The Danger of Dragons being able to Solo: Airplane Mode

So, the reason why dragons probably should not be able to easily solo. People can then manipulate it so they have unjoinable runs in order to get attacks done. An hour of failing. Then suddenly nobody can join and it’s done.

So as you can see, it is clearly known that defenders and teammates cannot join. So the goal then becomes utilizing conditions that force a solo and thus the base is essentially undefendable. @PGJared this has been going on for a while and it might have something to do with how the game handles connections but it is starting to become a “strategy”. Seems a bit intentional if you know your teammates/defenders cant join and you specifically hunt for that in order to circumvent the game’s mechanics. At the very least, needing two dragons to get a base done would solve this as would kicking all people off once the there is a bad connection or people switch over to Airplane Mode.

This scenario happens fairly frequently so hopefully this can be looked at and fixed as the negative effects are clearly shown here.

Just to give a little more context, this team has routinely worked with MonstersDesert (There was multiple bans and threads about that) and NMO (recently had a player banned) so given the proximity it definitely makes pure ignorance a little harder to believe.

This war was also a nailbiter so that didn’t help either.

PS. Sorry the photos are out of order…I guess I can fix that later.

6 Likes

So someone scoring more than 50 vs u guys is a nail biter? :joy::joy:

Seriously though they do need to fix airplane mode…

This is a good idea and a bad idea at the same time. We all know that a base is unequivocally more difficult with a single defender and even a level 270 can be hard with 2 defenders to get 5 flames. If you make it so no base can be beaten with one dragon undefended than it stands to reason some bases will never be able to be beaten with 5 dragons defended. That I would say is ok if you didn’t have teams thru out various leagues that have a single 400 (since that’s the new 300 with the amount of accounts that have been inflated due to discount packs and hacks and exploits.) But that team can make it so no one could win in those leagues unless they too had a 400 unbeatable base. And I’m not a big supporter if everyone having huge bases on their team. I believe that the true whales in the game should be distinct and the amount of time effort and money they put in should count for something. But lets face it my team has a lot of 300 plus accounts but with no 400 we would never be able to win a war if a team had one. So it’s a balance issue that one would have to look at honestly. How do you prevent the cheat but at the same time make it fair to everyone else. If we could get rid of all the bought accounts and hacked accounts and the cheaters I think the problem would fix itself. But that’s not the game we play. So we have to find a fix that works for everyone from diamond to bronze. I just don’t think making it so one team can dominate because of one player is the answer and that is what would happen.

2 Likes

Presumably it depends how they did it - if it was just a case of making towers more powerful or dragons less powerful, that’d definitely have a significant balance change across both defended and undefeated bases. But maybe they could make changes that only apply to undefended bases?

Some ideas off the top of my head:

  • Improve the AI defending the base. Is it currently more sophisticated than randomly selecting supershots?
  • Let players set preferences for the AI, e.g. an order of preference for which towers get the supershots.
  • Let players assign boosts (attack, defence, and repair) from their inventory for the AI to deploy when defending their base.

They’d need to balance it so that it was still preferable to have even one defender, but would something like that help? I’m far from being involved in the same kinds of wars as you guys, so not fussed if you dismiss this out of hand.

9 Likes

This is actually a very decent idea and would add another aspect of the game that might be fun to play with

1 Like

I think the solution that makes the most sense and that has the least impact on the game is just to terminate any battle when a connection is no longer active for more than a second or two.

Yes, this blanket approach will affect some players that legitimately have a poor connection. I know I have occasionally had my connection interrupted for a variety of reasons, and the person following me was able to complete the battle, resulting in five flames for me.

In this case, however, the greater good of the community outweighs the small number of connections that are interrupted unintentionally.

Short of a total blanket response, PG cannot effectively halt this unfair “strategy.” A disconnection looks like a disconnection. It is almost impossible for the server to tell what caused a connection to drop–hence the need for a unilateral response to all “connections of this type.”

And someone asked about the AI–the AI is pretty stupid, but it also does only supershots. It’s better than nothing, but since it doesn’t use items, it will always be far less effective than a human defender.

Having player-selectable AI options sounds like a good idea to me (especially allowing it to use boosts and repairs). I may know that certain of my towers are more valuable than others (therefore, spam reps) or that saving a supershot for later is actually better. A universal AI is not going to account for variances like these.

~Power to the Players

4 Likes

Oops. I didn’t know about Airplane Mode. Thought you were referring to being able to defend / join when the updates come out during wars. :sweat_smile:

1 Like

On the flip side of this terminating a battle when there is a bad connection also costs add on spells potions and boosts. For most spells who cares and I have more than enough healing potions but it will also cost xp bonus and will be a major pain the rear… have you tried hitting in beta with defenders? It always bogs down and has slow connection when anyone joins. Let alone if there are 6 people in the attack… So the problem will trickle to the rest of the game and be an issue.

