> Forums Index > NEW 1000 AD > Changes/Suggestions > Online combat, Acceptance rather than fix.
Author Topic: Online combat, Acceptance rather than fix. (39 messages, Page 1 of 2)
Moderators: DR

DR
Moderator
-Mad Scientist-
Posts: 55
Joined: Nov 10, 2011


Posted: Jan 4, 2012 01:55 AM          Msg. 1 of 39
As I see it, the arguements for trying to "remove" camping aren't really going to work if you use the infinite player theory, that being if we had an infinite number of players, is it reasonable for x? (where x is online combat not to happen).

So only way forward really, is to accept it is part of the game. Now tem has a huge bunch of ideas about that (including that one with online reset %). Could you maybe list them all?

I have some things I'd like to include.
A) We want to get players used to having a defense, when pro ends, if players don't have a base 0.33x defense (excludes wall and rls), all research is stopped, and all production is halved. And a certain % (something tiny) of the population dies (the close you are to the 0.33x defense, the less that die) The explanation is that raiders come upon a defenseless civ and eat them.
B) Great wall can have up to 100% builders rather than 20%
C) Minimum population is 1k rather than 100, and similar increases for min warehouses space, also after cat hits reach 24%, population and buildings cant destroyed by cats. Can still be hit by army though.... Prevents people being capped when rebuilding while popped /killed and faster recovery. Population recover is still >100 turns.
D) A 50-150 turn Peace game that is separate with no army or catapult attacks, no league points. The way I see it, it is a good place for newbies to learn economy basics and peace lovers. And for those who never shift away from this game, they might bring friends who decide they want to fight.

Additions Edit 1:
Bounce % reset on page load, discussed else where, here is appropriate, I think not on page load, after 2 mins online.

Land score ratio based conquer needs a lot of thought.

Remove *

The yellow colour for pro doesn't go away until half of the pro period is gone. Eg. 480 turns in standard. They lose protection though. Might need some kind of server protection to stop scripts checking attacking all players.

Possible: Each hour online, some attack % against you is reset (1 attack per 20 minutes)? and your cl/productivity/attack/def, etc. goes down by 1%? Floating an idea here. Make being online a decision, you get extra information and capability but at cost of exhaustion (both human and empire).
Edited by DR on Jan 6, 2012 at 10:48 PM

radikaal
-The Wise Man-
Posts: 47
Joined: Sep 25, 2010


Posted: Jan 4, 2012 04:15 AM          Msg. 2 of 39
A) In principle I guess a good idea. You wouldn't want to live in a country without defense so population runs away? Not sure about the research and production, I think population loss will be sufficient incentive as it will grind your research/production to a halt anyway.

B) Why not

C) No opinion

D) So you mean a all out Explore fun/ all the time in protection game? I am surely in favor of that. :D (Only downside is...you'll see only Franks, maybe a Zulu or 2 and a Jap.)

Swoosh
-King Coder-
Posts: 28
Joined: Jan 16, 2011


Posted: Jan 4, 2012 04:10 PM          Msg. 3 of 39
Quote: As I see it, the arguements for trying to "remove" camping aren't really going to work if you use the infinite player theory, that being if we had an infinite number of players, is it reasonable for x? (where x is online combat not to happen).

So only way forward really, is to accept it is part of the game. Now tem has a huge bunch of ideas about that (including that one with online reset %). Could you maybe list them all?

I have some things I'd like to include.
A) We want to get players used to having a defense, when pro ends, if players don't have a base 0.33x defense (excludes wall and rls), all research is stopped, and all production is halved. And a certain % (something tiny) of the population dies (the close you are to the 0.33x defense, the less that die) The explanation is that raiders come upon a defenseless civ and eat them.
B) Great wall can have up to 100% builders rather than 20%
C) Minimum population is 1k rather than 100, and similar increases for min warehouses space, also after cat hits reach 24%, population and buildings cant destroyed by cats. Can still be hit by army though.... Prevents people being capped when rebuilding while popped /killed and faster recovery. Population recover is still >100 turns.
D) A 50-150 turn Peace game that is separate with no army or catapult attacks, no league points. The way I see it, it is a good place for newbies to learn economy basics and peace lovers. And for those who never shift away from this game, they might bring friends who decide they want to fight.
Edited by DR on Jan 4, 2012 at 02:00 AM
--- Original message by DR on Jan 4, 2012 01:55 AM
A) I'm not so sure about this one, what would occur if an empire was doing some sort of goods run or a mage run? Would this mean throughout the run the population would die and the production of goods would be affected?

