Forum: empire-en
Board: [590] Ideas, Suggestions & Feedback
Topic: [74645] New attack regulations to prevent bullying
[-74645]
LilithMarleen2 [None]
:: April 19, 2012, 1:56 p.m.
I've seen cases where a player of a considerable level (considerable as in high enough to harvest a good amount of resources, but too low to be able to raise a good army) gets attacked by much larger players, sometimes continuously, making it impossible for the attacked player to get back on his/her feet.
Some measures are in place to prevent the same player from attacking continually (there's a time frame after each attack within which the attacker can't attack the same castle), but they don't stop various players from creating a continuous stream of attacks on the same person.
And now you'll tell me that that's what alliances are for, that every player should join a good alliance for protection, that sometimes a strong player with a reprehensible conduct needs to be taught a lesson and the smaller players need to create a continuous stream of attacks on that player to be able to defeat him/her, and that's all good. But what about the big players picking on the little guys? What if the little guys can't join a big alliance because they have entry requirements, like a certain level or a certain amount of honor? What if the big alliances are simply too far away? Besides, why can't new alliances grow and prosper and help the smaller players without being crushed mercilessly by the big dogs?
I think there should be some limits. I know attacks are a big part of the game, but some players just don't know when to stop. Here are the measures that I propose:
- A player should only be able to lose a limited number of defense battles per day. Let's say six times. After that, nobody can attack that player until 24 hours pass since the first attack occurred. (If a player is attacked 5 times and the sixth comes right before the end of the 24 hours... then that's just foul luck, mate!)
- If a player wants to attack the same castle every time, the protection time should increase each time the enemy castle is attacked.
- The protection time of a defeated castle should be greater than that of a castle who had a successful defense.
- Rather than just keep the system of honor penalties when we attack a player much smaller than us, we should simply be forbidden to attack them. Great Darius suggested a formula to calculate which players around us we can attack:
SomeFactor * (abs(My Level-Target Level)+(TargetHonor/100)) / distance
Although I don't think distance should be that important. What if there are no attackable players around us for many miles? That would be mighty unfortunate, and unlucky, yet we must be able to attack somebody!
- If not the formula, GranteD suggested bigger honor penalties and loot penalties. Let's say the loot you get from an attack is relative to the honor you gain. If the honor is positive, then you get as much as you can carry. If it's neutral you get half. If it's negative, you get nothing.
Tell me what you think (be nice, even if your comment is disapproving).
PS: Credits to Great Darius and GranteD for helping with the measures and suggesting I create this thread.
Some measures are in place to prevent the same player from attacking continually (there's a time frame after each attack within which the attacker can't attack the same castle), but they don't stop various players from creating a continuous stream of attacks on the same person.
And now you'll tell me that that's what alliances are for, that every player should join a good alliance for protection, that sometimes a strong player with a reprehensible conduct needs to be taught a lesson and the smaller players need to create a continuous stream of attacks on that player to be able to defeat him/her, and that's all good. But what about the big players picking on the little guys? What if the little guys can't join a big alliance because they have entry requirements, like a certain level or a certain amount of honor? What if the big alliances are simply too far away? Besides, why can't new alliances grow and prosper and help the smaller players without being crushed mercilessly by the big dogs?
I think there should be some limits. I know attacks are a big part of the game, but some players just don't know when to stop. Here are the measures that I propose:
- A player should only be able to lose a limited number of defense battles per day. Let's say six times. After that, nobody can attack that player until 24 hours pass since the first attack occurred. (If a player is attacked 5 times and the sixth comes right before the end of the 24 hours... then that's just foul luck, mate!)
- If a player wants to attack the same castle every time, the protection time should increase each time the enemy castle is attacked.
- The protection time of a defeated castle should be greater than that of a castle who had a successful defense.
