PDA

View Full Version : Revenge Attacks



Trayus
10-11-13, 10:23 PM
Revenge attacks should not be affected by shields. Period. Because the way things are, I have an entire hitlist of people who have attacked me and I can't attack back because they have a shield on 24/7! end rant....

Bakerman45
10-12-13, 05:39 PM
True dat TRayus! I got a whole list of peeps who hit me, but I can't get them back becuz they either online or got a shield. It should be that if I try three times to revenge, the next time the shield comes down. I keep getting hit and the list erases the ones on the bottom, so I never get to revenge on them.

Chianti
10-13-13, 10:51 PM
I couldn't agree with this more. I even said so in an identical discussion going on elsewhere.

Shields should prevent players from being put in the random attack pool. However, as it stands, it's nearly impossible to revenge attack. Period. I think I've been able to revenge once, and I'm level 51. It took diligence, as well. I had to CONSTANTLY try and revenge, until after about 100 tries I finally got through.

Revenge attacks should not be bound by shields. If anything, revenge attacks should have their own set of rules. For instance, a revenge attack should only allow you to reclaim any loot or crowns you lost. Something like that seems fair enough to allow for the shield to be bypassed. And if they already spent the loot? Simply put them into negative numbers... -94,334 coins. That way, they would have to pay back the debt before they can make money. Seems reasonable to me.

kwhales
10-14-13, 03:07 AM
I kind of agree with this. I have gone on to revenge someone withing minutes of them attacking me. I first visit there camp to check their vaults. They're full of my loot. I then go to revenge them and they have a shield. How? They stole my loot, I see the vaults are full, yet they have a shield. That means someone, in the matter of minutes battled them but didn't take the loot? That seems so unlikely. How did they get a shield so fast and keep loads of loot?

Here's my point: if we go on a revenge attack, and the other camp has a shield, we should not lose our shield. If no battle took place our shield should remain.

crusader7
10-14-13, 03:31 AM
that (last sentence) is already in place. the game will warn you that your shield will fall, but if you can't attack, your shield will still be up.
Another idea ( it just popped up :D ) would be to tell us for how long that shield will be up. This way I don't have to constantly hammer all the list hoping I'll catch someone with the shield down.

kwhales
10-14-13, 03:55 AM
that (last sentence) is already in place. the game will warn you that your shield will fall, but if you can't attack, your shield will still be up.
Another idea ( it just popped up :D ) would be to tell us for how long that shield will be up. This way I don't have to constantly hammer all the list hoping I'll catch someone with the shield down.


I know there is a pop up warning. I am saying that if we go on revenge attack bypassing the warning and we can't battle because the camp has a shield, we shouldn't lose ours. No battle took place. But once we bypass shield warning it is gone even if a battle did not take place.

And i am only talking about revenge attacks. Not regular attacks.

sand
10-16-13, 06:21 PM
I know there is a pop up warning. I am saying that if we go on revenge attack bypassing the warning and we can't battle because the camp has a shield, we shouldn't lose ours. No battle took place. But once we bypass shield warning it is gone even if a battle did not take place.

And i am only talking about revenge attacks. Not regular attacks.

This is not the case for me. I just attempted a revenge a couple minutes after the battle and bypassed the shield removal warning. The attacker was online, so no battle took place. When I clicked CONTINUE, I found that my 8-hr shield was still in place. I tried this several times and did not lose the shield. I also tried it against an attacker who has been under shield for nearly 2 weeks now. Again, after getting the notification that the player had a shield, my own shield remained intact.

Sumercarefree
10-17-13, 01:49 AM
This is not the case for me. I just attempted a revenge a couple minutes after the battle and bypassed the shield removal warning. The attacker was online, so no battle took place. When I clicked CONTINUE, I found that my 8-hr shield was still in place. I tried this several times and did not lose the shield. I also tried it against an attacker who has been under shield for nearly 2 weeks now. Again, after getting the notification that the player had a shield, my own shield remained intact.

An Attacker with a 2 week shield ?
Gosh how can they have so much gems ? A 7 day shield is 1,800 gems !
So far I have not made any revenge attacks, partly because I do not have much coins as I keep spending.

sand
10-17-13, 06:59 AM
An Attacker with a 2 week shield ?
Gosh how can they have so much gems ? A 7 day shield is 1,800 gems !
So far I have not made any revenge attacks, partly because I do not have much coins as I keep spending.

There is no shield one can buy lasting longer than 7 days. Most of us generate a free shield by losing defensively, but there are certainly those who will buy a shield, especially if they are trying to preserve crowns to secure their tournament rank.
However, you will find, as others have, that there are players on your battle log (NOT tournament contenders) who seem to either be continuously shielded or continuously online. Personally, I don't think they are buying shields or playing non-stop. They are using some kind of cheat or hack to maintain that status and immediately resume that status after attacking others.

FireMocha, you need to look into this business of players being perpetually online or shielded. We all know that shouldn't be possible.

geegee7117
10-20-13, 08:23 AM
True true! I've been waiting for over a week for a revenge attack, but the player still has a shield. Question, if this player has 24/7 shield, how is it that his/her crowns keep increasing on a daily bases? Hmmmm, sounds like too many shield hackers to me. I'm getting sick of it, but if the develop team wants cheaters more than loyal in-app purchasing players, then so be it. There's more than one battle game out there guys, please take the time to actually weed out the hackers.

Trayus
10-22-13, 02:21 PM
FireMocha, you need to look into this business of players being perpetually online or shielded. We all know that shouldn't be possible.

I wanted to say this too but I didn't have enough proof to say it definitively because I can recall numerous times where I would take a bathroom break and come back having already been attacked.

That said, this would not be a problem if revenge attacks ignored shields. (I wouldn't go so far as to suggest it kick someone off the game to take care of the "cannot be attacked because the player is online" issue)

From my perspective, the shield should not enable hit and run tactics. A shield should remove a player from the random attack pool. The point of a revenge attack is to allow a person a chance to retaliate, a tool that is now rendered meaningless because no one has the opportunity to use it.

Chianti
10-27-13, 04:33 PM
They have far too many other pressing issues to deal with before they can look into perpetual shielding bugs or perpetual online offenders.

In the meantime, as I mentioned previously, revenge attacks should be exempt from shielded cities. The shield should act to prevent you from being in the round-robin, but if they attacked you, you should be able to attack them back immediately. I even believe you should be able to revenge them if they are online - they would simply get the "your city is being attacked" modal screen.

You only get 1 revenge attack. I don't see the problem with allowing a person to revenge whenever they choose; whether the person is shielded and/or online doesn't matter. They attacked you, they can suffer the consequences.