B) No problem with this, never seen a reason why only 20% could be allocated. Although, how would this work in theory? If all builders are on the great wall whose building the farms to feed the woman and children?

C) I would say been made popless and building less is part of the game. Why would we need to change this?

D) Like this idea, would also like to see some other types of games return when we get more players in!

Grand Larceny
-The Narcissist-
Posts: 69
Joined: Dec 31, 2011


Posted: Jan 4, 2012 10:53 PM          Msg. 4 of 39
Quote:
Quote: As I see it, the arguements for trying to "remove" camping aren't really going to work if you use the infinite player theory, that being if we had an infinite number of players, is it reasonable for x? (where x is online combat not to happen).

So only way forward really, is to accept it is part of the game. Now tem has a huge bunch of ideas about that (including that one with online reset %). Could you maybe list them all?

I have some things I'd like to include.
A) We want to get players used to having a defense, when pro ends, if players don't have a base 0.33x defense (excludes wall and rls), all research is stopped, and all production is halved. And a certain % (something tiny) of the population dies (the close you are to the 0.33x defense, the less that die) The explanation is that raiders come upon a defenseless civ and eat them.
B) Great wall can have up to 100% builders rather than 20%
C) Minimum population is 1k rather than 100, and similar increases for min warehouses space, also after cat hits reach 24%, population and buildings cant destroyed by cats. Can still be hit by army though.... Prevents people being capped when rebuilding while popped /killed and faster recovery. Population recover is still >100 turns.
D) A 50-150 turn Peace game that is separate with no army or catapult attacks, no league points. The way I see it, it is a good place for newbies to learn economy basics and peace lovers. And for those who never shift away from this game, they might bring friends who decide they want to fight.
Edited by DR on Jan 4, 2012 at 02:00 AM
--- Original message by DR on Jan 4, 2012 01:55 AM
A) I'm not so sure about this one, what would occur if an empire was doing some sort of goods run or a mage run? Would this mean throughout the run the population would die and the production of goods would be affected?

B) No problem with this, never seen a reason why only 20% could be allocated. Although, how would this work in theory? If all builders are on the great wall whose building the farms to feed the woman and children?

C) I would say been made popless and building less is part of the game. Why would we need to change this?

D) Like this idea, would also like to see some other types of games return when we get more players in!
--- Original message by Swoosh on Jan 4, 2012 04:10 PM
He would be doing it with defense up of course, like he should be.

My opinions.
Not entirely sure on this. I think that something should happen though. Too often you see friends getting free mages then eating each others land then camping the top guy that has to mage in front of a heap of landsharers with def up to protect his land.

Have to be honest here, this point triggered a flashback of Civilisation. The old Barbarian horde. Maybe we could introduce a random attack from rogue barbarian hordes into the game. The numbers would have to be worked out, but maybe they could be stronger attack and actually take land, poision pop, burn buildings, etc etc.
Say a random % likelihood of 5% coming with maybe 1 unit per land with .75-1 attack per unit, ability to take .0015 land per unit, poison water at thief strength and set fire to buildings at thief strength (none of this affects the %)....
Obviously land coming out of the game will be a negative, but it is players choice to freeland, they want the land to stay, they play it properly. Either that, or the lost land could be spread about the other players out of protection. Don't know how to explain that, maybe some sort of Robin Hood ****....

My idea was always to have conquered attacks from players cause this kind of destruction against weak players, but I think if it was a game activity rather than luck of the draw it would work out better. I like the idea of losing land in it though, easy enough to just run with above average food rationing and a queue set up to cover the buildings you lose on your run. % based and it will be easy enough for people to work out what they will potentially lose over the course of their run and cover it all so really it just means that their mage will cost them a little extra food, and a little extra wood/iron.
As for research being stopped and halved, I think that is a little excessive. I mean people still need to run. No point running and getting catted to the point where you aren't producing anything positive. Can simply camp somebody with cats and they won't be able to get anything done because I can have their defense right down.

The moral of the story I like, but I think a better way can be thought up. Good start though.

B/ I just assumed that perhaps there was a cap of 20% because they are assigned first? Do they move onto other projects if there is no more wall to build? If they do, then I agree. Although maybe 50% would be enough? Is a big project after all. Double your defense in 10 turns?

c/ Pretty much agree, although the 24% is that cats % or % of buildings left? Being homelessed in Standard is pretty much round ending. Being homelessed and then again 5 times trying to rebuild is nearly enough to walk away from the game. As fun as it is when you are doing it, I can imagine it isn't much fun for the person on the receiving end.

d/ You mean Blitz will get shut down? None of them like to fight so would imagine they will all play the peace game.

