• Dear forum reader,

    To actively participate on the forum by joining discussions or starting your own threads or topics, you need a game account and to REGISTER HERE!

What rule should go first?

Bor de Wolf 1965

Well-Known Member
On the Dutch server there is a discussion about 2 rules that don't comply with each other.
Rule 1) If I have someone in my scouted area I can always give them neighborly help.
Rule 2) If I join a FS I get a 24h lock out in giving NH to an FS member.
And here is the contradiction, if a player from rule 1 is in the same FS as I join rule 2 blocks the NH for 24h while at the same time I should be able to give the NH to them.
I have not tested this out my self here on Beta but will do to make the bug report stick as it is also on beta.
But still I am stuck with the question about what rule should come first or if one rule should go over an other rule?
 

Droopy

Well-Known Member
Most logic rule is that a new joined fellowship member is blocked for 24h even if he/she is your neighbor on the world map, but i didn't test it :)
 

Skillpowers

Well-Known Member
if you are new in the bs you can't give help or get help for 24 hrs so people can't exploit getting xp's. its that simple. if a fs member that is new (or you join that person fs) then rule 2 falls inplace because that is now FS related.
 

Bor de Wolf 1965

Well-Known Member
You are correct about rule 2 and at the same time that rule ignores rule 1 were I have the right to give NH to people that are within the scouted area from me.
And just that rule makes no cense to me when you should be able to apply them both at the same time.

For starting players this should not be a problem but for high chapter players this contradiction can happen.
My scouting area on the Dutch server lets me see all players with a max distance op 19 from me while here on Beta it is just 10.
So with more people I can see this contradiction is more likely to happen.
 

Kersepitje

QA Moderator
Elvenar Team
Its very simple? The way it is now, it should stay :D
No development time needed if nothing needs to change.

The rules were very clear upon introduction of the perks. In order to prevent FS hopping to level the perks faster then intended, we prevent a new fellow to give neighbourly help to everyone in his FS, for 24 hours. (and also receive, or it would still be exploitable).

If that person happens to be a fellow, thats bad luck, but exceptions cannot be made to prevent the perk system to be exploitable.
 

Lelanya

Well-Known Member
Part of the trouble here, is the phrasing.
Which rule should apply in this circumstance?

vs

Which rule ought to be scrapped?

Both phrases are equally possible interpretations of the OP's intent. By reading I get the sense that the intent falls closer to the first rule. But as Beta incorporates many for whom English is not their tongue, clarity matters.
 

Karvest

Well-Known Member
There is not a big exploitation surface, doubt there are a lot of neighbors willing to join/leave daily without participating in tourney/spire. From other side - missing a day of NH once your neighbor join your FS is not a big loss.
 

Heymrdiedier

Well-Known Member
how about if I rephrase it like this:

Rule 1) If I join a FS I can give all my fellows the enhanced FS NH (longer times to get gold hands and perk points), as soon as the 24h lock out is over.
Rule 2) If I have someone in my scouted area I can give them normal NH.

FS NH and normal NH, aren't per se the same thing, they could be 2 totally different things that just look the same. Like getting relics from tournament encounter, or getting relics from a finished encounter of world map.
 
Last edited:

ayvinul

Well-Known Member
Its very simple? The way it is now, it should stay :D
No development time needed if nothing needs to change.

The rules were very clear upon introduction of the perks. In order to prevent FS hopping to level the perks faster then intended, we prevent a new fellow to give neighbourly help to everyone in his FS, for 24 hours. (and also receive, or it would still be exploitable).

If that person happens to be a fellow, thats bad luck, but exceptions cannot be made to prevent the perk system to be exploitable.

In effect, the new rules mean active players only change fellowships between the end of the tournament and the start of the new spire.

This means you get a very small window to apply and be accepted into a new fellowship if you don't want to lose any of the benefits.

If I recall correctly, the previous rule was you couldn't change fellowships twice in a row without a 24 hours waiting period. I believe it would have been quite enough to prevent fellowship perks abuse and that the current set of change is overkill.

Lots of players who haven't changed fellowships in a while are likely to miss the window and lose a week of tournament or spire benefits. Not such a big deal, of course, but I'm not sure we're at the optimum level yet.


One thing that would work very well is increasing the time between fellowship changes.

Say, if I'm in fellowship A, and I join fellowship B, then I have to wait 5 days until I can join fellowship C (counting from the moment I joined fellowship B).

That would prevent any perks exploitation, while letting people move around more freely. No hindrance to travelers either.
 
One thing that would work very well is increasing the time between fellowship changes.

Say, if I'm in fellowship A, and I join fellowship B, then I have to wait 5 days until I can join fellowship C (counting from the moment I joined fellowship B).

That would prevent any perks exploitation, while letting people move around more freely. No hindrance to travelers either.

As there is nothing that can be put in place to prevent a fellowship from misrepresenting themselves, your suggestion would effectively increase the negative impact to an unfortunate player that finds such a fellowship. A 24hr lockout on a 2nd rapid transition should be more than sufficient if this is a real problem.

If the point of the lock out is to prevent perk abuse via neighborly help than simply putting the 24 hour lock on neighborly help should be enough. No need to also apply the 24 hour lock to Spire, Tournament, or fellowship transitions at all.
 

ayvinul

Well-Known Member
As there is nothing that can be put in place to prevent a fellowship from misrepresenting themselves, your suggestion would effectively increase the negative impact to an unfortunate player that finds such a fellowship. A 24hr lockout on a 2nd rapid transition should be more than sufficient if this is a real problem.

If the point of the lock out is to prevent perk abuse via neighborly help than simply putting the 24 hour lock on neighborly help should be enough. No need to also apply the 24 hour lock to Spire, Tournament, or fellowship transitions at all.

Well, you could have an increasing lockout: second time you move that's 24 hours, third time 72h, for instance. I'm not sure people get burnt all that often.

"Misrepresentation" of fellowships is something that you don't get trapped in that often. If you get into the wrong fellowship, you'll be much more wary next time (and hopefully you remember to look at elvenstats as well)
 
"Misrepresentation" of fellowships is something that you don't get trapped in that often. If you get into the wrong fellowship, you'll be much more wary next time (and hopefully you remember to look at elvenstats as well)

Elvenstats has it's own inaccuracies, especially with individual player statics. But if a disruption happened recently it is not properly reflected in the fellowship stats either. I agree it doesn't happen often but when it happens a long lock out would be unjust, whether or not they did or didn't use any outside of game source to aid their judgement.

If you don't mind could you explain why you think a longer or progressive lock out is needed? I'm trying to understand what issue you think needs this type of control. I can see not being allowed to participate in Spire or Tournament if you've joined a fellowship after they have started for the week (to prevent people from poaching prizes at the last minute) but I don't understand why there needs to be any restriction on movement between fellowships. If this is related to multiple push account moving goods around to avoid a trader fee, it should be very easy to trigger a flag for account investigation based on number of moves made in a given time period or any other associated activity, without impacting players who are not doing anything against the rules.
 

ayvinul

Well-Known Member
Elvenstats has it's own inaccuracies, especially with individual player statics. But if a disruption happened recently it is not properly reflected in the fellowship stats either. I agree it doesn't happen often but when it happens a long lock out would be unjust, whether or not they did or didn't use any outside of game source to aid their judgement.

If you don't mind could you explain why you think a longer or progressive lock out is needed? I'm trying to understand what issue you think needs this type of control. I can see not being allowed to participate in Spire or Tournament if you've joined a fellowship after they have started for the week (to prevent people from poaching prizes at the last minute) but I don't understand why there needs to be any restriction on movement between fellowships. If this is related to multiple push account moving goods around to avoid a trader fee, it should be very easy to trigger a flag for account investigation based on number of moves made in a given time period or any other associated activity, without impacting players who are not doing anything against the rules.
I'd like to remove the tournament and spire restrictions and replace them with a way such that you don't move too often. I don't think those restrictions were added because of poaching, but more because of people contributing to several different tournaments/spires in a row.

In effect they *are* a very specific 7 days lockout for "serious" players, as you can only change fellowships in a 24 hour window each week if you don't want to miss out.
 

Enevhar Aldarion

Well-Known Member
If you don't mind could you explain why you think a longer or progressive lock out is needed? I'm trying to understand what issue you think needs this type of control. I can see not being allowed to participate in Spire or Tournament if you've joined a fellowship after they have started for the week (to prevent people from poaching prizes at the last minute) but I don't understand why there needs to be any restriction on movement between fellowships. If this is related to multiple push account moving goods around to avoid a trader fee, it should be very easy to trigger a flag for account investigation based on number of moves made in a given time period or any other associated activity, without impacting players who are not doing anything against the rules.

There has always been a restriction on trying to join more than one fellowship in a 24-hour period. If you are in a fellowship, leave that one and join another, then decide you don't like it and leave the same day, you will have a 24-hour lockout before you can join another fellowship. I don't remember for sure, but I think if you then do the same thing after the 24 hours is up, you get locked out for a longer time.
 
Top