Limit number of attack per season

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evadykaens

So it will affect no one, because no one is doing that.

Just so you know, 45 seconds per attack continuously without stopping for 1 season is 26,880 attacks.

The current record is 25,500 attacks.

So what's the point of implementing something that affects nobody?

---

Let's see... as stated previously, there are 20160 minutes in a two-week period. Do the math, and you decide.

I never said an exact amount that should be the limit either. It should be a reasonable number that only affects a tiny minority, yet prevents abuse. This would affect people MUCH less than the "personal break" that has already been implemented.

The argument that "it's been done before" -- meaning that someone was able to accomplish an average of winning an attack every 47 seconds over a period of two weeks -- is a red herring and is totally irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badfish1979

It should be a reasonable number that only affects a tiny minority, yet prevents abuse. This would affect people MUCH less than the "personal break" that has already been implemented.

---

If it affects only a tiny minority, how does it prevent abuse?

You are talking about restricting number of attacks per season to a maximum of 20,000 (more or less). How sure are you that a significant amount of players are currently doing that?

If not many players are doing that, it doesn't affect the overall gameplay of other players, so why take action to restrict it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badfish1979

I don't see why people can't understand this....

---

People do understand this, they just don't agree with you. Can't you understand this?

To address the OP:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by o0oAnnyo0o

A ceiling number absolutely is not a stupid idea. Set it low would be stupid, but if it's cover 95% of the number of attack per season of ALL PEOPLE, it's fine.

---

So you are suggesting for SC to implement a restriction that affects 5% of their player base. Am i right to say that you believe that this 5% of players are affecting the enjoyment of the game for most players? Because i can't see any other reason why you would suggest this.

First of all, all these percentage figures and number of attacks are just grasping at air. None of us know what the extent of the so called "che@t" is, and what is the tell tale sign of players using it (is it even related to attacks per season? Because 200 players attacking 100 times per season using forbidden means definitely affects the system more than 1 player attacking 5,000 times per season with it).

So, your suggestion will never get any justified backing, because we lack the information to justify it.

The minority I'm referring to are the players who push themselves to the limit to make a one-time achievement - I am not referring to people who play 24/7 winning attacks every 47+/- seconds non-stop. You know what I'm talking about, and I'm not going to comment any further on it.

And just because you think that there are only a tiny amount of people doing it right now, at this point in time, does not negate the fact that since this ability is now readily available to anyone, it will continue to spread. The sooner it is limited or stopped, the better.

I think we should implement a lower limit on attacks/season.

ppl with less than 200 should be banned ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by o0oAnnyo0o

Why do people keep argue about the the limit of people? It's NOT about one, or a few season. It's about the whole community. One person can do 2000 or 20000 in one season, it doens't mean he can always do that. The big number matter. For example, if the data of attack of the whole community spread out like this
1, 10, 20,100, 200, 101, 102, 105, 200, 200, 1000, 1000, 1000, 3000

The good limit number would not be 200 or 800, the good limit would be mostly around 1300. 1000 is outliner and should not be consider in it. With the limit of 1300, we would be confident that 95-99% of the number of attack per season is way below limit. That's the whole point. What one individual or a few individual can do in one season doesn't matter. As long as the range cover > 95% of the community, even as extreme as 98 99% of the community, it work.

Come back to the speed limit example. Most people drive around 100km/h. If the Gov decide to set a speed limit of 200km/h to prevent people who drive more than 200km/h, would you or the community care? The one who can actually drive 200k/h would care, but they are in the 1%, and they probably only do it one a twice the whole time they driving.

A ceiling number absolutely is not a stupid idea. Set it low would be stupid, but if it's cover 95% of the number of attack per season of ALL PEOPLE, it's fine.

number of attack per season of ALL PEOPLE example: 10 people doing 10 season, then the number would be 100. And if the limit is greater than 99 out of 100, it should be acceptable.

---

if you are going to set a limit at a number that the majority won't even reach.. why even bother limiting?

if people want to attack a gazillion times in a season.. so be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdtx2012

if you are going to set a limit at a number that the majority won't even reach.. why even bother limiting?

if people want to attack a gazillion times in a season.. so be it.

---

The limit doesn't necessarily have to stop them from doing anymore attacks - this is not what we're talking about - it could simply flag their account so that SC could watch them to see what they're doing....

You know, so they can give them some recognition for their achievements :o

I have no issues for those that want to attack more often than others can afford, time management wise. Keeps the CoC community alive.

Has anyone considered that maybe it doesnt affect so few players?

Brandon single handedly provided 25,000 12 hour shields to bases with TH out. If 100 people did thats 2.5 Million shields. Want to bet some of those bases had some good loot?

Now some of you can go back to complaining there is no loot out there or call the original poster names. But for me, he has a valid point that you can agree or disagree with but why do people think its invalid to even discuss?