Not Bug Map Owner System is Innaccurate at Adding New Owners

Bug: Someone can steal your channel if they attack while the old map owner is leaving the map regardless of who was attacking on the map first.

Scenario:

Someone gave me their skele map so I started attacking while they were still on the channel. A third character entered the map and attacked. (It is unclear when they attacked and what skill they used, and I was attacking all the way through as well. I was attacking with the map owner on the map before the thrid character entered.) The map owner left, the third character received map owner instead of me.

Possible Ideas Why This Happens:

Well I notice that the list of "last people who interacted with the channel" gets reset. Is it a possibility that this resets before deciding who the new map owner should be? Shouldn't the server use the oldest interacter still present on the map to become the new map owner, to prevent new characters from swooping in and stealing?

-Oldie

 

How can they steal a map you don't own?
If you are not the map owner then anyone should be able to get the map.

 

But why should anyone have a chance to get it if I've already been attacking on it before they came?

This thread seems to be relevant.
http://royals.ms/forum/threads/report-on-language-abuse.51218/

 

There isn't a queue on attacks to determine who will be the next map owner. What the "protection" does is keep someone as the map owner for a certain amount of time after that person's last attack (even if you leave the map you can still be the owner of it) . If the owner of the map doesn't attack for that threshold then the next map owner will be whoever attacks first.

 

I suppose we may have decided on this in the past, and I forgot about it. Maybe this is better suited as a suggestion thread to change the way new Map Owners are made.

..Since map owner is to prevent KSing, it should attempt to do that at all times, and not fail on you when it's doing its refresh cycle. Technically, if the old map owner has permanently retired from attacking, and I'm the new person attacking, wouldn't you agree that if a new player were to enter the map and attack, that they would now be KSing me?

But the Map Owner system does not protect me in this situation, instead it allows a small chance of the map being legally stolen. I think this is a design flaw by all means.

 

It does what you said, it prevents the OWNER of the map from getting KS'd. Technically they wouldn't be KSing you since you're still not the owner of the map.

I assume making several checks like that would just create unnecessary stress on the server's load.

 

I just spent some time testing mapowner with friends.
Heres what I did:
0:00 Person 1: Attack to gain map ownership (Person 1 has map ownership)
2:00 Person 2: Attack 2 minutes later so that their attack was queued. (Person 1 has map ownership. Person 2 is in queue)
5:01 Person 3: Attack after map ownership from person 1 is expired (Person 2 has map ownership)

I'm not sure what happened to you, but it looks like the command is working perfectly fine.

 

I just tested the same thing, however Person 3 was the map owner after that.

 

Are you sure noone was attacking? Person 1 and 2 were just sitting around for the whole 5 minutes, so we only attacked once each. Person 3 came in after my ownership expired and attacked, but it still gave ownership to Person 2 even after he wasn't attacking at all. This also tests the more common situation people claim to happen that a random person ran into their map and attacked.

 

Yes. No one was attacking, you can see that by looking at the timestamps of the last interactions and the server time. I did the exact same thing you did.

 

Regardless of how it changes, mapownerships is only to protect the original person on the map. If they choose to leave, they may attempt to give it to you, but it by no means guarantees it. This is merely a safety precaution for the person using the map. No one else should be benefiting from it than the original person and is ONLY supposed to be used when they are getting ks'd. If the original person leaves, then the map is up for grabs, simple as that.

I've noticed that it gives ownership to whoever attacks when the 3min mark is up. This is how it should be. It is not meant to "queue" up whover was there longer.

Regardless, it's not a bug. They must have attacked inbetween one of your attacks and gotten lucky when the timer ran out. I can also let you know now that the way mapowner works will not be changed because it is completely unnecessary to guarantee someone a map like that. The current mapowner does its job. It protects the original mapowner from KS. Until you have mapowner, you're not being ks'd.

On a side note, this would just make the map selling issue more prevalent than it already is.

 

I think it's lame that you root for KSing then. I believe I was unrightfully KSed, and was unable to fight back because then I'd be banned since server thinks the map is rightfully someone elses.

I think it's silly that luck should be the deciding factor in who gets to train on a training map. To be honest anyone getting a map this way is already voiding the T&C because they do state:

• And last, but not least--as Will Wheaton says: Don't be a dick.
  
  .. Coming into a channel and whacking a mob to take a channel someone is already visibly using is certainly a dick move.

 

You should choose your words carefully. I have never been for ksing. I am against guaranteeing maps because I find it unfair to be able to give it away to whomever you please. The map selling is already an issue many are unhappy with and this would just make it worse.

I think it's more of a dick move to try and report someone for ks'ing when they're just trying to find a map fair and square. And guess what, you weren't mapowner, they didn't do anything wrong, and you currently were not using it. You were just trying to win it like everyone else.

Locking this thread now. It's not a bug and the rules aren't here to benefit a single person in any way. It's here to protect everyone and give everyone a fair chance at playing.