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

#61 fs_wvmountain

fs_wvmountain
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:24

I am very mixed about this. I think inactive accounts should be culled from the game but since they aren't, they should be treated like any other account in the guild which means the bp slots should still be accessible. However, this also means they should be allowed to be hit in gvg conflicts. This is just another instance of the vast majority of the player base wanting the benefits of something without having any adverse consequences. Let us keep our inactives for bp storage and xp but don't let other people hit them.

Hoof, if inactive accounts were purged from the system, would that speed up servers any? That may be a silly question but I have no knowledge of such things.


What alot of people seem to forget is that alot of guilds would die out if this change happens.


The only solution to this problem with keeping inactives for backpack means lowering the price of guildstore slots to 15 fsp like backpack for a player (thus removing the option cheaper to upgrade the founder then guildstoreslots). However if that should happen you can't expect people to suddenly come up with the amount necessary to immediatly replace guildtagged equipment and inactive player might be holding.



I do get that; and we would suffer greatly if this change were instituted. However, I do think we have to take the good with the bad. Although only tangentially related to this discussion, if we are going to keep bp slots open for guilds, then the inactives should be open to attack. And yes, we have lost or tied many a guild conflict because we have so many inactives used as storage space.

Plus, if this were changed, you would likely see a huge short term downward spike in the auction house as guilds tried to clear out lesser used gear.

#62 Prezze

Prezze

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:24

I dont think this is a good idea. imagine if FFS lost all of their Guild Gear after what happened to their Founder. At least they are, or ARE, able to retrieve their Guild Tagged Gear. Unless i'm wrong. But also imagine that small guilds can't afford to upgrade to make more room in their Guild Store. An inactive member that has a lot of Backpack space may be all that allows these guilds to continue to even play anymore.

I voted NO


We didnt lose anything from RETSNOM's termination simply because our aim is to have all of the guild items in the Guild store.

I am voting YES on this suggestion. It will force players to mostly buy use their own items and not be relied on the 1000 items that a guild might have. That will liven up the LE items market and increase donations to HCS.

HOWEVER there has to be gradual implementation of this, transition from backpack mules to GS slots is neither cheap nor easy..Hand out a +25% donation bonus and reduce the price of GS slots to 20 FSP for a month :)


So basicly you want to double profit from the punishement smaller guilds receive?

#63 fs_jarredneo

fs_jarredneo
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:25

I say NO -

Personal Backpacks are bought and should be used by the guild if that person is inactive - Why should people buy bp space then? There are some members who wanted the guild to make use of their PAID BP slots when they went inactive.

#64 Prezze

Prezze

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:25

I am very mixed about this. I think inactive accounts should be culled from the game but since they aren't, they should be treated like any other account in the guild which means the bp slots should still be accessible. However, this also means they should be allowed to be hit in gvg conflicts. This is just another instance of the vast majority of the player base wanting the benefits of something without having any adverse consequences. Let us keep our inactives for bp storage and xp but don't let other people hit them.

Hoof, if inactive accounts were purged from the system, would that speed up servers any? That may be a silly question but I have no knowledge of such things.


What alot of people seem to forget is that alot of guilds would die out if this change happens.


The only solution to this problem with keeping inactives for backpack means lowering the price of guildstore slots to 15 fsp like backpack for a player (thus removing the option cheaper to upgrade the founder then guildstoreslots). However if that should happen you can't expect people to suddenly come up with the amount necessary to immediatly replace guildtagged equipment and inactive player might be holding.



I do get that; and we would suffer greatly if this change were instituted. However, I do think we have to take the good with the bad. Although only tangentially related to this discussion, if we are going to keep bp slots open for guilds, then the inactives should be open to attack. And yes, we have lost or tied many a guild conflict because we have so many inactives used as storage space.

Plus, if this were changed, you would likely see a huge short term downward spike in the auction house as guilds tried to clear out lesser used gear.


you'd also see the FSP prices in the marketplace peak

#65 MaximusGR

MaximusGR

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,177 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:29

So basicly you want to double profit from the punishement smaller guilds receive?


How would we double profit? It makes perfect sense to keep guild items in guild store and players own items in players own backpack slots..Its not as terrible as it is being described..Up to my level leveling setups are really cheap, with some exceptions that the guild could keep for common use (Epics and a few expensive LE sets)

#66 Kedyn

Kedyn

    Veteran

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

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:32



So basicly you want to double profit from the punishement smaller guilds receive?


How would we double profit? It makes perfect sense to keep guild items in guild store and players own items in players own backpack slots..Its not as terrible as it is being described..Up to my level leveling setups are really cheap, with some exceptions that the guild could keep for common use (Epics and a few expensive LE sets)



Agreed.. and even if the guild has a hunting set saved for people.. I've used 2 sets (with 2-3 items switched here and there) for the past 120ish levels..

#67 Stoiki2000

Stoiki2000

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:37

No way man,we need the BP of the nonactrive players ^^,its much easyer to use them then ours,specialy for the 1's that use separete stam gear,def gear and do some market selling

#68 Prezze

Prezze

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:37



So basicly you want to double profit from the punishement smaller guilds receive?


How would we double profit? It makes perfect sense to keep guild items in guild store and players own items in players own backpack slots..Its not as terrible as it is being described..Up to my level leveling setups are really cheap, with some exceptions that the guild could keep for common use (Epics and a few expensive LE sets)


Double profit
=> no punishment since you have a build out guildstore, which face it maybe 4 guilds in the entire game have? So no need for you guys to come up with fsp to replace possible slots lost.
=> a donation bonus means people who don't need it like you guys, receive the bonus as well.

Define not terrible as it is being described?
=> I can imagin alot of guilds will just have to start slowly destroying guildtagged gear. I can even imagin guilds, just stopping cause of that change.

#69 vikingv

vikingv

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 232 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:39

If you're gonna consider inactives not part of the guild/game for other purposes, then consider them not part of the guild/game here also

#70 Roan

Roan

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,278 posts
  • Badge

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:41

Leave them be used as BP storage...

Firesinged_zpsd6b00c6e.png


#71 fs_robotussin

fs_robotussin
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:43

even though this vote is NOT in my best interest, i vote yes.

the player paid for the backpack slots, but if they are no longer playing the game i believe their backpacks should become "withdraw only".

#72 fs_dispater

fs_dispater
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:44

I agree with the majority on this. Leave them be and let them be used as backpack space. Just because they are inactive doesnt mean they arent still part of their guild. When active they volunteered their backpack spaces to be used to store guild items. Nothing should change just because they went inactive.

#73 koenvdv

koenvdv

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,327 posts
  • Badge
  • Belgium

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:50

even though this vote is NOT in my best interest, i vote yes.

the player paid for the backpack slots, but if they are no longer playing the game i believe their backpacks should become "withdraw only".


...and why do you think that? Please give me one good reason why they may not be used?

#74 fs_thanos

fs_thanos
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:52

Well after reading everything... its true, the bp slots being used for extra storage is a problem, for people that attack inactives. Be it either PvP for prestige, or GvG for RP... seriously... its not a real problem to leave it as is. Its been this way since the beginning of the game(well since tagging has been introduced)... Wanna make the inactive guild members backpacks useless... then remove tagging and withdrawal, members will have to send items to each other again. We will then again have to completely trust our members. A member is a member, inactive the guild can not protect properly over time, we cant get them to repair gear, change into better gear even though the actives are able to, so attacking them, as a cowardice action, should not be allowed... BP slots, either leave them as is or remove tagging all together. So until there is a better option presented I vote NO.

#75 MaximusGR

MaximusGR

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,177 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:52

Double profit
=> no punishment since you have a build out guildstore, which face it maybe 4 guilds in the entire game have? So no need for you guys to come up with fsp to replace possible slots lost.
=> a donation bonus means people who don't need it like you guys, receive the bonus as well.

Define not terrible as it is being described?
=> I can imagin alot of guilds will just have to start slowly destroying guildtagged gear. I can even imagin guilds, just stopping cause of that change.



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.

#76 Thoran

Thoran

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 728 posts
  • Badge
  • Spain

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:53

I agree with the majority on this. Leave them be and let them be used as backpack space. Just because they are inactive doesnt mean they arent still part of their guild. When active they volunteered their backpack spaces to be used to store guild items. Nothing should change just because they went inactive.


+1

#77 MaximusGR

MaximusGR

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,177 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:55

even though this vote is NOT in my best interest, i vote yes.

the player paid for the backpack slots, but if they are no longer playing the game i believe their backpacks should become "withdraw only".



This.

Its the same with terminated players as well..

Those that have gone inactive no longer play the game so they should no longer be involved in everyday issues like being the backpack mules of everyone..BP slots are private anyway..

#78 Mistle

Mistle

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 936 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:56

I chose that far less popular option... Using guildies for backpack space is ok, but if they're inactive (more than 30 days) I don't think it should be possible.

#79 Dijital

Dijital

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 26 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:58

I vote no. Guilds often use their players for storage and typically the members are informed of that. If the player does not wish to be used for storage then they should advise the guild founder or perhaps consider a different guild.

I agree that backpack slots are the property of the character and not the guild, but that simply means that the player has the right to choose how they want their slots used. If they choose to use them for storage, that is their right.

#80 Mekrushu

Mekrushu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 183 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:59

I vote NO. The bp slots are bought and paid for, and if players want to generously allow the guild to use them, that is their perogative. All this would do is encourage people to log into inactive peoples accounts to keep them active, then you would accuse them of being a multi-account and terminate them. You then lose customers = less donations to the game!

I actually disagree with making it so that inactives cant be attacked. Simple solution, make sure they have on a proper offline set that cant be recalled. Kick them if they dont have one. You are the weakest link...Good bye! :D


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: