Are gifts ruining this world?

[DeletedUser5582]

Of course it unbalanced the game :/ that's a bit of a silly statement. It give those who do it an advantage similar to co playing

so co playing unbalances the game?!

Look anything that is within the rules and game mechanics and is a valid tactic cannot really be said to be unbalancing a game surely. My initial example of the 50 soon to be co players would be going too far but folks working to gain a gifted villa shouldn't be tarred with the same brush here?

TW stats does not show the whole picture of how a gifted villa was won only by the player that took it! A Tribe working hard to get a gifted villa for one of its members should not be said to be unbalancing a game just as having a co player so you can enjoy a normal life (relatively) is making this game more balanced not less.

Am sorry but having a gifted villa does not mean you are getting ahead without the correct amount of effort shall we say in some cases as to get one takes some skill and effort and certainly more than taking a 30% more ressie barb!

 

[DeletedUser]

--> NO WHERE HAVE I SAID GIFTING IS CHEATING <--

first up lets drop the little digs and petty slurs please as it demeans you way more than me.

Where are these? One I'll grant you (the mod one), but you used plural. Also your previous post had at least one remark I would consider petty, so don't try and take the moral high ground:

and forgot to talk about your points in more loving detail!

For example.

Insinuating someone is nearly running a push acc whilst stopping short of saying is a push acc is, in my view saying that they are in fact no better than a push acc by dint of smear or whatever you wish to call it. Saying where did I say folks were cheating is not really the issue here is it? "You are cheating" is pretty much the same as saying "You are nearly cheating" and in fact in some ways far worse but I'll let you go figure out why by yourself

Well that's how I view it, they are no better than a push account so yeah you are finally actually understanding what I am saying. The difference between you are cheating and you are nearly cheating is actually simple. One is against the rules, one is against of, what is in my opinion, the ethos of the rules but doesn't strictly break them. As for which is worse, probably the later because you don't get banned for it but it still amounts to an advantage.

Folks might say that getting all your friend crammed into one acc on other non low haul worlds to outfarm everyone has the same effect? Where's the difference?

Irrelevant to this topic, but the simple answer is you have the same restrictions as a normal player on one account, whereas with 2 accounts being grown to move into one well that doesn't have the same restrictions does it? Your future account is getting 2 villages built how it wants them, most players don't get this unless they resort to the same trick.

Now does gifting accs unbalance the game. My view. No

Get over it

Now who's being petty? :icon_rolleyes:

Am sorry but having a gifted villa does not mean you are getting ahead without the correct amount of effort shall we say in some cases as to get one takes some skill and effort and certainly more than taking a 30% more ressie barb!

What is valuable in a village on this world more than others: resource production, troops. These are arguably the most important 2 things on this world. With a gifted village, the resource production is likely higher and there is no troop loss. Are you still not understanding why I think it unbalances the game, seriously? Unlike you I'm not using effort as a measure, I'm using the actual in-game measurements for it which is where the difference of opinion is coming in I guess. Unbalancing the game should be measured by in-game effects, and not the external efforts required to make them so.

For the record: I agree co-playing to some degrees unbalances the game, it spreads the effort and allows more on line time than a regular account e.g. 18 hours a day +.

 

[DeletedUser]

-->Gifting villages is not cheating.<--

so co playing unbalances the game?!

yes. It is beside the point, but yes.
This also unbalances the game more.

Look anything that is within the rules and game mechanics and is a valid tactic cannot really be said to be unbalancing a game surely. My initial example of the 50 soon to be co players would be going too far but folks working to gain a gifted villa shouldn't be tarred with the same brush here?

Ignoring the fact that this is more or less a straw man...
Actually it can. I'll link you to an article on the subject:, specifically this part:

Akuma is not like a tower in an RTS that is accidentally too powerful or a gun in an FPS that does too much damage. Akuma is a god-mode that can't coexist with the rest of the game.

The players that use mass gifting are essentially doubling their size while decreasing individual workload, at a lower cost (of ingame resources) than other players or coplayers.

Things are only banned arbitrarily. If I gift you my account, and begin my account with the sole purpose of gifting it, I am pushing your account in a way no amount of resources could, I'm providing you with time that could otherwise not be given back.

TW stats does not show the whole picture of how a gifted villa was won only by the player that took it!

You mean, sending a nobleman escorted by 20 axemen?

