Green light for a player when he is online during attack mode

Hi, 

  Is there a particular reason why FG does not implement the same green light to depict a player is online (as in the friends list) in the leadership search to attack players?

when we search for players in the leadership board, we are stuck with players who are online. It is so irritating that when you press the attack button, you find the player online ( either he is online or he is getting attacked).

I would suggest FG to implement a green sign on the list. At least we do not press those who are green and move along the list and attack players who are offline.

 

 

Yea it is more irritatng,hopefully FG implement a green sign beside playr.

The most annoying thing is at last hours of league, when we search players and it shows he is online,finally some other playrs take lead and result we lost the league with a small margin?

I believe it should not be difficult for FG to implement that.

link it to a players activity online or the attackng players activity. Another question why can’t 2 or more players attack at the same time? It would be so easy then for players.

 

Some players aren’t online, but currently under attack. The players that are under attack can’t be raided unless it’s a war raid.

Players actually online is also visible for friends and alliance members. Harder part is implementing to hold reckon with players under attack or not.

When you for example use the player list to search for an opponent, you get a static view of that particular moment of time, no more no less. Time goes on and during that time the situation can have changed already, a player can have become online and he can be under attack by another player.

I even have had it a couple of times on matchmaker, matchmaker offers me a player who at that moment isn’t under attack and not active. I still often get the message that the player is suddenly online. It means no more or no less that either another person started to raid him in the meanwhile or the player indeed came online.

It’s just the static view that makes it hard to implement. At the moment your data is returned they could indeed tell you whether or not a player is online. Major problem is that it’s not 100% known why you search the players list. In a filter you can check that the player is online, but nowhere that the player is guaranteed offline. And even then, you don’t know if the player is under attack or not, that you only know when you push the raid button. Then the actual/current status is checked.

I agree that there should be some functionality to filter players that are online. When I search for loot, I am not interested in players online, it only takes longer to search for a possible opponent and it’s annoying to see a lot of loot while actually I can’t get it, since the player is online. I sometimes have a dozen of possible targets inspected with all nice loot, but it’s leading to frustration when all those opponents pop up with a message of being online.

That an opponent under attack can’t be raided I can live with, but at least show a correct message and tell us that the player is under attack, instead of online. Then we can wait for our turn and try again in a moment. There is a reason for not being able to raid a player currently under raid. A certain amount of gold is reserved from taverns and/or gold chamber before a raid. The system can’t know how good the effort of the raider will be, so also not determine how much gold the next raider can win. There is a maximum gold loss per period of time which is connected to gold available when logged of in comparison with time passed.

Say there is enough gold unprotected and first raid you can lose 600k gold. Now two persons raid you almost at the same time. First person gets 600k reserved (plus some gold from the system). Problem is that the system can’t determine how much gold must be taken in reserve for the second person. If first raid succeeded 100% it could be that the next raid only a few k could be rewarded, but when the first raid fails 600k could be rewarded. So that’s why the system doesn’t allow multiple attacks. Otherwise the system could be abused. When one member has a lot of gold, let him go offline and agree all to raid him at the same moment. In theory 50+ members can raid him, so what should be offered? All 600k+ or take the reserved gold away from the reward for the next raider? Then we also get angry players, since the screen showed me 600k+ gold and instead I get 10k-.

 

 

Maybe orange while a player is under attack instead of green

The problem is ‘when’ to display it. When we search for a specific player that is a special view at a certain moment in time. At that moment the player doesn’t have to be under attack and also not be online. But time moves on and in the period of time passed that player we check can be raided by another player or come online.

So how must they ever display it in this case and notify us? They would need to replace their requesting part of the system by a notification system that informs us when the situation has been changed. I rather get a message that the player is under attack (now we get player is online while he is under siege) right now then to start raiding because I saw a reward of 600k+ and instead getting a louzy 10k- because another player started raiding him a fraction earlier. We can’t expect that flare will compensate the remaining gold, just because it was displayed and also not that the player that gets raided multiple time loses all that gold (max loss per certain period of time).

Like I said, it can be abused when all players get the amount displayed.

  • Let one member with tons of gold leave the team and open his base.
  • Inform the members that he goes offline
  • All players lookup the player and open the details screen. They all see 600k+ reward
  • All players start to raid almost simultaneously
  • Loser would be flare, this way members can duplicate gold without the need of raiding others.
  • Let a few players do this every day, all members would be able to upgrade everything without gold shields, chests and so on.
  • Flare would see a huge drop of income, so no multiple raids

Scenario of multiple raids where gold is subtracted per raid

  • Let one member with tons of gold leave the team and open his base.
  • Inform the members that he goes offline
  • All players lookup the player and open the details screen. They all see 600k+ reward
  • All players start to raid almost simultaneously
  • First player now gets 600k+, the rest who follow get less, since max gold loss is connected to a period of time.
  • Second player gets much less, third even less and so on.
  • Flare won’t generate/compensate all the gold but use the bad luck method.
  • Players that saw 600k+ and are rewarded with much less gold (that’s why I mentioned 10k-) are getting very angry, they feel robbed, since 600k+ was displayed and in fact much less is rewarded.
  • This has to be prevented, so no multiple raids!

An orange warning for players under attack is nice, but still there needs to be a warning when in the small period of time the player did get active or did get under attack. And the only way to notify that the player is not any longer under attack, a different method has to be programmed, the notification system, informing players that lookup detailed data for this player.

I think this is too complicated. As far as I know, the possibilities of attacking a player who is already under attack are rare unless the person’s base is open. There must be a risk factor too. As far as the player being online is concerned, yes flare needs to add that because it’s frustrating to find a player with good loot to realize that he is online. This will significantly help us in leagues too.

This! It should be easy to implement. Why was the incorrect message even “recycled” in he first place?

So if a player can be raided multiple times instead of one at a time, this issue will not resurface.

just allow multiple raids on a target with the same loot as is seen on his screen.

Maybe just make changes in the allogrithm.

Guess, Jack has already mentioned the disadvantages of multiple raids. 

Somehow, this issue should be addressed.

 

Will FG care to fix minor bugs and issues before bringing new updates?

I don’t think so, I’ve noticed that minor bugs are usually in the bottom of the “To Do” list.

I’m surprised it isn’t already there now that you bring it up!