destruction after pillaging

[DeletedUser107279]

Love playing the game, but I had an idea and thought you might find it interesting. When a player attacks another player and wins and then goes on to pillage there houses or production buildings, what if the

building they plundered gets completely destroyed that way the person who lost the battle actually has to pay to rebuild and wait the time limit to get it back

 

[DeletedUser12400]

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/o5JqqJB.png[/IMG] ​

Hey MrJoshua1983! Welcome to the Forum

Your idea isn't formatted properly for a proposal. Please check this thread and use this proposal format for any ideas: http://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/showthread.php?26585-Formats-for-Ideas.

 

[DeletedUser96901]

how about the defender can destroy a building from the attacker if he wins

because why should the attacker allowed to cowardly retreat if he can't win but the defender (who btw can't even fight for himself but a stupid AI does that) lose a building and haven't got a real chance to win

maybe we can make it at least a fair battle:
after the attacker clicked start the AI fights for him without the possibility to retreat

this game is so optimized for cowards to bully other (start battle and then retreat because they could lose one unit) and then they should also be allowed to destroy buildings

 

[DeletedUser99588]

-1. I think the current system is well balanced and fair to both attacker and defender.

 

[DeletedUser]

-1, completely disproportionate amount of damage to be able to inflict on another player, especially in unbalanced neighbourhoods.

 

[DeletedUser96901]

especially in unbalanced neighbourhoods

even in balanced neighbourhoods the fights are still unbalanced

first it would be necessary to balance the fights:
no manual fight for attacker: only auto-battle
no retreat for the attacker.

and then equal rights for both sides: winner can destroy a building

I see many cowards who would wet their panties if they only lose one unit and retreat without even making one move
and those players should be allowed to destroy buildings of other players if they are lucky to find a defense they can defeat without problem :confused:
such attackers deserve to lose 2 buildings for not even trying to fight equal fights. only bullying low players


and now lets take the real fighters (as some call themselves in other threads )
such players only want to fight. they don't want to destroy other players towns

so who wants to destroy buildings :confused:
city builders: no
real fighters: no
bullies: yes

so what does player have from destroying other players buildings except from the big erection for doing it because some are only bullies

 

[DeletedUser15432]

I agree with Mr Beef regarding this and therefore give it a -1 score

 

[DeletedUser109296]

even in balanced neighbourhoods the fights are still unbalanced

My BIG gripe is with the new 'hood arrangemet I'm seeing 2 or more very high points players in the 'hood with very advanced GBs, I'm in CA to PE in most of my worlds. Some even have at least one unit from an age or 2 up plus 7 rogues when they attack. Then the STOOPID... did you get that Inno? STOOPID auto defense goes after the rogues first! STOOPID!!!!!!! NO, NO, NO! To win against 1 or 2 regular units & rouges, you attack the regulars FIRST!!! Only an idiot goes after the rogues first!!!
The bullies know auto defense is STOOPID & know how to beat it!

 

[DeletedUser110179]

The bullies know auto defense is STOOPID & know how to beat it!

Using the term "bullies" isn't relevant to the discussion .
Everybody is a bully until you beat them .

 

[LadyHecate]

-1; big No No!

 

[Shad23]

-1; big No No!

 

[DeletedUser109228]

In my opinion the defender (plundered) player, must have the same amount of another "exotic'"good(s). Maybe "production" type goods of the current Age-Era.Which "exotic" goods can obtained only by plundered (defense).
Nikos