A Tribe working hard to get a gifted villa for one of its members should not be said to be unbalancing a game just as having a co player so you can enjoy a normal life (relatively) is making this game more balanced not less.

Actually, since gifting both leads to coplaying (I assume), and makes accounts larger, it does, in the same way that an uncounterable, unbeatable character unbalances a game.

Am sorry but having a gifted villa does not mean you are getting ahead without the correct amount of effort shall we say in some cases as to get one takes some skill and effort and certainly more than taking a 30% more ressie barb!

It does however mean you are getting ahead in a way that other players cannot, moreso than coplaying, especially on this world.

Even on a normal world, gifted villages are akin to a few million free resources, more than any coplayer can provide. Yea?


I pity you if you feel the need to go so low as a player to not only use these tactics, but defend them so weakly.

 

[DeletedUser]

[la]LightyJo's hypothetical situation is an outrageous bending of the rules at best, and would cause an outrage on the forums and severe landslide of reports for the in-game mods. I would love to hear the opinions of other moderators, and more importantly, the administrator/CM on this matter, as I can hardly believe this would be considered acceptable gameplay--and even mentioning the idea and discussing it as legal within the games rules (which, btw, no rule directly states not to do it, but it has most likely not been done large scale due to an innate understanding of what should and shouldn't be accepted fair gameplay within the standard human mind) will most likely cause at least one--if not more--tribe(s) to attempt the idea in future worlds. The unfair advantage will be raged about and reported, and if nothing is done, the tactic will be adopted by more, and will be yet another unbalanced mechanic that coplaying premades will make use of whereas new players will be left in the dust--something I believe I recall the administration wanting to get rid of, and why settings like limited haul exist in the first place.[/la]

 

[DeletedUser]

ON a normal world it wouldn't be an issue. But here, troops are worth tenfold. They could be compared to gold dusted cocaine. With that in mind, taking anything that cause minimum loses is advantageous. Taking a well developed village, twice the size of normal ennoblements, with no losses is a severe spoiling of the game.

Am I jealous? Yes.
Is it a bit ruining of the world? At the rate it's occurring, yes.
Should something be done? No.

 

[DeletedUser5582]

good grief!

Well there are some good points above and some draw dropping bad ones. I cannot be bothered to go through and answer them all but will put in a quick summary.

First up I was merely saying that not all gifted villas should be shoved into the same bracket. Some have had to have been worked for using TW skills that don't show on TW stats. My tribe was mentioned on the first post so was just putting across our point of view.

Next. I can see your points that two players going into this world with the express intention of merging accounts later is, in your view, sailing close to being a push acc (see my UK3 analogy I do understand your frustrations). But where do the game staff draw the line or show what is a genuine rl induced merge on time constraints, a classic internal or a willful use of the game rules to gain an advantage on other players?

My tribe has 3 gifted villas. All three are different, none were pre planned, one involved a lot of players spending ressies even though they didn't then take the villa themselves (this was my point on TW stats not showing a whole picture that Zardeath chose to not understand). Now as one who lost troops so that a tribemate could take a villa that on TW stats shows that they took with no effort at all how can folks say bah tis a gift and unfair? Surely it is the tribe bit in TW? That was my point not 20 axes escorting a noble Zard!

Am sorry but you cannot expect folk to distinguish or make judgment calls on the above and say this is ok that is not. That is why I say get over it.

@LA. There are quite a few things that make the game mechanics unbalanced that should best be discussed away from this forum but my hypothetical 50 players is I think out in the public domain already. A tribe doing this would rightly attract outrage and maybe tribes will attempt to try this if not already doing so and not care about the wider community but this game mirrors life in some respects and alas we will always have rule benders (or why have mods?!).

I was merely using it as an example to say there are different levels of gifted villas some unbalance the game some don't.

Right think this is most I've written pre coffee so will end on a request to go re read the UK9 forums and the scandal of the internals from the then top ranked tribe.

This is not new, this is not cheating sailing close to the wind so is very little point in moaning about it unless of course you find this therapeutic? In which case I hope it has helped!

 

[DeletedUser282]

If a tribe was all co played accs but started this world as 2 separate tribes of 25 accs with the sole aim of each co played acc nobling the other (so one went the path of Noble the other mine whored) would we all say cheats or congratulate them on reading the world settings and thinking ahead?

