How bad is the forced shutdown exploit?

[Ravenlord]

Then the rule of thumb should be: the defending player loses nothing.

 

[Mr Suplex]

I have not had a successful defense in months, although I often have then in World War. Coincidence? I think not.

Defense is completely meaningless in the "normal" game until this exploit is fixed. Its a complete joke. The sad part is that the fix is ridiculously simple to implement.

 

[Mr Suplex]

They implement punishment for crashing in war, but they don't want to do it for regular raid. They should use the same rule in war as regular raid, crashing/force quit = loss.

I agree 100%. But I was shocked when many regulars on this forum complained that they crash from time to time and thus this solution was unacceptable.

 

[leetillu]

Someone already made the perfect suggestion...

Do the battles server sided.. that fixes a whole lot of problems...
If you crash, your battle will end normally just like nothing happend... if you are about to win 90% with just one tower left, your army will do their thing
without you..
This also fixes the demolition tactic glitches and would also fix the replay not matching reality problem...

 

[Porcupine]

We all know the quick fix to at least not punish the defending player: give him the medal for defense, wether the attacker force quit or his game crashed. I dont' get why this has not been rolled out yet.

It's all about balance, the pool needs to be balanced. The medals gain of one are the losses of the other, or else the pool won't be balanced and will result in a worse matchmaking, leaderboard, leagues and crowns I guess.

 

[Ethics]

There are a few ways to handle this and other problems in the game. Ignoring them is not one of them but seems to be the one Nexon is going with.

 

[Ethics]

It's all about balance, the pool needs to be balanced. The medals gain of one are the losses of the other, or else the pool won't be balanced and will result in a worse matchmaking, leaderboard, leagues and crowns I guess.

Yes I agree balance is very important. Right now the forced shutdown is completely unbalancing the game and destroying the competitive nature if it. Removing the forced shutdown would go a long way to rebalancing the game and restoring some of the games original competitiveness.

 

[Old Farmer Bob]

Completely agree with views on force quit in this thread. I am mainly responding here to S_How's point earlie about Putting TC outside on grounds defence useless. I do question this. I used to always put TC outside but now I am L 150+ and c2800 medals this seems to make me more vulnerable to lower level players and so I lose far more medals on attacks. I now put TC Inside. Ok I now get rolled almost every time by someone with brace of L30 generals, full hand of 5 tactics and planes/ zeps ( got a be a lot of very rich players out there ahem) but less often do I get -20 medals take off me as the attackers tend to be more my level/medal Be interested to know what others think about TC Outside. Maybe I should start a new thread on this?

 

[Ethics]

I agree 100%. But I was shocked when many regulars on this forum complained that they crash from time to time and thus this solution was unacceptable.

I wasn't, those people that complained are most likely cheaters. This forum like the game is full of them. The forced shut down issue is just another battle in this game between the cheating gaming community and the honest gaming community and so far the cheaters are winning this one.

 

[Kronofogden]

My game crashes after approx. 5-10 attacks, that's reality. I'm a cheater? No.
But, please, if everything in the game is so negative... why are you still playing it? For most of us it's fun and about the cheaters, you will find them in all games.

 

[Yellowmar]

Once I reach 2400 medals I moved my TC inside and switch to Forbidden City and Kremlin. Once you are high on medals you are prone to attack by people to are trying to reach kingdom league. My thinking is to make it hard for people to attack so only opponents that have maxed IA army will. Those who have maxed IA armies are usually high on medals therefore if they attack me I will lose fewer medals. But lately been tired of defending so I switch back to Colosseum and Statue of Liberty to bring back the fun of 5 starring people with this 1/2 price event.

 

[Aurelius...]

The reason Nexon/BHG won't fix the force quit exploit has nothing to do with protecting people with bad connections. It has everything to do with not wanting players to gain medals and resources passively. They want us actively playing all the time, not sitting back and raking in the profits.

Sorry to offer an alternate perspective, but it's clear that the motive is profit, not protecting a small minority of players.

 

[sponge]

Losing in war doesn't cost you 39 medals...

 

[FroggyKilla]

You still get the resources when the force quit activates. You won't get the medals. Personally irritates me if I get denied of stealing everything from my opponent.

 

[Ravenlord]

The reason Nexon/BHG won't fix the force quit exploit has nothing to do with protecting people with bad connections. It has everything to do with not wanting players to gain medals and resources passively. They want us actively playing all the time, not sitting back and raking in the profits.

I can understand the argument that they don't want players gaining medals passively but a ''RESET'' won't give anything to anyone. We gain something with defensive wins but if a game crashes or someone force quits then the battle should just be reset - no medals gained or lost and no rss won or lost. ie: return the status quo.

The defending player doesn't gain anything passively and the quitting player doesn't gain anything unfairly.

 

[Nathan Win]

Yes, I was thinking of that too. If they make it so that we gain that many medals on defense, we don't even have to raid. By preventing us from getting medals on defense, we can't reach higher leagues where the daily and loot bonuses are huge.

 

[Aurelius...]

Guys,

Force quit ensures the following:

1. Our medals won't increase as a result of defensive battles.
2. Resource production by roads, caravans, farms, mines, etc. will be matched or outpaced by looters and failed attackers who force quit. (We lose resources, reset traps, renew blessings, and ironically, the traps and blessings actually hurt us because they kill the first attacker, and then make subsequent defenses less effective.)

This ensures that we will have to be constantly playing to advance.

This all has to do with daily active users and "stickiness". Having people constantly play the game leads to a higher likelihood that each account can be converted from a non-spender to a spender. This is called conversion.

Anyway, a large number of daily active users = lots of money.

Enough from me. Just feeling a bit cynical. I wish they would focus more on providing a fun game and less on frustrating us into spending.

 

[S_How]

Yes that statement was made with me sitting at about 2250 medals. Up until this point, and at this point, I still seem to by WAY better off exposing TC and making my base as easy to 2 star as possible. It means most my medal losses are smaller, and my resources are less frequently hit. I cannot speak to your medal range and trust your logic. However, I would say 98%+ of the active population are probably under even me in medals....so it applies to the overwhelming majority of people.