Be careful what you ask for (in Changelog)
March 28 2006 12:14 AM EST
Indeed! In all FS/WTB threads....
If the item(s) advertised here interest you, please take your negotiations to chatmail.
Replies are disabled for FS/WTB. Some members of the community complained that admins were too eager to remove off-topic replies, and others complained that admins were not eager enough to do so.
It's too bad that everyone has to pay the penalty for both of these groups' whining, but the admins are volunteers and don't have to put up with this crap.
A Bathing Ape
March 28 2006 12:17 AM EST
could u atleast allow the creators of the thread to post in them? so that s/he can keep people updated on highest offers and if...i dunno the item has been sold???
Bloody good one. Now everyone feels the consequence. ARGH!
March 28 2006 12:22 AM EST
I forsee a decline in FS/WTB threads now that no communication between seller and buyer (or groups of buyers) will be able to be enabled unless by chatmail or PM (or I guess chat, but some don't even use that). That means bidding for an item will definitely be harder for the seller to keep track of bids, etc.
For those who dislike this change, perhaps you should blame the people that kept bickering. :)
Another important community function bites the dust!
Great change Jon!
A Bathing Ape
March 28 2006 12:31 AM EST
this reminds me of a quote in the bible
"ask and you will receive what you did not ask for"
-- John 1:13
March 28 2006 12:33 AM EST
So you have to pay to create a post and then don't have the ability to reply to your own post? Why dont you just remove the forum then genius and move it all to auctions? It would at least remove your pity-party two liner added at the end of each FS/WTB post...
March 28 2006 12:38 AM EST
"But only in a changemonth, unless I'm really pissed"
-- John 1:14
March 28 2006 12:43 AM EST
Implemented Ape's suggestion to allow thread owner to reply.
But only until somebody gets offended because somebody else got an admin to remove his bump, and starts complaining about those dang arbitrary admins again...
A Bathing Ape
March 28 2006 12:45 AM EST
yay ! i made a difference.
At this rate CB will end up shutting itself down in no time. First we lose Camping, which didn't seem all that bad to lose at least in my opinion. But now it will be terribly more difficult to insta our weapons up and down. And selling characters is now even harder than before, with no way to bid against eachother. Raffles are dead. I'm sure this change kills several other options community members have to trade too. Oh, and score one more point towards this becoming Mage Blender- tanks rely on buying and selling items much more, and taking away from the player trading element quite frankly kills half the CB buying and selling economy.
Following the line of thought that complaints should force changes, should we now shut down auctions because of Central Bank's auction sniping complainers as well as shut down the Black Market because of voting bug complaints and also get rid of DD spells because of complaints (well-founded though they may be) that this is Mage Blender?
The point I am trying to make is that this is a needless punishment against everyone. I can only pray that this is Jon's idea of an April Fool's Joke, albeit a few days early. Like anyone else, I have disagreed with changes made in the past. But this takes the cake as the worst thought out change done for the most childish of reasons. You do this because of whining, but I guarantee this change will only result in more whining and at least for me, a deep questioning of your judgement.
March 28 2006 12:53 AM EST
Actually, I have a better solution to the bump problem:
replies cost the same amount as a new post, which has been reduced to $2k.
Now, isn't that a better solution than leaving it up to those power tripping admins, who always seem to make the wrong call?
March 28 2006 12:53 AM EST
FS/WTB is not dead....Jon even restored our ability to make changes to our own posts.
I want to sell item A. I can
1. Place it in auctions (where Central Bank may provide a reasonable bid)
2. Make an FS/WTB post with a BIN
3. Make a FS/WTB post with blind bidding done through CM. (Could have its advantages for sellers).
A Bathing Ape
March 28 2006 12:58 AM EST
in that case jonathan...can i get a 3k$ refund for making a post just moments before the change?
