Fix Robber Camps Issue once and for all

  • Interesting suggestion, thank you.


    I have some questions to fully understand it.


    I would think that this type of situation could separate good kingdoms from mediocre kingdoms.


    If you make it automatic, or you force is in game so it is more equal.


    Would not that take away from the need of in-kingdom negotiation?


    Would not that make the game play more individualist? No need to talk with others to organise the distributions of the camps...


    I feel how it is forces the kingdom members to talk with each other and at the same time it separates the good, cooperative kingdoms from the ones that are more free-from-all.


    Is that a fair view of it?

    Is it really that crucial to change how the game play is?

  • I feel how it is forces the kingdom members to talk with each other and at the same time it separates the good, cooperative kingdoms from the ones that are more free-from-all.

    Talk is the keyword here :D leads to more discontent and arguing rather than "talking". I have to agree with what you said but I guess people don't care. This has been an issue since I landed on TK for as long as I can remember.


    In your opinion do you think its necessary for the leaderships to handle the matter but how can they control it if we have no clue of knowing who cut X wave or Y wave ?


    Since we have a different notification on the Robber Hideouts attack in allied players if we instead saw the names of the players attacking the Robber Camp that would really make a difference because you would have a way for leaderships to control the Camp issue. But this is what we need, to brainstorm and improve this situation because all I've seen so far is 2 wave camps with 7 attacks ^^


    I know that even with names next to the offenders we'd still have cases where attacks outnumber waves because the attacks don't load instantly, has a bit of delay but I think any of the suggestions made on this thread would be welcomed for the majority of the community. (except for the greedy lone wolfs obviously)

  • Communication and management inside kingdom doesn't work, The subject isn't that important to remove the member from team while it's very frustrating for other members.

    also there is no control over it, no logs, no trace.

    no one can find who is breaking the internal rules. who cuts the attacks, who raids the last wave etc...


    Kingdoms before patch 0.46

    There was a similar problem in kingdoms, some players where always raiding with minimum units, stealing the goods and leaving a little resource for next person.

    If internal rules could solve this issue, community wouldn't ask for change.

    As requested by members of the community, a robber camp wave will be cleared as soon as all the stolen goods are taken from the wave. Remaining troops and resources will be added to the next wave. The last wave will be cleared as soon as all the stolen goods and resources have been taken.


    I am once again asking for your support. <3

  • I know that many kingdoms are using robber camps, to boost a specific player by letting him attack all camps for example. So in this case, in kingdom settings, it could be a toggle switch for this feature off/on.

  • The simplest and best way to solve this issue in my opinion is to show afterwards (maybe during the whole game round) who attacked which robber camps.

    People are "stealing" camps because there is no punishment for it. If your king tells you to take 1-2 camps, and then he sees you took 12, and this happens 3-4 times, he could kick you and make a farm out of you.

    Actions should have consequences.

  • Stop making excuses. Stop being lazy. Stop lying.

    We address an issue. We present a solution. Stop talking around it. Stop pretending that it is "more complicated".

  • I find the arguments against tying camps to heros hilarious. If that was implemented it is the one rule that could not be "CHEATED" internal kingdom rules are regularly broken, ignored or sneaks go after the last wave since no one will ever know etc. tying it to the hero makes it a level playing field for all players which is the last thing the greedy ones want.

  • This has been a very interesting conversation. I agree that there have been issues with people following rules inside of specific Kingdoms.

    In a dream world - we would all be team players and support one another by only taking what we need.

    When looking at players who have 200k troops and another that only has 35k troops it's really hard to make a good argument about why they both deserve the same number of robber camps. So I don't think you can build it into the game that would limit the number of camps a player can attack.


    My immediate concerns from the conversation so far.

    • Tying the hero to attacking a robber camp could make it to where certain players, active players who participate, get less robber camps.
      • On a x1 server, it's entirely possible that a catapult attack could cause a hero to be gone for 24+ hours. This would penalize players who regularly participate in offensive operations. These players are also the ones that probably need stolen goods for those long walks due to the lack of resource income from raiding and high negative counts having the full army at home.
    • I don't really like the idea of the King being able to "allow" players to attack more or less through a formal feature in the game.
      • Don't get me wrong - this is essentially what we try to do. But formalizing it into a feature that the King can control and manage does not appeal to me. Really takes the idea of "strong king" to the next level.

    Greenman suggested that the amount of attacks that can be sent on a robber camp = the number of waves to that robber camp.

    I like this idea. It would solve about 85% of the frustration around robber camps. It's disappointing to miss robber camps, but when you get cut off on a robber camp and it's the last wave that's probably the most frustrating. This could be also be abused - but there are very few features in the game that can't be.


    In general, rules that are typically seen as "Kingdom" rules (as in the specific kingdoms on a server, not the game) I don't like the idea of having them formalized into the game structure. They need to be able to be tweaked and adjusted as needed as the server progresses - but not through a click of a button, but through communication.

    These rules, when enforced, are effective. Are there challenges? Absolutely.


    But before we implement anything like requiring a hero to be present we need to address what the consequences of that would be.

    Would people be less likely to participate in offensive operations if their hero needed to be involved? What about sending their hero for joint defense operations?

    The way I see it, by requiring a hero, you hurt those who are most active in the Kingdom. Those who are sending their hero on offensive operations or defending villages. Leaving those who do not participate with easy access to camps because they perpetually have their hero home.

  • This thing is that if you limit the camps through the number of waves it's relatively easy for a spy to delay camps as he pleases. And if that was the case, the number of waves = number of attacks how would the speed of your army be affected ?


    Lets say you are a Gaul and will clear the Robber Camp with TTs. Your mate is a Roman and he will clear the Robber Camp with Legionnaires.


    Now imagine that you send your attack a few seconds after the Roman player. Who gets the wave number 1 ? You since your army moves faster or him because he launched first ?

    And if you don't limit the number of camps even if you are 2h away from the camp you will still get wave number 1 if you are active.

    Maybe the solution would be to increase the number of waves instead of limiting them...

  • This has been a very interesting conversation. I agree that there have been issues with people following rules inside of specific Kingdoms.

    In a dream world - we would all be team players and support one another by only taking what we need.

    When looking at players who have 200k troops and another that only has 35k troops it's really hard to make a good argument about why they both deserve the same number of robber camps. So I don't think you can build it into the game that would limit the number of camps a player can attack.


    My immediate concerns from the conversation so far.

    • Tying the hero to attacking a robber camp could make it to where certain players, active players who participate, get less robber camps.
      • On a x1 server, it's entirely possible that a catapult attack could cause a hero to be gone for 24+ hours. This would penalize players who regularly participate in offensive operations. These players are also the ones that probably need stolen goods for those long walks due to the lack of resource income from raiding and high negative counts having the full army at home.

    It is the job of the team to provision the attacker with compensation for their efforts.

    I can't believe you actually consider that an argument.

    The force-hero solution will prevent people from hoarding stolen resources all server "just in case".

    If you limit the amount of robber camps a single player can logistically get then you enforce a more even spread of these resources.


    Quote

    Greenman suggested that the amount of attacks that can be sent on a robber camp = the number of waves to that robber camp.

    I like this idea. It would solve about 85% of the frustration around robber camps. It's disappointing to miss robber camps, but when you get cut off on a robber camp and it's the last wave that's probably the most frustrating. This could be also be abused - but there are very few features in the game that can't be.

    You think so? You honestly think so? So you can pull an argument out of your... "magic hat" against the forced hero but fail to see the problems with this?


    Robber camps spawn. AIIIIIGHT, I'm gonna send 100 unit raids on every single camp. Because I am the one that was online when they spawned I have now secured treasures from all 10 camps. Rest of the kingdom can go... "play with themselves".
    To make things more fun I also send a SIEGE against the farthest camp. Now it will take a day or so for my troops to land ensuring the next robbers appear a day later. People only 10 min away are just straight out of luck. Not my problem they weren't online when the camps spawned.


    Stop trying to deceive the rest of us by pretending this is more complicated than it is.

    Couple it to the hero. PROBLEM SOLVED.

    Want certain players in your team to get more resources for whatever reason? YOU ORGANIZE A PUSH! IT IS THAT SIMPLE!

  • I agree tying it to hero isn't best idea. it was a quick suggestion.

    Good to see most comments want to change robber camps too, but they just don't like the hero part.

    Anyway I think that's the goal of this topic, to find a better solution for robber camps.



    Yet another raw suggestion is limit one outgoing attack per village on camps.

    not limited to hero.

    If you have 3 armies in 3 villages, you can send 3 attacks at same time.

    from 3 different village to 3 different robber camp, wait till they hit. you can send again.


    - you have two and one with hero is going to op?

    you still can attack camps :)

    - you have one army and you are on op?

    you can't get any currently, so nothing is changed for this play style.



    one by one attacking doesn't reduce the amount of goods that an active player can get too much.

    remember everyone is limited, so if you are active camps are there for you.

    if you can't wait them to return and send to another camp. you are not a constant active. you were just lucky in that moment you were active.



    What you think about this?

  • This thing is that if you limit the camps through the number of waves it's relatively easy for a spy to delay camps as he pleases. And if that was the case, the number of waves = number of attacks how would the speed of your army be affected.

    That's a good question, if I understand it correctly. You're asking "who would land first? the fastest, or the first?"
    I would still think the fastest would apply to not encourage people to attack further away.


    The force-hero solution will prevent people from hoarding stolen resources all server "just in case".

    I don't think this is necessarily true. I don't think using a force-hero solution would prevent people from hoarding stolen goods. I don't think those two correlate well.


    You think so? You honestly think so? So you can pull an argument out of your... "magic hat" against the forced hero but fail to see the problems with this?

    I specifically said in my post that this too could be abused. I didn't say "hey we should do this". It was brought up, I said that I liked it because it got to the root issue that I see most people having the largest issue with - which is the cutting. The examples you listed out were exactly what I thought as well. I'm not pulling arguments out of a "magic hat". I just didn't go as deep into the issues that would arrive with this example when I should have. I'm trying to have a conversation here. I understand that you are passionate about this, but I'm trying to engage with you to find a solution to this issue, let's have a conversation.

    The force-hero solution proposed here doesn't do anything to solve cutting. That was the only reason I said that I liked it.


    Stop trying to deceive the rest of us by pretending this is more complicated than it is.

    No one is trying to deceive you. I'm just trying to get to a solution that is well thought out and tries to consider all of the implications and throw those out for discussion.


    The whole point of this conversation around robber camps is to ensure that people have access to them. I pointed out an access issue with the force hero solution and your argument is "well we can just send them more resources". I didn't say I wanted specific players to have more resources. It was purely brought up as an access issue. People who are participating with their hero elsewhere will be completely cut out from robber camps.

  • Yet another raw suggestion is limit one outgoing attack per village

    That would encourage people to attack the nearest camp instead of the broad range of attacks that we see now with fast troops.

    I like how it is tied to villages in general and not just "the capital" or something like that. A lot of players may change their village later on to a 15c and make it a capital, but their hammer is in another village. So I do like the generality.

    Anyway I think that's the goal of this topic, to find a better solution for robber camps.

    Exactly, let's really look this subject and try to air out the pros and cons of each solution. Any change in the game will result in 'downstream' changes and I think those need to be considered. Ask questions such as: "Who will this affect? How will it affect them? If it heavily affects a group of players, are their any tweaks we could try to limit that affect?"

  • That's a good question, if I understand it correctly. You're asking "who would land first? the fastest, or the first?"
    I would still think the fastest would apply to not encourage people to attack further away.

    Fair enough, but how do you intend to block the camps with the current delay on the number of attacks going to X Camp ? Usually works as a good excuse for players to say "there wasn't any wave when I sent" or "there was still 1 wave missing when I sent" etc...

    Is the game capable of handling 5 active players attacking a 2 waves camp simultaneously ?




    And since we are at it, another good addition would be:


    "Only attack mode can bring you Stolen Goods".


    Lets be honest, no one is using Siege Mode to hit a Robber Camp, you blink and they are gone. Raid on the other hand allows for a player to further split his army into smaller pieces and get more stolen goods while trading less losses. This would be a good starting point in my opinion. Since you wouldn't have troops defending resources only and no Stolen Goods to be seen.

    Gotta Knock a Little Harder

    lucas-furlan-arthur-shelby.jpg?1576829193

  • Is the game capable of handling 5 active players attacking a 2 waves camp simultaneously ?

    I'm not sure on the technical components of this. I am not a computer programmer, so I won't even dive into an opinion on this.

    I can draw a parallel though (even though it's imperfect). If two people are trying to go for the same marketplace offer it seems the game is able to differentiate who went for it first. I've tried to take an offer before and it gives me the error message that it's no longer available.


    Since you wouldn't have troops defending resources only and no Stolen Goods to be seen.

    Have you run into this issue recently? Looking at the Changelog - 0.46, I run into this:

    As requested by members of the community, a robber camp wave will be cleared as soon as all the stolen goods are taken from the wave. Remaining troops and resources will be added to the next wave. The last wave will be cleared as soon as all the stolen goods and resources have been taken."

    So it appears that the last wave is the only one that could potentially have any resources leftover without stolen goods. Or at least that is what I take away from this.