• 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 in to 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
  • Fall Event 2021


    Calling all Bakers! Read all about the Fall Event 2021 here!
  • Forum Contests

    Do you want to win great prizes? Don't forget to check out the current contest here.

Prevent forge point donations that exceed the limit on a GB

  • Thread starter DeletedUser117610
  • Start date

Should the game prevent forge point donations that exceed the limit on a GB

  • Yes

    Votes: 25 64.1%
  • No

    Votes: 14 35.9%

  • Total voters
    39
Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser117610

I’ve lost over 3k fp to this across 4 instances in the last week. I don’t know if it’s server lag getting worse or something else as I’ve never had it happen so much before, but it’s getting to be more than a tad unacceptable.

It’s particularly galling in the latest instance as I was the one who completed the previous level. Which means in the time it took me to click “jump to next level” and enter a value, they received a notification and entered the amount faster than me. I’m on iOS and the notifications are notoriously unreliable but perhaps they were on a different platform where notifications work properly, and perhaps they had a helper tool to enter the amount for them.

I’d also note that I’ve never had the reverse happen where I’ve just beaten someone to enter a value and they’ve lost out in this fashion, other than one time where the other player was completing fp quests while placing (unbeknownst to me) and they didn’t notice I’d taken a spot on the same GB. I’m beginning to wonder if there is more at play here than poor server handling. Maybe my lag is worse, maybe I’m a bit slower to enter a value, or perhaps there is something mechanical about their speed.

Whatever the reason, what started as a minor annoyance is now a cause of great frustration. It takes time and effort to accumulate 3k+ fp and it just isn’t acceptable to me to lose them in this fashion.

A number of people voted against this change without stating why they believe it’s fair and reasonable (other than agent who’d vote against sunshine and rainbows). Perhaps someone would care to enlighten me why the person who loses out so badly in this situation deserves for this to occur.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser117610

And again. Seriously wtf. This latest was a GB that had levelled 1h12m previously. I opened it, placed for second and levelled the GB and lost 550fp. What are the chances that someone else placed at the same moment in the circumstances?

I’m really beginning to wonder if the server is returning the correct data or if there is some bug or hack at play here.

Mods can you please report this to the dev team as it seems highly unlikely that this should be happening as often as it is. I’ve never had this happen prior to a month ago, then it happened a couple times which prompted me to post here, and since then 5 times in 2 weeks. The amount or nature of my investment hasn’t changed in this time. I’ve lost thousands of fp. I feel that it warrants investigation and urge you to please seek a response from the developers.
 

CyberJunkie

Private
Proposal:
If two players make a donation at the same time, where the combined value of those donations exceeds the amount required to level the GB, then the game......
The current implementation makes a poor decision on behalf of players when it should be pushing the decision back to the player to make themselves. IMO it is daft, lazy and mean spirited. It may have 'always been this way' but that doesn't make it right or fair - please just fix it already.
It might work in case a gb has a odd fp requirement i.e L37 observatory needs 1267fps and you could only secure your spot at 634fp but in case of GB lvl requirement being an even number say 1300, so both of you end up putting 650 fp each and the person putting second looses the reward for top spot.
Good idea overall, needs a bit more of failsafe.
 

DeletedUser117610

@bobby9097 the suggestion is for the server to not alter the amount you donate, and to instead reject donations that would exceed the amount needed to level.

In the case of placing 650/1300 it would be first in best dressed, but you could place 651 if you want the certainty that your donation would be rejected if someone placed 650 moments before you.
 

CyberJunkie

Private
@bobby9097 the suggestion is for the server to not alter the amount you donate, and to instead reject donations that would exceed the amount needed to level.

In the case of placing 650/1300 it would be first in best dressed, but you could place 651 if you want the certainty that your donation would be rejected if someone placed 650 moments before you.
If i was sniping i wouldn't pay a penny more than needed, in most cases that stands true
 

Emberguard

Legend
It makes sense considering it a bug as long it shows another number on the box whille it has refreshed on the server and remains same
I pretty believe that they dont want to change it - it still works like a bug but if they insist, what can we do ? lol
That’s not a bug though, not if it’s a simultaneous contribution. People aren’t going to announce their intentions beforehand unless they’re working with you. It’s not a vacuum environment without opponents / other players.

We know we have other players around us, we know they can do anything at any point in time. We can’t see our opponents moves until they happen but we can predict what they’re likely to do and plan accordingly to counter them or mitigate risk. That’s the whole point of a strategy game.

If there is 1999 fp remaining to level a GB and 2 players both post 1000 fp at the same time, then the game accepts 1000 fp from one player and 999 from the other. This normally means the player whose donation hits the server milliseconds later misses the slot they were bidding for and instead takes a significant loss.

I’ve lost over 2000fp as a consequence of this in the past 3 days (after I posted here). I’ve been unlucky as it doesn’t normally happen so frequently, but players like myself who are far from the server and thus have higher latency are more likely to suffer from it.