- Rather than just keep the system of honor penalties when we attack a player much smaller than us, we should simply be forbidden to attack them. Great Darius suggested a formula to calculate which players around us we can attack:
SomeFactor * (abs(My Level-Target Level)+(TargetHonor/100)) / distance
Although I don't think distance should be that important. What if there are no attackable players around us for many miles? That would be mighty unfortunate, and unlucky, yet we must be able to attack somebody!
- If not the formula, GranteD suggested bigger honor penalties and loot penalties. Let's say the loot you get from an attack is relative to the honor you gain. If the honor is positive, then you get as much as you can carry. If it's neutral you get half. If it's negative, you get nothing.
Tell me what you think (be nice, even if your comment is disapproving).
PS: Credits to Great Darius and GranteD for helping with the measures and suggesting I create this thread.
[1355785]
Great Darius [None]
:: April 19, 2012, 2:07 p.m.
Very well put. I guess I've already voted up for this 
[1355786]
LilithMarleen2 [None]
:: April 19, 2012, 2:15 p.m.
[1355792]
UltimateKing23 [None]
:: April 19, 2012, 3:31 p.m.
good idea but i think that if the attack is from a 20 lvl difference than they should only be able to attack 1ce or twice
[1355793]
LilithMarleen2 [None]
:: April 19, 2012, 4:48 p.m.
UltimateKing23 wrote: »good idea but i think that if the attack is from a 20 lvl difference than they should only be able to attack 1ce or twice
I agree, but I don't think one can impose many criteria, I don't know how complex the programming is for this game. That would involve keeping many variables as memory records, to keep track of how many times a player has attacked another, and maybe that would compromise game performance.
Maybe if a player has 20 levels on another he shouldn't be able to attack at all, if that formula is implemented
[1355794]
LegoNenen [None]
:: April 19, 2012, 5:03 p.m.
something like this would be nice.
but it needs tweaking but i am not sure ecxaclty what.
but it needs tweaking but i am not sure ecxaclty what.
[1355797]
LilithMarleen2 [None]
:: April 19, 2012, 5:28 p.m.
something like this would be nice.
but it needs tweaking but i am not sure ecxaclty what.
I am open to suggestions :P
[1355801]
smartacus (GB1) [None]
:: April 19, 2012, 8:18 p.m.
There is an alliance that describe themselves as heroes but have created a desert around them as they have destroyed all players in their area. They broke truce with our alliance and are 10 levels above I have had 2 mins warning of heavy cross bows in 100s coming against me over 48 hours we take troops out for walks as they attack then repair damage. They are playing to annihilation of opposition not for points or honour. The big players we know have not wanted to help. This alliance need to be taken out of the game. They are horrendous bullies how they are allowed to cause probably young kids to see themselves destroyed with no mercy is beyond me
[1355806]
Nightdeath [None]
:: April 19, 2012, 10:02 p.m.
omg smartacus u attacked my alot after i jsut started and now u get mad that we attack u, u started this whole thing and now u are to big a coward to see it all the way through
[1355807]
Danger1602 [None]
:: April 19, 2012, 10:15 p.m.
Yes!!!!!!!!!!
[1355810]
GranteD [None]
:: April 19, 2012, 11:19 p.m.
LilithMarleen2 wrote: »- A player should only be attackable a limited number of times per day. Let's say six times. After that, nobody can attack that player until 24 hours pass since the first attack occurred. (If a player is attacked 5 times and the sixth comes right before the end of the 24 hours... then that's just foul luck, mate!)
- If a player wants to attack the same castle every time, the protection time should increase each time the enemy castle is attacked.
- The protection time of a defeated castle should be greater than that of a castle who had a successful defense.
- Rather than just keep the system of honor penalties when we attack a player much smaller than us, we should simply be forbidden to attack them. Great Darius suggested a formula to calculate which players around us we can attack:
SomeFactor * abs(My Level-Target Level) / distance
Although I don't think distance should be that important. What if there are no attackable players around us for many miles? That would be mighty unfortunate, and unlucky, yet we must be able to attack somebody!
here is my opinion
for the 1st one I don't agree with it because in high level player wars we need to attack a lot to bring them down so if you can be attacked 6 times a day no way he will lose and trust me I seen a castle with 5900 defender consist off Halberdiers and Longbowmans.That many defenders can only be attack 6 times not a match.So,no for me for 1st one.