That seems a bit push accounty to me.

"You are cheating" is pretty much the same as saying "You are nearly cheating" and in fact in some ways far worse but I'll let you go figure out why by yourself

Partially correct, the 3 words in the first quote are used in the second quote, however the addition of the word nearly, implies that you aren't playing the game in the way that it was intended, however aren't breaking any rules. I realise that this isn't actually the case for your tribe in this world. However you did (and have said so) try to make this be the case.

Am sorry but having a gifted villa does not mean you are getting ahead without the correct amount of effort shall we say in some cases as to get one takes some skill and effort and certainly more than taking a 30% more ressie barb!

How does taking a gifted village take more skill than taking a bonus? You understand the concept of a gift, correct? It is given to the player, you won't have to fight any troops and so the defence you have to go through is equal to that of a barb. Getting to the same point with a bonus would take more skill than with a gifted village (assuming it is of decent size) as the gifted village is bigger so you would have to grow the bonus faster.

Co-playing and building up for a gift are not directly comparable at all. As co playing is extra activity, which is possible for a single player to give anyway, whereas building up to gift your village is essentially starting with an extra village, if one player did that then that would be multi-accounting. However, both create an imbalance in all worlds, as in general co played accounts will have more activity and so are on average likely to do slightly better, and on normal worlds people with gifted villages are likely to do mildly better also.

However, so many of your comparisons avoid the fact that this is not a normal world completely. Resources are much scarcer here due to the farming limit, so the value of troops is greater as building more of them slows your village build and sets back your nobling time. So being able to noble a big village without cost of troops is a huge advantage in early game play, this creates a large imbalance, which does unbalance the game between those that have access to a large local gift, and those that don't.
Co playing creates a very small unbalance here to, but due to lack of lots of farming it is near infinitely smaller than on normal worlds. However, it does still exist in an incredibly small way.

It seems clear to me that it does unbalance the early game (even Lightyjo seems to now accepted that some gifting would unbalance the game in a fairly dramatic change of opinion.) however I don't think that it is wrong, as it seems that all of gifting so far as been after someone has quit. (This is essentially going to change after Daz nobles, and think that his nobling is getting close to just being wrong.)
I would quit like to see a change in push account rules to how they used to be so that building up a village for the sole purpose of giving it to someone else isn't allowed again. (I'm almost certain the push account rules used to be considerably harsher.) I realise that that is rather difficult to enforce however I would that the rule being put in place would reduce the frequency with which it would be done.

I do accept that in relation to the whole of this world, it makes minimal difference, however it is an distinct boost to those who get gifts for obvious reasons, making the start considerably easier for them.

 

[DeletedUser]

.......

hi all first post on this world.

i must say am checking stats and i see a hell of a lot of gifts in the top 10, 2 gifts alone for 1 player lol.

smart idea or cheating not for me to say.

is it spoiling a perfectly good world? possible.

 

[DeletedUser]

pre-reg ruined this world the fact that you could invite your friends and have them start next to you is terrible.
scrap pre-reg for other worlds. that is what caused gifting.

 

[DeletedUser9748]

Congrats to jmaxspeed for being the ultimate person to receive gifts for Christmas and New Years Eve. He might noble himself for the 4th village if noone else in the tribes offers him a free one.

 

[DeletedUser]

whats the point in this post? gifting was started by internalling, sitting someone sending the troops away, ending sit and then nobling them.
if someone wants to gift you a village, thats their choice.

 

[DeletedUser]

.........

yes BUT 2 gifted villages this early is either greedy, (doesnt share with his tribe) or he is mr nice guy and everyone loves him.

dont know him, so couldnt say for sure.

 

[DeletedUser]

Congrats to jmaxspeed for being the ultimate person to receive gifts for Christmas and New Years Eve. He might noble himself for the 4th village if noone else in the tribes offers him a free one.

So would you reject when some gives you a vill and go for a low point vill spending days to build it up or even waste your troop on a stacked good villl?

yes BUT 2 gifted villages this early is either greedy, (doesnt share with his tribe) or he is mr nice guy and everyone loves him.

dont know him, so couldnt say for sure.

Look if someone said "hey here is a vill take it" and they send away their troops, would you seriously not take a free vill, And btw i did offer it to my tribe but no one near the vill had a noble yet or was far from getting a 2nd noble so they told me to take it.

 

[DeletedUser]

An interesting thread and nice to see this world isn't completely dead. :icon_razz:

I think the main point, which I'm surprised is being disputed at all, is as to whether gifts give an advantage or not. Ignoring whether it's fair, should be illegal or ruining the world, it strikes me as someone receiving a village which a player is giving up for free would be more advantageous than a player who is resisting his village being taken over. To state the obvious, lack of troop losses (and ultimately resource losses) as well as, in some cases, the villages being built up specifically. There may be some exceptions, but nearly all the time a player will not be disadvantaged by nobling a gifted village compared to a non-gifted village. What, I think, LightyJo is trying to insinuate is that some gifts are earned due to the actions of the player (Diplomacy, etc.) and may even require a certain amount of skill in convincing people to give up their villages. Even taking that into account, it does not neglect the advantage gained in getting a "free" village, and a situation which is not likely to occur in the majority of cases. The effect of gifts can be clearly seen on this world, with rank 1, jmaxspeed, having taken 2 gifts from his tribe. Would he be rank 1 had he tried to noble a barb, or another player?

A small note on coplaying; Coplaying, usually, does give an advantage at this moment. As, generally, those who coplay are online more than those who don't. But it's that what gives the advantage; the ability to be online during a larger period of time, not the fact people are coplaying. The period you are online for varies from person to person (or account to account) and it does advantage some over others. To level this advantage of, there are two options; either to have a maximum limit, or a minimum limit. Both of these are unreasonable, the maximum limit would have to be very small in order to have a level playing field and there is no reasonable way to achieve a minimum limit, except for of course the limit already in place of 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Coplaying gives the potential for all accounts to be 24/7, as everyone as the option to coplay (on this server, at least), and as such coplaying introduces the potential of playing on a level field (in terms of activity, anyway). Which is why, in my opinion, coplaying does not "ruin" this game, but quite the opposite.

Nobling/giving gifted villages is similar in one of these aspects; everyone has the potential to do so. The idea of gifting villages on purpose is nothing new or innovatice, just considerably more beneficial on this world than others. Any one of us could have contacted a friend and asked for him to build up a village for you, having pre-registered together (Additionally, I don't think getting rid of pre-registration would stop this, still easy enough to get a village near someone else). A lot of people considered this, including myself. I, coplaying with Cory, could've easily created a seperate account near Cory's and then merged later on. However, I decided it was against the ethos (I like that word Tom) of the world; to create a balanced world to stop people like myself and Cory farming like maniacs and leaving most of the world behind in our trails. Gifting, like Tom said, and like coplaying at the moment, unbalances the world. The way to balance the world would be to, like coplaying, getting everyone to get a gifted village. However, this, unlike coplaying(IMO), takes away a lot of fun in the world. Some people might like that idea; seeing who has the most friends, who can noble the most gifted villages the fastest; and maybe they should even have a world for that type of strategy, but I hope UK11 is not that world. :icon_confused: You may consider it a valid strategy, a skillful strategy but it still produces an imbalance, particularly early game (though it will still knock on to lategame), which, and of course I'm biased, is the most fun part of the game for me. There was already an imbalance in the past 10 worlds on UK, and the multitudes on other servers (though perhaps the imbalance was based a bit more on skill), but I think UK11 has the basis of being a much more fun and competitive. People with the most "friends" on this world should not be a replacement for those who could farm the most on other worlds. :icon_rolleyes:

So, in my opinion, nobling gifted villages isn't unfair, as everyone has the opportunity to do so, but it should be discouraged as the options are to create imbalance, or in-competitiveness. How to do this, I don't know. Tom again rightly pointed out that it wouldn't be right to expect people to refuse gifted villages when offered, particularly when others have already taken advantage of this. Those who specifically build up their villages to be gifted, however, is grossly wrong in my opinion, and, I'm told, was illegal at one point on .net. There really is, as far as I'm aware, no solution to this problem, except for, the obvious, playing for fun rather than rankings (though most, of course already do this). This poses no that much problem early game. For example, I don't think jmaxspeed could noble me (distance aside), even though he has three shiny villages. I can still play this game, not nobling gifted villages but nobling those who do noble them, and still have fun. Those who wait till late game will struggle more; there is no reason why any decent player who chooses to noble gifted villages can not continue his rate of growth than those who don't noble. Said person will reach late game much quicker than others, and will have much more of an advantage. However, for some optimism, good tribes will still be good tribes. Those who internal villages from their own tribe (or, in some cases, kick people then noble), will not grow as a tribe. The number of players gifting villages to players outside their tribe is, hopefully, quite limited and will soon end, or at least those with big villages will no longer be able to gift. Then tribes nobling the most from other tribes will do best. Sure, those "gift-noblers" will have a headstart(as a tribe, the lead in terms of player should be irrelevant), but, hey, what's the fun in the race when you're sure you can win? :icon_wink: Especially considering the aim of this world is to noble Secrets, and not to grow (of course, growth will help).

In conclusion, I agree with Cory;

Am I jealous? Yes.
Is it a bit ruining of the world? At the rate it's occurring, yes.
Should something be done? No.

I'll also take this opportunity to point that everything I've written is my opinion, and it is not fact or gospel. Please keep that in mind when processing this post. I am human, I am fallible and I do make mistakes. :icon_razz:

 

[DeletedUser]

-->Gifting villages is not cheating.<--

good grief!

Well there are some good points above and some draw dropping bad ones. I cannot be bothered to go through and answer them all but will put in a quick summary.

That's good, many of us can't bare to hear more of what you call debate.

First up I was merely saying that not all gifted villas should be shoved into the same bracket. Some have had to have been worked for using TW skills that don't show on TW stats. My tribe was mentioned on the first post so was just putting across our point of view.

So how should they be divided? Those that involve planning versus those that don't? Those in your tribe versus those that aren't?
How?

Next. I can see your points that two players going into this world with the express intention of merging accounts later is, in your view, sailing close to being a push acc (see my UK3 analogy I do understand your frustrations). But where do the game staff draw the line or show what is a genuine rl induced merge on time constraints, a classic internal or a willful use of the game rules to gain an advantage on other players?

I don't think myself or tom ever said something should be done, simply that it isn't tasteful to do something so questionable.

My tribe has 3 gifted villas. All three are different, none were pre planned, one involved a lot of players spending ressies even though they didn't then take the villa themselves (this was my point on TW stats not showing a whole picture that Zardeath chose to not understand). Now as one who lost troops so that a tribemate could take a villa that on TW stats shows that they took with no effort at all how can folks say bah tis a gift and unfair? Surely it is the tribe bit in TW? That was my point not 20 axes escorting a noble Zard!

I love that you take everything we say as directed at you, seems like a guilty conscience. I'd like to know how a lot of players had to spend resources to help one noble. honestly that sounds more like pushing than anything else I've heard in this thread so far. Please elaborate, or will you continue to vaguely mention things that occurred?

Am sorry but you cannot expect folk to distinguish or make judgment calls on the above and say this is ok that is not. That is why I say get over it.

Mods do, constantly in fact.

@LA. There are quite a few things that make the game mechanics unbalanced that should best be discussed away from this forum but my hypothetical 50 players is I think out in the public domain already. A tribe doing this would rightly attract outrage and maybe tribes will attempt to try this if not already doing so and not care about the wider community but this game mirrors life in some respects and alas we will always have rule benders (or why have mods?!).

So why shouldn't the same thing being done on a smaller scale attract outrage? Heck, coplaying attracts outrage, and this causes more growth than any amount of coplayers.

I was merely using it as an example to say there are different levels of gifted villas some unbalance the game some don't.

Explain, is it size based, the amount of 'work that TWstats doesn't show' put in for the gifting? Or that a member of the tribe is LightyJo?

Right think this is most I've written pre coffee so will end on a request to go re read the UK9 forums and the scandal of the internals from the then top ranked tribe.

See yah!

This is not new, this is not cheating sailing close to the wind so is very little point in moaning about it unless of course you find this therapeutic? In which case I hope it has helped!

meh, I guess you are right:

Some folks will do anything to hit rank 1

 

[DeletedUser]

Being Rank 1 is NOT my aim in this game at the moment, it is just one of those things! if i had to fight for those vills i probably would not be ranking this high but im playing the game, this game is tribalWars and in war you try gain every single advantage that you can, this way i have more troops, i didn't take the free vills for points i took them because it can advantage me by using more resources on building new troops rather than having to replace my old troops.

