probe 5 seconds before attack

  • The way the rules are written does not give enough clarity IMHO, it is very possible not to know of a bug yet still fall foul of it, and from there it is impossible to prove whether or not there was any intent to abuse a bug or whether it was an honest error.


    This also makes the game very tricky for new players to the game, as even if you read the rules on the Oboards, it is not stated what the bugs are. You could get banned with zero intent to cheat. Can not see this helping keeping universes active

    I apologise in advance for everything

  • I am a firm believer of the fact ignorance is NO excuse but expecting us to know things that is not even written down and has actually been changed is beyond a joke.


    If there is a KNOWN bug especially if its over 6 years old it should be stated or listed some where much like the list of rules!


    For the support team to take a "WE ARE NEGAN" approach to the problem what we say goes all else is irreverent is not acceptable.


    Simple fact add it to the rules or have a "CURRENT BUG LIST" that should be read in conjunction with the rules.

  • I agree with this.
    Considering the damage that can be done by unintentionally using this bug, then it should be very clear in the rules, so we don't have a new generation of players that simply doesn't know about it.


    It should also more clear that if people are in an ACS with someone who uses this bug (intentionally or not), then they can get punished as well.

    g5JBGO0.png

  • I agree with this.
    Considering the damage that can be done by unintentionally using this bug, then it should be very clear in the rules, so we don't have a new generation of players that simply doesn't know about it.


    It should also more clear that if people are in an ACS with someone who uses this bug (intentionally or not), then they can get punished as well.

    This especially is really important, collective punishment without it being clear that this is a possible eventuality is pretty mad. Even alliance leaders, irl friends, and other relationships cannot ensure that the other players involved will play legitimately.


    Clarity in the rules should be a priority, especially when you have universes becoming largely inactive at a rapid rate, the unnecessary loss of players you would think would be a concern to gameforge.


    I dont understand the logic in removing a previously clear line in the rules unless the problem/example of a problem stated in it no longer occurred, it just invites older players to fall foul of it, with the pretty sound logic that if its been removed it must no longer exist

  • [OUTDATED] Known Issues


    This is the most recent still (OUTDATED) list of known BUGS the probe or combat or any of what happened here is not there at all


    This added to the fact it was REMOVED from the HEADLINE in the RULES is disturbing!


    (please keep this post clean and no trolling)

  • I've lost a few fleets to this "bug". It had to do with people probe spamming your overview as their attack was landing on your planet. I'm not sure if it is still a thing with the collapsed overview after the redesign.


    The bug was, multiple probes landing around your attack caused a lag for you, making it difficult for you to get fleet off your planet.

    a1_Blueeyedwolfgo.jpg
    Thank you for the great sig Blackmass.


  • Well it's not a bug, it's a feature. In the past when you got attacked and launched your fleet in the same second, your fleet would have duplicated. The "Your fleet currently is in combat" messages locks your fleet so that you can't duplicate it. Thats why you aren't allowed to probe/attack/whatever someone within 5 or 6 seconds before a hit. The time depends on the community you are in. That an attack locks the fleet and causes the "Your fleet currently is in combat" message should be known to every user, so it is exploiting a game mechanic if you do it within the timeframe.


    As this isn't a bug: :closed:


    PS: If you would want such a thing with all the complexity that comes with it, rather open a feedback thread.

    Signatur