Given the resources at our disposal ensuring no one is camping a house is the most fair way to put the fires out. We have someone that goes out takes a look at the area and checks to see if anyone's camping it. If someone is they go to another shard and drop that house. This can be at any time during the week night or day time completely at random.
I could add this to my suggestion box for something for the developers to look over for future projects or events. However, the resources that would be able to do this are working hard on the expansion.
I think a generalized lotto system would be very useful! It could work really similarly to how holiday gifts are given out, with the lottery item being the "rare" item, so the only difference is instead of getting .5% chance to get a white bell there would be one person to get whatever it is in the lottery. Then they get so much time to claim it and if they don't claim whatever it is the lottery is redone.
They randomly picked people off of test center I think. Then they emailed them, but email was futzy (so some people never got their YOU WON email), then some people who did win never emailed back...not all the castles got given away, there was a big delay, then everyone forgot about the whole thing.
If they go the lottery route - a gump like what they did for AOS rewards would suit nicely. Pops up every time you logon until you have selected your gift, or in this case, until a GM has transferred the plot to you.
From what Chrissay said...hes just delaying the dropping of the house, so hes wasting his own time.
Rich, the're not wasting anything, they're not a player there, just characters executing scripts! And as far as I can search with reasonable accuracy, they're everywhere. Thus the earlier, more "direct" recommendation
Think of it this way, its one less scripting account farming resources or bodsRich, the're not wasting anything, they're not a player there, just characters executing scripts! And as far as I can search with reasonable accuracy, they're everywhere. Thus the earlier, more "direct" recommendation
Always a bright side eh? Regarding the GMs, my understanding is that in an instance such as this, they can't do anything, for reason best not dicussed here. As you can derive from Chrissay's comment and disclosed course of action, dev's response to this action has been determined, and my guess is not by the GM staff. If we'd like to see a different response, our only alternative is to provide recommendations that Chrissay may or may not forward along to the decision maker!Think of it this way, its one less scripting account farming resources or bods
I know what you mean...maybe you should page on them? Not saying you havent but do it every couple of hourse, maybe the gms will do something.
Always Look on the bright side of life, *Whistles*
So, you honestly think some guy has sat there for that long and not doing anything illegal? If he is bowing over and over to stay logged in, that is an action...
Chrissay,
I don't want the spot, but am sure Garth and others are interested. Now, your next comment about "not doing anything illegal" is an assumption, and very possibly an incorrect one depending on one's interpretation. There are packets or sends or whatever they call them (I'm trying to speak about technical info I am totally ignorant regarding, but relay from an absolute and solid "informed source," thus my "jargon" may go astray and will be "limited" at best), that are received by the host server. A "valid send" is seen server side as well, a valid send, such as a command to place a house. The source, or technique, is not seen without human intervention or until introduction of something similar to PB. At that juncture a couple things "get in the way." Some of you folks need to pay more attention to what Chrissay says - and honestly is doing extremely well at saying. She's giving you the info you need to determine where they as our team are, and why, without exposing anything she isn't supposed to. Don't forget she lives under an NDA, and even without one, has displayed requisite judgment to temper comments. Resources affect capability. Decisions are made based on resources and priorities. Decisions and actions are subject to review. Chrissay just explained the unattended macro policy, a policy written, disseminated and agreed to by all players. Scripts can open a different legal “can of worms,” and while they may be interpreted by appropriate personnel, resources must be committed, judgment formed, and then possibly action taken. They’ve decided to take a look and move on if any questionable activity might be occurring there; after all, it’s a pixel “plot” that they can get back to at anytime, and no conflict is created. The EA legal department is what in my previous life we'd refer to as at the "higher headquarters," not in VA. Given authority, sure I'd probably go a different route (see above), but it might not stand legal review - I grew up as an infantry officer and a sense of decisiveness with deference to consequence at a later time is somewhat engrained. So, in response to your comment, 1) who are you to criticize anyone legitimately trying to put a house there, 2) you're not fully informed regarding both mechanical and human capability and restriction, and 3) you seem unengaged in efforts to analyze what is occurring regarding the issue/ concerns raised by others. Sincere apologies if you’re offended, it’s not my “style” or intent, but on this one we seem to be on very different pages indeed.
I will repeat the FAQ "you have to be doing something, such as a skill, chat, or action to be in violation of our unattended macroing policy."Chrissay,
Perhaps you could settle a long-standing U-hall debate (even though Developers have answered in the past - many do not accept their statements). Is standing afk at Luna gate considered afk-macroing if the only thing keeping you logged in is using the "Show approaching names" option?
Many say that because you do not "actively" do anything that this is acceptable, others say that even though "show approaching names" is not a player-set macro, it is still an action and therefore illegal.
Official statement please!
You're missing the point Einstein. He's camping the spot 23 hrs and 45 minutes of every day. He's still there, and has been since I made my first response. Now Chrissays responding in defense of what it means to macro unattended. I give up...seriously.
I'm not missing the point, yes he is probably scripting to get the spot.
You do realise that you walking on to his screen every 10minutes is enough to keep him logged in??
Sadly, that does not answer the question... to put it more directly, when someone approaches you and triggers your "show approaching names"... is this considered an action on your part?
I think its clear by her post, that is not classed as an action on your part. If it was, she would have said so, not just repeated what she said about performing actions.
Please clarify this for me. I specifically am asking about hidden characters. If a character is hidden they are using a skill (Hide). If they do not get revealed - and they will not be revealed in Luna - then they do not have to perform any action to stay hidden and they will not gain skill. So, they do not need to macro the Hide skill in order to stay hidden in Luna. However, they are still actively using a skill (Hide) and should be required to respond to a Game Master if one attempts to speak to them or they are in violation of the TOS if they are unattended. Do I understand the TOS accurately?
I honestly think they don't want to clarify it because if you define your policy beyond that of the the general TOS statement, players could use that to find some new loophole... so they just say "action" and leave what "action" means up to the GM and up to the current state of the game.
You may be right. It seems to me that if a character is suspected to be hidding in the same location from server up to server down it is highly unlikely they are attended the entire time. If players are required to be attended while using a skill then Hiding requires being attended. If worded properly a Game Master might respond to a report of violation of TOS for unattended while using a Skill. The staying active due to all names does not even have to be a factor - it is the use of the Skill while unattended that would be in violation.
Perhaps they did check, and when the GM asked if he was there, he responded yes. You are assuming that he is always AFK, when he might be attended for a large part of the day, and that just happened to be when they checked. Can't ban him if he responds to the GM. I understand your frustration, and that he is likely AFK sometimes, but he is also likely there alot too.
dude, you have issues.
Seriously though, man, if he responds to them when the GM checks to see if he is AFK or not, what can they do?
*gathers data from the thread*
