HQ being granted freedom?

[DeletedUser13082]

HQ cannot be granted freedom however removing all defence from the HQ sector means the sector returns to an NPC sector and the HQ is put onto another sector owned by the guild. There are now guilds leap frogging from one sector to another to work their way inland with very cheap siege costs by taking a second sector and then releasing HQ so they can continue forward. If a HQ sector can't be granted freedom then why can it be freed simply by removing the defences. This has opened up a ridiculous loophole for guilds to exploit.

Surely this has to be a bug and would be classed as bug abuse and, therefore, against the rules?

10.2 It is prohibited to exploit bugs or faults in the games' programming and in the course of the game which could represent an advantage for the User for personal and/or third party purposes. Should the User discover any bugs, he/she must notify InnoGames without delay. As far as the player has derived benefits herefrom, these - as far as possible - shall be reimbursed. If the bugs or errors were intentionally exploited, this can lead to a termination of the Licensing Agreement and a deletion of the account.

The above quote shows that this IS rule breaking. This may not be classed as a bug but it is a fault. Rules have been broken and players have knowingly exploited a fault.

 

[DeletedUser]

no rule against it unfortunately... It is lame, but my guild was forced to do it in ME b/c we watched others do it for the last 2 weeks. This is not the only exploit being used right now either.

 

[DeletedUser13082]

no rule against it unfortunately... It is lame, but my guild was forced to do it in ME b/c we watched others do it for the last 2 weeks. This is not the only exploit being used right now either.

Clearly if the HQ cannot be granted freedom then it should only be removable by being taken by an enemy guild. So really this should be classed as a bug and if the defences are removed then it should work the same as a sector with only 1 defence, where when attacked, the defence automatically jumps to 2 defending armies. There are so many of the big name guilds taking every low road and dirty loophole they can find. Order of the Black, Warmongers and others. The annoying thing is they have enough players who use tons of diamonds to be able to heal the troops instantly. They could literally walk around the outside of the map and still have enough units to take 20% of the map straight after cause they never lose anything. Why do they need to use dirty tactics when they use diamonds anyway :/

 

[DeletedUser]

At the moment there is no rule in place to prevent this and isn't classed as a bug or a cheat, as GvG progresses this may be looked at, but at present this is really just a clever tactic employed by some guilds, Kim.

 

[DeletedUser]

It is one thing to not patch it and to fail to make a rule against it, but I find it very troubling that a member of the staff would also encourage this behavior as being clever. This cheat has many other implications

 

[DeletedUser]

I wouldnt say it is encouraged but numerous guilds are now doing this on all worlds if it was breaking a rule action would have been taken by now, Kim.

 

[DeletedUser13082]

I have to disagree with this being "clever". Not to try and stir an argument in anyway but to state this as being clever is pretty bad in my opinion. Cross world FP trading wasn't clever, still isn't, but many players found this tactic and exploited it.

The thing I'm trying to say is that, I believe, if you cannot grant the HQ freedom then surely this has to be a work around which should be classed as a bug. If not then why not just have a grant freedom option on the HQ to begin with? There are many underhand tactics already established in GvG and in the game in general, for example; Ghost guilds, cross world FP trading, multi accounting, the topic of conversation for this thread also included, and many many more. They are not clever though by any means. It is players exploiting loopholes that weren't noticed during development and none of them should be allowed in my opinion.

This is my opinion should come under the rule of bug abuse. They found that it was possible and rather than report it they chose to exploit it. Clever? I don't think so personally.

 

[DeletedUser97590]

Looks to me like a case of people crying over split milk.

 

[DeletedUser97590]

I have to disagree with this being "clever". Not to try and stir an argument in anyway but to state this as being clever is pretty bad in my opinion. Cross world FP trading wasn't clever, still isn't, but many players found this tactic and exploited it.

Comparing this tactic to cross world trading is the equivalent of making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Some people are smarter, that's life, you can't change it nor put rules on how smart people should be.

 

[DeletedUser]

Cross world trading is and always has been against the rules, and the moderators all work very hard to stop those who are doing this. Should this h.q. business ever become against the rules then we will tackle it, but at present there is no rule to say players can not do this, numerous guilds on all worlds are now doing this openly so it is open for all to try really, unless of course a rule is introduced to prevent it. Kim.

 

[DeletedUser13082]

I can assure you that when great buildings were released, cross world FP trading was NOT against the rules. The rules were edited and changed as it was deemed against the rules but was not clarified.

@jano, was it not the same type of "clever tactic" to gain a personal advantage? If a player was "clever" enough to utilise cross world FP trading when it was first established and was NOT against the game rules, then that was a clever thing to do. They gained an advantage by using their initiative. Now we have a HQ sector in GvG that should NOT have the option to be granted freedom. Players have found a way around this and are now able to grant freedom to their HQ despite the option not being available as it should not be done. How is one of these a bad thing and the other a good thing? They are both utilising a loophole in the game to gain advantage.

