Getting raided while still online?


I’ve had this happen several times now, last was just a couple of minutes ago. I was playing through a mission, won, returned to the stronghold screen and was greeted by the notification you usually get when you log in saying that someone attacked me in the last two minutes.

Given that I’m still not able to attack other users when they’re online, I guess this is a bug. Have only seen it since 1.4 as well.

Raided when online!

Had two similar incidents yesterday, however they were both soon enough after logging in that they may have already started prior to log in


Interesting, thanks for the observation. I believe that the most recent one was something like 10 minutes after logging in but I can’t say for certain. Will watch the times closer next time to see if that could have been the case.


@RubiKinga and @Petri,

Maybe you could add some insight to this one? I’ve always thought it was raids being completed from when I logged on, or are there other circumstances where a player can now hit when you’re online? (eg. revenge?)



Hello everyone!

You cannot attack a player while they are online. However, if a player has attacked you before you came online, the results of the battle will be applied when the battle finishes.



As an additional note to this for clarification. There are also some other corner-cases where the results of an attack may be applied while you’re online but they are quite rare.



Is there a timelimit when the game dc’s? Im being raided all week when i think im online… Typing in global chat or doing what ever. I saw a thread about this and it said “happens rarely” GMT+2 Finland. I dont have SS or exact time when these happen but its like 20 times already


How can you ‘think’ you’re online? Are you online or not? Yes, the game disconnects after a while if you’re not active. Perhaps this is happening to you. Then you would be ‘offline’, and ought not to think that you were ‘online’.


Ofcourse i think im online if im typing in global chat and theres no inactivity warning. Doesnt necessarily mean that im actually only since there can be bugs you know??? Thats why im asking about this issue.


@Brobb, you’re not being helpful. Your inability to understand the very clear question does not grant you the right to be such a condescending troll constantly.

@Blazerawk, the most common answer I’ve heard is that someone starts a raid while you’re temporarily offline, perhaps even just a time when your screen is off or the like. The raid takes some time, and once complete, you get the notification while you’ve already been online for 7/8 minutes, and it seems like you’re being raided while you’re online.

You can, in a sense, be raided while online, but the raid should start while you’re offline.


Wow, @penari. Wow.

In one post you first suggested I was being a ‘condescending troll’ (just for the record, I was not: I was sincere), and then proposed in the most patronising way possible that @blazerawk might be so mind-numbingly obtuse as not to understand that a raid might have begun before s/he came online.

That’s pretty mean. I’m impressed. Did @blazerawk do something unpleasant to you in a previous life?



I’ll spell it out for you: [quote=“Brobb, post:10, topic:740”]
How can you ‘think’ you’re online? Are you online or not? Yes, the game disconnects after a while if you’re not active. Perhaps this is happening to you. Then you would be ‘offline’, and ought not to think that you were ‘online’.

This is condescending. I would say their reaction to your post is evidence that they felt this way too.

Then “proceeded to direct them to a summarized version of an existing answer in a pre-existing forum post from Rubikinga that some people after self reflection, realized might be the culprit.” fixed. And by the way, in case you can’t find it, Rubikinga merged the topics. (I’m not being condescending now, I’m just overly explaining things as if you need such assistance… /ironicwink )

Being that staff assumed that people might have this issue, I would say that my attempts to direct individuals toward a similar conclusion would be evidence that I am looking through the forums to help people and direct them towards answers, rather than condescendingly question their ability to know if they’re online or not.


What errant nonsense. Here is their reaction:

That’s a perfectly reasonable response to my perfectly reasonable question, or are your neuroses directing you to read some sort of tone into that reply, too? Seems like it might be tough to be you.

So your assumption is that @blazerawk, an active forum user, has not read Rubi’s previous posts on this very issue, even after the merger of those posts into this vey thread. And your attempt to ‘help’ is to summarise the single most obvious existing answer - the one only a dummy wouldn’t get - instead of exploring @blazerawk’s issue to properly understand it.

I must ask: precisely how stupid are you assuming @blazerawk is? For someone happy to read condescension into others’ posts, this behaviour seems extremely hypocritical.



I win. Bye.

Yes. The forum merge happened after my answer, so it’s quite logical to assume he didn’t see the post, otherwise he wouldn’t have made a new topic, but he would have commented in the existing one.


If you’re claiming as a ‘win’ (this choice of words, by the way, provides a significant and disturbing insight into your personality) that @blazerawk has misread my tone in the same way as you, then I would be delighted to cede the cynical ground you have chosen to occupy. Because the implication of this would be that my failure was in misreading a constructive intent into @blazerawk’s reply to me, while your failure - and @blazerawk’s - was in misreading a malicious intent into my initial attempt to assist.

As someone who always sides with joy, love and peace, I’m happy to live with the consequences of assuming people mean well, and sometimes being wrong. If you are happy with yourself assuming the opposite then more power to you. But it’s probably not good for your soul.

As to whether @blazerawk reviewed the forums to see whether his/her question had already been answered, it remains highly insulting for you to assume that s/he did not. @blazerawk is not an idiot. At least, I do not assume that s/he is.


I really know alot about this game. It was just sarcastic for me to say in my original post “i think im online”. This is not a big issue and if i caused a fight between you two im sorry. It was a genuine post for devs. And ive read rubis info about this matter before i posted anything. I was just wondering about it since the post said it happens rarely and it has happened to me many times. Its also confusing when “youve been raided” window pops up and the game didnt have this before. And Brobb sorry for calling you a troll i dont know you. This is a off topic post but had to post this Be happy weekend is coming :). Oh and my english aint that great i hope you understand my writing.


Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

So… you want me to not make assumptions regarding YOUR intentions but you make assumptions that I think someone is an idiot, and you assuming I’m patronizing and insulting. Got it.

This remains common sense. To assume that someone knew of a pre-existing post and intentionally created a duplicate post despite forum guidelines would insinuate that they were intentionally breaking community guidelines.

So yes, anyone with common sense would deduce that they were innocently unaware of the existing topic.

If there’s anyone making assumptions against the idea that people mean well, it’s you. If some doubles posts a topic, I assume it’s accident. That’s a pretty nice thing to assume.


No problem, @blazerawk. I’m afraid I didn’t recognise that your ‘I think I’m online’ was sarcastic - I really was puzzled that you might have thought you were online.

I’m pleased but not surprised to hear that you had already read Rubi’s explanation. And It makes sense that this having happened to you many times would have led you to make your post, given Rubi’s characterisation of the event as rare.

You English is great, by the way - you make yourself very well understood.

And finally, please do not worry about causing a fight. @penari and I are happily married. Sometimes we like to come online to let off a little steam at each other. It’s more fun than doing it in our kitchen.


Not at all, @penari. I make no assumptions whatsoever about your intentions - I simply offer ‘sauce for the goose’: if one wants to randomly toss about the charge of condescension, then one ought probably not to be hypersensitive about being called out on it oneself. Yet you do seem kinda sensitive.

It’s also usually worthwhile to assume people are smart and have read existing forum content relating to their problem, as @blazerawk had. This often leads to a conversation. You get to ask clarifying questions and have them answered (always assuming no one carrying a chip on their shoulder leaps in to disrupt communication).

That’s quite a good way to avoid avoids mansplaining stuff that doesn’t need to be mansplained.


Ahh, if only subtext and context were as easy to read as written text.