hoospack wrote: Administrator wrote: hoospack wrote: Administrator wrote: hoospack wrote: I'm surprised more people haven't taken notice of this. Especially given the fact that the "inactivity bug" potentially occurred during negotiations for community buy-out of the game..... This bug was aknowledged awhile ago and happened when we moved servers. It will be fixed, but it's not a priority, as the owner, again, is in bad health (took the turn for the worse at the end of the year). And don't even go into the "happened during negotiations" teritory. All accounts have "last login" data and as you noticed this wasn't ever tempered with. And if it was, it would be more than obvious the minute the community would have access to the database. Even better - anyone can go and count the active users by hand or by scrapping the data, if anyone would want to have a correct data. Owner gave all the data the interested parties wanted (financial, active users, even pieces of source code for the project...). And all the data was 100% correct, current and honest. So, again, please, don't even go there. Thank you! Nice to hear from you Admin. I am sorry but I do not understand the extreme defensiveness here. We (as a community of customers) identified a problem and explained the timing that the problem appeared to have occurred. You said that the problem is "well known" and you could have been simply left it at that. Neither Radu nor myself knew about this problem, so perhaps it was not "well known". We (as community members) were simply trying to point out a problem within the game in hopes of making it better. Also, I was not involved in that "community buyout" process. I said the bug "potentially" occurred during that process. I said nothing else beyond that. I never said it did occur, I merely said it "potentially" started during that time period, which is a true statement. Nothing in this thread said by Radu or me deserved anything defensive. This could have easily been addressed by you (the Admin) with a simple statement of "we are aware of this problem that was caused by the server move which had nothing to do with the buy-out project". Read the whole page or two please. The issue is the fact that we have been accused of trying to scam the buy-out initiative (with this bug). And when such accusations happen, we will respond. We can "swallow" many posts, but the scam accusations are not in that category. I was referring to my original post that you replied to. I never accused anyone of anything. I simply pointed out the timing that the bug occurred. I was not involved in the buy out project, so therefore I cannot comment on that. All I said was that it "potentially" started during that period. I never said it definitely occurred, I said "potentially". I understand the defensiveness when it comes to accusations of "scamming" people. But I merely pointed out that the bug appeared to begin in September during that time period, which is something that may or may not be of interest to those who were involved in that process. EDIT: Also, I have no control over what others say or do. Now you are blaming me for the actions of others who are saying "haha" or "scam"? You are blaming me for simply pointing out what appears to be a confirmed fact (that the bug began in September during the buy-out project). This is not a professional approach.

If that's really how you felt (and maybe just used an awkard text to present it(, then let us agree that we misunderstood each other and that's it.
No harm done.

But I hope you understand why we needed to respond (not only after your post but also after mr. Haha's post).

It also comes "hand in hand" that we were also accused in the past of being the one to blame for unsuccessful buy-out (which is again not the case) - so this was opportunity to address both statements.

Anyway.
All good. No hard feelings (at least not from our side).

