DeletedUser37581
Recently, someone complained that I had sniped them on a third person's GB. It got me to thinking - at what point is placing more FPs than an existing contribution considered to be a snipe?
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
Algona
Well-Known Member
My definition. A snipe occurs when a player has the option of contributions such that the players would still be locked in the same positions but the order is reversed.
In other words, if you could lock third and that locks the player in the 2 slot, or you could lock second and lock the player to the 3 slot and you do the latter, you've sniped.
Always, always, always, if a player thinks they have been sniped, no matter what their definition is, it is that players fault for misbidding.
"If it ain't locked, it ain't owned. "
In other words, if you could lock third and that locks the player in the 2 slot, or you could lock second and lock the player to the 3 slot and you do the latter, you've sniped.
Always, always, always, if a player thinks they have been sniped, no matter what their definition is, it is that players fault for misbidding.
"If it ain't locked, it ain't owned. "
BruteForceAttack
Well-Known Member
Generally snipe is when you pass someone else for a reward spot and they cannot pass you.
Lets say that only 9 fps is left on a gb to level and the reward is 10 fps for the 5th spot and currently someone has put 1 fp. If you add 5 fps you have sniped the 5th spot as only 4 fps are left on the gb.
Lets say that only 9 fps is left on a gb to level and the reward is 10 fps for the 5th spot and currently someone has put 1 fp. If you add 5 fps you have sniped the 5th spot as only 4 fps are left on the gb.
DeletedUser37581
Just to clarify on this. It would still be considered a snipe if someone has 1 FP invested and will get 1st place rewards as the only investor (other than the GB owner), and I come along and put in 245 FPs to lock 1st which knocks the other investor down to 2nd?
DeletedUser37581
Interesting. So that would mean that if I take 2nd (which knocks someone down to 3rd and we are now both locked in), it is only a snipe if I could have taken 3rd instead and we would both still be locked in. In other words, if I take 3rd and neither of us is locked in, it wouldn't be a snipe to take 2nd.
BruteForceAttack
Well-Known Member
Generally if you don't add 1.9 x reward you sniped the spot from owner perspective. 1.9 because of 80 level arc = 90%+ rewards. In the example you are giving, I dont think the guy with 1 fp has any claim over that spot
Graviton
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't worry about anybody who contributed just a single FP. That was likely a placeholder so they should've been paying closer attention.
I don't often go through my guild or hood looking for GBs to snipe but I feel no compunction about sniping on swap threads EXCEPT the designated 1.x threads.
I don't often go through my guild or hood looking for GBs to snipe but I feel no compunction about sniping on swap threads EXCEPT the designated 1.x threads.
DeletedUser37581
A definition has been relayed to me that I will share.
It's a snipe if the person who has been jumped will lose FPs as a result.
In other words, if someone is in 1st with 30 FPs placed and an expected reward of 38 FPs total, but gets knocked down to 2nd with a reward of 19 FPs total, then it is a snipe since the person will now have a loss.
It's a snipe if the person who has been jumped will lose FPs as a result.
In other words, if someone is in 1st with 30 FPs placed and an expected reward of 38 FPs total, but gets knocked down to 2nd with a reward of 19 FPs total, then it is a snipe since the person will now have a loss.
DeletedUser
I would say that any time you pass someone and lock a spot so they cannot re-pass you, it's a snipe from a technical standpoint. It feels worse if one or more players have been donating for a while and someone comes in late, but that's not a requirement for it to be called a snipe.
Sniping was around long before the level 80 Arcs, it just got worse with them. And nothing will annoy me quicker than someone telling me I need to bring my locked spot donation up to 1.9. If they ask nicely, I might do it. If they demand it, they can wait for pigs to fly.Generally if you don't add 1.9 x reward you sniped the spot from owner perspective. 1.9 because of 80 level arc = 90%+ rewards. In the example you are giving, I dont think the guy with 1 fp has any claim over that spot
DeletedUser
I agree wholeheartedly with this. And although it would technically be a snipe to pass them, I wouldn't call it one.
