-
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 into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
DeletedUser13082
Hang on a minute...how do you know you are not supposed to do it? I don't recall reading anything that prohibits such actions. Until such time as that option has been removed and/or an official announcement is made which specifically bans such actions, then it can't be classed as cheating as no rules are being broken
Well the fact that it was said that this was an "oversight in development" and a "loophole in game mechanics" speaks for itself. Also the fact that their isn't a "grant freedom" option on a HQ sector and also their is a big message which doesn't allow you to move the HQ more than once per day. Could it be any clearer? Doesn't take a genius to figure that out does is?
As for no rules being broken. This is something in game which is possible but should not be possible. Therefore a bug. Exploitation of a bug is prohibited. Rule is broken. I rest my case.
DeletedUser
Please send a private message to the moderator for the world that this relates to, so that it can be chased up.
mrbeef
Lieutenant-General
You are mistaken.. It is not a bug, but poorly designed games mechanics. Deleting of the defending armies in the HQ was meant to allow the HQ sector to be deleted. Also, if the HQ sector was conquered it was meant, by design, to relocate to another sector if owned. These actions were by design. If it should not be possible then design it and make it so that it is not possible.
A bug is a fault in the code causes it to produce an incorrect or unexpected result; both the actions above actually produce a correct result, as programmed.
A bug is a fault in the code causes it to produce an incorrect or unexpected result; both the actions above actually produce a correct result, as programmed.
mrbeef
Lieutenant-General
I have had many private messages to moderators go ignored. This way there is some transparency and I can be sure my issue reaches a wider audience.
DeletedUser13082
As programmed but, at the same time, unintentional. Therefore not an intended feature and not something that was intended to be possible. If it was intentional then it would be possible to grant freedom to HQ and to move HQ as many times per day as you like. Adding those restrictions while intentionally allowing players to work around them would be completely pointless. So, although not a bug in a technical term, it is an exploitation of an unintentional ability within the game which grants an advantage to the player(s) who choose to exploit it. To put that into more simple terms, a cheat.
"6) Bugs
Each player is required to report serious errors immediately to game support. A player must not take advantage of a bug, in doing so they have violated the rules.
Examples:
- If you notice that a player is abusing the system you must report him.
- If you notice a spelling error or typo, you are not obliged to report it, however we encourage you to do so for the improvement of our game."
First of all, please point out where this claims a bug is defined as an error in coding? Also, notice the area in red. "Abusing the system". Is exploiting an oversight of the game developers not abusing the system?
Again, I rest my case.
Side Note: Could somebody take note that the rules should state "him/her" or "them" rather than just "him". There is a female player base here too.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I will be contacting you shortly regarding these issues.
DeletedUser1081
I agree that it seems like it was an oversight in the programming to begin with, but by now I sorrowfully have to accept that the developers seem to want HQ-hopping as well as ghost-guilding to continue.
I note (with sorrow) that there is a difference between A] relocating your HQ limitless times during a day without abandoning any hexes (which the game mechanics don't allow), and B] giving up a hex in order to get your HQ shifted to a new position (which the game mechanics do allow). Perhaps the devs have decided that giving up a hex is a reasonable price to pay for an HQ shift.
Similarly, since the seven-day cooldown does zero to stop ghost guilds and the new "troopless sieges" outright encourage nuisance sieges, I sorrowfully conclude that the dev team has a very different vision of GvG than most of us do. All they need to do is radically reduce the goods costs for sieges, and we can experience GvG as a free-for-all, bouncing hexes around like pingpong balls and not even trying to hold onto territory.
But it would certainly be easier if the devs would come right out and say what their vision of GvG is instead of introducing these (to us) bizarre changes and leaving us struggling to figure out whether they're bugs, oversights or features.
mrbeef
Lieutenant-General
It can't be an abuse of the system or it would have been stopped from happening. Changes were made in this update to limit the amount of times freedom could be granted, but not changes relating to the movement/deleting of the HQ.
If it really was an abuse of the system, then Inno have had ample opportunity to remedy it. As they have not, it can only be inferred that they don't class it as such, and therefore it is permitted.
If it really was an abuse of the system, then Inno have had ample opportunity to remedy it. As they have not, it can only be inferred that they don't class it as such, and therefore it is permitted.
DeletedUser13082
Completely agree. Players should be better informed and a member of the development team should have commented on both situations HQ dropping a long time ago to confirm whether it is or isn't in breach of the rules. If it is not, then the rules need to be re-written, because, as shown above, the rule is clearly being broken when taken in it's current wording.
DeletedUser13082
It can't be abuse of the system because nobody has yet announced that it is abuse of the system? So from your way of thinking, it is also an abuse of the system, because nobody has yet announced that it is not abuse of the system. Correct?
How do you know that the new limitation to how many sectors can be released is not another simple oversight on the part of the development team? They've shown on many occasions that they overlook small details which allow for work-around tactics. Unless you know what they're thinking you cannot claim that they have purposely left this ability in place.
The only true way to settle this debate would be for somebody from the development team to comment on the matter. The facts being that currently the only information we have is that it is a "loophole in game mechanics" and an "oversight in development". Both of those phrases claim that the ability is unintentional, if the ability is unintentional then to exploit that ability is abuse of the system and therefore in breach of the rules.
Unless somebody from the dev' team says differently, and/or the rules are edited, you have no argument.
