Jump to content

Photo

Should we prevent items being sent to inactive players?


  • Please log in to reply
314 replies to this topic

Poll: Should we prevent items being sent to inactive players? (486 member(s) have cast votes)

Should we prevent items being sent to inactive players?

  1. Voted No (514 votes [87.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 87.41%

  2. Voted Yes (74 votes [12.59%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.59%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Hoofmaster

Hoofmaster

    Company Director

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

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:03

Hi all,

How would you feel about preventing items being sent to inactive players? This mainly relates to Guilds using inacitve players as additional backpack storage.

#2 fs_phyrstormz

fs_phyrstormz
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:05

i say no

those bp spots were paid for, they should be allowed to be used by the guild a they need

#3 fs_musja

fs_musja
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:11

i say no

those bp spots were paid for, they should be allowed to be used by the guild a they need


i say yes.

bp slots are a property of inactive players, not the guild.

#4 KitiaraLi

KitiaraLi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,240 posts
  • Denmark

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:13

I say no. If ppl decide to leave the game, they're free to "donate" their bp slots to their guild if they wish.

If Ure gonna make this a "no no" - then U simply have to lower the price of guild safe slots (which we have asked for for many a times now)

No one can deny that we changed this game and influenced it in such a way that NO ONE could compete with us.. so much so that they changed the rules. ~Abhorrence, chosen founder of Cerulean Sins


#5 fs_phyrstormz

fs_phyrstormz
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:14

I say yes. If ppl decide to leave the game, they're free to "donate" their bp slots to their faction if they wish.

If Ure gonna make this a "no no" - then U simply have to lower the price of guild safe slots (which we have asked for for many a times now)



then you mean you vote no :P

#6 Prezze

Prezze

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:15

I say no as well, the slots have been paid for in the past. So they should still be able to be used.

Otherwise you will force some guilds who have inactives with huge amounts of backpack to either immediatly upgrade maybe 1000 fsp worth of guildstore slots or upgrade the founders backpack (but he can go inactive as well someday).

I can really imagin if this update happens that some guilds will have serious problems.

As an example, the guild has 1000 guildtagged items, 200 guildstore slots, 1 inactive player with 100 used backpackslots for guildequipment.

If you then make it so that inactive players can't receive anymore items. You'll force some guilds to upgrade in a week around 100 guildstore slots (costing 5000 fsp), or 1500 fsp worth of backpack for the founder, who then in the future can go inactive again.

Still both ways of solving the lost backpack is something I assume 90% of the guilds can't pay for. Doing this update just forces guilds to immediatly solve guildstore problems.

I know if this update happened in the passed, that I had to destroy guildtagged equipment.

#7 KitiaraLi

KitiaraLi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,240 posts
  • Denmark

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:16

then you mean you vote no :P


I know what I meant, and so did U - that's all that is important :oops:

No one can deny that we changed this game and influenced it in such a way that NO ONE could compete with us.. so much so that they changed the rules. ~Abhorrence, chosen founder of Cerulean Sins


#8 hades8840

hades8840

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:16

i say leave as is alot small guilds cant afford the 50 fsp per slot on the guild store i know many myself included who became guild stores using our own bp including thoses of players who had left the game also by stopping ppl sending tagged items to inactive players you can in essence trap a person in a guild if thats there only way to send items so they can leave

#9 fs_chumei

fs_chumei
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:16

Talking as a guild leader type I say leave things as they are cos unless you have people in the guild that donate to the game with real money every week and then donate fsp's to the guild so that you can max out the guild storage you are stuck with not being able to have items needed for all guild players to use when they need to fill the gaps in their own hunting sets.

#10 fs_slayer4150

fs_slayer4150
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:17

i say no if they go inactive and dont contribute to the guild then a way they can use them is using there BP slots i mean its only fair for the guild

#11 fs_tmrv

fs_tmrv
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:19

No, sometimes in small guilds that could make a difference

#12 fs_mudgezbt

fs_mudgezbt
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:21

I vote no. The BP spots were paid for. If someone decides to stop playing but remains in their guild it's because they want to continue helping their friends, through BP spots and previously contributed Guild XP. It's not fair to take away their right to make this choice to continue helping guild mates just because they are no longer active.

#13 fs_musja

fs_musja
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:21

say yes and I will send garbage to your inactives. :P

#14 fs_thundermik

fs_thundermik
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:22

How about players only be allowed to send items to inactives in the same guild?

#15 Rashiel

Rashiel

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:25

nope

#16 fs_ananasii

fs_ananasii
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:25

I'd like to say yes, but the cost of Guild Store slots is just to high for many guilds - a guild slot is over 3 times the cost of a indvidual slot.

I'm sorry HCS, but this reeks of trying to force more donations to the game.

If you're going to prevent items being sent, reduce the cost of GS slots to the same as individual slots, and refund the diffrence to all guilds.

#17 tsink20

tsink20

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:25

I vote no; however, I also would suggest preventing players from outside of the guild from sending items to an inactive player.

#18 fs_phyrstormz

fs_phyrstormz
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:26

I'd like to say yes, but the cost of Guild Store slots is just to high for many guilds - a guild slot is over 3 times the cost of a indvidual slot.

I'm sorry HCS, but this reeks of trying to force more donations to the game.

If you're going to prevent items being sent, reduce the cost of GS slots to the same as individual slots, and refund the diffrence to all guilds.


i agree with you, but i actually dont think this is a moneygrab by hcs

with gvg update yesterday, i think they are just trying to get a feel of how inactives should be treated in reagrds to all aspects

#19 dregal

dregal

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 23 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:26

I vote NO as well .. the slots have been paid for and are still being paid for by the guild's hourly rate .. this also relates directly to question #1

#20 Kedyn

Kedyn

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 698 posts
  • Badge
  • United States of America

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:27

How about players only be allowed to send items to inactives in the same guild?



That is what they are talking about. If you send to inactives anywhere outside of your guild you are not able to recall the items from them then.

As for letting inactives hold the gear in your guild.. I see it both ways..

On one hand, with inactives being able to hold gear, then you save your guild FSP by having backpack slots for 15FSP instead of 50. You have free space because the inactive has already paid for those spaces and you choose to keep them in the guild.

On the other hand, the inactives are unable to be hit for GVG, so they should not be able to hold gear as well. This is when you will start getting people who horde inactives just to hold gear. I believe that if you hold inactives, that there should be some risk to holding them, and yes, this does include them being targets for GVG. I believe if you want to hold onto them, then they should be targets like anyone else.


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: