"Blocking" legal?

Was just wondering as to the legality of the technique known as "blocking". You basically will send in a dummy general with 1 recruit to "block" that camps aggro radius while you go and attack the leader with the real troops. It seems like this is a bug exploit, or hacking, or at the very least against the spirit of the game. Was just wondering if there was an official Blue Byte stance on this practice. I've never done this but it came to my attention and was alarmed to know people were doing this.

Actually found this technique in The Art of War by Sun Tzu.

IMO it is a really cool tactic.
You are essentially suiciding a general and preoccupying a camp u want to avoid.
I never thought of it, but w/9 generals, I am willing to try it.
Let's hope this is okay and not an exploit.

I use it some times, to save troops. I have never thought of it as a bug exploit, but you give a valid arguement :)

Here is a post by Dynamite with videos showing the technique.
This seem like a very clever tactic and I am convinced it is good to go.
http://forum.castleempireonline.com/...king-Technique.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SirRoy

Here is a post by Dynamite with videos showing the technique.
This seem like a very clever tactic and I am convinced it is good to go.

---

Yeah I was not trying to cite anyone but it perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about. Just was wondering what Blue Byte's take on this is going to be.

Probably something to be looked at to get fixed and make the armies wait in line. :P

I just remember A conversation in general chat like months ago where this was being discussed and the consensus then (unofficial of course) was that it would most likely be a direct violation of the ToS. Guess we shall have to wait til Monday to have our answer.

How is sending an army with 1 recruit a violation of TOS?
Jeesh, they need to be rooting out these multi-acct users, not wasting time with this.

Is a strat, not a bug...jeez

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lowprofile

Is a strat, not a bug...jeez

---

Definitely agree. Its smart thinking , not cheating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SirRoy

How is sending an army with 1 recruit a violation of TOS?
Jeesh, they need to be rooting out these multi-acct users, not wasting time with this.

---

Why should simply attacking a camp with one general delete its aggro radius for another one? It is the timing that is involved here that makes this seem like a bug that is being exploited, otherwise if this was intended to happen why would you need to game the system by sending them at the same time etc...sorry if they say this is not legal and you will then loose more troops on your adventures but for those of us who are playing this game straight-up it is unfair if people were taking advantage of this. You get mad at multi-account people I didn't go and post harassment of you for that pay me the same respect. I'm only asking for what the developers stance is on this not the opinions of the playing community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SirRoy

How is sending an army with 1 recruit a violation of TOS?
Jeesh, they need to be rooting out these multi-acct users, not wasting time with this.

---

I agree with this, I see no reason for this to be a violation of ToS. The GM's time should be spent on more important things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jethro702

The GM's time should be spent on more important things.

---

No one is asking for punishments to be doled out, no one is pointing fingers at any one. I wish to know for my own personal information. Never at any point did I call anyone out for doing this, I simply think it is not so much time if a GM were to post a yes or a no on this. If they don't have the time I am not going to complain I know they are busy. But to try and make this seem as if a response would cause someone to clock overtime, is a bit of an exaggeration can't we agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobj

I'm only asking for what the developers stance is on this not the opinions of the playing community.

---

This is a forum where people discuss things and share opinions.

You could have just filed a support ticket or specified that you wanted people to read but not comment on this.

Where are you being harassed, by the way? I am missing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SirRoy

How is sending an army with 1 recruit a violation of TOS?
Jeesh, they need to be rooting out these multi-acct users, not wasting time with this.

---

I agree. I first discovered this looking at the German tactics maps. I use the strategy on many adventures. I cannot see that it can be anything but a valid technique for better gameplay. The people that are crying "exploit" are probably those that cannot get the placement and timing right for it to work.

Block on!

From the "Official Code of Conduct" : "7. It is forbidden to abuse or exploit any bugs, anomalies, development errors or problems arising during the game. Under no circumstances is a player authorized to use a function for anything other than its intended use." I'm simply wondering if this was an intended use or not. It's not for us as players to say (even though we may have opinions) if this intended or not. I simply started this thread to ask Blue Byte if this Is appropriate. I'm not starting this thread to call anyone out or to make enemies here. If anything I've said up to this point has been misconstrued as such let me be perfectly clear. I want to know for my own personal information, not to throw anyone under the bus or get people in trouble. Thanks in advance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobj

From the "Official Code of Conduct" : "7. It is forbidden to abuse or exploit any bugs, anomalies, development errors or problems arising during the game. Under no circumstances is a player authorized to use a function for anything other than its intended use." I'm simply wondering if this was an intended use or not. It's not for us as players to say (even though we may have opinions) if this intended or not. I simply started this thread to ask Blue Byte if this Is appropriate. I'm not starting this thread to call anyone out or to make enemies here. If anything I've said up to this point has been misconstrued as such let me be perfectly clear. I want to know for my own personal information, not to throw anyone under the bus or get people in trouble. Thanks in advance.

