Rl’yeh is sinking, hasn’t reached the bottom yet

[pedorlee]

tbh looks like some scummy trick with minehole abuse and since they did it and from the looks it didnt tell jorb about it they should suffer same fate as core last world, you dont find bugs, raid bases and then think about telling devs.

Not a bug, just game mechanics, just like surrounding a village with 10 pclaims, to make it unkillable.

That's quite debateable, but its a fact that omision its different than commission. It's not the same killing than omitting help so the punshments are different.

Edit: So following this line of logic its not the same using a chair to walljump a village and steal and murder than using a shield to defend yourself. Active != passive;

[Astarisk]

blah blah

The gates were open, even if the alt spawned with visitor debuff...He literally just has to walk out the gates to remove it then hearth in.

Thanks jordan.

That's my point. If the devs don't want you to be able to raid a place with charterstones, then the fact you can do it by hearthing back in AFTER using a charterstone is undeniably a loophole for the system trying to prevent you from doing just that.

They added in protections for that, you can disable new character spawning on your charterstone, or build a wall around it. This is a case of lazy security I'd say.

[Archiplex]

They added in protections for that, you can disable new character spawning on your charterstone, or build a wall around it. This is a case of lazy security I'd say.

That's not what i'm getting at.

If the dev's were fine with you using charterstones to raid a place, they would have likely permitted all 3 of the situations:

1. If you spawn an alt there, no visitor debuff
2. If you teleport there otherwise, no visitor debuff
3. If you hearthstone back there, no visitor debuff

However, both 1 and 2 give you a visitor debuff- it's clear they didn't want people to be able to use visitor debuffs to raid a village. The fact that 3 doesn't give you a visitor debuff is an obvious oversight from the dev-standpoint, and it's hard to understand how anyone would view it as "intended game mechanics" when it's clear they don't want you to use charterstones to raid.

[eric87x123]

This is clearly a known abuse of a game mechanic and deserves a nuke.

[ravenguard19]

Back then, no one cared if the raid was clean or not

[ssaaaax]

That's not what i'm getting at.

If the dev's were fine with you using charterstones to raid a place, they would have likely permitted all 3 of the situations:

1. If you spawn an alt there, no visitor debuff
2. If you teleport there otherwise, no visitor debuff
3. If you hearthstone back there, no visitor debuff

However, both 1 and 2 give you a visitor debuff- it's clear they didn't want people to be able to use visitor debuffs to raid a village. The fact that 3 doesn't give you a visitor debuff is an obvious oversight from the dev-standpoint, and it's hard to understand how anyone would view it as "intended game mechanics" when it's clear they don't want you to use charterstones to raid.

so everything related to another village should basically give you visitor debuff? teleporting back to hearthfire, going in and out of house, chopping a tree, getting in and out of boat?

used mechanics, not bugs, intended or not - not bugs, mechanics
not to mention jorb and loftar seem to not intend a lot of things and still push them into the game, we don't even know whats intended anymore

i ask once again: how is it different than 6 vclaims to make a village unraidable? was that intended?

[Archiplex]

That's not what i'm getting at.

If the dev's were fine with you using charterstones to raid a place, they would have likely permitted all 3 of the situations:

1. If you spawn an alt there, no visitor debuff
2. If you teleport there otherwise, no visitor debuff
3. If you hearthstone back there, no visitor debuff

However, both 1 and 2 give you a visitor debuff- it's clear they didn't want people to be able to use visitor debuffs to raid a village. The fact that 3 doesn't give you a visitor debuff is an obvious oversight from the dev-standpoint, and it's hard to understand how anyone would view it as "intended game mechanics" when it's clear they don't want you to use charterstones to raid.

so everything related to another village should basically give you visitor debuff? teleporting back to hearthfire, going in and out of house, chopping a tree, getting in and out of boat?

used mechanics, not bugs, intended or not - not bugs, mechanics

If you're not part of the claim? well yeah?

What sort of argument is that even? If you can't charter through a gate, you can't crossroad through a gate, and you can't spawn a character through a gate, to a land you do not own or are part of- there is absolutely no reason that getting a hearthfire through the gate (only possibly be creating a new character btw, via charterstone) should NOT give you visitor

[dzielny_wojownik]

megaf8gs were crying in world 7 about AD alt summoning which like in this case was "unintended use of mechanics" and they considered it a bug and got it fixed
now megaf8gs are trying to defend a "unintended use of mechanics" real hard, that it is not a bug
the Hypocrisy is real

[ssaaaax]

we never said alt spawning was a bug lol we only fought for it to be deleted as it completely destroyed the combat also it wasn't the spawning of them but rather a way of making literally shittons of them without any effort

anyway: it was unintended and it was deleted, however it wasn't a bug
this 1 will probably be deleted/changed too, it's not a bug though

[NOOBY93]

It obviously isn't an INTENDED way of raiding someone, but nobody got nuked nor anything restored when the alt summoning abuse got fixed. Situations like this make the game better because now the devs will see what happened and act accordingly.

All I can hear in this thread is tears. Seems as if a few simple measures could've prevented this.