• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account, you need a forum account. You can
    REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

Players colluding to snipe spots 1 & 2 @ 1/3 each

J-MS

Private
I've noticed some players are colluding to secure spots 1 & 2 in GBs, by each contributing 1/3 of the required total. 1st spot would make a small loss whereas 2nd would make a large profit and I assume they will compensate each other or take turns at having 1st. For the victim this is a worse outcome than a regular snipe (where 1st would contribute 1/2 and 2nd 1/4), i.e. you get a 66% contribution for 1st & 2nd instead of 75%. Shouldn't this be banned? Point would be that this is like two players behaving as one, with the intention to defraud another player. Having 2 accounts for the same player is not allowed, so why should this sort of behaviour be allowed?
 
Last edited:

Emberguard

Legend
Shouldn't this be banned? Point would be that this is like two players behaving as one
In terms of "behaving as one" that's really no different from asking for 1.9 from 5 different players. If one is banned the other should be as well.
 

J-MS

Private
Who is the victim?
The victim is the player being sniped. Gets a smaller FP contribution, *because* of 2 players colluding against him/her. I have no problem with individual snipes, but sniping *collectively* to achieve a greater profit is in my view unethical.
 

Emberguard

Legend
but sniping *collectively* to achieve a greater profit is in my view unethical.
If you're using 1.9 then you're already collectively working together as a team to achieve a greater profit on your own Great Building. It's only fair if you're working as a group that others can do so in opposition
 

J-MS

Private
In terms of "behaving as one" that's really no different from asking for 1.9 from 5 different players. If one is banned the other should be as well.
You don't get it. Those 2 players colluding are actually defrauding another player, and achieving a greater profit (hence loss for the victim) *because* of their collusion. This can only be achieved if you "act as one", i.e. you only contribute 2/3 of the total for spots 1 & 2, and agree to split the spoils. Here's an example. ARC level 35 (total required 1799): a *normal* snipe would be 900 for spot 1 and 450 for spot 2. A 'collusion' snipe would be 600 for spot 1 and 600 for spot 2. In both cases, spots 1 & 2 have been secured. But the victim has been defrauded by another 150 FPs.
 

Emberguard

Legend
You don't get it. Those 2 players colluding are actually defrauding another player,
They're not defrauding.

No one owes you anything, and the spot doesn't belong to anyone.

What you have is conflict of interest. You want to leverage the rewards to your benefit. They want to leverage the rewards to their benefit. The rewards don't belong to anyone until it levels up. You only feel like you're being defrauded because you want to take ownership of something that was never intended for you.
 

J-MS

Private
If you're using 1.9 then you're already collectively working together as a team to achieve a greater profit on your own Great Building. It's only fair if you're working as a group that others can do so in opposition
No you're not. You're working individually. Each player is securing a spot. And the beneficiary is simply asking for contributions.
 

Emberguard

Legend
No you're not. You're working individually. Each player is securing a spot. And the beneficiary is simply asking for contributions.
If you're working individually then there's no complaint to be made with being third sniped as that would mean you weren't collaborating to get a set price for those spots in the first place

There is no game rule that says the spot has to go for a certain price. You either work together to agree to a price or you don't
 

J-MS

Private
They're not defrauding.

No one owes you anything, and the spot doesn't belong to anyone.

What you have is conflict of interest. You want to leverage the rewards to your benefit. They want to leverage the rewards to their benefit. The rewards don't belong to anyone until it levels up. You only feel like you're being defrauded because you want to take ownership of something that was never intended for you.
What if those 2 accounts were actually the same player? From what I can see (almost simultaneous contributions, industrial scale use of this ploy), I have the strong suspicion that's the case. Everyone would then agree that this would be wrong.
 

Emberguard

Legend
What if those 2 accounts were actually the same player?
Irrelevant. The discussion was whether third-sniping is a legitimate tactic. Answer: yes. A player with a single account can still coordinate to third-snipe in real time.

I have the strong suspicion that's the case. Everyone would then agree that this would be wrong.
Then report the players for push/alt accounting. That's an entirely different discussion, and there are rules on how many accounts are allowed. You're only allowed one account per person, per world. So yes, it's already banned to use two accounts (by the same person). But again, that's not the same thing as third sniping as an action not being allowed. It's only the amount of accounts per player that matters for that rule
 

Knight of ICE

The victim is the player being sniped. Gets a smaller FP contribution, *because* of 2 players colluding against him/her. I have no problem with individual snipes, but sniping *collectively* to achieve a greater profit is in my view unethical.

There is no victim. Player still gets fp's. If he does not want to be sniped he should make sure he can not be sniped. That you think it is "unethical" is not relevant at all. There are players that think plundering is unethical. Does not mean it needs to be changed.
 
GB spots don't belong to anyone in particular until they are secured and the GB levels. All players from the hood, the friends list and the guild can contribute to other players' GB's and secure spots at will.
Sniping is not about defrauding or creating a loss for another player. It's about gaining a profit. Two players working together to gain max profit from another player's GB is clever sniping.
It's all fair game and within the game rules.
It's possible to protect GB's from snipers. For instance by keeping the GB's locked until you have someone present to secure the vulnerable top spots. If you don't protect your GB's, you invite snipers. That's your own choice. The snipers are not to blame for the GB owners' lack of security, regardless of whether they work alone or in 2-player teams.
 
Last edited:

J-MS

Private
OK. I am a big sniper myself, and totally understand that sniping is fair game. As a traditional sniper, that "2-player team" thing just doesn't sit well with me. So you can now probably sense the real motivation for my post. I'm not so much worried about the 'victims'; it's more about those 1/3 sniper teams stepping onto the turf of traditional snipers by pre-empting those juicy sniping opportunities - hence my frustration ;-). But you have now all convinced me that there is nothing I can do about it!

Note that, from the victim's point of view, it's actually harder to protect yourself against such 1/3 snipes. Those 2-player team snipers can strike a lot earlier than regular snipers, so your GBs are vulnerable earlier on, e.g. even before you have them ready for a 1.9 contribution.
 

Emberguard

Legend
Note that, from the victim's point of view, it's actually harder to protect yourself against such 1/3 snipes.
It’s also less frequent as it requires both snipers to have the same connection.

Which either means being on your Friends List (which you can dump), or in your Neighbourhood (which potentially may split them up once it rotates in two weeks), or the Guild (which would get them kicked)

What some players do to protect against sniping is 1st only places enough to secure. Waits for 2nd to place (3rd as well depending on the level). Then they top up to the proper 1.9 amount

For the “sweet spots” this reduces any losses in the event of being sniped
 

Paladiac the Pure

Major-General
OK. I am a big sniper myself, and totally understand that sniping is fair game. As a traditional sniper, that "2-player team" thing just doesn't sit well with me. So you can now probably sense the real motivation for my post. I'm not so much worried about the 'victims'; it's more about those 1/3 sniper teams stepping onto the turf of traditional snipers by pre-empting those juicy sniping opportunities - hence my frustration ;-). But you have now all convinced me that there is nothing I can do about it!

Note that, from the victim's point of view, it's actually harder to protect yourself against such 1/3 snipes. Those 2-player team snipers can strike a lot earlier than regular snipers, so your GBs are vulnerable earlier on, e.g. even before you have them ready for a 1.9 contribution.
However - if you do not unlock the next level before you are ready for the 1.9 contribution - you have zero vulnerability to those 2 person teams - which primarily are only looking at P1 & P2. Similiar with 'normal' sniping - only unlock when you are ready to start participating in 1.9, and you have very low risk of a sniper interfering.
 

fhhdfdf

Private
I've noticed some players are colluding to secure spots 1 & 2 in GBs, by each contributing 1/3 of the required total. 1st spot would make a small loss whereas 2nd would make a large profit and I assume they will compensate each other or take turns at having 1st. For the victim this is a worse outcome than a regular snipe (where 1st would contribute 1/2 and 2nd 1/4), i.e. you get a 66% contribution for 1st & 2nd instead of 75%. Shouldn't this be banned? Point would be that this is like two players behaving as one, with the intention to defraud another player. Having 2 accounts for the same player is not allowed, so why should this sort of behaviour be allowed?
And how could you possibly rule players indulging in what you describe as a fraud? And what if it is a coincidence in some instance? And when you say a large profit, I am not even sure that it would be large. A building sniped at 1/3 is vulnerable to other snipers unless the colluding players get their timing right, too much "admin" for me. I snipe roughly at 1/2, 1/4, and so on, it is 100% safe bet and that's work fine with the owners' consent.

My point is that a game will always attract cheats, just don't let them drag you down!
 

Madmire

Private
While its possible for 2 actual people to collude to do this, I've found invariably its 1 person with dual accounts. Typical tip offs, the lower level account is always taking 2nd, and there's never an additional amount of FP's paid by the account holder that takes 1st to the 2nd player's GBs to 'split the profits. Since the account taking 2nd always takes a loss in FP's, its pretty obvious the singular person with 2 accounts is just shifting FP's from his 2nd account to his first using game mechanics to avoid being spotted.

I recommend reporting the activity to customer support and let them keep an eye on those two accounts. That's really all you can do, other than some math to avoid the opportunity from emerging. This isn't possible if your 1.9 swap thread requires 'safe' spots though.

The math is to take the full 1.9 contribution requirement for spot 1 and multiply it by 2.25, and subtract that from the full FP requirement to raise the GB a level. This is the max number of FP's you can put in before spots 1 and 2 are filled. You then list spots 1 and 2 in your contribution thread. Once those 2 spots are filled, the first spot is rendered safe by the 2nd spot, and it will be impractically expensive for someone to take and make safe the 2nd spot. From this point you can proceed normally with making spots safe then listing them.
 
Last edited:

Bridgeman55

Private
OK. I am a big sniper myself, and totally understand that sniping is fair game. As a traditional sniper, that "2-player team" thing just doesn't sit well with me. So you can now probably sense the real motivation for my post. I'm not so much worried about the 'victims'; it's more about those 1/3 sniper teams stepping onto the turf of traditional snipers by pre-empting those juicy sniping opportunities - hence my frustration ;-). But you have now all convinced me that there is nothing I can do about it!
Yah, it hurts bad ... cry foul or admire (and learn) from their professionalism.

I play on Greifental (EN 7), where the Top 50 players are all over 1 Billion points (ie 1,000,000,000) and 2 players have over 1 Million " battles won ".
These veterans have learnt the art of success and how to push the boundaries of what's possible in FoE. These heavy hitters make me think of the Chinese who exploded on the world stage and upset Western complacency and comfort ... after centuries of being " on Top ".

I befriended a few big players which really helped to drag me upto 1.9 Million points quite quickly .... and a level 61 Hagia Sophia in the High Middle Ages.
They do collude and work in teams to raise guild GB's by 10 or 20 levels in very short order (esp the Arc). Some players had 20 or 40k fp packs (carefully collected) to industrialize the process. Some use the muscle for predatory sniping aswell ... taking 1st and 2nd (and most of the rewards) while leaving the GB-owner to level-up (with paltry rewards) ... but he does get his GB up faster ... and accru the long-term benefits of that GB.

The real profits are at higher levels (maybe >50) ... and particularly GBs like the Arc.
Everybody is happily poor until they see the inequality of wealth around them.

Teamwork is key.

It's all good
Bridgeman55
 
Top