Forum: empire-en
Board: [590] Ideas, Suggestions & Feedback
Topic: [74645] New attack regulations to prevent bullying
[1555989]
Baldrick (GB1) [None]
:: May 24, 2013, 12:50 a.m.
I think there should be regulations to stop level 5 players attacking high level players and capitals.
Technically, they can send lame attacks with 26 guys, remove our hard earned tools and we cannot fight back.
This, in my opinion, is bullying. 99% of these attacks are from multi accounters who can't say anything to the faces of those more powerful than them.
Bullies AND cheats!
If you want to attack a level 60 you should need a minimum of 200 troops, not 26. This would stop most of these tool knocking, cheating, cowardly, pathetic attacks on the players who keep this game alive.
Rant over.
Technically, they can send lame attacks with 26 guys, remove our hard earned tools and we cannot fight back.
This, in my opinion, is bullying. 99% of these attacks are from multi accounters who can't say anything to the faces of those more powerful than them.
Bullies AND cheats!
If you want to attack a level 60 you should need a minimum of 200 troops, not 26. This would stop most of these tool knocking, cheating, cowardly, pathetic attacks on the players who keep this game alive.
Rant over.
[1555996]
Dun Gon (INT2) [None]
:: May 24, 2013, 12:57 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)+(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.
I don't believe it will be implanted. I do not disagree with the ideas, but some ideas such as:
- 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!).
The flames have money value to GGE. Buy spending rubies to avoid a burning castle (Or protection mode) these rapid fire attacks just gave them money.
- The protection time of a defeated castle should be greater than that of a castle who had a successful defense.
Don't get this. If your saying a weak castle should have greater protection time then a high level castle, this is already pretty much implanted.
- 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:
Strongly disagree. They often rapid fire attacks on our team mates. Thats why we attacked them. This is a war game.
Also...everyone, this was suggested on the 19th of march...lol. 2012.
[1556015]
SPARTA23 [None]
:: May 24, 2013, 1:25 a.m.
Complaining won't help you on the forums , just because they are stronger than you and you never actuallyThere 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
went and looked for an alliance that can actually stand for itself.Since you are in the wrong place at the wrong time , complaining about that is pointless.
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
War is part of the game , whatever starts a war is something you just have to live through.Sitting here on the forums thinking people will want to get the bullies banned when the bullies go on the forums is pointless.Go find a better alliance , and then you can stand up.
[1556039]
bdgl [None]
:: May 24, 2013, 1:59 a.m.
There are antibully alliance adjudicators out there that consist of powerful players. Titanous from Honoured Titans dont like bullies, EE (no 1 now in the Tournament) dont like bullies, and there is Sky Lord that dont like bullies, there are some out there. Hope this helped. Programming to help against bullies could be complex inconflict with Tournaments, not like reading something from a short book of stories that canbe altered by man giving false belief.
[1556047]
Bestofluck [None]
:: May 24, 2013, 2:09 a.m.
I agree with baldrick. the minimum for attacks on higher levels should be increased. it's frustrating to lose tools on small, pointless attacks. happens to me all the time.
[1556108]
magicsss17 [None]
:: May 24, 2013, 5:43 a.m.
Personally. I agree with the issue that too many castles are being victimized by cruel heartless bastards out there. There are some issues with completely removing attacks on players though.
As baldrick points out there can be abuse in the other direction. if attacking were limited in levels of either 10-20 away people would be able to steal outposts or villages and you could do nothing to retaliate.
There are also plenty of loopholes where alliances can gang up on a person and mass him yet only one attack each. You can't limit the number of attacks because this would create issues during war.
even with a limit of 6 per castle in a time frame the player could open gates 6 times and not have to worry about defense any longer and could move for offense alone.
to me they need more penalties and stronger penalties for attacking or ganging up on the weak. This way it can be done but is effectively detered. Outside of war and counter bullying there really is no reason anyone should be attacked with a level distance greater than 30. GGS needs to take more steps to deter this kind of behavior.
As baldrick points out there can be abuse in the other direction. if attacking were limited in levels of either 10-20 away people would be able to steal outposts or villages and you could do nothing to retaliate.
There are also plenty of loopholes where alliances can gang up on a person and mass him yet only one attack each. You can't limit the number of attacks because this would create issues during war.
even with a limit of 6 per castle in a time frame the player could open gates 6 times and not have to worry about defense any longer and could move for offense alone.
to me they need more penalties and stronger penalties for attacking or ganging up on the weak. This way it can be done but is effectively detered. Outside of war and counter bullying there really is no reason anyone should be attacked with a level distance greater than 30. GGS needs to take more steps to deter this kind of behavior.
[1556117]
Nyanthan [None]
:: May 24, 2013, 6:41 a.m.
It's a good idea I must say. I fully support your cause. 
[1591133]
Mephistopholes [None]
:: July 19, 2013, 1:21 a.m.
Lilith, I think the theory is sound, but there are so many different variables to take into account. Right now (9.13 PM, Eastern Standard Time, USA, Thursday July 18, 2013), there's a lower level player from a well known and infamous alliance who has repeatedly attacked EVERYONE in my alliance some more than 9 times in 24 hours. He's lower in level than some, but because he comes from such a huge and known-to-be-volatile- alliance no one dares retaliate. Moreover, this alliance in question owns at least 2 capitals, and hence he has kingsguard. He's using them with impunity. when our highest level member tried to retaliate with 300 veterans, in less than the hour's travel time it took them to get there he had over 6000 troops. In this scenario, you'd just be giving him carte blanche to attack 6 times a day, every day until he got bored. I think that the limit should be no more than twice, but more importantly that the larger alliances should ONLY be permitted to attack lesser alliance members if they were attacked first. Otherwise there's absolutely ZERO reason for anyone under level 55 to stay in the game.
I'd like to see this particular player banned for bullying, but in reality most would simply say "it's a war simulation combat based game, deal with it..." The reality, though is that this guy is a bully and is very much enjoying the fact that he is. An example should be made.
I'd like to see this particular player banned for bullying, but in reality most would simply say "it's a war simulation combat based game, deal with it..." The reality, though is that this guy is a bully and is very much enjoying the fact that he is. An example should be made.
[1591568]
chinesepineappl [None]
:: July 19, 2013, 8:35 p.m.
NO. theres already a 3 hour space. this is ridiculous
btw this is not Farmville
btw this is not Farmville
[1591570]
chinesepineappl [None]
:: July 19, 2013, 8:36 p.m.
magicsss17 wrote: »Personally. I agree with the issue that too many castles are being victimized by cruel heartless bastards out there. There are some issues with completely removing attacks on players though.
As baldrick points out there can be abuse in the other direction. if attacking were limited in levels of either 10-20 away people would be able to steal outposts or villages and you could do nothing to retaliate.
There are also plenty of loopholes where alliances can gang up on a person and mass him yet only one attack each. You can't limit the number of attacks because this would create issues during war.
even with a limit of 6 per castle in a time frame the player could open gates 6 times and not have to worry about defense any longer and could move for offense alone.
to me they need more penalties and stronger penalties for attacking or ganging up on the weak. This way it can be done but is effectively detered. Outside of war and counter bullying there really is no reason anyone should be attacked with a level distance greater than 30. GGS needs to take more steps to deter this kind of behavior.
I love when people talk about themselves
[1739383]
Monkey17178 [None]
:: April 10, 2014, 9:37 a.m.
I think the protection mode for when a player gets attacked should last longer
[1739565]
Chris2307 (GB1) [None]
:: April 10, 2014, 12:58 p.m.
LilithMarleen2 wrote: »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.
Not entirely sure on the other points made but I really like the principle of this idea (with a little tweak)
1. Positive/Neutral Honour - As much as you can carry
2. Negative Honour - Nothing
With looting bonuses from commander/research/tools applied afterwards.
I.e.
1. Positive/Neutral Honour - As it is now.
2. Negative Honour - Nothing * Looting bonus = Still nothing.