Jump to content

Fix the hole, cows!


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#21 fs_nthnclls

fs_nthnclls
  • Guests

Posted 19 January 2010 - 22:59


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.


So you have to choose between loyalty, free bp spaces, and xp contributed and losing a guild member space and being vulnerable in gvgs. I don't see where the problem is.

#22 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 19 January 2010 - 23:07


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.


So you have to choose between loyalty, free bp spaces, and xp contributed and losing a guild member space and being vulnerable in gvgs. I don't see where the problem is.


Wait... No I don't. The cows will be fixing this hole tomorrow to get it working as intended.

#23 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 19 January 2010 - 23:12

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.


Back up the truck here, pal.

You and everyone else knows very well that inactives are not meant to be targeted; the Cows SPECIFICALLY stated that they were changing the mechanics of GvG to prevent that. As a result of that, it's no longer up to me, you, or anyone else to decide whether or not inactives should be hit. The admins of the game made a decision, and that's that. If you don't like it, no one's forcing you to play. You don't get to decide what's right and wrong - you're admitting, with your posts here, that you knowingly exploited a bug in the system that your opponents most likely did not, if and when inactives ever existed in TGD.

How, exactly, should that NOT be punishable? Go ahead, make the case for that. I've seen you jump up and down screaming when someone else shafts you in a GvG by exploiting loopholes - what makes it okay for YOU to do it?

I like how you're using your argument of "well, I broke a rule, but I think other people did, so that makes what I did okay."

That's pretty pathetic.

#24 watagashi

watagashi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,977 posts

Posted 19 January 2010 - 23:27

When and if inactives existed in TGD?

We kick inactives we dont keep them laying around to collect dust and be open for attack,,so can I get all my friends back to leave laying around like decorations?

And I saw it as this the wording was "unless they are involved in an active conflict",,hitting a active member made them involved in a active conflict its GUILD vs GUILD after all not guild vs anyone who logged on this week.

And I still think in their wisdom the cows saw this as not needed and allowed it to cut down on the crying. You didnt know we could hit them and didnt cry about it untill a real solution can come up.

People can always come back,,as soon as any former TGD member logs back on they know their place is still there,,what we dont do is keep naked people around to exploit their pack space and at the same time make arguments that its all about "honoring" them by keeping them safe from attack. i suppose you want all the cake? Why not just throw out all anything that keeps you from using the dead to your own benefit without any loss. How about we let them all do the FShelpr and continue to sell buffs for you? Hel lets just throw it all out and let founders manipulate any inactive including leveling them but god forbid anyone can hit them..

And a point was made that an inactive player will continue to be hit and lose durability but I see many pack mules that seem to get repaired on a regular basis,,and often one after another. im sure all the guilds that are complaining about loopholes and exploit of rules wouldnt mind that being investigated too :)

#25 watagashi

watagashi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,977 posts

Posted 19 January 2010 - 23:42

I have a solution that could make everyone as happy as can be done when trying to do something impossable like making everyone happy.

We have a couple termed players still in TGD, in one case shes wearing a full set that can sit there for now. We can still recall off her but not return any gear to her space. If someone goes inactive and should be immune from attack then they should go into something like that too where the character cannot be used for storage.

And please look deeper into how some of these "inactives" can appear exactly the day they are needed when theres nobody else in range to do a GvG, or how some people show up once a month to repair and are geared for 7 days before getting recalled naked.

And fix fury shrine so we dont have to pay for inactives not using buffs,,for that matter give us a discount on upkeep,,they arent using stam or enhancements when not being hit LOL just showing how silly the idea of giving pvp protection really is

#26 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 19 January 2010 - 23:46

When and if inactives existed in TGD?

We kick inactives we dont keep them laying around to collect dust and be open for attack,,so can I get all my friends back to leave laying around like decorations?


Okay, so you're cool and hip and never ever let anyone have a life outside this game...gotcha.

And I saw it as this the wording was "unless they are involved in an active conflict",,hitting a active member made them involved in a active conflict its GUILD vs GUILD after all not guild vs anyone who logged on this week.


Yea, play the semantics game all you want. It's blatantly, totally obvious that people offline for more than 7 days weren't meant to be hit, and you're just trying to justify yourself now. Here's a hint: No one's buying it. You knew it was wrong, and did it anyway.

And I still think in their wisdom the cows saw this as not needed and allowed it to cut down on the crying.


You speaketh for the gods, eh? :lol:

....OH WAIT, HOOF SAID THEY'RE GOING TO FIX IT TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO HIT INACTIVES IN THIS VERY THREAD. You. Are. Wrong!

You didnt know we could hit them and didnt cry about it untill a real solution can come up.


Actually, I and others have known about this for quite a while, and I've had a ticket open for over a month regarding this. I just got to watch a guild blatantly exploit this bug and figured it was time for a new thread to try and get a response, which appears to have been successful. Dragging you out of the woodwork to incriminate yourself is merely a peripheral benefit, although it would be humourous if it wasn't so lame.

People can always come back,,as soon as any former TGD member logs back on they know their place is still there,,what we dont do is keep naked people around to exploit their pack space and at the same time make arguments that its all about "honoring" them by keeping them safe from attack.


