Inactive Topic Stop Wonder Improvement while a Banned Player is on the island.

[DeletedUser]

This has been done very quick so if anyone wants to tidy it up please feel free.

Proposal: Stop allainces building wonders up if a town on that island is banned.


Reason: If a player owns all more most cities on an island and they get banned it gives the allaince 2-3 weeks where them cities can't be attacked or taken. If this is near to the end of gettting all 4 wonders it aids the allaince that have had people banned.


Details: On a world recently we have seen an player banned which owns 18 cities, this means only two cities are attackable on that island meaning it is alot harder for the teams that have not had a player banned to take a city on that island and stop the wonder progression.

It seems to be the fair way to do it, if you get caught breaking the rules then banned any wonder island you are on the allaince should not be able to improve that wonder until such time you are unbanned, or the account goes ghost.

Visual Aids:
None

Balance/Abuse Prevention: It makes the game alot more balanced that it currently is.

 

[DeletedUser18132]

Yes, I agree.

 

[DeletedUser]

i have to agree this will prevent the abuse of the ban system. imagine an entire island getting banned all except 1 city, that is all that is needed to prevent from being taken over, and allow the alliance to keep feeding in resources (atleast for a while)

 

[DeletedUser]

Should definitely be added. It's similar to a player owning all cities on an island, starting construction of a wonder and then going into VM.. that's less easy to stop, though.

 

[DeletedUser]

moved to improvements . . . please continue to post ur feedback

 

[DeletedUser]

I am completely opposed to this idea. It is beyond insanity that an entire alliance should not be able to continue to level up a wonder because of one player's mistake(s). Using the tactic to punish the majority who cannot stop a minority of players from breaking the rules should not be implemented.

In fact the current system ALREADY punishes alliances with a banned player on the world wonder islands. Once the 2-3 week unattackable ban is over the account goes ghost. Meaning that the progress on the wonder goes back down to 0 on its current level.

IMO it already goes too far in punishing the alliance for one players up.

 

[DeletedUser18132]

Yes, but I thought gold usres don't go ghost. So you could watch a video and get 3 gold, not go ghost.

 

[DeletedUser]

good idea it is abused more then you relize...

 

[DeletedUser6210]

Oppose. When a player with wonder towns is permanently banned, their alliance is already punished for the rule-breaking of that one player. Control of the island is lost when the account ghosts, and there's nothing the alliance can do to take the banned player's towns before it happens. If the banned player ghosts when a level is in progress, the level is lost; if the wonder is on level 10, the top level is demolished, making that wonder available for other alliances to finish. This is disastrous for the alliance, completely out of their control, and could easily decide a whole wonder race.

In my opinion, bans already have far too much of an influence on in-game tactics and strategy. Bans should punish the rule-breaking player fairly, they should not be a game element like this.

The proposed block on alliances building wonders while a single town on the island belongs to a banned player would encourage even more tactical reporting than there already is. Besides, are we now going to punish alliances for having a wonder player in VM? That has the same effect in protecting certain wonder towns.

Counter-proposal: Make wonder towns attackable when their owner is banned. This would resolve the unfairness in both directions by making the towns available for either friends or enemies to conquer, and thereby remove the influence bans currently have on wonder strategy.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes, but I thought gold usres don't go ghost. So you could watch a video and get 3 gold, not go ghost.

not exactly lol by "gold users dont go ghost" they mean u need to have advisors active in order to not go ghost lol i made the same mistake in thinking that if i just had gold my cities would be cool lol NOT

---

i will have to look into see if wen a city is no longer occupied by the alliance if the wonder resets . . . ill post my answer here wen i find out

 

[DeletedUser]

I think this is a no brainier. I approve it would be a nightmare to have people abuse the system.

 

[DeletedUser23986]

Oppose!It is unfair!

Just because a player is banned, the whole alliance is to suffer!Afterall, it is not the alliance fault!
Rather make banned ww cities attack-able!

 

[DeletedUser]

Oppose. When a player with wonder towns is permanently banned, their alliance is already punished for the rule-breaking of that one player. Control of the island is lost when the account ghosts, and there's nothing the alliance can do to take the banned player's towns before it happens. If the banned player ghosts when a level is in progress, the level is lost; if the wonder is on level 10, the top level is demolished, making that wonder available for other alliances to finish. This is disastrous for the alliance, completely out of their control, and could easily decide a whole wonder race.

In my opinion, bans already have far too much of an influence on in-game tactics and strategy. Bans should punish the rule-breaking player fairly, they should not be a game element like this.

The proposed block on alliances building wonders while a single town on the island belongs to a banned player would encourage even more tactical reporting than there already is. Besides, are we now going to punish alliances for having a wonder player in VM? That has the same effect in protecting certain wonder towns.

Counter-proposal: Make wonder towns attackable when their owner is banned. This would resolve the unfairness in both directions by making the towns available for either friends or enemies to conquer, and thereby remove the influence bans currently have on wonder strategy.

I completely agree.

 

[DeletedUser]

I have to say the counter makes more sense than the original.

 

[DeletedUser8790]

Sorry I do not like this, I was banned by mistake once and that would have cost my alliance, there must be a grace period if this is to occur, Mods are only human.

 

[DeletedUser23458]

I won't play a wonder world again anyway it's too much work and you end up getting screwed too often for other peoples mistakes (I'm not the one that broke the rules!!!!!!!!!!!!) start handing out attackable bans, they don't even have start out being attackable. give them a week grace period to try and fight the ban, if said player can't explain why they think they shouldn't be banned make it attackable it's not like a player that breaks the rules should be protected from everyone anyway. as for VM thats up to you, I seriosly doubt you will stop accepting money to allow people to hide in real life for a few months. I think you'll end up making more money if attackable bans are in effect, people would rather pay you to win than break the rules.

you need to understand how much of a moral breaker it is when you build 4 wonders to 10 and 1 person screws it up for the alliance by getting banned and going ghost.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'd say no, as highlighted by others earlier; bans already have an adversarial affect on wonder construction... we should punish a majority of players for the mistakes of a handful of idiots.

 

[DeletedUser21774]

I am checking to see if the rules have been changed with regard to banned players. I am in Athens and we will soon be entering the WOW phase of the game. Our players are asking these very questions. What happens now (June 2012) if a WOW island has a player that gets banned during the build?

 

[DeletedUser]

Since this was stonewalled, effectively nothing new happens; aside from your alliance having to hastily take the cities if it's an attackable ban, or wait until he ghosts if it isn't. Apart from your post being an unnecessary 'necro', please consider using the gameplay questions section next time for issues like the above.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well I'm torn between both. Like already stated one player shouldn't be the downfall of one alliance, that's unfair, but its also unfair that they can keeping building a WW with a person banned or like stated all but one even. So...