Bullies

[DeletedUser110481]

Well, I think, ruining other people's fun, is exactly what you are trying to do.

This game has been out for 5 years now. There are a lot of people playing and enjoying this game, some even for those 5 years now.

There is no browser game that suits all people, what people like differs, so a game cannot as enjoyable to everybody. Some people left this play. This is normal in a browser game, people are testing, whether they like the game or not. When they do not like the game, they go and test another game, until they find one, that they really enjoy. That one play does not suit everybody is the reason there are different browser games. I think that is a good think. Nobody has to play a specific game, there are many opportunities for playing, so everyone can go and find a game he likes best.

That some people have left this game because they did not like one aspect of this game is ok, it is no reason to alter this game, because there are many who like the game as it is now.

Why do you want to chance a game, that many enjoy?

Please keep in mind, there is no one fits all game possible. Many have told you about Elvenar, that is very similar to FOE, but without plundering. So there is really no need, to change this game, as there is already a game available that covers the wish for a peacefull neighbourhood.

Have you read what I have written?

If you enjoy fighting you will still be able to do so. How am I ruining people's fun?

 

[DeletedUser108379]

Have you read what I have written?

If you enjoy fighting you will still be able to do so. How am I ruining people's fun?

I have read your thread. But have you read my posts (not only the last one) in this thread? I already told you, why I personally do not like that change.

But I will say it again, from a broader view:

You want to change the game mechanics, who people react to each other in the neighbourhood and therefore also elsewhere. And in changing the behaviour of the players to each other ( and the behaviour not only of those plundering or being plundered would be changed). And in doing so you change the game, very much indeed. And in doing so you will spoil the fun for many of the players now. The interaction of players is not limited to plunder and being plundered, but you idea would change much more, even if you might not intent to do so. Game mechanics is no easy matter.

The last change of the neighbourhood system is such an example. Before that, one knows that once being in the actual last era of the game, there would be almost no change to the neighbourhood anymore. And even for lower eras one did know, that a neighbourhood mostly was constand over a long period of time. Of course people act differently now that the neighbourhood changes every second week. And with only one era in the hood the trading also changed. Of course much more for lower eras, because in the end, the hood always consisted mostly of one era.

The fundamental question is: Why do you want to change a game so much that many enjoy as it is now?

 

[DeletedUser110481]

Vesiger....your math has failed you. 3, 8 hour productions take 24 hours and a couple minutes thanks to drift....losing one, gives you 20 goods, same as one single 24 hour production, with the bonus that the plunderer got nothing.

I would say plundering is a lot less prevalent because as time marches on, people who get nothing consistently, causes them to stop trying for it, which erodes the number of active plunderers. A guy who plundered every chance he got, got shuffled out of my 'hood before the event, and is now back in it. He's beaten my defense 3 times so far, as he always did before...he has yet to plunder anything, even though a day was wide open for him to do so.

That may be correct for one building, but the effect is diluted if you have two Goods Buildings as you only lose one 8 hour cycle and therefore get five 8 hour cycles a(or slightly less because it does take time to harvest) instead of two 24 hour cycles. Then with a third Goods building it become eight 8 hour cycles instead of two 24 hour cycles.

If you hadn't said "your math has failed you" I would just assume that this was an honest mistake because people can make mistakes in maths, but because you had to put somebody down for no reason I will say... "Augustavian, your maths has failed you"

 

[DeletedUser110481]

I have read your thread. But have you read my posts (not only the last one) in this thread? I already told you, why I personally do not like that change.

But I will say it again, from a broader view:

You want to change the game mechanics, who people react to each other in the neighbourhood and therefore also elsewhere. And in changing the behaviour of the players to each other ( and the behaviour not only of those plundering or being plundered would be changed). And in doing so you change the game, very much indeed. And in doing so you will spoil the fun for many of the players now. The interaction of players is not limited to plunder and being plundered, but you idea would change much more, even if you might not intent to do so. Game mechanics is no easy matter.

