Jump to content

Great GvG update guys...


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 fs_thanos

fs_thanos
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 15:07

Seems that XXXX thought it was too.... he is still solo, still the only person avaiable in his guild... whats gonna be done about guilds doing the same thing...

XXXX Profile
This profile is no longer available.

XXXX Profile
This profile is no longer available.

XXXX Profile
This profile is no longer available.

Theres his other 3 members... looks like they were all multies.

Something told me this was gonna happen... Dont know if there are other guilds like this... if he can still initiate GvG's then... yeah it needs fixing....

*names edited out Radneto*

#2 Bleltch

Bleltch

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,784 posts

Posted 04 February 2010 - 15:21

And a recruitment bonus too!!! Sweet!!!

#3 Mojawk

Mojawk

    Chief Operations Officer

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,230 posts
  • Badge
  • United Kingdom

Posted 04 February 2010 - 15:25

Anyone creating multis for this purpose can expect to have their account terminated.

John Stewart
Chief Operations Officer


#4 Thoran

Thoran

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 728 posts
  • Badge
  • Spain

Posted 04 February 2010 - 15:26

I wonder if the new game rule of needing at least 4 members will take into account players that are active 30days+ and are not Terminated, it SHOULD be this way I think.

You can Keep your Terminated or inactive members but they just wont count towards to 4 needed etc.

HDBus.gif

I'm also known as @UnoWild

For Fracks Sake, Forum


#5 fs_thanos

fs_thanos
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 15:28

Anyone doing anything like this can expect to have their account terminated.


Go Radneto!! Radneto for Cow.... oh... wait... Yeah... Go Radneto!!!

#6 Mojawk

Mojawk

    Chief Operations Officer

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,230 posts
  • Badge
  • United Kingdom

Posted 04 February 2010 - 15:28

I wonder if the new game rule of needing at least 4 members will take into account players that are active 30days+ and are not Terminated, it SHOULD be this way I think.

You can Keep your Terminated or inactive members but they just wont count towards to 4 needed etc.


Yup, this is something we're thinking of adding.

John Stewart
Chief Operations Officer


#7 fs_thanos

fs_thanos
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 15:29

I wonder if the new game rule of needing at least 4 members will take into account players that are active 30days+ and are not Terminated, it SHOULD be this way I think.

You can Keep your Terminated or inactive members but they just wont count towards to 4 needed etc.


I couldn't agree more Thoran.

#8 Thoran

Thoran

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 728 posts
  • Badge
  • Spain

Posted 04 February 2010 - 15:31

I wonder if the new game rule of needing at least 4 members will take into account players that are active 30days+ and are not Terminated, it SHOULD be this way I think.

You can Keep your Terminated or inactive members but they just wont count towards to 4 needed etc.


Yup, this is something we're thinking of adding.


Posted Image

HDBus.gif

I'm also known as @UnoWild

For Fracks Sake, Forum


#9 arichey22

arichey22

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 264 posts
  • United States of America

Posted 04 February 2010 - 15:38

Honestly. It only takes 7 days before you cant attack a player. So instead of 30. It should be only 7 days. Keep it CONSISTANT.
so for players and being active within the last 7 days. NOT 30

#10 fs_theoryman

fs_theoryman
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 15:39

Is this not bringing unwanted attention to a player? I don't condone what this player is doing but players names are not needed to make this point.

This is a better way to state the problem:
It has come to my attention that certain guilds are using inactives and terminated accounts to fill up their ranks; basically making them one man guilds because because inactives and terminated accounts can not be targets in GvG. Since you have deemed one man guilds to be an issue in GvG, guilds that are act like a one man guild by using inactives and terminated accounts to fill their ranks should not be able to start a conflict in GvG. I purpose that inactive and terminated accounts not count towards to 4 needed to GvG to start a conflict.

#11 fs_thanos

fs_thanos
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 15:42

Is this not bringing unwanted attention to a player? I don't condone what this player is doing but players names are not needed to make this point.

This is a better way to state the problem:
It has come to my attention that certain guilds are using inactives and terminated accounts to fill up their ranks; basically making them one man guilds because because inactives and terminated accounts can not be targets in GvG. Since you have deemed one man guilds to be an issue in GvG, guilds that are act like a one man guild by using inactives and terminated accounts to fill their ranks should not be able to start a conflict in GvG. I purpose that inactive and terminated accounts not count towards to 4 needed to GvG to start a conflict.