My personal take on this is that this will likely not be classed as bug abuse or rule breaking. Why? that's a simple question to answer; It is because players using this tactic spend a large amount of diamonds on healing their units so that they can get from one end of the map to the other without waiting around for unit healing/recruiting times. This means those players will spend more diamonds on the game. Now, personally I have nothing against somebody who uses diamonds, I say fair play and go for it. If you can afford it then why not. However, when bug abuse becomes "clever tactics" because it will earn more money, that's when there is a problem.

Now where clever tactics are concerned. Things such as holding back on a new map so that you can gain first access at a bottle neck area of the map which you can then use to cut off other guilds advancements, this is a clever tactic. Those guilds rushing in will now have very large goods costs for their sieges where as the patient, strategic minded player will have cheap sieges and easily be able to make life difficult for the advancing guilds. This is a clever tactic and a very good strategic manoeuvre for a guild to take in order to give themselves an advantage.

EDIT: Please note I am not saying that anybody has said that the reason for this being allowed is due to diamond usage. I am simply saying that is how it seems in my own opinion

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree with death ouron. This seems like a bug to me. To fix this, I can think of two solutions.

1. If a guild's HQ has already been moved that day, and they delete the last army of their HQ, then they simply don't get to have a HQ for the rest of the day.
2. Don't allow the last army in an HQ to be deleted unless the guild only has 1 sector.

 

[DeletedUser13082]

I agree with death ouron. This seems like a bug to me. To fix this, I can think of two solutions.

1. If a guild's HQ has already been moved that day, and they delete the last army of their HQ, then they simply don't get to have a HQ for the rest of the day.
2. Don't allow the last army in an HQ to be deleted unless the guild only has 1 sector.

I do agree that if a guild wants a fresh start then that should be an option. Remove HQ and head somewhere else, but as you say. HQ only possible to be removed if it is the only remaining sector available, if it is the only sector then the grant freedom option becomes available, if any other sector is owned then the HQ doesn't have grant freedom available.

As for deleting all armies, I think it should just stay as a guild owned sector but with no defending armies in it. As I mentioned earlier, if you attack a sector which only has 1 defending army then when you siege it another defending army is added to the sector at no cost. The same should happen for a sector with no defending armies and with both of these things implemented, the issue is resolved.

 

[DeletedUser]

I wouldnt say it is encouraged but numerous guilds are now doing this on all worlds if it was breaking a rule action would have been taken by now, Kim.

Well when I said it was encouraged, I was specifically referring to you calling it clever on numerous occasions (every time the subject has come up in fact). I would think that this is how you, as a mod, encourage something. In any event, I said there was no rule against it. That is part of the problem. If you want me to show you why it is ludicrous that this is even a possible action in the game, I can think of a couple guilds I can show you on. I would rather not because I don't want this behavior to become widespread and it will ruin it (even more) for everyone.

 

[DeletedUser]

I can assure you that when great buildings were released, cross world FP trading was NOT against the rules. The rules were edited and changed as it was deemed against the rules but was not clarified.

@jano, was it not the same type of "clever tactic" to gain a personal advantage? If a player was "clever" enough to utilise cross world FP trading when it was first established and was NOT against the game rules, then that was a clever thing to do. They gained an advantage by using their initiative. Now we have a HQ sector in GvG that should NOT have the option to be granted freedom. Players have found a way around this and are now able to grant freedom to their HQ despite the option not being available as it should not be done. How is one of these a bad thing and the other a good thing? They are both utilising a loophole in the game to gain advantage.

My personal take on this is that this will likely not be classed as bug abuse or rule breaking. Why? that's a simple question to answer; It is because players using this tactic spend a large amount of diamonds on healing their units so that they can get from one end of the map to the other without waiting around for unit healing/recruiting times. This means those players will spend more diamonds on the game. Now, personally I have nothing against somebody who uses diamonds, I say fair play and go for it. If you can afford it then why not. However, when bug abuse becomes "clever tactics" because it will earn more money, that's when there is a problem.

Now where clever tactics are concerned. Things such as holding back on a new map so that you can gain first access at a bottle neck area of the map which you can then use to cut off other guilds advancements, this is a clever tactic. Those guilds rushing in will now have very large goods costs for their sieges where as the patient, strategic minded player will have cheap sieges and easily be able to make life difficult for the advancing guilds. This is a clever tactic and a very good strategic manoeuvre for a guild to take in order to give themselves an advantage.

EDIT: Please note I am not saying that anybody has said that the reason for this being allowed is due to diamond usage. I am simply saying that is how it seems in my own opinion

diamonds have absolutely nothing to do with it man. Alcatraz will let you do this with one or two people. A guild wouldn't need to use many diamonds at all. Like I said, we had to do it in ME b/c we saw others do it for weeks. Just 3 of us were able to make 15 leapfrogs and take 9 sectors that first day. We had help with battling along the way, but all the siege armies and most of the fighting was done by 3 people. I agree the nerf changes were made to promote diamond spending, but this leapfrog thing is really just from poor planning and ignoring comments on beta. we mentioned ghost guild stuff and treasury problems from beginning too. Those weren't left in because of diamonds.

As people mentioned, why limit HQ move to once a day? Why make it so that the whole map can be conquered in 3-4 days? I thought this was a slow burn game.

