PDA

View Full Version : Rules regarding pushing/trading



Sinnie
03-16-2013, 07:08 PM
This is a thread from the old UK forums written by one of the old GM's regarding the rules around giving resources to other players:


In order to remind you what is and is not allowed in the game; here is a reminder of some rules:

Multi-account:
A multi-account is when one player controls more than one account on a certain world.

Our teams carry out regular checks on the various worlds to detect such behavior.
After investigation, if a player has multiple accounts on the same world and perform regular shipments to their main city, then the account may be banned. This is defined as pushing.

Other situation:
"We are family member and we play on the same computer/same IP address" or "Me and my friend are playing together from the workplace."

This is allowed, but if you trade resources, they must be fair.
example: a rare resource against another rare resource or the equivalent in gold "

"Pushing"
Pushing is defined as sending more resources to a particular player than they send back in return and is prohibited if that player is ranked higher than you. That said, you can still send resources to support a player ranked lower than you

Sending resources from a second account to a main account is prohibited as this causes an imbalance in the course of the game.

War of Tears
In war tears the "war effort" is permitted.
Resource exchanges of any amount (including just giving resources with nothing in return) within the same alliance are allowed when a player has to complete a quest to make a tear.

Remember that cases are examined individually and that sanctions are applied after an investigation such as a permanent banishment of account on the world.

If you want, I invite you to contact support if you have multiple accounts and you were not aware of these rules to clarify your situation.

I also invite you to read the code of conduct: [mightandmagicheroeskingdoms.ubi.com (http://mightandmagicheroeskingdoms.ubi.com/en/support,codeOfConduct)]

Thank you.

FAQ provided by Player 341 and Sawinaya:

Q: Are you allowed to send resources to a player on the border as it is in the best interests of the alliance?

A: If the player needs it because he is in trouble, it poses no problems.
If it's to help a player who is already strong, this is not allowed.

Q: Is a trading triangle allowed - Where one player (A) gives resource (X) to player (B) who gives resource (Y) to player (C) who gives resource (Z) to player (A) - where the trade is of equal value?

A: No problem if the trade is balanced

Q: At what trade rates does it start counting as pushing? What value is placed on rare and common resources?

A: This is the base: 1 = rare = 2 commons = 2000 gold
Then we estimate around this rate it's an average. a rare resource for 1700 gold is reasonable.

Q: How about just giving resources to another member in the alliance because I do not need them? It is clearly in my best interest and my alliance?

A: The exchange must be balanced. At the beginning of the game this is more important, while at the end of the game it's a lot less annoying.
We take into account also the context.

Q: Also, storing resources on another account (not to be used by the other player). It may seem like pushing from your perspective, how do you deal with this?

A: Unauthorised because you should store your resources in your cities within the limit set. Use of another account is defined as a multi-account.

Q: Would it be allowed for a player to leave the alliance, let a bigger player capture one of his cities and then rejoin? For example, a big inferno player has conquered a haven city and a smaller haven player an inferno city. Would it be allowed for the haven player to leave, let his inferno city be taken by the inferno player and then rejoin and get the inferno player's haven city in return? Or would they be bound to trade resources for the rest of the server (and not being able to fully use dwellings and magic guilds)?

A: For a city that is permitted.
I take this opportunity to clarify that the donation of Grail is prohibited between alliances.

Q: Is it allowed to ask an outsider to capture one of your cities? As an example, I have a haven city which I do not want and if no one in my alliance wants it, I have no other way to get rid of it.
If I would grant someone else safe passage to take it, would I be allowed to later pillage it? If not, exactly what would I be allowed to do against him (Keep in mind that he might back-stab during tear wars or something similar)? If I would not be allowed to take aggressive actions against him, would my allies be allowed to do so?
Does size matter in this question (like would it be allowed to "give" a city in this way to a bigger player or only a smaller)?

A: For a player ranked lower, no worries.
For a stronger player, it can sometimes look like pushing, so it must assess the advantage gained.
It is already more embarrassing for a stronger player.
You also have the option in your alliance to donate a city.

Q: Is it allowed to ask another player to settle a region for you, pay him for it and then capture it from him? An example of what I mean: Let's say that I have 9 cities and want a certain, unsettled region as my 10th. My neighbor has 2 cities. Would it be ok if I sent him 100k gold and 90 commons (to cover expenses and a little more) to him so that he can settle that region and I siege it from him afterwards? Or would this be considered pushing?

A: This is perfectly fine with us as long as both partners are on the same page. Also, a third city usually costs more than what you've stated in your mail. However from a regulatory point of view we allow this kind of procedure.

Q: If I capture someone's hero, is it allowed that he sends me resources to get him released? If so, how much resources would be ok before it is considered pushing?

A: Allowed, it is considered a ransom.
Base: 1000 x the level of hero. Beyond it's too much. Beware also if the hero is captured every week for example, it can be considered as an abuse.

Q: What if someone deliberatley sends me resources to get me banned for pushing?

A: As soon as you notice that someone has done this send a ticket to support.

Q: How do you determine who is ranked 'higher'

A: It depends on the situation, most of the time it's clearly evident, but if players have almost the same level, we will consider the 3 rankings of the two players.

Q: If I capture someone's city, is it allowed that he pays me resources for me to stand down and lett him retake his city? If so, how much resources would be ok before it is considered pushing?

A: Allowed. Considered as a takeover of city. Depending on the level of the city according to its development. We do not have a minimum or a maximum rate in this case.The important thing is there's no abuse on this negotiation. For example, that this is not a mutual agreement between two players to do a hidden pushing. Players are free to negotiate according to their means. In fact, we look at the concept of abuse. If there is not, if both players have made no conspiracy to hide them pushing, then transactions are according their negotiation.

Q: If I am sieging someone's city, is it allowed that he pays me resources to stand down and withdraw my troops before the city is captured? If so, how much resources would be ok before it is considered pushing?

A: Yes if it is an occasional situation, it's not about the number of resources but this must be exceptional.

Q: If my neighbor, which is not a part of my alliance, is under siege and I break it for him, would he be allowed to repay me for the troops I lost?

A: Yes, if balanced according the losses. 100% of the value of your troops lost during the fight is ok for us.

Q: A bigger player is pillaging a smaller player. Would it be allowed that the smaller player paid the larger one a part of the daily production to be left alone (and maybe even stand under the protection of the larger player)? I doubt this would be allowed, but if is, how much resources would be ok before it is considered pushing?

A: Yes, but not every day. This should not block the player and he can not give more than 50% of its resources.

Q: What about threatening to destroy an alliance unless they send you resources? You may not know about this agreement.

A: It's the same, but it can be done without abuse but is not allowed with allies.

Q: Also, tear war efforts needs to be defined as well. "Resource exchanges within the same alliance are allowed when a player has to complete a quest to make a tear." Does this mean that you are not allowed to support a grail holder with gold for maintenance in order to be able to defend the tears? And what is allowed within the limits of "complete a quest"? Is it ok to boost an ally with resources so that he may reach higher dom ranks in order to settle more cities and go for the dom path? If the later would be allowed, an alliance can boost a single player up to dom rank 9 in order for him to "complete the quest" as soon as tear wars begin, meaning that the alliance will have an army far more powerful than any other on the server. If this would not be allowed, where do you draw the line?

A: Yes, it is even advisable to send resources to player to complete the quest. No problems for send gold to the player with the Grail. To support a player on the domination path, no problem, but it must be a member of the alliance, non-authorized for the allies.Support a player during the war of tears is allowed.

Q: Are scripts like the one connected to the jactari fight simulator allowed to be used?

A: Yes, a data analyzer that does not change the game

ramborusina
06-03-2013, 03:43 PM
Wow... You "rescued" this piece of garbage for real??!?!? On what season was this guide/questionare done and who on earth wrote it... These rules seems so outdated and out of this world to be honest. Here I got a few picks...

FAQ provided by Player 341 and Sawinaya:

Q: Are you allowed to send resources to a player on the border as it is in the best interests of the alliance?

A: If the player needs it because he is in trouble, it poses no problems.
If it's to help a player who is already strong, this is not allowed.

Problem, what if the player on the border is even the strongest guy of the alliance, but he’s fighting multiple players or even stronger players… You say we should just let the guy fall instead of helping him with resources?(assuming we can’t help for some reason like our towns being too far or our attacks getting dodged for example)


Q: At what trade rates does it start counting as pushing? What value is placed on rare and common resources?
+
Q: How about just giving resources to another member in the alliance because I do not need them? It is clearly in my best interest and my alliance?

A: This is the base: 1 = rare = 2 commons = 2000 gold
Then we estimate around this rate it's an average. a rare resource for 1700 gold is reasonable.
+
A: The exchange must be balanced. At the beginning of the game this is more important, while at the end of the game it's a lot less annoying.
We take into account also the context.

Problem, isn’t this what trade-limit is for?!?!? Also I’ve often sold resources for my allies for cheaper since I have no need for them… Heck on my other world I’ve been giving resources away in thousands probably(WoT active so no trade-limit) because I have no use for them. You’re saying I should just store resources and let the storages go red(full)? And no, I can’t get gold really either for the resources as I have no use for it… I got extra with these stupid pve rules and I got no army-upkeep basically. If you do checks on these you wouldn’t even have players left in top alliances… and I’ve played many worlds and this rule gets broken everywhere so ban-hammer time?



Q: Also, storing resources on another account (not to be used by the other player). It may seem like pushing from your perspective, how do you deal with this?

A: Unauthorised because you should store your resources in your cities within the limit set. Use of another account is defined as a multi-account.

Right… what about if I’m giving another player, say 50 mercury and he says he’ll give me 50 crystal later. Later comes but the guy says that he can’t deliver so he sends you the mercury back and cancels the deal. While the original idea was to buy now, pay later it would have become rulebreaker according to this rule. so both would get banned or punished?

Q: If I capture someone's hero, is it allowed that he sends me resources to get him released? If so, how much resources would be ok before it is considered pushing?

A: Allowed, it is considered a ransom.
Base: 1000 x the level of hero. Beyond it's too much. Beware also if the hero is captured every week for example, it can be considered as an abuse.

Wow, you mean I could get 40 000 if I captured our worst enemies best hero that has 2 legendary skills items worth 1,5 mil in use + backpack(let’s say an item set or two) and them coming to get it would cost them millions of units + maintenance or even the whole game because they’d lose huge chunks of their armies. This is really worth 40k??!! I guess it’s no wonder nobody would ever think about releasing their prisoners for this absurd sum. W O W!!!

Q: What if someone deliberatley sends me resources to get me banned for pushing?

A: As soon as you notice that someone has done this send a ticket to support.

Aww I could be a really easy mark… I don’t get caravan messages since I’ve set them this way from settings… Could you please check my account if people have been hauling me resources to get me banned. Please, I beg of you I don’t wanna be banned. I will do anything and I mean “anything”…

Q: How do you determine who is ranked 'higher'

A: It depends on the situation, most of the time it's clearly evident, but if players have almost the same level, we will consider the 3 rankings of the two players.
Right… So If I got lots of dom and honor while he has very much wealth… does that mean we are even if our average is about the same or does he become higher because he has 1 stat way higher and 2 other stats way lower or am I the higher because I got better dom and honor…?


Q: If I am sieging someone's city, is it allowed that he pays me resources to stand down and withdraw my troops before the city is captured? If so, how much resources would be ok before it is considered pushing?

A: Yes if it is an occasional situation, it's not about the number of resources but this must be exceptional.

So the next question would be what’s occasional… I send 10 sieges and send message saying you pay me x amount and I leave or otherwise you’re ****ed. But since I already accepted resources from few people, I should send the message saying; “sry you’re ****ed since you weren’t fast enough responding. Better luck with some other game”?

Q: If my neighbor, which is not a part of my alliance, is under siege and I break it for him, would he be allowed to repay me for the troops I lost?

A: Yes, if balanced according the losses. 100% of the value of your troops lost during the fight is ok for us.
Simple rule but losing that town could ruin the game for the weaker guy. It doesn’t really make it worthwhile for the big guy in this case to help, does it?

Q: A bigger player is pillaging a smaller player. Would it be allowed that the smaller player paid the larger one a part of the daily production to be left alone (and maybe even stand under the protection of the larger player)? I doubt this would be allowed, but if is, how much resources would be ok before it is considered pushing?

A: Yes, but not every day. This should not block the player and he can not give more than 50% of its resources.

What?!? 50%?!??! So I can ask for him to send 50% of his resources on day 1,3,4,6 and 7 for example??!?! Not everyday still so it’s no breaking the rule, right?!

Q: What about threatening to destroy an alliance unless they send you resources? You may not know about this agreement.

A: It's the same, but it can be done without abuse but is not allowed with allies.

So even one player can demand x from alliance and they can send it or “push” it to the bigger player, but his friends can’t help him coz he’s bigger?!?!? So let’s say we have alliance of 30 people and we wanna push A for huge army… All we need to do is have “A” leave, send us a message stating how much resources he wants for not destroying us and we can send them? Thank god you thought this through. It seemed crazy not being able to help out a friend but the way to do this is to make your friend your enemy. Ohh good times.

Q: Also, tear war efforts needs to be defined as well. "Resource exchanges within the same alliance are allowed when a player has to complete a quest to make a tear." Does this mean that you are not allowed to support a grail holder with gold for maintenance in order to be able to defend the tears? And what is allowed within the limits of "complete a quest"? Is it ok to boost an ally with resources so that he may reach higher dom ranks in order to settle more cities and go for the dom path? If the later would be allowed, an alliance can boost a single player up to dom rank 9 in order for him to "complete the quest" as soon as tear wars begin, meaning that the alliance will have an army far more powerful than any other on the server. If this would not be allowed, where do you draw the line?

A: Yes, it is even advisable to send resources to player to complete the quest. No problems for send gold to the player with the Grail. To support a player on the domination path, no problem, but it must be a member of the alliance, non-authorized for the allies.Support a player during the war of tears is allowed.

But supporting stronger players was not allowed… now it’s allowed since WoT is here? Why did you ever even make trade-limit if you’re spouting this crap as rules. It has no meaning to have trade-limit if we enforce these rules or vice-versa. Most of these rules seem VERY outdated with trade-limit in game.

MoonXX
06-11-2013, 10:11 AM
Hello, Ramborusina

You are perfectly right !

You have show them that `Smart Guys` are playing Kingdoms .

I think many players are agree with you but they don`t read that simple thread `pushing / trading ` that can cost your account !

In `war ` ;) , so many rules and so much individuality don`t help your Alliance .

For example : if you are the top player ( or chief ) in my Alliance and you do the `hard ` jobs ( or even your presence in Alliance discourage the enemy ) , I really want to help you with gold and resources to show that I appreciate a good player ( next to me ) . Your Power will make me last longer in the game !!!! . In first season that you will play Kingdoms , you will build and develop your buildings and economy and after a time you will be able to fight honorable .

Thank you , Thank you , Thank You Ramborusina !!!!

xlnt2new
09-15-2013, 06:48 PM
the rules are nice - the players are not

there is such thing as honor, even in a modern age game - pushing is wrong, not only cos it's cheating to get what the designers thought you shouldn't get - but because it ruins the fun, not only the fairness of the game..

egondenstore
09-27-2013, 05:37 PM
Wow... You "rescued" this piece of garbage for real??!?!? On what season was this guide/questionare done and who on earth wrote it... These rules seems so outdated and out of this world to be honest. Here I got a few picks...

During season 1 and 2 I asked support a bunch of questions about the rules and wrote down their answers. 2-3 years later, some of these questions are no longer applicable due to the development of the game. I will answer some of your comments below, but keep in mind that these are my own thoughts and ideas and do not necessarily represent those of ubisoft. I'm a fellow player like you.


FAQ provided by Player 341 and Sawinaya:

Q: Are you allowed to send resources to a player on the border as it is in the best interests of the alliance?

A: If the player needs it because he is in trouble, it poses no problems.
If it's to help a player who is already strong, this is not allowed.

Problem, what if the player on the border is even the strongest guy of the alliance, but he’s fighting multiple players or even stronger players… You say we should just let the guy fall instead of helping him with resources?(assuming we can’t help for some reason like our towns being too far or our attacks getting dodged for example)

Boosting stronger players creates a power inbalance problem. In the long run, the aggressors won't be able to keep up with the army recruitment from a player that is boosted by several others. It will create a lot of anger and dissatisfaction if players get beaten, not because of inferior skills, but because their adversary gains an unfair advantage. Most players desire a fair game, where the one with the better skills is victorious.
In the name of fairness, if one side in a conflict is boosted with resources, the other one should be allowed as well in order for them to keep up. Taken to its extremity, alliances will be forced to create "super players" to answer the threat the enemy alliances poses for the grail wars.

However, pulling a weaker player with resources evens out the power difference, both in the alliance as well as in the overall game, which has a lot less of an impact on the overall game.


Q: At what trade rates does it start counting as pushing? What value is placed on rare and common resources?
+
Q: How about just giving resources to another member in the alliance because I do not need them? It is clearly in my best interest and my alliance?

A: This is the base: 1 = rare = 2 commons = 2000 gold
Then we estimate around this rate it's an average. a rare resource for 1700 gold is reasonable.
+
A: The exchange must be balanced. At the beginning of the game this is more important, while at the end of the game it's a lot less annoying.
We take into account also the context.

Problem, isn’t this what trade-limit is for?!?!? Also I’ve often sold resources for my allies for cheaper since I have no need for them… Heck on my other world I’ve been giving resources away in thousands probably(WoT active so no trade-limit) because I have no use for them. You’re saying I should just store resources and let the storages go red(full)? And no, I can’t get gold really either for the resources as I have no use for it… I got extra with these stupid pve rules and I got no army-upkeep basically. If you do checks on these you wouldn’t even have players left in top alliances… and I’ve played many worlds and this rule gets broken everywhere so ban-hammer time?

This was before the trade limit was implemented. In fact, the trade limit was one of the most requested features back in the days as it removes the risk of players getting punished for breaking a rule they were not aware of.
The idea is that you should trade unneeded resources for ones that you do need. If your alliance consists of a good variance of factions this should not pose a problem (except commons of course, as no one needs them end game).
I've been a top player in a top alliance on a bunch of game worlds and have neither given away nor recieved resources that was not an even trade (except giving/recieving help with maintence during large attacks). This applies to all my allies that I have had a closer in game relationship with, so I can't agree with your "everyone does it" sentiment.
The resource restriction is primarily removed during the WoT to allow players to help each others with multi-million maintenances.


Q: Also, storing resources on another account (not to be used by the other player). It may seem like pushing from your perspective, how do you deal with this?

A: Unauthorised because you should store your resources in your cities within the limit set. Use of another account is defined as a multi-account.

Right… what about if I’m giving another player, say 50 mercury and he says he’ll give me 50 crystal later. Later comes but the guy says that he can’t deliver so he sends you the mercury back and cancels the deal. While the original idea was to buy now, pay later it would have become rulebreaker according to this rule. so both would get banned or punished

You should only trade if both players have the resources for it. Players are not banks.


Q: If I capture someone's hero, is it allowed that he sends me resources to get him released? If so, how much resources would be ok before it is considered pushing?

A: Allowed, it is considered a ransom.
Base: 1000 x the level of hero. Beyond it's too much. Beware also if the hero is captured every week for example, it can be considered as an abuse.

Wow, you mean I could get 40 000 if I captured our worst enemies best hero that has 2 legendary skills items worth 1,5 mil in use + backpack(let’s say an item set or two) and them coming to get it would cost them millions of units + maintenance or even the whole game because they’d lose huge chunks of their armies. This is really worth 40k??!! I guess it’s no wonder nobody would ever think about releasing their prisoners for this absurd sum. W O W!!!

Could not agree more. In my eyes, no price is high enough for a fully equipped enemy fighter.


Q: What if someone deliberatley sends me resources to get me banned for pushing?

A: As soon as you notice that someone has done this send a ticket to support.

Aww I could be a really easy mark… I don’t get caravan messages since I’ve set them this way from settings… Could you please check my account if people have been hauling me resources to get me banned. Please, I beg of you I don’t wanna be banned. I will do anything and I mean “anything”…

The reason why I asked this question was because I was at the recieving end of such a tactic. I spotted it by coincidence, reported to support and had those resources removed.
However, this is no longer applicable due to the trade limits.


Q: How do you determine who is ranked 'higher'

A: It depends on the situation, most of the time it's clearly evident, but if players have almost the same level, we will consider the 3 rankings of the two players.
Right… So If I got lots of dom and honor while he has very much wealth… does that mean we are even if our average is about the same or does he become higher because he has 1 stat way higher and 2 other stats way lower or am I the higher because I got better dom and honor…?

A very tricky situation, I agree (which is why I asked that question). I cannot give a better answe than that :P


Q: If I am sieging someone's city, is it allowed that he pays me resources to stand down and withdraw my troops before the city is captured? If so, how much resources would be ok before it is considered pushing?

A: Yes if it is an occasional situation, it's not about the number of resources but this must be exceptional.

So the next question would be what’s occasional… I send 10 sieges and send message saying you pay me x amount and I leave or otherwise you’re ****ed. But since I already accepted resources from few people, I should send the message saying; “sry you’re ****ed since you weren’t fast enough responding. Better luck with some other game”?

I would interpret occasional as once against the same player but no limit as to the amount of players subjected to the threat. As with many of the other questions in the Q & A, this one is no longer applicable due to the trade limit.


But supporting stronger players was not allowed… now it’s allowed since WoT is here? Why did you ever even make trade-limit if you’re spouting this crap as rules. It has no meaning to have trade-limit if we enforce these rules or vice-versa. Most of these rules seem VERY outdated with trade-limit in game.

Ubisoft's line of thinking:
Before WoT - your on your own as far as resources go.
During WoT - you may help each others achive the ultimate victory.

I can't say that I personally agree with this though. Help with resources should never be given to a stronger player, with the sole exception of managing maintenances.

MartyAmodeo
09-27-2013, 07:36 PM
Most players desire a fair game, where the one with the better skills is victorious.

If this were true, then the seal store would go largely unused. The player demographic has changed since season 1/2. And definitely not for the better. The seal store is successful because the players are the ones who want unfair advantages.

ramborusina
09-27-2013, 10:28 PM
I agree with Marty here, players don't want so much of a fair fight anymore(not when there is possibility to buy/pay for advantage). If players wanted fair game they would DEMAND seal/legacy-free worlds where everybody had even chance, but we've seen(most of us anyhow) how many legendary skills or even legendary heroes people are willing to buy, not to mention buying item-sets, changing mines or buying magical beams which all change game-balance greatly.

As for your replies egondenstore, it's nice to see somebody speak out their mind about things. I can't agree with you on the even resource-exchange though at all. If there was alliance-bank your fair-idea of trade might be realistic, but it hasn't happened in my worlds at least, in any of them except early on in world when all the resources count. In my alliance people who don't need certain rares they give them away to other members who need them and they also get resources free the same way. still there are definately people who lose more than gain. To do what you suggest would need people to have even amount of trash-mines(mines they don't need later on) so they could get even trades and this would be way more complex, slower(uneven mine-count would mean you gotta find several people to trade with every time) and ineffecient for the whole alliance. Also from my experience on the topic giving away resources, I have not seen single world where people haven't just given away resources at some point to help the alliance and I've played on US, Rus, Scan and strategic-worlds.

Also the pushing a strong player case bothers me; let's say we got player on front fighting alone with 30m dom against 5x25m dom players. Do you really mean to tell me that this guy is gonna be overwhelming super-player if given resources? I think you're forgetting 2 major things here. First the amount of soldiers he can recruit is limited, once he buys them it will take time to replenish the stock so he'll hit limit so let's say he gets to maybe 40m, at this point he's gonna have major upkeep problems already and he can't buy anymore. Secondly the 5x25m players are either really total morons if they just let the guy build up his army and do nothing or they come to realization; Hey, we can bombard the guy with attacks and OMG his army goes down, heck they can Soak spells easily, they can spellbomb, they can attack, they can siege/capture, they can cata down his buildings. Also you said this guy gets army devs never meant player to get... What about those 5x25m guys then? I mean they are all sylvan, gifting towns with each other so first guy has 20m dragons, 2nd guy has 20m treants and 12000-15000 catas + legendary skills so he gets no losses or some 60-70% phoenix(not sure what the max is these day with all boosts)+ mega-legacy starting from s1, 3rd guy has 20m ponies, 4th guy has 20m druids and fifth guy has 15m hunters and 5m blade-dancers and this is legal within rules as trading towns to recruit IS what devs wanted possible. This game is so far from fair as it can be(well I'm sure devs will find a way to widen the gap soon enough, just don't anybody give them anymore crazy ideas!^^)

filipd81
09-28-2013, 11:50 AM
How do you consider the following situation?
5 players, 4 play for mine improvements and resources, 0 army. The fifth one plays vestiges 24/7. The four give all the commons to the 5th for the vestiges and the rares to upgrade the army from vestige rewards. For how I see it it means 2-3 times bigger army production. Consider other 25 players playing normally. Result - you will have an alliance of 25 normal players and 1 super player, a super player that can be used for sieges and grail attacks. Compare it to an alliance of 30 normal players. Do you think that it changes enough from 25 to 30 to cancel the power of the super player? Do you think it is balanced? Do you think the game was designed to be played like this?


Also the pushing a strong player case bothers me; let's say we got player on front fighting alone with 30m dom against 5x25m dom players. Do you really mean to tell me that this guy is gonna be overwhelming super-player if given resources? I think you're forgetting 2 major things here. First the amount of soldiers he can recruit is limited, once he buys them it will take time to replenish the stock so he'll hit limit so let's say he gets to maybe 40m, at this point he's gonna have major upkeep problems already and he can't buy anymore. Secondly the 5x25m players are either really total morons if they just let the guy build up his army and do nothing or they come to realization; Hey, we can bombard the guy with attacks and OMG his army goes down, heck they can Soak spells easily, they can spellbomb, they can attack, they can siege/capture, they can cata down his buildings. Also you said this guy gets army devs never meant player to get... What about those 5x25m guys then? I mean they are all sylvan, gifting towns with each other so first guy has 20m dragons, 2nd guy has 20m treants and 12000-15000 catas + legendary skills so he gets no losses or some 60-70% phoenix(not sure what the max is these day with all boosts)+ mega-legacy starting from s1, 3rd guy has 20m ponies, 4th guy has 20m druids and fifth guy has 15m hunters and 5m blade-dancers and this is legal within rules as trading towns to recruit IS what devs wanted possible. This game is so far from fair as it can be(well I'm sure devs will find a way to widen the gap soon enough, just don't anybody give them anymore crazy ideas!^^)

Too many numbers, I won't comment. Just tell me why did you put the 30M domination player to fight alone against 5x25M domination players. It is simply not realistic. A super player will never come alone.

Personally I don't play normal worlds since I don't like pay2win. I played strategic and I've seen the difference between alliances with normal players and alliances with super players. Super players are overwhelming. 3 alliances fell to the alliance with a super player. And don't tell me that we don't know how to play, it will be really offensive.

I have given up to try to change smth in this game. But there are still ppl who can't see that it has been completely ruined. In my work I often have to take decisions to respond to different kind of problems. The most important part is to analyze correctly the problem, otherwise you just take the wrong decision. I think that UBI failed to analyze most of the problems of the game. For example they lift the market balance to allow war efforts for grail attacks. Actually the bigger problem is the maintenance issue of the attacking armies. Then they just should have corrected the maintenance issue and not lift the market balance. Once you have figured out the problem it is easy to take the right decision. In my example there are at least 2 simple ways to do it - a) disable the market balance for and toward players who are performing a grail attack, b) disable maintenance for towns from which grail attack has been launched. There are many other examples like this, just think of the rifts in PVE.

dre.maa
09-28-2013, 06:21 PM
How do you consider the following situation?
5 players, 4 play for mine improvements and resources, 0 army. The fifth one plays vestiges 24/7. The four give all the commons to the 5th for the vestiges and the rares to upgrade the army from vestige rewards. For how I see it it means 2-3 times bigger army production. Consider other 25 players playing normally. Result - you will have an alliance of 25 normal players and 1 super player, a super player that can be used for sieges and grail attacks. Compare it to an alliance of 30 normal players. Do you think that it changes enough from 25 to 30 to cancel the power of the super player? Do you think it is balanced? Do you think the game was designed to be played like this?


When using seals, you can have multiple super players so I would think that the game was designed to be played that way. If you are talking strategic worlds, then you could always do the same thing. If there are 4 players with no army, they would be vulnerable to pillages I would think. If they are building cities in a huge center by using the combination of move city and transform mines to protect the 0 army people, then it is really not a "strategic" sever, is it? It is a "limited seal" server.

zamz
09-28-2013, 08:15 PM
Yes the strategic worlds are never strategic with any seal abilities. It's just another pay to enter a pay to win world...Remove any resource exchange in the strategic world and remove NIGHT MAINTENANCE, that would make it possible to attack with nearly 30M armies with just own resources and let's face it, big battles are to most fun part of this game, not fighting people that can recruit twice as much as u can during the day because he has "best mines"...People would actually have to think where they settle instead of just buying mines everywhere...

Normal worlds...umm...I currently play in a world where ALL 2-week heroes are in use, so who cares about those worlds anymore HAH :) All european worlds should be combined to keep the players and there should be non-seal and seal worlds seperatively, but for some reason this is so damn impossible for the developers to comprehend :/ Instead u run almost empty worlds everywhere...

ramborusina
09-29-2013, 04:21 PM
Filip you're right about vestiges, but my replies weren't for you, they were for egondenstore as he said commons are of no use at the end so it was taken as part of the scenario. You can get some 500-600k troops from vestige on level 19 I think and 1 vestige/day would make it extra 3,5m troops/week roughly and a lot more if players switch towns that got vestiges possibly already at 15+ level.

And what you said about it being unrealistic to have situation where it's 30m vs 5x25m, well it has happened atleast on 2 of 7 worlds I've played in some form at least(well in my first world the case was actually worse than that, but same idea). It's not that long of a stretch that when enemy starts massive siege-front the player who is strongest in area might be left alone at start as he can't break all more than few sieges by himself in time and they can keep launching more if 30m's allies don't have support towns that close(heck the towns they are losing just might've been captured earlier by the enemy...!)

"Personally I don't play normal worlds since I don't like pay2win" that's an interesting sentiment from my perspective as what I've seen in strategic world is the worst kind of pushing/abuse one can do. Whole alliance giving the best possible items for player, trading towns that got vestiges, giving resources all that to create a true player á la supreme. And I did say: "This game is so far from fair as it can be" so I never meant to claim that it's balanced. Rather tried stating that you can easily cheat within rules and that changing a thing or two won't make that much of a difference. This game would need a huge amount of things fixed if it's to keep seals trade-limits and such in the game.

