Give defenders a 1 hour penalty when fleeing battles to prevent immediate rebellion

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

Dear users,

please note that we have a new forum now. You'll find it here.

The old forum is set to read-only mode now.

Your Ikariam Team

  • Give defenders a 1 hour penalty when fleeing battles to prevent immediate rebellion

    General Information:
    Current game mechanics allows the owner of a town being attacked, to retreat instantly without the 1 hour flee penalty and immediately rebel and start the battle as the attacker and thus earning Offensive Points. This is a game mechanic being abused to give the initial defender the ability to become the new attacker which is illogical. My alliance have been fighting many battles in the past week and each time we start a battle in an enemy town, it is almost confirmed that we will turn into the defender once the player is online to abuse the game mechanic (notice I never say it is a bug abuse) and become the new attacker.

    We are currently steam-rolling an alliance in a fight but since we are fighting in their towns daily, they have much higher Offensive points while we hold the higher Defensive points. Does this make any sense?

    What are you suggesting? (What changes are to be made?)

    If a player retreats and rebels in his own city, his position will remain as a defender instead of an attacker. Any reinforcing troops or ships from the Defender or his alliance will join him in on the defence instead of offense.

    How will it change the battlefield? (How will it effect other units? Will it be balanced?)

    This will allow the defender to still have the home ground advantage of unlimited ammo, instant retreats and colossus but disallow the abuse of the game mechanics to be the attacker.


    Suggestion Reason:

    The abuse of the current game mechanics change how we earn O-points. In order to earn O-points now, I have to hope that the defender is not online and unable to flee. If he is online, i am almost guaranteed to be put on the defensive by him retreating and restarting battle immediately. He starts earning O-points while I have to earn D-points from then on.


    Render/Image/Screenshot:

    First set of pictures depicting abuse, check and compare the time in the pictures:
    diigo.com/item/image/4ezgk/3dqo?size=o

    diigo.com/item/image/4ezgk/btjq?size=o

    Second set of pictures:
    diigo.com/item/image/4ezgk/6cu0

    diigo.com/item/image/4ezgk/jty0

    Special Notes:

    I know this is an intended game feature but for it to be so twisted and abused, it affect the legitimacy of earning Offensive points. O-points are no longer a gauge on how well a player fights but now it just shows how often he gets attacked and been able to twist the battle around by abusing the intended game mechanics.
    Thread description & title updated as requested (08/12/14) - Jake

    EDIT- Title reverted back to original - Hera10.12.14

    Remaining as Defender when rebelling in own city
  • In fact, it does indeed seem like a clear abuse of the battle system, after looking at those CRs. It is clear he tried to circumnavigate the 15 minute battle round timer, thereby gaining an unfair advantage; knowing full well he would gain this advantage i.e. intentional.

    I hope you reported him to the Game Operators to investigate further?

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Lionheartat20 ().

  • No.

    currently, this is only one of very few tactics that smaller players can use to their advantage against opponents much bigger then they are. This allows us to wave our smaller fleets much easier. The 1 hr penalty will ensure we dont have the ability to fight off larger players.

    Change it so the defender earns dpoints if you are so worried about your opoint scores, but dont strip away one of the few advantages smaller players have.
    On July 12th, 2015, the 'gentle giant' lost his 14 year war with cancer. We are honored that he served as our SGO. RIP dear husband.
  • It will return the legitimacy of O-points back to the game and restore some sense into the game.

    And what exactly makes them illegitimate now?

    Defending is hard enough as it is. Why would you want to make it harder? If you log in to find that you're in the middle of a battle, you're pretty much screwed, if you have to wait an hour for your troops to get back to your own town. Attacker has the initial element of surprise, two or more towns for waving and probably your port locked down as well. Defender only has two tricks up his sleeve:
    1) Making sure that wall is being used to his advantage (or not used at all)
    2) Instantly joining and withdrawing troops from battle without an indication for the attacker
    An extra hour for returning renders pt.2 impossible and pt.1 that much harder.
    I suppose it would make sense to add the scatter time when you flee with your entire army from the battle, but then the defender can leave just one unit in battle, and he's back home either way, so that doesn't work either.

