So Julez provides official answers? Why do other CoC clones do not have this issue, while functioning the exact same way?Quote:
Originally Posted by shivampaw
Printable View
So Julez provides official answers? Why do other CoC clones do not have this issue, while functioning the exact same way?Quote:
Originally Posted by shivampaw
Why other games don't have it isn't SC's problemQuote:
Originally Posted by superclash99
As for your first sentence. That is like saying members are not allowed to answer questions or solve problems
So, who are YOU to say that Julez has "answered or solved" the issue with the time lag "BUG"?Quote:
Originally Posted by shivampaw
And why HIS explanation is evidence that the time lag isn't a feature?Quote:
Originally Posted by shivampaw
Read it, understand it. You will see the logic in it. If you can't see it then I am not wasting my time on this thread...Quote:
Originally Posted by superclash99
Then explain to me the logic behind how the explanation given by Julez, that may or not be right (totally irrelevant) has the conclusion that the time lag is not a feature.Quote:
Originally Posted by shivampaw
Logic explains it.Quote:
Originally Posted by superclash99
Other clones may not use the type of data coding that Supercell has programmed to its servers, and may operate the games differently.
However, it may just be that other server- based games have accounted for the issue and compensate, automatically adding time to each affected function (Sort of like an automatic distribution sequence.). Or it could be answered even more simply that the clones DO have a time bug- but one that is not as predominant as those is Supercell's games.
This is my personal suggestion as to the cause of the time bug. It is in no way official, and nowhere has anyone ever made such a claim. This is a feasible and logical explanation that tries to at least take a step towards solving the problem, and something that I thought I'd contribute to the rest of the community. However, since it seems that certain people think that the forums aren't for 'community contribution', you can certainly ask an admin to tell me off for providing my thoughts on the issue if it suits you.
Neither Shiv nor I ever said this either- I'd be interested to see where your logic is coming from...Quote:
Originally Posted by superclash99
I personally think that its a pretty reasonable and feasible cause
Hey you can speculate anything you want, it's good that people are thinking about this "bug". I just got a problem with people easily jumping to conclusions, especially someone who is doing SC Support - for free, obviously biased.Quote:
Originally Posted by Julezwatts
Again, after reading and understanding your speculations, there is no logical conclusion that I "should be able to see that it isn't a bug that SC use to make money".Quote:
Originally Posted by shivampaw
PS: Even if your speculations were 100% correct, how do you/we know that this isn't the way it's supposed to be?
Even if Julez's post is completely correct, which is indeed merely speculation, it is still irrelevant.
The fact that every single one of the non-SC games that feature the exact same kind of gameplay are able to do it correctly means that it is not only easy to do, but also that it is common sense within the genre to program it in a certain way that does make it work correctly. It doesn't take a programmer to reach that conclusion.
Moreover, nothing in Julez's post withstands other kinds of fixes and compensations that have been suggested time and again, ranging from having the server instantly account for the lag by removing 5/10/15 seconds (whatever it is now) whenever an action that causes the lag occurs to flatly reducing the base times, etc. I listed a couple more examples in my post on page 1.
I still hold the opinion that both SC's unwillingness to fix (or even properly announce/address) this issue, especially in conjunction with being very thorough with other bug fixes (one pixel line on wizard towers, please?), and the clear evidence we've seen over this thread and its predecessor that this causes people to spend money when they otherwise wouldn't only point in one direction: it's deliberately not being touched. Whether it was deliberately implemented or not is just a matter of speculation, but I think we're well beyond the point where the former still gets the benefit of doubt.