Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 45

Thread: please fixed the SCOUT SPAMMING!

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default

    Let’s see it in a different view. Scout spamming isn’t really the problem. The problems we are talking about now, is the way how we can gain medals and the amount of loyalty then is reduced per attack.

    currently the situation is that each successful attack only lower the loyalty of the city by a very small amount (5per attack?) that is the reason why people argues that scout spamming is necessary, so that with it they can take down the city with less effort.

    Maybe, like what dawnseeker said, we can increase the amount of lowering of loyalty per successful attack (maybe 10? or 20?) depending on the amount of causalities? Or maybe the amount proportion of troops of the attack VS the defender.

    The next problem is scout spamming on valleys. The developer has already increased the drop rate for medals; I don’t see the reason why people still need to scout spam. So it must be stopped. Hmm my suggestion is chg the way how we can achieve medals from valleys and bar city. As even if scout spamming is ban, people can use cav. though is a bit longer, but still people can exploit with it.

    My suggestion is that chg the way how we can achieve medals. Like the suggestion above, defeating a hero? And a hero is only respawning when the full force troop of the army has respawned.
    Last edited by CHENYIPING; 05-15-2009 at 04:26 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    88

    Smile Possible Solutions

    Personally I think that scout spamming is a strange concept to begin with. For 1) a fella with an extreamly bad attack on a horse comes along and screams and shouts then runs back off. I think a City with 10,000 people isn't likly to be scared.

    So Yes I think Loyaly being lowered by larger attacks would be good. Or how about the inital battle be the largest loyaly reducer? If a large army comes along, wipes out an enitre army and destroys all of the citys defences, I think the citizens would be rather scared hence a larger loyalty loss. Loyatly loss could be based on how much defences were taken out. Sinces armys can be moved away from a city it would be an unfair to calculate by this. It would have to be fair since larger citys have more defences so a calculation like:

    Loyalty loss = Fortifcations lost X (110%-10%*Wall level)

    So every wall level decrease the amount of loyalty loss by 10%. Due to higher level wall haveing more destroyable fortifactions this should (In Theory) Balance out. I have no idea how loyalty loss corrosponds to each differnt fortifications but this is just a suggestion.



    Another (Possible) soulotion to this spamming may be that scouts need to be in a squad for loyalty to be reduced. On a 1:100 ratio. So for every 100 Citizens (Population) at least 1 scout is required. THis seems more plausible as more scouts would mean a larger scare to those lovely townfolk.

    As to the scouts spamming medals and things Hasn't that been changed since the recent patch or am I mistaken? If I am well the suggestion made about a hero being defeated for a medal gain seems fair.
    Last edited by Hypnotic; 05-15-2009 at 06:02 AM. Reason: Made the quote funny...

  3. #3

    Default

    Yes the scout spamming has been changed. But you can still do spamming with other units. However it will take a longer time compare to scout, but it still works. The spamming imp referring here is sending units (1 or more) to attack valleys that have no defense. Is not a fair system, as u doesn’t kill any troops yet u still has a chance of getting medals? No troops. This is the problem we must fix. Not the scout spamming, actually.

  4. #4

    Default

    scout spaming is a huge problem... i have seen people goto sleep to only wake up to 400+ attack from a player that was close to them.. and took 2 of there 3 cities that were well defeneded... how and i do mean how does one defend against something like that... you can't unless you baby sit the game all day and night and have no life.

    that is not acceptable

    what would be a better compromise is limit how many times a hour someone can attack a title from a city. at the same time make the larger the army you use compared to the city size and such depends on how much loyalty wil drop... scouts alone calvery alone in citys that are 7+ should not be able to conqor them when they send only 1-1000. one should need to have a faily large mix of troops to be able to drop loyalty when the city gets up in level.

    at the same time the defender should have some logical way to defend the city. higher level citys should require more support from more cities to toppal just like the barb cities require, but they require is more from defensive modifications.

    just a idea... but how it is now scout spamming is a major problem.

  5. #5

    Default

    I don't think anyone addressed the problem: what if the town is defenseless?

    If a new system is based on casualties then you can't lower a city's loyalty from attacking it if there aren't any troops there. Also if its based on army size, it kinda seems ... strange, I guess we're just sending them off to twiddle there thumbs once they get there?

    Maybe if the attacker army also eliminated defender population after the resident army is destroyed so that either the city pop reaches 0 or loyalty reaches 0 would be conditions for a city takeover would make sense.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    The Interweb
    Posts
    381

    Default

    I like the ideas of assigning loyalty values to attacking troops, and therefore making more devastating attacks to reduce loyalty a bit faster. I would add to these another factor. Increasing the loyalty resilience or perhaps just loyalty itself in relation to your city's overall tech and building levels would make someones capital towns more defensible. I've never understood why my 7000 population(level 4ish) town is just as loyal to me and as hard to take as my 60000 pop (level 10) castle. Castles, forts, etc. were known for their ability to withstand sieges, not indefinitely mind you, but a few hours to conquer such a bastion is worrisome. Perhaps making the time it takes public grievance to eat away at loyalty in such a ''city'' longer, might be the middleground we're looking for.
    Last edited by Buddy Banchuk; 05-15-2009 at 09:57 PM.
    Sometimes he who hesitates.....gets punched in the face.
    I need street cred, so if you liked my post please add to my rep

  7. #7

    Default

    put this a real life scenario. a cities is attacked by a massvie army and they get raped. does the army have to go home and keep attacking until the citizens all leave cause they are scared? no. the city is theirs. even with scout spam atm that last 15 loyalty take 90minuts to go. combine that with the attack time from on avg 80 to 15 thats total 2-10 hours. that is heaps. further more at 5 the gates open and more fighting must take place. that takes more time. up to 3 hours depending on distance. besides. imagine say 10 weeks from mow. heaps of players have 10 lvl10 cities. war would be pointless it scout spam is fixed. you can't take any cities unless u have an entire alliance just army spamming. it is better to have the game more fluid, cities changing hands quickly ensures a nice fast game. you will need to constanly maintain and upgrade your cities and armies, and thats the way it should be. i normally invest 3-8 hours into taking a cities. thats 3-8 infrom of the computer directing my armies. its hard enough as it is. further more they can easily launch a counter strik if they log on during or after, as it takes min 1 hours to get loyalty and pop up after conquest and then more to build defences and sustain an army. ie some one took my city. i logged on 3hours later and took it back in 2 hours. not hard. oh then i declared war on him and stole all his valleies XD

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •