Feels like too big a can of worms to me. Some players care deeply about their defense ratings, possibly quite a few more once guild wars get introduced. Realizing you’ve been the auto-loss punching bag everybody ganged up on once you log in the next day probably isn’t going to make it into the happy feelings thread.
I do understand your position, introducing an elaborate mechanism to shift the negative impact from one group of players to a different group of players just doesn’t seem right though. If the issue really is that serious, I’d rather see the game go into emergency maintenance mode for a few hours instead. Yes, that’s painful, but at least everybody is sharing the pain. And it’s a kind of pain I believe would improve the overall situation, because once it has been experienced it tends to result in extra steps being taken to prevent it from happening again.
huh i cannot agree to that. i suppose just clash of different points of wiev
in my opinion more or less (if not more) half of players who use the bugged unit on defense do it purposedly to abuse the bug, which i cannot agree to justify. - the others who didnt know about the bug should be fine accepting it off their defense as they dont wish to abuse a bug - or do they?
closing whole game will definatelly couse more harm then both: the current ‘no response untill any fix’ state and the ‘temporary lock’ idea could do
and expecting devs to take ‘extra steps’ afterwards i think makes no sense, they are grown up ppl and will take their responsibility the way they do, they can take extra steps any time they want without having such drastic measure to ‘hang’ upon them as a threat
Disable a Troop/Trait/Ability IS a “emergency mode”. Turning off the servers for a few days is what you do when you want to close up shop.
You can’t transfer from one group to another if 100% are effected. AND how many 4x Kerberos Defend teams did you see prior to the bug? like 0.00% in the history of all Defend teams
“Extra Steps” sorry to break it: new problems will arise (its the nature of an ever changing game)
[quote=“Annaerith, post:22, topic:15622”]
in my opinion more or less (if not more) half of players who use the bugged unit on defense do it purposedly to abuse the bug, which i cannot agree to justify. - the others who didnt know about the bug should be fine accepting it off their defense as they dont wish to abuse a bug - or do they?[/quote]
Some players are abusing the double PvP score bug to climb into top 100, so everybody in top 100 should be fine accepting a ban because they would not wish to accidently benefit from the bug?
That’s the whole point, it should cause more harm.
“Extra steps” as in “proper testing”. Let’s face it, the past few weeks have given us a steady stream of broken troops that needed to be fixed. I’m not trying to bash the devs here, they are putting an amazing amount effort into the game, and I’m truly stunned at their level of interaction with the community. Quality control is something that just doesn’t seem to work out for them, whatever the reasons might be. So, yes, as grown up as they are, I do believe they would find “drastic measures” to be helpful. It’s actually a pretty common approach in software development, like the person to break the build having to repair it, with all the extras attached. Deploying a broken troop should be an “oh sh*t” instead of an “oh well” moment, otherwise there is no reason to improve.
well good job, you want the game to loose players/income and degrade… in hope to upgrade… good job…
what is the double pvp score bug you are talking about?
i meant particular broken troops usage, not a broken “mechanic” that is other then in troop itself.
you are moving it out of context.
and i want to ban a unit (from their defense) not a player xD
are you by any chance saying you want to use a broken troop on ur defense all you want and abuse the bug and thats all the ruckus for? (for as long as it is a bug not some balance issue) - coz thats all the vibe im getting from you: “lemme abuse it or punish whole playerbase by shutting down the game, i shall have fun or noone will!” …
Not quite, I want the game to get better by treating the cause, not the effect.
Nothing to see here, everybody move on please.
I believe you are missing the point, it’s about hurting a lot of innocents in order to punish a few guilty.
I’m saying that for every player you see abusing a broken troop there’s a dozen players I see who are using that troop without any ill intent, without any significant side effect on the game, without even knowing something might be wrong with it. Disabling a trait is an inconvenience, disabling a troop has such a massive impact the collateral damage is bound to be huge. If there is ever a troop so terminally broken that it has to be taken out of the game immediately, lock down the servers and hot fix the cause. No, that’s not punishing the playerbase, that’s disaster control. Imposing a curfew leaves a lot less fallout to be dealt with than dropping a nuke on a quarter of the population.
your solution cannot treat the couse, we cannot offer a solution to treat the couse other then asking devs to try testing troops harder before release. this thread is about treating the effect precisely. your solution for shutting game down will worsen the effect while it doesnt really treat the couse.
the innocent here must have obtained the new troop and possibly leveled it plus put it on defense (in hope to win). we have no numbers here but the question is: how many innocents will rather have the troop disabled for the sakle of not-abusing a bug and a peace of mind to know that he/she will not face a bugged troop when pvping - and how many of innocent ppl would rather not? assuming we take the not-innocent ppl out of the count. are you sure they would prefer to face a bugged troop?
if they are online they could get a simple pop up about their troop being disabled, and if they are offline they most probably will not receive many pvp attacks, u can count them in one hand fingers i bet…
disabling a trait in not every case will treat the effect- some troops may be bugged by their spell or some other reason, it will be harder to code too
in the end it will still hurt the innocents more then just an inconvenience if they leveled/traited + put it on defense just for the strength of its trait while assuming it worked properly
from my point of wiev shutting down the server is nuke on entire population, while disabling troop (or trait) being a small inconvenience. thats how much i personally would suffer from it
and just to mark it, i get every new legendary and below the week(even day) its out, do not always trait it right away but in many cases i could
i do not use any warg, kerberos in my defense coz i dont wish to abuse bugs and frustrate other players, and i would prefered kraken was disabled for the (i dunno 60minutes?) it was out without a quick remake coz if i was playng that time i would loose some invades and that i consider a much greater loos then the defense loses.
Ah, but it does. Feel free to verify it yourself. Walk up to your front door, open it and bend forward over the doorsill. Then go find some high building, like a multi-storey car park, walk up to the railing on the top floor and do the same. Did you notice how uneasy you felt? How you possibly tried to grab hold of the railing, making sure you were safe, even though you were going through exactly the same moves? That’s the way deploying troops should feel. It’s not about testing troops harder, it’s about being afraid of not having tested them hard enough.
Kerberos isn’t exactly a new troop, you might be surprised at how often it has always been included on non-competitive PvP levels. Your question leads us right back to my previous question. How many players would rather like to have their account banned for the peace of mind knowing they are safe from the double PvP score bug, either in or against their favor? Leaving the exploiters out of the count, are you sure they would prefer facing players that climbed ranks at double speed?
This feels like a weird topic to disagree on. For me, getting a single trait replaced really is just an inconvenience compared to entirely losing at least one of the four fielded troops.
So, playing the devil’s advocate, a highly active PvP player would actually benefit significantly from troops getting disabled? Because it offers a lot of easy pickings until the competition located in other timezones manages to adapt?
@Fourdottwoone is so right. There’s never a good moment to use such a troop disable as everyone who uses this troop in their defense is screwed until they log in again. The fact that our playerbase is worldwide makes this a guaranteed problem, which is bigger than the original one you were trying to fix.
Seeing how they were quick enough to replace problematic traits with placeholder ones, that solution is far preferable to this one.
What I find most fascination is everyone opinion of “preferred” Let me summarize
“Current”
When there is a problem DON’T communicate anything at all to anyone. Take no public action.
Days and days later note the problem on a forum, and detail a Troop/Trait/Ability changes.
“Your Preferred”
Test More
When there is a problem DON’T communicate anything at all to anyone. Take no public action.
3 . Days and days later note the problem on a forum, and detail a Troop/Trait/Ability changes
“Proposed”
Test More
When there is a problem DO communicate they are aware. TEMPORARY disable offending/broken trait/troop/ability
3 Days and days later note the problem on the forum, and detail a Troop/Trait/Ability changes ENABLING as now solved.
While I agree with the third option, what is the difference between what they are doing wrt traits (replacing them temporarily with “safe” traits like Possession → Immortal) and what is proposed? There is no need to wholesale ban a troop when they can deploy tweaks to both spells and traits already.
this idea is to be able to disable the troop INSTANTLY UNTIL they can do placefolder or any sort of fix (or deploy tweaks, whatever you call it), not INSTEAD of it.
it suppose to be a feature they can use every time with no re-programming needed that can save the first x time untill they are done with the programming
thats all it is to it, it doesnt replace any programming solution - the programming is the best solution in the end but it takes time
however short the time until they deploy a quick fix you think it might be - there is still the time hole untill they do deploy it - and that time hole in some cases might be dangerous, obviously its for devs to decide is the bug disastrous enough to block it right away or just work the fix and leave it be until, but isnt it better to have the option rather then not?
we already saw that there can be cases of troops who literally break the game (kraken) is it really ok to just let it be (even if its just idk 40minutes) ?
I suspect the delay involved in both cases would be the same. It takes a bit of time to learn about an issue and react to it, half an hour is actually exceptionally fast.