Map owner abuse?

For sure, if you manage to hit the mobs and kill the mules, its their fault for afking.
Do note however, they will still hold map owner until the 5 minute timer is done.

(Confession: Ive done this at Skeles before Petris were released...)

 

Whatever they don't know can't hurt them...

But on a really, really serious note... this looks like a clear case of exploitation to me. I am not too sure if it's really gonna work, but as Sam_Vosh suggested, perhaps a faster map owner expiration time would help.

 

-shrugs- You arent KILLING the mobs, simply hitting them.
The map owner rule is stupid for many reasons including this one. People hold petri maps with mules for HOURS looking to sell leech, never actually using the map. Youre unable to leave your map for buffs without risking losing the mob.
People have been banned because they killed 90% of anego, went to fm for HS, came back and lost map owner then killed the map without realizing.
People have been banned because they killed Sage Cat when someone was camping in a far corner away from Sage Cat (almost impossible to see through minimap) (x person got banned without even knowing someone else was using the map because it was a mule camping).

I would definitely reconsider this command or rule. Maybe change the 'afk' timer to something shorter (3mins? enough time to pee.) , make it so that if you leave map you still have map owner for 2 minutes etc.

Spoiler: My true wish

make it so that ks wars are accepted and only ban in cases of severe harassment (multiple cases of KS against 1 person) KS WARS ARE FUN

 

How is there no check as to how many maps X person owns? would seem silly to be able to own more than 1 map.

Edit: pretty sure thats an easy add to the command.

 

Bringing the HS mule discourages Mage + Attacker combo, or Attacker+Attacker combo (assuming hs mule is within the mob leech lvl)
Regardless, the leaving map issue doesn't at all even take into consideration the people hogging up maps.
Its actually cancerous at boss maps and at Petris/Skeles - 5 minutes is definitely too long

Edit: I dont see how getting buffs in fm and retaining mapowner for 1-2mins is worse than holding mapowner using mules. I also dont see how utilizing a custom feature (warping to FM) and keeping mapowner should even matter, considering mapowner is a custom feature in within itself...

 

Added a second part to my original post. Sorry :X

Nuking the extra 2 minutes on the AFK feature seems like a reasonable and easy edit.. (going from 5mins->3mins) for the time being

 

Just accept that you won't get to kill anego unless you get the map first. You can try killing mules that are afk to take the map, that works. As long as the person doesn't ask you to cc you cannot get banned for ksing. This has been a problem from the beginning, I was banned for ksing for 3 days because I "stole" an anego from Charlobeetle (banned lv 200 player) when I went to get hs in fm and he took mapower. He was mad at me because we were in rival guilds and he wanted to be rank 1 attacker and he set me up to get banned. Be careful with mapower because the way it works is stupid and can fuck you in the ass easily.

 

While trying to think of ways to combat hogging maps with mules. @Mapowner doesn't have a lot of flexibility BUT I think a good idea to reduce the amount of mules/map hoggers would be to:

- @Mapowner Edit: 1 map can be held by 1 ip, 1 map per ip
- @Mapowner for certain maps can be tuned for level restrictions ( Petris: 105+ to get mapowner, Anego: 125+ to get mapowner.. pretty much the lowest level you can leech from those maps)

just some ideas.

Edit: Hope you saved monster sacs from Halloween for killing mules. xD

 

Confirmed. For now, just kill the mules #Fuck the police! Comin' straight from the underground

 

Maybe same HWID?

 

Lolz, as far it goes, you need to step outside clown

 

Here's the thing, If you know what users are siblings for voting maybe add that ip to a table in the db and check the table for exceptions(siblings). Almost like a whitelist table, then that ip can have 2 mapowners.

 

There's way too much variance to make policies that amend mapowner rules for certain circumstances which would require a lot more time and resources for GMs to enforce. I don't agree with mapowner but you have to live with what you get in a private server.

 

Pretty much what it comes down too with a command like this. Probably not the best thing to use resources on, it's worked fine since 2015 and yea there has been arguments about it in the past too but you just gotta live with it.