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)+(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.

JonBerserk7 wrote: »

NO. just no

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)+(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.

MandyJuarez wrote: »

all inactive players should be eliminated in the game.