As for my ideas to reduce camping, well it has been nearly 12 months since I put any thought at all into this game so I forget most.
In regards to camping, it is and always will be my opinion that camping is a rubbish concept. Camping is people defending their land to the max. People that respect their land and wish to keep it. It makes perfect sense to me that if somebody is coming to attack me, I should have every right to attack them back. Just because I am on top is irrelevant. Obviously some will take this to the extreme, but who cares, if they wish to put that much time into the game, then good luck to them. Easy enough to beat a camper. Just ask Oracle how he went camping me after I put in the online bounce reset. You won't even see his name in the round after he was forced to quit. But he was prepared to defend me and fight me for as long as it took which as far as I can see is the point of the game so I will never suggest anything to stop online attacking, just merely point out some flawed parts of the game that give it too big of an advantage.......

Game stats. How easy was it when you could simply look at game stats, see when a player had queued his army when their army disappeared from the stats, then attack them 3-4 times before they even knew they were hit. Hitting them freeland with an inflated score to destroy them. That was fixed (and to be honest I think it came back after the code changes, is it happening now still?).. Point being, that was a flaw in the code that gave people an advantage over game dynamics, and removed.
Game stats in general is flawed as far as I can tell. Before I even start my run I know the army makeup of the guy up top. I can sit there and watch his mage and know exactly where he put every single research point.
I know my threats, and generally they are the full attack civs that are climbing from 2 million land because they freeland after their run. That is their fault from what I can see. Their strategy is to use 800 turns attacking as high as they can, then make goods to do it again next time. If I can come on after they start, they basically waste their full alotment of turns because they have no exit strategy. Is that my fault for camping, or their fault for being predictable? I know my answer to that.
As somebody who has won rounds untouched from the run out of pro, to somebody that has won rounds by being camped and having to run through a team of online players, I know that camping isn't as big of an issue as it is made out to be.
The biggest change I would suggest to counter camping, would be to adjust players attitudes. But I can't think of a code change for that. This game has always attracted a lazy player base with no forethought.
I have won rounds where there was no time limit, won games with 6 hour time limit, won games with 2 hour time limit. 2 hour time limit was called "Anticamp round"... rotflmfao.. Umm, seriously? Anticamp? I told people how much easier it is to camp when your opponents have limited time to run, but did anybody listen?
Personally, I will camp a game harder with a time limit than without because it is much easier. No online timer means players can take hours just sitting there and if you are camping them, you are sitting there too. Have 2-3 threats in the game, that is your life gone just waiting them out. 2 hour time limit means you have to give up just a few minutes to camp them.
So, time limit? Scrap it.

% abuse. Easy to know how many hits it will take your opponent to break you. Easy to sit there and wait them out then simply rebuild, or attack them when they attack you down to their score. They actually do you a favour by making it harder for everybody in the game to break you because your % is reduced across the board (I forget, do bounce hits count on everybodies %? Maybe I should take a look.. Nah somebody else can put the work in...).. So they reduce my %, I still get their land, then I can go out for the day safe.
Bounce hits? Reset them on page load.

Add in land/score ratio into conq land attacks. Means attackers going for top with a player online are protected somewhat due to their high army make up. They aren't punished for having a big army. They lose less land, and their opponent remains on 100% to bounce them down. If they are taking your land, their % against you is reducing, they aren't getting as much land, you are soaking more up from below you to hit them at your reduced % while they waste resources sitting at 100%. They waste weapons and turns and end up dropping. They put all their turns into holding their land, and still lose it, drop hard and have a reduced resource base to get back to where they were.

* That keeps lighting up around the time you are expecting somebody to run, you know they are getting ready to run. See them climbing, all it takes to stop them is lighting your up. Yes there will be pages of abuse in the lounge, but the easiest way to protect your land is the knowledge that this asterisk is basically a symbol of players around you going to water in a teary mess. Why? Because they expect that because they have just given their land to every other player in the game to use that you should give them a free run at your land. They feel they are allowed to be online and attack you, but you are not allowed to be online, or to attack them. Still at a loss to explain how that thought process came about. Ro Jam Bo ball kicking? Is that the game where you take it in turns to kick each other in the nuts until somebody gives up? Just let them kick you in the nuts? Hmmm...

