Should taek get his immort took away?

[Firetooth]

Vote away people lets see what the public think! >:(

[Gorak]

what is an immort?

[Firetooth]

Your finish at the end of the round (he finished 2nd but he paid to be maxed for 5 days) but we only found out after the finish

[idunno]

Why do you care so much?  He didn't even win.  Also, an admin told him it was fine.  Give it up and quit trying to get taek banned.

[Firetooth]

Im not trying to because I dislike taek, but this was a more serious offence then the one which drove feng and wise claw away and I am not going to sit by and let it go unpunished!

[Sharptooh]

This is more even than I expected, but we really need a few more votes

[bjornredtail]

No, maxxing an empire as part of a 'denial of service' attack is a ligit, if very expensive tactic. 

[Shadow]

i can bring back any number of topics where wolf condemns this as against the rules and bans people for it if necessary. If that fails ill just max anyone with any amount of land worth taking every run to show people how annoying it is.

[bjornredtail]

Then increase the attack limit or troop losses to make it more expensive. Or make it only count successful attacks. Or decrease the cooldown. The way it is, the game was DESIGNED to allow this tactic. 

[Shadow]

and it's easy just to declare it against the rules and move on

[bjornredtail]

It's even easier to change the game, make it a rule by simply changing the code not to make it a viable tactic. Human enforcement isn't easy, and it means a lot of maintenance that would be much better placed towards the technical aspects of the game.

It's stupid to make rules against things that are clearly designed to be possible in the game.

[Shadow]

This has been against the rules since as long as i can remember, my argument is against it changing now.

[bjornredtail]

Oh, really? It's not been a rule any time I've played. (Of course, that was a LONG time ago)

IT seems that it's a silly way to go about it. If you were in any other game and you felt that a certain unit was overpowered, would you, as the developer, just make a 'rule' stating: "Don't use unit X, it's against the rules" or would you, again as the developer, change the values behind that unit and make it less overpowered?

[Shadow]

I think it's a lot easier to change a few variables on a unit than to mess around with coding a way to stop repeated failed attacks. If you can think of a viable way to do that without interfering with gameplay I'd love to hear it, but i can't think of an effective system to block that.

[bjornredtail]

Simple, don't count failed attacks towards recent attacks. No change to RWL's 'Databae format', just a few lines changed in the attack function. I'd submit a patch if I could see the source (and I just very well might implement something similar on FAF).