Age-old GBG still unfixed!

[Johnny B. Goode]

a.) Apparently the foe staff are comfortable with broken code existing in their game machine as exemplified by letting something that's been identified and reported continue to exist.

Well, I guess they could shut down GBG until they can isolate the problem and get it fixed. Would that make you happy? I'm guessing not. Given that by everyone's accounts it is exceedingly rare, and apparently difficult-to-impossible for the devs to duplicate (which makes it nigh on impossible to fix), such a shutdown would probably be lengthy. I'm sure you and the OP would then be complaining about that.

b.) Apparently many posters to this thread are okay with the same thing.

No, many posters to this thread know that the "glitch" is exceedingly rare and has minor effect on the game. And thus would be way down on the priority list, especially given the apparent difficulty of replicating it. Maybe if you had more experience with such things in the real world you would understand better. With something that rarely happens and has no obvious cause, not being able to replicate it means that trial and error is the only way to try to figure it out. I've seen this very thing happen with automobiles and computers, just to name two things. Yes, it's frustrating from your end, but I imagine it's also frustrating to the Inno people tasked with trying to figure it out. You want them to go with trial and error in the actual live game? Again, I'm guessing not.

 

[Emberguard]

"Lots of players". How many do you really think were affected? The Smithy can only be obtained by winning battles in GBG. I'm moderately active and get in approximately 4500 fights each season. So, two complete seasons plus a little over a half of a third. So far, I've managed to collect 570 frags of the Smithy (enough for only one building). This works out to roughly one Smithy for every 10K battles. First off, not that many players do 10K battles in 2.66 seasons. Secondly, for those that do manage this number of fights, they would only have 1 Smithy. I will wager that a few players may have 3 Smithys, a few more may have 2, and a bunch have 1. Most players have none. Besides you, how upset do you really think players are over not being able to use one, or two, Smithy productions towards quest completions? Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

While you're probably right on not many people having the building, you could also look at it as effecting the most active players.

On the plus side, Wyverntide Smithy has already been fixed for close to a week now.

 

[TotalTrash]

If I have to pay, there is no such thing as a "minor" bug. There is no such thing as waiting for years to have it fixed, especially when it's blatantly obvious that it could be done quite readily. The customer is king, remember that? Probably not...

So, instead of demanding excellence for your money, you guys make excuses for Inno's incompetence!
Perhaps that's just a sign of the times, but that's how it has always been on these sniveling forums - and it's disgusting.

 

[Dominator - X]

For another week. Then your kind can have the forums to yourselves again. Happy groveling!

I have never met a happy groveler. However, things will never be as lively without you, starting next Friday. Am I able to call out your hypocrisy too, when you show up in the future? Or will you grovel when I do?

 

[Dominator - X]

Players in small or solo Guilds could double what they gain from the attrition limit, by taking more time.

So, they would secure less advances, yet get less attrition doing it? Sounds like "great fun". Well, at least for everyone else.

 

[Dominator - X]

Grand conspiracy or not I have to say the responses to the original post are interesting.

a.) Apparently the foe staff are comfortable with broken code existing in their game machine as exemplified by letting something that's been identified and reported continue to exist.

b.) Apparently many posters to this thread are okay with the same thing.

I'd like to point out that if foe staff had fixed it promptly as it was reported it would not again be a discussion topic. It leads players like me to question what else might they be ignoring and why?

c.) It is as important to the "foe staff" as it is to everyone else, save for the OCD players amongst us who feel the need to scream about an issue that most players notice, but care very little about, since it impacts their lives and game in a (superlative-boosted) minuscule way.

 

[Emberguard]

If I have to pay, there is no such thing as a "minor" bug. There is no such thing as waiting for years to have it fixed, especially when it's blatantly obvious that it could be done quite readily. The customer is king, remember that? Probably not...

They’ve already released multiple bug fixes for it across the years, and it’s far less frequent now than before those fixes. It’s not perfect. Would be great if it were better. But they have worked on it

 

[WillyTwoShoes]

Well, I guess they could shut down GBG until they can isolate the problem and get it fixed. Would that make you happy? I'm guessing not. Given that by everyone's accounts it is exceedingly rare, and apparently difficult-to-impossible for the devs to duplicate (which makes it nigh on impossible to fix), such a shutdown would probably be lengthy. I'm sure you and the OP would then be complaining about that.

I'd like to point out that GBG runs for 11 days then shuts down for 4. For the record I haven't complained about anything in this thread I simply made a couple of observations.

No, many posters to this thread know that the "glitch" is exceedingly rare and has minor effect on the game. And thus would be way down on the priority list, especially given the apparent difficulty of replicating it. Maybe if you had more experience with such things in the real world you would understand better. With something that rarely happens and has no obvious cause, not being able to replicate it means that trial and error is the only way to try to figure it out.

Interesting.

First off I have never personally seen the bug in GBG as it was displayed in the original post. I took it for granted that it might have been a misunderstanding or a photoshopped effort at misdirection. However given the number of players who have attested to the bug still being present (including yourself) I took it as a given that the bug exists, has been documented, and has yet to be fixed.

Making assumptions about my level of expertise and experience concerning "such things" does nothing to elevate the discussion or fix the problem. I do have enough savvy to recognize that no glitch no matter how rare has a "minor" effect in any well constructed program.

