Giving back the improved storehouses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imorticia

so 'let's reward the ones who exploited the glitch 1x... and punish the ones that did it more than once..."

again. seem legit.
In BB's words. "fair play" for those that exploit a TINY bit.

---

It's not rewarding but technically impossible to detect who clicked by mistake and who did not with small amount. Are you suggesting that everyone with even one extra should have given it back? that would mean large portion of the player base where most did not even try to exploit. Now it was limited to a very small group who mostly did it on purpose.

And in case you did not read it properly what you had to do to get on the exploiter list I suggest you read it again. It was not about one or two clicks.

There are two more posts in 28758-Multiple-Improved-Storehouses..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BB_Ravel

Why don't I get an additional storehouse for not abusing the exploit?
As explained earlier, every Improved Storehouse integrated into the game had an effect on the overall balance. Our goal is to restore the balance and this would have the opposite effect.

---

What balance do you find most important? The ever inflating economy ingame or the ever inflating dissatisfaction of how things are handled..

Thank you Ravel for posting the expanded Q&A concerning this issue. Sadly, most of my questions were answered by saying that those questions are not to be discussed. Will those answers never be provided, or is it just publicly that they will not be discussed but I should look for a response from support? As for the remainder, which concerned the after-effects of reporting that I will not be returning all SHs, I am still confused as to whether they will be addressed by support or forums, as each has indicted they will be answered by the other.

I understand and appreciate the explanation of why the Hack & Cheat category for Support was used rather than Problem with the Game, although the use of terms like "bad intention" and "dishonest motives" seem to contradict that.

Quote:

---

There have been a lot of bugs in this game already, no one got punished. Why now?
Earlier bugs and players who abused them are under no consideration here. This callback is only because of the bug from Saturday, July 12th at the end of the Calendar.

The bug at the start of the event was way bigger (complete Calendar could be opened). A callback of all resources gathered, because of that bug, will not be done. A single structure can be called back easily and with a maximum of data security.

---

Finally, it is quite interesting to learn more about BB's version of "fair play", by which players who do not return all SHs will be threatened with punishment and bans, but those who used the "way bigger" full calendar bug are apparently exonerated of all "bad intentions" and "dishonest motives." That is an unfortunately creative use of the term "fair," but I thank you for the clarifications.

So...Who got the most storehouses from the bug? I thought maybe it was a competition from BB. Whoever gets the most storehouses from a bug wins a gem pit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foofygirl

(...) but those who abused the "way bigger" full calendar bug are apparently exonerated of all "bad intentions" and "dishonest motives."

---

There were people who clicked accidentally there too and others who didn't. There are bound to be some players who intentionally abused the early calendar bug and the end of event bug to a greater extent... I don't think there's any exoneration going on, just damage limitation.

I'd value what I got off the bugs in this event at 15kgc. If they had some kind of in-game resource sink that didn't really do anything I'd throw that coin at it and any message I got about "fair play" I'd already have a clear conscience about anyway without donating the 15kgc.

I would thank you in the future to not change words in quotes that you are attributing to me. What I wrote was not an indictment of those using the earlier bugs in the calendar, but surprise at BB's definition of "fair play" that not only will there be no reclamation of goods (or as they have called the SHs, "wrongfully acquired" goods) from the exploitation of earlier bugs, but that other exploits are not even to be discussed. Meanwhile, the SHs are being reclaimed WITH THREATS because it is easy for them to do so.

this is boring now - pay up, close thread, move on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foofygirl

I would thank you in the future to not change words in quotes that you are attributing to me.

---

Myeah, I changed the word because "used" isn't appropriate and underlined it so it was obvious. You discover a bug accidentally or you find it and abuse it... By definition you don't "use" a bug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foofygirl

What I wrote was not an indictment of those using the earlier bugs in the calendar, but surprise at BB's definition of "fair play" that not only will there be no reclamation of goods (or as they have called the SHs, "wrongfully acquired" goods) from the exploitation of earlier bugs, but that other exploits are not even to be discussed.

---

Considering the length of time that has lapsed since the start of the event and the variety of goods that were on offer from the calendar do you really expect them to go back, try to figure out which player owes what and attempt to reclaim everything from the earlier incident as well as dealing with the fallout from the end of the event ?

Considering what you've written it seems the options you're presenting are (a) take flak for the handling of this recall and not acting on the earlier one or (b) take flak for the handling of this recall and start up a second recall that's likely to be messier and create more bad blood than the first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foofygirl

Meanwhile, the SHs are being reclaimed WITH THREATS because it is easy for them to do so.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jollyfog2012

this is boring now - pay up, close thread, move on...

---

+1

I'm watching Netflix and it's a poop film, needed something to do. :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splotch

... do you really expect them to go back, try to figure out which player owes what and attempt to reclaim everything from the earlier incident as well as dealing with the fallout from the end of the event ?

Considering what you've written it seems the options you're presenting are (a) take flak for the handling of this recall and not acting on the earlier one or (b) take flak for the handling of this recall and start up a second recall that's likely to be messier and create more bad blood than the first.

---

Yes I do. foofygirl makes fair comment considering the state that the event was in when it was presented to the players. Considering that BB knew that it had serious problems, if they intend to use threats with menaces in the guise of fair play they should apply it to all the bugs that may have been (ab)used during the event. Better yet, they should apply it to none and learn from the experience for the future. There was ample warning that the event was full of bugs from the test site users, as I know because I was one of them.

Foofygirl did not propose that anyone else be penalized; she simply pointed out that the penalty had been unequally and therefore unfairly applied, in the name of "fair play." and I agree with her.

Certain posters continue to forget or ignore that some players cannot return the ISHs because they are not available in T.O. and the players in question do not have enough gems. They are not complaining about nothing.

A small number of players active on forum apparently would be pleased to have such an injury befall their fellow players. I would not.

There would have been far less bad blood had BB reacted promptly, not 6 days after the event close. If they felt they absolutely had to get the extra ISHs back, they should have requested their return, politely and without menaces. This disastrous PR episode has done untold damage to the relationship between the community and BB and between the players themselves and that is on BBs heads and their heads alone.

For the record I was not one of those who had to return ISHs. However, since BB chose to send out the event "as is", it was not unreasonable for players to think that BB was ready to accept the consequences of the bad code it was ready to release. Therefore I have no quarrel with the players who want to keep the extra storehouses.