Administrator wrote: hoospack wrote: Administrator wrote: hoospack wrote: Administrator wrote: hoospack wrote: I'm surprised more people haven't taken notice of this. Especially given the fact that the "inactivity bug" potentially occurred during negotiations for community buy-out of the game..... This bug was aknowledged awhile ago and happened when we moved servers. It will be fixed, but it's not a priority, as the owner, again, is in bad health (took the turn for the worse at the end of the year). And don't even go into the "happened during negotiations" teritory. All accounts have "last login" data and as you noticed this wasn't ever tempered with. And if it was, it would be more than obvious the minute the community would have access to the database. Even better - anyone can go and count the active users by hand or by scrapping the data, if anyone would want to have a correct data. Owner gave all the data the interested parties wanted (financial, active users, even pieces of source code for the project...). And all the data was 100% correct, current and honest. So, again, please, don't even go there. Thank you! Nice to hear from you Admin. I am sorry but I do not understand the extreme defensiveness here. We (as a community of customers) identified a problem and explained the timing that the problem appeared to have occurred. You said that the problem is "well known" and you could have been simply left it at that. Neither Radu nor myself knew about this problem, so perhaps it was not "well known". We (as community members) were simply trying to point out a problem within the game in hopes of making it better. Also, I was not involved in that "community buyout" process. I said the bug "potentially" occurred during that process. I said nothing else beyond that. I never said it did occur, I merely said it "potentially" started during that time period, which is a true statement. Nothing in this thread said by Radu or me deserved anything defensive. This could have easily been addressed by you (the Admin) with a simple statement of "we are aware of this problem that was caused by the server move which had nothing to do with the buy-out project". Read the whole page or two please. The issue is the fact that we have been accused of trying to scam the buy-out initiative (with this bug). And when such accusations happen, we will respond. We can "swallow" many posts, but the scam accusations are not in that category. I was referring to my original post that you replied to. I never accused anyone of anything. I simply pointed out the timing that the bug occurred. I was not involved in the buy out project, so therefore I cannot comment on that. All I said was that it "potentially" started during that period. I never said it definitely occurred, I said "potentially". I understand the defensiveness when it comes to accusations of "scamming" people. But I merely pointed out that the bug appeared to begin in September during that time period, which is something that may or may not be of interest to those who were involved in that process. EDIT: Also, I have no control over what others say or do. Now you are blaming me for the actions of others who are saying "haha" or "scam"? You are blaming me for simply pointing out what appears to be a confirmed fact (that the bug began in September during the buy-out project). This is not a professional approach. If that's really how you felt (and maybe just used an awkard text to present it(, then let us agree that we misunderstood each other and that's it. No harm done. But I hope you understand why we needed to respond (not only after your post but also after mr. Haha's post). It also comes "hand in hand" that we were also accused in the past of being the one to blame for unsuccessful buy-out (which is again not the case) - so this was opportunity to address both statements. Anyway. All good. No hard feelings (at least not from our side).

I appreciate the clarification. No hard feelings.
Thanks.

SrednaD wrote: Administrator wrote: SrednaD wrote: Administrator wrote: SrednaD wrote: Administrator wrote: shmertnickname wrote: smells fishy Do explain how, please. All the data was sent to buy-out group well before this bug occurred (again, bug occured when the game was switching servers). A couple of months before actually. The price was set then, it was based on the data that was available then (not on "how many users there will be if and when the buy-out community actually decides to go for it" ). Also it was said well in advance that the price will rise for xxxxx amount if the owner will need to pay and take care of the server switch. The owner then waited for months without any feedback from the buy-out initiative. There wasn't even any progress report (apart from few PM's with Ewout). The guys didn't even inform the supporters among the users. So, please do tell, what could the owner gain from this? We are all ears (eyes) here. Because we all here are sick and tired of these accusations regarding the buy out. First, the owner was to blame (after waiting for half a year for anyone to actually do something), and now there will be "scam" accusations as well? So, come on. Explain what the owner could gain from this (then or now), or forever hold your piss (yes, piss, not peace). Jesus, the nerves on some people. A great deal of the calculations for the future economy of the buy-out was based on scraping data for active users. If the 'bug' was present at the scraping of those numbers, it is clear that the buy-out's calculations for expected profit was based on wrong data. That would have been a killer for any buy-out as funds where needed to develop the game and try to upgrade / fix this game. I am so happy to have had productive conversations with the buy-out team and SOOOO happy that no money was transfered. *phew* Some people wrote: Jesus, the nerves on some people. It depends on when your projections were made. Again, the bug appeared with the new server. And, if it would be requested, owner would give you the updated numbers (based on login dates not the buggy numbers) - ask Ewout that was communicating with him. He never give you guys any troubles with giving information. He wouldn't drop the price (as it wasn't really his fault this dragged out for half a year was it?), but he would give you the numbers. Anything else? Edit: And if you already scrapped the data using the "last login" date, you had no problem and correct numbers. There was and is not any bug with "last login" dates. Only with closing the clubs down. The new server was installed on or around about the 20th of September 2023. At that time, we where still crunching numbers for the buy-out. The buy-out community threw the towel in the ring shortly after. Could you please post the the correct number of active players? PLayers that would not be set as inactive if the script was executing correctly. The buy-out community worked on these numbers: Active managers: appr. 500 (including supporters, ultimate supporters and should-be closed teams) Supporters: appr. 100 Ultimate supporters: appr. 85 500 was close enough at the server switch for sure (I remember the number being actually a bit higher, I think 530-ish then). I can ask the owner for permission to tell you the current numbers directly from database. Though, what good would that do to you? Anyway, if you really want I can ask him. Now for the questions to you (as a member of the buy-out initiative). Why did you guys need almost half a year to crunch numbers for a business priced lower than a years' wage for 1 person (multi million take overs don't take that much time)? Why did you (basically) disappear after getting the data and didn't update the owner about the initiative? And most importantly, why didn't you at least update the supporting users that were even offering to "chip in" with the money on these same forums (there are still posts asking for updates from you guys here)? Also, you are saying you guys pulled the plug after the new server. Why didn't you inform the owner? We all know that the buy-out collapsed because the deadline that owner set (because of your silence on the matter) passed. Owner never had any idea about you guys pulling the plug. If we are talking about this, let's go all in and put our cards on the table. Given that some of the players are now accusing us of not only being the ones to blame for this, but also for trying to scam the initiative. To put it shortly. We (owner with us admins and friends helping him) were very serious about the initiative. Terms were known and there were no scams planned (you seriously think any of us would risk criminal investigation for the "pocket money" we were discussing?). Now, as for the initiative seriousness. Please answer the questions above. I can only speak for myself. My answers are NOT a general opinion from the buy out project and I hold no one else but myself responsible for this answer. In general, MY view on the buy out project was like buying a used car online. It might look nice. Price is debatable and there could be a purchase. But once I looked at the car, there was a worn our, undocumented and unreliable engine. No steering wheel and rust all over. No one wanted to drive it. And the price was not fair in any way - "Pocket money" or not - again MY OPINION. The car will now end its days in the barn where it will stay until the owner shuts it down. At that point, the game community will also be gone. I pulled out of the project due to personal reasons and since the business case could not show any profit and that the development costs would have to come from either a major sponsor or from the pockets of new owners. The development costs (again MY view) would be at least 2 or 3 times the asking price and still with little or no security for the game getting at least 2.000 players in order to become attractive and profitable. I have seen many, many startups and online apps / games in my professional career and this game just screamed "Do not buy me.". I would rater just play it and see how far my interest would go. I can not comment on the owners decisions for a new server and such. Since there was no contract for buying the game, any actions to save the game can only be the owners responsibility.

