Rejected Stop Shared BP for Players Under Siege

Status
Not open for further replies.

GothamSoldier

Phrourach
Proposal: While shared BP is a great idea, it seems a bit unfair that a player who city is under siege will receive BP from break attempts. If possible, the city under siege should not receive any BP from siege breaking attempts.


Have you Checked the DNS and PSI lists in the Archives? Is this idea similar to one that has been previously suggested?
Yes and No.

Reason: It is difficult enough to open slots in later stages of the game. Giving up several victory processions to your opponent because you successfully defended your siege of his/her city only makes it more difficult to grow. Also, is that not rewarding someone for losing their city?

Finally, situations can arise whereby the person who lost the city gets more BP from the conquer than the attacker. Aren't defenders given enough advantages already?


Details: This may be a coding issue that cities under siege would not receive shared BP from conquer break attempts.


Visual Aids: N/A


Balance: I think this idea brings shared BP into balance.


Abuse Prevention: I can't see a situation where this may be abused.


Summary: BP should be earned, not gifted when you lose a city.
 

Eventine7

Phrourach
Hmm, interesting.

At what point would you say a city is under siege? You need to clarify at what point shared BP would cease... and exactly when it would start again.

Or are you looking at this from a Conquest world only view? Remember there are Revolt worlds as well... How would your idea work there?

Ev
 
Last edited:

Thane Badger

Phrourach
As I understand shared BP it's given out proportionately the the defenders in the city. The only advantage to the city owner is the points he gets from his wall.

That can be considerable if he is earning BP from the wall as a multiple of all the troops in the city.

What is more unfair is when other players send huge amounts of land units to defend a city and leech lots of BP's from the players who send biremes while a long term sea battle is going on. The land units can't be killed by attacking LS but they still get a proportion of the BP's.
 

kekeREAL

Guest
As I understand shared BP it's given out proportionately the the defenders in the city. The only advantage to the city owner is the points he gets from his wall.

That can be considerable if he is earning BP from the wall as a multiple of all the troops in the city.

What is more unfair is when other players send huge amounts of land units to defend a city and leech lots of BP's from the players who send biremes while a long term sea battle is going on. The land units can't be killed by attacking LS but they still get a proportion of the BP's.

indeed. this is pretty much a known bug. noway this was intended.
hope they fix this at some point because there a strategies to abuse this bug.
 

Mazz666

Guest
Suggestion: Quit conquest worlds and play revolts worlds. Dosn't happen as bad there :)

But agreed with the fact of players with massive land defenses leeching BPs from Biremes builders.

If its a pure LS attack the shared BP should be split between players who had Birs in place.
 

Tusc2010

Phrourach
Suggestion: Quit conquest worlds and play revolts worlds. Dosn't happen as bad there :)

But agreed with the fact of players with massive land defenses leeching BPs from Biremes builders.

If its a pure LS attack the shared BP should be split between players who had Birs in place.
Haha, yep.

But as to the idea, I agree completely.
 
I disagree with this idea...

in some sieges I have lost 1k and more biremes in a siege, now that could have saved the siege or not, as i've lost so many biremes then I would like some sort of compensation (which will be BP) so taking out shared BP from support sieges will mean the people are less likely to support your siege.

However I would like to see that the percantage of BP isn't shared by the number of land units (as people do abuse that so they get more BP without losses) but count the BP and how much Biremes they sent (percentage sent on the total number of biremes)


If this idea gets put into the game it can also get abused, someone who sends a CS but doesn't support it himself/herself earns all the BP... I'm just thinking would you like it for number of biremes die and you didn't have any compensation (BP etc)
 

jonorocks1

Guest
Yea, BP based on units lost sounds better. The more units you lose, more BP's.
 

Shadis

Guest
Bp stands for battle points (and can be beginning points). If you kill an opponents troop, bp is the result. Anything that results in a casualty should earn bp in some form IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Th3K1ndr3d

<img src="http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii226
I disagree with this idea...

in some sieges I have lost 1k and more biremes in a siege, now that could have saved the siege or not, as i've lost so many biremes then I would like some sort of compensation (which will be BP) so taking out shared BP from support sieges will mean the people are less likely to support your siege
You misunderstood this idea. Right now a player whose city is being conquered gets BPs for defending when his alliance's LS hit the bireme wall. So basically this player gets BPs for defending even though he has no troops or ships defending in the city.
The idea is to remove this as it gives the player being conquered a huge amount of BPs which he doesn't earn in any way. I've seen people getting 20,000 BPs this way. For what? For letting the enemy CS into their city?

I support this idea 100%. Remove the DBPs for players under conquest.
 

wooly84

Phrourach
Suggestion: Quit conquest worlds and play revolts worlds. Dosn't happen as bad there :)

But agreed with the fact of players with massive land defenses leeching BPs from Biremes builders.

If its a pure LS attack the shared BP should be split between players who had Birs in place.
agree 100%
 

dazlerr

Strategos
I often fart and blame my dog ..... same kinda thing giving credit to another for my actions

thats my 2 cents anywhoos
 

Thane Badger

Phrourach
You misunderstood this idea. Right now a player whose city is being conquered gets BPs for defending when his alliance's LS hit the bireme wall. So basically this player gets BPs for defending even though he has no troops or ships defending in the city.
The idea is to remove this as it gives the player being conquered a huge amount of BPs which he doesn't earn in any way. I've seen people getting 20,000 BPs this way. For what? For letting the enemy CS into their city?

I support this idea 100%. Remove the DBPs for players under conquest.
It doesn't work like that. If a player has no troops at all he doesn't get many Bp's

Besides, it's a team game, if you have small players earning bp's then it makes for a stronger team. Too many people only care about their personal trophies.

So I guess that's an against.
 
Last edited:

Rep1796

Guest
I strongly disagree. Its strategic and it can go wrong for an alliance. It should be allowed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.