Hotifx 7.27.2014

[Frakked]

I think the restoration of characters should not be done, this only leads to discussions what is a bug, and what is smart use of game mechanics.

Claiming that it isn't a bug while 99.9% of the population didn't know about something doesn't make that a valid game-mechanic.

In fact, using a chair to get inside a claim with closed doors looks worse then cowardly running away from an arenafight & getting killed because of it.

I find this comment derogatory... not because of of it's content... but of it's author... who has no ***** business talking PVP matters. Yeah you were killed... did you have a snowball's chance in hell of defending... if not. you have no surface to stand on here. stfu.

[Potjeh]

But yeah, Darwoth's arena death easily fails on 2 and 3. He left the designated combat area of his own volition, and the scents were used to summon the characters that killed him while he suffered no loss for getting those scents.

[JohnCarver]

*Was the death the direct result of a poor implementation?
Not a direct result, but the only way in

That was not the only way in. Hostile players were on that claim less than 7 days ago.

*Did the victim himself do an action that caused the death, or did the bug user enforce his will upon the victim unilaterally?
Bug abuser enforced him inside a closed claim, so yes

The victim still had to carry some of his aggressors personal property into his claim. Not understanding the full effect of that action does not make the action itself not exist.

*Did both the assailant and the victim lose something as a result of the bug? Or did the user of the bug get away clean (I.E. no risk to using it)?
Yes, they all died, but making a throwaway murder alt is very easy these days, unlike a 1500+ scalp score alt, it was intended that Darwoth's character would probably die too

Doesn't change that the condition was satisfied. I'm not going to get into measuring contests of who lost the bigger character. Both parties lost characters.

But yeah, Darwoth's arena death easily fails on 2 and 3.

Once again I think you are reading #3 wrong. Darwoth was the ONLY person who lost a character. Had murdering darwoth caused a Killing Blow to backfire and kill the person that he murdered as well. Then both players would have lost something. As it stood, there was only a single victim, which means #1 and #3 were satisfied.

I respectfully disagree. This line of logic means there is a "dev approved" level of defenses beyond the minimum required by intended game mechanics. Does everyone need to get their amount of defenses approved by you now?

Yes, Anybody who is expecting a restore better have air-tight security measures when their town is breached and better not have hostile scents all over their town when I get there. If hostile players are given access to your town, and in this case being kept as prisoners with leantos on your town, then I have reason to believe that the aggressor had multiple ways to get those kills, and if he didn't use one method, he would have quite simply used another. Therefore, I would be punishing players for which method they choose to get their kills. In this case, I found ALL methods to get those kills generally acceptable.

[Potjeh]

Frankly, I think you're best off simply not explaining your decisions on resurrection, because it can only aggravate the involved parties.

[JohnCarver]

Frankly, I think you're best off simply not explaining your decisions on resurrection, because it can only aggravate the involved parties.

Probably a lot of wisdom in this statement. Although I'm a fan of transparency and feel a need to correct generally incorrect statements when I see them. So I'm sure I'll fall victim to these discussions more times than not.

[Potjeh]

The victim still had to carry some of his aggressors personal property into his claim. Not understanding the full effect of that action does not make the action itself not exist.

It's just that this here is some grade A legalese *****. You can use the same reasoning to do away with point 2 in virtually every case, so there's no point in point 2 even existing.

[RonPaulFTW]

and in this case being kept as prisoners with leantos on your town

When you log on - you get to port to Providence. There is no such thing as being left in prison unless you voluntarily put yourself there.

[JohnCarver]

When you log on - you get to port to Providence. There is no such thing as being left in prison unless you voluntarily put yourself there.

It is quite clear you are not up to speed with how town-claim prisons work. I guarantee you that it is very much possible to hold a character on your town against their will with no in-game way for them to escape outside having a friend to build a waste claim to free them. Which then begs the question, if this happened, am I going to see you jumping on the bandwagon that this is some huge bug that I must restore for? I know about it, I'm disclosing it now, and yet I have no intention to fix it anytime soon as I like the idea of being able to hold hostages.

[alloin]

That was not the only way in. Hostile players were on that claim less than 7 days ago.

Being inside a claim results in not being able to login or out again, so i see nothing wrong there.
Was any outer door left open? If so, dismiss all my comments on this topic.

The victim still had to carry some of his aggressors personal property into his claim. Not understanding the full effect of that action does not make the action itself not exist.

Like I said earlier, You knew about it, Darwoth knew about it for ages, why not warm people who don't know ? Cuz 99.99% didnt know about the effect of taking a chair in could result in somebody logging on without teleporting back home.

Doesn't change that the condition was satisfied. I'm not going to get into measuring contests of who lost the bigger character. Both parties lost characters.

No comment.

Darwoth was the ONLY person who lost a character..

Nope, I tested it with Juda before Darwoth got killed, and I also killed a noob that way.

I find this comment derogatory... not because of of it's content... but of it's author... who has no ***** business talking PVP matters. Yeah you were killed... did you have a snowball's chance in hell of defending... if not. you have no surface to stand on here. stfu.

I didn't lose a character, get your facts straight. I'm not even related to the ones who lost characters here.

I think I have more pvp experience then you will ever have in this game !

[Feone]

The victim still had to carry some of his aggressors personal property into his claim. Not understanding the full effect of that action does not make the action itself not exist.

I don't think it's fair to count this a reason against restoring.
You can't reasonably expect someone to understand "the full effect" of an action when it's an undocumented bug/feature that's nothing like the behavior of other items.