• Dear forum visitor,

    It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team

Poachers

Sprite1313

Well-Known Member
Oh without a doubt but the point is to get rid of the cheaters and not make extra work because some people suck
I don't see how this is cheating. I agree it can be annoying, but there is no rule prohibiting it. Some players give you a KP, not to "steal" a chest, but as a way of saying thank you for neighbourly help. Yes, others will do that to pick up AWKPs, but that isn't against any rule of which I am aware.

Other players have good friends in their immediate neighbourhood who are not in their FS. How would you structure this so that they would still be able to swap KP if they want?
 

BrinDarby

Well-Known Member
1 point poachers are your fault.... now rune poachers that screw up KP chains,
I might have sympathy, but jump into FS chat, and ask for ppl to eject the
1 point poachers....... Some ppl also give AWKP for ppl taking thier trades ;)
 

Sprite1313

Well-Known Member
Okay, so if you really want to get this changed, and get to the point where we can vote on it, you will need to follow the guidelines set out here for posting suggestions.

Sounds like you want something along the lines of "establish a mechanism to limit who can contribute to AWs".

Some cons I can see already are developer time, and the need to develop a change to the overall game structure to allow a list of "friends" with specific permissions. This could be a significant lift for the developers. @helya has shared with all of us the limitations on how many ideas the CMs can forward to the devs for consideration. And these are pooled suggestions from all markets. I don't think this suggestion is going to get much traction until it is fleshed out a bit.

From my perspective, I would vote no on this. It would likely require a major change to the game for little gain. Seems like using a sledgehammer to swat a fly.
 

Gkyr

Well-Known Member
AW chests are an in-game resource but, unfortunately, they don't belong to us in the sense that we cannot harvest them and we cannot assign them. In this way, these are nothing that can be taken from us. I would not torment myself by paying any attention to an asset that we cannot control.
It sounds as if you would prefer for the chest to expire useless than for a player outside of your control to harvest it.
Actually, you do have control over it: as was mentioned above, pursue a 'shout-out' policy in your FS, as we did in my old FS (I am minimally active now). In my FS, when we were ready to upgrade the AW, maybe a few points away, we send a msg on the 'shout-out' msg. thread telling mates how many chests were available on which AW. The rule was, a team member was asked to contribute 50% of the KP value of the chest and to be careful not to bump the team member above them (if you are following the 50% rule that will not happen). If there was an interloper, they got bumped off the bottom.
In this way, the chests enrich the FS, they don't expire useless, and they don't become a source of torment.
 

Myne

Well-Known Member
A more accurate name for them would be moochers. In my fellowship we simply make a post in chat. Fellowship solves it.
Let me clearly define a moocher. It's someone who donates 1 point or maybe 2 to your wonder, and they are not in your fellowship but may be in your neighborhood. The need to differentiate between moochers and honest donations of 10 or more KP from those truly wishing to help, and/or gain a shard for the wonder.
 

Legilost

Member
Okay, so if you really want to get this changed, and get to the point where we can vote on it, you will need to follow the guidelines set out here for posting suggestions.

Sounds like you want something along the lines of "establish a mechanism to limit who can contribute to AWs".

Some cons I can see already are developer time, and the need to develop a change to the overall game structure to allow a list of "friends" with specific permissions. This could be a significant lift for the developers. @helya has shared with all of us the limitations on how many ideas the CMs can forward to the devs for consideration. And these are pooled suggestions from all markets. I don't think this suggestion is going to get much traction until it is fleshed out a bit.

From my perspective, I would vote no on this. It would likely require a major change to the game for little gain. Seems like using a sledgehammer to swat a fly.
@Legilost ,
Here, have some free AWKP on me ..... hehehe.
Lol yes please
 

Legilost

Member
Okay, so if you really want to get this changed, and get to the point where we can vote on it, you will need to follow the guidelines set out here for posting suggestions.

Sounds like you want something along the lines of "establish a mechanism to limit who can contribute to AWs".

Some cons I can see already are developer time, and the need to develop a change to the overall game structure to allow a list of "friends" with specific permissions. This could be a significant lift for the developers. @helya has shared with all of us the limitations on how many ideas the CMs can forward to the devs for consideration. And these are pooled suggestions from all markets. I don't think this suggestion is going to get much traction until it is fleshed out a bit.

From my perspective, I would vote no on this. It would likely require a major change to the game for little gain. Seems like using a sledgehammer to swat a fly.
Making this fair and getting rid of a way for people that take advantage of a thing is always worth it to me but this is how I feel and why I made the post you dont have to agree that's your right and I respect it
 

Legilost

Member
You have not, you just stated that "everyone hates it"

Without specifics on how this is a bad thing, or detrimental to the game or your progress, the developers not only will not consider it, there is 0 chance I can get the idea past the first tier of voting.
I actually did in a later reply by saying it would get rid of the cheaters and not make more work because some people suck
 

Sir Squirrel

Well-Known Member
Yeah this has been debated before, the fact you are getting a couple extra kp to upgrade your wonder for nothing can't really be seen as a bad thing. If the person putting the 1 or 2 kp on your wonder gets a chest that would have other wise not been given to anyone had they not put their kp into your wonder, How is that cheating or stealing? I can't see this as stealing or taking advantage of you as you got the free Kp's and if they would have gotten pushed off the list they wouldn't have gotten anything. If they don't put them KP in then that chest would have not went to anyone, so who is taking advantage of anything. Also this never happens to active players in an active FS so is not worth the Dev's time IMO.

Edit. If it is bothering you that much maybe try messaging the player that is putting the KP's in and ask that if they put KP's on your wonder to put no less then 5 KP's in and you will return the 5 KP's to one of their wonders. (If they have any. Most that would do that won't even be far enough along in the game to have any wonders.)
 
Last edited:
Top