It seems like Bluebyte is taking the stance that using Combat buffs for obtaining adventure loot is bug abuse.
Is this the next step in making the game as un-enjoyable as possible?
It seems like Bluebyte is taking the stance that using Combat buffs for obtaining adventure loot is bug abuse.
Is this the next step in making the game as un-enjoyable as possible?
Standby for message from our “The Settlers Online” Team to put previously obtained loots back to star menu so they can be deleted.
Actually to remain consistent with recent events, they darn well should.Quote:
Originally Posted by topgearfan
Someone's mad because they clicked a one-time reward 100 times and had to give it back?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Killemall
No I didn't at all. I didn't even know about it till after the event and the over reaction by BB hit the forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpielein
I always thought using those buffs was against the intended usage, not to just be able to click and grab loot. BB already made it so you could not complete the whole adventure using them so it was pretty logical they would consider using them to avoid actually participating in an adventure an unintended consequence.
You *do* participate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Killemall
You use a buff which costs 120/180 star coins, and limited to collecting once a day/2days.
600 star coins are equivalent to 100 gems, so a combat buff is equivalent to anywhere between 20 and 30 gems.
On Northisle, 20 gems have a coin value of approximately 1000 coins, and that's a fair big amount of investment in an adventure - I think that investing 1000 coins is a bigger investment than 1 Recruit, but to each their own.
But I have a question for you:
So using them is against the intended usage, so please tell me, what are they good for?Quote:
I always thought using those buffs was against the intended usage,
Looking at?
Thats not participating as intended, argue semantics if you want but you know what I mean't. Participating is sending a general and making an attack, not going click star, click camp, done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpielein
I thought that they were not supposed to replace the sending of at least one general to an adventure.
The intended usage is to reduce some of the need to kill camps with troops, thats obvious as BB stopped you being able to use them to complete a whole adv.
I don't see the issue, BB say its a bug and not being used as intended.
So they may have stopped it happening. Its BBs call and unfortunately its their game so they make the rules as they see fit, most of the time completely ignoring the players.
The game reverts to a position where you needed to send gens from about 6-9 months ago. Has it fundamentally changed the game? No.
What makes you think that BB intended people to be able to participate in a multiplayer adventure and get a set of loot for just one kill? Conversely, what makes people assume they shouldn't be able to? BB gives what it gives and you make best use of what you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Killemall
This is nothing but hearsay and I disagree, they were given to the game to do whatever people pleased with. When BB realised they were too powerful they were balanced with restrictions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Killemall
What perceived advantage is it that you see people in using these combat buffs on a lootspot? The only advantage is convenience, you forgot to send your general to a lootspot, you want to make a kill on a lootspot before logging off for the night, there's a long walk to get a kill on an adventure and you don't want to wait... instant fix for a price. These buffs cost quite a bit of xp, and that is time spent playing the game. You're restricted to how often you can buy them. Really there is no issue here. If BB want to remove the ability to use these on lootspots then I second what others have said, what truly is the point in them and what is the point in star coins in general? Total failure. A lot of people whooped and crowed about Star coins and told me on the forums that it was much better than levels 50+, let's hear them say it these days... BB promised much with star coins and delivered nothing! Now it is working hard to reduce even the initial offering!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Killemall
+1 Baggis
Fact is this;
If BB didn't want players to block camps they would change the coding and release a notice saying "don't do that anymore"
If BB did not want the nukes to be used as a convenience to players, in terms of general travel or there otherwise, they should remove them all together as they serve no other purpose.
They are brought in for that reason i.e to cut troop loses, just because a player uses them on a loot spot and only makes 1 (or a few) kill(s) then they shouldn't be restricted i.e get zero loot.
OK - I think a lot of people *might* be jumping to conclusions here.
First of all - the issue is not that RoA or Assassins have been nerfed. They still get lootkills. If you read the other thread it seems the issue here is that if another spotter uses a buff to get a kill, the pop up message and the message in your news feed gives the impression that it was your buff that did it. If two players try to buff attack the same camp with the same buff type, only one will succeed, but both will get the same pop up message to say they killed some units and the same message appears in the news feed. This happened to me and a guild mate recently and the OP here has admitted it's probably what happened to him too.
Second, support will always just trot out the party line: "Bluebyte do not support blocking", "Bluebyte do not condone the sale of lootspots". I suspect the response being discussed here is a new variant on the latter - Bluebyte intended multiplayer adventures to be played with the full participation of both players (the whole reason we have Co-ops). Whilst they have developed more secure ways of trading, they have never attempted to incorporate lootspots in the trade system. They don't agree with them; like blocking they didn't anticipate them and like blocking won't support them, but like blocking they know they cannot remove lootspot trading from the game without a huge outcry from the player base. So they just leave it and adopt a non supportive stance.
Basically when they say that getting loot for merely applying a buff for a lootspot is a bug, I suspect what they actually mean is: getting an equal share of loot for minimal participation is something like blocking they refuse to condone, and don't support.
Finally last week it was reported that support were saying that it was perfectly normal behaviour of the game for one player's generals to land in different zones of a co-op adventure. They are not infallible, they make mistakes. I'm not excusing them or acting as a BB apologist, but a response from the technical support team is not quite the same as an official statement on game development, which would come from the CM or higher.
Of course I could be wrong. I've been wrong many times. Just my 2p.
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_B
In fact, I realized that my issue wasn't that RoA doesn't result in lootkills but that the game has a clear bug, which isn't "getting loot from RoA" but much rather "The game SAYS, ad verbatim, that you used RoA and got kills - when in fact, you didn't".
So, that one is clearly a bug damaging players not a bug benefitting players, but hey - who's to say that bugs which hurt players need fixing?
In any case, the entire discussion about whether RoA "got fixed to not deliver loot" is moot, because it didn't get neutered.
However, the original question still is in the room: Does Bluebyte call any feature which makes the game more enjoyable a "bug" and intend to remove it?
Is this the strategy?
Wouldn't it make more sense that even if this were an unintended side effect of an implementation, to condone and appreciate it for the positive effects on the community?
But I'd still like an official word on whether someone is gonna one day get back at us for "bug abuse" when we use a feature that's been in the game, and, as it was said when Ranged Support got the Nerf bat, "is being closely monitored" - but never ever has a word been uttered on whether there was any bug abuse involved?