As for what zamz said, I don't really agree with removing resource exchange, but removing night maintenance would be a good thing to fix. Now you gotta either use AH to store gold(forbdden!) or wake-up several times in the middle of the night to sell and move resources. Btw world where all 2-week heroes are in use must be nice one, I remember russian world last summer like that, one player having 2 legendaries in use and few others bought just so they couldn't be used against him, and some people would dare say those worlds are pay-to-win?!!?!?^^

And yes, a lot of regions/worlds should be combined so we could have more active worlds :)

filipd81
09-29-2013, 09:39 PM
And what you said about it being unrealistic to have situation where it's 30m vs 5x25m, well it has happened atleast on 2 of 7 worlds I've played in some form at least(well in my first world the case was actually worse than that, but same idea). It's not that long of a stretch that when enemy starts massive siege-front the player who is strongest in area might be left alone at start as he can't break all more than few sieges by himself in time and they can keep launching more if 30m's allies don't have support towns that close(heck the towns they are losing just might've been captured earlier by the enemy...!)
Yes, it is not unrealistic, but maybe those players didn't play very smart. In my case the super player has a very strong support by the players who give resources. Most of them have enough legacy to build quickly big stacks of T2 from DR. Moreover the super player captures a town and immediately gives it to another strong player. When skillful players cheat like this it is very hard, near to impossible to resist. And it takes all the fun away leaving the only sentiment of disappointment and a lot of anger. I guess the game wasn't designed with this purpose.


"Personally I don't play normal worlds since I don't like pay2win" that's an interesting sentiment from my perspective as what I've seen in strategic world is the worst kind of pushing/abuse one can do. Whole alliance giving the best possible items for player, trading towns that got vestiges, giving resources all that to create a true player á la supreme.
What I said is true. I don't like pay to win. But when I started the strategic I didn't know that there would be people ready to do such things only to win the server. I though that only honorable fighters would like to play without seals. I was terribly wrong. If I knew it I would have spared 6 months of subscription and 3 months of my time trying to build a TOP 10 domination army by using simply my skills.

dre.maa
09-30-2013, 01:10 PM
Normal worlds...umm...I currently play in a world where ALL 2-week heroes are in use, so who cares about those worlds anymore HAH :) All european worlds should be combined to keep the players and there should be non-seal and seal worlds seperatively, but for some reason this is so damn impossible for the developers to comprehend :/ Instead u run almost empty worlds everywhere...

The Legendary Heroes can't attack or defend grails (can they attack halts of grail runs? If so that would seem like an exploit), unless that has changed. And the non-seal worlds would not be as profitable because they couldn't make any money from people buying seals. The limited-seal worlds don't seem to be filling up quickly either.

ramborusina
09-30-2013, 04:33 PM
Legandary heroes can do everything normal heroes can as far as I know(at least on s3 they could). Ubi hasn't made changes to legendary skills so most likely legendary heroes are still the same.

And about strategic-worlds... I think they make more money for ubi than normal ones. Almoast all players there change mines and respec heroes to get that little edge over others or maybe they do that just to keep up with everybody else...?

dre.maa
09-30-2013, 05:52 PM
Legandary heroes can do everything normal heroes can as far as I know(at least on s3 they could). Ubi hasn't made changes to legendary skills so most likely legendary heroes are still the same.

And about strategic-worlds... I think they make more money for ubi than normal ones. Almoast all players there change mines and respec heroes to get that little edge over others or maybe they do that just to keep up with everybody else...?

About Legendary Heroes:

From Dev Diary 31:


- It will not be possible to use a legendary hero to defend or attack a Grail building. Players with an active legendary hero will not be able to receive the Tear or construct the Grail. Players who have received the Tear and/or have started constructing a Grail or who already have a Grail will not be able to activate legendary heroes.


My comment about the seal-free worlds was that they don't make them because they wouldn't make enough money. The people who are joining the current strategic world are still using seals (thus it is not a seal-free world). Someone stated that Ubisoft should make seal-free worlds, and they just would not be profitable because there are too few subscribers left and too many people who spend lots of seals (whether earned or bought).

zamz
09-30-2013, 07:10 PM
Making non-seal world would probably end up a good investment in the long run...As u might have noticed people disappear from this game in a very fast rate, only the ones who buy seals like crazy stay... and even they will be gone once they get bored when no non seal users to overrun :/ I mean this is probably the last SCAN world and S3 started it was a full world, now there is only 2 alliances...Good job someone ! Not fun to pay for something that is boring as hell...

So making a non-seal world would keep many people still in the game that dont buy seals but buy subscribtion, and could get lots of people back in the game that have already quit, who knows, because it wont be even tried...