Home General Discussion

We need new Moderators!


ModeratorWe are always on the lookout for talented people to join the team. That means you! If you think you could help us organise and inform the community while entertaining everyone then apply. We need people to help out on the forum, behind the scenes with announcements, on Discord and on our other Social Media channels.


If this is something you think might be of interest to you, HERE

NAA and attacking

Lucas1999 (NL1)Lucas1999 (NL1) Posts: 474
edited 22.12.2016 in General Discussion

Dear people of GGE,


I was wondering why a good feature is taken down. Months ago i noticed that attack people with whom you have a NAA was not possible anymore and i was really happy to see that in the game. It wasn't really said in an update, but i was happy to see it. I have always found it strange that this was possible.


The problem is that i found out today that attack people with whom you have a NAA is possible again. How is this possilbe? Why has it been taken down, that nice feature that made attacking not possible anymore?


Kind regards Lucas Oosterwijk (NL1)

Hello everyone!

Good to see you. I'm Lucas from the dutch server (NL1) and i play in an amazing Alliance called Two Towers. I really enjoy playing the game. If you want to make contact with me leave a message here or if you are from the dutch server message me there!

Kind regards Lucas1999



Comments

  • Imperius (GB1)Imperius (GB1) GB1 Posts: 1,050
    It's a non-aggression so it's up to the two alliances to uphold it that's how a real one is anyway not being able to attack each other is a pact's job so why have another option like it 
    Imperius @EN1
    Leader of Odins Fury


    Baby Yoda @US1
    Gen of AX 







  • I agree, I think they should prevent attacks from taking place.

    Otherwise, it merely acts as a color coding for a DNH list.  In that situation, there is no reason they should limit how many you have.  Let us highlight how many ever alliances we want for verbal DNHs (or apparently NAAs) as we'd like.
    WiseDaniel @ usa 1
  • As far as I can remember you could always attack an NAA but it gave you an alert saying that you had an NAA with the alliance. You could still choose to attack anyways.
    Snake Plissken @ usa 1
  • As far as I can remember you could always attack an NAA but it gave you an alert saying that you had an NAA with the alliance. You could still choose to attack anyways.

    I just tested this out by launching a small attack on an NNA (which I later retreated) It no longer comes up with that warning


    Count Palatine Dalaran
    Server: Asia1
    Alliance: Sergeant of TBHK
    Honour: 1430
    Level: 23

    "This game isn't dominated by large alliance families, rather an oligarchy. The richer the player behind the screen, the better" - Dalaran

  • Lucas1999 (NL1)Lucas1999 (NL1) Posts: 474
    edited 04.01.2017

    Update on this:


    Went wrong this time. I still have to speak with the Alliance that took a lab from us, with whom we have an NAA. I think they didn't saw this change in the game and that it's all a misunderstanding. So i ask again to all when will this change be undone?


    @BM ang1243


    Hello everyone!

    Good to see you. I'm Lucas from the dutch server (NL1) and i play in an amazing Alliance called Two Towers. I really enjoy playing the game. If you want to make contact with me leave a message here or if you are from the dutch server message me there!

    Kind regards Lucas1999



  • Venom (ASIA1)Venom (ASIA1) ASIA1 Posts: 2,232
    Non-Aggression. It was meant to be made after wars to know you aren't allowed to hit them constantly but you are allowed to but since alliance/server rules it has changed into a pact basically. GGS don't need to change things like this because players are changing the game to be safer which most players dislike but you can't instantly change this like this because that is how server wars start. 
    Venom @ Asia - Member for Drunken Fist
    Venom @ Australia - War Marshal for Shadow Lords!!

    Best player on the test server B)

  • Non-Aggression. It was meant to be made after wars to know you aren't allowed to hit them constantly but you are allowed to but since alliance/server rules it has changed into a pact basically. GGS don't need to change things like this because players are changing the game to be safer which most players dislike but you can't instantly change this like this because that is how server wars start. 
    Do you have another account or was this "original purpose" from last month? Asia isn't that new.

    NAA have been used, at least for 4 or so years, to determine who allies are but not brothers. You NAA to get that attack warning and you pact to make hits bounce. You also pact with those who you would go into war with or who you want advance notice that they will war you. 

    A NAA to signal a war is over is stupid at best. It serves the purpose of a MM to the alliance and nothing more. It's not a diplomatic tool, it's a color code. It should have force OR be unlimited like alliance bookmarks are, since it's just as useful.

    @BM ang1243
    WiseDaniel @ usa 1
  • ang1243 (GB1)ang1243 (GB1) GB1 Posts: 3,834
    edited 04.01.2017
    Hi all,

    I believe that the problem with this is that it was actually a long-term bug that was in place that meant the NAA was blocking attacks from being sent between alliances, it never used to, and wasn't meant to, but did block attacks for an extended period of time. The bug was fixed at some point in the past 6 months (over 2 months ago), but not drawn attention to.

    The NAA agreement is meant to be a step down from the Pact agreement, and the ability to still send attacks reflects this, it is a tool to clearly highlight alliances you are friendly with, but not necessarily blood brothers ;)

    Angus
    Support | Community Guidelines | Short Questions | Bugwatch Thread | WebsitePrivate Message

    Check out my website with loads of cool tips about GGE: http://www.ultimategge.co.uk
     




Sign In to comment.