The last change of the neighbourhood system is such an example. Before that, one knows that once being in the actual last era of the game, there would be almost no change to the neighbourhood anymore. And even for lower eras one did know, that a neighbourhood mostly was constand over a long period of time. Of course people act differently now that the neighbourhood changes every second week. And with only one era in the hood the trading also changed. Of course much more for lower eras, because in the end, the hood always consisted mostly of one era.

The fundamental question is: Why do you want to change a game so much that many enjoy as it is now?

Hi Cardena,

I'm sorry that I thought you hadn't read my post. I'm glad that you did because I want people to read it and think about it.

I still do not believe that it will ruin players fun because players who want to be in PvP will be allowed to. However, you have said that you think it will change some other game mechanics. Would it be possible for you to elucidate these further on my thgread because I would like to look at them. I am not saying that I will agree, but I am interested in other people's opinions.

Really the whole submission I made with all the compensation came about because a Fighting player made what I thought was a really good point, and that was that fighter players would be disadvantaged as they would need extra buildings. I mention that because I still believe that if there are flaws in the PvP and non PvP neighbourhood plan they can be worked around and I consider my submission as proof (because there was a flaw and I looked at it).

I'm not sure I agree on the trading aspect. I generally do all of my trading within the Guild and it won't be affected. And you will still be able to have a guild with a mix of PvP and non PvP players. It won't have the same impact on the Guild as players who don't participate in the GE. However, I guess you can't be certain of that. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that people may make PvP and non PvP Guilds just like there are GvG and non GvG guilds now. I can't say why people would, but it is a possibility.

I do understand that people enjoy it now, as do I, but I believe that there are some people who could enjoy it more with this change without reducing the enjoyment of those who want to participate in PvP (because they will still be able to).

I'm off to watch the AFL Grand Final at a Sports bar the Crows waited until I moved to anotehr country before they made it (lol bastards), but I will be back and I'm hoping that you can maybe point out things I may have overlooked or any other ideas would be fantastic.

Thanx

 

[DeletedUser108379]

@Since you seem to be unable to find my old post, I will tell you why I do not like your idea and why I would have less fun with it

When those who do not like to fight are in a different neighbourhood,
-> the competition in the towers would get much harder -> less fun
-> My city guard would loose more often (because of more attacks) --> less fun
-> There would be more players in my hood trying to plunder me --> less fun

I do not like plunder (no matter whether doing it myself or being plundered), but I like to attack my neighbours for making points. So your change would definitely diminish my fun in this play.

I think you (and your friend the fighter) seem to have put all players in to categories, on that fight and plunder, and one peacefully, never attack any neigbour. But there are a lot more different playing styles in regard to neigbourhood. I know a lot players that only attack but never plunder, and other that attack but only plunder under special condition and other that only attack (and than plunder) under special condition. The world is not only pure black or pure white. And the same is true for this game and its players.

Fighting and plundering is part of this game. But for this to function there must be a balance in the hoods of those that plunder and those that do not. If all in a hood wants to plunder, it would not function. Your idea will destroy this balance.

Stop trying to destroy the game.

 

[DeletedUser110481]

@Since you seem to be unable to find my old post, I will tell you why I do not like your idea and why I would have less fun with it

When those who do not like to fight are in a different neighbourhood,
-> the competition in the towers would get much harder -> less fun
-> My city guard would loose more often (because of more attacks) --> less fun
-> There would be more players in my hood trying to plunder me --> less fun

I do not like plunder (no matter whether doing it myself or being plundered), but I like to attack my neighbours for making points. So your change would definitely diminish my fun in this play.

I think you (and your friend the fighter) seem to have put all players in to categories, on that fight and plunder, and one peacefully, never attack any neigbour. But there are a lot more different playing styles in regard to neigbourhood. I know a lot players that only attack but never plunder, and other that attack but only plunder under special condition and other that only attack (and than plunder) under special condition. The world is not only pure black or pure white. And the same is true for this game and its players.

Fighting and plundering is part of this game. But for this to function there must be a balance in the hoods of those that plunder and those that do not. If all in a hood wants to plunder, it would not function. Your idea will destroy this balance.

