Feedback for the GvG shutdown and the Guild Raids

[Mor-Rioghain]

GE is an individual component, GBG is very fluid based on when the timers reset and a sector opens. People can not spend all day, everyday waiting in Discord for others to show up to chat on voice while the GbG sectors are open.

That's a new one on me! You do realize that in order to win a championship in the Expedition you have to take the lead and if the other guilds clear a perfect score that you'd come in a place behind?

I believe the single biggest part of GvG which people like, who actually play frequently, is the designated time to meet.

You nailed it.

We lost that designated time to join up to play and chat at the same time.

And it was replaced with a group-friendly version of PvP.

We all know what the real long term problems with GvG are:

• It's possible that Inno's current design team doesn't even understand how GvG works

Methinks you have also hit the nail on the head.

They didn't refuse to fix them , the GVG lead developer was the real deal but he died and Inno doesn't pay the salary that a top developer would demand to replace them with an equal calibre developer. Most of the development now is cosmetic tweaks and skins over an existing API.

And that's probably the truest statement of them all.
******************
I'm afraid that we've all been misled (or lied to?): I never, EVER believed that only 5% of the players of FoE played GvG. I think that was the developer's only means to the only 'end' they wanted to see. They wanted GvG gone and now the deed is done. My guess is that it was accomplished with far fewer "casualties" than one might expect, sad to say.

On a "lighter" note: I'm still pondering what to do with all of my lower era units. The thought of deleting them 1 by 1 to satisfy questing requirements just seems a bit "extra."

 

[jaymoney23456]

That's a new one on me! You do realize that in order to win a championship in the Expedition you have to take the lead and if the other guilds clear a perfect score that you'd come in a place behind?

You nailed it.

And it was replaced with a group-friendly version of PvP.

Methinks you have also hit the nail on the head.

And that's probably the truest statement of them all.
******************
I'm afraid that we've all been misled (or lied to?): I never, EVER believed that only 5% of the players of FoE played GvG. I think that was the developer's only means to the only end they wanted to see. They wanted GvG gone and now the deed is done with far fewer "casualties" than one might expect, sad to say.

On a "lighter" note: I'm still pondering what to do with all of my lower era units. The thought of deleting them 1 by 1 to satisfy questing requirements just seems a bit "extra."

Couldn't have been much more than 5% of the player base that did GvG. Most players didn't have interest in it and only a relatively small number of guilds ever did much with it. GvG could have perhaps been fixed but it would have required eliminating all the botting/scripting going on in it. Also, lame that it was only ever once a day at the exact same time every day. Makes it seem like a job more so than a game.

 

[Mor-Rioghain]

Couldn't have been much more than 5% of the player base that did GvG. Most players didn't have interest in it and only a relatively small number of guilds ever did much with it. GvG could have perhaps been fixed but it would have required eliminating all the botting/scripting going on in it. Also, lame that it was only ever once a day at the exact same time every day. Makes it seem like a job more so than a game.

Yep. Heard this before and still don't believe it. Doesn't it even bother anyone in the slightest that the time frame in which they conducted this "survey" was less than a few months and that it only included a truncated list of Beta players?

And with the bots - again?

Does anyone even actually know what a bot is much less what it's able to do anymore????

 

[jaymoney23456]

Yep. Heard this before and still don't believe it. Doesn't it even bother anyone in the slightest that the time frame in which they conducted this "survey" was less than a few months and that it only included a truncated list of Beta players?

And with the bots - again?

Does anyone even actually know what a bot is much less what it's able to do anymore????

Evidence for bot use is overwhelming. Numerous players have flat out admitted to using a bot or script to fight for them. There are youtube videos showing a single player doing say 20 fights in a second or two with them (not possible with even clicking autobattle as fast as possible). Impossible to know exact percentage who did GvG but its pretty clear that a large majority did not participate.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

Evidence for bot use is overwhelming. Numerous players have flat out admitted to using a bot or script to fight for them. There are youtube videos showing a single player doing say 20 fights in a second or two with them (not possible with even clicking autobattle as fast as possible). Impossible to know exact percentage who did GvG but its pretty clear that a large majority did not participate.