Let’s not forget that it will Insta kill your troops for a zero percent attack… yeah not so much

Maybe add a code “do not check bad connection for Atlas”. Or only check it in war runs. (Prewars is fixed right? Don’t remember…)

I’m really interested in making the AI more effective.

1 Like

I totally agree with the solutions. I think there are tower/dragon balance issues and issues with connections and the potential for manipulation. So you’re just seeing all those issues at once here.

I like the idea of improving the AI. I’ve always suspect it was on purpose that it was crappy. I could never figure out how certain bases the ai would supershot mages immediately back to back but on my base it would not supershot anything until the dragon is basically almost flown past.

I think they can fix a lot of issues. None are easy to fix but while I know dedicated servers will never be a thing, they could arbitrate connection quality among all peers and error on the defender side. (Closer to how XBL and PSN work) It could give an increased value to more defenders and defending your own base.

Hell, even if they don’t arbitrate connection you could have all devices involved report a sort of heartbeat to the DB to make sure it isn’t the attacker who lost connection. Attacker reads state from DB before attacking and is either prevented from attacking while incurring defend, or is made to wait longer…

I like the heat beat check, and then either waiting or terminating the connection. However, timing is a critical part of successfully using AP mode in an attack. I believe there is already a kind of heart beat check in place, a d that is what is being circumvented.

It is unfortunate that my solution would cause spells to be lost. But getting a phone call will have the same effect (or accidentally touching the home button).

As for troop loss, until war attacks are happening in Atlas, I see no reason not to have an exception for attacks happening in Atlas. Except maybe that if AP is being successfully used in Atlas, the defender now has a very similar complaint.

I admit Atlas is a more difficult issue to tackle.

1 Like

Time to go yell @PGDave haha

1 Like

PGDave is the wrong person you tag. He’s only working in Atlas section
@PGJared @PGEggToken are the one you can tag :smiley:

He was blaming Atlas…seemed appropriate.

This is what we are trying to avoid, as Panda stated previously, Ignito blatently used Airplane Mode after not being able to get passed us defending the base.

Video # 1: Dread Defending 1 of 2

Video # 2: Dread Defending 2 of 2

Note: Ignito barely makes it to 1%, not even a minute passes, all of a sudden nobody can join his defense banners. He states “he didn’t do anything different & to ask PG”, however in the 2 videos below, he clearly launches an attack w/ Necryx first & fails THEN follows up w/ an airplane mode w/ Noctua. CLEARLY he knows how to use airplane mode…

Video # 1: Ignito attacks w/ Necryx

Video # 2: Ignito attacks w/ Noctua after failing SOLO

1 Like

@Panda - I agree with all you said about Airplane Mode cheaters - I myself opened two tickets about two teams doing it. What I don’t understand is why do you think it is dangerous a dragon who can solo a base, as your title suggests. So you want PG to put out crippled dragons who should never take over bases who have towers higher than dragon’s level (can’t destroy 41 level towers if the dragon is level 40 only) ? You also suggest that a 180 level player shouldn’t be alowed to attack a 60 level player without a backup - because you ask for two attackers to join a fight in a war. Doable, but… so much headake ! Can you explain what you ment by the title ? Thank you !

I do not see how the proposed fix by Panda would actually help with AP mode abuse. I am sure that PG has been slow to respond on this matter for a couple of reasons, some of which have been raised here already. But, it really is becoming commonplace, and IMO, that makes it more severe. In some ways, it is worse than the prewar runs. At least with those, you could defend, even if you didn’t get credit. When done “properly,” AP mode prevents defense, so not only do you not get credit for a defend, but a base that may have taken multiple attempts, consequently gaining more than one defense point, is taken out in a single shot.

As I said before, a dropped connection looks the same on the server side (I generalize ever so slightly when I say that, but I don’t think I really need to get into the technicalities of networking), so the only workable solution here is to end the attack on the server side if the original attacker “loses” his or her connection. And if PG wants to truly discourage this practice, they should not only end the attack, but also grant a defense credit (assuming someone tried to defend… not trying to get freebies here).

It’s an exploit–it’s using something outside the game to affect something inside the game. It may be “available” to all of us, but it’s not fair, and it should be dealt with.

Those are my thoughts, anyway.

@PGJared

A dropped connection should end the attack if made through the "War gate"

I would totally agree with such a proposition. The only one I think it is rather simple to implement. Some Loops and IFs involved.