contact
April 23, 2019, 12:43:14 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Londo

Pages: [1] 2
1
General Starfleet Discussion / Re: Rant
« on: November 12, 2015, 07:23:14 PM »
I sure wish Jason Marks would follow the rules as written..We have to...
...
Team Effort 1,2 & 3 Quest. Given for Group Attacks...
I led a 7 player attack and have NOT received the Quest Completion bonus's.
.
Date: 2015-11-12 18:29:37 UTC
In the attack from Babylon5 ‎‎[1:62:8] on Enemy Fleet ‎‎[1:61:20]:

The attacking side acquired 12,133 ore, 12,134 crystal, and 12,133 hydrogen.

Ranger1 (ATTACKER) lost 176 RSP and gained 0 DSP. (more)
Slap (ATTACKER) lost 1 RSP and gained 0 DSP. (more)
CQ (ATTACKER) lost 1 RSP and gained 0 DSP. (more)
Commander Dan Evans (ATTACKER) lost 1 RSP and gained 0 DSP. (more)
Commander 8675309 (ATTACKER) lost 1 RSP and gained 0 DSP. (more)
deathtopigeon (ATTACKER) lost 1 RSP and gained 0 DSP. (more)
CWD (ATTACKER) lost 1 RSP and gained 0 DSP. (more)
Krug (DEFENDER) lost 1,330 RSP and gained 0 DSP. (more)

288,000 ore and 161,325 crystal are now floating at this location.
There was a 0.0% chance that a moon would form from the debris.
However, no moon formed.
.............................................
Would you kindly give all participants the credit we earned by our actions?
//////////////................//////////////////...................////////////////////.......
He response:
You have to attack an active player in order to get credit for this quest.
Jason
Blue Frog Gaming Support
/////////////................////////////////.................../////////////////////
My reply:
Come on now....You KNOW that is NOT what it states...
Rayne_galeguard_2
Team Effort I
When you're approaching an intimidating foe, nothing beats having a wingman whoメs got your back.
Objectives
0/1
Participate in a group attack with at least 1 other player.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
It does NOT say active player.
Should I copy/paste the others for further evidence?
...........
.......................
Just once I would like to see BFG,Jason in particular...Follow the rules as they are written.
Not his biased interpretation..

2
Starfleet Commander Eradeon 3 / Re: first one to post in the E3 thread
« on: October 13, 2015, 02:05:56 AM »
Your account has been suspended.
You were suspended for: suspicious activity
Suspension lasts until 2015-10-19 15:42:41 UTC
Please contact us for more information.

Now suspended again because I used the term faggot about the bully players..
Jason Marks of North Canton,OH.  stating using an alliance name/tag is suspension violation.
Even when the rules do NOT state that.

3
Starfleet Commander Eradeon 3 / Re: first one to post in the E3 thread
« on: October 13, 2015, 02:00:38 AM »
Eradeon3 ,
The dying universe where bully players are accepted.
Players of LOST alliance with homosexual attributes bully players with 820 nukes and NO ship attacks.
Jason sides in all complaints with them as they pay large sums to maintain #9 thru 56 rank.
It took 10 days of suspensions to get me dropped 12 in rank. That is how lame that version is now.
Admiral Cuntingham #9 takes out moons because his play/mate was attacked by me, a player ranked #96 at the time.
My target was ranked #56

Oh but Jason see's no problem with that. Then wrongly interprets rules to include rank # as meaning names when the rules state Names of opponents.

4
Feature Suggestions / Re: Let's brainstorm...
« on: September 10, 2015, 03:51:04 AM »
Initiate a New Technology.
**Mid-Course Speed Change**.
Concept: To allow a player to have ALL fleet units involved in an attack to alter speed during attack or return.
Example: Flight time to target = 30 minutes. 1st 20 minutes of flight at 100% speed, last 10 minutes at a reduced speed. Say 10 - 30% drop allowed.
Return flight - 30 minutes.  1st 15 minutes at 80% speed, last 15 minutes at 100% speed.

Purpose: To give Non-Moon planet player a chance at survival in a moon rich environment. Will make an Oracle lock able to be broken even by non-experienced players who will play longer as fleets survive more.

5
Feature Suggestions / Re: Let's brainstorm...
« on: September 09, 2015, 11:20:51 PM »
Quote from: Londo on Today at 09:31:14 PM

    Here's an idea I KNOW you will not accept.
    While currently in use is the (N) or (n) designation,and it works...
    ADD a designation for those of us who spend very little due to personal financial circumstance ,
    VS
    Those who spend Ungodly amounts to attain ranking or p mode hiding.

    Perhaps ($) for a heavy use credit card account and a (=) for a sparse or rare money spender.


What benefit would this actually add to your gameplay?

...
It would add balance for IF implemented, the Big money spenders would NOT be able to attack players who spend little or nothing. Players like me that have time but lack funds to spend like some players who come in and out of p mode like I do a doorway.

6
Feature Suggestions / Re: Let's brainstorm...
« on: September 09, 2015, 09:31:14 PM »
Here's an idea I KNOW you will not accept.
While currently in use is the (N) or (n) designation,and it works...
ADD a designation for those of us who spend very little due to personal financial circumstance ,
VS
Those who spend Ungodly amounts to attain ranking or p mode hiding.

Perhaps ($) for a heavy use credit card account and a (=) for a sparse or rare money spender.

7
Feature Suggestions / Re: Let's brainstorm...
« on: September 09, 2015, 06:36:00 PM »
Create a "Specialty" ship,as I once asked for.. Stealth Commando Charon,With Commando Droids
Build Cost:Ship:
8,000 Ore
8,000 Crystal
4,000 Hydro
Build Cost: Droids:
10,000 Ore
10,000 Crystal
4,000 Hydro
........................
Use: Stealth Attack on Moon Facilities. May target either Oracle or Warp gate.
For Each Commando Droids used,a base 10% chance of success. 60% maximum chance of success.
Effect: The Specific facility targeted,either Oracle or Warp gate would be disabled for 7 days upon success.
If attack succeeds, Ship returns normally. If attack Fails, Ship is destroyed and target knows origins of ship and attack.
.........................
Purpose: To give lesser ranked players a chance to fight back against large fleets or overly aggressive area's of operation.

8
Support Rulings / Re: Rule interpretations and deciet
« on: July 07, 2014, 07:50:52 PM »
Matt , If you must,use the entire line and do not take it out of context.
"Rip off the little guy. You must be a mentally disturbed Liberal.".

Yes, You deny my Rightful Claim and rip off the little guy, me in this instance.
So much for hard work and effort.

9
Support Rulings / Re: Rule interpretations and deciet
« on: July 07, 2014, 07:45:20 PM »
Matt , "You weren't attacked while you were in vacation mode. You were attacked before you entered vacation mode and that attack was permitted to finish."

Is that not a game glitch that stole my fleet units then?
Oh,but that would mean you are wrong. As we KNOW you are in this instance.

10
Support Rulings / Re: Rule interpretations and deciet
« on: July 07, 2014, 07:43:24 PM »
Only because I am not a money , Credit card player do you FAIL to follow the rules as Written.
Just more elitist bull shit.
Spend money,get rulings in your favor. Don't spend money, Tough Luck sucker.
Here is the RULE as Written:
Vacation Mode

Vacation Mode allows you to protect and freeze your account if you will be away from the game for an extended period of time. While active, you will not accumulate any resources and you cannot be attacked unless your account becomes inactive. You will be marked inactive after a period of 35 days and risk account deletion after an additional 14 days. Vacation mode can only be activated if you have no fleets out or building, research, or upgrades pending. Finally, please note that once active, your account will be in vacation mode for a MINIMUM of 48 hours.
.
Not to use it as it is WRITTEN is deceptive Practices.
No wonder the games are dying so fast. Unequal Enforcement of the rules by BFG management.
Matt , How Long did it take you to pull out that wiki source?  Anything to violate Stated Rules as Written.
Rip off the little guy. You must be a mentally disturbed Liberal.