Fair enough.

I don't know what data you got, but the initial price was set to a standard buying price for web projects (which is 3-5 years of revenue in the last year - at least where we do IT business for more than 30 years). The price was on the low side of this scale (as shown by financial data given to you guys from the owner).
Owner did warn you guys in advance that the old server is failing and that if he will be the one investing in a new one (and 1 month of freelancer's work to update the code) this will be added to the price.

No hiding. Terms and facts were given in advance.

And let's be honest here - the project was supposed to be bought in order to develop it further and thus increase the number of players, not to earn profit from the original form. It's called investment. If this game would be a "cash cow", why would the owner even think about selling it?

Anyway. There was 1 major mistake we (as in owner and us admins) did. To go public with this. Because all it did was, it pissed off most of the community when the buy-out didn't go through and the revenue dropped sharply after this thing started (so this attempt also hurt this game, a lot). It can't be a coincidence.

But. What's done is done.
And you guys did have the right to say the price was too high. The problem is - you didn't.

You guys did all this in a totally unprofessional way - yet the owner is getting slated for it.

There was no communication. No info. No updates. It took almost half a year of waiting until the owner got enough and ended the thing himself.

And now, you slipped the info (willingly or not) that you guys decided to back off and never informed the owner and community - while both were waiting for the result of this.

So yes. I can understand your reasoning, but not your actions (as a whole initiative - not only you personally).
This is NOT how such business is conducted.

If you don't like the car, say so. Don't promise to "calculate and let you know" and then disappear into thin air, leaving the seller begging for info, so he'll know how to proceed.

And for a lot of players to now blame us for this to not go through is totally and utterly insane. And this is the reason why we will respond each time when such accusations are thrown our way.

So thank you for the info.
It confirms a lot of things.