March 28 2006 2:41 AM EST
how about allowing edit of own post without bumping ? It wont bump up the thread, but can update the post on winners or whatever. And of course make it free please :P
March 28 2006 2:52 AM EST
all those people that kept, i repeat, kept bickering about admins and when they got an answer kept bickering, and if you complain about this you should be shot and hung and if your not you are a waste of oxygen and somebody should do something about your existence.
(no offense to DAWG and vestax, this is not personal).
March 28 2006 2:52 AM EST
So does this mean that once a user creates a FS/WTB post, said user is free to bump it with info as often he wants as long as he is prepared to pay the 2k each and every time? I would hope to get a uniform answer from the admin community.
March 28 2006 2:54 AM EST
Bah, sorry. My question is in reference to the 12 hour bump rule, which isn't referenced anywhere.
Tez, from Special J in the PR thread.
"1. The rule about bumping within 12 hours was removed from the rule listing on FW/WTB. It needed to be cleared up by someone who is better with wording and it was never done. I was the original author of the rule, enough people tried to hang me over some of the points and I agreed that they were vague."
March 28 2006 5:22 AM EST
hehe not moving this to changelog? It's still some impact :P
Good way to try combat the ridiculous number of USD transactions.
March 28 2006 9:57 AM EST
it is very spiteful. you don't arrest a crowd to catch 1 criminal. at this rate this will be a single player game.
Not really Zog, most of those are BIN sales which don't attract much bidding anyway.
This is the type of solution we get when folks start poking the badger. Please don't poke the badger. I have a feeling the next gaggle of us to demand something is going to find logging in difficult.
March 28 2006 10:12 AM EST
I love it! Great idea!
Thank you "whiners" and "bickerers", and please don't ever, ever stop.
(This is not sarcasm. I think this change is awesome, and if the "whiners" ever stopped "whining", I would drop this game like a hot rock.)
March 28 2006 10:16 AM EST
Actually no one was "poking the badger".
We were asking for the rules to apply to everyone.
If this solution will accomplish that, I am all for it.
And if I find logging in difficult for expression my opinions in a PG way, so be it. I am sure a lot of people will celebrate with glee if that happens. But any game, worth anything, should have banter back and forth in a civil way.
And yes, the admins are volunteers, but are also selected to do a job by Jon. With promotion comes responsibility. If they cannot or will not do that job properly, perhaps they should not be an admin in this game.
March 28 2006 10:19 AM EST
100% agree, Ranger.
And no, novice, simple dissent is never going to give anyone "login problems". If that were the case, I would not have seen my one-year CB anniversary. So please don't spread rumors to that effect. Maybe you were just kidding, but some impressionable folks reading this thread might think CB a police state when they read your comment. That simply isn't true.
As I always tell my 13 year old, actions speak louder than words
March 28 2006 10:23 AM EST
As usual I'm in agreement with Sutekh and perhaps for the first time, I'm in agreement with Ranger. Great change, I love it, and thanks for the heads up GL, not sure how I missed that post. I was busy looking the FAQ and Help/Wiki.
March 28 2006 10:32 AM EST
What? There is more than one spot with information, making it hard to find the pertinent facts? *smile*
March 28 2006 10:38 AM EST
Selling A Mithril Chain Mail  (+35) with a minimum bid of $748,820 and bid increment of $1,000. No 'buy now.'
Auction ends in 48 hours.
There will be a listing fee of $7,341.
I'm all for this change and happy to promote the use of auctions over FS/WTB (except in circumstances where forums obviously work better) however I think there's a dis-connect between the auction fee and the forum fee.
Example above is for an item ~$750k NW which isn't that unusual. The financial motivation would be for me to sell it in FS/WTB and not auctions. Given that many items have a larger NW than the one above I think the fees should be adjusted to make auctions more attractive.
I'd suggest a 25k fee for forums to make sure only the "exceptions" were posted here. I'd also suggest the FS/WTB threads are closed after four days and not two.
