Moderator: Community Team
Shino Tenshi wrote:Jdsizzleslice wrote:But as agentcom has said,agentcom wrote:Common sense would tell you that the games that are limited to once a month games for premium players only (and some special events) was not meant to be circumvented by this new feature. How could one possibly think that this feature was intended to create unlimited BRs? It boggles the mind how many people could possibly think that this was some sort of intended part of this update.
And yet you, JD, continually begged another player and myself to unfoe you, so you could join the BR games![]()
![]()
Mods say as mods do? What a joke
Robespierre__ wrote:Thanks for this. We all appreciate all the efforts to make the site even better than it already is.
Don't hate guys. We get a lot for what little we pay.
Robes
Dukasaur wrote:Robespierre__ wrote:Thanks for this. We all appreciate all the efforts to make the site even better than it already is.
Don't hate guys. We get a lot for what little we pay.
Robes
+1
+2
Bottom line is: it's still a great website.
iAmCaffeine wrote:As has already been mentioned, this needs to be altered so that players are the same colour. I was part of team 2 in a triples and team 1 asked for a rematch so I clicked the button. It swapped me (pink) and red so the teams were mixed up. Completely pointless really, I'll just go re-make the game and send the invites manually, which isn't a problem, but defeats the purpose of having a rematch button.
∞ wrote:Can we get Battle Royal games on other maps besides Colosseum?
-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:∞ wrote:Can we get Battle Royal games on other maps besides Colosseum?
If I understand correctly, dolomite is currently working on it. Hopefully witthin 2-3 months we'll have another Battle Royale specific map that will handle up to 26 players.
iAmCaffeine wrote:As has already been mentioned, this needs to be altered so that players are the same colour. I was part of team 2 in a triples and team 1 asked for a rematch so I clicked the button. It swapped me (pink) and red so the teams were mixed up. Completely pointless really, I'll just go re-make the game and send the invites manually, which isn't a problem, but defeats the purpose of having a rematch button.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:
But as agentcom has said,agentcom wrote:Common sense would tell you that the games that are limited to once a month games for premium players only (and some special events) was not meant to be circumvented by this new feature. How could one possibly think that this feature was intended to create unlimited BRs? It boggles the mind how many people could possibly think that this was some sort of intended part of this update.
nietzsche wrote:Jdsizzleslice wrote:
But as agentcom has said,agentcom wrote:Common sense would tell you that the games that are limited to once a month games for premium players only (and some special events) was not meant to be circumvented by this new feature. How could one possibly think that this feature was intended to create unlimited BRs? It boggles the mind how many people could possibly think that this was some sort of intended part of this update.
Decent programmers have to think of everything, and the mistake was lame, was one that any programmer must foresee. Murphy's law.
And when you test something, you don't only use it the way it's supposed to be used, you use it anyway you can, you try to break it, bend it anything.
So if agentcom is the authority in this matters, I will have to laugh a little bit more.. cause that's lame.
I gotta be honest though, it's possible the "beta testing" by the mods can be used by the programmer as way to avoid responsibility. If the programmer is said by El_Jefe: "ok, do your job, don't worry for testing I will provide lemmings to do it", then he could easily say "hey, they said it was going to be tested. testing is not my job". Still, the mistake was lame and it's one that shouldn't occur if you do simple validations.
rdsrds2120 wrote:"Beta Testers" is still, well, in Beta! We're getting more testers and some updates were in development before the group came to be. No one's saying that this update didn't have it's flaws, but it's all fixed now and that's what's important.
BMO
rdsrds2120 wrote:As iterated, no one was threatened, but merely asked not to participate in the bugs!
BMO
Fugitive_Bill wrote:Just out of interest (I guess I should research it however...) why are we only allowed to play 1 game of 'Battle Royale' per month anyway?
B!LL!
SirSebstar wrote:Fugitive_Bill wrote:Just out of interest (I guess I should research it however...) why are we only allowed to play 1 game of 'Battle Royale' per month anyway?
B!LL!
It used to be that BR's were alny part of some kind of celebration and outside those there were NO br's.
Now we still have those br's but in addition we also have the regular br's of which you can join one a month
rdsrds2120 wrote:SirSebstar wrote:Fugitive_Bill wrote:Just out of interest (I guess I should research it however...) why are we only allowed to play 1 game of 'Battle Royale' per month anyway?
B!LL!
It used to be that BR's were alny part of some kind of celebration and outside those there were NO br's.
Now we still have those br's but in addition we also have the regular br's of which you can join one a month
And soon, the maps will change to not be just Colosseum! =)
BMO
Teflon Kris wrote:Bruceswar wrote:Lindax wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote:DO NOT join or create any of these games. They will be promptly deleted and exploiting bugs is against site rules![/list]
BMO[/size]
That's really funny. I can't find any rule on this site prohibiting "exploiting bugs". It's not even a bug, it's an oversight on your part.
You guys screw up and than have the audacity to prohibit the use a feature that you implemented without proper research/testing/announcement? Putting the blame on the paying customer?
This keeps getting better and better. If this was my business heads would roll.
Lx
+1
+ another
+ several others on behalf of like-minded players
In theory, this is an update that, now the 'oversight' has been fixed, is unlikely to cause any mayhem.
However, I'm sure most of the community would refer old updates to have their 'oversights' fixed before we have more features (and if we do have more features, then the map foundry still have a long queue of requests outstanding for years, and the clan community could do with a clan tab like the tournament tab).
Isn't it common sense to fix old 'oversights' before creating new ones?
Examples of features with unfixed oversights:Freestyle 'loophole' 'fix' - this created a deliberate miss turn loophole to replace the original loophole. This can be closed by the code recognising a miss turn player as the person who played last in the previous round.
Problem with round limits being reached and incorrect winner declared ( ' deadbeater won the game on round limit ' ).
One more thing: next time we get a feature it would be cool to not have an oversight.
And, when it comes to heads rolling, the volunteers can just have a little wobble while we watch any paid heads roll all the way down a very long hill, ...
... with a cliff at the bottom.
Teflon Kris wrote:...Problem with round limits being reached and incorrect winner declared ( ' deadbeater won the game on round limit ' )...
nietzsche wrote:
And when you test something, you don't only use it the way it's supposed to be used, you use it anyway you can, you try to break it, bend it anything.
So if agentcom is the authority in this matters, I will have to laugh a little bit more.. cause that's lame.
BoganGod wrote:What is important is that a) this type of balls up doesn't happen again. b) mods/admin pull their heads in with their fascist threats.
BoganGod wrote: Say "hey mistakes have been made, we acknowledge our poor handling of some aspects of this roll out. Please accept our apologies, and lets move forward."
If you can't admit that you made a mistake, then you can't learn.![]()
Please tell me if anything about my post is difficult to understand. English is not my first language, maybe it is not your first language either rd.
patrickaa317 wrote:bugs seem to be back...
Game 1000001
Guessing original code was reimplemented when it was lost rather than the corrected code.
denominator wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:bugs seem to be back...
Game 1000001
Guessing original code was reimplemented when it was lost rather than the corrected code.
...and they seem to have been all deleted now. It's really too bad; clearly these games are something that is in high demand in the community but the powers that be are intensely against them.
Also, something between before the games were deleted and after, my "jump to next playable game" link has broken. I can only assume it is a related consequence.
Return to Announcement Archives
Users browsing this forum: No registered users