Proposal - Clear Dead GB from contribution list

Discussion in 'Proposals' started by sethton, May 15, 2018.

  1. sethton

    sethton Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2018
    only getting a fraction back would be a consolation to the fact that you had been trying to play the game with that person but something happened and they left and because them leaving is out of your control you get "some" of your fp back. but under normal circumstances you wouldn't even bother because if the person is playing eventually they would level that building. I think getting all back could be used as abuse. If someone had "friends" or multiple accounts then they could use it as a bank to save up large amounts of fp only to have them returned into ones bar and have 5000 10000 fp .... this would be unfair.

    so the bases of the idea is the under normal circumstances you don't want to abort, but if forced to abort (because your OCD about your list) you don't lose all you worked for. but it needs to be a small enough of a return that no one would be encouraged to use it all the time as "fun"
     
  2. sethton

    sethton Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2018
    The reason i used your post is because of your last comment. and i quote "Which leads me to believe that the only real purpose of this proposal is a refund of FPs, which is also the only part of it that is an abuse magnet" it is not an abuse magnet with what has already been proposed in the original post. if you only get a small (1/4, 1/8, 1/10) fraction of fp back and the owner, if active, has to approve or deny, then it really cant be "abused".

    so you implying that i only made this proposal to get 5 fp back out of 500 i donated would be ignorant. If you read all i posted to start and thought about the full concept with the small fraction and popup on the GB owner side how is there abuse?
     
  3. Graviton

    Graviton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2015
    Here's the proposal to remove GBs from one's list, from back in February:

    https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com...ntribution-list-without-withdrawing-fp.21804/

    I don't see that it was actually submitted for voting.

    Here is Salsuero's proposal for a refund of FPs, which has been moved to the Closed/Archived section:
    https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com...urn-forge-points-to-donor-for-dead-gbs.20691/

    Lots of discussion about how it could be abused there. All found in about 15 minutes of searching. ;)
     
    Titris Thrawns likes this.
  4. sethton

    sethton Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2018
    Ok.. thats great i am asking your thoughts. how YOU specifically think it can be abused. not other others thing. you commented on my post so i would like to here how under my proposal with the ideas i have in place how it can be abused. if you specifically don't have any ideas on with my ideas in place it could be abused then i was correct in commenting on your original post that you did not read correctly.

    this is my point. if you personally think it can be abused with what i have suggested in place ( not what others have suggested if it in anyway differs from my proposal) then i would like to know how. if you do not know how then please dont just jump on the turnip farm wagon.
     
  5. Graviton

    Graviton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2015
    What, I need to come up with a brand-new way it can be abused that nobody else has mentioned? Good grief, man.

    Since you keep trying to shut me up, I'll respond by suggesting that you search the forums before proposing something that's already been posted and rejected.
     
  6. sethton

    sethton Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2018
    I went and took a look at the link you provided in your comment. it is 100% different then my proposal. so comparing them as apples is not accurate. comparing them at all is not accurate. they are different proposals with slightly similar ideas but still very different and with what i have proposed i still dont see any actual potential for abuse.
     
  7. sethton

    sethton Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2018
    my proposal has not be suggested and rejected. not in the current format. and yes if you want to throw the word abuse around you should have something to back it up with otherwise you are simply discounting the idea for no reason
     
  8. sethton

    sethton Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2018
    Also i am in no way trying to get you to shut up i would love it if you could offer something helpful to the post or thread. but honestly so far all you have done is said it could be abused but offered no proof or suggestions as to how. i believe what i have proposed has deterred the current ideas of how it could have been abused.

    ONLY AN EXAMPLE
    If i told the mods you were being rude and abusive but did not back it up with any proof then they would ignore me because it was pointless for me to complain.
    this in effect is what you are saying here.
    its abuse its abuse
    how?
    i dont know but it is !

    i have searched the threads and i think my idea would work with no real abuse in site. change my mind
     
  9. Graviton

    Graviton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2015
    There are two links, not just one. But okay. Let's look at this claim that they're 100% different.

    Your proposal:
    "The ability to remove a GB from your contribution list when the player has quit or the GB can no longer have Forge Points added to it."

    From the first link:
    "Allow players to remove arbitrary great building entries in their contribution list."

    Your proposal:
    "Also it would be nice to get a fraction of your Forge points back that are now "lost" in this GB. A quarter FP returned or something like this but not a full refund."

    From the second link:
    "Players should get back the forge points invested in Great Buildings of players who have quit the game or have been banned through no fault of the investor."

    So we're somewhere south of 100% I think.

    You do suggest a popup, but that wouldn't prevent abuse, as two or more players could conspire together to use GBs as an FP bank, as others have pointed out. That would be called "abuse".

    You can now have the last word on your abuse-prone proposal that's already been proposed, albeit in slightly different forms, twice.
     
