Announcement

Collapse

War Dragons Forum Migration Soon!

Greetings Dragon Lords! Over the last few months we've done lots of work behind the scenes redesigning the forum and will be migrating over to our new forum software in the coming weeks. During this migration, the forums will be set to "read-only" and posting will be disabled. We expect the actual migration to take between 24-48 hours. Please watch for additional Announcements soon with more details!
See more
See less

Attacking a minute before

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Warlord View Post

    The higher you rank the more you'll learn that defending 24/7 wins wars.
    no one complains about that! But I do complaing about defending 24+1 before war start/7
    It doesn´t have to do if bases can be taken or not.

    Having a fix war start time favors certain timezones - fact!
    Allowing pre-war attacks gives an additional (unfair) Advantage - fact!
    Those who use those advantages cry about the fact that others cry to change it - fact!

    Comment


    • Marvin Lamb
      Marvin Lamb commented
      Editing a comment
      So you are saying the WD community is split of whether it is a problem or not. And you wonder why PG will not change it or even set a policy about it.

    • Mrtheplague
      Mrtheplague commented
      Editing a comment
      I dont think anyone is spilt on the what the rules say are they? Game says war starts at 7:00, does someone dispute what it says? Is the prewar attack intended? Does someone actually think thats the case? I have no idea what the people arguing "for" are basing their argument off of. There really isnt an argument. Taking the postition to not fix something that is not intended is irrational. If you like mystery war start times, then advocate for it for real. Dont rally behind broken things though, lol.

    • Texreb
      Texreb commented
      Editing a comment
      I wouldn't mind so much if they atleast counted the defends also


      But still needs to be fixed

  • #32
    Also, still looking for the A-OK from PG, maybe they missed this thread, the dozen a day is a lot to sift through i know.
    https://www.topguntg.com/

    Comment


    • TheRedDelilah
      TheRedDelilah commented
      Editing a comment
      PG has already stated that the "Pre-War Attack" was not intended, but it was not cheating or "exploiting" the system. It is simply an unintended side effect that they tried to change once, but failed as it broke wars.

    • TheRedDelilah
      TheRedDelilah commented
      Editing a comment
      The post I was specifically thinking of was CL's personal opinion that since everyone can do it and it doesn't require any manipulation of the game, it's fine. I forgot it was his opinion, not PG comment.

      There is also a comment of Jared saying it wasn't a cheat by any means, but more in the exploit region but he didn't clarify on that.

  • #33
    I dont think they will put a definitive answer in writing. Assuming they dont, consider that thousands of players have been using this tactic for years without issue and come to your own conclusion.
    _____________🗡🐥🔪_____________

    Comment


    • Spooky
      Spooky commented
      Editing a comment
      They tried to fix it. It didn't work--it broke wars and legit attacks didn't count. The code in this area is very difficult to unpack and isolate as I understand it. If it were easy, they would have already fixed this and airplane mode BS.

      Not sure what you are expecting here. They're not going to punish people for doing something allowed by the game that doesn't involve artificially altering the game state or trying to trick the server or hacking type stuff. Literally all people are doing is pressing "attack".

      In their ideal world, there would be no prewar attacks that count. The world is not ideal, thus this situation that has existed for months will continue to exist until such time as they can fix it without totally breaking wars.

      Mrtheplague

    • Warlord
      Warlord commented
      Editing a comment
      Ok wait and see but said it before and I will say it again.

      When pre war attacks will be gone for good I expect a significant increase of air plane mode cheaters.

      If pre war attacks need to go then NOT BEFORE the air plane issue is fixed. Period!

      Then we are all on even playground.

      CampusLifer no one likes to deal with cheaters and you best know how exhausting that is.

    • Mrtheplague
      Mrtheplague commented
      Editing a comment
      I agree Warlord airplane mode should be fixed. Im not arguing priorities, in fact i dont really care if they fix prewar attacks. Now TheRedDelilah stated above that PG said using this tactic was not a cheat or an exploit. I guess i cant find that post. I would think with the mutitudes of tickets ive put in asking that very basic question, they would have responded with that answer, just so i would leave them alone, but i have yet to recieve permission to use it. Im sure they read this forum also.

      Working on it, not working on it, is not relevant to the question. I dont care.

      Is this an acceptable practice to use within the game? Just answer the question.

  • #34
    And ya, im the stickler i guess, but it behooves you all to demand a response. My team, your team, we are talking about $100k teams many times over. They cant provide a response about a possible bannable offense? While we wont recoup our investment/purchase, there would be pitchforks and torches if you were to get abruptly banned. Stop with the vague answers PG.
    https://www.topguntg.com/

    Comment


  • #35
    Mrtheplague It's never been considered a cheat... The fix in 3.40 to prevent pre-war attacks flames from counting, was PG's attempt at circumventing their broken logic for calculating defense points.
    Last edited by laserlight; 1 week ago.

    Comment


    • Owlrager
      Owlrager commented
      Editing a comment
      To add to this, there is actually a very good reason defenses are registered at the beginning of an attack - if they registered at the end, people could just close the app anytime a defender joined and negate any defenses. This was the case when tiebreakers first came out and it was awful, thankfully it was fixed pretty quick.

  • #36
    This topic should just stop. Assign people to defend your high bases prewar and be done with it... it's a known tactic. So just prepare for it... if u can't do this well. You won't win wars in higher leagues Simple as that. There isn't a single team in diamond that doesn't use it. Cause as I said. It's a tactic love it. Hate it. Doesn't matter. Just be prepared for it.

    Comment


    • #37
      Owlrager, yeah. Yesterday, I tried to conceptualize how their code might work for initiating attacks and logging the defense and attack stats. I actually ran into that scenario in my head when I tried to move all the logging to the attacker's connection. I assume currently there is a check at the beginning of the attack that fires off if a defender connects and there is an active war flag, which just dumbly adds one point to the defense score. But, when wars are active and you close the app your attack is still registered for that base with one flame. So, if they can record that an attack was initiated on the server side, I don't see why they can't add a record that a defender connected to that attack and log a delayed defense point even if the attacker closes their app.

      I think that fundamentally this issue along with the event issues and many other mechanical issues in the game stems from the fact that this game, at the beginning, wasn't built as a multiplayer PVP app from the ground up.

      Comment


      • #38
        > I think that fundamentally this issue along with the event issues and many other mechanical issues in the game stems from the fact that this game,
        > at the beginning, wasn't built as a multiplayer PVP app from the ground up.

        Honestly this is the root cause of many of the issues and why it takes so long to change certain classes of things.

        We're slowly revamping major parts of the architecture, but it's pretty hard when you have a live product with millions of people using it. Changing the foundation is difficult once there's a family actively living in the house. Oftentimes the question is whether you should do the expedient thing to finish something in the next couple of months, even if it builds on the wrong foundation. or try to revamp the lower layers to make them proper --- even if it possibly requires multiple years of work and has major risk of needing to be aborted in the interim.

        One example where we took the long view was on the battle/spell engine. Every single time we released new spells it created bugs, and even when we tried to fix the bugs it created new bugs. Every single spell we touched could interact with every single other spell, so if you had 147 spells, you had 147*147=21,609 possible ways they could interact and cause a bug. We actually invested many skilled engineers who deeply understood this codebase working for six months just revamping our tower/spell battle engine. Basically there is no visible user-facing output to that project except that the code isn't a nightmare to modify anymore. We'll see if it pays off --- and if it does it will be in a way which no one will notice because it always should have always been that way: New spells and towers will require less work to be created and will have fewer bugs.

        That said, all of this is not just a PG thing. every single software company I've ever worked at which has a real userbase has engineers complaining about "ugly legacy code"... Specifications for every single product always change over time as they want to do different tasks than they were originally designed. It's just how life works when you have products which have users -- people have change requests, and they want them in a reasonable time-frame. The only places I've worked where everyone thinks the codebase is pretty also were places which basically failed because they couldn't attract customers. If you focus completely on long term pretty code, you'll end up missing important user-needs and market opportunities. As opposed to messy code, I've seen more software projects fail because the engineers spend too much time trying to make things perfect and miss the market opportunity. You have to choose your battles.


        Related: one of my more favorite essays on a related subject: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/...ver-do-part-i/
        Last edited by CampusLifer; 2 days ago.

        Comment


        • #39
          CampusLifer

          Now that the thread has been properly derailed from the main discussion point, I'll go ahead and respond. I've worked as a Web Developer for the last 8 years, both front and back end and a majority of that time with code bases built on open source products. And 90% of what you wrote is already a personal experience for me. I don't need an explanation how to support live products, maintenance periods do exist. I understand achieving MVP's comes at the cost of writing scalable and extendable code. I don't know what your definition of "pretty" is, but I doubt any open source project wants your code that meets exclusive "important user-needs and market opportunities". I understand that not every company uses open source and that to solve everyday problems you will need to get messy from time to time. I'm also aware the developers at many companies make excuses about merging code that hasn't gone thru thorough peer review and QA testing in order to meet their deadlines. That's not an excuse for misleading your customers when your development practices fail them.

          Case-In-Point: Rune Inheritance
          • When the developers changed the code so that Invert spells no longer inherited the research and runes bonuses of Reverse Projectiles, did your team do an inventory over all the spells that lost inherited bonuses?
          • Did you discuss a roll-back to fix the dismissing of value that code caused?
          • Some people had multiple runes they had earned or gained through opening silver chests. A one-to-one refund was not issued for each affected rune equipped on a dragon. I assume this was tied to the fact that a code issue caused a nightmare situation for the support team, I'm sure they loved those developers. Do you think it is fair or ethical for PG employees to tell customers that it is okay use an item in an unintended way or that the development team has road mapped for restructuring?
          • Do you think companies have a duty to disclose any changes to products that have a negative effect on the user experience, without making the customer go thru all the hassle to identify a known issue and report it to the support team?
          My main source of frustration with PG is that most of your customers playing War Dragons do not have experience with supporting legacy products and can't see the tell-tale signs of such a product. You can develop your product however you want, I care more about how those messy decisions cost customers money and value.

          EDIT: Side note, while some of your past forum responses have rubbed me the wrong way, I do appreciate your passion and the fact that you do respond on the forum.
          Last edited by laserlight; 2 days ago.

          Comment

          Working...
          X