Forum: empire-en

Board: [590] Ideas, Suggestions & Feedback

Topic: [74645] New attack regulations to prevent bullying

[1358960] Tiber Septim [None] :: May 28, 2012, 1:33 a.m.

Yeah.. This is why my alliance (Well not there yet but I'm still looking for new members) Is probably going to stay out of this crap. The only thing we'll do to expand is taking outposts that no one knows..

[1358963] LOL LOL2 [None] :: May 28, 2012, 2:56 a.m.

i would suggest honor pentalties that is more substaintial than the ones we have now and more importantly glory points penalties, which most players don't want to lose.

[1358991] Nirwemen [None] :: May 28, 2012, 9:21 a.m.

I only agree with the 2nd idea. But there is always a disadvantage for some and advantages for others. e.g. If you attack a guy till he has practically no honor left while you have alot of honor, you will lose honor if you attacked him again. Some players (like me) will stop when that happens. I've attacked this guy once just to complete a quest, but he rained attacks on me perhaps because he's mad or something... He did not succeed even once cuz his army was weak from my first attack. Although i didn't have anything to lose... It serves as a threat. So i, in returned, rained attacks on him which was all really successful... i stopped afterwards as i thought that i had my revenge. but nowadays, he espionaged me and even tried capturing my outposts!!! i told him to stop otherwise he would be in ruins. Apparently, he didn't heed my advice so now i am keeping my "promise" to him.

P.S I have given him many chances and warnings

[1359100] Lanendir [None] :: May 29, 2012, 2:11 p.m.

I like the big losses in honor/glory as that's what would happen in the real world...the other stuff (while it would make smaller players lives easier) really is too much I think.

[1359108] AmazingBob5 [None] :: May 29, 2012, 4:17 p.m.

LilithMarleen2 wrote: »

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

They already keep track of who attacks who. I attack this one guy 2 times, then started losing honor if I attacked him. This is GG's way to try to stop big players to not attack little players.

I still like this idea better than the current solution.

[1359110] shing25 [None] :: May 29, 2012, 4:48 p.m.

Well it looks to me that some of you know how to fight and some of you don't. I qualify to post here as most of you don't as you are all in alliances and I am not. Listen man, it sucks to get attacked and harder even more if you don't do rubies. I can't tell you the strategy in public eyes and probably not in personal eyes either. Hopefully you will smarten up and see what you need to do. "Hint" Honor is not what you are going for. Any alliance that says the minimum honor to get into is a sucker alliance and they can't play this game either take it form me. Most people here are complete idiots and don't listen to their [email protected]

[1359132] Xanthia2 [None] :: May 29, 2012, 7:12 p.m.

Perhaps a reasonable answer is a compromise between 10+ level restrictions on attacks and a device which will allow the player to move his/her castle to a new spot (losing whatever outposts then held). It would be a gold or ruby purchase, so as available to all, with perhaps a 24-hour dormancy/truce factor. This allows the "bullied" player to remove himself from the immediate hot spot and regroup. The truce would disallow that player to send any attacks/be attacked within that 24-hour period and the move device could not be implemented more than, say, once every 21 days (to stop people from moving around strictly for the purpose of "hit and run" attacks).

[1359167] UltimateABC123 [None] :: May 30, 2012, 4:40 a.m.

Xanthia2 wrote: »

Perhaps a reasonable answer is a compromise between 10+ level restrictions on attacks and a device which will allow the player to move his/her castle to a new spot (losing whatever outposts then held). It would be a gold or ruby purchase, so as available to all, with perhaps a 24-hour dormancy/truce factor. This allows the "bullied" player to remove himself from the immediate hot spot and regroup. The truce would disallow that player to send any attacks/be attacked within that 24-hour period and the move device could not be implemented more than, say, once every 21 days (to stop people from moving around strictly for the purpose of "hit and run" attacks).

Good idea you might be a very succsessful person. (How do I spell "succsessful"?)

[1359176] Alcraigh [None] :: May 30, 2012, 7:58 a.m.

Xanthia2 wrote: »

Perhaps a reasonable answer is a compromise between 10+ level restrictions on attacks and a device which will allow the player to move his/her castle to a new spot (losing whatever outposts then held). It would be a gold or ruby purchase, so as available to all, with perhaps a 24-hour dormancy/truce factor. This allows the "bullied" player to remove himself from the immediate hot spot and regroup. The truce would disallow that player to send any attacks/be attacked within that 24-hour period and the move device could not be implemented more than, say, once every 21 days (to stop people from moving around strictly for the purpose of "hit and run" attacks).

So what happens when you pay your rubies to be relocated and you don't like your new neighbours or you get spawned next to an ally of the previous person you were at war with? Or, what about the other players who are just setting themselves up and you spawn in as a higher lvl player who couldn't take the heat in your last spot but decide these guys nearby are easy targets and take your revenge on them? In effect perpetuating the cycle.

Or, what about the higher lvl players who are looking to farm resources from outposts and have found a lower lvl but inactive players outposts. You can't attack them, so all those really good outposts go to waste. It seems that you guys are looking to put too many "baby filter" options on the game play so you can all build lovely castles and have no one attack you.