Last edited by a moderator:
mrbeef
Lieutenant-General
If you read the 1.27 change log:
'From now on, one player can grant freedom to a sector only 4 times per day. This solution has been implemented to prevent abuses that might happen when not-exactly-trusted guild member is accidentally given "trusted" right. The limit resets at daily calculation.'
I say again, if it was classed as an abuse of the system, then there has been ample opportunity over the past 4 months+ for this to be remedied in one of the many updates that have occurred since then. It hasn't been remedied, therefore Inno must class it as acceptable. If they class it as acceptable it can't be an abuse of the system.
I rest my case
'From now on, one player can grant freedom to a sector only 4 times per day. This solution has been implemented to prevent abuses that might happen when not-exactly-trusted guild member is accidentally given "trusted" right. The limit resets at daily calculation.'
I say again, if it was classed as an abuse of the system, then there has been ample opportunity over the past 4 months+ for this to be remedied in one of the many updates that have occurred since then. It hasn't been remedied, therefore Inno must class it as acceptable. If they class it as acceptable it can't be an abuse of the system.
I rest my case
DeletedUser13082
If you read the 1.27 change log:
'From now on, one player can grant freedom to a sector only 4 times per day. This solution has been implemented to prevent abuses that might happen when not-exactly-trusted guild member is accidentally given "trusted" right. The limit resets at daily calculation.'
I say again, if it was classed as an abuse of the system, then there has been ample opportunity over the past 4 months+ for this to be remedied in one of the many updates that have occurred since then. It hasn't been remedied, therefore Inno must class it as acceptable. If they class it as acceptable it can't be an abuse of the system.
I rest my case
Far from a good attempt I'm afraid. Where are your facts? Can you show an area of the rules which counters what I have already shown to prove that this is, in fact, in breach of rule 6? Can you quote something which was said by a CM to say that this is an intentional feature, to counter the quotes I can offer which say that this is not an intentional feature?
You say "I rest my case" but, I'm sorry to say, you don't have a case to begin with. You're basing everything you say on speculation/opinion. I have based everything I say on clear facts.
When you can prove your point to counter my own proof then I may take what you say seriously. As for now I'll say no more on the matter as, like previously stated, there is no true way to determine the outcome without the input of a member of the development team. Until that time, the only evidence we have says that it is unintentional and is therefore in breach of rule 6.
DeletedUser96901
it is simple
a CM said: it is NOT a bug
but if a player believes he has more to say than the CM he sure also believes he is god
a CM said: it is NOT a bug
but if a player believes he has more to say than the CM he sure also believes he is god
DeletedUser13082
Did I or did I know quite clearly show that this is a rule breach? It is a loophole in mechanics, therefore not intentional, which in turn says that, if exploited, it is abusing the system. You are abusing a loophole in the system, if said loophole is abused, then the system, in turn, is being abused. The facts are there. As I already said, until the rules are reworded to claim that a bug is defined as an error in coding, or a member of the development team comments, it is a breach of rule 6.
As for you saying that I believe I am God. The full statement you made would then infer that you personally believe that there is no higher intellectual being than a CM, therefore, you claim that a CM is God. Correct?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser96901
could someone really read that in my words :confused:
I believe there is no higher authority than the CM in FoE
DeletedUser13082
could someone really read that in my words :confused:
I believe there is no higher authority than the CM in FoE
When did I claim to be a higher authority than anybody? I countered something which was said with clear factual evidence. A far cry from a God complex.
DeletedUser7719
Can we please get back to the discussion please? In my point of view, if no CM or mod has said that HQ hopping is abusing the rules, then it is not against the rules. If no CM or mod has said that gaining infinite points from the world map is abusing the rules, then it is not abusing them rules.
This is assuming that a CM or mod knows about each matter which I'm pretty sure that they do by now
This is assuming that a CM or mod knows about each matter which I'm pretty sure that they do by now
DeletedUser2989
I think the annoying thing here is the following, "it's not against the rules but it is not intended". We get told that issues like ghost guilds and HQ hopping are not intended and that fixes are on the way, but that these things are not breaking any rules. As death ouron has pointed out if people are abusing a fault of the system it looks like cheating (to most people) and this is suppose to be reported.
It's fustrating because we know it's not the type of behaviour Inno wanted or else they wouldn't be coming up with "fixes" for it. Yet people using these things are not breaking any rules. Thus we get the split of opinion where some think it's cheating and others think it's not. Inno is telling us two different things.
It'd just be nice to see them say one thing or the other, either they are going to fix it and anyone using the method in the mean time should be reported or they are not going to fix it and it is intended.
It has gotten to the point that I just accept that broken aspects of the game are meant to be abused as much as possible till it's fixed. While I don't personally abuse broken aspects (it'd ruin my game and be no fun) I find it pointless to report others.
It's fustrating because we know it's not the type of behaviour Inno wanted or else they wouldn't be coming up with "fixes" for it. Yet people using these things are not breaking any rules. Thus we get the split of opinion where some think it's cheating and others think it's not. Inno is telling us two different things.
It'd just be nice to see them say one thing or the other, either they are going to fix it and anyone using the method in the mean time should be reported or they are not going to fix it and it is intended.
It has gotten to the point that I just accept that broken aspects of the game are meant to be abused as much as possible till it's fixed. While I don't personally abuse broken aspects (it'd ruin my game and be no fun) I find it pointless to report others.