March 28 2006 10:38 AM EST
there was no need for DAWG to make that thread after being fined 25k. you can try to justify it but he knows that making comments not about buying or selling in a FS/WTB thread is a bad thing if the thread creator asks an admin to remove off topic comments it is normally done and the author of those comments is subject to a fine period.
March 28 2006 10:42 AM EST
G_Beee, I think the motivation would be removed once you paid the transfer fee to send it on over to the seller. On high NW items, its much more costly to sell in FS/WTB than it is in auction as you have to pay the piper to send it to your customer.
Unless youre doing something sneaky (but somewhat risky) that is :O)
March 28 2006 10:45 AM EST
MM usually they don't fine people, they just remove them, had that been the case, then DAWG probably wouldn't have felt compelled to bring it up. This is what happens when the rules are ambigiously enforced. Now there'll be no problems. I am all for Auctions, just make it cheap the put stuff in there. If you are selling a bunch of stuff it's not worth it to put it in auctions.
March 28 2006 10:46 AM EST
As usual you do not have a command of the facts.
DAWG posted to ask why there is selective enforcement of the rules. The post in question had all capitals, stayed there for hours, while previously DAWG got fined for the exact same thing.
March 28 2006 10:46 AM EST
FS forum doesn't get the bumps that we were used to.
March 28 2006 10:47 AM EST
when the comments were removed did he make another post in that thread?
March 28 2006 10:48 AM EST
Remember that in auctions you must have the money right then and there. No P/P allowing via auctions.
However, for those short of money at the time of the sale, FS/WTB threads are great for getting P/P's lined up.
March 28 2006 10:54 AM EST
As Shade pointed out to me in CM it's prolly not fair to penalize the "WTB" user with a large fee for posting. Good point.
March 28 2006 10:55 AM EST
true, however you can still contact the auctioner in private.
Also imo, there should be a better way for people who are looking for something, to use the forum for it.
in other words: split the FS and WTB forums so that for FS auctions will be promoted and for WTB it should be easier to find other people possibly offering something.
March 28 2006 10:56 AM EST
2k a post is not that large a fee to post.
March 28 2006 11:23 AM EST
Yeah. If the user can't afford the $2k to post for WTB, they should probably be using the store or rentals.
Sut: I was mostly joking, but I can't help but feel that the manner in which recent problems have been solved has been vicious. Given a situation where a group of people heavily disagreed with a desicion I could certainly see them being excused from the game. Maybe I'm being fatalistic, but when we solve chat crowding with fire and forum issues by eliminating the forum...
I want to do it, I really do. But I just can't. I can't do it again. But I want to, I really, really do...
March 28 2006 11:44 AM EST
Agreed, novice, and I see your point. Some things in CB2-land have ben more strict (elimination of camping being a prime example). But I actually like simple, strict changes like that. The fewer rules the better, in my opinion, even if the rules are less flexible (but more black-and-white).
Remember, I am the guy that when Jonathan said "well, we COULD stop USD by just stopping all transfers..." I said, COOL! *smile*
March 28 2006 11:58 AM EST
Be careful what you ask for:
An apology for being called a slur.
March 28 2006 2:19 PM EST
OK I'm sorry. But I wouldn't call "sour puss" a slur, exactly.
March 28 2006 2:23 PM EST
Indeed, 2k posting fee isn't to be called that big, but 2k for making a reply on it, which would perhaps be done a max of 3 times, will make it 8k total, still nothing really big but a bit annoying thats all :)
rest of my opinion is that I hardly have anything to do with it, other than that I used to monitor FS threads for some inappropriate content.
Ok, Good, we all got it? Good, now lets just BE QUIET!
March 28 2006 4:19 PM EST
"Maybe you were just kidding, but some impressionable folks reading this thread might think CB a police state when they read your comment. That simply isn't true.
