Closed Thread
Page 24 of 30 FirstFirst ... 14 22 23 24 25 26 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 298

Thread: Giving back the improved storehouses

  1. #231
    Original Serf
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    20
    World
    Newfoundland
    I do not think it was inappropriate of BB to ask that the extra ISH be returned, even though it was their mistake and even though their request was very belated, and I have in fact returned mine. But if for a mistake that was theirs and compounded by their slow response, they present players who at least thought their action had been condoned by BB and therefore sold ISH, which now cannot be bought from TO (there aren't enough for sale) so must be bought from the merchant and therefore ultimately with real money, the company threatens to ban players, they leave these players with the option of being banned, spending real money under that menace, or simply quitting the game, to which they had contributed and from which they had derived enjoyment. I can understand you people wanting to have the same goodies as other players. I cannot understand your eagerness to have them injured in a serious way. Granted, a few of you can sell storehouses for exorbitant prices to some of the exploiters, thereby exploiting the exploit at least as much as the offenders. But most storehouses would have to be purchased from the merchant, for gems, which in no way profits other players. I would strongly suggest that it is in BB's interest to find a better way. For instance, BB gives each of us 100 gems a week. They could withhold those until either store houses or their gem value had been returned. If penalties are being handed out, as opposed to resources simply being repossessed, however, BB should penalize itself, perhaps by giving two extra ISH to all players who participated in the game, not just the ones they have decided to declare innocent.

  2. #232
    Pathfinder
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    7
    World
    Newfoundland
    Because of bugs that were identified on the test server but not adequately dealt with, and other aspects of poor implementation, the football event was intrinsically unfair to a number of players

    That being so, I find it particularly bizarre that BB chose to penalize players for lack of fair play when the players' actions, however undesirable from BB's point of view, did not in fact disadvantage other players. No one was forced to buy an Improved Storage House in TO, and one player's quantity of storage is not a factor in another player's success or failure in the game.

    The only party to the game who can be unfair to players is, in fact, BB. It can and often does arrange matters so that they favour gem buyers; players believe, perhaps erroneously, that some servers are compensated for service failures more generously than others. However that may be, even BB cannot by providing goods to one player and not to another enable the first player to "defeat" the second, because there is no pvp, no individual ranking system, no in-game reward of any kind that is unavailable to one player because it was given to another.

  3. #233
    Nifty
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    anywhere
    Posts
    50
    World
    Sandycove
    i wonder what was the most improved storehouses any one player received from BB's mistake?

  4. #234
    Pathfinder Imorticia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    not where my heart belongs
    Posts
    9
    World
    Newfoundland
    bottom line...

    BB says those that got 4 can keep them
    those that got 25 can only keep 1

    seems fair.....

    smh

  5. #235
    Original Serf
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    20
    World
    Newfoundland
    There is a basic question that continues to go unanswered... In taking the storehouses, what rule was broken?

    Even with today's revisions to the In-Game Rules and Code of Conduct, using an exploit is not forbidden, and BB has not accused us of breaking any rules.

    However, with its official communications, BB insinuated that we are cheaters by asking us to refer questions to "Report suspected Hacking and Cheating", or thieves with "wrongfully acquired" storehouses. This opened the door for insults, accusations and flaming by some people in this thread... actions which ARE in direct violation of the IGR/CoC, and sadly have continued past Ravel's reminder yesterday.

    There was a conversation recently regarding what does or does not constitute a trade scam. (staff response on page 2 of thread) If I buy a trade which hurts me in TO, it's my mistake, not the person's who placed the trade. If I place a bad trade in TO and someone buys it before I can withdraw it, they are not scamming me; I made the mistake. If I contact that person explaining my mistake, apologizing and asking for it back nicely, there is a high chance they will agree to reverse the trade. If I contact them with anger and name-calling and threats, there is a high chance that they will snort and say NO.

    BB made a bad trade. If they had posted right away with something like "Hey guys, there was another bug in the calendar which allowed some ppl to take more than the 1 storehouse we intended. We have fixed the problem and will be devising a way to reclaim the extra storehouses, details to follow. Please direct questions to Support--Problems with the Game" they would have met a much different response and had a higher success rate. Instead they waited nearly a week and then came with aggression and threats, and many people snorted and said NO.

    BB made a bad trade. They put up some bad code and lost some resources at a below market price. In the absence of a rule violation or the invocation of the "you're banned because we say you are" clauses, perhaps like the player with the bad trade, they need to take it on the chin and move on.

  6. #236
    Quartermaster
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    288
    World
    Newfoundland
    please BB close this threat...and send us some Improved silos instead ))

  7. #237
    Original Serf
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    15
    World
    Northisle
    Colophon

    From the beginning my intention was to point out that the main issue is not the return of resources but that the company is accusing all the players who earned from this event, by what is clearly a company's mistake, as hackers and cheaters. This is a game. When you are accusing a player that is a cheater then the game has no meaning any more, because once a cheater always a cheater.

    As players we have accepted the following term:

    16.2 Termination of the Account or Services at UBISOFT's initiative
    In the event of a breach of your legal or contractual obligations, we reserve the right to take legal action on grounds of civil or criminal responsibility in order to stop the breach and obtain compensation for our losses. In particular, and without limitation, we reserve the right to prosecute any User who was deliberately damaged or attempted to damage the Services or disrupted the legitimate functioning of the Services or provided assistance for so doing.

    In our case if a player accepts to return the resources, is as if he declares himself guilty of deliberately cheating and is accepting this penalty in order to avoid further prosecution from the company. More over, who can reassure me that they will not take any further legal actions for prosecuting any user? Today we face this situation, in future who knows? As you realize this is not a simple and innocent game.

    Best regards to all who posted in this thread.

  8. #238
    Town Councillor
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    628
    World
    Northisle
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhylian View Post
    The existence of the glitch was BlueByte's fault. But the people abusing the glitch are responsible for their own action. Just because there is a glitch doesn't mean you have to abuse it.
    +1

  9. #239
    Original Serf
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    13
    World
    Northisle
    Quote Originally Posted by Sharpielein View Post
    +1
    what does that mean?
    The company has only the right to defend themselves and the players not?
    From the moment i spent real money to the game i demand to respect me.
    And is very suspicious the way various posters defend the actions of the company
    And i ask again the bluebyte has the right to prosecute players who breach the rules of the game BUT who protect the players from the wrongfully accuses of the company?

  10. #240
    Original Serf
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    18
    World
    Northisle
    Quote Originally Posted by foofygirl View Post
    There is a basic question that continues to go unanswered... In taking the storehouses, what rule was broken?

    Even with today's revisions to the In-Game Rules and Code of Conduct, using an exploit is not forbidden, and BB has not accused us of breaking any rules.

    However, with its official communications, BB insinuated that we are cheaters by asking us to refer questions to "Report suspected Hacking and Cheating", or thieves with "wrongfully acquired" storehouses. This opened the door for insults, accusations and flaming by some people in this thread... actions which ARE in direct violation of the IGR/CoC, and sadly have continued past Ravel's reminder yesterday.

    There was a conversation recently regarding what does or does not constitute a trade scam. (staff response on page 2 of thread) If I buy a trade which hurts me in TO, it's my mistake, not the person's who placed the trade. If I place a bad trade in TO and someone buys it before I can withdraw it, they are not scamming me; I made the mistake. If I contact that person explaining my mistake, apologizing and asking for it back nicely, there is a high chance they will agree to reverse the trade. If I contact them with anger and name-calling and threats, there is a high chance that they will snort and say NO.

    BB made a bad trade. If they had posted right away with something like "Hey guys, there was another bug in the calendar which allowed some ppl to take more than the 1 storehouse we intended. We have fixed the problem and will be devising a way to reclaim the extra storehouses, details to follow. Please direct questions to Support--Problems with the Game" they would have met a much different response and had a higher success rate. Instead they waited nearly a week and then came with aggression and threats, and many people snorted and said NO.

    BB made a bad trade. They put up some bad code and lost some resources at a below market price. In the absence of a rule violation or the invocation of the "you're banned because we say you are" clauses, perhaps like the player with the bad trade, they need to take it on the chin and move on.
    i agree with you

Closed Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Improved Pinewood Cutter+ Forester or Improved Pinewood Nursery
    By TheVictorious in forum Game Suggestions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06.12.15, 20:27
  2. Giving back the improved storehouses vol 2
    By topgearfan in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 29.07.14, 10:33
  3. Multiple Improved Storehouses
    By BB_Ravel in forum News & Announcements
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 25.07.14, 12:08

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Ubisoft uses cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our websites. By continuing to use this site you agree to accept these cookies. More info on our privacy.