#Allow sitters to send attacks

58 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

manic ibex
#

is there a reason why sitters can't send attacks?
couldn't we have a box to tick just like gold permission?
pros and cons?

worthy ledge
#

Pros: easier for multis to abuse.
Cons: will be implemented asap since it makes cheating easier.

manic ibex
#

I imagined that multis would come up as a topic.
I wish tk finds a way to solve multis problem, I've never really payed attention to people getting banned, but recently I saw some players banned on the map, maybe something is working better... maybe it is the "new electric fence"😂

my desire comes from the fact that it happens that we don't have enough people available to send attacks/sieges at certain times, so it would be useful to be able to attack for allies too.

the game is rightly biased towards defense, but since sitters can move defenses, it's sad that sitters can't move off armies effectively.

unreal bison
#

you could move duals around to be fair

#

so if you have someone who is a dual on 1 account, were both can send

#

the dual could leave that account ( be there as sitter for a few hours)
and be set as dual on the account that cant make the timer

manic ibex
worthy ledge
#

Is it a bad translation or did you just confess to cheating?
A dual is not allowed to have an account on the server at the same time as he is playing as a dual...

full cape
manic ibex
sharp helm
#

Basicly this would allow 1 person to run scripted ops. No thanks

#

And while we at it. Dual swapping should also be prevented. Having active players is one of the key things that differentiates kingdoms.

worthy ledge
#

I thought the system for dual is to have 2 people play on the same account and this shouldn't be abused by swapping duals back and forth...

manic ibex
#

if that's the path we want, I'm fine with it, but then remove possibility for sitters to move def.
if we want only active players to move troops, let's do the same for def players, only owner and dual can move them in reinforcement.
sometimes it is not about having active players... they may be active but have different time zones, therefore you can't do any op.

tepid hare
#

except the Off players and Off planners etc know exactly when the attacks will happen
Def players however they never know the time or day the attacks will start
too much abuse could happen if sitter could send attacks & then you have to question why the account holder is even needed?
but sure remove sitters totally then? let it be 1 player per account
lets all have fun ghosting Off's sat at home again as sitters wont be able to dodge those either

sharp helm
tepid hare
#

I think it works fine as it is tbh

#

a sitter can already -
keep your account safe
stop you overflowing
build buildings and add to troop queues
feed any def that may arrive whilst you sleep
dodge your troops
feed your troops
attack/siege hideouts
make sure your troops are sent when camps appear
attack Natars
if you make it that a sitter can also send "attacks" on other players then there is no need for the account holder to login apart from once every 3 weeks to keep the account active

which is absolutely what some teams would do to have more "legal multi's"

Please lets keep it as it is
if your problem is that you are asleep when the attacks happen, then maybe you need a dual too?
or maybe have a chat with your Off planner, so he can be more accommodating to your time zone

manic ibex
# tepid hare a sitter can already - keep your account safe stop you overflowing build buildin...

thank you for sharing your point of view.

in the current version, if you have a dual, there's no need for the account holder to login.

what do you mean by having more legal multi's?
right now if you play in your account and you are sitter of 2 accounts, you are playing on 3 accounts and if the 2 accounts you are sitting are def, you are basically playing without restriction on 3 different accounts.
I don't see the problem with allowing sitters to send attacks.
please help me understand where's the downside.

the problem is that if half/most of your team has the same sleeping time, you won't be able to send attacks in that time, unless you have a lot of duals.
ofc you can plan an OP in a different moment, but there are some key moments in the game where you want to attack, before VP are calculated, just to give an example.

tepid hare
#

so a dual in theory means you can share 50% each or play for half the account's 24/7 (the dual plays the other half) if you don't login they can play 100% of your account, but not 100% of 3 accounts since sitters cant do everything a dual can.

Your suggestion would mean every player could full play 100% of 3 accounts, having sitters being able to send in Op's would be very damaging for the game, if you consider this for a full team, it very quickly becomes that 20 players can fully control 60 accounts, meaning a lot less activity is needed for any upcoming Op.
Whereby if it was a huge problem that Def sitters can move troops around, there would already have been a lot of discussion around it & most Ops would fail already

maybe a solution is to have your troops travelling at different speeds by using just rams or just catas with tournament square, it doesn't always have to be at L20, you build it to fit with what you need, you can also remove and rebuild Tournament square to a different level if needed for attacking different sides of the map as the server progresses.

another option is to set an alarm to send your attacks, as used to happen in days gone by (Off planners would try to accommodate player time zones, but for some attacks it was crucial to be sending at those times)

#

if your Op's are constantly failing because of sitters being able to move Def
I would say you need a better Off planner that makes less predictable Off Ops

either the Op needs to be bigger or better

manic ibex
#

I agree that def sitters must be able to move troops. My statement about not letting sitters move troops for def was a provocation.

I know how to play with rams/cata speed and ts levels, but sometimes it is not enough.
Luckily not every player has the same commitment.
Therefore some won't set alarms to send fakes.

In the current version of the game you can have 20 players managing 60 accounts. Accounts played by sitter won't join OP, but let's assume 20 off players and 40 def accounts managed by those players via sitting.

And I don't see why requiring less activity for an OP is a bad thing for the game

manic ibex
tepid hare
#

I think we are on the same side here
but believe me when I say, some teams would totally abuse the system by being able to send Off troops

#

it would create a bigger problem than it fixes

manic ibex
#

I can understand that, but if that's the case, I'd like to understand what would be the problem and try to find a solution.

If idea A is ok, but multi/cheaters would abuse that, the problem is not idea A.
The problem are multi/cheaters

tepid hare
#

the problem would be they would no longer need to multi/cheat for 3x the amount of Off accounts
they could do it legit

#

if you ever had a hard time playing against the zerg, imagine that 3x harder
because if they could do it, they would

manic ibex
#

I mean, the problem are resources that they get from multi which they use to build their off. If resources are obtained in the correct way, I don't see the problem.

tepid hare
#

you have to look how the smallest kingdom would be affected by the biggest kingdom doing this

manic ibex
#

Smallest kindom already have a hard time against bigger kingdoms

tepid hare
#

sometimes yes, but this breaks the balance completely

manic ibex
#

I don't think the balance would be impacted by that.

If you have a kingdom with 100 active players and they all send attacks or if you have a kingdom with 50/100 active players and they can also send attacks for those 50 not that active players, the outcome would be the same.

tepid hare
#

that's why it was mentioned above that activity is important
if you cannot send because of activity, then that's for you to fix by finding a dual
not by breaking the balance of the game to meet any teams activity levels

manic ibex
worthy ledge
#

The outcome will be the same yes. But currently multi abusers need to recruit more people to the kingdom instead of just making more accounts. Imagine abusers farming and trading and everything you do on main account and at the same time you do it on 2 other accounts. 3 well built accounts for 10 people will do a lot of damage to anyone when you can plan and execute the op yourself.
Me and a friend did very small ops and grabbed villages from enemies with just 2 accounts now imagine 2 people with 3 accounts each. The damage would be astronomical and all will be "legal" and hard to prove.

unreal bison
#

but 5+ people playing 1 account may seem like unfair.
but consider that those 5+ could be on 5 seperate accounts, the advantages are minimal

#

its like, the oppisite of multi

manic ibex
# worthy ledge The outcome will be the same yes. But currently multi abusers need to recruit mo...

That's not the point. If multi farm each others multi is a complete different thing. They should all be permabanned.
3 accounts each, means 3 real people starting the game and then setting that player as sitter to let him play on 3 accs.
If those accs are played in the correct way, no multi farming, I don't see problems.
Playing against 3 different people or 1 person managing 3 accounts is the same thing.
As long every account is played correctly and there are no 6kk res farmed week 1

tepid hare
#

I have a bigger problem with 1 person playing 3 accounts, than i do with 5 people playing 1 account
it's really only the same damage of 1 account whoever does the clicks

worthy ledge
#

And there is the issue. 3 people playing 1 account each is a huge difference to 1 player playing 3 accounts.
You don't need to plan anything. Off ops will not be planned and any faults that usually happens will be eliminated. No communication is needed and so on.

manic ibex
#

3 people playing 1 account is fine and we all agree on that.

My point is 3 people playing on their acc or 1 player managing 3 accounts is the same exact outcome.

tepid hare
#

count the humans we say

#

if 3 people = 3 accounts then that's fine

#

if they have a sitter or dual to allow a bit of a life & to sleep that's also fine

#

but the moment you allow 1 person to fully play more than 1 account, the worst of the worst will do it to the max

#

for Off Ops they dont even need to be in the same kingdom

#

for every server moving forwards now, the def can only be moved to another kingdom member
(or to a WW in lategame)
so if you consider in an ideal team, you need 50 Off players and 50 Def players as standard
then you have a max of 50 Def players accounts trying to fight a min of 150 Off players accounts

manic ibex
#

Here you got a point. But what about being able to only sit players in the same kingdom?

tepid hare
#

I think that takes away espionage, which is always part of war 😉

manic ibex
#

I mean...

#

I guess you can share on discord

#

And not in game

tepid hare
#

that's for each kingdom leadership to control
sometimes having a spy can be a good thing

sharp helm
#

The issue is you can have 1 person sending every attack on a op, either scripted or manually. You can have multis controlling off without ever joining server themselves. This means 0 failed sends on every op.

#

And no fatique on the players. Imagine having perfect op landing on you every night for the whole server