Jump to content

GvG - against Inactive members? WTH?!


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you think people should be able to attack players who have been inactive for a certain period of time? (22 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you think people should be able to attack players who have been inactive for a certain period of time?

  1. Yes, I like attacking inactive people because it makes me feel good in my happy place (16 votes [43.24%])

    Percentage of vote: 43.24%

  2. No, I agree with you and am personally disgusted that my honorable retired members might get attacked (21 votes [56.76%])

    Percentage of vote: 56.76%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 fs_baine

fs_baine
  • Guests

Posted 21 November 2007 - 13:21

The biggest problem for any guild who has inactive members is that if that person is attacked to the point their gear is destroyed, that person will always be a liability to that guild.

These inactive accounts (past a certain period), should not be allowed targets of GvG.

All 10 of the top 10 guilds have inactive members.
And from what it looks like to me, all of these guilds have been victims to people preying on their inactives.

Edit:
Top 25 guilds all have ATLEAST 1 or more inactive members.

#2 Willoughby

Willoughby

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 385 posts

Posted 21 November 2007 - 14:26

I think that if you want the benefit of retaining their profile (for whatever reason, loyalty or xp) you need to accept the liability they will cause you.

But I'll support that they not be involved in conflicts, if you support that as soon as they are inactive their xp no longer counts towards the guild totals, of course if they become active again, that xp will re-appear in the guild totals.

Unless you are determined to have only benefits to any system.

4re39x.jpg
That's how long I've been waiting for this game.


#3 fs_deadlystrk

fs_deadlystrk
  • Guests

Posted 21 November 2007 - 14:27

i have to agree... though i'd say if the account is inactive only then u cant attack it during gvg.

#4 fs_sigiloso

fs_sigiloso
  • Guests

Posted 21 November 2007 - 17:24

Simply losing a conflict because you've allowed a player to remain in your Guild to remember them isn't "A Good Thing™" IMO :P


As simple as that, Good suggestion. We lost 2 combats because of inactives, the only 2 we have lost.

#5 fs_baine

fs_baine
  • Guests

Posted 21 November 2007 - 21:24

But I'll support that they not be involved in conflicts, if you support that as soon as they are inactive their xp no longer counts towards the guild totals, of course if they become active again, that xp will re-appear in the guild totals.


If push came to shove, I'd agree with it.
Not all guilds keep their inactives for their XP.

#6 dahveed

dahveed

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 20:44

The biggest problem for any guild who has inactive members is that if that person is attacked to the point their gear is destroyed, that person will always be a liability to that guild.

These inactive accounts (past a certain period), should not be allowed targets of GvG.

All 10 of the top 10 guilds have inactive members.
And from what it looks like to me, all of these guilds have been victims to people preying on their inactives.

Edit:
Top 25 guilds all have ATLEAST 1 or more inactive members.


Worriors never have inactives,FFS and The Evil Dead have 0 now.

#7 Hoofmaster

Hoofmaster

    Company Director

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,357 posts
  • Badge
  • United Kingdom

Posted 23 November 2007 - 21:55

We'll be reviewing this along with the other GvG suggestions. :)

#8 fs_b33rmast3r

fs_b33rmast3r
  • Guests

Posted 23 November 2007 - 22:55

there should be a 3rd opdion - I don't give a &*%& about the GvG :P
voted yes though, just for fun ;)


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Font:
Arial | Calibri | Lucida Console | Verdana
 
Font Size:
9px | 10px | 11px | 12px | 10pt | 12pt
 
Color: