Jump to content

Fix the hole, cows!


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 19 January 2010 - 17:46

From Hoof's post regarding Game update V 1.6491:

Hi all,

In this latest update, we have fixed the following issues...

- The Guild Chat notification now dissappears if you are no longer in a guild.

- Guild members who have been inactive for more than 7 days are no longer viable targets in Guild Conflicts (unless they are already involved in the conflict).

- The way relic bonuses are applied has been adjusted so that bonuses from skills are now applied before the relic bonus is applied.

~ The Fallen Sword Team


However, last night we had a conflict initiated against us by a Top 70 GvG guild; they are not, to my knowledge, an RP farming guild, and certainly are not a solo guild. It was a 1v1 conflict, and we knew who the hitter was because one of the guys getting hit logged on later. However, he had only 24 hits made against him, and we have a player in our guild who is 9 days inactive No other targets were available in the attacking player's range. Therefore, we had no choice to but to assume our inactive was being hit; when we tossed a deflect on the inactive player, the hits noticeably slowed down. Towards the end of the conflict, I was actually online and noticed that more than 1 hit per two minutes was occuring, so there is no question that our inactive was being targeted.

Following is a conversation I had in game with the diplomat from that guild. Names removed for privacy purposes.

17:01 19/Jan/2010 To xxxxx: Need to discuss the actions of one of your guild members last night, if you're willing. I'm trying to ascertain if [attacker] is aware that you're not supposed to be able to hit players more than 7 days inactive in a conflict - as in, not supposed to be able to because the game isn't supposed to allow it, not as in there are 'rules' our guild likes to follow.

17:08 19/Jan/2010 [ Report Message ] xxxxx says: I think I'm the wrong one to talk too, sound more to me that if your not able to hit them because the cows put that into function yet you are able to hit them something is broke. We have the same issues and have pruned out a lot of inactive due to that problem. I would submit a ticket to the cows on this issue, and I can't believe we are the only ones that have hit an inactive.

17:19 19/Jan/2010 [ Report Message ] xxxxx says: You can talk to [my founder] but there will be no punishment or reprimand that I can hand out. That to me is like saying don't hit people in crystal gear, if they are going to wear it off line that's their own fault. The GvG stuff in my opinion has gotten out of hand and if anyone is exploiting the cows rules it's the - 5 people guilds which are a far greater threat than hitting an inactive.

17:24 19/Jan/2010 To xxxxx: Again, I don't see this as the same as hitting crystalline - this is not a rule my guild wants to make, it *is not* supposed to be possible to hit players more than 7 days inactive; it's taking advantage of a coding failure to do something that isn't supposed to even be possible. Thank you for your time.

17:26 19/Jan/2010 [ Report Message ] xxxxx says: Then it is the cows issue only they can fix. Submit a ticket and hopefully they will fix it.

17:26 19/Jan/2010 To xxxxx: You're right, they're the ones that need to fix it, but let me get this straight - until they fix it, you have no problems with your guildmates exploiting that bug?

17:28 19/Jan/2010 [ Report Message ] xxxxx says: Until the hole is plugged for all I have no issue at all with it.

I'll let that conversation speak for itself.

#2 fs_regnier7

fs_regnier7
  • Guests

Posted 19 January 2010 - 18:06

I was getting use to just doing a sweep not looking at activity until I realized that this bug in the coding was left there. Some leave their inactives in the normal ranks and that's how I found out. I admittedly did a conflict to test it out.

All you cows have done is a quick bandaid attempt that has failed miserably. :|

#3 RebornJedi

RebornJedi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,449 posts

Posted 19 January 2010 - 18:18

lol i forgot they 'changed' it but i was able to help us win a GvG yesterday by buffing everyone in the attackers range..got him to slip up and took the GvG myself later that night

if inactives weren't able to still be targets id have alot more stamina right now xP

 


#4 Maehdros

Maehdros

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,329 posts
  • Canada

Posted 19 January 2010 - 18:35

I submitted a ticket last week, as the same thing had happened to my guild and still does.I had rallied for some of our retired players to be kicked, and we kicked a few of them.Then the "cant hit inactives over 7 days rule" came out and I figured everything would be fine.LOL I guess not. And like many others who have submitted tickets, I have still gotten no reply. :(

#5 Hoofmaster

Hoofmaster

    Company Director

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

Posted 19 January 2010 - 18:42

We'll get this fixed tomorrow when the update to the PvP Prestige system goes live also 8)

#6 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 19 January 2010 - 18:43

Sweet!

Thank you for the response, and the ETA, hoof.

#7 Maehdros

Maehdros

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,329 posts
  • Canada

Posted 19 January 2010 - 18:43

thanks hoofie :mrgreen:

#8 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 19 January 2010 - 18:44

Now, to the other part of my question - should I be submitting a ticket regarding the willingness of a guild or players within that guild to exploit what is a definite bug?

#9 vlkfenrir

vlkfenrir

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 395 posts

Posted 19 January 2010 - 18:47

Many guilds were doing this... even some high ranked ones... I kinda doubt anything can be done about it retrospectively...

#10 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 19 January 2010 - 18:48

Many guilds were doing this... even some high ranked ones... I kinda doubt anything can be done about it retrospectively...


Most aren't as brazen and generally willing to admit it, however.

#11 vlkfenrir

vlkfenrir

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 395 posts

Posted 19 January 2010 - 18:51

Many guilds were doing this... even some high ranked ones... I kinda doubt anything can be done about it retrospectively...


Most aren't as brazen and generally willing to admit it, however.


Yep most don't even reply...

#12 kKo

kKo

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts

Posted 19 January 2010 - 19:49

Thanks hoof :D

#13 dazriel

dazriel

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 153 posts

Posted 19 January 2010 - 20:22

I have seen this mentioned several times in the last couple weeks. Inactives can be hit in conflict after you hit an active player. example. one active player in range and 5 inactives. Hit the active player once then all further hits can be made against inactives.

As for submitting a ticket about it: HCS has been aware of this since they changed GVG to take out inactives. It was pointed out to them and they have decided to wait to fix it. So I dont think anyone can be penalised for exploiting it, its just one of those things. Like when the quick scavenge was implemented and didnt work as expected. The amount of people hitting inactives in conflicts is probably massive and they arnt really exploiting anything rather HCS hasnt properly changed things.

It will all be grand after the next update :D

#14 watagashi

watagashi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,977 posts

Posted 19 January 2010 - 21:28

Encouraging people to quit and/or go inactive is not a good pratice for any game. It should be discouraged. After all the inactive player isnt paying the server costs. Why give more players more reasons to get bored and look elsewhere for entertainment? Theres enough restrictions on gvg already to add one just to make the retirement homes happy!

And BTW its TRUE! Once you hit one active member the others are open,,must be they are then involved in the conflict LOL

And I loved they way they did that! all the babys stopped crying for a while thinking those highly respected naked skeletons were safe from attack and they kept the pack mule!

If you insist on making inactives free from attack to be fair they should be exempt from a lot of things including gear transfers!

#15 Drimm

Drimm

    New Member

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 30 posts

Posted 19 January 2010 - 21:55

Encouraging people to quit and/or go inactive is not a good pratice for any game. It should be discouraged. After all the inactive player isnt paying the server costs. Why give more players more reasons to get bored and look elsewhere for entertainment? Theres enough restrictions on gvg already to add one just to make the retirement homes happy!

And BTW its TRUE! Once you hit one active member the others are open,,must be they are then involved in the conflict LOL

And I loved they way they did that! all the babys stopped crying for a while thinking those highly respected naked skeletons were safe from attack and they kept the pack mule!

If you insist on making inactives free from attack to be fair they should be exempt from a lot of things including gear transfers!


Just because a player is inactive does not mean they've quit. There are many reasons a player may go inactive with every intention of returning. Things as simple as a vacation or even going to boot camp.

Besides that obvious point to counter your blanket assumption that inactives are only kept for storage or exp, this was primarily concerning the 7-day inactive bug.

Don't resort to being unreasonable just so you pick on easy targets who are unable to defend themselves.

#16 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 19 January 2010 - 22:00

Encouraging people to quit and/or go inactive is not a good pratice for any game. It should be discouraged. After all the inactive player isnt paying the server costs. Why give more players more reasons to get bored and look elsewhere for entertainment? Theres enough restrictions on gvg already to add one just to make the retirement homes happy!


I see that you are assuming that not allowing people who aren't logging on to be hit in PvP is in fact encouraging them to quit. Which is pretty much groundless as far as I can tell.

#17 Freyana

Freyana

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 19 January 2010 - 22:13

If you insist on making inactives free from attack to be fair they should be exempt from a lot of things including gear transfers!

I completely agree.

Just because a player is inactive does not mean they've quit. There are many reasons a player may go inactive with every intention of returning. Things as simple as a vacation or even going to boot camp.

This is very true.

Don't resort to being unreasonable just so you pick on easy targets who are unable to defend themselves.

How is this different than a player that is offline being hit?? The guild still has the responsibility to protect their members whether they are offline, inactive, or online. That is part of the fun of GvG. They are not easier targets if a guild takes the time to make sure they go offline in correct gear and take the time to buff them during conflicts.

#18 watagashi

watagashi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,977 posts

Posted 19 January 2010 - 22:15

Im saying any game that gives additional protection to those who dont play over those that do is making a mistake,,,inactive players are not supporting the game and deserve no protection,,if a guild founder wants to keep them and enjoy their pack space they should pay the price for keeping naked skeletons around.

But fine if keeping people that quit is so important then l say lock them out of more than just attack,,its unfair someone that is excluded from one aspect of the game is still available to use as pack space. I see some guilds (some that are representing the honor the fallen quit side) with players that have no gear on but are ranked pack mule,,,I should not be able to hit them because they are part of the guild store now?

And if I should be punished for "exploiting a bug" when I just assumed attacking one player did involve a GUILD in a GUILD CONFLICT :) How about we go deeper and check into how many of those inactives out there got logged on and repaired by their founders??? Having another players password is also a rule violation.

People in glass houses should not throw stones,,especially if they cant GvG :)

#19 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 19 January 2010 - 22:56

Don't resort to being unreasonable just so you pick on easy targets who are unable to defend themselves.

How is this different than a player that is offline being hit?? The guild still has the responsibility to protect their members whether they are offline, inactive, or online. That is part of the fun of GvG. They are not easier targets if a guild takes the time to make sure they go offline in correct gear and take the time to buff them during conflicts.


Someone who is inactive will never log on to repair gear. Eventually their gear will be broken and indeed an easy target.

#20 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 19 January 2010 - 22:58

Im saying any game that gives additional protection to those who dont play over those that do is making a mistake,,,inactive players are not supporting the game and deserve no protection,,if a guild founder wants to keep them and enjoy their pack space they should pay the price for keeping naked skeletons around.

But fine if keeping people that quit is so important then l say lock them out of more than just attack,,its unfair someone that is excluded from one aspect of the game is still available to use as pack space. I see some guilds (some that are representing the honor the fallen quit side) with players that have no gear on but are ranked pack mule,,,I should not be able to hit them because they are part of the guild store now?


There is a thread for this issue and it was voted overwhelmingly against. I suggest you revisit the arguments made over there.

And if I should be punished for "exploiting a bug" when I just assumed attacking one player did involve a GUILD in a GUILD CONFLICT :) How about we go deeper and check into how many of those inactives out there got logged on and repaired by their founders??? Having another players password is also a rule violation.

People in glass houses should not throw stones,,especially if they cant GvG :)


Don't try to deny it. The cows put in place a system that is supposed to prevent hitting players inactive since more than 7 days. There is a way around this intended feature, even if it is an easy way around it is still exploiting a bug.


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: