Discussion: fake limit

[moosegg3]

Terrible Idea. Don't make the change, without it would kinda warp the Noob-Expert worth.

[wickedsweetone]

Originally Posted by Dream Hunter I'm absolutely against it. Battles without fakes privilege noobs over smart players. It would take out all the fun of faking someone and laughing at his mistakes in defending! Without fakes, it would turn into "who has more nukes wins". Kinda sad =( >

i agree... unfair advantage is given enough without this kind of penalty

[mph10]

Originally Posted by Domachue Source. Not Destination. >

you can't just fake random villages from vilages of your own that you've picked, that's just stupid, you have to know where you're faking and have to pick where you're faking

[hIghQue]

Originally Posted by Morthy Eh? You're quoting me saying that the survey and interstitial were different to whats in my post. Since this thread was for people who had read the interstitial, read the survey and voted (all of which contained accurate information) it doesn't matter what the OP says. Perhaps you should do some research before making a pointless stand and resorting to immature personal insults (in another thread). The survey mentioned population instead of points as all of our internal systems mention the term population. If it is based on points then this needs to be fixed but I am extremely confident that that had very little effect on the survey. I'm pretty sure you know that too but you're just trying to cause trouble. We were already confident about the player's opinions on this. The survey was simply to reinforce our belief so I could go back to the developers and say "Look, enabling the fake limit on all worlds might have worked for the German community but that simply won't cut it over here. Can we please have the incomings per page limit increased to 1000". They agreed and this change is included in 5.7. What exactly are you arguing about? We've stood up for the community here and stopped a setting that the players do not want being put in place. We've ran a survey to confirm our original thoughts and as a result a much requested improvement has been implemented into the next version of the game. I'm not entirely sure why you're so against this? >

I also see this as a service, that you are keeping the fake limit as an option. This gives the players who want a fake limit, some worlds to play on, while those of us who prefer no fake limit, can play some others. So thanks for working on not taking away our choice, Morthy.

I hope you guys against it, do realise that there is a significant amount of players who like "bananas", while you like "apples". You guys are discussing with Morthy, because he wants to do us a favor and keep selling both, instead of only "apples". Don't try to take away our "bananas", just because you prefer "apples", you bastards :P

[Weaselfierce]

I am against implementing this setting on current worlds. People have developed a style of play consistent with what the settings are now, and that includes faking.
However I would not mind to see this tested on a new world when it opens up and see what it's like.

[Domachue]

Originally Posted by mph10 you can't just fake random villages from vilages of your own that you've picked, that's just stupid, you have to know where you're faking and have to pick where you're faking >

Thats pretty much what the fake script does.

Picks random villages from a list, and fakes them.

[Domachue]

Originally Posted by Morthy Eh? You're quoting me saying that the survey and interstitial were different to whats in my post. Since this thread was for people who had read the interstitial, read the survey and voted (all of which contained accurate information) it doesn't matter what the OP says. Perhaps you should do some research before making a pointless stand and resorting to immature personal insults (in another thread). The survey mentioned population instead of points as all of our internal systems mention the term population. If it is based on points then this needs to be fixed but I am extremely confident that that had very little effect on the survey. I'm pretty sure you know that too but you're just trying to cause trouble. We were already confident about the player's opinions on this. The survey was simply to reinforce our belief so I could go back to the developers and say "Look, enabling the fake limit on all worlds might have worked for the German community but that simply won't cut it over here. Can we please have the incomings per page limit increased to 1000". They agreed and this change is included in 5.7. What exactly are you arguing about? We've stood up for the community here and stopped a setting that the players do not want being put in place. We've ran a survey to confirm our original thoughts and as a result a much requested improvement has been implemented into the next version of the game. I'm not entirely sure why you're so against this? >

I want a unbiased survey.

One where a correct example is given, and uses correct terminology.

The fake limit is a setting that sets a minimum number of troops you can send in an attack. This would essentially prevent the sending of fake attacks.

It wouldn't prevent fakes. I know that. You know that. Any player worth their salt knows that.

The result? People voted without looking up what the fake limit is, or what it actually does. They just voted no because of that "Prevent the sending of fakes" statement.

"This would limit the sending of fake attacks" or "This would reduce the amount of fakes available to send" would be better.


I don't expect you to say "This would limit the amount of incoming, to less tedious and more-enjoyable levels". That would be too biased the other way.



But... While you're here... How about a source village column on the incoming overview? I see no harm in it

[Morthy]

Originally Posted by Domachue I want a unbiased survey. One where a correct example is given, and uses correct terminology. It wouldn't prevent fakes. I know that. You know that. Any player worth their salt knows that. The result? People voted without looking up what the fake limit is, or what it actually does. They just voted no because of that "Prevent the sending of fakes" statement. "This would limit the sending of fake attacks" or "This would reduce the amount of fakes available to send" would be better. I don't expect you to say "This would limit the amount of incoming, to less tedious and more-enjoyable levels". That would be too biased the other way. But... While you're here... How about a source village column on the incoming overview? I see no harm in it >

It wasn't biased. Feel free to post in the suggestions forum.

[Domachue]

It blatantly was!

Ask anyone with a GCSE or equivalent in English, and they would point out the bias in that single statement.

[Morthy]

Originally Posted by Domachue It blatantly was! Ask anyone with a GCSE or equivalent in English, and they would point out the bias in that single statement. >

Sorry to disappoint you but when I wrote that I was not writing it in a biased way at all

[Duckyone]

Any attack that is not meant to actually cause much in the way of harm can be considered a fake.. so really a fake can be one troop - or it can be 30... I think what you guys are arguing about is retarded, and instead of trying to correct grammar, or sentence structure or even content - you should get back to the topic - and add some constructive opinions...

[King Joke The Lizard]

hmm you got point , but still no :(

[killer mcgruder]

Not no, but Hell No!!!!

[killer mcgruder]

Originally Posted by DDragon12 Well i think the idea is good. I think there should be a world or 2 were it could be tested for 1 moth or so. >

They do this in world 5 and it sucks!!!

[Domachue]

Originally Posted by Morthy Sorry to disappoint you but when I wrote that I was not writing it in a biased way at all >

May be the case, and if it is, that's unfortunate.

But if you saw a survey saying "This would prevent the sending of fakes". You'd instinctively say no.

Hey, even I would say no, if I thought it meant no fakes.


But the survey came across as saying, fakes wont happen at all, and with little in-depth explaination of the fake limit, and how it will make people play.

I argee, it would probably be wrong to change the settings of closed worlds so drastically, but can we consider the source village thing? Please?

[servy]

Originally Posted by Domachue I argee, it would probably be wrong to change the settings of closed worlds so drastically, but can we consider the source village thing? Please? >

Why not just list the time that each attack is sent from, as you're essentially doing that by making that change.

[Domachue]

How? We would be able to see the source village, if we opened the attack command.

People just want to be able to see it from the Incoming Overview too.

[servy]

Marking attacks would become a single click on the incoming overview per 1,000 attacks.

[Blitzen09]

Originally Posted by servy Marking attacks would become a single click on the incoming overview per 1,000 attacks. >

I am trying to imagine this, how would it be only a single click?

[2004 Artemis]

By doing that, you would have both the source and destination village on the same screen, as well as the ability to rename the attack. That's all you need to tag the unit and find the sent time.