SrednaD wrote: Administrator wrote: SrednaD wrote: Administrator wrote: SrednaD wrote: Administrator wrote: SrednaD wrote: Administrator wrote: shmertnickname wrote: smells fishy Do explain how, please. All the data was sent to buy-out group well before this bug occurred (again, bug occured when the game was switching servers). A couple of months before actually. The price was set then, it was based on the data that was available then (not on "how many users there will be if and when the buy-out community actually decides to go for it" ). Also it was said well in advance that the price will rise for xxxxx amount if the owner will need to pay and take care of the server switch. The owner then waited for months without any feedback from the buy-out initiative. There wasn't even any progress report (apart from few PM's with Ewout). The guys didn't even inform the supporters among the users. So, please do tell, what could the owner gain from this? We are all ears (eyes) here. Because we all here are sick and tired of these accusations regarding the buy out. First, the owner was to blame (after waiting for half a year for anyone to actually do something), and now there will be "scam" accusations as well? So, come on. Explain what the owner could gain from this (then or now), or forever hold your piss (yes, piss, not peace). Jesus, the nerves on some people. A great deal of the calculations for the future economy of the buy-out was based on scraping data for active users. If the 'bug' was present at the scraping of those numbers, it is clear that the buy-out's calculations for expected profit was based on wrong data. That would have been a killer for any buy-out as funds where needed to develop the game and try to upgrade / fix this game. I am so happy to have had productive conversations with the buy-out team and SOOOO happy that no money was transfered. *phew* Some people wrote: Jesus, the nerves on some people. It depends on when your projections were made. Again, the bug appeared with the new server. And, if it would be requested, owner would give you the updated numbers (based on login dates not the buggy numbers) - ask Ewout that was communicating with him. He never give you guys any troubles with giving information. He wouldn't drop the price (as it wasn't really his fault this dragged out for half a year was it?), but he would give you the numbers. Anything else? Edit: And if you already scrapped the data using the "last login" date, you had no problem and correct numbers. There was and is not any bug with "last login" dates. Only with closing the clubs down. The new server was installed on or around about the 20th of September 2023. At that time, we where still crunching numbers for the buy-out. The buy-out community threw the towel in the ring shortly after. Could you please post the the correct number of active players? PLayers that would not be set as inactive if the script was executing correctly. The buy-out community worked on these numbers: Active managers: appr. 500 (including supporters, ultimate supporters and should-be closed teams) Supporters: appr. 100 Ultimate supporters: appr. 85 500 was close enough at the server switch for sure (I remember the number being actually a bit higher, I think 530-ish then). I can ask the owner for permission to tell you the current numbers directly from database. Though, what good would that do to you? Anyway, if you really want I can ask him. Now for the questions to you (as a member of the buy-out initiative). Why did you guys need almost half a year to crunch numbers for a business priced lower than a years' wage for 1 person (multi million take overs don't take that much time)? Why did you (basically) disappear after getting the data and didn't update the owner about the initiative? And most importantly, why didn't you at least update the supporting users that were even offering to "chip in" with the money on these same forums (there are still posts asking for updates from you guys here)? Also, you are saying you guys pulled the plug after the new server. Why didn't you inform the owner? We all know that the buy-out collapsed because the deadline that owner set (because of your silence on the matter) passed. Owner never had any idea about you guys pulling the plug. If we are talking about this, let's go all in and put our cards on the table. Given that some of the players are now accusing us of not only being the ones to blame for this, but also for trying to scam the initiative. To put it shortly. We (owner with us admins and friends helping him) were very serious about the initiative. Terms were known and there were no scams planned (you seriously think any of us would risk criminal investigation for the "pocket money" we were discussing?). Now, as for the initiative seriousness. Please answer the questions above. I can only speak for myself. My answers are NOT a general opinion from the buy out project and I hold no one else but myself responsible for this answer. In general, MY view on the buy out project was like buying a used car online. It might look nice. Price is debatable and there could be a purchase. But once I looked at the car, there was a worn our, undocumented and unreliable engine. No steering wheel and rust all over. No one wanted to drive it. And the price was not fair in any way - "Pocket money" or not - again MY OPINION. The car will now end its days in the barn where it will stay until the owner shuts it down. At that point, the game community will also be gone. I pulled out of the project due to personal reasons and since the business case could not show any profit and that the development costs would have to come from either a major sponsor or from the pockets of new owners. The development costs (again MY view) would be at least 2 or 3 times the asking price and still with little or no security for the game getting at least 2.000 players in order to become attractive and profitable. I have seen many, many startups and online apps / games in my professional career and this game just screamed "Do not buy me.". I would rater just play it and see how far my interest would go. I can not comment on the owners decisions for a new server and such. Since there was no contract for buying the game, any actions to save the game can only be the owners responsibility. Fair enough. I don't know what data you got, but the initial price was set to a standard buying price for web projects (which is 3-5 years of revenue in the last year - at least where we do IT business for more than 30 years). The price was on the low side of this scale (as shown by financial data given to you guys from the owner). Owner did warn you guys in advance that the old server is failing and that if he will be the one investing in a new one (and 1 month of freelancer's work to update the code) this will be added to the price. No hiding. Terms and facts were given in advance. And let's be honest here - the project was supposed to be bought in order to develop it further and thus increase the number of players, not to earn profit from the original form. It's called investment. If this game would be a "cash cow", why would the owner even think about selling it? Anyway. There was 1 major mistake we (as in owner and us admins) did. To go public with this. Because all it did was, it pissed off most of the community when the buy-out didn't go through and the revenue dropped sharply after this thing started (so this attempt also hurt this game, a lot). It can't be a coincidence. But. What's done is done. And you guys did have the right to say the price was too high. The problem is - you didn't. You guys did all this in a totally unprofessional way - yet the owner is getting slated for it. There was no communication. No info. No updates. It took almost half a year of waiting until the owner got enough and ended the thing himself. And now, you slipped the info (willingly or not) that you guys decided to back off and never informed the owner and community - while both were waiting for the result of this. So yes. I can understand your reasoning, but not your actions (as a whole initiative - not only you personally). This is NOT how such business is conducted. If you don't like the car, say so. Don't promise to "calculate and let you know" and then disappear into thin air, leaving the seller begging for info, so he'll know how to proceed. And for a lot of players to now blame us for this to not go through is totally and utterly insane. And this is the reason why we will respond each time when such accusations are thrown our way. So thank you for the info. It confirms a lot of things. This was MY personal opinion. You can NOT blame the whole group for MY actions. Please clarify this. You have a beef with me in this thread. Not the others in the buy out community. Do not throw the others under the bus. And we widely disagree on the pricing. I have done IT due diligence for 20 years. I know the processes and evaluations. Oh - and your numbers did not match up with reality. Please check in once in a while.

