loftar, wot r u doing, I demand some explenations

[Kathdys]

I'm still confused by this since I haven't been kicked out of the game like what's being described here since the first day I played, a few minutes in, weeks ago. I haven't heard anyone else talk about it except on the forums. Shift-clicking my way through entire inventories isn't causing any problems for me, or for the others I've watched do the same.

Still, if the number of active players has really been cut in half by this alone, and that's not an exaggeration, that's still better than if it's because half the clients logged in were bots! I almost hope you're right.

[borka]

I'm still confused by this since I haven't been kicked out of the game like what's being described here since the first day I played, a few minutes in, weeks ago. I haven't heard anyone else talk about it except on the forums. Shift-clicking my way through entire inventories isn't causing any problems for me, or for the others I've watched do the same.

Still, if the number of active players has really been cut in half by this alone, and that's not an exaggeration, that's still better than if it's because half the clients logged in were bots! I almost hope you're right.

Where else but at bug section should be such discussed? And if you read the thread you'll see that under certain circumstances also non botters like me with Ender client are also affected besides a good explanation by ramones why you'd need to fast shift sometimes.

While i'm not against "field studies" for fixes in W7 that might suit haven2 (hafen) i don't think it's a good idea to have something like this permanently in a long time running world.

[factnfiction101]

For me this hasn't been easy to do. I have to shift + mousewheel very quickly to get it to work.

[Kathdys]

I... don't think I can summon much sympathy for someone who complains about having to trade the contents of 20 large chests, one by one, without assistance, all for their own benefit. Wouldn't it make more sense to have more people involved in the trade if so many items are changing hands? Why should transferring 960 items individually be so easy, or convenient? It wouldn't be that bad, if you just traded the containers themselves after filling them elsewhere, at a more usual pace.

I'm pretty sure that historically, even when people's lives were on the line, people would just randomly inspect some of the cargo, assume what they checked was a representative sample, then go by what's on the paperwork, only investigating in detail when they had some free time later on.

There's always ways to adapt to these limitations, and it seems to be that in this case, it's only frustrating if you're used to having a lot more power and control than is reasonable for one person to have. ...Or if you're worried about falling hopelessly behind if you don't compete at 5000% efficiency, which just tells us the game needs more performance limitations, just for the sake of our mental health.

I don't know if limiting the value of automation was intended here, or what, if anything, was intended at all, but I can't look at it and not see it as a good thing. My character doesn't transfer 960 items in a day--probably not in the average week!--much less in a few minutes, and that's true of most players, I'm sure.

I think the game definitely needs more teamwork and job creation, and less of this one-man-band mentality. It puts up a wall between new and old players, where new players quit because they're shut out of the big leagues, and old players quit because they're filthy rich and don't have enough powerful rivals or competitors to play with (or enough minions involved in their games).

If Ender's client has some kind of functionality that lets players transfer items much faster than is possible with the default client, it's an exploit, and using it could be considered cheating. It's a form of automation--whether you use a bot to cut down trees without any effort from you, or you use a game client to move items for you, the result is the same: You get to achieve more with less effort. Nobody wants to button-mash all day, but the developers don't expect you to, they expect you to engage in moderation, and to not feel entitled to every reward just because it's physically possible for you to obtain them.

It ends up looking like:
"Having to chew my food before swallowing is just unfair! We should be able to swallow things whole, without choking!"
"You could just eat less."
"But there's too much food I have to eat!"
"Then, have less food..?"
"But it's mine and I have it and I need it and I want it in my belly! The kitchen staff need to fix this so that I can eat all my food!"
"Well, there's certainly some kind of problem that needs fixing..."

Okay, prepare your 'tl;dr's. We need to know how many semi-literate posters are reading this thread for census purposes.

[ramones]

I... don't think I can summon much sympathy for someone who complains about having to trade the contents of 20 large chests, one by one, without assistance, all for their own benefit. Wouldn't it make more sense to have more people involved in the trade if so many items are changing hands? Why should transferring 960 items individually be so easy, or convenient? It wouldn't be that bad, if you just traded the containers themselves after filling them elsewhere, at a more usual pace.

U shouldn't really comment stuff that you were never involved in. Also you can't judge people by their playstyle. If someone wants to buy 20 LCs of stuff I will sell it to him. Of course there is a benefit for both sides, that is the point in trading, right? And you are saying like each village has 10 people that would each do 1 LC at trade, each would be online at that exact moment, and that means 10 on each side. C'mon, get real

Why shouldn't it be easy or convenient? It was easy and convenient from w1 to w7, why would it need to be bugged now?

The whole point is that the fixes that are done are against 1% of the playerbase or even less to prevent them from screwing up the game and unfortunatelly they affect whole playerbase, the ones that are most innocent, hermits, people who have no idea whats going on, the most. Thats the main issue here, not only the 20 LC transfer, which I just wont do while the game is bugged.

[Xcom]

*off topic minutia*

You don't need to transfer 900 items to crash. Its enough to hold your mouse over an inventory and scroll and you crash. No need to transfer items. Login to the game and scroll your cursor over an empty inventory without having anything in your inventory.

Moments like this its best to try understand the problem before derailing.

[Xcom]

Bot still win. All you need is to put a cap on bots transferring items to fast and run them just a few more minutes. Yet another foolish misconception that bots are the ones impacted by this. Anyone stating otherwise is a non-botting clueless fool.

