Discussion: Attack breaks

[A humble player]

Well, I don't really expect everyone to be as "elite" as me and be able to open zillions of tabs to identify attack patterns.
(That was a joke for you flamers that require jokes to be explained)

Personally, I've only used an Attack ID site 2 or 3 times... and that was last week.
Very handy, but a bit tedious for my liking.

Anyway, we digress...
Attack Breaks in their current form are no good!

I disagree. They are good, but could be better.
Care to explain why that is wrong?

 

[dalesmckay]

I disagree. They are good, but could be better.
Care to explain why that is wrong?

You are quite the troll aren't you.

 

[DeletedUser]

I disagree. They are good, but could be better.
Care to explain why that is wrong?

That's maybe the reason that he said ''in the current form''.

 

[DeletedUser]

Anyway, we digress...
Attack Breaks in their current form are no good!

Agreed..
Disable the Rally Point!

I disagree. They are good, but could be better.
Care to explain why that is wrong?

Isn't this what's been discussed for the past 4 pages in this thread?

Recap:
The break, isn't a real break, as you still need to log in to tag attacks, and move support, for when the break ends.
Disable the rally point, and the break becomes a real break.

 

[DeletedUser]

Agreed..
Disable the Rally Point!

Quite simply that isn't going to happen.

It doesn't matter how much you complain about it or repeat yourself. At this point there isn't enough time to actually make such a change and adequately test it, and even if there were the announcement has been made and players have been making plans (which is the same reason that the break can't be removed at this point either).

You can make your suggestions for next year if you want, but quite simply this break has been determined and announced, and so that is how it is going to happen.

 

[A humble player]

You are quite the troll aren't you.

Yes, I'm a total troll. I say nothing constructive, and only only try to make you look like an idiot, without adding anything to the discussion at hand.
Maybe you should reread, and see that the exact opposite occurred, and that you ignored anything constructive I said, whilst focusing only on the negative.
And yes, if you want to call me a troll, feel free. I use a certain syntax to elicit a response from the person I am discussing with. But only when they act self righteous, or ignore anything constructive I say. Its a great way to see if the other person is paying any attention to what I say, or just ignoring me to try and further their point.
It suffices to say it worked.


Trio:
would you rather have no attacks breaks, because if they are no good, then wouldn't none be better? The implication of something being no good is that it is indifferent (or bad). This is not the case. They could be better, but are still helpful at this point.

 

[DeletedUser]

Quite simply that isn't going to happen.

It doesn't matter how much you complain about it or repeat yourself. At this point there isn't enough time to actually make such a change and adequately test it, and even if there were the announcement has been made and players have been making plans (which is the same reason that the break can't be removed at this point either).

You can make your suggestions for next year if you want, but quite simply this break has been determined and announced, and so that is how it is going to happen.

You let us go on for 5 pages, before bothering to say something of this nature?
Appreciate it mate.

 

[DeletedUser]

let's just go make the suggestion....not disable rally, but the other thing

 

[DeletedUser656]

You let us go on for 5 pages, before bothering to say something of this nature?
Appreciate it mate.

We've been discussing the problem and trying to find a solution that can be implemented in time since the announcement was made, but right now it's looking like there's very little chance of anything changing this year. I'm still trying, but I wouldn't hold any hopes.

Must say though, saying the current attack break is no good is pretty shortsighted. One of the major benefits as I see it is that those on newer worlds can have a break from farming during the break without worrying about being at a disadvantage to those who aren't busy. 5 days with little competition when farming would be enough to give an account a significant boost, especially on a speed 2 world like 53.

 

[DeletedUser]

We've been discussing the problem and trying to find a solution that can be implemented in time since the announcement was made, but right now it's looking like there's very little chance of anything changing this year. I'm still trying, but I wouldn't hold any hopes.

Must say though, saying the current attack break is no good is pretty shortsighted. One of the major benefits as I see it is that those on newer worlds can have a break from farming during the break without worrying about being at a disadvantage to those who aren't busy. 5 days with little competition when farming would be enough to give an account a significant boost, especially on a speed 2 world like 53.

Yet, the break as it stands leads people into a false sense of security, they'll believe they can leave for the 3 days, without any repurcussions.
Too me I see that as being potentially more damaging to the player base than allowing a some people outfarm others.

 

[DeletedUser]

So how many people do you think will go away thinking that they're perfectly secure to come back to a lot of incomings that wouldn't have left their account if they had known it could happen as compared to the huge number of people planning on being away regardless and thus knowing that they are at least partially better off with the break in place.

At the end of the day so many people are going to be away that having something is better than nothing. While some will misunderstand it, many won't, and many won't get attacked much even if they do misunderstand it so the community as a whole is better off.

 

[busamad]

I'm with the something is better than nothing view.

Sure it never will be or has been a full 3 day break & can understand players that are below K lockdown could have major problems.

That's life sorry to say when you start a world you have to take things into account the festive season is just one of the many things that can determine if you start a world or wait for the next.