2nd one I agrees completely.end of story
3rd one agreed
4th one is no but if you tweaked the formula that if they attack low level players with low honour that will minus like 300 honour points that will make them think twice to attack.Also,I assumming some of them bullied because of looting because other than no honour point get or deducted and no glory points what did they get which points to looting so how about no looting also for low level players against high level players,so they don't get glory,honour and loot and there is no purpose for them to attack low levels only wasting coins and tools.
Sorry,if some of my words are uncomfortable,just want to be understood.
[1355821]
smartacus (GB1) [None]
:: April 20, 2012, 4:26 a.m.
Look at Kramzee castle and tell me if there is anyone else on the board around United Heroes, what has happened to the players !! Since posting this they have all attacked my main castle I am going to let it continue to burn as an example of cyber bullies. They have made war on 2 Alliances 600 distance threatened to wipe them out. They are not playing for honour but to be the only ones on the map. It is so important to confront attitudes. It seems obvious from their response here and on the board, just look it says it all
[1355822]
Great Darius [None]
:: April 20, 2012, 6:09 a.m.
for the 1st one I don't agree with it because in high level player wars we need to attack a lot to bring them down so if you can be attacked 6 times a day no way he will lose and trust me I seen a castle with 5900 defender consist off Halberdiers and Longbowmans.That many defenders can only be attack 6 times not a match.So,no for me for 1st one.
That's true. I think/hope he meant if they lose 6 battles. Can you clear that for us LilithMarleen2?
[1355824]
KramZe2 [None]
:: April 20, 2012, 8:36 a.m.
Look at Kramzee castle and tell me if there is anyone else on the board around United Heroes, what has happened to the players !! Since posting this they have all attacked my main castle I am going to let it continue to burn as an example of cyber bullies. They have made war on 2 Alliances 600 distance threatened to wipe them out. They are not playing for honour but to be the only ones on the map. It is so important to confront attitudes. It seems obvious from their response here and on the board, just look it says it all
Actually Its funny how you go flame here.. First this war started because of something between you and Nightdeath.. I guess you don't understand.. The next is that its actually to protect another low alliance who asked us to wipe your ass.. And that alliance begged 3-4 alliance for help which none responded on.. There is none around me because of inactivity.. I haven't been pilliaging and wanting to destroy other than you.. So actually we are turning the bullying around and you go to whine on forums.. Think you should ask the "little guy" you attacked how his alliance feels about you bullying them.. I guess he is in the same situation..
I think this actually can be tweaked.. get us some catapults and make 6 defeat daily
[1355858]
smartacus (GB1) [None]
:: April 20, 2012, 9:15 p.m.
Great a lesson learnt, already made a statement to you that the castle in question was replenished as I realized he was still in the game. Usually an accused has an accusation to answer never knew what that was. Before being "punished". And the other members of my Alliance attacked by your higher level had no idea of your high moral ground.Other alliances actually helped dialogue, which can be useful in understanding how the game works before being attacked with overwhelming force. And your threats to the second "lower level" alliance again an example that you do not bully, because heroes pick fights with same size Alliances whereas cowards dominate the weak. If there was any justice in your cause it should have been with me alone, as it was I had already sought to make amends.
[1355865]
LilithMarleen2 [None]
:: April 20, 2012, 10:55 p.m.
Great Darius wrote: »That's true. I think/hope he meant if they lose 6 battles. Can you clear that for us LilithMarleen2?
Yes that is accurate. A castle's defenses shouldn't be wiped out and the buildings left burning more than six times a day.
[1355874]
Unknown
:: April 21, 2012, 12:53 a.m.