 

[DeletedUser13082]

diamonds have absolutely nothing to do with it man. Alcatraz will let you do this with one or two people. A guild wouldn't need to use many diamonds at all. Like I said, we had to do it in ME b/c we saw others do it for weeks. Just 3 of us were able to make 15 leapfrogs and take 9 sectors that first day. We had help with battling along the way, but all the siege armies and most of the fighting was done by 3 people. I agree the nerf changes were made to promote diamond spending, but this leapfrog thing is really just from poor planning and ignoring comments on beta. we mentioned ghost guild stuff and treasury problems from beginning too. Those weren't left in because of diamonds.

As people mentioned, why limit HQ move to once a day? Why make it so that the whole map can be conquered in 3-4 days? I thought this was a slow burn game.

From what I have witnessed myself my opinion of the diamonds still stand but this is simply a differing of opinion, nothing more.

What we do agree on however is that it is not a "clever" tactic, it is bug abuse, no 2 ways about it. Also I was one of the beta server players when GvG came out, I went there to check it out and see what we were going to be up against so many of the bugs I was already aware of as you were and I agree that yes, poor planning, not listening to what beta players were saying and a very bad choice to release before finished have all mounted up to one overall bad decision which has had a very bad impact on the game.

Back on the subject at hand however. There are a lot of easy ways to fix this problem however once the ME map is conquered to the same extent as the other maps it won't be an issue again until a new age is released. I assume by then it will have been fixed, or at least I hope it will have been.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well one of 2 things can happen, either this will be left as is and people will keep leaping all over the maps, or something will be introduced, either a rule or more likely coding to stop there being the possibility of moving the hq this way, but until a change is made or a rule introduced to prevent this, I do say its a clever tactic as until its out-ruled I think that is it, perhaps i should add this as my opinion as a player rather than as a moderator, but the first time I saw this done I was firstly baffled, then after I worked it out I decided (as a player) wow thats clever lol.

As a moderator though I do admit this is causing a lot of chatter etc and so maybe it would be an idea to consider a change to prevent this being done then there can be no debate as to if its okay or not. Kim.

 

[DeletedUser13082]

Well one of 2 things can happen, either this will be left as is and people will keep leaping all over the maps, or something will be introduced, either a rule or more likely coding to stop there being the possibility of moving the hq this way, but until a change is made or a rule introduced to prevent this, I do say its a clever tactic as until its out-ruled I think that is it, perhaps i should add this as my opinion as a player rather than as a moderator, but the first time I saw this done I was firstly baffled, then after I worked it out I decided (as a player) wow thats clever lol.

As a moderator though I do admit this is causing a lot of chatter etc and so maybe it would be an idea to consider a change to prevent this being done then there can be no debate as to if its okay or not. Kim.

I can see your point as to why it would be clever, however, I think it would be clever if players were actually able to grant freedom to the HQ, while they are not able to I feel that the idea is that it shouldn't be possible to, and therefore would put this in the category of being a bug. Don't get me wrong, if the ability to grant freedom to a HQ was readily available then yes this would be a clever tactic to get to where the guild wanted to be rather than stuck near landing zones for an extended period of time. However that ability is not available, therefore, a guild shouldn't be able to do it. That is my take on the situation at least.

I hope you can see where I am coming from. I'm not saying you are wrong in believing it is a clever tactic, as if it were genuinely permitted, then it would be a clever tactic, and I would take my hat off to whoever thought of it first, as I know I would not have. As I feel it is not something that is not permitted, however, and is actually a loophole that was overlooked in development, I can't agree to it being clever at all, and in my eyes, it is most definitely a violation of bug abuse.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes I think the main issue here is the fact that normally we can only move HQ once per day unless this type of strategy is used. I guess the powers that be shall have to decide if to leave as is, or to make a change to prevent it. Kim.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes I think the main issue here is the fact that normally we can only move HQ once per day unless this type of strategy is used. I guess the powers that be shall have to decide if to leave as is, or to make a change to prevent it. Kim.

Given the fact that moving the HQ does not affect defense bonus location until after the calculation for the next day, you must ask yourself, "why can we only move it once a day?" The answer is obvious-to limit the amount of expansion possible in one day, which is also the same reason you can't expand from shielded sectors... This completely destroys the spirit of the rule because it isn't just used to "get a good spot." It is also used to be able to take 15 sectors in the first day. Completely demolishing the intent of the shield/HQ system. I ask again, what is the point of moving the HQ when it doesn't move defense bonus? To. get. more. sectors. They limited this on purpose.

Most successful acts can shallowly be described as clever, be they illegal, immoral, or whatever. All exploitations are "clever" in some way b/c they outsmart whoever made the rules. I don't think this is all that clever though and mimicking what others are doing is hardly clever in any sense. If people think they intended GvG just to be a foot race in first 2 days, then they have a very low estimation of the devs. This is also a tactic that ensures smaller guilds have absolutely no chance of doing anything significant in GvG. As if the cards weren't stacked against them enough.

To those who say we are whining. I am in the #1 guild on Houndsmoor and we didn't pull this weak stuff on principle until ME came out, even while others were doing it. It is bush league, but we finally had to do as the Romans were doing in ME.