Jern2017
Well-Known Member
If there are 4 FPs left and another player put one FP on before you, wouldn't that player get the 5th spot if they added 4 FPs and flip the GB? Adding 4 FP with 1 FP from before would make their donation be 5 FPs and since they contributed before you did, they'd knock you off that spot?
Freshmeboy
Well-Known Member
The new paradigm of "1.9" is a player construct designed by guilds for increasing lower level players' strength through the power of the Arc...foisting this construct on the rest of the player population is ridiculous and rude...Management of GBs is the sole responsibility of their owner and any spots that are not locked in are forfeit to those willing to GIVE away FREE fps....
saknika
Active Member
I've always defined a snipe by profiting. So if the spot is going to give the player back 100 FPs (with whatever Arc rewards they might get, if any), and they take it for less than 100 FPs without using a 1.X thread, it's a snipe. Someone who takes a spot at above and beyond the reward I consider a gift, and I realize they're probably desperate for BPs.
Part of the fault in this lies in how you prepare your GB. If you prep too many spots all at once, you risk a snipe. Or if you're more of a self-leveler, it's likely to happen. Not to mention some GB levels are just ripe for snipe as soon as you unlock them. It's also why for the 1.X threads players are cautious (usually) to make sure you've prepped properly, because if not and they could get passed by an outside (thus losing FPs because you got sniped), they likely won't take the risk of locking your GB.
Part of the fault in this lies in how you prepare your GB. If you prep too many spots all at once, you risk a snipe. Or if you're more of a self-leveler, it's likely to happen. Not to mention some GB levels are just ripe for snipe as soon as you unlock them. It's also why for the 1.X threads players are cautious (usually) to make sure you've prepped properly, because if not and they could get passed by an outside (thus losing FPs because you got sniped), they likely won't take the risk of locking your GB.
DeletedUser15539
Play FOE for very long and you will run across other players who will get mad at you because you are not playing by their rules. "Sniping" is near the top of the list of reasons why.
My take is to never put forge points down on a great building unless you are locked in. Which means it is mathematically impossible for anyone to pass you. Of course, this will limit the opportunities you can participate in. (One exception is guild obligations, which is the price you pay for belonging to a guild).
Other general rules of thumb I've found useful, are to never snipe members of your own guild, when you are contributing to friends make the amount 180+%, and for neighbors it's usually whatever you can get away with. A few exceptions to that are members of allied guilds, and players with high level Arcs in 190% exchange groups. It's usually best not to needlessly make enemies.
My take is to never put forge points down on a great building unless you are locked in. Which means it is mathematically impossible for anyone to pass you. Of course, this will limit the opportunities you can participate in. (One exception is guild obligations, which is the price you pay for belonging to a guild).
Other general rules of thumb I've found useful, are to never snipe members of your own guild, when you are contributing to friends make the amount 180+%, and for neighbors it's usually whatever you can get away with. A few exceptions to that are members of allied guilds, and players with high level Arcs in 190% exchange groups. It's usually best not to needlessly make enemies.
DeletedUser
No. It's the timing of the final donations, not the initial ones, that determine reward spot ranking. Same as in GE guild championship rankings.
Algona
Well-Known Member
Sigh. I made a mistake, I should have started my first post by sauing that I despise the term 'snipe'.
It encourages the person who got 'sniped' to believe someone else is to blame for them getting bumped from a Reward slot.
The blame is entirely on the person who got bumped from the Reward slot. They made a mistake. If they had bid properly, i;r; locked the spot, they could never have been 'sniped'
This is anethema to too many people. Even people who understand that it is entirely the person's fault for getting bumped from the Reward slot still tend to want to blame the 'sniper',
----------
The problem with definitions like these:
is that they all fall apart quickly as demonstrated here:
A person bidding 1 FP on an otherwise open GB.
Obviously this is the answer:
This changes each of those definitions, it introduces exclsuions or degrees of importance.
Which renders those definitions useless, because no one will be able to agree on where the 'cutoff' is. 1 FP? Of course not. !0? 1000? Some percentage of the available FPs?