My guild has 3 true inactives; one of them is seriously ill and has been for months, one is on deployment, and ONE, read ONE, is considered MIA and we don't know what happened. We don't make a habit of keeping inactives either, but neither do we believe in kicking everybody just to combat jerk guilds looking to score.

Congratulations, you get leet epics from hitting what are effectively dead bodies? Real accomplishment there.

i suppose you want all the cake? Why not just throw out all anything that keeps you from using the dead to your own benefit without any loss.


Hm, so everything in this game must be a benefit countered by a cost? Okay, then, if you don't hit an active, online player in a GvG conflict more than half the time, how about you get half the RP? Since we're so concerned with cost versus benefit.

How about we let them all do the FShelpr and continue to sell buffs for you? Hel lets just throw it all out and let founders manipulate any inactive including leveling them but god forbid anyone can hit them..


Hey, how about you stop throwing mud at a wall and hoping it'll stick, and start owning up to the fact that you done wrong, John.

And a point was made that an inactive player will continue to be hit and lose durability but I see many pack mules that seem to get repaired on a regular basis,,and often one after another. im sure all the guilds that are complaining about loopholes and exploit of rules wouldnt mind that being investigated too :)


Go for it. Me and mine have nothing to hide.

#27 watagashi

watagashi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,977 posts

Posted 20 January 2010 - 10:12

#1 I still speak to many former TGD members outside of game,,many selflessly left instead of taking up space, costing the guild more, and becoming a liability. We have brought friends back from inactive before,,,seems the only thing you really dont want to lose is CEXP and free pack space,,you just dont want them exposed to attack.

#2 I still saw it as a guild in an active conflict, split hairs all you want but I dont have time to look at how long your friends have been gone when im killing them :)

#3 no I dont speak for gods,,,that would be what the beginning of my statement meant when I said "I think" <--- that means its the conclusion I drew And I hope he does fix it,,the whole thing with inactives including their use as guildstore.

#4 im sure you wrote lots of tickets,,,"my friend doesnt play, contribute to server cost or bring new players in but *sob* he gets hit and I dont like it! I like keeping his CEXP and his space but I want him excluded from game mechanics because I want to keep dead friends around,,I get lonely without them" :P

#5 as i said before you are all targets to me,,you all have defeat written across your avi in my quest to better my guild and myself. Activity doesnt matter,,,in fact thank you,,your 2 guildmates wearing pretty gurg sets will make fine ACTIVE targets every week :D

#6...you make no sense,,I say you want your cake and eat it too and you say there should not be a cost to things

#7 "throwing mud at a wall and hoping it will stick" ???? who started THIS thread???

#8 you may not have nothing to hide but its a sad fact many guilds have a founder or other player that IS in fact logging on the pack mules to repair them,,funny since the 7 day thing came up they even stay geared for,,7 days before they get a naked recall again,,talk about exploiting a loophole


But talk about a hole that needs fixed!! I just scanned the "J"s in guild a-z looking for a guild that could be GvGed,,of a full page there were only 3 that had someone active in 48hrs!! and only JADED had any targets for me. Taking more available people to hit away when its pretty obvious the dead are outnumbering the living seems silly

#28 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 20 January 2010 - 12:36

You keep posting and saying unrelated things, but you don't actually give any arguments do you? :?

#29 dazriel

dazriel

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 153 posts

Posted 20 January 2010 - 15:32

Back up the truck here, pal.

You and everyone else knows very well that inactives are not meant to be targeted; the Cows SPECIFICALLY stated that they were changing the mechanics of GvG to prevent that.


They stated that people 7 days inactive cannot be hit in GVG and then didnt implement it properly.
People have been hitting inactives for PVP.GVG for years. Carrying on after a failed fix isnt exploting anything. I agree that it should be fixed and inactives shouldnt be hit, But until HCS fixes the problem anyone that does it cant be labelled a criminal. Cant be done for breaking a rule that never existed.

#30 Roan

Roan

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,278 posts
  • Badge

Posted 20 January 2010 - 15:36

True, some persons migth NOT know that there was an update ment to change attacking inactives but it doesn't work...
They canno't be held responsible for it.

Firesinged_zpsd6b00c6e.png


#31 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 20 January 2010 - 15:48

They stated that people 7 days inactive cannot be hit in GVG and then didnt implement it properly.......Cant be done for breaking a rule that never existed.


Look, the rule existed, it's just the coding wasn't implemented properly. I get what you and roan are saying, that it's possible people didn't know, and if that was the case then yes, no further action should be taken beyond resolving the problem.

But, uhm, yea.

You didnt know we could hit them and didnt cry about it untill a real solution can come up.


Need I say more? He, and from the conversation I had with the other guild's leadership, others definitely knew.

#32 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 20 January 2010 - 16:07

#1 I still speak to many former TGD members outside of game,,many selflessly left instead of taking up space, costing the guild more, and becoming a liability. We have brought friends back from inactive before,,,seems the only thing you really dont want to lose is CEXP and free pack space,,you just dont want them exposed to attack.