Stop trying to destroy the game.

Sorry, yes I didn't see your post.

It is true that there would be more players trying to plunder, but would the competition be harder? When I look at the stats for the towers it always seems to be the top 5 players who appear to be vying for the medals? My gut instinct ius that would be reduced by smaller neighbourhoods, but as soon as I think that, I realise that this would reduce the number of players to trade with and motivate (although, of course as fighters, motivate would be less common anyway). So, then I think that maybe two neighbourhoods that are half the size but are linked (but only for fighters as it would be irrelevant for farmers) so you can motivate and trade with the other half of the neighbourhood, but not attack, whilst carrying out your attacks on the other half. That of course leads to more coding, and that is what I am trying to prevent. Is the compensation provided enough to account for this? I feel that it is as you will got a lot of extra stuff. You may argue that you don't think that it is enough but I did try to be generous It is one of those things that is, to a great degree, a matter of perception and would assume that if my proposal is accepted, Inno will adjust it to what they believe to be the correct amounts.

I know that this game does have a lot of different people, but that does not mean that the farmer players are unimportant.

I am interested in your opinions, but please don't say "Stop trying to destroy the game" as that seems very inaccurate. You must understand my motivations are not to destroy the game, so this is rather unfair. I want as many people as possible to get what they want out of the game. You said that you read my post, so you must know that as the greatest portion of it is compensating the fighter players and this reflects that I want the fighters to continue to enjoy the game.

 

[DeletedUser108379]

.....
You must understand my motivations are not to destroy the game, so this is rather unfair. ........

No I do not understand this. I only see, that your idea would diminish the fun I have in the game.

But I do not think that any argument are going to alter your line of thinking. So that is my last post regarding this.

 

[Dead-Eye]

Round and round we go...

 

[Greywolf]

This is a strategy game. If you run into an obstacle, then you have adjust your strategy in order to deal with this obstacle. It's not always fun dealing with obstacles, but it does give a sense of accomplishment when you manage to do it.

Plundering (as in being plundered) is one of the obstacles you have to face. For some it seems such a huge obstacle that it diminishes their enjoyment of FoE. And to them it appears that the only possible solution is to change FoE in such a way that they cannot be plundered anymore. Of course they can change their strategy, but that is so inconceivable that they insist that the game be changed instead.

Is it necessary to put restrictions on plundering, or maybe disable it in 'peaceful' neighborhoods, or maybe remove it from the game entirely? In my opinion this is not needed at all. If you are really upset by being plundered then it is possible to design your city in such a way that attackers don't have anything to plunder. It is quite simple:

1) For starters motivated buildings can't be plundered. So houses, production buildings and some special buildings (for example oasis and shrine of knowledge) are plunder-proof while motivated. To keep all of them motivated on a daily basis, you probably need to be part of a big and active guild and/or have lots of active friends. Only use big cultural buildings, so you can have as few of them as possible. This means you need less polishing which results in more motivating. For the same reason avoid decorations as the plague.

2) Skip goods buildings. Contrary to popular belief you don't necessarily need them after the iron age. Rely on great buildings instead. Each of the early ages has a goods producing GB. Built and level up Tower of Babel, Lighthouse of Alexandria and St Marks Basilica as soon as you can. Keep in mind that Babel is less useful in end game, so don't go wild with it. These GB's will cover your goods needs until modern age. In modern age game mechanics change and GB's won't produce current age goods anymore, but unrefined goods (which are actually goods from 3 ages ago) at a double rate. To counter this you can use the Chateau Frontenac. This GB significantly increases the rewards from quests, which includes repeatable quests. You can do a lot of (repeatable) quests everyday and they reward goods frequently. Alternatively you can also use the Seed Vault as another source for current age goods. Seed Vault is an Arctic Future GB, so it can be difficult to get the blueprints and the goods to built it.

3) Only use special buildings that can either be motivated or that are plunder-proof by themselves (for example wishing well). You can check the wiki to see if this is the case: http://forgeofempires.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Special_Buildings

This strategy will slow your game down, especially in the start. Also you should stay in each age quite some time to make sure you have plenty of stocks when you move to the next age. Use this time to construct and expand the useful GB's of your current age.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

The tribal square is one such special building, you get goods, population and coins at no cost, takes only 1 lane roads, a field of these + Dynamic Tower and Seed Vault and you have all your resources covered and none of it can be plundered, you don't even need active friends or guildies though if out of 160 people you can't get 80 motivates...you may want to clean house and move to another guild. You can also employ buildings that can be used for producing FP or goods, like the upgraded cider mills, as decoys if you need regular goods or supply buildings, set however many you need at 5 minute production and leave it, while everything else is at 8 or 24 hour(Had this happen on an alt world recently, plunderer grabbed my one and only terrace farm, cost him 7 units, he only got 310 coins)

 

[DeletedUser105544]

I don't plunder anymore. I really enjoyed this aspect of the game, it saved me a lot of effort, but I stopped. I became good man. If I ever need more goods, I will plunder again I think. There are always a lot of people who don't collect in time. Good people also.

 

[DeletedUser110179]

The reason that I started all of this is because two people left the game because they were being constantly plundered by multiple people.

What makes you think that's why they left .
Perhaps they were being plundered because they had Real Life issues ... and neglected their city's .

 

[DeletedUser110195]

What makes you think that's why they left .
Perhaps they were being plundered because they had Real Life issues ... and neglected their city's .

View attachment 13393

Or the game just didn't interest them...and that is why their cities were neglected, just as my brief attempt at playing Elvenar left a city that hasn't been touched in months. It has all the gameplay elements of FoE, without players attacking each other's cities...and you have to use the mouse to scroll around your city, you can't keyboard scroll...that really hurt my interest. I want LESS clicking not more.

 

[Vesiger]

Vesiger....your math has failed you. 3, 8 hour productions take 24 hours and a couple minutes thanks to drift....losing one, gives you 20 goods, same as one single 24 hour production, with the bonus that the plunderer got nothing.

I have more than one goods production building, and he can only plunder one of them per 24 hours :-)

 

[DeletedUser110179]

I have more than one goods production building, and he can only plunder one of them per 24 hours :-)

Hopefully, there is only one plunderer ... get's a bit hairy with 2 or 3 on the job during the same time period .

 

[DeletedUser110195]

Hopefully, there is only one plunderer ... get's a bit hairy with 2 or 3 on the job during the same time period .

I usually get attacked by multiple people, but usually only one gets through every now and then, cept that guy using PME units, he always wins without fail, of course my defense is only ME and he uses rogues.

 

[DeletedUser100832]

I was always quite outspoken about plundering in the past, but Inno made real changes that now allow you to protect your city very well. With no hoods where FE and LMA players find themselves together, you no longer have to face neighbours whom you cannot possibly keep out. The GE gives you those watchfire things like confetti, 50 of those and any neighbour will run away screaming. And with the city shield, you can actually prevent anybody attacking you at all.

I would actually go further now, and allow people who win a battle against a neighbour to either plunder or block (disable for 24 hours) their GB's.

 

[vikingraider]

Would I still need to have my underpants on my head and dance an Irish jig to disable your GB's? And was that GMT or BST? Thanks. ;-)

 

[DeletedUser110179]

The GE gives you those watchfire things like confetti, 50 of those and any neighbour will run away screaming. And with the city shield, you can actually prevent anybody attacking you at all.

50 Watchfires may be almost free to acquire, but they still need over 3 land extensions to implement.

The real problem isn't so much that people abhor pillage and plunder ... but that Inno has moved away from serious battle
(since GvG isn't available on android and GE can be quite easily conquered by negotiation alone) .
Even Atlantis Museum isn't a serious incentive to plunder (more of a perk if you already do) .

Maybe, FoE has lost it's teeth.

 

[DeletedUser110481]

What makes you think that's why they left .
Perhaps they were being plundered because they had Real Life issues ... and neglected their city's .

View attachment 13393

Because they said that was the reason they were leaving in the Guild post