Posts by wishmaster3

The blacksmith once again looked at the parchment a visitor had just given him.
There was nothing particularly unusual about this order – to decorate armor and a weapon with an emblem... ⚔️ #ShadowEmpires

Curious to know more? ➡️ Follow the story!⬅️





    The most prominent complaint that lead to this was people spiking inactive accounts (i.e. defending the raids sent on other unaffiliated inactives). Another concern being that it was easy to have private farms/multies to raid (without alliance pushing restrictions), and then reinforce them from the alliance when they were attacked/raided by other players.



    For supporting players in other teams with defense as a spy... You wouldn't be able to do that anymore anyway, since reinforcing troops are rewarded with the defense points now - so would give you away if your points go up (unless you're sure you'd stay out of top 10). Besides, the biggest impact a spy can have is with information, not sending his defense to the alliance he actually plays for, so I don't see how it impedes spying too much, like you imply that it does.

    The notes from the workshop should be published next week, so I'll happily discuss things by then (will be easier) - but I can say that I'm happily surprised. There's still some stuff to do in regards to teching but.. TG actually did more than I expected and already had a solution ready to something that I thought we would have to discuss at length how to solve instead (well, basically they did what I was talking about in this topic too - fixing private farms through a rule change).



    Pointless to have discussion with you, as you seem to know it all and only focus on your opinion.

    You came with a personal attack on me, claiming that I only talked about garages and no one cares about garages - when I literally spent a single line talking about garaging, and then 10 lines talking about private farms. I will quote it to make it even easier for you, since you refused to just go back and actually read my post:


    Amendement to rule 1.1: something like adding "an account is only allowed to willingly give away x amount of production (I'm thinking 1/10th or less). This is intended to handle private farms.


    This of course raises the question of enforcement. The RET team have limitied tools to track resources raided and such too, as far as I'm aware. Likewise, they don't have the manpower to track it. However, I believe there's a large proportion of players that take issue with private farming, especially legitimate top raiders. These would also be the first to notice private farms - seemingly inactive/farmable account suddenly being defended, only against their raids, but not against other raiders.


    Keep in mind, being inactive, or being a bad player, doesn't mean punishment under this rule. This is meant to target private farms - i.e. accounts that will be farmed by one player or one team, and then defended against all other teams. Inactive accounts obviously won't be defending against anyone. Likewise, noob players who are being attacked would presumably defend against all attackers.


    There are obviously some drawbacks to this: it leaves the enforcement to the discretion of the RET team. It also requires vigilance from the playerbase itself. As for the later point, as mentioned, I think there are enough players that actually care, that private farms would actually be reported, and generally, I actually think it could be a good thing if the playerbase was given incentive to be a part of reinforcing the rules and fair play.


    Exceptions to the restrictions should obviously be made for WW feeding (or perhaps even outright at WW plan drop?).

    I myself never played with a tech or was one myself, but for example in my current world we have one player in my alliance who holds unique diet and settles a village in every def/off cluster from us to feed mainly our defensive units (but off as well).

    A UD holder doesn't feed the units in his diet villages himself. The players parking troops there do (or used to at least, before teching). I know how holding UD/LD works.




    Why is there minimal effort?

    I can play an account 12+ hours per day, using all my knowledge of efficient farmlisting and macro raiding, account building (CP production + res focus) etc... And still be outperformed by an account logging in less than 5 hours per day, with two techs. And no, it doesn't take a lot to set up two tech accounts to provide 200k+ res per hour - heck, with minimal effort, you can have them set up by artefact time, and then not have to worry about them for the rest of the round. Whereas a raiding, or expert simming account, will have to exert the same level of effort, or more, through the whole round. Thus, effort and dedication is invalidated.

    The Players are already gone ... If I choose to build zero troops and garage my whole alliance why not? Why does it matter that "back in the day" people didn't do that?

    A lot of players are gone. More are leaving right now over tech issues. I seriously don't understand why some parts of the playerbase are so self-destructive that they won't acknowledge this, while at the same time complaining about dead servers.


    Techs nullify personal dedication, game knowledge and skill. Any personal effort is invalidated by tech users achieving the same (or even more) with minimal effort and no risk. That is what a lot of players take issue with.

    All you write about that is having a limit on raiding in alliance? Wake up, real teching is done outside alliance by creating alliances full of tech accounts so there is no limit on raiding at all.

    This just shows you didn't read my latest post on the subject at all. Pointless to have a discussion if you don't read. If you do decide to actually read, feel free to reply again.



    Also, what do you think happens if private farms are dealt with? People will garage instead, to get exactly the same advantage. Again, what is the difference between garaging 200k troops, or raiding 200k res per hour from an account?


    Garaging WWKs is the most prevalent issue in regards to garaging. OP hammers are to a greater degree fed on own account - and again, I think it's fair to offer some garaging just because you have some spare crop. But we're talking accounts that are set up with the primary purpose of being garages, garaging 100k+ troops (an actual, in game example, being a 1m EC WWK, with 230k imps stored in one garage, and 24k catas in another.)

    The problem I immediately see is one tiny word: "willingly". This will lead to some accounts magically beeing noobs.

    I address this in the very post you quote. If the account is raidable for everyone, it's not really(/as big an) issue. If the account only defends against other players/teams... It's not a noob account.