Ummm... siting example rather than just putting a theoretical message out there... how often do people get flamed for theoretically if this happened... this was factual... And really if I stated the guild instead would it have resulted any differently?

#12 Mojawk

Mojawk

    Chief Operations Officer

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,230 posts
  • Badge
  • United Kingdom

Posted 04 February 2010 - 15:44

I've edited out the names of the original post, anyone else you are suspicious of please contact support and they will be dealt with appropriately.

John Stewart
Chief Operations Officer


#13 fs_robotussin

fs_robotussin
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 15:46

What a moron.

Western Army of PWND!!!

#14 fs_thanos

fs_thanos
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 15:46

I've edited out the names of the original post, anyone else you are suspicious of please contact support and they will be dealt with appropriately.


Thanks Radneto :)

#15 Thoran

Thoran

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 728 posts
  • Badge
  • Spain

Posted 04 February 2010 - 15:49

Honestly. It only takes 7 days before you cant attack a player. So instead of 30. It should be only 7 days. Keep it CONSISTANT.
so for players and being active within the last 7 days. NOT 30


Hey dumb a%%, I said INACTIVE PLAYERS. As in they are inactive, you know, like the last time they were active = 30 days or more.

Those players should NOT be part of the Min 4 Players to be able to do GvG, Duh.

he has three inactive players (actually terminated) so this guy as mentioned should NOT be able to start ANY GvG.


(why do I have to explain everything over and over again, English is my second language and it appears that I'm the only one that has an understanding of it, oh the shame)

HDBus.gif

I'm also known as @UnoWild

For Fracks Sake, Forum


#16 Cat Girl IRL

Cat Girl IRL

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 501 posts

Posted 04 February 2010 - 16:01

Anyone creating multis for this purpose can expect to have their account terminated.


Radneto, are you saying with this message that XXXX did multi accounts for the GvG?

#17 fs_ananasii

fs_ananasii
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 16:05

Honestly. It only takes 7 days before you cant attack a player. So instead of 30. It should be only 7 days. Keep it CONSISTANT.
so for players and being active within the last 7 days. NOT 30


Hey dumb a%%, I said INACTIVE PLAYERS. As in they are inactive, you know, like the last time they were active = 30 days or more.

Those players should NOT be part of the Min 4 Players to be able to do GvG, Duh.

he has three inactive players (actually terminated) so this guy as mentioned should NOT be able to start ANY GvG.


(why do I have to explain everything over and over again, English is my second language and it appears that I'm the only one that has an understanding of it, oh the shame)



Actually Thoran, he's got a point.

Yes fully inactive accounts and terminated ccounts shouldn't count to the minimum GvG, but why should other inneligable GvG targets count?
We cant hit anyone who's not logged in for 7 or more days, so why should a guild with only 1 player who's logged on in the last week be treat any different in GvG to a guild where they've not logged in over a month?

#18 Cat Girl IRL

Cat Girl IRL

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 501 posts

Posted 04 February 2010 - 16:11

Did the cat take you'r tongue? Im very curious to hear the reason of termination.

If you say theres been termination cause of creating multis for GvG I think the termination is hesitated, done without any prooves and for real done just to get the person shut.

How ever if this aint the reason please announce it, others that will be undone cause of lack of evidence.

#19 fs_thanos

fs_thanos
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 16:16

Did the cat take you'r tongue? Im very curious to hear the reason of termination.


You know as well as I do, HCS will not divulge that information. Asking is going to get you no where.

#20 boeffie

boeffie

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 977 posts

Posted 04 February 2010 - 16:45

I'm sorry, but terminating or banning a GuildFounder because someone recruits people/multis which he might advise publicly on any of the recruiting places to go and join any sologuild they can find?

Seeing there must be a spate of new level 1 recruits (most of which will never play, of course) how is a Guild Founder to know if any of those are multis?

Bringing out the recruiting rewards, with no level necessity, at the same time as making it necessaryfor the RP Solo guilds to now have 4 members, and not even adding 'active within last 7 days', seems not the best way of going about things.

I never have been in favour of sologuilds for the unique reason of RP farming, I have voiced that before, but punishing Solo Guild Founders because they can, and now need to, accept 3 players, without any level restrictions, and might therefore have taken multis that have been created by people that want to try and get a recruiting reward?

To my mind, it would seem more logical to suspend/ban those that have recruited the multis, as they will also give a bad name to all recruiters some of whose names show up on the homepage, and most of whom would be honest. How to prevent recruits from making multis is of course just one more problem here, as the recruiter has no way to prevent that happening.

:


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: