Inactive Topic Block Support!

DeletedUser30838

Guest
Proposal:
Have you ever been on the brink of being conquered? then the conqueror's alliance sends support so no one else can attack you but him? Grepolis players should be able to block support.

Have you Checked the DNS and PSI lists in the Archives? Is this idea similar to one that has been previously suggested?
Yes and the only one i found is someone saying block support REPORTS. not the support itself.

Reason:I have been in many situations where people would put "tripwires" at my city so when someone attacked me the others would see the report and jump in. and instead of me waiting for the troop to get there and then me return it, i can just stop the support right there. the moment he sends it i check the name, alliance. and click the x next to it and its gone back to the scum who sent it.

Details:
Nothing much to it, just put an X when the support is coming to stop it in its tracks.

Visual Aids:
9a6zgh.png
- Before
669t0m.png
- After


Balance:
It will help players decide which support they want. we would want anyone sneaking in support, or a "tripwire" now would we?

Abuse Prevention:
No, not that i can think of, but im sure someone can find something.

Summary:
This is just an improvement to the support system we all know and love. i have friends who have been conquered because someone sent in a "tripwire" ad he didnt have sense to check who it was, he got attacked by one guy, then once they got that report, 2-3 people more jumped in.
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Not exactly. You could still support regularly as long as the player wanted to accept it. The only time to my knowledge support is ever given is:

1. By allies to help (which they would accept, so it doesnt brake there)
2. In the conquest system (which would DESTROY the entire concept of it.
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Have you played a conquest world?

Well, anyway:

In conquest, once the CS arrives in the city, the attacker and his allies JAM PACK the city with support. If the player being attacked could just cancel it, it would destroy the entire process as most of the time, support is needed to hold the city.
 

DeletedUser30838

Guest
yeah i guess you are right. this thread can be deleted.

btw, like what i did with the visual aids? i felt pretty proud of myself after that, even though i used paint. LOL
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
It certainly is better than not having any at all. They did help me grasp what you were trying to say a bit better.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
lol the Conquest system would be interesting if this got implemented :D
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
lol...it wouldnt exist if this got implemented as everyone would rage quit :D
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I agree with pebble, this would be too game changing for conquest worlds, and this might be difficult also for wonder island city takeovers as even in revolt worlds, they tend to get stacked just after being captured.
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Lol...I have an idea.

We implement this, and EVERYONE joins. After that, everyone thats not a noob leaves. Then the noobs are stuck in a self perpetuating conquest trap! *evilface*
 

DeletedUser30838

Guest
lol...i have an idea.

We implement this, and everyone joins. After that, everyone thats not a noob leaves. Then the noobs are stuck in a self perpetuating conquest trap! *evilface*

lmao!
 

DeletedUser14492

Guest
Have you played a conquest world?

Well, anyway:

In conquest, once the CS arrives in the city, the attacker and his allies JAM PACK the city with support. If the player being attacked could just cancel it, it would destroy the entire process as most of the time, support is needed to hold the city.

Hehe, this is why I never play conquest worlds... the entire idea that to attack and conquer a city, I need to DEFEND it just doesnt make any sense at all to me.

The revolt system just seems to make more sense to me, its all about attacking the city to conquer it.

But each to their own :)

Ev
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Hehe, this is why I never play conquest worlds... the entire idea that to attack and conquer a city, I need to DEFEND it just doesnt make any sense at all to me.

Conquest is probably the closest to real life....

You get in and hold your city.
 

DeletedUser14492

Guest
Conquest is probably the closest to real life....

You get in and hold your city.

I dissagree. To me its totally counter intuitive to defend a city I am attacking in order to conquer.

The Revolt cycle can be seen as you having attacked and depleted a city so much, that you are about to coquer it... unless reinforcements arrive... see now to me that is the closest thing to real life...

:)

Ev
 

DeletedUser

Guest
What!!!

In real life the Knights didn't storm a city, run away come back the next day 24 hours later and storm it again!!!! (Revolt)

The Knights stormed a city and held it from the previous owner (Conquest)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
What!!!

In real life the Knights didn't storm a city, run away come back the next day 24 hours later and storm it again!!!! (Revolt)

The Knights stormed a city and held it from the previous owner (Conquest)

It is called raiding and looting an enemy city, everybody did this at some point in history.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
About the idea, is anyone forgetting that you lose control of a city under siege? So disallow blocking support in an under siege city.
 
Top