The main thing about camping, is really peoples strategy. Players think that camping is unbeatable for one, which it really isn't. They also think they lose because somebody hit them online, which is once again false.
Camping is effective because players are predictable (predictable is not the main word I would normally use, but will stick with that for here, IQ deficient is probably another term for most)...
For instance:
Players complained about people using autorefresh to keep their empire logged in. They complained because they were disadvantaged.
In reality, they were given the advantage. They could bounce away at 100% all day on somebody logged in but not taking notice. Gave them a huge advantage.
Reducing online time equals reducing the ability to camp. And that one actually had a couple of rounds where it really happened. Yes, it really did wtf... Was enough belief in this strategy to remove camping that the people in charge put it into place. Baffling really.
But ahh, predictable. Players play the same full attack civs, share their land around with each other, freeland, then run a full 800 turn run as high as they can go, then do it again. That is by far the biggest reason that "camping" is so effective, because it is so easy due to the inability of your competition to think. Come up against a decent player, and camping suddenly ends in tears.

My main idea to reduce camping, was always to make it that fear inducing that people wouldn't dream of not defending their land properly. Hit a freeland target, their population gets slaughtered, buildings razed, land conquered, basically they get destroyed.
I have more, but that will do for the first novel.....

DR
Moderator
-Mad Scientist-
Posts: 55
Joined: Nov 10, 2011


Posted: Jan 6, 2012 10:47 PM          Msg. 5 of 39
General adjustment to a)
Make the production loss max 50%, 0 at 0.33x base def, in between is linear proportion. Not sure of population loss effect value. Maging would probably follow above number rule rather than flat stopping.

Clarification
c) You can still get homelessed and poplessed, it means you cant be homelessed poplessed again in the same day (maybe) depending on the your %, so after a certain attack % on you, nothing kills/destroys buildings. Speaking of which, we some kind of scale to stop people attacking you out with 1 catapult/thief to lower %

Also some new ones at bottom of post.

@radikaal
a) you want a productivity reduction, this is because the numbers involved in population are far more variable. You can't say flatly population won't grow, because if you are freelanded/homelessed so free land, then being unable to grow population means your empire will be in vicious cycle of do nothing. That means you need to allow population growth - raider effect, which can be offset by just having extremely high rations or something. So to get around that, you need productivity reduction.

@swoosh
a) that is the point :). You should never be going freeland, and if you do, wouldn't you expect to be attacked and lose productivity?
b) I always thought the % was based on the builders you get assigned from tool makers. So it isn't based on population, but population as builders.
c) Popless and homeless is part of game, this still means you get homelessed and popped, what it does mean is that 1) getting camped while rebuilding or repopping isn't as painful. Being homelessed twice in a day sucks and is quite frankly a bit bs. Once is sufficient especially given the economic losses associated. 2) it saves average (or lower) players a lot of pain, since they won't have the same tricks vets use to help protect themselves. So they still go through the experience, but not as painfully

@tem
Quote: Have to be honest here, this point triggered a flashback of Civilisation. The old Barbarian horde

Considered it, but too open to potential land deletion abuse. Plus it is far more complex.
a) You are right, campers could put a serious dent in this. But, doesn't this lead back to the whole, put up more defense? :P The most dangerous is definitely the being catted problem. Which I have to say how is that different from now? Maging in front of catter, you'll get popped and freelanded anyway. I think that is more a problem with catapults than anything. You always have towers option. Definitely something worth considering though.

b)it is quite a big gear change to actually switch from normal exploring to getting up a high great wall, it makes sense if you have spare builders to put them all on the great wall. The amount of builders to meet your turn by turn needs take 150-300 turns to build up wall... rather silly.

d) I wouldn't expect blitz to be shut down, it is just that you'd have to wait for a player base to build up.

Bounce % reset on page load, discussed else where, here is appropriate, I think not on page load, after 2 mins online.

Land score ratio based conquer needs a lot of thought.

Remove *

Additional:
The yellow colour for pro doesn't go away until half of the pro period is gone. Eg. 480 turns in standard. They lose protection though. Might need some kind of server protection to stop scripts checking attacking all players.

Possible: Each hour online, some attack % against you is reset (1 attack per 20 minutes)? and your cl/productivity/attack/def, etc. goes down by 1%? Floating an idea here. Make being online a decision, you get extra information and capability but at cost of exhaustion (both human and empire).

Grand Larceny
-The Narcissist-
Posts: 69
Joined: Dec 31, 2011


Posted: Jan 6, 2012 11:34 PM          Msg. 6 of 39
The problem with time limitiations though, and login limitations (I know you aren't directly talking about such things here but in a roundabout way), is that some people simply take longer to do things as others. Some people like to play an hour here, an hour there, play a couple of turns, have something to eat, root the mrs, play a few more while she is having a smoke and not moaning at you (for the wrong reasons)...

Who is it up to to decide how long it will take you to play your turns, and then punish you if you are legitimately too slow? Playing on wifi, cutouts, slow downloads, slow thought process, etc etc. I know Merc? used to be nearly blind? or at least there was talk of something along those lines.
By restricting productivity by being too slow while fixing some problems, has the potential to simply make better players further ahead of the pack because they can do things faster, camp other players, and still have played less time on the server.
I just don't think it is a good idea to punish people that want to be involved in the game.

I understand that camping is seen as a big issue in this game, whether legitimately or not, but the simple fact is that the best way to limit people camping you all the time, is to make sure they have to.
I know that autorefresh has been argued about here when there was no time limit, but once again, I think the arguments were all flawed. Now I know nobody appreciates me talking about my rounds, but simple fact is I have direct experience so rather that than hypotheticals, so here goes.
Autorefresh, with online bounce hit reset. Everybody in the game moaned and complained about me using autorefresh because they couldn't take me down because they didn't know if I was there or not. Is that just? No, because they have a free shot at me at 100% for as long as I have it running. Oracle tried to use it against me, and my Chin destroyed him. He let me take his land (not willingly or directly, but end result) BECAUSE he was using autorefresh.
Now picture this scenario. Oracle is up top camping me because he knows that if I give up, he wins. How do I beat him? Easy as turning my autorefresh on. As much as people below are scared about people above them with an * next to their name, so are the players up top. Well, in a decent round obviously with decent players that know what is going on.
Point being, that the best way to beat somebody camping you from above (most efficient way anyway, there are others that are more exciting), is to make sure they camp you for as long as possible. To have an account that is dangerous from close to them, where you can come at any time of the day and don't need max turns to do it. They think you are about to come at them, they give up their time to try to stop you. I can log in, put on autorefresh, go to the pub, and I have some goose staying by his computer waiting for me to run at them whereas in reality I am chatting to the bar staff at the pub throwing down a few pints not even thinking about the game.
Moral to that story, is that the biggest threat to somebody camping you, is them not knowing when you are coming for them. Online time works both ways. Now if you take that ability away from both the player up top, and the player coming from beneath, then you aren't restricting the camper up top, you are dictacting that the player underneath can't use time against them.
Time restrictions generally work for the person on top, because the players underneath have to give up a big chunk of their time just getting to where they already are. Yes, there fault for playing such a strategy in the first place, but time restrictions hurt full run players more than holders up top because holders up top have already done their attack run, they have the land already. They can spend extra time online camping, because they don't need the time to attack up hoping for a free ride. Best thing for camping, is to take time out of the equation. Shouldn't be a thing. This is an online war game. People should be allowed to be online if they choose to be, whether it be attacking runners, attacking explorers, or trying to bore a holder to tears by outwaiting them.

In regards to the asterisk, the only time that should be an option, is if this 5 minutes til attacking allowed idea persists, otherwise, there should be no time limit, and you should be allowed to use whatever means you like to stay logged into the game. There are very legitimate reasons to use autorefresh so it shouldn't be against any rules. Last time I was banned here was for just that. I logged out freeland after my run (well, as it turns out my method for logging out was to rely on the autologout after inactivity, but forgot I had the scores refreshing for my run so as it turns out I was still logged in). I had an asterisk next to my name, was freeland, and Barabas and co complained about me being online and to ban me. For what reason? Because obviously I was using autorefresh to camp the game since their argument was "look I can mage in front of him and he doesn't attack me so ban him" WTF...

Moral of the story: People should be allowed to be online 24 hours a day if they choose, whether they are sitting at their computer or not. * shouldn't be a part of the game because the 5 minute attack wait shouldn't be a part of the game. If you choose to be vulnerable, then that is your call. You want to enhance your run by being freeland, or full attack, then that is your strategy, others shouldn't be penalised for it. Time limit is a campers friend, no time limit, their enemy. When you get to the point where people will try to run you over a certain time by getting themself banned just to try to get you banned, then that is no good for the game. Want a war, fight without the admins. Fight all day, all night, that is what this game should be about.

People want to complain that campers ruined their run? But what did they want to do? Attack up, take out their army, mage on their land, produce on their land, then give their land away to their friends to do the same? Campers don't limit somebodys ability to do that at all. They actually make sure these players don't make a joke of the game by doing it all the way to the top.

Anyway, sidetracked. What was the point? Hmmmmm

Administrator
-Loveable Teddy Bear-
Posts: 601
Joined: Aug 22, 2010


Posted: Jan 7, 2012 12:39 AM          Msg. 7 of 39
Quote: Remove *




I cant even see where this is an option to be honest . So you suggest a game where a new player logs in and it appears nobody is online ? You want people to have no idea if someone is on so maybe a message can be sent and a friendship can be struck up ?

You want to take the live out of the game and this is good for what reason ? So a camper cant be seen ? Not sure how this is a disadvantage to camping ?


Unemployed Rodeo Clown
Edited by Administrator on Jan 7, 2012 at 12:39 AM

Administrator
-Loveable Teddy Bear-
Posts: 601
Joined: Aug 22, 2010


Posted: Jan 7, 2012 12:42 AM          Msg. 8 of 39
Seems the biggest problem is defensive camping, getting raped on a mage is way it goes. Why not something along the lines of If player A) is above player B) and they are both online, player A) gets alot less of a percentage of a land grab if hitting an online player below ?

Wont stop it but will make it alot less devastating ...Anyway, removing the asterisk cant even be an option imo.

Unemployed Rodeo Clown

Grand Larceny
-The Narcissist-
Posts: 69
Joined: Dec 31, 2011


Posted: Jan 7, 2012 01:30 AM          Msg. 9 of 39
They already get a minus on attacking below.

As far as the asterisk, I really don't care either way. I am merely pointing out the main tools to camp and things in the game that work the opposite way to what it is designed to do, such as time restrictions.

In regards to the social aspect of the game if the forums are linked in with the game, then I assume that everybody logged into the game, will also be logged into the forums as well. Can easily have a tied in chat option maybe in the forums where every online player will be logged in anyway.
Personally I think the main problem is players are lazy and this game has turned into a simple mage game. If it isn't a war game, then take that away. But while it is, then people have to accept people also attacking them.
The problem with all these "solutions" that keep cropping up to curb "defensive camping" is they take away from the point of the game. The message being sent out, is if somebody wants to take your land, it is bad form if you don't go away and let them. Sharing is caring. All these people sharing each others land, feeding each other goods, are having their opinions justified on what is wrong with the game. It is ok to share land and feed each other goods, but if you try to defend your land we will run you away from the game? If you take out any advantage of actually putting effort into getting to the top and trying to hold, then why will anybody even bother with defending? The game will turn into a freeland, mage scenario, which maybe fun for a day or so, but where is the challenge?

If it is not ok to attack people online, then the whole game needs a rethink. Trained Peasants, horsemen, etc etc need to be revamped from their current stats because that is their point, to be able to attack and defend at the same time in times of war.
Online bounce counter reset on page load is all you need to counter most of the benefits of defensive camping. Simple as that.

Nos
-Noobie-
Posts: 17
Joined: Jan 7, 2012


Posted: Jan 28, 2012 07:32 AM          Msg. 10 of 39
I think it is pretty obvious that camping will always be a part of the game. Something easy that can be done is to ban 3rd parrty programs like autorefresh tools. Thats at least a start, I dont mind people being online,,,but they should be actually there not using a bot to refresh there page and make it appear as they are there. And then if people still want to camp 12 hours a day then so be it. But like I said in another post the army revolt exploit is another problem and it adds to camping...that can be addressed easy.

But Tem also the way the game is set up, it will eventually turn into freeland/mage anyways. Just look everyone defends the first 3 days and then no one does, because its just not worth it. Perhaps a change would be to make defending land...cheaper ?.

Professor Chaos
-The New Blood-
Posts: 11
Joined: Nov 27, 2010

If your not first, then your last


Posted: Jan 31, 2012 06:55 PM          Msg. 11 of 39
If defending your land becomes cheaper, it will just help out the person at the top because they wont have to put as much goods into holding. All they would have to do is just sit online. I agree there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop camping in this game and still call it the same game. Camping goes both ways from the top and the bottom. I have played round and have been at the top and the bottom. Being at the top sucks sometimes because you cant play the game when you want to. You really have to wait until everyone is done. If you don't, then you will mage on the same land that everyone else is on even though you have more land than them because you will have to have army up. Countless numbers of times I have asked player while they run or after they run whats your plans on breaking the top? Most of them reply either I don't know and haven't thought about it, or just simply hope that the person isn't online when they reach the top. Countless amounts of times I have been on the top in blitz with very little back up weapons to replace them if I get into a online war and be hoping no one attacks. We have to just leave camping along and concentrate on other things that can actually help the game and get people to stick around or come back more and play. There is no point in making rules to suit the player base because they don't want to take the time to plan better. Just need to train the players in how to deal with camping and how to stop it. No matter what changes are maid to deter people from being online, they affect the majority of the players running up more than the person on top. Somebody will find out a way to use the new rules to their advantage to stay on top.

Nos
-Noobie-
Posts: 17
Joined: Jan 7, 2012


Posted: Jan 31, 2012 07:32 PM          Msg. 12 of 39
Well the best way right off the bat is to implement tem's code change for online attacking.

Professor Chaos
-The New Blood-
Posts: 11
Joined: Nov 27, 2010

If your not first, then your last


Posted: Jan 31, 2012 08:02 PM          Msg. 13 of 39
I agree. give the people who have the good a fighting chance to keep hitting until they break. It wont stop camping but it will make it not worth it.

Riffecreek
-Noobie-
Posts: 2
Joined: Nov 21, 2012


Posted: Nov 21, 2012 04:38 PM          Msg. 14 of 39
There is several ways to stop camping:

#1 Attack percent goes down after being online a limited number of hours.. or log in's.. This can also be done with land taken percents.. also with production of goods/mage points...

#2 limit the online hits at the first of the rounds... if you couldn't hit anyone online the last few days, the game wouldn't be the same that last run and hold...

#3 start banning the campers.. pretty simple!! but have the rules set in stone and STICK to them!!

#4 make it use extra turns for hitting online players... You start using 6 extra turns to hit a player online and pretty soon you see it isn't worth it! ofcorse I wouldn't want this on the last day lol

VictorBlack
-Noobie-
Posts: 61
Joined: Jul 4, 2013

"Heiho is the craft of the warrior."


Posted: Jul 12, 2013 05:22 PM          Msg. 15 of 39
(I realize this is an old thread but wasn't sure I should start
another thread about it.)



On Camping

Recently there has been some discussion on the subject of Camping,
which is the act of attacking people when they are doing their Run
and thus have lowered their defense signficantly. Because I was
directly involved in some of this I wanted to clarify my position
and propose a suggestion.

First and foremost, I want to state that I am *not* against Camping.
In fact I strongly support it as an aspect of the game for several
reasons:

1. Camping is a key component in the ability of weaker players and
civilizations to have a "fighting chance" against those who are much
stronger than them. This tension created by the "fairness gap" is
vital to the fun of the game, but there must always be at least a
chance for the weaker player to win, otherwise it becomes boring
for the stronger, and frustrating for the weaker.

2. Camping enocurages different strategies. Rather than allowing
the game to be a straight race, players are tempted to either make
their Runs faster, or to Run with Defense up (thus weakening the Run)
or even to ignore the attacks and keep going. But the threat of
the Camper Attack is always there, and the tension adds urgency
(and fun!) to the Runs... No longer is it a straight, boring race.

3. Camping enoucrages teamwork. Alliances, long and short term,
are formed to deal with Campers, and perhaps to give them a taste
of their own medicine. Such groups of players working together
mean more social interaction, which is a good thing for most
games, especially when they are struggling to grow (or re-grow)
their active membership.



Now, I would like to propose a change to Camping. I do not believe
it should be used against new players who have yet to leave the
Training Alliance for these reasons:

1. New players don't have a chance to win anyway, so do you really
have to hit them to win?

2. It is extraordinarily frustrating to have your people starving
and dying by the millions because you're still learning how to Explore
without using too much food, and then someone comes along while you're
in the middle of it and burns down your farms and steals your land...
Now you're losing millions more people to starvation and a lack of
housing every month for the next several months, and the last several
days of all that work trying to get land and build buildings is
wiped-out and you never had a chance.


Most active players probably do not remember what it was like to try
to learn this game, so many details seem natural to you after all
these years. And perhaps you were camped and attacked back when you
started learning, that is true, but there were a lot more players
which meant there was a lot more support at any given time. I often
have to wait a full day before I have my questions answered because
there are so few players... And it is difficult to trust people
who are giving me advice when they turn around and attack me
afterward.

Now, I'm well aware that dealing with being attacked and being
Camped is a vital lesson in the game, but I don't feel like it
is one that should be forced on me when I am still trying to
figure out how to manage my food and iron shortages, etc...
It's very discouarging, and new players already have enough to
deal with. And unlike five or ten years ago, there are now
hundreds of these games, and it is easy for frustrated players
to go somewhere else.

I have now invited three other players. One of them logged in
and saw all of the resources required to play and said it was
just too much to deal with. Another said that there is too much
to do, and he would try again if he ever had time. The third
played for a little while, but said it was not "phone friendly"
and he doesn't have a computer. Being Camped after days of
work while I'm still learning is just another thing that makes
it difficult for me to keep referring my friends to the game.


So that's it, that's my proposal for a change in the rules.
No Camping on new players in the Training Alliance unless or until:

1. They leave the Training Alliance
2. They attack you first

After one of those, be as ruthless as you want. (I will!)

Remember that I did not attack you first.
But I do not forgive, and I do not forget.

VictorBlack
-Noobie-
Posts: 61
Joined: Jul 4, 2013

"Heiho is the craft of the warrior."


Posted: Jul 13, 2013 09:58 PM          Msg. 16 of 39
The difference between "Camping" and "Online Hitting" has been
explained to me. (Hey I'm a newibe, I'm still learning!)

"Online Hitting" is, obviously, hitting someone while they are online.
This is great strategy and extremely painful for the victim because
they usually have their Defense down so that they can focus on
something else.

"Camping" is when the attacker intentionally sits around, watching
and waiting for someone to be vulnerable, and then attacks them.

What happened to me earlier this Round was not Camping, but
rather just an Online Hit because the attacker was finished and needed
to log off for the day, whereas I believe what happened during my
last Run of the last Round was absolutely intentional.

Definitions corrected, my point is still exactly the same:
I believe that both "Online Hitting" and "Camping" are perfectly
acceptable parts of the game, and it would be detrimental to
remove them or nerf them too much.

BUT I do believe that attacks on new players who are trying to
learn the game should be limited to times when they are not online.

--VictorBlack

Remember that I did not attack you first.
But I do not forgive, and I do not forget.

Mighty Mouse
-G.I. Joe-
Posts: 103
Joined: Nov 24, 2010

Here I come to save the day


Posted: Jul 14, 2013 01:54 AM          Msg. 17 of 39
Well, one problem is that if a person says they are new, but are able to hit 8 mil land by the end of the first week, i think that is just a person trying to have an easy round. Many vets in standard are looking at attacking people that are around 2.5+mil land, and in blitz they are looking at attack people with 8+mil land. So when you are in that range, you are presenting yourself as a person that knows how to play the game.

Just because you are in the training alliance, shouldn't keep you off limits, because you will never learn, and not fair having people explore up to 20mil land and not be allowed to hit them. Hell, to even allow them to explore 4mil land, and not be allowed to hit them. A person either likes or hates this game, simple as that. If they are able to get more than 500k land, with a food based civ, by year 1025, then they should be learning how to attack and defend.

Ken

VictorBlack
-Noobie-
Posts: 61
Joined: Jul 4, 2013

"Heiho is the craft of the warrior."


Posted: Jul 14, 2013 12:51 PM          Msg. 18 of 39
Allow me to clarify:

I do NOT mean that a new player should never be attacked.
Only that they should not be Camped or Hit Online.

Exploring is the first thing a new player has to learn, but
having some success with it does not mean they should be
immediately thrown out to sea to swim with the sharks.

That's a good way to get the new players who really like
the game to quit very quickly.

Attack them all you want-- Just not while they are online
in the middle of their Run.

Remember that I did not attack you first.
But I do not forgive, and I do not forget.

Mighty Mouse
-G.I. Joe-
Posts: 103
Joined: Nov 24, 2010

Here I come to save the day


Posted: Jul 19, 2013 11:04 PM          Msg. 19 of 39
but that is how you learn, you have to learn to do you runs quickly. Also, not like veterans are attacking anyone new, especially if they are new they really shouldn't be in the range of veterans. Now, if you have two new guys and one likes to use all his turns attacking one person, and that happens to be the other new guy, well then that is between them. But in real life, if you have a country, even if your country is only 25 years old, nothing is stopping another country from invading you....same thing here.

Ken

VictorBlack
-Noobie-
Posts: 61
Joined: Jul 4, 2013

"Heiho is the craft of the warrior."


Posted: Jul 19, 2013 11:40 PM          Msg. 20 of 39
This is not real life though, it is a game struggling to keep new players.

New players who already have a lot to learn... Being forced to learn to play quickly when you're still trying to learn to play correctly, that's a great way to make people quit.

Maybe you're right, maybe people will either love or hate the game, but with so few players, why risk making them hate it and quit just to gain a bit of land or whatever for a single Round?

Throw little fish back and let them grow into something worth catching.

Remember that I did not attack you first.
But I do not forgive, and I do not forget.
 
Page 1 of 2 Go to page: · [1] · 2 · Next

 

Time: Wed May 22, 2019 11:53 PM CFBB v1.4.0 172 ms.
© AderSoftware 2002-2007