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

#261 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 24 December 2009 - 18:08


I also think Xp and rating loss shouldn't be allowed on inactives either, but tis a different discussion.


XP, yes, rating, no. Otherwise, you get a lot of pvp rating that is unreachable, like what happened in SS2.

Why not all of it? They are gone! If they check in after whatever amount of time they may resume play. But I'd say if they have gone inactive 'x' amount of time not even xp/ gain or gold gain(if anyone is silly enough to have it) should still apply. Why should they get a huge amount of levels? Yes they have paid for it but they quit the game. All would resume of course if they started to play again.

[Signature removed]

 

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” -GRRM


#262 fs_nthnclls

fs_nthnclls
  • Guests

Posted 24 December 2009 - 18:23


I also think Xp and rating loss shouldn't be allowed on inactives either, but tis a different discussion.


XP, yes, rating, no. Otherwise, you get a lot of pvp rating that is unreachable, like what happened in SS2.

Why not all of it? They are gone! If they check in after whatever amount of time they may resume play. But I'd say if they have gone inactive 'x' amount of time not even xp/ gain or gold gain(if anyone is silly enough to have it) should still apply. Why should they get a huge amount of levels? Yes they have paid for it but they quit the game. All would resume of course if they started to play again.


Because if you take away the ability to take pvp rating from inactives, then you get what happened in SS2.

#263 fs_grrraham

fs_grrraham
  • Guests

Posted 24 December 2009 - 18:25

tbh i dont care, so i havent voted

#264 Mister Doom

Mister Doom

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 24 December 2009 - 18:26

Ditto.

#265 Prezze

Prezze

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 24 December 2009 - 20:21

What I do find preposterous is the fact that now all of a sudden they adress this issue, which has been ingame as long as there is guildtagging. That's hundreds of lvl's this could have been done. Now suddenly cause some people want easier RP, they whine about an old "issue".

Does it matter how long it's been an issue? No! Either way HCS goes on this I'm just hopeful they will make a determination by using feedback from the community instead of ignoring it, but especially since inactives have been recently made off limits after a week. However the GvG aspect is another issue. There's enough issues with GvG that overshadow inactives. I am looking for what HCS will define an inactive as now! It's basically changed.

Personally, once you've gone inactive that person playing HCS' character is GONE. Sure there are circumstances when a player will become active again but that's not the norm. But that player's guild or any other player does not "play" that character. One account per person. Shouldn't matter if anyone else paid to upgrade max BP slots for them. Players need to be active within 'x' amount of time to still be part of the game. You want to honor a player? Fine. They should still take a member slot, attribute '0' gxp, and not be attackable or traded with whatsoever. Remember that player is GONE, no matter what their intentions. They will be remembered in name only. This will have a positive impact on a few other aspects of the game as well. :)

I'm not surprised how lopsided the voting is. Almost everyone does it. While guild-tagging has it's benefits it's also effected the game detrimentally. Gear being tagged outpaces gear being destroyed AND the increase of new players easily.

With the cost of GS slots at 3+ times as much as BP slots no wonder many are in an uproar. They're wondering where do we put all the guild stuff? They probably have twice or three times as much guild-tagged gear as they use. I know we do. The lazy get lazier...


Actually it really does matter, like I mentioned before. Hardly no one cared about it before. Gvg came out with RP rewards for epics and suddenly. Gvg boomed, people targeted inactives as they were the easiest.

HCS removed the option to target inactive people cause many people wanted so.

As a result everyone who lost their easy targets now came out with the fact but they can still carry guildtagged equipment?

As far as the fact goes, when gone inactive in game terms means you quit the game is absurd. There are people who take business trips for a long time, not able to login. Heck even I go once each 2 years on a holiday for a month or more. Meaning yes i'll become inactive, does it mean I quit? No, do I know the majority who goes inactive never comes back? Yes.

I already mentioned multiple times the difference in this thread for backpack and guildstore prices. In my opinion the pricing of those is the main reason this ever happened. A ratio from 3/1 is way to big. If it was a difference of 5-10 fsp I can imagin people upgrading guildstore slots more.

As far as your comment of the amount of equipment you have to much in the guild, yes it's normal to have that problem. I know we have gear as well that's hardly ever used. However it isn't 30 items we have that way, since I always tried to keep guildequipment to the minimum.

Also if they do this change over one night, then there will be many guilds that will die out if they don't have anyone who can put some serious fsp into the guildbank.

I really just believe that this had to be adjusted right after guild-tagging was brought out. The proportions this has gone wrong in many guilds otherwise, is the reason this is a really bad idea.

#266 mickabooth

mickabooth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Badge
  • United Kingdom

Posted 24 December 2009 - 20:40

if the idea of inactive players being used as mules for BP slots by some small and medium guilds is an issue for some then lets do the big step have all players who become inactive be removed from the game completely as soon as they become inactive the same way a baned player is removed no questions as soon as they log back in the game there account is reactivated this way it will not be an issue any more as with baned players all guild locked items will still be available but as soon as they are removed no more can be sent back

#267 fs_xthricex

fs_xthricex
  • Guests

Posted 24 December 2009 - 22:45

Prezze-

The cost of guild BP slots is not the issue, circumventing the cost is. Regardless of who paid for a player's bp spaces, they belong to that one account, not the guild. And just as an aside, I DO think that guild tagging should have been more carefully thought out/handled but here we are, right? The ability to have guild tagged gear in your BP is to enable USE of those items, not storage, regardless of the widespread and well intention practice of clearing the guild store. I must come back to the core issue again: Why should anyone derived benefit (or loss) from a player that is not an active member of the game community? Either sever all ties or keep all benefits and vulnerabilities, but enough with the half-arsed in-game tweaks.

#268 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 25 December 2009 - 03:36

Because if you take away the ability to take pvp rating from inactives, then you get what happened in SS2.

It doesn't have to be that way. Take them off all top-rated lists, everything, unless they return which is highly unlikely. Blank their character's bio screen with only their name. Nothing counts game related, just like loyalty. They are GONE. It should be the same in SS2. There they can't get farmed for PvP because those characters don't show in any realm, let alone a PvP one, where you need to be to get attacked. After the first kill they would be sent to the Health Pyramid anyway.

when gone inactive in game terms means you quit the game is absurd.

What does it mean then? HCS owns that character and everything about it. You just play it. One person per character! Not one person per character and an entire guild when that player goes inactive. So why is it absurd? Respectfully, you contradict yourself immediately because it isn't.

do I know the majority who goes inactive never comes back? Yes.

It's the large majority. There are exceptions when players, who for whatever reason are offline for extended periods, return. A one or two month holiday would be one. Even a 1 year military deployment is understandable. Pregnancy, childbirth, health reasons, are amongst any number of reasons players go inactive and return. But they are the small minority. No biggy. That is life and should be accommodated for reasonably and easily.

Also if they do this change over one night, then there will be many guilds that will die out if they don't have anyone who can put some serious fsp into the guildbank.

Guilds dying out? Sorry, I disagree. In fact I think it will bring more guild solidarity. Of course actives would be able to hold guild-tagged gear. They would need to THINK about how to do it. There would also be some "spring cleaning" by selling what isn't used. This would help PAY for more GS slots. I don't see a problem here. Please don't try to argue that a 128 member guild needs more then 752 GS slots. That is absurd...

I really just believe that this had to be adjusted right after guild-tagging was brought out. The proportions this has gone wrong in many guilds otherwise, is the reason this is a really bad idea.

You've been playing just about as long as anyone. I see that. Inactives holding guild gear isn't the only issue that has been around for a very long time. But the game adjusts slowly, very slowly. It wasn't an urgent issue before, but it is now. Hence, Hoof asking the community. I think the devs recognize that. If HCS wants to take away the risk/reward that is apart of any game, then HCS should once and for all make a determination regarding how they define an inactive and how they are to be used, or abused!

Two more. :)

[Signature removed]

 

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” -GRRM


#269 Prezze

Prezze

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 25 December 2009 - 17:56

Prezze-

The cost of guild BP slots is not the issue, circumventing the cost is. Regardless of who paid for a player's bp spaces, they belong to that one account, not the guild. And just as an aside, I DO think that guild tagging should have been more carefully thought out/handled but here we are, right? The ability to have guild tagged gear in your BP is to enable USE of those items, not storage, regardless of the widespread and well intention practice of clearing the guild store. I must come back to the core issue again: Why should anyone derived benefit (or loss) from a player that is not an active member of the game community? Either sever all ties or keep all benefits and vulnerabilities, but enough with the half-arsed in-game tweaks.


I'm not one of those people who wanted inactives not to be hit, I was well aware of the disadvantages it brought into gvg. Nor was I one of those people who complained when that particular update happened well hey now they have all the benefits of that inactive account.

I really see alot of people making assumptions that having an inactive member was just mainly one big profit. I'm sorry to say but those aren't people who are running a guild. A dead guild isn't appealing to anyone, so every guild no matter it's size will have to get rid of most of their inactives over time anyway.

