Stripping is it cheating

[Eunuchorn]

Why is it even allowed to use less than 3 knights in War or Arena for that matter?

Gree thinks they're so Godd*mn funny.

[cafedecoy]

Gree's way of poking fun at stripping....

[toogoodformyowngood]

Gree's way of poking fun at stripping....

Gree likes trolling its players. Guess GREE has a good sense of humor?

[Synovia]

It's just another strategy. Not cheating, just cheap.

Anything where guilds that are supposed to be competing are helping each other out is cheating.

[Doc Sharp]

Honestly the only way, I see, to fix the equality of guild wars is to make it so that each guild member in a war can be defeated 3 times before being considered, "dead." When all members are, "dead," then the whole guild is attackable again and it restarts. "Dead" members can attack, but can't be attacked.

I like this idea. Grey out the attack button for a player once they've been defeated 3x until everyone else in the guild has been defeated 3x. Prevent the redundant mind numbing farming of the stripped GM or the weakest link.

They could also add another factor to the points awarded that would make sense and should be there anyway: Give armor a point range based on its total EP.

Armor EP value + enemy level (with no regard to level beyond 100th) + bonus for opponents rank in their guild for HC/Sent/GC/GM.


I don't consider stripping cheating, I just don't see the point. Personally I play the game to beat other players and guilds. That's why I want the new epic and spend my time and money on it. I'm all set with a war epic if all I'm going to use it for is to repeatedly farm the next stripped GM with it.

As a PS: For those calling out RR on it, I think you missed the post on the first page from Eunuchorn... he's looking for it to stop too. However, like any other min-maxer in any other game, if there's an easy way to get something that normally is a lot harder to obtain, the min-maxer is usually going to go for the path of least resistance. It's not up to them to not use something that isn't a cheat... it's up to the game's designer to change or remove the incentive.

[EljayK]

I like your dynamic addressing, even though I was addressing an opposing problem. No so much farming the same inactive member, but IGNORING the active/tougher players.

For instance, I think it would be closer to a strategy game if you had to find a way to beat each member. Even if there was a system like sentinel, where after three attacks they "fell" regardless. It would open up the option of which member attacks who. Stronger members couldn't just keep attacking the weakest, they would be needed to attack the strongest so that massive points aren't lost. This would be closer to what a real "old world" battle would have looked like. Grunts/Commanders attacking similar ranks, captains attempting to out-maneuver captains, and generals having to pit themselves against generals in wits.

[Zyntree]

@ Doc - yes.
@ EljayK - yes.

Before this new arena update I had all but given up hope of any comprehensive solution to wars... not I think they may do something about it. Clearly there could be a LOT of improvements to make the wars require more strategy, remove stripping and make them more fun. While stripping makes sense to earn points, it destroys the integrity of the game. Hopefully they will make an overhaul of the system to make it an obsolete practice

[Synovia]

As a PS: For those calling out RR on it, I think you missed the post on the first page from Eunuchorn... he's looking for it to stop too..

And yet his guild is the one organizing it, and coordinating to make sure all the other top 10 guilds are doing it. Its like Lance Armstrong complaining about doping in cycling.

[EljayK]

And yet his guild is the one organizing it, and coordinating to make sure all the other top 10 guilds are doing it. Its like Lance Armstrong complaining about doping in cycling.

They are winners at heart. Eunny was the first one to announce that it needed to be uncoded. You can't blame a winner for taking advantage of what wins. Winning isn't about integrity, it's about winning. Integrity is a lie that losers make up in their head to feel like winners. Even "Honor" in the middle ages was nothing more than a political strategy to assure that the winners were the ones who were in the right class, and not the ones who fought the best.

RR consistently speaks out against game mechanics that are faulty. But they would be stupid to put that level of dedication in and not win.

[firefly333]

Honestly the only way, I see, to fix the equality of guild wars is to make it so that each guild member in a war can be defeated 3 times before being considered, "dead." When all members are, "dead," then the whole guild is attackable again and it restarts. "Dead" members can attack, but can't be attacked.

The problem with this idea to me is it would benefit those who spent gems and had bad armor, the opposite of what most claim to want.

Im recruiting, lets say, and now I get a guy level 62 in the game not even eb plus armors, but he has 1000 gems to spend ...would make this gemmer even more attractive if he could only be hit 3 times and then the other 39 members of the guild had to be killed before the warring guild could hit this guy again.

I see guys all the time level 55, 58, 67, whatever who promise to gem, but because their armors are so weak, they are a no. With your idea they would then be a yes? Most top ten wouldnt take anyone under level 80 now.

I really dont think stripping is as pervasive as some people want to believe. Say it affects on average 1 out of 60 battles, 2 at most...so you would change things so the other 58 battles would favor weaker players who are willing to gem?

[Synovia]

I really dont think stripping is as pervasive as some people want to believe. Say it affects on average 1 out of 60 battles, 2 at most...so you would change things so the other 58 battles would favor weaker players who are willing to gem?

its not pervasive. Its pretty much only the top 15 guilds doing it, but they're ALL doing it because they're all coordinated enough to do it.


Which means pretty much everyone else is locked out of having any chance of moving into those spots without them agreeing to it. Its allowed them to basically set up a cartel.

[The Pale Rider]

The problem with this idea to me is it would benefit those who spent gems and had bad armor, the opposite of what most claim to want.

Im recruiting, lets say, and now I get a guy level 62 in the game not even eb plus armors, but he has 1000 gems to spend ...would make this gemmer even more attractive if he could only be hit 3 times and then the other 39 members of the guild had to be killed before the warring guild could hit this guy again.

I see guys all the time level 55, 58, 67, whatever who promise to gem, but because their armors are so weak, they are a no. With your idea they would then be a yes? Most top ten wouldnt take anyone under level 80 now.

I really dont think stripping is as pervasive as some people want to believe. Say it affects on average 1 out of 60 battles, 2 at most...so you would change things so the other 58 battles would favor weaker players who are willing to gem?

I assumed the proposal was each guild member could attack the same person up to 3 times before being forced to move to another person -- Not the entire guild. Frankly given how slowly actions by other members update through the GREE server, it's just not feasible to have it be a mini sentinel for every person.

As for the larger question of the merits of stripping...I HATE the whole idea of stripping for a fight where the other guild is one we could beat. I'm not a fan of collaborating just to end up with a higher rank. Neither is the rest of my guild. But, it's not fun or competitive to be matched to a top 10 guild that's going to score 400,000 off you either. My guild matched with 5 of the top 10 last GW. We had zero chance of winning any of those fights. Frankly we had little chance of finding a match up that more than a handful of members could score anything. If it weren't for stripping, we'd just do nothing and wait for the next match-up (hitting the gate if energy is maxed). With stripping, the power guild gets to know every one of its members can max points by pounding the GM and the members of the weak guild can score a little bit (although they can't get a win bonus or Frenzy- so probably not worth gemming on). I think this definitely benefits the weaker guild more than the stronger guild.

Having said that, when I rotated my armor I got about 1 in 5 of even the top guilds to lose when they all were attacking me. Versus no losses if i stripped. So the top guild gets about 20% more points than they otherwise would've. When you're paying for those attacks 20% isn't nothing. So the benefits flow both ways.

This is the kind of stripping that makes sense to me. Mutually beneficial and involving a gross mismatch.

Negotiating who wins or loses in a chat room between two guilds at roughly same level does not sound fun. Why the heck would members want to be in a guild that does that all the time?

[Synovia]

Negotiating who wins or loses in a chat room between two guilds at roughly same level does not sound fun. Why the heck would members want to be in a guild that does that all the time?

because it guarantees them an epic.

Its the same reason that companies create cartels and fix prices. It limits risk.

[Eunuchorn]

And yet his guild is the one organizing it, and coordinating to make sure all the other top 10 guilds are doing it. Its like Lance Armstrong complaining about doping in cycling.

RR had taken losses to other rainbow guilds in war 1/2, but never knew stripping existed.
We never had a chance to change names during battle, or log out in 1 knight back when it was 50pts/kill. Or abuse this/that mechanic. We just won.
Then Untouchables explodes onto the scene in war 3 almost beating RR.
Take one guess which "strategy" Ziploc was using. So as usual, we were the last to find out about stripping & abusing broken game mechanics (Flat Win Bonus should have been implemented 4 wars ago)

Well, I just did it better. I'm not even in the chat to coordinate friendly GM strips, but I assure you, there's plenty if guilds in there Top 250 down, & RR asks friendly Gms not to strip, but not to rotate either. & if I'm not actively scoring points, I'm stripped. Usually it's a mutual strip, my old school nemesis vs their basics.

[Hai2yooo]

you may not recognize me because i dont frequent forums but ive been personally asked to strip before by rr so i dont think its fair to lie to look like there's integrity in your coalition. rr and the coalition has been doin it but im not sure how often anymore. everyone knows its happening it's just up to gree to fix it or not.