  10. sethton

    sethton Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2018
    again my proposal is both removal of the GB and a small fraction of fp back. the first link is only removal of gb so different and the second is a full refund of fp with no removal so different. neither are the same. your example of an elephant is different that my proposal of an apple.

    even if someone used the gb as a bank if the fraction was small enough then why would anyone do it and would it truly be considered abuse?
    bob donates 1000 fp and gets 10 back how is this a "bank" that anyone would use? in no way would you ever get a full refund even if two players worked together so its still not abuse.

    i truly understand what you are trying to say but they are so different i dont understand your argument. they just are not the same and cant be abused in such a way that would truly benefit any player over what another player as the option of getting
     
  11. Volodya

    Volodya Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2014
    I have 20 pages of gb contributions (I imagine other players have a lot more) but yeah, who cares? It's rather easy not to click past the 1st several active pages. The one adjustment in this stuff I think is worth considering is having fully-leveled gbs automatically collect after a certain amount of time; a month? 6 months? I dunno what makes sense. As it is, there are a handful of buildings on my list I could level at a profit with my Arc bonus, but the building owner almost certainly has left the game and will never collect, so of course I don't do it. It's a minor point that wouldn't help me much, but I do think it would be fair and not really subject to abuse.
     
  12. Salsuero

    Salsuero Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2017
    Well, if you get a full refund, then the GB would no longer be on your list since you have no donation, so the removal is implicit.

    If the fraction is that small, why refund anything at all? I don't want 1% back. That's pennies. That's not even worth the bother of implementing the code.

    Well I respectfully disagree and I've stated why. Good luck with your proposal.
     
  13. Titris Thrawns

    Titris Thrawns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2017
    I found one! BURN THE WITCH PURIST!

    Well, the abuse I was gunning for would be performed by the GB owner upon the FP contributor. I also got carried away by spring boarding off your idea into another one. So I've right and proper muddled the whole affair, eh?

    I think @Stephen Longshanks last post clarifies the potential abuse angle. Many people believe that once FPs are donated, the die is cast and there is no take backs. So any form of refund will be seen as a selfish change aimed at 'getting back what was lost/spent'. Some people get the mediocre service at a restaurant, eat the food given(even if it is not the food ordered), and pay their bill. Others will protest the service, demand the proper food and demand a refund. The second group is easy to demonize. I think a lot of the refund proposals get lumped in with the second group.
     
  14. sethton

    sethton Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2018
    The two situations are different.

    i completely agree that if you donate and do not pay attention or get sniped and end up in 6th thats life but the building levels and you go on.

    i am talking about a building that you donate on it the chance of it leveling even though the person is not active is very slim.

    I personally will just level a building if it is less than 100 fp because it is faster and i get some reward. but if it is going to take 300, 400, 600, 1000 to level i do not have that to throw away. If i got pushed out of a spot i dot care about the fp lost. but losing fp because someone quit is different. which is my point completely.

    I do understand the debate but they are totally different paths. which in turn need to different debates. using the same argument for both paths does not work. but understanding the two separate paths seems to be the main issue of confusion on this thread. that and abuse that no one can substantiate
     
  15. Algona

    Algona Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2015
    I've been using the Algona plan for over a year to clear GBs off my list.

    Over 3 years of play, down to13 inactive7 GBs on my list, almost 3K FPs reclaimed.
     
  16. Salsuero

    Salsuero Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2017
    Hasn't that already been proposed multiple (or at least one) times? Why would proposing it anew be anything special to be reconsidered?
     
  17. lemonwedgie

    lemonwedgie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2012
    But how do you determine the time period? And nobody said that people quit the game so that friends can abuse the system :-/ I understand what you are saying, the return is minimal but still open for abuse ... and in this day and age of competitive GB'ing it can be a struggle to hit a reward on an active GB ... those that struggle will hit the dead ones, lay a few knowing they are guaranteed to get a few back.
     
  18. lemonwedgie

    lemonwedgie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2012
    Not everyone plays smart, not all abuse is smart ... . Look at the huge percentage of people who self-level ... and I have seen players in active guild with active GB threads STILL self level ... and seeing as everything is hypothtical and no numbers crunched the *abuse* aspect is still out there. Abuse is never intentional by Inno but we have seen it happen over the years.

    GB'ing is another aspect of the game, a mini-game itself. You go in eyes wide open ... if you put FPs on an active GB and miss out on the reward you get nothing back. So why should someone who put FPs on a GB that dies get anything back? Its a risk you take.
     
  19. Salsuero

    Salsuero Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2017
    Well my proposal was for one year of inactivity. I think that's a long time to have to wait for only a refund to call it abusable. You can't tell me that people will store their FPs on some inactive deadbeat's GB waiting a full year, hoping he never checks back in to restart the clock, and tell me that's a viable playstyle. Just use your FPs and win rewards. I see no reason why someone would want to do that and call it useful. If one or two people in the whole game decide to do that to "abuse" the system... well there are far more users abusing the system in very real and daily ways... I don't see this as something to be concerned about. People think a player wants to bank a handful of FPs on inactive GBs before they deactivate due to inactivity... and then wait an entire year to get them back. SMH seriously.
     
  20. insainklown

    insainklown New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2017
    I'd go along with the idea of getting rid of unwanted GBs with the Idea that any an all fps in that GB would be lost to an early withdraw fine
     
    Stephen Longshanks likes this.

Top