For the sake of discussion however lets say that this glitch is rare and has a minor effect on the overall GBG experience. To paraphrase "with something that rarely happens and has no obvious cause, not being able to replicate it means.... " is not something that inspires confidence in any product I choose to make use of.

 

[WillyTwoShoes]

They’ve already released multiple bug fixes for it across the years, and it’s far less frequent now than before those fixes. It’s not perfect. Would be great if it were better. But they have worked on it

Here again, that does nothing to inspire confidence in a product I am making use of.
Just saying....

 

[Pericles the Lion]

How many can truly say that the towers are really worth the hassle of always going for first in GbG at this point? It leads to friendly guilds having falling outs and players who are friends having a falling out. Hardly anyone ever seems to like how it goes now either. At least, few in my guild or that we see on GbG maps.

I have both Towers at level 2 and will have a L1 Wyverntide Spire in a few days. I don't know what's going on in your Guild but there is no "falling out" happening in mine over the commitment to being #1. If you're looking for justification to not play your best you won't find it here.

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

//

So, they would secure less advances, yet get less attrition doing it? Sounds like "great fun". Well, at least for everyone else.

My entire original post:
One good idea would be to make fully manual battles in GbG worth 2 points!
Autobattling would still be one point. and any partial autobattle in a manual fight would still be only one point
The manual battle would have to be fully manual from start to finish to get two points for it.
This would be great fun. And a double bonus for high attrition fights!
A fully manual battle certainly would be worth two points since it takes about as long as a Negotiation...
Players in small or solo Guilds could double what they gain from the attrition limit, by taking more time"

You have it partially backwards. they would secure double advances, just like for Negotiations! thus they would get less attrition for the number of advances. but ti would cost more time to do manual battles

 

[jaymoney23456]

I have both Towers at level 2 and will have a L1 Wyverntide Spire in a few days. I don't know what's going on in your Guild but there is no "falling out" happening in mine over the commitment to being #1. If you're looking for justification to not play your best you won't find it here.

Are you involved in leadership in your guild? Lots of players are just along for the ride in top guilds who don't have to deal with the irritation between guilds over the whole thing or the time commitment to running things.

 

[jaymoney23456]

//

My entire original post:
One good idea would be to make fully manual battles in GbG worth 2 points!
Autobattling would still be one point. and any partial autobattle in a manual fight would still be only one point
The manual battle would have to be fully manual from start to finish to get two points for it.
This would be great fun. And a double bonus for high attrition fights!
A fully manual battle certainly would be worth two points since it takes about as long as a Negotiation...
Players in small or solo Guilds could double what they gain from the attrition limit, by taking more time"

You have it partially backwards. they would secure double advances, just like for Negotiations! thus they would get less attrition for the number of advances. but ti would cost more time to do manual battles

How is having manual battles going to improve anything. They are unbelievably tedious given that even games on the original nintendo that had fighting were way more advanced than the fighting mechanism for manual battles in FOE. I am sure most players have little interest in manual fighting. lol

 

[jaymoney23456]

I have both Towers at level 2 and will have a L1 Wyverntide Spire in a few days. I don't know what's going on in your Guild but there is no "falling out" happening in mine over the commitment to being #1. If you're looking for justification to not play your best you won't find it here.

This is a classic answer of the freeloaders who think top guilds are great because they are in them but don't have to do much of anything to actually contribute beyond show up sometimes and do some clicks in GbG.

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

How is having manual battles going to improve anything.

Players are high levels of attrition often manually battle to squeeze out the last few fights.
Players do plenty of Negotiations only to get the 2 advance at a time. When doing sectors with a high attrition penalty.

 

[Dominator - X]

I'd like to point out that GBG runs for 11 days then shuts down for 4. For the record I haven't complained about anything in this thread I simply made a couple of observations.

I hate to break it to you, but you may want to observe things more closely, since GBG "shuts down" for 3 days.

 

[jaymoney23456]

I hate to break it to you, but you may want to observe things more closely, since GBG "shuts down" for 3 days.

You don't think he may mean that GbG basically ends on Sunday for those that don't stay up late or get up early on Monday and it starts up again on Thursday-that would be 4 days. Why engage in pointless arguments about semantics?

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

You don't think he may mean that GbG basically ends on Sunday for those that don't stay up late or get up early on Monday and it starts up again on Thursday-that would be 4 days. Why engage in pointless arguments about semantics?

Semantics ? That is not semantics , a store doesn't close just because you aren't there. It's 11 days and shut down for 3. 11 and shut down for 4 as Willy said would give 15 day cycles which are not the case.

 

[Dominator - X]

You don't think he may mean that GbG basically ends on Sunday for those that don't stay up late or get up early on Monday and it starts up again on Thursday-that would be 4 days. Why engage in pointless arguments about semantics?

If you read his post, you should be able to understand (on your own) the "4 days" he referenced has nothing to do with what the players do and everything to do with what INNO does with those (3, not 4) days. Nothing semantic about it.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

This is a classic answer of the freeloaders who think top guilds are great because they are in them but don't have to do much of anything to actually contribute beyond show up sometimes ands do some clicks in GbG.

Yeah, that's how it works in top guilds. No obligations to perform whatsoever. Just show up every now and again to reap the benefits. You should try it sometime.