Malcanis law all over again.

[borka]

I... don't think I can summon much sympathy for someone who complains about having to trade the contents of 20 large chests, one by one, without assistance, all for their own benefit.

U shouldn't really comment stuff that you were never involved in.

This ^

Just take a look at ramones AfO thread and you'll see who benefits

Stop trying to dictate playstyles!

And without seemingly knowing default client http://ringofbrodgar.com/wiki/Keyboard_Shortcuts you shouldn't blame custom clients

Code: Select all

 Kathdys  Joined: 25 Nov 2014 04:39

you'd better reveal your old account name to be taken seriously

btw. to me changeing the account name with which you are posting is a way of much worse cheating to me ...

[Arcanist]

borka says that having already IP checked him..

just go green for a minute or two and ban him for alt posting, and shit posting.

If Ender's client has some kind of functionality that lets players transfer items much faster than is possible with the default client, it's an exploit, and using it could be considered cheating. It's a form of automation--whether you use a bot to cut down trees without any effort from you, or you use a game client to move items for you, the result is the same: You get to achieve more with less effort. Nobody wants to button-mash all day, but the developers don't expect you to, they expect you to engage in moderation, and to not feel entitled to every reward just because it's physically possible for you to obtain them.

In haven, you can walk from one place to another, even sprint on sand with little to no effort from you.
Maybe in have we should all walk like this

[Kathdys]

@Arcanist: If you're making that sort of comparison, I can't imagine what it must be like for you to think that clicking a mouse button a couple dozen times is as hard as hauling a dozen bars of metal. The goal is fairness, not realism. They don't go hand in hand, though they occasionally do some really complicated handshakes. Sand should probably cost more stamina to run and sprint on, just to make chases and amphibious invasions slightly more interesting on the rare occasions it comes up, but it would hardly make a difference.

@XCOM: Doesn't happen, sorry. If this thread really isn't about throttling, then it's about something else. Something that has been thoroughly elaborated on, already, on page 1. Have you looked at page 3? ...Or the thread's title?

@Borka: It was speculation and hypothesis. I have no authority to dictate play styles, nor have I attempted to use any, but someone has to. If everyone isn't playing by the same rules, they're not playing the same game. If people think they're playing the same game, but they're not, it causes strife that goes much deeper than the game itself--especially when the game takes place in a persistent world. Game trailers and developer's footage can give players a good idea of how the game is intended to be played, which is similar if not identical to the way they're intended to play it. If the developers of this game intended to make this a festival of elite grind and crunch, they would have designed many things very differently from how they did.

Thanks for the keyboard link, it changes some of the technical details, but doesn't change a thing about throttling or intent.

Also, my last account had only three posts, even though I played on it for over a month. I'd be using it if I'd remembered the password, but nope. Not after years without playing.

@ramones: Yeah, having 10 people from each side doing a trade is not realistic--not when trades are considered as easy and commonplace as they are now, they would have to be considered major events, something worth great attendance. Alternative strategies for performing trades with fewer people and less automation could include more, smaller trades, logistically simpler dead-drops and exchanges, or all kinds of other, more reasonable workarounds that depend on better, cleverer, more plausible things than the ability to load and unload instantly.

I wouldn't mind a solution where the clients are modified so that they perform automated transfers at a slower pace. 'Throttling' is an amusing term for it. There's many tasks in the game already where the player just sits there while a timer counts down, and there's little reason loading and unloading a crate should be any different. Instantly palming the contents of a cupboard, though, is a problem, as is automated organizing, planting, etc.. Besides being downright silly in effect, it allows for some dreadful shenanigans re: thievery, raiding, and griefing.

There's still a lot of players who just use shift-click to transfer items. Yes, some of the people who use more 'advanced' methods might be 'innocent' in that they don't realize that the some of the tricks available to more 'advanced' players could be considered exploits, and use them because someone advised them to, and they didn't know any better.

This only becomes a major problem when the abuse has gone unchecked for a long time. When corruption is rampant, a lot of people will easily lose track of what 'corruption' is, and formerly innocent people can begin engaging in it without knowing they're doing anything wrong. That's no excuse for inaction, though, quite the opposite.

I'm pretty sure you don't mean 'you shouldn't comment on stuff that you weren't involved in' because that goes against the basis of all modern thought. It's true that I shouldn't judge things that I know next to nothing about, which is why I'm judging what I myself brought up or have already read about, and am explaining how the rest of it looks. If that's still a problem for you, ignore my words. Someone else can interpret them.

As for judging people by their playstyle--it's going to happen, forever and always, so long as the only exposure we have to those people is how they play the game. That's all that matters to other players, anyway. Iif someone spends all day rescuing kittens and feeding orphans, then come home from work to grief or powergame in an MMORPG, I'm still going to have a low opinion of them, and I'm still going to expect some redemption I can bear witness to before that opinion can change.

I don't think there's a problem with this view. Any attempt someone make to buy their way out of looking bad here by performing good deeds for a different community, and any attempt to excuse poor sportsmanship by claiming it's 'just a safe outlet' (with the usual phrasing, 'just a game'), even though they can and do interfere with others beyond the intended boundaries of the game, only serves to prove the whole point.

On the other hand, people who play villainous characters that players love to hate are wonderful. It just takes some restraint, inventiveness, and a sense of style! But that's a topic for another time.