The standard answer is "It's a war game." Well, OK. This is not the first war game I've played. But it is the one that is most unbalanced.
And other software devs can make chunks of money while still balancing the game. In fact, I would argue that that is WHY they make money.
This isn't the place for personal attacks or quarrels and as always there will be more to the story than meets the eye. Since I am not the player concerned it's is for them to comment or not as they wish on that score. I do have some observations though -
1. Nahuals are a short term problem
2. There is a defence against them spying your troop movements
3. There are protections built into the game limiting the number of attacks possible
4. There is a statement that there is proof of cheating by this player on the forum. This means that either the devs are not doing their jobs OR the allegation is .... mistaken. However I can imagine that any player would react rather negatively to such a public accusation.
5. So far as I can tell there is nothing stopping a player from having multiple accounts, as long as only one account is used per world.
My personal view is that I don't see any reason why a big player helping a smaller player should be an issue unless that player is contributing all their resources to helping a single player at the expense of the viability of their own account. I would expect such assistance (with odd small exceptions) to be within the tribe however. I don't make the rules though.
Nor do I really think Tentlan is any more unbalanced than many other games. I have seen worse. I do think the whole relocation things needs reviewing though .... both in terms of attacking and using it to relocate all cities to the far corners of the server. It's a two way street ..... either limit it in terms of attack AND defence .... or don't.
Hi Mystic Raynes,
Just a couple of points regarding your post.
I am sorry to hear that you have asked for your account to be deleted although from what you have said about your gameplay this is definitely one option for you. Did you consider setting up an account on the international peace server? Troops killed on that server can all be healed automatically. Also the % difference between players which determines whether or not one can attack the other is much smaller on that server. Having said that, you would still be at risk if you did not protect your resources and ofc course there would be the cost of cacao to heal any lost troops.
I am also sorry to hear that (by your own admission) you purposely broke game rules.
I do question why you continue to throw insults towards another player who is simply 'playing the (war) game'.
In the scenario to which you refer, you say:
(a) "Player A continually attacks a player 10 times smaller than them. current points: 1,078,660 It's a war game player B hears"
As you are aware, such an attack is within the rules. When you say 'continually attack', you mean of course within the limits of the game, i.e. every 12 hours in this case. As mentioned above, the game developers have introduced a dedicated server for those who prefer a smaller % difference in points between would be attackers and opponents. You appear to have continued to play for some time on the Itzmal server despite being unhappy with the rules. And yes, as others have commented, it IS a war game.
(b) "Now Player B who has only 116,350 points finds a player they can attack without to much damage o their own troops".
It is good to hear that you have on some occasions been playing the 'war' game.
(c) "Next day player A moves right next to play B. Player A with Nauhuals can see when player B's troops come back from walking. Instant wipe out. Over and over again".
Again, you were, or ought to have been, aware of the option for opponents to relocate their cities (at a cost to the opponent I might add, all of which contributes to the cost of future game improvements and upgrades) and the ability to attack from the relocated city immediately afterwards. You had the option to move your city but chose NOT to do so.
You also should, or ought to, have been aware of the use of nahual - the crystal event received much publicity and full details of the abilities of the nahual are available on the forum. You will have obtained crystals each day you played the game and attacked barb camps and could have recruited nahuals yourself. Holding more nahuals than player A would have prevented player A from obtaining your city's activity details. You might also have used a nahual to check out player A's city movements. Clearly you chose NOT to take either of these options.
Had you been at your keyboard throughout the period in which you chose to retain troops in you city, and had ensured that you had sufficient turquoise in your account to purchase an immediate 'white flag' on seeing the spy mission that was sent prior to the attacks, you could have saved your troops for at least an hour at a time. Clearly you chose NOT to do that either.
Player A would only have been able to attack you at intervals permitted by the game - not what many would describe as 'continually'.
(d) "Player B files a complaint to lion moon and is ignored even with pictures sent".
I very much doubt that your reports to the admin team were 'ignored'. From my experience, individual reports are seldom replied to but always looked into. It can be seen from the annotations under the cities of any reported account whether or not any ban has been applied. As none appear to have been applied in this situation, it would suggest that player A did not break any rules in their actions. Indeed, it is difficult to see what rules you believed they might be breaking !
(e) "Player B has only been playing a month. with all the dang walking you have to do to avoid attacks from much larger players how in heck do you expect anyone to grow? You can't stop your troops from returning so you are stuck".
