Empty Emblems.

Nullified suggestions are shown here. These are the denied changes.
User avatar
Celica
Drops
Drops
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:33 am

Re: Empty Emblems.

Post by Celica »

thats still not a limit. im sure youll like it when a guild does right on the borderline and still pisses you off to incite more whining.

im also sure the gms will like having to deal with it when its not what you requested.
User avatar
Haelstrom
Bomb Poring
Bomb Poring
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:49 pm
Location: Indiana.
Contact:

Re: Empty Emblems.

Post by Haelstrom »

It is a limit. If it has enough opacity it's readily visible, there's no problem. If a guild puts it at 1% opacity or something absurd like that, it's as good as being invisible and/or the 1 pixel route.

'Course, since this is a suggestion thread where I was asking for clarification on the rules proposed, that can as easily be amended into the list for clarification.

Now where's your loophole?
Image
User avatar
Celica
Drops
Drops
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:33 am

Re: Empty Emblems.

Post by Celica »

obviously you dont understand that what you just did was add clarification to a rule you had no clarification or specifics for to begin with- thereby proving the pt. there are plenty of those that you will need to amend b4 your first post becomes reasonable. thanks for proving me correct.

also- the more u clarify, the easier it becomes to abuse.
User avatar
Haelstrom
Bomb Poring
Bomb Poring
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:49 pm
Location: Indiana.
Contact:

Re: Empty Emblems.

Post by Haelstrom »

Celica wrote:thanks for proving me correct.
Actually, no, because the rules set forth cover virtually every constituency as is. However, if it makes you feel better, I edited the first post at the very end, just for you. :D

This is the purpose of suggestion threads pre-implementation, to iron out such kinks. Provided this is accepted, you ironically just helped do exactly what I wanted, so much appreciated. /awsm
Image
User avatar
Celica
Drops
Drops
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:33 am

Re: Empty Emblems.

Post by Celica »

if u say so- but u know the definition of virtually: 'almost but not quite'.
User avatar
Haelstrom
Bomb Poring
Bomb Poring
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:49 pm
Location: Indiana.
Contact:

Re: Empty Emblems.

Post by Haelstrom »

Yes, because I'm not as pompous as to think I've got every loophole ever defeated. With the vast number of different individuals that'll frequent this forums, new ideas to challenge any and every rule will come, and be dealt with at that time.

But for the vast majority's part, the first post more than adequately handles the key points mentioned. There's simply always room for improvement, ergo "virtually."

Any other ideas?
Image
User avatar
Celica
Drops
Drops
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:33 am

Re: Empty Emblems.

Post by Celica »

the main idea that was brought forth was 'deal with it'. is that not an option?

never in all of my woeing over the years has a blank emblem ever been a hindrance. just something you crush and laugh at for trying. it eventually goes away if ppl know it doesn't actually work. making a big deal about it shows that its doing its job and makes a dominant guild look weak.
User avatar
Haelstrom
Bomb Poring
Bomb Poring
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:49 pm
Location: Indiana.
Contact:

Re: Empty Emblems.

Post by Haelstrom »

It can be a hindrance. The potential even if it's never achieved is reason enough. But yes, that can be an option, and that's a perfectly reasonable stance. Your first post instead, tried to find loopholes, compared the whole premise to a totalitarian dictatorship and "dog rape," and generally came off hostile where it could've simply been .. a post.

Trust me, the guild I mentioned was never even once a threat in the WoEs they've done it. But where there's a way, there'll end up being a will - not to mention I'm definitely not the only one who finds this not a tactic at all, but rather a (mostly useless) form of exploitation.

If a guild modifies their client so they can see Chase Walk steps easy and gets destroyed, that doesn't make it okay they exploited the system in some shape or form. It doesn't work that way.
Image
User avatar
Celica
Drops
Drops
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:33 am

Re: Empty Emblems.

Post by Celica »

if a guild modifies their client then theyll already get banned for it. its unnecessary to have a rule for emblems tho. makes it sound like a baby server. how hard is it to see a person walking in your castle without an emblem? i still dont see the pt since if this gets implemented theres precedent for asking that annoying emblems be banned or certain skills be blocked or assumptio removing be bannable. altho the precedent for this ruling comes from the offensive names one to begin with. i wouldnt be surprised if sooner or later we have restrictions on colors for woe or classes.. some servers also prevent entrance camping/precasts. i suppose it wont be long until that happens too. none of the above is what 'woe' ever was or should be.

btw, i was 'personal' b/c it looks like the suggestion was fueled from 'personal' disagreements. no offense suggested.
PiraNja
Drops
Drops
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:36 pm

Re: Empty Emblems.

Post by PiraNja »

Cecila, I believe you are thinking too far ahead.
Many suggestions have already been made on this server and a bunch were approved, but it never led anyone to go and try to overhaul basic gameplay mechanisms (such as skills) in such ways as you suggest.
I'm not sure where you take the assumption that something like this will happen from, but then I didn't do my research on which servers met their downfall by imposing restrictions on the emblems of WoE-active guilds.


That said, I strongly support this suggestion.
There would have to be clear rules regarding opacity (I didn't even know emblems could have opacity levels) and how many pixels need to be filled, but those would have to be up to the GMs to be put as they find reasonable and then enforced according to this.
I really don't see so much trouble with emblems being just tiny symbols, since, as of now, most WoE-ing guilds I saw either had emblems using almost all the available space or, well... none (i.e. having removed it for the duration of WoE, but normally having one), but of course it would have to be addressed within this rule.

Also, it should be rather obvious that things going against the rules unknowingly (e.g. emblem fills 20px instead of 21px required to be legit) would probably be met with a request to change the emblem before any real action follows, unless the GMs see fit otherwise.

I personally find any emblem that is in any way visible is at least a step in the right direction over the odd tactic of removing an emblem for WoE, when the issue is not that the Guild hasn't had time to make one because they are new or so...

That would be my opinion and will be all I will say to this topic.
Locked