    Also, what is the deal with those OP's? Why are they soooo muuuuch worse than DP's? They're easy enough to get either way, so I think there should be a case like this to somewhat control them. To put it in other words - if you want them, you gotta earn them. And since you know how this "feature" (note that I didn't call it abuse of mechanics) works and it can be used against you, you have to be prepared for this scenario.

    I am giving this a no-go. This suggestion sucks the life out of tactical defending, and makes it impractical.
  • Amnesiac wrote:

    It will return the legitimacy of O-points back to the game and restore some sense into the game.

    And what exactly makes them illegitimate now?

    Defending is hard enough as it is. Why would you want to make it harder? If you log in to find that you're in the middle of a battle, you're pretty much screwed, if you have to wait an hour for your troops to get back to your own town. Attacker has the initial element of surprise, two or more towns for waving and probably your port locked down as well. Defender only has two tricks up his sleeve:
    1) Making sure that wall is being used to his advantage (or not used at all)
    2) Instantly joining and withdrawing troops from battle without an indication for the attacker
    An extra hour for returning renders pt.2 impossible and pt.1 that much harder.
    I suppose it would make sense to add the scatter time when you flee with your entire army from the battle, but then the defender can leave just one unit in battle, and he's back home either way, so that doesn't work either.

    Also, what is the deal with those OP's? Why are they soooo muuuuch worse than DP's? They're easy enough to get either way, so I think there should be a case like this to somewhat control them. To put it in other words - if you want them, you gotta earn them. And since you know how this "feature" (note that I didn't call it abuse of mechanics) works and it can be used against you, you have to be prepared for this scenario.

    I am giving this a no-go. This suggestion sucks the life out of tactical defending, and makes it impractical.
    Defenders have the option to use Colossus. Attackers take the most risk with the possibility the defenders may use Colossus on them and spend the most resources (gold) to be on the offense. In a real battle, you can't simply retreat and attack immediately so why does it make sense here? If you retreat, you need time to re-group hence the 1 hour penalty is more than fair. It's the same thing with when you attack and retreat, you get the 1 hour penalty for pulling your units back. So why penalize attackers but not the defenders?

    In other words, this suggestion makes the battle mechanics consistent.
  • 1) Like I said, attackers have the luxury of attacking an enemy, when he's offline.
    2) Attackers should take the risk. It's not the defenders fault you want OP's.
    3) Collosus is useful against stupid enemies, that send all of their army in round 1. Against waving, collosus is just a way to get 2 rounds in defenders favour.
    4) In a real battle, defenders never leave the town. Therefore they cannot retreat, and they can simply choose to not fight. And this is a terrible reason for this feature anyways.
    5) And again, like I said, attackers should be at a disadvantage. There are too many perks for the attackers, and too few for the defenders. 1 hour of scatter time seems reasonable to me, considering you have more than 1 town's worth of action points at your disposal. Defender doesn't...
  • Atlantisreborn wrote:

    Are most Yes voters part of TNT alliance?

    Curious.


    Don't know, but everyone is entitled to vote from any alliance. As TnT is the largest alliance - in the entirety of the community/domain of .org (I believe), I would expect there to be many TnT votes on every suggestion.

    Not to be side-tracked, the colossus alone is a huge advantage to force your opponent to travel over 24 hours potentially to his home towns. He is already penalised enough, in my opinion.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Lionheartat20 ().

  • On the OP/DP topic: I TOTALLY agree that DPoints are just AWFUL! I mean it's not like the damage received is what really matters. We just want OP here because OP are DEFINITELY a 100% accurate show of strength. If you have the most OP it doesn't mean that you possibly just had more troops to lose but due to your large army against smaller armies got more OP than they got DP per person. It doesn't mean that you might have no skill but always like to be on the attack. In fact, what good is DP? It's not like that shows you're able to destroy attacking forces. It doesn't show that you know how to fight the harder field of battle. So yeah...
    ..................Just in case you didn't realize, I was being sarcastic there. I don't know about others, but for it always seems like getting OP isn't my thing. I'll attack others and such but unless they're offline it seems they run. So instead of being an OP junkie I seems to get more DP. Some of my favorite battles have been when on the defense. I actually take pride in seeing my name high on the DP list when I know that it's because of some battles where I kicked an attacker's *donkey.* OP is meaningless unless there's a good fighter behind it. DP is meaningless unless there's a good fighter behind it. Any noob can get OP. Any noob can get DP. Any noob can get a green CR. What really matters is the damage ratio.

    When it comes to defending, it's tough already. Why make it tougher? This suggestion is not AS bad as others I've seen on this topic (the worst being one where the defender wouldn't be allowed to whiteflag at all). The defender needs to be able to wave. They need to be able to take a bad situation they came online to a make it good quickly. Adding an hour to the waving is a terrible detriment.
    ..................I also think you're making way too big a deal over spilled milk. This only happens when the attacked town belongs to the defender. Any good fighter usually is not attacked in their own towns by logic that they're out hunting for troops to kill. In addition the way things are waved means that the defender will never be perfected in their ways. If there are mortars and rams on the defender's side while they're trying to wave the SCs, they'll have rounds with mortars on their back when they don't want that. (Disclaimer: ground is not my forte) At sea they'll only be able to use the 3-flame block strategy every other round.

    @Lionheart in post #7: Why should they report that player to a GO? What rule is being broken? Last I check being good at the game wasn't a crime.


    Now for my summation : No

    EDIT: I do find it interesting how the two No-Voters are two people whom I have heard good things about in terms of their fighting skills. I find it intriguing how two people that would want to be on the attack and are good at it, do not like this suggestion.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Kaleg Nar ().


  • @Lionheart in post #7: Why should they report that player to a GO? What rule is being broken? Last I check being good at the game wasn't a crime.


    Abusing the game mechanics is in fact against the rules, because it is bug exploitation.

    Whether this is a "bug" or "abusing the game mechanics" is not something I would be certain of either way. In my opinion, it was not designed so that you could fight two rounds within 30 seconds. I don't honestly think that was GameForges intention so I hope they fix this - potential - "bug". This could be fixed by adding the 1 hour penalty, as is the case of this suggestion.

    You can't give up an occupation and time a new attack 10 seconds later, for the same reason; in my opinion.

    The post was edited 3 times, last by Lionheartat20 ().

  • Lionheartat20 wrote:


    @Lionheart in post #7: Why should they report that player to a GO? What rule is being broken? Last I check being good at the game wasn't a crime.


    Abusing the game mechanics is in fact against the rules, because it is bug exploitation.

    Whether this is a "bug" or "abusing the game mechanics" is not something I would be certain of either way. In my opinion, it was not designed so that you could fight two rounds within 30 seconds. I don't honestly think that was GameForges intention so I hope they fix this - potential - "bug". This could be fixed by adding the 1 hour penalty, as is the case of this suggestion.

    You can't give up an occupation and time a new attack 10 seconds later, for the same reason; in my opinion.


    Voted "No" because gameforge knows the best. If they had not changed it, it is not necessary.

    waiting to see a post against colossus next time.
  • You all knoe Uncle Sandwhich do care what points i get.As long as im killing something. Damage ratio is ok. But just toget ahead and ditch out is what many do i am sure. Then they are boasting great wns. I say slug it out. I have kicked many behinds and bave recieveda sore behind as well. I say take your lumps. I voted yes 8-)

    The post was edited 1 time, last by UncleSand ().

  • I vote NO.

    1- I don't even get it. What IS the difference between you gaining O-points & D-points? It is the GS loss that counts (i.e. who killed more troops "by value")

    2- How is it "unfair"? If you can do it as well (when under attack) then it's fair enough.

    3- Since it is nothing "illegal" then it's fine by me.

    4- YOU decide when & whom to attack, and YOU want the game to work in your favour too?? What next? Prevent hitting v-mode when under attack?

    5- Let us all note that this is regarding an OCCUPATION. If it was a simple pillage you'd win & get the loot you were going after. When you want to occupy a town it is either to use it as a base to attack some other nearby town, or to win a war where the terms include "whoever occupies more towns or all towns ..or whatever". In other words, occupation is not the goal in itself, but is a way of getting to your ultimate goal. If you don't like it, find some other way to get to your goal.

    Now I see more people have voted for the suggestion, so maybe I'm playing the game the wrong way, or maybe I don't understand the proposition. In either case I do sincerely apologize. I'm just saying it as I see it, so if I'm seeing it from the wrong angle please don't take it against me.
    :D:D I laugh because I don't know what -the hell- is going on :D:D