EA Forums - Banner

PVP.

Replies

  • sacipeps
    18 posts Member
    All the solutions we suggest have difficulties.. but for solve this is realy simple if the producers or game admins made a rule for multi acc exploit like use many accs for block in pvp they will got ban, and start to banned all the accs used for block and main acc.. if 10 players got banned this type of thing will stop... so how to prove it i think if we are able to see what happen a player with 10 camps of you, like how to see who and how is attacking him and share the replay just need a few reports to prove the abuse existence or not
  • Sheosun
    6 posts New member
    sacipeps wrote: »
    All the solutions we suggest have difficulties.. but for solve this is realy simple if the producers or game admins made a rule for multi acc exploit like use many accs for block in pvp they will got ban, and start to banned all the accs used for block and main acc.. if 10 players got banned this type of thing will stop... so how to prove it i think if we are able to see what happen a player with 10 camps of you, like how to see who and how is attacking him and share the replay just need a few reports to prove the abuse existence or not

    And again it won't work. Players use anonymizers to hide their real IPs so you'll never know for sure who uses one or another acc. It only sounds simple. In fact it's very complicated. You can't ban someone only because he was attacked by someone else to block the base.
  • why not? if you are in ally B other guy ally C he is atacking you when you try to aatack him other guy from ally A atack him and you see how the atack goes and this guy continue to atack with sheet simu or proposital type atack just for block can not ban?
  • Sheosun
    6 posts New member
    sacipeps wrote: »
    why not? if you are in ally B other guy ally C he is atacking you when you try to aatack him other guy from ally A atack him and you see how the atack goes and this guy continue to atack with sheet simu or proposital type atack just for block can not ban?

    Because I will create an acc and will block some base of enemy player. Just to get him banned. Again, it's only looks simple. But it is not.
  • sacipeps
    18 posts Member
    edited June 2017
    yes good point... problems with some humans nature cannot be solved simple lol.. bad for the game and fair players
  • methuselah
    455 posts Senior Moderator
    I have been augmenting for years enhancing PvP not taking away from it. I love PvP, when you are dealing with blocks, account eating, move holds, bullying and all the crap gets in the way nothing stirs the emotions like a good war.

    This game is less for the de enhancement over time of PvP, this includes revenue wise. Nothing gets people spending more than a big fat war. The contrary is true as well though, nothing runs people off like some of the issues holding back PvP. This is supposed to be a war game folks, not a C&C version of farmville.
  • needs to go back,all the people we have lost due to the change,rather fight an never badge , than b a badge chaser.just keep farming player bases out,but something in pvp has to change,i dont so much mind the locker,s as i have seen a small allaince b able to stand up, against greater odds,just have to get ur team in their an kill the lockers
    as far as everything else, love the game
  • So, is it reasonably to spread ideas about how to remove locking? ;) It can be not so simple, but things are possible...
  • Just remove 30 sec "blocking for your alliance" in pvp. Who attack first - will be first. it is enough to kill alt bases
  • 32767a
    4 posts Member
    edited June 2017
    A simple solution would be to measure how much damage is dealt to the base by the attack. If measurable damage is done, things could work the way they do now since the attack did damage to the base.

    If insignificant damage is done, the attacker's alliance gets a cooldown between attacks, giving an opening for other players to attack. I say alliance so that you can't have a cluster of blocking bases in the same alliance to switch off blocking attacks.

    That, plus disallowing small bases from moving into high base areas should do it. (though you have to account for players dropping new bases in the high level base areas.)
  • methuselah
    455 posts Senior Moderator
    Measuring damage is an interesting suggestion but I don't think it will work. What if we say "no damage attacks mean you can't attack further" then they raise a no damage attack to a level 1 unit so a little damage is dealt. Then we raise that to anything under 10% damage means an attack lock out and they then send one reasonable unit to deal 10% damage.

    The problem with this sort of thing is that any behavior that imitates in any way actual in game behavior you can't do much with.
  • gamerdruid
    4603 posts Moderator
    The problem is someone will find a way to exploit any change in behaviour just as they have to exploit the current system.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • 32767a
    4 posts Member
    edited June 2017
    methuselah wrote: »
    Measuring damage is an interesting suggestion but I don't think it will work. What if we say "no damage attacks mean you can't attack further" then they raise a no damage attack to a level 1 unit so a little damage is dealt. Then we raise that to anything under 10% damage means an attack lock out and they then send one reasonable unit to deal 10% damage.

    The problem with this sort of thing is that any behavior that imitates in any way actual in game behavior you can't do much with.

    What I meant was, if the base's damage level (not D, structures) didn't increase by some number, there would be a 5-10 second delay where anyone other than the original alliance could attack the base.
    If building damage increased by at least 10%, the "open" window would not occur.
    So, you have to kill at least 10% of the base structure to keep it "locked" each run. I'm not sure how that could be abused.. after 10 runs, the base would be dead, or other alliances would have a window to take over attacks.
  • methuselah
    455 posts Senior Moderator
    I think your idea has promise I just have no idea what that translates to coding time. What I do know is this.....if you are using this tactic for any length of time to avoid PvP you have WAY too much time on your hands. Try building a defense.
  • 32767a
    4 posts Member
    edited June 2017
    methuselah wrote: »
    I think your idea has promise I just have no idea what that translates to coding time. What I do know is this.....if you are using this tactic for any length of time to avoid PvP you have WAY too much time on your hands. Try building a defense.

    it's not a technique to avoid PVP, it's a technique used FOR PVP. done effectively, you can jump a base with a large offense and minimal defense into the center of a base cluster and attack everyone in range without fear of counterattack. The opponent can do nothing but sit and watch all their bases get destroyed. It pretty much ruins the game.
  • good to see people working on locker problem;) somehow it's annoying..
    can we do the following, as i see suggestion from 327.. quite good - as locking reminds me "blue"base RP farming
    so..

    1. we check the damage that can be dealt during simming through 2mins of attack time

    2.if there is an offense that does better damage as current attacker(def or buildings), then attack goes to bigger one.

    this could be done during additional 10s window in post attack 30s time

    for sure it's no superpupper ideal thing, but blue farming was hard to remove too..
  • methuselah
    455 posts Senior Moderator
    32767a wrote: »
    it's not a technique to avoid PVP, it's a technique used FOR PVP. done effectively, you can jump a base with a large offense and minimal defense into the center of a base cluster and attack everyone in range without fear of counterattack. The opponent can do nothing but sit and watch all their bases get destroyed. It pretty much ruins the game.

    That sounds like a tactic to avoid a counter attack which is PvP. Irregardless of the wordsmithing the game would be better were this not an option.
  • 32767a
    4 posts Member
    edited June 2017
    methuselah wrote: »
    32767a wrote: »
    it's not a technique to avoid PVP, it's a technique used FOR PVP. done effectively, you can jump a base with a large offense and minimal defense into the center of a base cluster and attack everyone in range without fear of counterattack. The opponent can do nothing but sit and watch all their bases get destroyed. It pretty much ruins the game.

    That sounds like a tactic to avoid a counter attack which is PvP. Irregardless of the wordsmithing the game would be better were this not an option.

    Your comments sound like you don't understand that I was trying to communicate the negative impact locking has on PVP and general gameplay.

    To be clear, I want it removed from the game and was suggesting a way to make that happen.

    Locking ruins the game because it makes a PVP battle completely one sided. It doesn't matter how big your defense is when the opponent can sit there and launch 30 attacks at your base while you watch helplessly because you are unable to strike back..

    EA's inaction on creating some sort of solution forces everyone else to choose between loosing the game or lowering themselves to the same level as the players who use lockers.
  • huhh .. would be not so hard ;).. but question stays.. will there be an solution?
    As locking makes gameplay .. quite confusing. if there is an reason to participate on suggestions - ok.. if not.. hmm.. then not-ok.

    As i see from ea point of view, the only benefit is , that some really small accounts invest in 3000 or 5000CP cap.. but that's all. Is it really so profitable?
  • ayakxx24
    1 posts New member
    Add morality to pvp only on forgotten attacks worlds. would that help solve some of the locking.
This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.