--QBsutekh137, 10:19 AM EST "
I don't think ANY posts were required to give us young impressionable players the feeling of a "police state" I'm sorry to be blunt, but Jon's recent perogatives to implement strict changes at random that affect the entire community when atleast a somewhat sizable portion of the community is in disagreement regarding the changes, or even the necceisty for change seems a bit dictatorish to me.
The ability of Admin. and Ops to implement a kill of ones chat privelages b/c you disagree with their opinions, and maybe call them an ENTIRELY PG name in PM (stop being an idiot was the exact phrase that earned me a kill) . Or the ability to randomly fine characters for use of a PG term in chat because it is "interpreted" to be meant in a non-G manner, and more specifically because it was interpreted "to be an attack on the admin" (which I was told in PM) when the comment I made was really directed to the whiners (sorry whiners). The fine was implemented while I was kicked from the room, and the gracious admin didn't even have the decency to inform me of it, I had to start reading forums when I noticed my $CB had decreased.
Anyway not to get off ranting (too late) but that all adds up to a pretty "police state" feeling. I hope Jon is reading ALL of the comments posted regarding the overall feeling of the game since the changes he has implemented and can take them to heart as a successful business owner, and have enough foresight to see the direction in which his business is heading. Take a step away from the personal conflicts and attacks you may have suffered from this ordeal, and look at the big picture Jon.
I paid my $10 (a modest fee by all comparisons), I invest a GREAT deal of time in both my char., and in trying to help improve the community through mentorship of new players. I am begining to question the motives of the owners/admin/and Ops involved with this community, and questioning the neccesity for me to invest my personal time trying to improve any aspect of this game when the above mentioned parties can blatently make changes and decisions to disrupt and deteriorate it.
Anyway just my 2 cents....
March 28 2006 5:39 PM EST
There is a difference between a "police state" and a "dictatorship". In fact, those terms can have everything or nothing to do with each other. Some of the most effective governments of all time have been based on enlightened despotism. At other times in history, democracies/republics with well-written constitutions were turned into a police state (can you say Nazi Germany?). The actual form of government does not always entail a specific result.
Simplifying a situation in order to control it better is not fascism. No one got hurt. It's just a new way of doing it. Just like the elinmation of camping. Camping was so wide-open that it got to the point of being able to be manipulated (bots/scripts in use by some). That was unfair in Jonathan's eyes (the only ones that matter). Therefore, he made the ultimate simplification by eliminating camping altogether. This changed the game dramtically for some, not at all for others. But it wasn't any sort of oppression in my opinion -- it was a decision that had to be made one way or the other.
March 28 2006 5:47 PM EST
in my eyes the motivation to implement the change in such a rash fashion was more in question than the actual change itself. You are speaking about it as though there were some type of problem with FS/WTB, there was none. If there was a problem it was in the moderation of the Forum (notice I said if, someone else will have to make that decision) IF a problem did exist, a change should have been implemented in its moderation, not its usage.
I find it funny that Stephen is saying how some players ruined it for all in FS/WTB. and yet... and yet it seemed like it just opened up the door for them all to complain some more. Stephen I do hope you realize that just reposting this is as bad as the first one was.
March 28 2006 6:13 PM EST
the end of camping was such a dramatic over reaction same as this situation. Jon over reacts to alot of things.
the end of camping was such a dramatic over reaction same as this situation. Jon over reacts to alot of things.
-Camping ended because Jon couldn't find a way to stop players from using software tools to do the work for them. Give it a rest already.
March 28 2006 6:21 PM EST
honestly i highly doubt he tried IA. there are alot of ways even i could think of.
March 28 2006 6:25 PM EST
March 28 2006 6:36 PM EST
1 idea from Sefton would have done the job. he suggested putting the botcheck after purchase... to expand on that i suggest having 2 botchecks 1 entering and 1 on purchase. if you ran a script it would not be very effective and it would be back to the fastest player. if i put any thought into it i could also come up with having to type out the item you want instead of actually clicking it. i have more ideas but i think you get the point
March 28 2006 7:02 PM EST
FS/WTB had no problems? The whole discussion was concerning how it is difficult to administer the rules, yes yes?
Maybe the reason I seem like a Jonathan cheerleader (and I his pet, no less! Purr!) is that we think alike (except he is far more technichally gifted in programming and has a much stronger work ethic than I).
When there is a problem where I work (I am an IT manager at a law firm), I follow the problem back to as far as I can go to make sure I can fully fix and control the situation (database issues, debugging, client requests, etc.) Sometimes that means rolling things back so far so as to remove some of the flexibility that is leading to the "bucket of worms". An example: users quite often ask to be able to see many things at once (many windows being open, in no particular order, hotkeys bringing up lookup lists in th emiddle of other operations, etc.). This can be problematic in software, as the user can lose context quickly, thereby throwing off the entire work-flow. The programmer can also get lost, not realizing the dizzying number of permutations a single work session can get itself into as it bombs.
But we cannot just limit all operations to a one-at-a-time philosophy either (windowing is _meant_ to facilitate multiple entry points to information to aid in varied work-flow). In the same sense, we cannot allow the user to open 500 windows at once and "thrash".
Thus, some problems are solved be _removing_ possibilties (but not everything). Will some "power" users complain that their favorite screen is now gone or harder to access? Invariably. Will the users who never turned on their monitors even notice? Probably not. Will I care, either way? Not a whit.
My stand (back to CB) is consistent. I was stating (in support of DAWG's original post) that certain rules in forums were both hard to know and hard to maintain. Jonathan implemented a change that basically fixed both issues. By simplifying what can be done in forums, he made knowing the rules a moot point. He also made it easier for the admins to maintain things, since not as many scenarios can arise.
That, in my opinion, is both Good and Right. It was not a knee-jerk reaction, it was not an over-reaction, it was not fascism, and it was not impulsive. It was Smart.
March 28 2006 7:14 PM EST
that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. my opinion is that it was a knee jerk reaction. basically it's like this in my eyes. DAWG questioned a rule instead of answering it Jon made the question moot taking away a great interactive tool from the entire community. this is how i view it he basically said "ok fine i'll just take away the issue instead of thinking about how to fix it. find something else to whine about" it seems very spiteful to me. you never address a problem by removing it that just makes different problems.
But when you have a wife, a couple of kids and a job, and the the game you created is at the bottom of that priority list, you might only have time for a "band-aid" fix, no matter how much the young players without nearly the same amount of obligations in their lives hate it. That is cold, hard reality.
March 28 2006 7:20 PM EST
I address problems by removing the source of the issue _all_ the time. Daily, in fact. Granted, I manage a base of code that is gargantuan and over 25 years old, but the point is still valid: trimming of functionality is the most powerful way of removing education issues, rule ambiguity, and enforcement nightmares.
However, you are entitled to your opinion as well. I'm just not understanding the folks who are attributing this to pure spite or punitive reasons. Can you show me a single example of a time where Jonathan has changed this game out of such petulant rationale?
March 28 2006 7:22 PM EST
that's true Barzoo but in this world when your performance slips you will be questioned no matter what your personal life is like and that my friend IS cold hard reality
Not when you are president, owner, creator and CEO, you don't. That's one of the perks of "being the boss." Jonathan certainly isn't "performing" for the likes of you, me, or anyone here. Why is it so hard to grasp that?
March 28 2006 7:27 PM EST
Sutekh your approach to coding has NOTHING to do with how people are addressed in your life correct? people are who play this game not a bunch of random numbers, letters and symbols. you can't do that with people and have a happy environment.
March 28 2006 7:31 PM EST
Barzoo so you think that if every player who plays this game left you think Jon would still work on it? to a much lesser degree we are all Jons boss but the only way to fire him is to quit. he may do unpopular things but i gaurentee he understands the need to keep the game fun. in essence that is how he works for us.
First, I seriously doubt that the entire CB population is going to up and quit over this. Some, yes, but enough to create panic? Be serious.
Also consider that the possibility exists that he's gotten to the point where he finds this to be nothing but a headache, and would welcome a shut down. You don't believe that being this much of a pain in his behind wouldn't push that button if that were the real scenario?
Keep pushing. Ya'll just might get things your way.
March 28 2006 7:45 PM EST
if he views this game as a headache then he should stop
March 28 2006 7:50 PM EST
This game is becoming a joke. It is so much different than before. The community is going downhill.
I login this game very so offend, not because the need to fight but for the community. Reading FS/WTB is my favorite pass time. Now, it is more like a waste land.
CB1 used to have a lot of General posts. Good info and strategy discussion. Here it is already an empty land where only whining posts are likely made or discussion on how uber FB strat is.
CB1 off-topic used to be good reading about, off-topic. Now, you found off-topic about 2 months old still on top of list. That speaks a lot on how this community evolve, or in this case, being on the verge of extinction.
Restricting the game just because someone does not like the "discussion" being made by people who actually play and care about the game, does not help the community. It's like using a hammer to kill a fly.
Too bad. Thing that goes up also goes down, apply to this game too.
March 28 2006 8:53 PM EST
You talk about this like it is just some hobby Jon picked up a few weeks ago and we are all being overly demanding.... you look at the number of supporters invloved in this game and I am sure doing some simple math you will see there is a fair chunk of change being passed on to Jon directly. Secondly, we are all speaking FOR Jon, when he has not voiced any of these opinions for himself. If (and again I am speaking for Jon without knowing any of his opininons) he is genuinly tired and "needs a break" maybe it is time to pass the torch, or atleast recruit more help dealing with the everyday stuff he would rather not deal with, so he can focus on the points of the game he does enjoy...
If infact this started out as a fun hobby, and pastime for Jon, and has become more like a 3rd 4th or 5th Job, maybe he should consider upping the price for supportership and increasing the benifit, or adding a "gold supporter" to increase his income from the game and keep everyone happy. An increase in income means he could hire additional help rather than looking for volunteers, or atleast supplementing his income enough to make it worthwhile.
I have not been a member of this community as long as most of you, but I would like to be a member of it for a long time to come. And for those of you relating this to computer administration... I guarantee you the day you decided to kill an entire database, or atleast remove 90% of its functionality do to problems adminsitering it, is the day you pack up your desk... There is no way an intelligent person can argue the fact that it was the best solution. It may have been the simplest, most attention grabbing solution, but certainly not the best.
I apologize for continuing to post thesis after thesis on this topic, but it should be apparant I feel very strongly about it, and would like to it resolved and would offer my assistance in anyway to do so.
March 28 2006 9:31 PM EST
There is already a form of golden membership, in case you don't know. It is new supporter items.
We have not have new supporter items for a while. May be one to celebrate April Fool day?
March 29 2006 12:18 AM EST
Jonathan CAN'T voice his opinion. He is screwed either way. When he talks he gets picked apart. When he remains silent he gets condescending "thought sos".
What, pray tell, would you do? (generic you)
March 29 2006 12:24 AM EST
I'd say Jon voices his opinion succinctly and often viciously after leaving most threads bicker for a few hours!
March 29 2006 2:10 AM EST
"he suggested putting the botcheck after purchase... to expand on that i suggest having 2 botchecks 1 entering and 1 on purchase. if you ran a script it would not be very effective and it would be back to the fastest player. if i put any thought into it i could also come up with having to type out the item you want instead of actually clicking it."
Well, people already were manually answering botchecks, but used a script to fill their 'shopping cart'. Putting more botchecks would not solve that.
March 29 2006 10:34 AM EST
Bartjan while i respect your opinion i don't think i ever saw you camp. trust me the more you force the human to do the less of an impact the script would have
March 29 2006 10:37 AM EST
The human continues to do the exact same thing, his script also does exact the same thing. What effect will that extra botcheck have?
March 29 2006 10:38 AM EST
No MM, the scripts would still fill the shopping cart, the user only has to answer another botcheck.
Still 90% automated, cheating and unfair.
Blame those who cheated on the loss of camping, if I could name drop I most certainly would. I'd love to see these people beaten in public until they left CB :)
March 29 2006 10:42 AM EST
Bart's right MM. Let's take a gander at two otherwise equal campers...
Player 1 enters store, encounters bot check - ~ 2 sec
Player 2 enters store, encounters bot check - ~ 2 sec
Player 1 scans screen, selects rare items by hand, clicks the buy button ~ 4 sec
Player 2 runs script to select rares (does he even have to click the buy button?) ~ 1 sec
Player 1 leaves store, encounters bot check - ~ 2 sec
Player 2 leaves store, encounters bot check - ~ 2 sec
Player 1 will never be as fast as Player 2 in going through the store items and checking them. You can add whatever other security you want, it adds to everyone's time equally.
March 29 2006 10:47 AM EST
the advantage you get from a script in camping get's diluted the more the human has to do. if i have to enter 2 botchecks i still have to check the item and i understand your point but trust me the more the user has to do the less a bot can impact it. the people that used the bots were cheating but i've always debated how much of an advantage they actually got. we are talking 1 to 3 seconds from me locating an item to buying it the gap was never that wide.
March 29 2006 10:50 AM EST
Sure, the overall saved percentage of time that the script helps you would with would drop with the more layers of security you add as the whole process would take longer. The non-script user still has to be able to make up the time that the script user saves. Trust us MM, you're wrong on this one :O)
March 29 2006 10:52 AM EST
You can not beat the script that was being used,
Person entered store then the person left the store with the rares.
It was instant.
March 29 2006 10:55 AM EST
Tezmac i could indeed beat the script users it's not even that hard.
MM, your point about diluting the usefulness of the script is valid, and on the right track, but as a whole needs improvement for reasons stated here and elsewhere. If you extrapolate your thoughts, there is another possibility to simply remove the need entirely for a script, thus making it totally useless instead of less useful.
Have the rare spawn only for the person that entered the store. Now there's no *need* for a script. Give it an X second expiration for that person, or some such thing. Basically, when the system decides it's time to spawn a rare, the next person that enters the store gets the chance to buy it. If he doesn't, it either goes into the bitbucket, goes to auctions, or goes to the next person that enters the store. This makes the game much more fair, and alleviates the current issue that rares currently only go to people with deep pockets (via auctions).
March 29 2006 11:14 AM EST
if that could be coded that is very interesting nightstrike.
Thanks. However, given that I posed the idea deep within a thread that's veered vastly off-topic (well, maybe not vastly.. but somewhat), I doubt it will go far beyond this thread. Perhaps you can take the idea and run with it. Bring it to a more appropriate setting.
March 29 2006 11:21 AM EST
I actually thought that was the way that camping worked back on CB1 when I was a new player over there. Good idea, might warrant posting it in a new thread. I dont know if Jon is open to the idea of bring camping back or if your idea is practical to code.
March 29 2006 7:47 PM EST
Chances are someone already mentioned this, but with this new system, I would like to suggest a feature: Closing the thread to chatmails after sale is completed. This way, when a person is done selling something, s/he can prevent further inqueries regarding the thread.
Given how this "community" treats "status", I highly doubt my idea would get much acceptance from certain people. It would be better suggested/posted from someone else. Perhaps you would have more luck.
April 1 2006 10:52 AM EST
Nightstrike, you'll always be #1 in my eyes!
Why isn't this change in the Changelog Forum? I think this is the most ridiculous conclusion to last weeks idea. I really indeed think Jon should take a walk back through the school halls along the way. Since the admins are messing up. I'm going to now not only tick off my supporters who have put hundreds to thousands of dollars in my pocket, I'll also break the game even more to show them a lesson.
Who's the children in this situation?
April 2 2006 7:06 PM EDT
Siskel and Ebert give your speech: Two Thumbs Up.
Don't forget the use of profanity in the forums as well.
April 2 2006 7:13 PM EDT
April 2 2006 7:21 PM EDT
Wow, someone should be an investigator...
On the camping issue I have never run a script here though have often thought of how. I actually mentioned the select all rares option which made the problem in the first place. I was thinking of making my life easier it seems others thought it gave an unfair advantage. I never used it once and did't have any trouble beating those I knew who did.
However, camping and this topic have nothing to do with each other.
why not put the rares into auctions with the buy now price of the networth? theres no way to cheat that.
April 2 2006 8:12 PM EDT
Except that the rich could control the economy.
April 2 2006 8:13 PM EDT
Yeah... Base AG's in auction with a BIN of $1,792
(woot 100th post)
April 2 2006 8:21 PM EDT
I believe it's Ebert and Roeper now...
I didn't care to read the thread past the last few replies, but I will say that I don't mind the changes. As far as I'm concerned it only helps the seller. If this is a penalty then we need more penalties.
I wouldn't mind some clarified op and admin duties though...
April 4 2006 3:09 AM EDT
the store and auctions are perfect, stop whinig everyone...if u want something good...yes you need to be patient and save up a bit...stop whining or else Jon will do something no one will like.
Can't wait to see it all go? Is this the rationale?
April 5 2006 11:37 PM EDT
Ack! people still whining about camping going the way of the Shield of Aule? Or the SoD? Oooh man bring back the Lochaber axe as the most powerful weapon in the game.
Sorry, had to.
For those who are wondering, the Shield of Aulë was renamed as Shield of Mandos (then Buckler of Mandos).
Just like the Holocaust Cloak was renamed Cloak of Balrog Flame, but for a much better reason.
April 6 2006 12:35 AM EDT
Damn that is some fine history. I had never heard of "Aule", even though I was around.
Then again, it was brought up by Abit...he probably snagged all of then from the store before they even got renamed. *smile*
Heh, "Aule" is in the spell checker...
April 6 2006 10:49 AM EDT
Yeah I snagged the first one.
I remember when Jon would announce that there was a new item, usually to offset some nerf he had instituted to calm something down. Everyone would become a camper. Scouring the stores thousands of times a day.
I can remember the first MH, man was I bummed when Todd got the first. He wasn't even a camper, if Saint had gotten it I wouldn't have cared but Todd! I was at it for 2 days straight looking for the new mystery weapon.
Anyway, my point is, CB1 is gone, camping is gone, be glad CB2 is still here to burn our lives away on. Jon has put a ton of time into it and just wants it to run so we can all play. Yeah he makes a little cash on it, but probably not much profit.
I love the way there are volunteers and all kinds of admins now. There is much less rule breaking and confusion. CB is evolving, try to enjoy it.
/me goes back to lurking
April 10 2006 6:02 PM EDT
thus spoketh the great Abitjadded! amen!
Hmmz, drop in interaction.
Me no like! x(
I wonder what kind of impact it will have on prices in auctions.
More people selling in auctions = deflation of price of items?
Oh wait, John's auction sniper should take care of that! =) So it's all good! hehe
April 12 2006 11:27 PM EDT
Lol, Drudge...You are quite the joker still I see.
I was just trying to kill the thread, one of my natural talents.
The almighty Thread Killer!
/me asks Jon for cheese to see if he gets it...
worked for you all....
April 18 2006 11:19 AM EDT
Notify Me of Responses:  Yes  No
Is this still necessary?
April 18 2006 11:22 AM EDT
Yes, Shade. See here
as to why.
April 18 2006 4:00 PM EDT
Ahh yes I see now, :)
But does it really need to be default on for the poster?
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001l1O">Be careful what you ask for</a>