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

#81 fs_musja

fs_musja
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:00

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


"a part of their guild", but not a part of GvG battle? Odd.

#82 fs_torankusu

fs_torankusu
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:00

I say no to that. Most players who know they are going to go inactive join the guild and stay in it for the main purpose of allowing their paid backpack spots to go to good use. To cut a guild off from being able to use those spots not only would be expensive (for guild store spots and extra BP spots for the founder), but would also waste the backpack spots that player(s) paid for to begin with. Most guilds right now, especially small guilds, use the inactives as storage space. Granted, preventing it would allow inactive guilds to eventually fade away and clear up a lot of the guild list, but to prevent use of those spots could cause more problems than good. A lot of smaller guilds and even some larger ones would likely say they would rather quit the game than to put more money into the game just for backpack or guild store spots. That's my opinion.

#83 mikkyld

mikkyld

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 857 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:02

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.



Definitely NO. As has been mentioned, often inactive players give things to the guild as they leave including BP slots as well as gold and fsp and items they own.

#84 TORCH

TORCH

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 34 posts
  • United States of America

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:04

I would have to say no! if people keep their in actives around for the "locked" exp. they should get some benefit from the member!

#85 danny1977

danny1977

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 130 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:06

NOWAY we have had players that knew they where retiring and bought extra BP space so we could use for storage.

#86 Evil Parrot

Evil Parrot

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 38 posts
  • United States of America

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:09

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.


I would say in no uncertain terms do not change it. Many of these spaces have been paid for by the inactive already and if they did not want to donate it to the guild then the player would have left the guild prior to going inactive.

#87 fs_musja

fs_musja
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:10

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.



Definitely NO. As has been mentioned, often inactive players give things to the guild as they leave including BP slots as well as gold and fsp and items they own.


The account and upgrades cannot be given to anyone. It is against the rules.

#88 Kedyn

Kedyn

    Veteran

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

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:13

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


"a part of their guild", but not a part of GvG battle? Odd.



Agreed right here.. most of the people who are arguing for the BP slots don't want to run the risk of having the inactives open for GVG. If they are considered GUILD PROPERTY... then they should be part of GVG.. it's a RISK YOU TAKE KNOWING THEY ARE INACTIVE AND USING THEM FOR STORAGE.. if you are like the more hardcore GVG guilds.. then you kick them for being inactive so you can defend yourself better.. so be it. There should be some downfall to keeping inactives in your guild.. and don't give me the bullcrap of "oh we pay for them"... you pay a minuscule amount compared to what you are gaining.. so whats a few gold per hour especially with how FSP prices are and how easy gold is to make in this game.

#89 fs_jarredneo

fs_jarredneo
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:16

[quote name="musja"][quote name="mikkyld"][quote name="musja"][/quote]

i say yes.

bp slots are a property of inactive players, not the guild.[/quote]


Definitely NO. As has been mentioned, often inactive players give things to the guild as they leave including BP slots as well as gold and fsp and items they own.[/quote]

The account and upgrades cannot be given to anyone. It is against the rules.[/quote]

I'm sure Mikkyd does not mean the account/upgrades were given to the guild but rather they donate their backpack space for the guild to use - Most inactive players are very willingly to lend whatever effort they may give to the guild growth when they simply cannot play the game...but then why should i be explaining a guild game spirit who seemed to start on 13/Jul/2008 and still a low level without any guild...Oh is it a "dummy" again? Oh no...

#90 Tegger

Tegger

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 320 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:17

I would have to say no! if people keep their in actives around for the "locked" exp. they should get some benefit from the member!



To be fair, the XP lock is the benefit the guild is getting already.

I'd hate to see this happen, but I can understand why it's being proposed. If they can't be GvG targets, but you can still have their contributed XP AND BP space, it's kinda one-sided.

#91 fs_akghicjfh

fs_akghicjfh
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:17

I say no.

Same thing as Phyrstormz, BP slots were paid for by the players, and they stayed in the guild for a reason.

#92 fs_ogrvity

fs_ogrvity
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:18

I vote yes AND no (seriously)! I think that inactives should be able to receive and hold guild tagged items from their guildies since these have been paid for sometimes by the guild because of the cost factor vs guild store slots, but I think that you should not be able to send inactives untagged items from within or outside the guild!!

We have our fair share of friends in the guild that have for whatever reason decided to leave the game, but someone from outside the guild has been filling our retired players with random junk items! This is low, shady, etc, etc...and should not be allowed.

#93 fs_zyhpr

fs_zyhpr
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:21

Flat out NO.
As 50 fsp/guild backpack is already too expensive for smaller guild to purchase, they also have limitted fsp to go around.

Preventing them to use the inactives backpack, the smaller guild will be doomed.
They already have limitted resources to compete in all the activities (GvG, arena and all)
Not only that most smaller guild is outmatched (most larger ones have Epic and titan stuff), lack of quality items, now they cant store stuff.

#94 fs_jarredneo

fs_jarredneo
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:23

[quote name="Kittles"][quote name="musja"][/quote]

+1[/quote]

"a part of their guild", but not a part of GvG battle? Odd.[/quote]


Agreed right here.. most of the people who are arguing for the BP slots don't want to run the risk of having the inactives open for GVG. If they are considered GUILD PROPERTY... then they should be part of GVG.. it's a RISK YOU TAKE KNOWING THEY ARE INACTIVE AND USING THEM FOR STORAGE.. if you are like the more hardcore GVG guilds.. then you kick them for being inactive so you can defend yourself better.. so be it. There should be some downfall to keeping inactives in your guild.. and don't give me the bullcrap of "oh we pay for them"... you pay a minuscule amount compared to what you are gaining.. so whats a few gold per hour especially with how FSP prices are and how easy gold is to make in this game.[/quote]

Its 2 different things we are talking about here -

GVG damages items wore by the guild member so eventually they will be rentered defenseless...unless HCS allows the guild to help "repair" the items,i'm pretty sure that most guilds had no problems in letting their inactives be part of a GVG. Is that what u want?

Whats more - A Backpack Space cost 15 FSP and 10 = 150 FSP and it costs US$25 for the player to had 10 additional backpack slots so when the player goes inactive , should HCS return the donation back to the player's bank account/CC or wherever it came from? I'm okay with not allowing the backpacks of inactives be filled with anymore items but i wanted the donations to go back since the donations were made for an everlasting feature on a trust basis and since they choose to be in my guild and my guild kept them, its FAIR for my backpack to be used by the guild.

#95 fs_strong1982

fs_strong1982
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:26

wow this is a scarry thought i know my guild relys on inactive players backpack slots as most guilds do, i wonder what is the motivation for this thought anyrate this would cause alot of diffuculty for guilds

#96 fs_musja

fs_musja
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:29

I'm sure Mikkyd does not mean the account/upgrades were given to the guild but rather they donate their backpack space for the guild to use - Most inactive players are very willingly to lend whatever effort they may give to the guild growth when they simply cannot play the game...but then why should i be explaining a guild game spirit who seemed to start on 13/Jul/2008 and still a low level without any guild...Oh is it a "dummy" again? Oh no...


a line of reasoning if you run out of arguments?

I should not have to explain anything to you, I play the game with a more relaxed style. I do need it during this recession time.

Apologies accepted in advance.

#97 Kedyn

Kedyn

    Veteran

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

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:31

[quote name="jarredneo"][quote name="Kittles"][quote name="musja"][/quote]

+1[/quote]

"a part of their guild", but not a part of GvG battle? Odd.[/quote]


Agreed right here.. most of the people who are arguing for the BP slots don't want to run the risk of having the inactives open for GVG. If they are considered GUILD PROPERTY... then they should be part of GVG.. it's a RISK YOU TAKE KNOWING THEY ARE INACTIVE AND USING THEM FOR STORAGE.. if you are like the more hardcore GVG guilds.. then you kick them for being inactive so you can defend yourself better.. so be it. There should be some downfall to keeping inactives in your guild.. and don't give me the bullcrap of "oh we pay for them"... you pay a minuscule amount compared to what you are gaining.. so whats a few gold per hour especially with how FSP prices are and how easy gold is to make in this game.[/quote]

Its 2 different things we are talking about here -

GVG damages items wore by the guild member so eventually they will be rentered defenseless...unless HCS allows the guild to help "repair" the items,i'm pretty sure that most guilds had no problems in letting their inactives be part of a GVG. Is that what u want?

Whats more - A Backpack Space cost 15 FSP and 10 = 150 FSP and it costs US$25 for the player to had 10 additional backpack slots so when the player goes inactive , should HCS return the donation back to the player's bank account/CC or wherever it came from? I'm okay with not allowing the backpacks of inactives be filled with anymore items but i wanted the donations to go back since the donations were made for an everlasting feature on a trust basis and since they choose to be in my guild and my guild kept them, its FAIR for my backpack to be used by the guild.[/quote]


There are two different things here. There are many different ways to take this forum post as well.

I agree that GVG does damage gears of inactives, and guilds should be able to repair their gear. If that is something that can be instated, then I'm all for it. I'm just trying to get the point across that there should be some consequence you have to pay for keeping the inactives in your guild for backpack spaces. The gold a guild spends on keeping inactives isn't enough of a risk for them to really take. They should still be allowed to be targets for GVG.. whether it is ethical or not. It's the risk you run is all I'm trying to say.

As for the second one, I have nothing against using inactives for their backpack spaces. I know that it is a lot cheaper to buy normal backpack spaces than guild storage spaces. Maybe they need to cut the price in half like I mentioned before (since they did this for backpacks a LONG LONG time ago). 25 FSP for 1 guild storage space is much more manageable for smaller guilds than not. Also, a lot of people start guilds prematurely I believe. They aren't ready for all of the costs taht are associated with running a successful guild.

Also, this may be off topic, but I think there should be another clear out of guilds, that way we can get some of the original good names back from the guilds who have been completely inactive for months on end.. also maybe should be able to have a 1 time name changing after that.. this will stop all the crazy names and XXguildxguildxxxxxxXxX or the 25 word guild names that just are annoying.

#98 fs_grog32

fs_grog32
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:33

I would have to vote no.

#99 fs_jonty1105

fs_jonty1105
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:38

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


This sounds like a good idea

#100 fs_thanos

fs_thanos
  • Guests

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:41


I'm sure Mikkyd does not mean the account/upgrades were given to the guild but rather they donate their backpack space for the guild to use - Most inactive players are very willingly to lend whatever effort they may give to the guild growth when they simply cannot play the game...but then why should i be explaining a guild game spirit who seemed to start on 13/Jul/2008 and still a low level without any guild...Oh is it a "dummy" again? Oh no...


a line of reasoning if you run out of arguments?

I should not have to explain anything to you, I play the game with a more relaxed style. I do need it during this recession time.

Apologies accepted in advance.


I would like to know what a guildless player could have to offer in this thread... as for relaxed... it appears to be more of non play style... Seriously I dont understand why with out other changes... Such as allowing people to repair guild members gear... that its fair to count them in GvG, however with the current state of the game, as I stated earlier about the BP Slots... either remove tagging/recall completely or leave it as is... the game was without tagging/recall before, many guilds were built on that trust... some, FFS, PoLC, DS... still operate with alot of that trust... though it gets alot more lax as time goes on, new people enter... expect guilds to provide everything and we dont have to trust as much as they cant leave with it.

I saw a post somewhere about someone not happy that people might beable to join a guild to become an easy target in gvg, same thing here... with the tagging and recall... they could join a guild and recall all the items from others in the guild... leaving them open for attack.

At the end of the day this change would do little more than change the economic structure of the game, not to mention run off alot of players.


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

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