Player A, I suspect, has been playing on the server concerned for the same length of time that you have. It is not difficult to protect your troops and resources by sending them away from your cities when you are afk or offline. If you choose NOT to do that, it is not surprising that opponents will take advantage. There are numerous means of protecting your troops and resources - you chose NOT to employ these. As stated above, there are means to prevent an opponent from obtaining an activity report detailing your city's movements. Clearly you chose NOT to employ any of these options either.
(f) "If I knew I wouldn't have been followed after I moved again I would have stayed. But I highly doubt this nasty, vindictive player wouldn't have left me alone".
Clearly, you took advantage of the ability to relocate your cities yet you complain that another player did the same! As stated above, you knew, or ought to have known, of the options available to ALL players regarding relocation of cities. I suspect that player A will have been attacking other cities as well as your own. It can help to remember this if feeling singled out or victimised as appears to be the case with you. In my view, your reference to an opponent who is simply playing the game and abiding by the rules of the game as 'nasty and vindictive' is unwarranted, unnecessary and hostile.
(g) "I broke the rules knowingly. My grandson doesn't like school but he liked the buildings in the game. He wanted to learn more. That meant the kid was reading up on them. I set up an account for him with his email address, his own account & I shared it with him. To teach him how to play".
As stated above, I am disappointed to read that you chose to purposely break game rules by sharing an account with your grandson. I suspect that your willingness to take such blatant action will eradicate any sympathy other players might have had for you.
(h) "Last Saturday I knew was going to be my last day I had enough with player A. My troops weren't home from walking yet so I quickly made some poloms and pocs to send him some resources. I told him how to make a few also and send them to me so he could load up and have some additional res. The instant my troops returned home player A took all my troops and res".
Again, while pleased to see that you DO in fact know how to 'walk' your troops, I am disappointed to read that again you potentially but knowingly broke the rules by sending resources to another account with the sole purpose of boosting (pushing) that account and that you intended to do this on further occasions.
In summary, throughout your forum posts it seems to me that you take little, if any, responsibility for the situations in which you found yourself and that you find it easier to blame others and to resort to being hostile towards them rather than looking at your own shortcomings.
As I have said before, I am always sorry when any player chooses to leave the game. However, in this situation, I expect and hope that your decision is the right one for you.
And how many times a day should I use a white flag?
I had 11 attacks in 48 hours.
And don't say it's a war game.
Hi Mystic Raynes,
Just to make clear that the eleven attacks to which you refer included attacks on three cities, so 3 to 4 attacks over 2 days. To me that is not excessive and, as you know, the rules allow an attack against each city every 12 hours. As other players have suggested (as have I on numerous occasions), there are several ways of protecting your troops and resources. With respect, if you choose NOT to employ any of these it seems unreasonable to me to 'blame' the player who plays by the rules and takes advantage of your failure to protect your troops.
This is a protracted situation. But there are solutions for this. You need a second city. Then you can spread the risk. The more cities, the more chances. There are still a lot of resources for this. You can dry up the attacker by giving up the city temporarily. With a clan and the tambo the attacker can be destroyed anyway.
The player concerned already has three cities. It seems clear that the player has chosen NOT to employ any of the options available to protect her troops
No one in my tribe can take her out. She has over a million points and all her tribe mates help her. I had 3 cities. I combined all 3 to make it easier to run. I moved from city to city to work on them. She was right next to my main.
The Tentlan team needs to make some adjustments to stop player 10 times the size of another player from attacking them.
It's been proven in a different section of the forum that she is a cheat. If Tentlan wants I will name all her former names. But it must come from a Tentlan team member.
Pinkki it's not a big deal if I could rebuild but I'm never given that chance. It took me over a week to be able to attack level 3 barbs again. And I was wiped out again.
I'm not moaning or groaning I'm fed up.
Hi yet again Mystic Raynes,
As has been suggested by others, with use of tambos and combined troops from within a tribe (and the tribe concerned has 39 members) it is always possible to 'take out' another player. With the required research etc, Feasts are available to strengthen armies and so on. The crystal event was another excellent opportunity to recruit nahuals and track a players activities with a view to making a joint attack via tambo. It just takes time and effort, none of which appear to have been forthcoming from you or your tribe.
I am unclear what you mean by 'all her tribe mates help her'? If there is any suspicion of rule breaking on my part this should be reported and will be looked into. Indeed, your other post(s) suggest that you have made reports but no rule breaking has been found to have occurred.
As stated in my other post, there is an alternative server if you prefer a smaller % difference for attacking purposes etc.