You keep saying this but never bring any evidence of it but "people say" or "most" when in reality most means the 4 people you asked or "People say" means the 1 or 2 people saying the exact same trope as you are. You continually reference all those videos of it existing but if you search they aren't there.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

Evidence for bot use is overwhelming. Numerous players have flat out admitted to using a bot or script to fight for them. There are youtube videos showing a single player doing say 20 fights in a second or two with them (not possible with even clicking autobattle as fast as possible). Impossible to know exact percentage who did GvG but its pretty clear that a large majority did not participate.

A large majority is not a number like 5% is. A large majority is 60%- 100%. More blah blah from you with zero evidence to back it up besides "People say"

 

[jaymoney23456]

You keep saying this but never bring any evidence of it but "people say" or "most" when in reality most means the 4 people you asked or "People say" means the 1 or 2 people saying the exact same trope as you are. You continually reference all those videos of it existing but if you search they aren't there.

You can easily find a youtube video showing this if you wanted to look. Really don't care if you do or not or what you believe about bot use.

 

[jaymoney23456]

A large majority is not a number like 5% is. A large majority is 60%- 100%. More blah blah from you with zero evidence to back it up besides "People say"

So what percentage is it then if you apparently know everything?

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

So what percentage is it then if you apparently know everything?

I never said I did but you sure do at every chance you get

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

You can easily find a youtube video showing this if you wanted to look. Really don't care if you do or not or what you believe about bot use.

No you can't I looked and they are not there , liar.

 

[jaymoney23456]

No you can't I looked and they are not there , liar.

You just like to argue and since it seems you are not very good at it you like to get mad when others disagree with you.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

You just like to argue and since it seems you are not very good at it you like to get mad when others disagree with you.

You have some undiagnosed mental illness , this obsessive bashing of Inno is really not a sign of a stable mind.

 

[jaymoney23456]

You have some undiagnosed mental illness , this obsessive bashing of Inno is really not a sign of a stable mind.

You have nothing useful to say and are simply here trolling. Time to put you back on ignore

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

You have nothing useful to say and are simply here trolling. Time to put you back on ignore

Leave everyone play their game in peace you weirdo , go obsess about how another game is so bad for a year and then come back. We are all tired of you bashing a game that we are trying to enjoy inspite of your constant disparaging comments. If I owned Inno your game account and this one would be closed on sight. You are not commenting on a game you are slandering Inno.

 

[Mor-Rioghain]

Evidence for bot use is overwhelming.

Anything substantive or is it more of the same screaming that's been done over and over?

Numerous players have flat out admitted to using a bot or script to fight for them. There are youtube videos showing a single player doing say 20 fights in a second or two with them (not possible with even clicking autobattle as fast as possible).

Yes, I've seen many videos and I suppose it wouldn't surprise you at all that 20 fights per second is actually pretty normal? (I've done click-tests and done more fights than that and I'm rated as a "turtle," so yeah, I think my opinion on this point is valid.

Impossible to know exact percentage who did GvG but its pretty clear that a large majority did not participate.

Awfully vague.

Inno has made their position clear on the use of cheats, bots, and whatnot: GIVE SUBSTANTIVE PROOF. What you clearly deem substantive and what actually "is" substantive are obviously very different from each other! They have an in-game reporting system for those "braggarts" wishing to share their exploits, why not use it? They can snap the log or thread and the proof is right before their eyes - problem solved - ban ensuing.

You certainly have a right to your opinion but so does everyone else. I for one am tired of hearing"cheat" when what people mean is "treated unfairly." If people's sense of fairplay has been tarnished or even broken due to lack of a satisfactory response (or what they deem satisfactory) from the developer, then why not concentrate of finding out the exact type of evidence Inno needs/wants to pursue an investigation? Can y'all really be so naive and inexperienced in the doings of a multi-million (billion?) dollar business that you can't fathom that they'd have to literally comb through millions and millions of computations to find the proverbial needle(s) in the haystack(s)? ("I saw the swords going up really, really fast in PME, 32.15 last night just after recalc. That's proof they're using bots." "That guild took an entire sector in less than 20 seconds. They must be botting.")

Screaming about cheating just drowns out the voices of those with legitimate complaints and actual evidence supporting those complaints.

Maybe if y'all stopped screaming, someone might listen to you.

 

[jaymoney23456]

Anything substantive or is it more of the same screaming that's been done over and over?

Yes, I've seen many videos and I suppose it wouldn't surprise you at all that 20 fights per second is actually pretty normal? (I've done click-tests and done more fights than that and I'm rated as a "turtle," so yeah, I think my opinion on this point is valid.

Awfully vague.

Inno has made their position clear on the use of cheats, bots, and whatnot: GIVE SUBSTANTIVE PROOF. What you clearly deem substantive and what actually "is" substantive are obviously very different from each other! They have an in-game reporting system for those "braggarts" wishing to share their exploits, why not use it? They can snap the log or thread and the proof is right before their eyes - problem solved - ban ensuing.

You certainly have a right to your opinion but so does everyone else. I for one am tired of hearing"cheat" when what people mean is "treated unfairly." If people's sense of fairplay has been tarnished or even broken due to lack of a satisfactory response (or what they deem satisfactory) from the developer, then why not concentrate of finding out the exact type of evidence Inno needs/wants to pursue an investigation? Can y'all really be so naive and inexperienced in the doings of a multi-million (billion?) dollar business that you can't fathom that they'd have to literally comb through millions and millions of computations to find the proverbial needle(s) in the haystack(s)? ("I saw the swords going up really, really fast in PME, 32.15 last night just after recalc. That's proof they're using bots." "That guild took an entire sector in less than 20 seconds. They must be botting.")

Screaming about cheating just drowns out the voices of those with legitimate complaints and actual evidence supporting those complaints.

Maybe if y'all stopped screaming, someone might listen to you.

You can't seriously think you can even click your mouse even close to 20 times a second. Not humanly possible but why not make such a physically impossible claim. Others like to lol

 

[jaymoney23456]

Anything substantive or is it more of the same screaming that's been done over and over?

Yes, I've seen many videos and I suppose it wouldn't surprise you at all that 20 fights per second is actually pretty normal? (I've done click-tests and done more fights than that and I'm rated as a "turtle," so yeah, I think my opinion on this point is valid.

Awfully vague.

Inno has made their position clear on the use of cheats, bots, and whatnot: GIVE SUBSTANTIVE PROOF. What you clearly deem substantive and what actually "is" substantive are obviously very different from each other! They have an in-game reporting system for those "braggarts" wishing to share their exploits, why not use it? They can snap the log or thread and the proof is right before their eyes - problem solved - ban ensuing.

You certainly have a right to your opinion but so does everyone else. I for one am tired of hearing"cheat" when what people mean is "treated unfairly." If people's sense of fairplay has been tarnished or even broken due to lack of a satisfactory response (or what they deem satisfactory) from the developer, then why not concentrate of finding out the exact type of evidence Inno needs/wants to pursue an investigation? Can y'all really be so naive and inexperienced in the doings of a multi-million (billion?) dollar business that you can't fathom that they'd have to literally comb through millions and millions of computations to find the proverbial needle(s) in the haystack(s)? ("I saw the swords going up really, really fast in PME, 32.15 last night just after recalc. That's proof they're using bots." "That guild took an entire sector in less than 20 seconds. They must be botting.")

Screaming about cheating just drowns out the voices of those with legitimate complaints and actual evidence supporting those complaints.

Maybe if y'all stopped screaming, someone might listen to you.

I am not trying to prove to anyone on the forums that bot use is actually going on. I know it happens and others can choose to believe what they like.

 

[Mor-Rioghain]

You can't seriously think you can even click your mouse even close to 20 times a second. Not humanly possible but why not make such a physically impossible claim. Others like to lol

Okay, you got me but it made be go back and test myself. I misread the text on the test screen, not realizing that it was testing in 10 second groups. I ammended that and tested at 12 clicks per second, much faster than I'd expected. Not shabby for an "Octopus." "Cheetah's" typically click 13-15 clicks per second and that's not really very much lower than your assertion that "20 clicks is not humanly possible." So much for substantive evidence.

In all of your arguments to date, you also completely ignore the fact that there are programmable mice/mousepad/joysticks that enable the user to set up an auto-clicking macro at "X" clicks per second. Does that equal cheating? It's generally accepted that a game "cheat" is breaking into the coding and an "exploit" is finding a loophole in the programming (code) enabling the person using it to augment or increase an action, such as rapid mouse clicks. It's also generally accepted that exploits are available to anyone so it levels the playing field, meaning all of those using the software, i.e., game, could do it if they wanted to.

So, yes, based on those generally accepted guidelines, a mouse/mousepad/joystick that was programmed with such a macro constitutes more of a cheat than an exploit BUT isn't the real question whether or not the developers think so as well? What if they've investigated a purported 'cheater' and found no evidence to support that assertion? IF a human could do, then it's not a cheat by pretty much any definition in the industry.

I personally wouldn't risk my gaming account on such an "if" but many do and who's to say they're wrong? (Yes, I know you do....but you don't seem to define cheating by any standard I've encountered as legitimate in the industry). At the end of the day it's about providing the developers - Inno - with proof they can actually do something with. Yes, counting mouse clicks, per se, is a fine start but I'm afraid you're going to have to offer more than "it was fast" and "it's not humanly possible" to get their attention.

I'm slow as molasses in the winter time and I came pretty darned close to top-end on the click test. Imagine what I could do with a little more practice.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

Yep. Heard this before and still don't believe it. Doesn't it even bother anyone in the slightest that the time frame in which they conducted this "survey" was less than a few months and that it only included a truncated list of Beta players?

What "survey" are you talking about? The 5% number didn't come from a "survey", it came from Inno's data on game play. And it was the live servers, not Beta that the numbers were from.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Okay, you got me but it made be go back and test myself. I misread the text on the test screen, not realizing that it was testing in 10 second groups. I ammended that and tested at 12 clicks per second, much faster than I'd expected. Not shabby for an "Octopus." "Cheetah's" typically click 13-15 clicks per second and that's not really very much lower than your assertion that "20 clicks is not humanly possible." So much for substantive evidence.

In all of your arguments to date, you also completely ignore the fact that there are programmable mice/mousepad/joysticks that enable the user to set up an auto-clicking macro at "X" clicks per second. Does that equal cheating? It's generally accepted that a game "cheat" is breaking into the coding and an "exploit" is finding a loophole in the programming (code) enabling the person using it to augment or increase an action, such as rapid mouse clicks. It's also generally accepted that exploits are available to anyone so it levels the playing field, meaning all of those using the software, i.e., game, could do it if they wanted to.

So, yes, based on those generally accepted guidelines, a mouse/mousepad/joystick that was programmed with such a macro constitutes more of a cheat than an exploit BUT isn't the real question whether or not the developers think so as well? What if they've investigated a purported 'cheater' and found no evidence to support that assertion? IF a human could do, then it's not a cheat by pretty much any definition in the industry.

I personally wouldn't risk my gaming account on such an "if" but many do and who's to say they're wrong? (Yes, I know you do....but you don't seem to define cheating by any standard I've encountered as legitimate in the industry). At the end of the day it's about providing the developers - Inno - with proof they can actually do something with. Yes, counting mouse clicks, per se, is a fine start but I'm afraid you're going to have to offer more than "it was fast" and "it's not humanly possible" to get their attention.

I'm slow as molasses in the winter time and I came pretty darned close to top-end on the click test. Imagine what I could do with a little more practice.

You're testing CPS which is not really relevant because, in FoE battling, movement of the cursor is required (except during 2-wave battles). Taking into consideration the need to move the cursor, a fast player can probably complete a battle in 1 to 1.5 seconds.