---

So far I have not seen anyone called out, besides that dynamite uses blocks like many others... and since this is a forum I guess we can post our opinions on threads we wish. I hope you get your answer from a BB, but I dont think it will stop people.

In board war gaming (I know probably no one does that anymore) this is called sluffing. In reality it is sacrificing a force/units to engage an enemy that could interfere with the the main attack you are trying to achieve. It is tactically and strategically sound (conversation of force, massing units at main point). Perhaps a mininum amount of units/combat power, say 10 recruits would be more "reasonable", as one recruit seems a bit small. Kind of like using a "truck" to block a tank company's advance in some game's I've played.

its a strategy, you lose a general, not a exploit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobj

Why should simply attacking a camp with one general delete its aggro radius for another one? It is the timing that is involved here that makes this seem like a bug that is being exploited, otherwise if this was intended to happen why would you need to game the system by sending them at the same time etc...sorry if they say this is not legal and you will then loose more troops on your adventures but for those of us who are playing this game straight-up it is unfair if people were taking advantage of this. You get mad at multi-account people I didn't go and post harassment of you for that pay me the same respect. I'm only asking for what the developers stance is on this not the opinions of the playing community.

---

That's what I misconstrued.

A safe assumption is that until a game developer makes a statement on something regarding gameplay, it is still considered legal. For now, the fact that it remains in the game and no comment has been made means it can continue to be done. If BB came down tomorrow and said "No, don't do that" and removed it through some technical programming that we will not be privy to, then so be it. For the time being, however, it remains a topic that they have not spoken out on, and so it will continue.

The ToS states that you cannot use a bug to your advantage. Here's the question: Has it been defined by the developers as a bug? As far as I can see, it hasn't. The group of people who are using the blocking technique to their advantage do not see it as a bug, while you do see it as a bug and therefore do not use it. So, for the time being, let those who don't consider it a bug to continue using it, and you can continue to not use it.

If BB comes down tomorrow and says, "You are not allowed to do this", the people who truly care about enjoying this game will no longer use it, and will adhere to what BB says.

The main goal of this forum is to help the players. Asking a question to the development team would be a more appropriate course of action. Asking us, as the players, whether or not it is a legal move does not matter, as our opinions do not hold any weight against the developers. You are getting opinions here, such that some people do not like it and don't use it, while others don't see the harm in it and continue to use it. So, let it be that for now, until BB makes a decision.

(As a personal opinion and side note, stating that having accurate timing is exploiting a bug means that a lot of players, such as myself, would be exploiting bugs in games such as Kingdom Hearts 2, where a lot of battles require accurate timing to make things easier through reactive commands. If I hit the button right when I'm supposed to, I do not agree that constitutes going against the ToS just because it's accurate timing.)

Karrin, two thumbs up.

http://marinasleeps.files.wordpress....-thumbs-up.jpg

I see no issues with this tactic overall. I would consider it a real life tactic and viable. Now if BB came out and said it was not intended to be like that and said it was a development oversight, then I would no longer do it. Simple as that.

So, still no official response. Although I cannot imagine this being against the ToS, I'd still like to hear what the company has to say.

I guess I don't get why some people think that this is an exploit and unfair to those who play "straight up." Except for the trading of goods, isn't this pretty much an individual game? Why does anyone care whether I accomplish an adventure in 12 hours or 14 hours, or whether I lose 200 soldiers or 400 soldiers? I don't see how it affects anyone but me. There is no prize for who levels up the fastest. I'm not competing against anyone but myself. I'm fairly new, so am I missing something?

It's a strategy game. Blocking is an optimal strategy, don't see the problem here.
Not an exploitation of any bug, not violating ToS, no issues here.

Per BB support tickets, blocking is allowed but they do not support its use nor consider it a bug or glitch if you lose it. So no refund of troop losses if you attempt it, even if its not your fault the block failed (i.e. lag throwing off your timing).

This horse has been beaten into ground horsemeat.