I really feel that this idea is just been brought out by HCS because some people where whining in other threads about it.

Which people where whining about it?

1) The ones who used the inactive people as a RP fest for their guild
2) The people who felt the disadvantage for keeping inactives was too big and jumped the boat in order to be able to profit from not having inactives as well.

which people are with this suggestion the victims?

1) the guilds that choose not to care about gvg and just kept their inactives for whatever reasons they might have got to do so. They sucked up the disadvantages back then, and now they are "punished" again

#270 Prezze

Prezze

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 25 December 2009 - 18:17

Guilds dying out? Sorry, I disagree. In fact I think it will bring more guild solidarity. Of course actives would be able to hold guild-tagged gear. They would need to THINK about how to do it. There would also be some "spring cleaning" by selling what isn't used. This would help PAY for more GS slots. I don't see a problem here. Please don't try to argue that a 128 member guild needs more then 752 GS slots. That is absurd...


I'm not trying to argue the fact that each guild with that many members needs that much slots. I'm arguing that for some guilds 10 guildstore slots can be alot to replace. Not every guild is run by someone who can put 100$ out there easily. The diversity of guilds out there is just one aspect of the game that makes it so appealing.

You've been playing just about as long as anyone. I see that. Inactives holding guild gear isn't the only issue that has been around for a very long time. But the game adjusts slowly, very slowly. It wasn't an urgent issue before, but it is now. Hence, Hoof asking the community. I think the devs recognize that. If HCS wants to take away the risk/reward that is apart of any game, then HCS should once and for all make a determination regarding how they define an inactive and how they are to be used, or abused!

Two more. :)


I know there are more older issues as well, however if you as a developer let an issue carry on this long, knowing that almost everyone will use that issue to their advantage since the difference in fsp was just too big, and then start to expect that you can change this issue over night. Then you are wrong as well.

For instance (real life example) the smoking issue in alot of countries. If the government prohibits smoking in public area's over night, how will it affect barkeepers and all?

If you make a rule about something that has been common for many years that changes things drasticly, give people a chance to adapt too it. It'll keep the fuzz down better, will have less major impacts on most people and eventually gives both sides of the arguement the oportunity to agree with the change.

Comming back to the real life example, if you say to a barkeeper, starting tomorrow you aren't allowed to have people smoking in your bar anymore unless you have a smoking area sepperated from a non-smoking area.

or if you inform your barkeeper in xx-months/weeks, people aren't allowed anymore to smoke in your bar unless you have a sepperated smoking area.

In case 1, you give no choice to adapt, it has to happen immediatly. Some bars will already have an only smoking area, however some don't have. No bar can build such an area in 1 day.

In case 2 you give the barkeeper the time to either build a smoking area or just to say well no smoking allowed in here then.

In the end you accomplish the same things, but in one case you give people the chance to try and adopt to something that has been common for many years

#271 fs_kagerou804

fs_kagerou804
  • Guests

Posted 25 December 2009 - 19:52

I honestly believe the minority has the best argument

Besides, as it stands right now, all one would need to do is log in to become active again. What's so difficult with logging in once a week? Repair your items, maybe buy some new defense gear, buff everyone active and move on.

#272 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 26 December 2009 - 05:46

I'm arguing that for some guilds 10 guildstore slots can be alot to replace. Not every guild is run by someone who can put 100$ out there easily. The diversity of guilds out there is just one aspect of the game that makes it so appealing.

HCS should rethink bringing a balance to the costs that started this abuse. I know players have been playing with what has been allowed to go on. There's no perfect solution. It should just be fixed now, rather then later, for the better of the game.

I know there are more older issues as well, however if you as a developer let an issue carry on this long, knowing that almost everyone will use that issue to their advantage since the difference in fsp was just too big, and then start to expect that you can change this issue over night. Then you are wrong as well.

Treat it like pulling a tooth. :)

I honestly believe the minority has the best argument

True, the majority is not always right. Right?

[Signature removed]

 

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” -GRRM


#273 insaner6

insaner6

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 276 posts

Posted 26 December 2009 - 08:26

Decide if u want inactives to be part of the game or not.
with all the advantages and disadvantages that this comes with.

either u keep them as part of the game and they can be hit in gvg,same as all other active player can be hit, or you dont count them as active part of the guild, so no hitting on gvg but no more taking advantage from their guild xp, their backpacks, anything.

plus, till so far, if u would buff correctly an inactive person, he could still "fight back" and win in GvG.. or pvp.

#274 djb306

djb306

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 26 December 2009 - 09:24

Well,

we have spent thousands of FSP to upgrade our guild store, without the arena and Titan hunting gear we could do with half the size..Why shouldnt all guilds try and do the same rather than getting around it by using pack mules?(As long as GS upgrade cost is reduced)

The donation bonus is meant to help those that want to increase the guild store rather than greatly cut down on items. I dont care about it as i dont donate.

As for destroying guild gear..why? Memebers can buy them off the guild at a small cost and then sell them to thers as they level up..Nothing wrong in involving all players to trading rather than jumping on the bandwagon of well equipped guilds. The need for independency in items will make EVERYONE a better player.


well last time i checked not every guild had a leader who cheated at titan hunting to pay for all these upgrades!!!!!!!!! its ok standing outside the box looking in, saying how things should be when youve already got everything by questionable means.

personal BP is exactly that, personal, and if i or anybody else decides to donate my PERSONAL bp to my guild when i quit then it is my personal choice, end of!!!!!!!!!

#275 fs_erinos

fs_erinos
  • Guests

Posted 26 December 2009 - 10:05

edited

#276 evilbry

evilbry

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,172 posts
  • New Zealand

Posted 26 December 2009 - 13:26



Well,

we have spent thousands of FSP to upgrade our guild store, without the arena and Titan hunting gear we could do with half the size..Why shouldnt all guilds try and do the same rather than getting around it by using pack mules?(As long as GS upgrade cost is reduced)

The donation bonus is meant to help those that want to increase the guild store rather than greatly cut down on items. I dont care about it as i dont donate.

As for destroying guild gear..why? Memebers can buy them off the guild at a small cost and then sell them to thers as they level up..Nothing wrong in involving all players to trading rather than jumping on the bandwagon of well equipped guilds. The need for independency in items will make EVERYONE a better player.


well last time i checked not every guild had a leader who cheated at titan hunting to pay for all these upgrades!!!!!!!!! its ok standing outside the box looking in, saying how things should be when youve already got everything by questionable means.

I'm curious as to how this guild leader is cheating at titan hunting.

Given that I have never seen you out there in the titan hunting realms I can only favour a guess that it's jealousy and envy.

So by all means prove me wrong as to how a guild leader was cheating. And I know that maximusgr (FFS Titan leader) doesn't cheat, he's about the same speed as me in hunting and if you are referring to rets, he wasn't termed for any titan related activity.

#277 fs_nthnclls

fs_nthnclls
  • Guests

Posted 26 December 2009 - 15:30


well last time i checked not every guild had a leader who cheated at titan hunting to pay for all these upgrades!!!!!!!!! its ok standing outside the box looking in, saying how things should be when youve already got everything by questionable means.

I'm curious as to how this guild leader is cheating at titan hunting.

Given that I have never seen you out there in the titan hunting realms I can only favour a guess that it's jealousy and envy.

So by all means prove me wrong as to how a guild leader was cheating. And I know that maximusgr (FFS Titan leader) doesn't cheat, he's about the same speed as me in hunting and if you are referring to rets, he wasn't termed for any titan related activity.


Shut up you spoilsport, there's insulting to be done!

Even if it has nothing to do with the truth, or anything to do with the topic at hand!

#278 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 26 December 2009 - 16:57

No, for a whole new reason.

Inactives are still targetable in GvGs. I hit one by accident in my latest one, since the target guild had so many targets and the player in question was not ranked with the rest of their inactives, but instead had their own custom rank. Screenshots are available for anyone who'd like to see them in game, but I cannot post them here as that would be bringing unwanted attention. (And without the playername, I can't exactly prove I hit them in a recent GvG).

#279 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 26 December 2009 - 17:15

I think many people voting 'yes' aren't in the know as to how much it already costs to start a new guild.

Once you experience starting your own guild get back to me about how forcing new guilds to pay hundreds of additional FSP is a good idea.

#280 fs_musja

fs_musja
  • Guests

Posted 26 December 2009 - 17:54

I think many people voting 'yes' aren't in the know as to how much it already costs to start a new guild.

Once you experience starting your own guild get back to me about how forcing new guilds to pay hundreds of additional FSP is a good idea.


Haven't you got it yet? Hoof wants to bring inactives back to the game and do it with your hands. Contact your friends and ask them to login at least one time every 30 days. It could be worse. In other games if you are unable to login at least one time every 30 days, your user account is dropped automatically by the database in order to maintain space.

P.S. I have read somewhere that one guy created a solo guild with all structures fully maxed and left it. :lol:


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: