Printable View
Are you complaining about people being more active than you and getting loot? correct me if im wrong if that is the case then why arent you raiding everyday? whats stopping you? Players can play if they want to thats why it says FREE TO PLAY. :) correct me if im wrong.
First of all, the suggestion is not a solution for the problem It's a band-aid. But a band-aid is better than nothing for a spreading problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coathanger
As we know SC, they probably will never find out a solution for it. And I'm not sure they actually could. It's really really hard for me to go into the detail without giving out the forbidden thing, but I can see that it works as "virtual mouse click" base on coordinator, which is impossible for SC to detect. This game work as patent, so it's actually not hard to do all of that.
Because the suggestion is not the truly solution, so of course it has flaws. If it's flawless, I would have posted it in the Ideals, not on here for discussion. Btw, the assumption is not "whoever has high number of attack is ♥♥♥♥♥ing". If it's the assumption, I would have suggest to ban them. The assumption is: "the the attack number (not attack win, but attack number) is ridiculous high, that person has the potential to be ♥♥♥♥♥ing". Because it's potential, so we have an action to prevent that from happen excessively. It won't stop it from happening, but it won't happen excessively.
I have to do more some assumptions. Let say that it is possible for people to do many many attack per season, but after some point, it's actually... pointless. As my calculation on the OP, with boost, 6 minutes/raid, and 9 hours per day is kind of enough for almost everyone. Any more than that is unhealthy. Even though SC is doing business, I'm sure they still have to care about customers health. It's mater of business ethic. Of course, it's only a problem if many people doing that. But I don't think many people would actually do that, so that's the reason they never set any limit. The only way to do that much attack per season is TH sniping. If you snipe TH to push, at some point it will take you forever to find a base to snipe. As the result, your average time each raid increase. If you snipe Th and after a few raid, you drop your trophy, so you can find something else to raids, then what is the point? To make a record on your attack win, I guess. You might like it, but to me, it's pointless. But well, it's different in opinions, so it's all cool. I guess if SC do the limit attack, it would effect the one who like to set the records on attack win. But well, if it's the solution for benefit of the community, these people must take a lost.
So, how many attack a person could do would not be matter. The personal record won't matter. Let say that the ceiling would be a number that the majority of people won't be able to make. When we do "floor" and "ceiling", we have take the majority into calculation, not the outliners. It's like setting a speed limit. It's possible for you, or someone to drive safely 300km/hours doesn't mean the Gov should not set a speed limit of 80km/hours to make sure that everyone is safer. A speed limit where it's comfortable for the majority of the people would be a good thing. Similar situation here. A limit number of attack per season that most people won't be able to make would not hurt much, and solve the huge problem of fairness. And nobody has that data but SC. My 1200 is just an example. It doesn't mean anything.
Not sure if troll or...
if serious, this idea is aweful
So, if SC has the data of average attacks per season per player, what figure should they set the limit?Quote:
Originally Posted by o0oAnnyo0o
How many players do you think they should penalize? 10%? 20%? 30%?
Say for example 20% of players attack more than 1000 times per season, should they set the limit to 1000 attacks per season and ♥♥♥♥ off 20% of their player base?
Also, as far as your saying "any solution is better than no solution" goes, i disagree. I believe that sometimes no solution is better than a stupid solution, especially if the existance of the "problem" in question is debatable.
I would say, if they set a ceiling, they should take the limit of 98-99% on a long period of time of the community, not 70% 80%, or not on 1 seasonQuote:
Originally Posted by Evadykaens
And the existence of the problem is NOT debatable. Just because SC hides it doesn't mean it doesnt exist. and again, it's NOT loot problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coathanger
How is having an average of 47 seconds per attack over a two-week period not "staying online all the time and removing themselves from match making?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Evadykaens
IMHO letting this discussion continue is another mistake, similar to letting people discuss ghosting. Players will not solve this and SC is perfectly capable of doing it themselves if it is possible.
These cheets will show themselves by patterns that could be identified if SC can collect data on individuals. Once they have that bans are handed out and people will no longer use the software.
Also I'm not sold on people claiming this is anything near widespread or that is has any significant impact on the economy. Just another shadow or ghost.
Sure people cheet but seriously how many people want to waste their money on not playing the game as that is the result of using this cheet.
So can you answer my question, Coathanger?
Did either of us say it was not? Should we have clarified that forcing people into match making is only needed above x numbers of cups?Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
He got the 6 hour break putting him into match making, just like the rest of us. Maybe you should rework the math and take that into account.:rolleyes:
And I thought we were done fighting communism... Less for the hardcore, more for the noobs! ♥♥♥♥♥
Six hour break?? Do you know how long the break is? Maybe you are confusing this with the playing time allowed before each break. The amount of time for the break would have minimal impact on the math.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coathanger
Let's see what SuperSteve has to say about the reason for these breaks: http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...al-Break/page2
That is average. It simply means that he takes less than 47 seconds to win an attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
He was constantly at bronze league, and he has maxed heroes. Do u have any idea how easy it is to win a battle down there for a maxed TH10? Think the first 3 goblin missions.
Plus that was back when heroes deal insane damages. A raged maxed BK probably one-hit-ko a th3.
I'm sorry, but I don't see the need for this at all. The active people DESERVE all their raids if they are willing to dedicate that much time. If you can't find loot, switch you trophy range! We should not have an attack limit because if I'm dedicating enough time to constantly raid, I should have the ability to do as I please, without people complaining about me "taking all the loot". If this is this big of a problem to you, I have 2 suggestions.
1. Be more active!
2. Drop cups and be almost completely inactive.
Yes it was poorly worded by me. Should have read differently but given everyone and their mother knows its a short break after six hours there is no reason to debate my poor description.Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
Yeah Steve clearly states the break is to prevent people from staying online all the time. Thanks for taking the time to prove our assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSteve[Supercell]
This is average? Not sleeping, eating, using the restroom, or anything else besides winning attacks every 47 seconds for a period of two weeks is AVERAGE? Do you have any idea what you're saying?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evadykaens
Maybe my statement mislead you. I mean 47 seconds per raid is the average time taken for him to win an attack, in term of mathematical calculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
If he takes less than 47 seconds to win an attack, then he will have time to sleep.
47 seconds per attack in 24 hours gives u 1838 attacks per day. Say he sleeps for 6 hours, and spend 2 hours for bathroom and food. That gives you 30 seconds per attack, which can be done.
There is still no evidence this has become, is or will be a serious problem. If you are in possession of the evidence feel free to PM it so I can evaluate it for myself rather than relying on word of mouth. In my experience people make significant errors when confronting the devil. I myself have been accused by hundreds of people across many games and have never cheeted/botted a game in my life so I know people are often mistaken on these issues. But please PM me any evidence if you want to win me over I would love to evaluate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
Here is Marika from the same thread you linked.
Marika posted a few minutes ago that:
And to answer to your question:
- You can play for 8 hours, then you have to charge your potato (Personal break was introduced due to some high level players using questionable methods to stay online all the time, and they never got attacked. I'm sorry for the inconvenience this brings to some enthusiastic human players, but I hope you can enjoy the break too. Maybe by coming to the forums and having fun with your fellow Clashers )
+100.000!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Chap22054
Limited the attack per season, where the f8ck have we come to..
Worst idea I have read in a long time
Evadey's math seems correct to me. He gave 1/3 of the time to food and rest which leaves 2/3 for gaming and 2/3 of 47 is close to 30 seconds.Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
24 x 60 x 60 = 86400 seconds per day.Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
86400 / 47 = 1838 attacks per day.
24 - 6 - 2 = 16 hours per day playing.
16 x 60 x 60 = 57600 seconds per day playing.
57600 / 1838 = 31.3 seconds per attack.
Anyway, this is not the point. Your initial limit suggestion of 1200 attacks per season threw people off.
If you said 4000 attacks per season then people will feel less affected.
Earlier you said penalize the top 2% of players who do the most attacks, fine by me. I don't think it changes anything though, because i'm sure those who use unmentionable means to play exceeds 2%.
You're right, it is late at night and I am drinking heavily :o My math was off. Still, think about the amount of seconds per win over a period of two full weeks and ask yourself if this is really possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evadykaens
But I don't remember saying to cap it at 1200. However, I do remember, however, saying that I was closely monitoring a certain player, which I won't name of course, but that his attacks won within each 24 hour period over the past few days was well above that which should be possible without sleeping. Unless this guy is on meth and stays up for the past 3 days straight without sleeping. But if you factored this into the overall attacks won per season, plus many other sources which I can't name here, you would understand what I'm saying. There is really no point in posting anything else here, given the restrictions. I hope that at some point, this information will come out, or at least be dealt with behind the scenes.
Post the figures of attacks won and the league he was in, i'll work out the math.Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
As proven bg my calculations, brandon's achievement can be done with 8 hour of rest per day.
Oh, so that's what is happening. They are taking organized shifts and playing 24/7 on single accounts. Makes perfect sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evadykaens
Of course, it is completely absurd that what I am suggesting is plausible.
Edited my post, feel free to respond accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
Side note: sharing account is very common.
While we are at it OP why don't we set a limit on the minimum amount of attacks you must perform per week. I think 50-60 is a sufficient amount.
And to complete my point before going to bed, if the sole purpose of the personal break is to prevent players from staying online all the time and removing themselves from match making, then how is having an average of 47 seconds per attack over a two-week period not "staying online all the time and removing themselves from match making?"
Use your brain.
It's never gonna happen. People who r trying hard to upgrade themselves will stop playing. If u can't do too much raids it's ur fault
Quote:
Originally Posted by o0oAnnyo0o
I was was really hoping for the evidence so I could stop arguing it. But I guess that evidence is not forthcoming. Sigh...would have been so much better for your argument if you had someone who was opposed to your arguments verify your evidence.
So far the evidence relies on arguing about Brandon's 25,000 wins in a season which was only put forth to show what is humanly possible.
Here are the numbers badfish gave earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
The purpose of the break is for high level players where it is somewhat effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
Stop arguing the straw man here and present the actual evidence that someone you are "monitoring" is actually cheeting. Until you can you have offered no evidence to support your claims. And again PM me this evidence so I can look at it, if you are trying to prove something, because right now it looks like you are misinterpreting what you are seeing.
Brandon was attacking non stop in bronze 3. He was subjected to the personal break just like everyone was, a 7 minute break for every 6-hour continuous session he played.Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
He appeared in the matchmaking of bronze 3 every 6 hours.
Why do you have a problem with that i have no idea.
Well t he logic is pretty silly. You don't get loot so you don't let the other guys trying harder not get get loot.
In real life its like a part time worker complaining that a full time worker is being paid more and he too should work part time.
I don't really understand what OP's problem is.
Is he saying that there is no loot because the super active players are taking it all?
If so, I'm not sure if this is a valid conclusion. It's undeniable that more active players will tend to have more loot, but there are some players out there with loads of wins but have yet to get their gold grab achievement.
Until the issue is stated better, there isn't much point to debating the solution.
One point to note though, 1,000 wins per season in G2 would bring 8.4m of gold and elixir into the game.
I don't see why people are getting so mad over this imo this is great idea that shouldn't affect anyone or barely anyone that atleast plays fair. Last season there was a chinese player in gold1 or 2 can't remember that had 1600 wins, all 4 of his barracks wereboosted constantly with lv6 giants and such, he had a 1,5b~ gg and was winning 200 attacks a day.. how? who knows
Yes sir...Quote:
Originally Posted by Arom
*Walks out door*
About the OP, may seem like a good idea at first but it does more harm than good. Also the fact that a lot of people on the forums are addicts and top players this isn't really something that they would have a party about.
This will never work, the players with high attack figures are the ones that are boosting there barracks and buying gems to do this, your basically asking SC to cut there income.
Also players need to raid more than they lose, if there limited to certain amount of attacks a day they may not achieve this and with the limitation people may get bored of waiting for the next time they can raid, so they move on to another game that doesn't have limitations.
Why not make troops training time longer. Makes as much sense as limiting the number of attacks you can do. Just so people know, I am being sarcastic.
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.
true, but if the number is high enough to cover 95-99% the number of attack in all season of everyone in the community then it won't affect anybody.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badzmaru
In other words, it would only affect people who are winning raids EVERY 30-45 seconds NON-STOP 24/7 WITHOUT STOPPING TO SLEEP OR DO ANYTHING ELSE!
I don't see why people can't understand this....
So it will affect no one, because no one is doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evadykaens
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.
If it affects only a tiny minority, how does it prevent abuse?Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
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?
People do understand this, they just don't agree with you. Can't you understand this?Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
To address the OP:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by o0oAnnyo0o
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
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....Quote:
Originally Posted by rdtx2012
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?
why need to flag? who really cares at the end of the day?Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
it's no different than using an AQ40 and shooting TH3s all day
After reading all the pages and responses, I still don't understand what OP is after. His argument is really weak, there's absolutely no point in restricting it at a thousand. What he'll end up restricting is the TH snipers which actually can go well beyond 1200 attacks per season.
The average Attacks won per season is probably around 65-80 per average Clasher. Whats not shown in the profiles is total Attacks which include losses.
Boosting Barchers or BAMmers are not the problem even though mathematically they can do thousands attacks per league cycle, what would actually limit them is actually finding loot. Hitting the Next button actually slows them down drastically.
then its better to lower th snipe shield timesQuote:
Originally Posted by Gamidon
I guess it's natural that people would be opposed to an idea when they have no clue what's really going on. No point in arguing it any further.
You are suggesting 50 different things here.Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
First you agree that attack limits should be set, and now you say it is just a guideline for SC to monitor.
Nevertheless, i do agree that SC should monitor attack patterns that are humanly impossible.
For example attacking at a constant rate of 60 seconds per attack continuously without a 6 hour break (for sleeping) within 24 hours. Note that this is different from a player getting 1440 attacks per day because 1440 attacks can be achieved within 16 hours, giving the player 8 hours of rest per day. So in the end, only SC knows the actual pattern, while players observing the same account can only see the average.
Then again, who is to say that SC is not already monitoring?
If you are suspicious of a player using illegal means to constantly raid without sleeping (humanly impossible), please provide proof. Total raids per day or week or season is not good enough. Concrete proof can only be achieved if you track his attacks won every 30 minutes for one week straight, without break in between, but i doubt you can do that.
He did it to bases in bronze 3 league.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamidon
I'm willing to bet that less than 1% of those bases have loot that you can raid without making a lost in nexting cost.
Seriously, Bronze 3!
I am not basing this on suspicions, I'm basing it on something that I can't post here, nor will I discuss it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evadykaens
But I don't understand why people are so opposed to something that will not affect them negatively at all - positively if anything.
And if they already have this system in place, then good. There is no harm in the OP suggesting something that may improve the loot for everyone, though. After all, every other thread is about this.
You see it as opposing, but i see it as "no need for it", it's quite different.Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
The OP had been edited like a million times, i saw his suggestion of 1200 attacks per season limit, then he said to set the limit in a way that it affects only 5% of players, then suggest that if it only affects 1% of players it should be okay.
Read the OP again, then decide for yourself whether you whole-heartedly agree with his suggestion.
What? Are you talking about fluffybunny?Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
Actually, people oppose it because it actually doesn't add value to the current system. Why put work into making this limit when it actually doesn't affect most people?Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
There will always be people complaining about loot no matter how abundant it is or not. TH sniping / free shields is not really a problem as that would add another 12 hours to the collector time on inactive bases, which equals more available loot for the next attacker.Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
This is a pretty bad idea because sc wants active players and this will only cause inactivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by o0oAnnyo0o
Back to my first reply to your thread, yes I agree that something needs to be done to stop the ♥♥♥♥♥ that people are using to keep them online, build troops and raid for them, (Yes i mentioned that thing we can't talk about, hopefully this nonsensical thread will be closed) but limiting the amount of raids someone can do is not, in my opinion right or wrong, the way to go about it. If someone can che@t the system then someone can che@t the che@t. Supercell should clamp down on this but limiting the amount of raids someone can do could cost Supercell money through people gemming troops, spells, heroes and other things.
round and round and round we go.
no solution and no-one knows.
a limit wont end the frustration you have.
and the che@ters are having a really good laugh.
let it gooooo.......
1. I edit it many time because many people seem don't understand that the limit won't affect the majority of the players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evadykaens
2. 1200 is an math example to show people that it's hard number to get to if you farming, even if you sniping TH (for pushing, of course- if you snipe to get number of win you can do much more). It was never a suggestion. My suggestion was set a ceiling. A number that can be a ceiling MUST be the result of the data analysis, which I don't have.
3. If the number cover 90% to 95% of the number of attack per season, it is actually good enough. It's not depend on my opinion, it's science. Basic statistic say that if your confidence lv is at 95 percentile, your estimate is really good. 98 or 99% is just an extreme, to show people that it almost doesn't affect anyone.
If it's just about they keep their acct onl, I won't go through that trouble. Staying online is... yesterday news. Now they can do much much more :) It's really hard to persuade people when I can't say the real reason behind it, and many people doesn't know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy1888
And as I mention in many many of my post, and edit on the OP, a ceiling is not bad, as long as it cover 95%-99% of number of attack in one season of everyone. If 10 player play clash of clan and all of them raid 100 times every season for last year, but 1 guy raid 10000 times in one of the seasons, 10k should not be consider in the ceiling. A ceiling of 200 won't bother anyone. See my point?
If you read all of my post you would notice that I mention more than staying online. I also mention that this thing we can't talk about builds troops and raids too. So yes I do know what you mean and I am still not persuaded this is a good idea. Yes I see your point, but no, I still don't agree this is the solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by o0oAnnyo0o
Sorry, too many people discuss, too many name. I probably missed it. It's good that now we know we talk about the same problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy1888
Well, so may I ask what do you think the solution is? I know part of the function behind it, and it's undetectable. So how SC could prevent it? And, as I said, I don't think it's the solution, either. It's just a band-aid, which need to be done as last resources. I would rather to see something to be done than nothing as the time bugs.
In addition, why doesn't it work if it doesn't effect any, or only effect very few honest player out there?
I have discussed all your questions on my previous posts on this thread which you clearly don't read through properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by o0oAnnyo0o
It's a long thread. Sorry. Do you mind quote yourself? I just skim though all the pages, and I saw that you stated that the limit is not the solution, but I don't see you mention a solution anywhere except for a sarcasm.Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy1888
Plus, I don't find a post that answer my question, that is if a ceiling which doesn't effect any, or only effect very few honest player out there, why doesn't it works?
Quote:
Originally Posted by o0oAnnyo0o
My posts on this thread start on page one, yes with a sarcastic comment because i believe this is a nonsensical solution, not sure if troll or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy1888
I feel if you really cared about finding a solution to this problem you would read, not skim, through your thread. This leads me to believe that you don't want to have a constructive discussion about this problem, only to have people agree with you.
It is not up to me to find a solution, it is Supercell that has to come up with a solution to this problem.
Why do i feel a ceiling is not the answer? It could stop people spending money buying gems to create instant armies etc. which does not make good business sense for Supercell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o0oAnnyo0o
This is stupid, just say it and let the moderators cut it out. It's making this thread a whole bunch of ? ? ? :confused: where no one gets the point. Might as well close this thread if you don't say. How are you going to convince or have any support on here when nobody understands your point?
You keep hanging this clause over us and you're making a lot of us confused. I'm trying to grasp what you're saying, and I may even know what you're talking about, but I don't see how any of this appies to ♥♥♥♥bunny.
Well, the moment I say what is it about, Mod would kill the topic, like every other topic. That's the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by D3X
But disregard all of that, if a ceiling number is greater than 95%, or even as far as 98%, 99% of the number of attack per season throughout coc history, how would it effects anyone that badly? And if it doesn't effects anyone negatively, why would anyone care??? Especially if it would solve the unfairness and might help the loot problem.
Then what's the point? for that 1-2% to build such a mechanism? such a waste of timeQuote:
Originally Posted by o0oAnnyo0o
so is it fluffybunny you're talking about or something different?
No, it's not aim to hurt that 1,2%. That 1,2% is the one who got the negative consequence of the ceiling. Feel sorry for them, but...Quote:
Originally Posted by D3X
you speed limit analogy is a bad one...
you raise the speed limits, people will go faster towards the speed limit. you cause more chaos and more accidents.
you set the attack limit so high that no one cares except a select few.. great.. the select few just go to max and that's it.. but what gain does the community get from those select few that reach max and cannot attack anymore?
Nothing. They won't notice. So why waste development time to add the line of code and to test it just for a handful of players in the bucket?
Quote:
Originally Posted by D3X
Looks like you skim through posts too lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy1888
Ok I understand English might not be your first language, maybe this is where the communication issue is arising.Quote:
Originally Posted by o0oAnnyo0o
So you're suggesting that there is an automated /BOT attack tool that raids. I call B.S. Are you seriously suggesting one that automatically raids? That does not exist.
I might have scanned through yours a bit too quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy1888
May you please edit your previous post. It will get this thread disappear. If it's not exist, why do I have to worry that this thread will be delete by Mod? I will remove my washing machine post, also. It's a dead giveaway
LOL! I give up. So you're making a suggestion(and a poor one at that) to fix a problem that you cannot openly talk about? Then there is no problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by o0oAnnyo0o
Well, if it's not exist, Mod would not care if we talk about it. The fact that Mod cares prove that it's exist. They don't want it to spread.Quote:
Originally Posted by D3X
And I agree that my solution is a poorly one. I even said that it's only a band-aid. But a band aid that doesn't hurt anyone, and stopping the cancer getting too serious, would it be great?
The best of both world would be SC be able to stop that completely, but I honestly don't think they can.
It is already on the road to disappearing, a mod has moved it to the ideas and future requests section of the forum, if you haven't already noticed.Quote:
Originally Posted by o0oAnnyo0o
Read the bolded part of my post on the previous page where I openly talk about this problem .Quote:
Originally Posted by D3X
Yeah, I saw that. Let's not talk about it more. Mod might skim though post also. If it appears too much, this thread will be gone for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy1888
It does appear to exist, based on a recent video people have posted. However I would argue its impact is not as great as other things in the game like 10 gem 2 hour boosts which many more people take advantage of.Quote:
Originally Posted by D3X
impact? how about fairness? People can boost all their barrack and attack all day long. I don't care They are more determine on the Game than me, they deserved better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coathanger
Nobody can actual measure the impact. But, it's simply not fair.
I know, I know, life is not fair, deal with it. But well, that's what SC is here for. They should keep a fairest environment for gamers.
And if you say about some people take loose because of the ceiling, what's about their fairness? Well, I agree on that, and I truly feel sorry for that hardcore gamer. But sometime a small number of people must accept lost for the greater of the whole community.
If it is truly a widespread problem they will have to address it. Supercell will do what they can and you can bank on that. However people cheet at everything, so yeah that is life. On one hand you say they should keep the fairest environment but then say other people must accept the loss for the greater of the community. If the greater good of the community is to not implement a ceiling are you willing to accept that? Supercell will do what they can and what they think is fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by o0oAnnyo0o
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
Is it an auto-clicker?Quote:
Originally Posted by Coathanger
Here is what i hear from you:Quote:
Originally Posted by o0oAnnyo0o
"There is a very serious che@t going on and it is affecting the game. I can't explain it but i suggest we cap the number of attacks per season so the 5% of players with the most attacks per season are restricted. What do you guys think?"
If you don't see how ridiculous this sounds....
It took tons of champs and the top players forming clans to bring it to their attention before they fixed the "client out of sync" problem. But the current problem is not in the Champion league and is not directly affecting the top players, these guys are sitting in the low gold leagues. Who is bringing the current problem to their attention now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Coathanger
I do not believe your claim that it took a riot to fix the out of sync bug.Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
Supercell already knows about the latest ♥♥♥♥♥ as it threatens their game. Are you suggesting Supercell does not have the will or intelligence to see it?
I am suggesting that if they are not detecting something automatically, it takes actual players to bring it to their attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coathanger
Perhaps you missed the 30 threads from last week on the subject complete with links, pics and testimonials? The mods brought it to their attention and I am sure that plenty of people have emailed support. To quote a wise man "use your brain".;)Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
I, for one, had no idea this existed until I was personally attacked by one of these guys. Then I started doing some research....
Were the troops wearing t-shirts advertising the ♥♥♥♥♥?:confused: Or perhaps they were handing out flyers.Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
The whole point that was mentioned in the original thread was to set a limit that enables even truly active players to continue to play as they are. He's talking about a limit that prevents ♥♥♥♥ers from profiting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freakimus
To be honest, I didn't know what is being referred to even existed. Mainly, I think, because it never really impacted on how I played or how easily I managed to find loot.
I also agree with what people have already mentioned. There are simply people whose enjoyment in these kind of games is finding a way around the system. Change the system and you're just playing into their hands because then they have a new challenge.
I often look at some maxed out players with huge trophies, full storages and no more achievements barring defences won and I think, poor you. What more do you have to play this game for?
People who like to play the game alluded to here come and go. They get everything and move on to the next challenge. Making it harder for them to move on just keeps them here longer. Why bother losing sleep over it? Maybe that's what Supercell are doing (or should I say NOT doing). Losing sleep that is.
No, I "used my brain." :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Coathanger
Was it alcohol soaked at the time?;) I'm kidding! You should send me the pics of the raid, I would like to see them. I Have yet to see anyone raided by one of these people.Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish1979
I don't have pics of the raid, by the time I figured out what was going on, the replay was no longer available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coathanger
If someone is doing 1000attacks, let's see without gemming, and let's say all the troops take about 30min for 200 troops, that's 48 attacks a day, 48 X7= 336 for two weeks is 672!!
Two weeks is a season and I didn't subtract sleeping time, nor did I take in to account heavy hitters such as dragons!!!!!
Which means the people you are talking about are either really high levels who troops could destroy most town halls below them, or your talking about gemmers!
Now I would agree with this idea if that is in fact the reason most of the resources are gone! However if these people are gemming, you might as well count it as a lost cause because that means, those people are supercell biggest customers!!!!
If u agree that attacking so much needs way more time then why r u worried abut limiting no of attacks. If 1 out of 100 players can do it then let them allow .
I am more in favor of automatically flagging their account after a certain amount of non-stop activity for review by staff vs stopping them from continuing any further.Quote:
Originally Posted by saurabhkumar00
Staying online 24/7, winning raids nonstop in intervals of every 5 minutes for weeks at a time, only logging out for a few minutes at a time because they were forced out by the 6 hour personal break, for example, should be flagged for review.