    1. Make support playstyle official:

    This means like a sitter, both accounts can agree and with that they can trade, HR, and garage unlimitly. But only 2 accounts can be connected and with the connection they can't sit each other and can't chief each other for the rest of the game, even if they loose the connection later(can still zero eachother). Yes you can still use tor to be undetectable, but that is why the connection is limited to one per account. And you need to be in the same alliance.

    How does this address that you can just keep accounts outisde your team, and raid them unlimited? + plenty of people don't like to see WWKs that never raid, park 300k+ troops for free, and put in almost 0 effort compared to non-teching WWKs.




    2. On every other account you can only store troops a total amount of 4 hours per day 6 days in the future, which means you can store them at max 24hours in a row and yes still with the alliance only stuff enabled. This does not take into account the amount of troops, so it doesn't matter if its 1 or 100k defense for example. Not included are artefact villages and World Wonder villages.

    Not much different from my garage suggestion, except my suggestion still allows stuff like some guy splatting his OP hammer and then hosting a few troops from an ally hammer - but not those dedicated garage accounts that serve only the purpose of feeding 200k+ troops from a WWK. Except:


    Bottom line: Standing defense in offensive accounts would be gone.

    Why?? Literally no one takes issue with standing defense. The problem is garaging offensive troops, hence why my suggestion only counts for off.




    The only thing you really can do against this is to hardcode stuff in the game or make the impact of the cheat meaningless. But as you can see at my and basically every suggestion it almost never only affects exclusively the targeted behaviour.

    I was taking the hard-coding path initially, because it seemed like TG would be unwilling to talk about rule 1.1 again. But hard-coding becomes incredibly complex. Hence why I've reverted to only hard-coding garaging, and then addressing private farms with rule changes.



    or do you wan't to stay the game the same more or less and accept that cheating gives you a big advantage and a lot of peaople will either flat out do it or at least exploit the "grey area".

    This equals many many players quitting the game. I'm sure we can all agree fewer players is the last thing we need.




    but again:

    The issue about techs are only those who are raided by 1 specific account? That is general opinion.


    That should be only point to discuss and solve.

    If you raid a private farm for 200k per hour, or park 200k troops in your garage, it comes out to exactly the same. So pointless to only address raiding.

    So this topic never received much feedback (though I got some in private too).


    I know this topic is of huge concern to a lot of people though, and I have been trying to reach some solutions to suggest to TG with my fellow ambassadors.


    Quite unexpectedly though, it seems like there's a chance to make revisions to rule 1.1 to help combat teching.



    Here are some initial thoughts that I'd like feedback on - preferably sooner than later.




    Limitations to garaging, more or less as suggested above (numbers to be decided).



    Amendement to rule 1.1: something like adding "an account is only allowed to willingly give away x amount of production (I'm thinking 1/10th or less). This is intended to handle private farms.


    This of course raises the question of enforcement. The RET team have limitied tools to track resources raided and such too, as far as I'm aware. Likewise, they don't have the manpower to track it. However, I believe there's a large proportion of players that take issue with private farming, especially legitimate top raiders. These would also be the first to notice private farms - seemingly inactive/farmable account suddenly being defended, only against their raids, but not against other raiders.


    Keep in mind, being inactive, or being a bad player, doesn't mean punishment under this rule. This is meant to target private farms - i.e. accounts that will be farmed by one player or one team, and then defended against all other teams. Inactive accounts obviously won't be defending against anyone. Likewise, noob players who are being attacked would presumably defend against all attackers.


    There are obviously some drawbacks to this: it leaves the enforcement to the discretion of the RET team. It also requires vigilance from the playerbase itself. As for the later point, as mentioned, I think there are enough players that actually care, that private farms would actually be reported, and generally, I actually think it could be a good thing if the playerbase was given incentive to be a part of reinforcing the rules and fair play.


    Exceptions to the restrictions should obviously be made for WW feeding (or perhaps even outright at WW plan drop?).




    Lastly, this doesn't address the techs clearing oasis for fast village 2. But these should really be addressed separately imo, with changes to oases.



    Let me know what you think, or if you have alternative suggestions.

    But theres nothing too impressive about the stats summary of that server. But maybe we are missing part of the information/ team.

    If you look at pure off/def points, sure. But they cut down 6+ full enemy wings (i.e. 1v3 quads), to only ~40 players. Holding all WWs, all CPs, all uniques etc (not sure if they quite made it to hold all artefacts, but probably close).


    Now of course, this won't(/shouldn't) happen with pre-made teams on the server though ;)


    And yes, WWKs were mainly used on own WW, lots of OP hammers weren't splat.

    Like in almost every game, the amount of time you're able to spend on the game increases the level of play you're capable of.


    I think it's perfectly fine to say: either you will have to work with other players (duals/sitters) to get more online time, or you will just have to accept that the account won't be as good as it could be.


    It's perfectly possible to run a very decent account, just logging in a total of 2 hours per day, so you're grossly overexaggerating when you say it's impossible to even play the game with such a time commitment. Which brings up another point: if you're a good and knowledgeable player, you can decrease the time intensity of an account. If you waste a lot of time, then sure, 2 hours per day won't make a great account. But if you run it just somewhat well, 2 hours is perfectly fine for a decent account.

tg_TL-DQ4_970x250_181126.jpg