Our guild has less than 5 inactives and has never been in EXP lock for 8 months. We don't need anyone's GEXP. One of our inactives has a load of pack space, the others not so much, but we could handle it without them without too much of an issue. This is an irrelevant argument, anyway, because you're simply trying to drag it back to a debate that has already been decided.

In short, under normal circumstances, I would say you have a point, but considering you willingly exploit a bug because you feel somehow justified and are intent on kicking a dead horse that the admins have already made a decision on, I would say you have much less of one, if any point at all.

#2 I still saw it as a guild in an active conflict, split hairs all you want but I dont have time to look at how long your friends have been gone when im killing them :)


This continues to be disingenous, and I'm getting tired of your evasions. Most guilds have specific ranks for inactive players (some don't, including ours) but this is balanced by the fact that we are a smaller guild. To hit our inactives, for example, you cannot hit more than 2 other players - so you're VERY aware of their status, simply because of the fact that you're staring at their profile screen for so long. You keep telling yourself that the cows didn't intend for inactives to be untargetable. Hopefully hoof will follow through and slam the door in your face today, in which case the rest of this thread is only so much flamebait.

#3 no I dont speak for gods,,,that would be what the beginning of my statement meant when I said "I think" <--- that means its the conclusion I drew And I hope he does fix it,,the whole thing with inactives including their use as guildstore.


Yea, except you advanced a completely specious argument directly contravened by what the admin said in this very thread! Go back and read it, man! You stuffed words in HCS' mouth, so unless you're their chosen spokesperson, I'd suggest you stop giving them motivations and declaring what their intent was, especially when it's totally opposite to what they say :shock:

#4 im sure you wrote lots of tickets,,,"my friend doesnt play, contribute to server cost or bring new players in but *sob* he gets hit and I dont like it! I like keeping his CEXP and his space but I want him excluded from game mechanics because I want to keep dead friends around,,I get lonely without them" :P


Do you have anything to say for yourself other than that you're justified in breaking rules because you can project that other players are whiny, without a shred of proof? No? Okay, we get that you think anyone who disagrees with you is just a complainer, and absolutely cannot have the interests of the game at heart. :roll:

#5 as i said before you are all targets to me,,you all have defeat written across your avi in my quest to better my guild and myself. Activity doesnt matter,,,in fact thank you,,your 2 guildmates wearing pretty gurg sets will make fine ACTIVE targets every week :D


Go for it. Haven't seen that "To arms!" message yet.

#6...you make no sense,,I say you want your cake and eat it too and you say there should not be a cost to things


No, actually I said there is not a cost/benefit equation to everything in this game, so until you're willing to apply your ridiculous standard to your own activites, kindly get over yourself.

#7 "throwing mud at a wall and hoping it will stick" ???? who started THIS thread???


Hmm. I have specific and direct evidence of a coding bug and willful violation of the understood rule. Yes, that's definitely mudslinging and has absolutely no substance to it.

Your unproven projections, specious and already resolved debates have just as much weight. :lol: (<---hint: sarcasm)

#8 you may not have nothing to hide but its a sad fact many guilds have a founder or other player that IS in fact logging on the pack mules to repair them,,funny since the 7 day thing came up they even stay geared for,,7 days before they get a naked recall again,,talk about exploiting a loophole.


For the love of mike, do you have any PROOF? If you do, great, submit a ticket, or start a new thread regarding the issue! Guess what? Even if you're 100%, totally, completely right....you still done wrong, john. And I have yet to see you own up to that fact. You came into this thread guns blazing and eyes flashing, and still haven't earned an ounce of credibility.

But talk about a hole that needs fixed!! I just scanned the "J"s in guild a-z looking for a guild that could be GvGed,,of a full page there were only 3 that had someone active in 48hrs!! and only JADED had any targets for me. Taking more available people to hit away when its pretty obvious the dead are outnumbering the living seems silly


So the fact that a random letter of the alphabet has no targets somehow justifies this??? You mean there's no other measure, like top 250 guilds, or the homepage, or the top 250 GvG guilds, to do a search from? ....Oh, wait, THERE IS.

#33 dazriel

dazriel

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 153 posts

Posted 20 January 2010 - 16:11

The rule never existed, if it did people whouldnt be able to do it. HCS decided to take inactives out of conflicts. But havent done it yet. If HCS seen it as a problem they would have issued a statement saying that anyone "exploiting the system" and hittin inactives will be dealt with. They didnt, they said they will fix it with the pvp update. The fact that they know whats happening and are not penalising anyone is proof that there is no exploitation. It was a bungled fix that didnt change the mechanics. If the mechanics aint changed there is no loophole.

Whether people hit inactives knowing there was a failed fix or not is irrelevant. They are doing nothing wrong. If GVG was new and HCS never forseen this problem then it would be a loophole. But as it is, its just an aspect of the game that has yet to be changed and until it actually is then it remains a perfectly legal part of the game.

Even if HCS did see the need to punish people there would be way too many to punish and they would be punishing them for a mistake they (HCS) made. So either way whether your right or wrong its a moot point. And all will be right as rain with the next PVP update, which hopefully shall be along soon.


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: