War META: Instant Breach Walls Mechanics

Quote from BadManS

I' reckon if I pillage enough people using this META, GameForge will hear enough complaints, to change this behaviour haha

Bruh.. are you new here?

Ok I was wrong THAT guy is the one that's new here

Quote from Rastan

Quote from BadManS

I' reckon if I pillage enough people using this META, GameForge will hear enough complaints, to change this behaviour haha

Bruh.. are you new here?

Did you just miss how our complaining changed the target merge servers?

Personally, I think this should be fixed.

While it might be working as intended, clearly, account A occupying you with cooks/doctors so account B can instantly pillage you should be changed because doctors and cooks can't occupy the front line. Plus it favors a ridiculous combat strategy of two un-allianced players working together to pillage a third player.

posting this to follow the thread

regards!

Quote from User12996

Did you just miss how our complaining changed the target merge servers?

ya that was a bit surprising, can't say it turned out for the better, US only gets 2 options, with high contrast.

#1 was a builder server but that wasn't enough.. no we had to drive the point home by doubling troop build time and cost.

Then the 2nd option had heaps of bonuses piled onto it.. sometimes it's best GF NOT listen to us imo.
I was perfectly happy with the original options, no one in my alliance was complaining either it seems a lot of that was driven by discord.

I think it's a bit different because that was just adjusting bonuses, where as this will require someone actually go in and change the code.

but your point is taken.. perhaps there is hope I just think of how the server bonuses got changed and wonder do we really want them listening to us? I can only imagine how they might "FIX" this.

Quote from BadManS

I' reckon if I pillage enough people using this META, GameForge will hear enough complaints, to change this behaviour haha

this meta is broken, and destroys the will to build a big wall to protect your belongings.

why should I have a wall if my enemy can create/purchase a multi and send an insane amount of cookers and render my beautiful wall useless

this meta makes the wall useless and promotes multi-accounting

The only reasons I think developers and other people don't want to change it is either that it is laziness, or they use it as well

Tell me, why should I build a big wall??? the only reason to do it is to make my enemy either use this meta or break it as intended if he can't afford another account to send 3000 doctors.

once they knew this, people will organize and pillage a town in groups as ravenous dogs

the solution is simple, don't count cookers and doctors into the garrison limit!!!!!

it is an if/else code exploit, the garrison number will never go down, nor the first line will be filled with any unit. the battle is won because the defender has nothing to fill the first line. and will never have, the wall should appear as the garrison dies, but no one dies. it is a broken if else loop

I was told in programming classes, "the user will always try to break your program", hence we have sick glitched Doom speedruns and SQL injections

Quote from Rastan

#1 was a builder server but that wasn't enough.. no we had to drive the point home by doubling troop build time and cost.

the doubling troop build time and cost felt like trolling from devs

"so you like this one better, huh?, well, let us nerf it a bit and enhance the other one for war, muahahaha, chaos is my purpose,muahaha I am so evil "

Quote from Donoso

why should I have a wall if my enemy can create/purchase a multi and send an insane amount of cookers and render my beautiful wall useless

this meta makes the wall useless and promotes multi-accounting

I don't necessarily disagree, but the official reply cannot be anything but "all cheaters get banned" and hence the above scenario of using a multi won't apply.

If you do this with another player, it certainly is a form of strategy.

The iffy part comes from the multi aspect, but this much cannot be factored in as from the GF's perspective they all get eradicated.

Quote from Madmadic

Quote from Donoso

why should I have a wall if my enemy can create/purchase a multi and send an insane amount of cookers and render my beautiful wall useless

this meta makes the wall useless and promotes multi-accounting

I don't necessarily disagree, but the official reply cannot be anything but "all cheaters get banned" and hence the above scenario of using a multi won't apply.

If you do this with another player, it certainly is a form of strategy.

The iffy part comes from the multi aspect, but this much cannot be factored in as from the GF's perspective they all get eradicated.

Display More

ah yes, the multi-promoting part is a weak part of my argument, there is the possibility to do it nicely, especially in the current war at us alpha where things are 2 vs 2 alliances

I don't know what to think about banning yet, the only precedent I have is the barbarian village multiplications

that was a code exploit and was bannable

IF this is considered an exploit through DEBATE, it should be bannable while the solution is being implemented.

according to the precedent explained before

i think it is an exploit, one that lies in the code loops to consider the battle mechanics and who wins, as explained before.

but for me the solution is simple,

just add an exemption in the code where doctors and cookers are not counted to the garrison limit.

or make the wall appear in when this happens

the first doesn't change the battlefield size, but the other does change its size to big one

this part where the battlefield changes makes mortar dynamics different and one could benefit the defender, and the other doesn't

not sure which one

What does this whole situation have to do with Multi?

If someone goes to defend the enemy city overnight, you also ask someone else to fight him there - it's no different with the cooks

It is a strategy in war to bypass the wall and get a large battlefield nothing else.

And if you ban such a strategy, I think it's a JOKE

I like it for the cooperation part of it.

Unfortunately we will never reach the happy medium of cooperation in anything, as the shadows of forbidden multino are on all these subjects.

Officially they don't exist, so that doesn't help the discussion around it either.

Doing this via your own multi is obviously abuse (that of multiaccounting rule) but doing it via another player is fine.

Reasons why this is a complicated benchmark are mentioned above.

It works exactly as garrison intends it to.

There is no exploit, and such was confirmed in the old thread.

As for 'how worth it are walls', still worth it.

Quote from Sargi

What does this whole situation have to do with Multi?

Multi removes cooperation, when you do it yourself.

Not very complicated.

It's GameForge's own fault that they introduced the ability to have 10 accounts with IP sharpening

You animated the multiplayers with it

And it's no longer about the game but about what you earn with it

Everyone suddenly has 10 sisters or brothers

I think you should reverse that, but you won't do that because otherwise the source of income will be too small

And I've noticed for a long time that the multinationals here complain so much when something goes against them

It's immediately reported like little pussies

Quote from Donoso

Quote from Madmadic

Quote from Donoso

why should I have a wall if my enemy can create/purchase a multi and send an insane amount of cookers and render my beautiful wall useless

this meta makes the wall useless and promotes multi-accounting

I don't necessarily disagree, but the official reply cannot be anything but "all cheaters get banned" and hence the above scenario of using a multi won't apply.

If you do this with another player, it certainly is a form of strategy.

The iffy part comes from the multi aspect, but this much cannot be factored in as from the GF's perspective they all get eradicated.

Display More

ah yes, the multi-promoting part is a weak part of my argument, there is the possibility to do it nicely, especially in the current war at us alpha where things are 2 vs 2 alliances

I don't know what to think about banning yet, the only precedent I have is the barbarian village multiplications

that was a code exploit and was bannable

IF this is considered an exploit through DEBATE, it should be bannable while the solution is being implemented.

according to the precedent explained before

i think it is an exploit, one that lies in the code loops to consider the battle mechanics and who wins, as explained before.

but for me the solution is simple,

just add an exemption in the code where doctors and cookers are not counted to the garrison limit.

or make the wall appear in when this happens

the first doesn't change the battlefield size, but the other does change its size to big one

this part where the battlefield changes makes mortar dynamics different and one could benefit the defender, and the other doesn't

not sure which one

Display More

It is not 2 against 2 alliances as it was officially stated in the KE

In reality it's 4 against 2 and the help of those alliances where Lostler were before and switched to war don't mention names here

Cities and harbors are used as protection

TBH, this so-called "strategy" seems to be pretty lame.

Long before, you could defend yourself interminably by just training 1 spear over-and-over. They realized this is not normal and fixed this. And I am OK with that since was not normal.

But now, when you just can't make use of the multi-million and months of investment in a high wall, seems to be "normal". Well, it's the same thing: IT IS NOT NORMAL.

So, I really hope they fix this and move the doctors and medics out of the garrison limit and let the defenders make use of their invested wall.

You want to take down a wall? Great, bring mortars!

Quote from BadManS

Lost vs MAFIA and STARS CRs

I found this interesting,

the same player is able to send defend marches and attack marches to the same town,

So

Player 1 attacks Player 2 with Normal troops

Player 1 defends player 2 enough to trigger larger battlefield,

so the whole point of the walls become negated after round 2 in todays world.

Display More

How come you think it's the same player just because that's how you play on Lost?