People may not like it but if i get a chance to get an advantage in war or even in a game ill take it. It does not come often

 

[DeletedUser]

--> NO WHERE HAVE I SAID GIFTING IS CHEATING <--

First up I was merely saying that not all gifted villas should be shoved into the same bracket. Some have had to have been worked for using TW skills that don't show on TW stats. My tribe was mentioned on the first post so was just putting across our point of view.

Then you need to read the OP, my issue is with those who are quitting and continuing building up afterwards. Not those who decide spur of the moment to quit. There might be no difference in the end product, but in the way it is handled there definitely is. One doesn't really border on pushing, the building up of a village when the account is quitting is undeniably very close to pushing.

My tribe has 3 gifted villas. All three are different, none were pre planned, one involved a lot of players spending ressies even though they didn't then take the villa themselves (this was my point on TW stats not showing a whole picture that Zardeath chose to not understand). Now as one who lost troops so that a tribemate could take a villa that on TW stats shows that they took with no effort at all how can folks say bah tis a gift and unfair? Surely it is the tribe bit in TW? That was my point not 20 axes escorting a noble Zard!

The 3 I marked up here from your tribe were as accurate as could be. The 2 I marked as gifts involved no gains, one was from within the tribe itself. Unless you got lucky with a target building no troops what so ever, which is extradoinarily unlikely then it was a gift. I didn't just check the attacker (did they gain ODA?), I checked the defender (did they gain ODD?). That should show enough to be a gift except in very few marginal cases. The one you are stating wasn't a gift but cleared by somebody else wasn't mentioned in this thread :S

This is not new, this is not cheating sailing close to the wind so is very little point in moaning about it unless of course you find this therapeutic? In which case I hope it has helped!

No it's not new, but on this world it has more of an effect due to resources being precious. The only other comparable world would be world 56 on .net, which I only played briefly and didn't bother with the forum community that world and so I do not know if that had a similar problem.

I'm sorry for moaning (although I'm not, this is a discussion thread), I'm sorry for trying to introduce some life into this forum, I'm sorry for trying to create a debate, I'm sorry for creating an interesting thread. Look at the forums and tell me there are so many interesting threads that you think the creation of this one was worthless for introducing life.

Being Rank 1 is NOT my aim in this game at the moment, it is just one of those things! if i had to fight for those vills i probably would not be ranking this high but im playing the game, this game is tribalWars and in war you try gain every single advantage that you can, this way i have more troops, i didn't take the free vills for points i took them because it can advantage me by using more resources on building new troops rather than having to replace my old troops.

People may not like it but if i get a chance to get an advantage in war or even in a game ill take it. It does not come often

You are missing the arguments in this thread. Everyone who has commented has pretty much said yes they would take a gift, and I personally believe the blame lies with players continuing to build up their villages after deciding to quit (this is where my pushing analogy comes into play).

whats the point in this post? gifting was started by internalling, sitting someone sending the troops away, ending sit and then nobling them.
if someone wants to gift you a village, thats their choice.

What is the point in any post? :icon_rolleyes:
Another one missing the point.

 

[Maggie Wallis]

Sounds to me that 99% of people posting agree that if offered a gifted village from a player that was quitting they would accept...

Being gifted a village because some one quits is either lucky/good play/reward for being a nice person...

Setting up an account to build a village for the sole purpose of gifting it to another account is a close to cheating as you can get without actually breaking any current rules... and not in the "spirit of the game"...

Seems to me that their is no real way to distinguish which of the above any gifted village falls into... and as their is no way to stop the gifting of villages surely the "TW community" will police its self.. similar to a barb muncher that gets to rank 1 on a mega barb growing world, who would be ridiculed for claiming it to be a achievement.. a "gifttee" getting to rank 1 that claims it to be a achievement, will be treated in the same way....

Though we're probably all a bit more jelly of the gifttee then we are the barb muncher...

 

[DeletedUser]

Well my first gift from the player jaco1 was because his mum died 2 days before and TW was the last thing on his mind.

My second gift was from Viper-Strike who started off strong but got bored because of haul limit.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well my first gift from the player jaco1 was because his mum died 2 days before and TW was the last thing on his mind.

My second gift was from Viper-Strike who started off strong but got bored because of haul limit.

It's bad enough that it happened to him without you posting it all over the forums, second time I've seen it today.
Somehow I don't think he'd appreciate it, maybe lay off the posting it anywhere else eh.