Neither have I a clue as to which 'different section of the forum' you refer when alleging that I am a cheat. I find this comment a bit rich, given that you have openly admitted to having broken the game rules yourself. It is also irrelevant what names players have used on previous servers and it is certainly not unusual for players to choose different names when starting on a new server.
To be frank, all this name calling and allegations is casting a negative light only on you.
You have had the same opportunities to rebuild as any other player who has been attacked and lost their troops but have chosen to complain about it on this forum rather than employ game options to do so.
With respect, if you are so fed up with the game that you need to resort to constant complaints on this forum, name calling and hostility, it is probably time to find another game
This thread began as a discussion and sharing of views on the facility to relocate cities and attack immediately afterwards. It has since been used for personal and hostile attacks against other players. The forum was never intended for this purpose.
I feel that I have defended my position adequately enough and given my opinions on the topic concerned.
I will not be further responding to any posts in this thread which contain hostile comments or personal attacks but I do hope that other players and the admin team will read between the lines of any further posts of a hostile nature.
@Captain B, first I would like to commend you on your polite, well-written and very reasoned responses. Even when I don't agree with your point of view, I appreciate the way you express it.
One thing you said kind of brought me up short and made me think for a bit. That is this section:
(e) "Player B
has only been playing a month. with all the dang walking you have to do
to avoid attacks from much larger players how in heck do you expect
anyone to grow? You can't stop your troops from returning so you are
Player A, I suspect,
has been playing on the server concerned for the same length of time
that you have. It is not difficult to protect your troops and resources
by sending them away from your cities when you are afk or offline. If
you choose NOT to do that, it is not surprising that opponents will take
advantage. There are numerous means of protecting your troops and
resources - you chose NOT to employ these. As stated above, there are
means to prevent an opponent from obtaining an activity report detailing
your city's movements. Clearly you chose NOT to employ any of these
That gave me a realization. One of the reasons it is so hard for a small player to grow is that we DON'T all start at the same time. A given server could be the result of one or more mergers, and anyone starting on that server is automatically many steps behind those who merged. Even if it isn't a merged server, people do still start at different times. Even a week's headstart could make a big difference.
Not that I think there is any way to prevent that kind of disparity, short of closing the server to newcomers a day or 2 after it opens. That hardly seems reasonable. But perhaps an extended protection period would mitigate that somewhat.
If 2 people start at more or less the same time, and one of them gets way ahead of the other by playing harder or more often, well, that's tough. As you and others have pointed out, there are ways to protect yourself, although they are not infallible.
And yes, this thread has got very off-topic. Conversations often do. Sorry 'bout that.
On topic: As it is a war game, you probably should be able to attack fairly soon after moving your city. But perhaps give your target a bit of warning to take whatever evasive action he can, perhaps an hour or so.
Thank you for your comments regarding my previous post. I try very hard to 'lead by example' when commenting on the forum but you'll know the old saying about horses and water !
It's not so bad when posts go off in another direction if they are at least constructive and not hostile.
I agree with your observations about the disparity between players who start on day one of a new server and those who start several days later. I must admit that I would have to think twice before starting a new account on an 'established' server. Your suggestion of a longer beginner's protection period would certainly reduce the disparity - who knows, we might yet see such a change in time
I actually think the disadvantage of a late start is less than in many games. There is never a level playing field since an aggressive player with a lot of time will always grow much faster than a peaceful one with limited time. The rules limiting attacking help here but much of it is about strategy. That can be anything from how you react to an attacker to making sure you walk your troops to making a note of when the attacks happen so you can identify when you need to be most alert. Other strategies are also possible like stashing troops in a tribemate's tambo (possibly also boosting his corn supply).
On the whole the best strategy seems to be to be a very boring target. That works whatever your size.
On another note I also find it interesting that the most aggressive players are also entirely likely to offer good advice on defending. That doesn't just apply to Tentlan either.
Wow! The last time this was shared was 2 whole years ago? C'mon man! I personally can't stand when you can locate your city to the front door steps of any player and then destroy that player within a short time, all for what? I've had this done to me more than half a dozen times along with the illegal rolling attacks technique and despite my thoughtful complaints to support, nothing was ever done about it! It's a good thing I had enough turquoise available to purchase a white flag or two but that's absurd! If the stronger players and tribes want to use tactics that will discourage avid players along with noobs than so be it, no sweat off tentlans balls! So, having said all that, my 2 cents into the matter is to just outlaw the tactic all together! It's bad enough when a whole tribe gangs up on you but it's ridiculous and absurd to expect anybody to stick around and play this game if they keep getting wiped out! Savy? Ciao