 

[dalesmckay]

So how many people do you think will go away thinking that they're perfectly secure to come back to a lot of incomings that wouldn't have left their account if they had known it could happen as compared to the huge number of people planning on being away regardless and thus knowing that they are at least partially better off with the break in place.

At the end of the day so many people are going to be away that having something is better than nothing. While some will misunderstand it, many won't, and many won't get attacked much even if they do misunderstand it so the community as a whole is better off.

At the end of the day, you have deceived players into thinking they can enjoy the "break" period without having to worry about their game accounts.

I think you should make a community announcement via one of your mass mails to warn players that they will still need to be online to watch their accounts for new incoming attacks during the break period, so they don't fall victim to players that choose to take advantage of the situation.

 

[Zord Gaf]

But they would need to be on-line anyway? Without the break, even more so, as people can farm them and the barbs around them. With the break the travel time still needs to be increased to 3 days (first break) and 2 days (second break).(Or send a few minutes before the break ends.) For an old world, long distance attacks aren't uncommon, but on newer ones, they are. So there is still _some_ advantage. It's not massive, and yes, we are trying to solve that, but it still comes down to that 'every little helps'.

 

[CodaAlFine]

gotta love how you only worry about small players' interests...

 

[DeletedUser]

gotta love how you only worry about small players' interests...

For an older more experienced player they're going to be far more capable of actually understanding the announcements, especially given that many of said players have been around during the previous breaks which were exactly like this one, or they have friends/tribemates who have.

In any case, the announcement is rather clear on the subject, and as I said before the number of people negatively affected by this will be extremely small so your argument doesn't really hold much weight.

 

[dalesmckay]

For an older more experienced player they're going to be far more capable of actually understanding the announcements, especially given that many of said players have been around during the previous breaks which were exactly like this one, or they have friends/tribemates who have.

In any case, the announcement is rather clear on the subject, and as I said before the number of people negatively affected by this will be extremely small so your argument doesn't really hold much weight.

The announcement is far from being clear, it is in fact completely misleading.
From the mass mail:

We will be having two attack breaks over the holiday period to allow players to enjoy the Christmas holiday and New Year without having to worry about their accounts.

The first attack break will start at 00:00 on December 24th, and end at 00:00 on December 27th, lasting exactly 3 days. This means the break will be active during Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Boxing Day (Dec 26th).

The second break will start at 00:00 on December 31st, and end at 00:00 on January 2nd, lasting exactly 2 days. This means the break will be active during New Year's Eve and New Year's Day.

During these two periods, all attacks will not land normally, but instead will "visit" the villages, without doing any damage. Support will arrive as normal.

The break will be active on all worlds except speed where we will be running special rounds with a higher free player limit (more details soon).

Now explain to me where it mentions that they will still be REQUIRED to be online during the "break" to watch their account for new incoming attacks.

There is plenty to worry about during the attack "break".

 

[DeletedUser656]

Yet, the break as it stands leads people into a false sense of security, they'll believe they can leave for the 3 days, without any repurcussions.
Too me I see that as being potentially more damaging to the player base than allowing a some people outfarm others.

We've announced (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009) the attack break in roughly the same way each year since 2006. I can't remember one occasion where a player managed to misinterpret "all attacks during the time period won't hit" as "all attacks sent during the time period won't hit".

Maybe the idea of the breaks has suddenly become lost on players this year (I can't remember any similar discussion last year) but the purpose of having a 3 day attack break is not to give player's exactly 72 hours away from TW. It's simply a 3 day time period that will allow players some relaxation from the game for a short amount of time, not necessarily the entire 3 days.

Lastly, players are NOT required to be online during the break.

 

[dalesmckay]

We've announced (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009) the attack break in roughly the same way each year since 2006. I can't remember one occasion where a player managed to misinterpret "all attacks during the time period won't hit" as "all attacks sent during the time period won't hit".

Maybe the idea of the breaks has suddenly become lost on players this year (I can't remember any similar discussion last year) but the purpose of having a 3 day attack break is not to give player's exactly 72 hours away from TW. It's simply a 3 day time period that will allow players some relaxation from the game for a short amount of time, not necessarily the entire 3 days.

Lastly, players are NOT required to be online during the break.

Absolute rubbish...
Read my post directly before yours. #117

 

[DeletedUser]

Now explain to me where it mentions that they will still be REQUIRED to be online during the "break" to watch their account for new incoming attacks.

There is plenty to worry about during the attack "break".

Why don't you explain to me where player's are required to be online. Players are never required to be online ever; they are online because they enjoy playing the game, not because anyone requires them to.

Sure there will be consequences for not being online, there always will be in certain circumstances. That is why it is important for players to actually read what the break entails, which in this case means that attacks won't hit during the break. For those that don't find that to be sufficient they can choose to plan accordingly if they so desire. Your assertion that players are all required to be online during that time though is quite simply incorrect.