bio or avi don't look at it, but that would be just to easy :twisted:
a player I know in game got suspended over pvp'ing another player a few times, the person that reported them made a claim of what the pvp'er had in their bio was talking about them. in which the pvp'er never had the targets name mentioned in bio, msg, shoutbox or anything. but yet this target has done same thing with a few others in their bio but no action was ever taken due to they changed the bio.
so like many other players that have a gold hit they made listed in their bio's but edit out the targets name to not being there can get reported an suspended then if it follows through that same aspect.
#8
Posted 14 September 2012 - 18:10
Worst thing ever happened to this game, the day reporting started.
When I started there were habitually 4k people online, there were wars fought out in-game as well as on the forum, and generally took a little while before all parties ended up talking, like human beings, and sorting things out.
Reading people's bio is absolutely not needed to play this game, yet some people instead of playing will just spend their time going through profiles to find something reportable.
Reporting issues, warnings, temp bans etc only to do with non-game mechanics have made more people leave than anything else in this game.
Fight game issues out with game mechanics, put people on ignore on your pm's, spend your time working on battles rather than searching for profiles, it's what games should be about.
#9
Posted 14 September 2012 - 18:17
Once the cows told me that "a player I know in game" -(lmfao) wasn't allowed to use their bio as a weapon against other players. Now "he" doesn't use it to post his buffs nomore cause someone else said that the list would be somekind of sales weapon lol Oh! And it is also obvious that by selling cheap buffs he might offend/damage other players who sell 'em for more expensive prices, or even bother/humiliate those selling even cheaper! =o
a player I know in game got suspended over pvp'ing another player a few times, the person that reported them made a claim of what the pvp'er had in their bio was talking about them. in which the pvp'er never had the targets name mentioned in bio, msg, shoutbox or anything. but yet this target has done same thing with a few others in their bio but no action was ever taken due to they changed the bio.
so like many other players that have a gold hit they made listed in their bio's but edit out the targets name to not being there can get reported an suspended then if it follows through that same aspect.
LMFAO!
I hate censorship. Please stop interpreting the usage agreement to protect children under the age of 13. That's their parents' job as is clearly stated in the usage agreement.
+1
Next step will be to report forum messages, and suspend players using other's names on their posts! =D
Thanks, cows! And keep up the good job! =3
#10
Posted 14 September 2012 - 18:24
Gah, more reporting.
Worst thing ever happened to this game, the day reporting started.
When I started there were habitually 4k people online, there were wars fought out in-game as well as on the forum, and generally took a little while before all parties ended up talking, like human beings, and sorting things out.
Reading people's bio is absolutely not needed to play this game, yet some people instead of playing will just spend their time going through profiles to find something reportable.
Reporting issues, warnings, temp bans etc only to do with non-game mechanics have made more people leave than anything else in this game.
Fight game issues out with game mechanics, put people on ignore on your pm's, spend your time working on battles rather than searching for profiles, it's what games should be about.
Agreed with all you said... sadly no one like the truth , they deleted my post because i said report thing will end up less players in game :roll:
We need more players in game not less..
#11
Posted 14 September 2012 - 18:25
#12 fs_kimpac
Posted 14 September 2012 - 18:30
#13
Posted 14 September 2012 - 18:31
I hate censorship. Please stop interpreting the usage agreement to protect children under the age of 13. That's their parents' job as is clearly stated in the usage agreement.
+100
Sorry but this is a silly update, the time spent on this could have been used to fix some of the real issues in game.
#14
Posted 14 September 2012 - 18:48
#15
Posted 14 September 2012 - 18:49
Nice Hopefully there will be penalties for those who falsely report bio's?
I would hope so.
I don't see why everyone is saying this update is so horrible. It can also be a tool to stop hackers/scripters from spreading their poison. I remember in December that there was a player who was advertising a script for GvG on Friday, but took it down on Sunday. Along with many other instances of offending biographies.
Obviously if it's abused, HCS will see that. You need to have a VALID reason for reporting someone, not just tailor your hate to try and get them banned. It doesn't work that way.
Just look up for once. They are trying to improve the game for everyone. With each update they try and help us, can't we at least be optimistic ONCE? :roll:
#16
Posted 14 September 2012 - 19:09
I'm guessing those folk saying they hate it would rather see players get scammed than having a way to (hopefully) prevent it. Ho hum, sometimes I wonder ...
#17
Posted 14 September 2012 - 19:16
I can't believe the negativity for this update ... I was the one that suggested it and, in the original thread, it got support.
I'm guessing those folk saying they hate it would rather see players get scammed than having a way to (hopefully) prevent it. Ho hum, sometimes I wonder ...
It's funny. People don't go against suggestions until they are implemented. That's when it hits the fan, I guess.
I support your update Pardoux. Don't let it get to you.
#18
Posted 14 September 2012 - 19:34
I can't believe the negativity for this update ... I was the one that suggested it and, in the original thread, it got support.
I'm guessing those folk saying they hate it would rather see players get scammed than having a way to (hopefully) prevent it. Ho hum, sometimes I wonder ...
It's funny. People don't go against suggestions until they are implemented. That's when it hits the fan, I guess.
I support your update Pardoux. Don't let it get to you.
Oh, it's not getting to me - It's in now and folk can either like it or not, it doesn't bother me. Anything that protects players from scam artists is a good thing in my mind
#19
Posted 14 September 2012 - 19:38
Hopefully it only used against scammers not against someone saying bad word or something doesnt worth ban...I can't believe the negativity for this update ... I was the one that suggested it and, in the original thread, it got support.
I'm guessing those folk saying they hate it would rather see players get scammed than having a way to (hopefully) prevent it. Ho hum, sometimes I wonder ...
#20
Posted 14 September 2012 - 19:43
I can't believe the negativity for this update ... I was the one that suggested it and, in the original thread, it got support.
I'm guessing those folk saying they hate it would rather see players get scammed than having a way to (hopefully) prevent it. Ho hum, sometimes I wonder ...
It's funny. People don't go against suggestions until they are implemented. That's when it hits the fan, I guess.
I support your update Pardoux. Don't let it get to you.
just thought of something an I had to double check on something on this. like both mentioned all of a sudden so many against it once gets put into place. where was all of it when the original topic got bumped up yesterday? where were all against it when it was 1st brought up which was Posted: 13 Oct 2011, 20:47 after all that time when it was first posted on this forum? there was one questioning possible problem with it but that was all there was against it. there was no others speaking out against it or questioning it for almost a full year until it was put into place.
talk about being on the slow train.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users