I don't have beef with you or anyone personally about failed buy-out attempt.
I do, however, have beef with anyone saying (or even hinting) that we were to blame for how the buy-out attempt failed - and now even some of them saying, the owner was playing some "fishy games" with the buy-out initiative.

You don't know the amount of PMs we received about this.
How there will be "consequences" (I reckon with stop paying the supporters, not any real threat - just to be clear).

And, what I wrote, are nothing but facts on the conduct of buy out initiative (not you personally).
It was time the facts are thrown on the table.

If the price was so off. Then why we weren't informed of it?
Even after, 3 or so months, the "initiative" posted on forums how it is preparing the bid.

- Bid was never prepared.
- Bid never happened.
- Initiative never did anything, other then "calculating and preparing for almost 6 months".
- Initiative never countered or argued the price.
- Owner closed the deal because he was fed up of waiting for anything

These are hard facts. If anyone disagrees - go on, counter these statements.

I repeat.
We can disagree over the price. Though did you really expect the owner to sell for what, 1 years of revenue? (in this case, it is you who needs a reality check)
But if you don't even let the owner know you disagree on a price - what was he supposed to do? Guess what's on your minds?

No such deal should ever drag on for months and months (especially without any kind of feedback on the process).
Never.
There is no excuse for it (and if you really are working in the industry, then you know this!)

SrednaD wrote: So to sum up... The game currently has faults in several processes due to a server move. The owner can/will not fix it. Numbers for active players are not correct. Scripts for handling Cup games does not work. Old bugs are still here. Any info on game mechanics can be found in 15 year old threads. New implementations (like BMI) might work. And what about 'Aggression'? When was this gonna be implemented? MY view of the game as an asset, a possible buy out and any ability to run this game in any forseable future with a profit while developing it has not changed. And Admin - please stop the passive aggressive attitude. You don't know me. I don't know you, yet you assume that I should not know things that I have done for 20 years. Fix the obvious faults in the game. If not, then let the community know that nothing will be fixed or done so we can stop believing in hope.

There are no gamebreaking bugs at this time that would prevent the game going on.
Owner will fix the obvious flaws as soon as he feels a bit better (he is seriously ill at the moment - I stated that a few times now).

Nice "detour" on conversation though.

This thing here started as an answer to 2 people that hinted that we were trying to scam buy-out initiative with active users numbers. And yes, that triggered me (and always will!)
Then, you answered and entered conversation (I never asked you to and I never targeted you personally!).
So I answered to you as well.
I have nothing against you personally (I wrote that already above).

I only stated facts - that the buy out initiative was never serious (or at least didn't act like it).
How much of that is your fault (if any) I don't know (how can I).

But anyway, you are trying to derail the convo.

So let's finish the conversation here and now. No point in going on.
Facts are written above for all to see.