• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can     REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.

Counter Bots in GVG like this...

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeletedUser1418
  • Start date Start date

DeletedUser1418

Guest
Like GE has, GvG should get an extra restriction: The need of minimal 10 "live" players to enter or lay first siege. So if you have 10 but 1 did not play past week you cant siege. If you have sectors you may defend, but you cant siege. This means you need a proper guild to even play on GvG which gives extra challenges in the game and put an end of mallicious gameplay.

Give your toughs here below, but we really need to get rid of these cheats who take advantage of the game and rules
 
I don't see why a guild must have 10 active players to take part in GvG. What is wrong with one-man-bands? Why is it wrong to fight in GvG just for fun (fun could be ruining it for another guild, not nice, but then war isn't nice to begin with). And would 1+9 app -players count? App players can't participate.

Cheating is by definition to break the rules, to play within the rules is not cheating. So what you do want is for the rules to change so that you think they are fair. If anything the silly reset rule should change.
 
I agree with NoffeNoff, a rule to block small guilds to do GvG should not be inserted in the game.

Even for a guild of 40+ members, sometimes there are less than 10 players online (on PC not phone app) to battle GvG. That rule would block the guild to continue in GvG that day.

Why this title for this proposal ?
Circé
  • Bots? or Ghost Guilds?
  • The proposal seems to be against the Ghost Guild strategy where one or two members of a guild leave to form a second guild to battle in GvG and be able to siege with lower good costs.
 
What is this discussion about bots? I assume that the developers are competent and bots are easy for network monitoring software to detect. Bots do not interact with the server like humans.

As a software developer I know that online game providers hate bots as much as they hate hackers. Bots suck up a lot of network band width and can ruin a game. I don’t know exactly what Inno policy is, but for most online games the penalty for using a bot is a life time ban for the first offense.

I am sure Inno does care and does vigorously enforce the rules against them.
 
Lord Marbury said:
What is this discussion about bots? I assume that the developers are competent and bots are easy for network monitoring software to detect. Bots do not interact with the server like humans.

As a software developer I know that online game providers hate bots as much as they hate hackers. Bots suck up a lot of network band width and can ruin a game. I don’t know exactly what Inno policy is, but for most online games the penalty for using a bot is a life time ban for the first offense.

I am sure Inno does care and does vigorously enforce the rules against them.
Click to expand...

This made me laugh :)))

for months we have been taking it to the support with exact time, places and even players info on where bots are used....guess what???

big old NOTHING has been done beside copy&paste quote from the support: " Thank You for your message, we will investigate it "

oh boy oh boy, hope none of them are real life investigators cause that would really make me feel unsafe in real world :)
 
pcsurgeon said:
Like GE has, GvG should get an extra restriction: The need of minimal 10 "live" players to enter or lay first siege. So if you have 10 but 1 did not play past week you cant siege. If you have sectors you may defend, but you cant siege. This means you need a proper guild to even play on GvG which gives extra challenges in the game and put an end of mallicious gameplay.
Click to expand...

What a load of old twaddle, I used to run in a guild of 3 before we developed it and we caused chaos on the maps. This sounds like yet another cry from someone who wants sectors but not the work entailed in keeping them.
 
I only want notice you have to know this you with registration or installations confirmed compliance with the rules and GTC
 
Another question that is worth a trillion dollars:

WHY REVIVE/RESPOND TO THREADS THAT ARE -x- YEARS OLD?!?!

When I was moderator for a different game long ago, we had a term for those who revive/respond to threads that are over a month old (that should have been closed out): Necro-posting. Look it up, and then stop doing it.
 
Emberguard said:
How did you manage to find this thread?
Click to expand...
He must've been bored was my best guess. Didn't bother to see the last posted date being about 5+ years ago for a feature that was no longer in use. Then went to the trouble of posting both the ToS and Game Rules when links would have sufficed (I may write books in my posts, but I won't go to that extreme). Saw this post myself as part of the "Latest Posts" at the forum opening page, which I check first to see if anything new is up and going so I can read (and reply if needed).
Atokirina said:
I like the term necro-posting.
Click to expand...
I was introduced to the term as I was the only old gent in a pool of young ones who were moderators as well. Many of them were anime fans (I stand in the middle of the fence on this one; I liked anything action-based myself) so I would think they conjure up the term. It stuck for the years I had been until that game shut down about 10 years ago.

Okay, this will be my final transmission for this thread as I am hoping it will find peace in rest.
 
Thunderdome said:
He must've been bored was my best guess. Didn't bother to see the last posted date being about 5+ years ago for a feature that was no longer in use. Then went to the trouble of posting both the ToS and Game Rules when links would have sufficed (I may write books in my posts, but I won't go to that extreme). Saw this post myself as part of the "Latest Posts" at the forum opening page, which I check first to see if anything new is up and going so I can read (and reply if needed).
Click to expand...
i think he just wants to generate as much posts as possible so he can up his forum rank? :p

anyway, can this thread be closed/locked please? it's pointless to keep it open imho.
 
Markus Stormrider said:
i think he just wants to generate as much posts as possible so he can up his forum rank? :p

anyway, can this thread be closed/locked please? it's pointless to keep it open imho.
Click to expand...
Getting the legend title with necroposting? It would be quite some wild lore for sure.

I was really surprised when anything GvG related popped up again. Thought it must've been some mess up with GbG. I'm not sure what is more surprising. Posts like this never saw the day of day of getting rejected, closed and archived or such an ancient topic finding a necroposter after the feature and OP has long since gone. To the point the feature is almost part of obscure FoE history
 
I played GvG once because I don´t know how do it I think better could be add tutorial GvG not shut them down like Lost Survivors
 
Big boss said:
I played GvG once because I don´t know how do it I think better could be add tutorial GvG not shut them down like Lost Survivors
Click to expand...
The issue with GvG is that it died from multiple reasons. First it was a browser only feature. Long developed before the app. Hurting its popularity and accessibility. Lack of rewards also has compromised popularity. Second, GvG's code was very complicated and the people involved in writing it had already left the company. According to an IT guy. It's one thing to track back your own spaghetti of code, it's a whole different thing to do it from others. Third, it was insanely difficult to get a hold onto it. Since all landing zones where typically locked through guilds dumping sectors and retaking them. Unlike GbG it's protection for a full day. Forth and lastly, for Inno it would be just very expensive to untangle and refine a dying feature. So, they did the best they could: make another competitive feature without all the issues GvG had. This necroposted topic is a telling relic of the issues that plagued the feature. Some will disagree with me but GbG is the closest successor of GvG and has seen a lot of refinements.
For context, I've played GvG on and off fanatically. One of my best memories of the game is from GvG when the tomorrow era was the highest age.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top