LilithMarleen2 wrote: »I've seen cases where a player of a considerable level (considerable as in high enough to harvest a good amount of resources, but too low to be able to raise a good army) gets attacked by much larger players, sometimes continuously, making it impossible for the attacked player to get back on his/her feet.
Some measures are in place to prevent the same player from attacking continually (there's a time frame after each attack within which the attacker can't attack the same castle), but they don't stop various players from creating a continuous stream of attacks on the same person.
And now you'll tell me that that's what alliances are for, that every player should join a good alliance for protection, that sometimes a strong player with a reprehensible conduct needs to be taught a lesson and the smaller players need to create a continuous stream of attacks on that player to be able to defeat him/her, and that's all good. But what about the big players picking on the little guys? What if the little guys can't join a big alliance because they have entry requirements, like a certain level or a certain amount of honor? What if the big alliances are simply too far away? Besides, why can't new alliances grow and prosper and help the smaller players without being crushed mercilessly by the big dogs?
I think there should be some limits. I know attacks are a big part of the game, but some players just don't know when to stop. Here are the measures that I propose:
- A player should only be able to lose a limited number of defense battles per day. Let's say six times. After that, nobody can attack that player until 24 hours pass since the first attack occurred. (If a player is attacked 5 times and the sixth comes right before the end of the 24 hours... then that's just foul luck, mate!)
- If a player wants to attack the same castle every time, the protection time should increase each time the enemy castle is attacked.
- The protection time of a defeated castle should be greater than that of a castle who had a successful defense.
- Rather than just keep the system of honor penalties when we attack a player much smaller than us, we should simply be forbidden to attack them. Great Darius suggested a formula to calculate which players around us we can attack:
SomeFactor * abs(My Level-Target Level) / distance
Although I don't think distance should be that important. What if there are no attackable players around us for many miles? That would be mighty unfortunate, and unlucky, yet we must be able to attack somebody!
- If not the formula, GranteD suggested bigger honor penalties and loot penalties. Let's say the loot you get from an attack is relative to the honor you gain. If the honor is positive, then you get as much as you can carry. If it's neutral you get half. If it's negative, you get nothing.
Tell me what you think (be nice, even if your comment is disapproving).
PS: Credits to Great Darius and GranteD for helping with the measures and suggesting I create this thread.
no there is a good idea but loopholes that would make it so this makes little difference
[1355883]
albastrel6 [None]
:: April 21, 2012, 5:32 a.m.
I have the same problem i am attacked over and over but when i sleep so i cant defend myself when i am sleeping !!! And it gets kind of boring and annoying and it makes me fell like I don't want to play this game anymore. Belive me if you look at my castle 22 buildings are burning!!! find me in world 2 my name is albastrel6 coordinates 301 : 960 also i will give you the coordinates of my attackers the first one: 286:948 the second one :315:948 i mean they are all from the alliance ELITE-FIGHTERS and they have 15 members AND THEY ALL ATTACK ME!!!
[1355885]
smartacus (GB1) [None]
:: April 21, 2012, 6:51 a.m.
Kramzee claims that 100% of players round his United Heroes all had the same thought and gave up. How strange the only place on the map where 100s of players had the same thought. We ran rings around him for 3 days sending troops out to Disney Land when we saw him coming. Then we noticed a glitch in the system that allowed him "10 levels above us" to attack with 2 mins notice. Useful glitch when you already have overwhelming armies attacking non ruby players that have caused no offence, ( he is a defender of morality read his Alliance statement). Can someone explain the 2 mins notice attack maybe its a cheat " perish the thought. So when I come on the forum I get overwhelming attacks from 3 of his players in the night, because he is exposed. albestrel6 send a message to your attackers questioning their motives, it may be a common theme that once exposed their response is the same as United Heroes. Not content with my castle burning Nightdeath " pleasant name" still spies me out.
[1355887]
KingWhiteFang [None]
:: April 21, 2012, 7:14 a.m.
bad idea i understand that you try to protect small players but i think that this is too much