11
kru , "it sucks, it sucks it really does suck....your not the first person for this to occur to in the history of SFCO, but the ruling is 100% accurate and correct". Really now?
You entered vacation mode at 2014-07-03 22:07:25 UTC
Rule states with NO caveat or exemption :
 While active, you will not accumulate any resources and you cannot be attacked unless your account becomes inactive.
Attack report:
Date: 2014-07-03 22:52:04 UTC

Using the Rules as WRITTEN , I have been the victim of a glitch or unwarranted attack.
To say it is , "..100% accurate and correct" is childish and wrong.  The Rule,as written,is precise. "you cannot be attacked". I was , therefore, I should have all my fleet units and resources restored as they were Prior to the attack.

IF both Matt and BFG are NOT going to Honor and Respect the Rules as Written,why have them at all? 
I took a severe loss due ONLY to their false acceptance of a caveat NOT previously in the RULES.
They too MUST follow the Terms of Agreement we  subject ourselves to. The ruling IS Faulty on the Written Evidence of the Rules of play.

Unlike some, I can not spend huge sums of money on gaming. So I must follow the rules AS THEY are given. The wording IS SPECIFIC.
"you cannot be attacked" while in Vacation mode.
I received the In Game message of :You entered vacation mode at 2014-07-03 22:07:25 UTC

12
Support Rulings / Re: Rule interpretations and deciet
« on: July 07, 2014, 05:40:23 PM »
Like I stated,it was not my negligence. It was either open theft and disregard for the Rules as written , or a game glitch.
As vacation mode is instant,and you have NO further access ,How does it activate if an attack is in bound?
Rules state clearly :
"While active, you will not accumulate any resources and you cannot be attacked unless your account becomes inactive."  I was never inactive.

There is NO caveat or exemption to that rule. Only AFTER the bug report and ticket were sent did I get screwed by the added caveat of it was already launched.
Unlike d or p mode, Vacation mode ceases all access for 48 hours.
You both can keep all your innuendo's of me being incompetent or negligent. I am not. As written, The Rule supports my belief . The In game Time stamps verify my claim. Under the Rules as written,the attack should have been turned around or bounced.

13
Support Rulings / Re: Rule interpretations and deciet
« on: July 07, 2014, 04:52:39 PM »
You entered vacation mode at 2014-07-03 22:07:25 UTC
Attack report:
Date: 2014-07-03 22:52:04 UTC
Nearly 45 minutes AFTER being in vacation mode an attack landed. Per BFG Rules.

The In game message stated I was in vacation mode.

14
Support Rulings / Re: Rule interpretations and deciet
« on: July 07, 2014, 04:50:40 PM »
When I clicked on v mode it was due to family issues.
There was NO indication an attack was launched. No Red outline of Heph was visible. 
Matt is adding a caveat to the rules as posted AFTER the fact.  Then there is also the position it is a game glitch.
How can one click on Vacation mode while an attack is in bound but not indicated?
Now lets go the other route. I am a seasoned long time player.  Do you really believe I would risk a Heph and battle fleet on the off chance I would not be hit?
Seriously, Had I seen an incoming attack, I would have messaged the attacker and hopped it.
THERE WAS NO INDICATION TO ME THAT I WAS UNDER ATTACK.
That makes it a game glitch and I should have my ships and resources restored as this is Their cause,not one of my own making.

15
Thank You.  I have gone thru several versions to find any justification for the slight I have been handed. NONE has been found .
But it appears they wish to ADD a caveat after the fact.
It may be a game glitch,but by their own rules as written,I should not have been attacked.
I also agree,to avoid this type of slight in the future,Vacation mode should not be allowed to be activated while an attack is in bound. Even if not displayed on planet or fleet screens.

Pages: [1] 2