Something else?
Folk, if it ain't completely objective and reasonable within the rules and ways the game is played, it ain't a definition, it's a way to enable confusion and discord.
As has been evidenced by every discussion of 'sniping' on these forums.
----------
I don't care for my definition either. While it is entirely objective, it does not fit the ways the game is played. Hence it's pretty much useless.
The only reason I bothered coming up with it was a personal challenge to come up with an entirely objective definition for 'sniping'.
That no one else has come up with an objective definition that fits within the rules and ways the game is played tells me that much like 'fair trade', 'sniping' will always lead to disagreement on even the possibility of a definition.
----------
EDIT:
BTW, this led me years ago to teach my apprentices that there is no such thing as 'sniping', just good bidding and bad bidding, and thet each player is solely responsible for the results of their bidding summed up in the phrase:
"If it ain't locked, it ain't owned."
And once they actually grok that, no more complaints, upset feelings, recriminations, whining.
It encourages the person who got 'sniped' to believe someone else is to blame for them getting bumped from a Reward slot.
The blame is entirely on the person who got bumped from the Reward slot. They made a mistake. If they had bid properly, i;r; locked the spot, they could never have been 'sniped'
This is anethema to too many people. Even people who understand that it is entirely the person's fault for getting bumped from the Reward slot still tend to want to blame the 'sniper',
----------
The problem with definitions like these:
is that they all fall apart quickly as demonstrated here:
A person bidding 1 FP on an otherwise open GB.
Obviously this is the answer:
This changes each of those definitions, it introduces exclsuions or degrees of importance.
Which renders those definitions useless, because no one will be able to agree on where the 'cutoff' is. 1 FP? Of course not. !0? 1000? Some percentage of the available FPs?
Something else?
Folk, if it ain't completely objective and reasonable within the rules and ways the game is played, it ain't a definition, it's a way to enable confusion and discord.
As has been evidenced by every discussion of 'sniping' on these forums.
----------
I don't care for my definition either. While it is entirely objective, it does not fit the ways the game is played. Hence it's pretty much useless.
The only reason I bothered coming up with it was a personal challenge to come up with an entirely objective definition for 'sniping'.
That no one else has come up with an objective definition that fits within the rules and ways the game is played tells me that much like 'fair trade', 'sniping' will always lead to disagreement on even the possibility of a definition.
----------
EDIT:
BTW, this led me years ago to teach my apprentices that there is no such thing as 'sniping', just good bidding and bad bidding, and thet each player is solely responsible for the results of their bidding summed up in the phrase:
"If it ain't locked, it ain't owned."
And once they actually grok that, no more complaints, upset feelings, recriminations, whining.
Last edited:
DeletedUser
It doesn't introduce an exclusion to my definition of sniping, only to my perspective of sniping. Two different things.
Sorry, but this ignores the fact that not all players can lock a spot every time they donate to a GB. This is an example of thinking affected by the Arc virus. Post-Arc intro, too many players take this profit-driven perspective of GB donations. Many times it screws up guilds trying to help newer players get a foothold on GBs. Yeah, yeah, yeah, not locked blah blah blah. Tell that to the newbie who's donated daily for a week trying to get an Obs BP only to get shut out by some neighbor of the GB owner who sees the opportunity for a small profit with their level 80 Arc. Makes me sick.
mamboking053
Well-Known Member
Well...from the complaints I received, a snipe is also when you take a spot reserved for someone else, or simply take a spot on someones GB without asking. Sort of like how trespassing is entering someone else's home uninvited, regardless of your intentions. I think it's valid, but if you must be sniped, you could do far worse than a person who at least gives you the fair amount.
Agent327
Well-Known Member
As far as I am concerned it never is a snipe. I recently stumbled on a GB where there were 315 fp's left to donate and firts spot had donated 309, so I took first spot and made a nice profit. That isn't sniping. It is using common sense. Don't blame me if the person in first spot is a fool. Couple of fp's extra and he would have made a nice profit. Now if the owner of the GB complains, he would be even a bigger fool, so how can this be a snipe?