I agree the onus should be on the player which is why I am suggesting that if your full donation can not be placed then the server should show an error message and allow the player to make a sensible decision on how to proceed, rather than accepting an amount other than what you specified. [...]
if the onus should be on the player (which I agree it should be), then I don’t agree the system should allow a player to backtrack on a decision after it’s made. It will always take longer then a millisecond (or even a second) for the human brain to process what’s in front of you and then react accordingly. Coming second in a race doesn’t mean your actions should be retracted as if they never happened.

If i was sniping i wouldn't pay a penny more than needed, in most cases that stands true
Of course. We always want to make the best move for whatever our goal is. Doesn’t mean we’ll never make mistakes or do a less then optimal move. This proposal essentially just makes it impossible to lose against another player.

@bobby9097 the suggestion is for the server to not alter the amount you donate, and to instead reject donations that would exceed the amount needed to level.
I would argue rejecting a contribution is a far greater alteration of the amount then having the contribution as a max limit.



In regards to the proposal: I’ll leave it open for a bit in case anyone wants to post further thoughts, but I’d say the yes votes win it.
 

legend9182

Brigadier-General
That’s not a bug though, not if it’s a simultaneous contribution. People aren’t going to announce their intentions beforehand unless they’re working with you. It’s not a vacuum environment without opponents / other players.

We know we have other players around us, we know they can do anything at any point in time. We can’t see our opponents moves until they happen but we can predict what they’re likely to do and plan accordingly to counter them or mitigate risk. That’s the whole point of a strategy game.
As per this message we can't see the future and we also can't see that someone else is too going for it. So it's just luck. And you can't plan anything about luck. So i really think server should notification that someone else is too putting at the same time you tried to put(as human brain cant process 1 nano second so time should be in between 1-3secs. 3 secs because sometimes it takes more time than usual) rather than rejecting it just Send us notification like it comes before investing diamonds
 
I don't see this proposal as a way to circumvent being sniped. It's more a case of "hey, the amount you want to donate exceeds the amount needed to level this GB, do you want to proceed?" That's pretty much what the game does already when you're not donating simultaneously with another player, by limiting the amount of FP you can enter manually. All this proposal does is extend that calculation to people who experience server lag.
 

Deleted member 118943

That’s not a bug though, not if it’s a simultaneous contribution. People aren’t going to announce their intentions beforehand unless they’re working with you. It’s not a vacuum environment without opponents / other players.

We know we have other players around us, we know they can do anything at any point in time. We can’t see our opponents moves until they happen but we can predict what they’re likely to do and plan accordingly to counter them or mitigate risk. That’s the whole point of a strategy game.
Don't Get me Wrong !!!
The <<Bug>> is not the 2 Players Simultaneous Contribution - The <<Bug>> is the Refreshal Rate of the amount of the Box ! (if it is considered to Refresh !)
It has nothing to do with the <<damn i lost my FP's - so i call it a Bug>> , its about the Data Sending to the player whille this Data can be Different !

*PS i am not focused on Sniping, maybe i will do it later-game who knows ! Right now i WOULDN'T like to see it Changed as 2 People Taking 1st place on my GB's Benefits me !!! But i still find it wrong haha !
thats my personal oppinion
 

legend9182

Brigadier-General
Don't Get me Wrong !!!
The <<Bug>> is not the 2 Players Simultaneous Contribution - The <<Bug>> is the Refreshal Rate of the amount of the Box ! (if it is considered to Refresh !)
It has nothing to do with the <<damn i lost my FP's - so i call it a Bug>> , its about the Data Sending to the player whille this Data can be Different !

*PS i am not focused on Sniping, maybe i will do it later-game who knows ! Right now i WOULDN'T like to see it Changed as 2 People Taking 1st place on my GB's Benefits me !!! But i still find it wrong haha !
thats my personal oppinion
It can happen in 1.9 thread too
 

scibuff

Sergeant
if the onus should be on the player (which I agree it should be), then I don’t agree the system should allow a player to backtrack on a decision after it’s made. It will always take longer then a millisecond (or even a second) for the human brain to process what’s in front of you and then react accordingly. Coming second in a race doesn’t mean your actions should be retracted as if they never happened.
But there is a precedence directly in FoE for this. For example, in GvG you can siege a sector and fight on that sector and after you click (for example) "auto-battle" the server sometime tells you that the sector has been already taken. Even worse, in GBg, you can fight two-way fights, lose units and have the second fight rejected because the sector has been already taken (so you lose units but record no fight in the stats). Likewise, you can negotiate a round, spend goods and not be able to finish the negotiation because again, the sector's been taken meanwhile.

So clearly, there are aspects of the game which sync with the server before changing player data state. All we are asking here is to add a similar logic when adding FPs to a GB. From my point of view, the most user-friendly and consistent solution would be to record the state of the GB before I add FPs and check that the state has not changed when the FPs are accepted server-side. Otherwise reject the FPs add request just as the fight/battle requests are rejected when the user data is out of sync with the server data .
 

DeletedUser117610

With 25 votes in favour of fixing this broken system the idea was moved to archive :?:mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.