I guarantee everyone on here whinging was all very happy when they were winning battle, capturing outposts and farming resources from other players. We have all been pummeled and will all pummel someone else. To use a catch phrase - "It is a war game after all".

PS - I have noticed the time limit between attacks increasing. I am now out to 12 hours on one player. The game has in built protection mechanisms. You can't expect it to give you everything you want always. for you to be protected, the attacking player is denied access to a basic function of this game - attacking! Don't minimise some one elses game play because you can't figure out how to succeed.

[1359242] Xanthia2 [None] :: May 30, 2012, 9:06 p.m.

Well rather than consistently find reasons why things won't work or shouldn't be bothered with because there are exacerbating circumstances that might result, I prefer to successfully (grin @ Ultimate) negotiate compromise to alleviate legitimate complaints. It is no fun to be stuck in a spot that has become a big red bullseye for whatever reason. All well and good that ONE player has a 12-hour wait to repeat an attack; but how does that stop the other 10 players in an alliance who will send their attacks? I don't think an "escape" mechanism is unfair if it is used as a last resort with the aforementioned restrictions (rather than quit the game because you can't recover from consecutive hits). And insofar as where you land, you take your chances for better or for worse. Should you land next to lower level players, the cycle is "perpetuated" regardless because, as you so eloquently point out, the attacking player is entitled "to [exercise] a basic function of this game - attacking!"

[1359308] Nirwemen [None] :: May 31, 2012, 4:11 p.m.

perhaps it's because it's my hobby turning people who are a threat to ruins but wars is what gge is all about.:( (if you find me a "bully", too bad.;( because there are many players here who play this game to fight to reach the top.)(if you come crying to the community cuz you offended someone and is forever burning, dont play this game)X(

btw, i had been attacked many times and my castles were burning for weeks but see where i am now (though not exactly far)... treat every failure as a learning experience

[1359315] DarkMonica [None] :: May 31, 2012, 5:22 p.m.

seriously: cancel this account and start a new one and hope that you will get a good spot. Having a quiet neighbor makes all the difference when you are just getting started.

[1359321] BladeLord [None] :: May 31, 2012, 6:25 p.m.

I agree with the sentiment of the post, but the solution provided sounds overly complicated. I think the level differences that grant honor and glory should change with growth. So, for example, level 19 or less could only attack down to 5 levels below them in order to gain honor and glory. Levels 20-29 could only attack 6 levels below. 30-39, 7 levels below. 40-49, 8 levels below. 50 and up, 10 levels below. Attacking more than 10 levels below you I think is a cheap shot at any level although I haven't played the upper levels yet to know just how much of a difference it makes. Attacking outside of the allowed ranges should lower your honor and glory and, when you're about to attack someone out of range, it should warn you so there's no doing so by accident. If you lose honor and glory that way, then it would clearly be you're own fault. Finally, a lot of players like to keep honor low while increasing glory. That's why I think both should be lowered as a penalty when applicable. Just my 2 cents.

[1359360] Nirwemen [None] :: June 1, 2012, 6:06 a.m.

DarkMonica wrote: »

seriously: cancel this account and start a new one and hope that you will get a good spot. Having a quiet neighbor makes all the difference when you are just getting started.

im definitely NOT a quiet neighbour... lol:p

[1360250] UltimateABC123 [None] :: June 11, 2012, 12:44 a.m.

Nirwemen wrote: »

im definitely NOT a quiet neighbour... lol:p

Neither am I

[1360305] AmazingCarter [None] :: June 11, 2012, 6:25 p.m.

i agree but i dont agree with the honor thing. the distance should not matter

[1361491] Vonflare [None] :: June 21, 2012, 7:20 a.m.

- 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:

Good idea but not very realistic.

- 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:

Good idea but not very realistic.

[1363009] KUDZITHEGREAT15 [None] :: June 30, 2012, 4:43 a.m.

i have the same promblem.this two guys keep attacking and their like in their lvl 40s and 30s. and i am only lvl 28. i think that unfair. how can an army 100 people last agianst 3 waves 400 hundred people.this game becomes boring and not playable. the only reason i still play this game is because it has taken my time

[1367601] KC1 [None] :: July 22, 2012, 8:15 p.m.

I'm leaving the game because I'm fed up with being attacked over and over by the same person/alliance. My castle and two outposts have been attacked NINE times in the last two days!! 7 attacks by one - I guess ruby player and 2 by another member of same alliance. Plus another random attack. This is so unfair. The attacker is right beside me so no chance of getting help or even moving what little troops I have from one place to another.

I'm level 28, Margrave, pretty active and have enjoyed playing for the last few months but there's no way I can compete with this. I have no chance of repairing buildings or recruiting soldiers between these attacks.

As was said before, attacking is part of the game but not at this rate - unless the point is to get rid of other players completely.

Before I go, I just want to say it was fun while it lasted but wouldn't recommend it while bullies and ruby players are allowed to harass lower less well off players and ruin the game for them. Ruby players should have their own world!!

[1367775] [Deleted User] [None] :: July 23, 2012, 7:06 p.m.

This is a great idea.