Bullies

[DeletedUser110195]

The thing I didn't understand was, how did he have fighting units in his army that were in an age ABOVE his (and my) age?

You can gain units above your age through story quests...it's easy to do 1 age above, even for a fighter who has to research most of the tree for military buildings, but is possible to go 3 ages above.

 

[DeletedUser110402]

Oh yeah, it was relly fun being attacked with gun whist I only had long bows, yeah that was really funny I don't think.
I now have a couple of cannons which I got in one of the events and two rogue hideouts from a couple of other events..I now use these to defend my city alond with some defence from the tavern..if I have enough silver...and things seem to have settled down..FOR NOW..I will not plunder my neighbours as I know how soul destroying it is.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

Peh, all it does to me is cause me to find that person on my neighborhood bar and return the favor and then watch the replay of the attack, which subsequently makes me adjust my defense to counter what that guy threw at me, assuming it wasn't 7 rogues and 1 regular unit. On that you have to get lucky and have all the hard counter to his real unit...and be sufficiently advanced through the ages that it has range, else you get mangled by rogues.

 

[DeletedUser107937]

I get plundering is part of the game, but there are so many inconsistencies with it. A simple solution would be to allow people to set up a reserve wave of defenders - your know, like the ones the latter provinces on the world map have, or like the major quest maps on the Guild Expedition map - over and above the 8 units you get. That way, you're attacks would have to rely more on tactics than just simply steam-rolling over opponents with lower era troops and/or those not lucky enough to have found the components of GBs that boost fighting abilities.

 

[DeletedUser110131]

@Chanla, @Ravenhook, @aj906

Winning isn't a sure thing, even with seven Rogues. If the defender has two or more above age units, along with a careful selection of current age units, and a high defense boost, there will be no "steam rolling"; winning, perhaps, but no "steam rolling". I've sent plenty of determined plunderers packing, that way. I've even been sent packing, myself. With one above age unit, seven Rogues, and good attack boosts, the attacker is doing something wrong if he looses. However, even with an attack force like that, many will retreat to conserve their Rogues. The fact is, it's perfectly possible to set up a defence that will reduce plundering to tolerable levels, even against the most determined foe. It's simply a matter of making a determined effort, yourself.

Those above age units aren't easy to get; you'll have to fight far ahead of your age on the Continent Map, which will also give you some serious challenges in event quests. Is it actually unfair that those who do this should have an advantage over those who don't? Is it unfair that those who relentlessly hunt FPs in GE and elsewhere, in order to invest in military GBs, should have an advantage? People who devote a large area of their city to military purposes? People who work hard in events, to earn every advantage? People who actually do the math behind every decision? In my opinion, what would be unfair, is if they didn't get an advantage. Those who work hardest and best, should even have a huge advantage over those who work little or poorly.

Essentially, what some people seem to want, is an excellent defense, without having to do anything to get it. That's not how strategy games work. If you want an edge, you have to work for it.

Two waves is fine by me, as long as limits are placed on the second wave. Otherwise, defense will become far too effortless. It should be accompanied with increased rewards, though. Allowing plundering of motivated buildings, for instance, or plundering of multiple buildings.

 

[DeletedUser111095]

Seriously, it's part of the game, I was also bullied (sniff) so this is what I did about it. I wrote a letter to all the peeps in my hood, saying the following:

"To all you lowlife bottom feeding scum sucking thieving plunderers,

I regret to advise that since my humble beginning in Houndsmoor yesterday, I have not yet managed to build any decent buildings for you to plunder.

However, please do not be disheartened, for I am working on procuring some top-notch buildings for you to plunder soon. Until then, please feel free to plunder my longhouse or pottery, as these will prove to be the most beneficial to you.

I look forward to providing more beneficial pilfering and plundering opportunities for you in the future. In the meantime, please feel free to pop in to my tavern for a free beverage and a chat and you may find that I can be quite a pheasant plucker. Sorry, seats are limited, but I'm working on that.

Oh, and in addition, should you tire of your tenacious thievery, you are quite welcome to 'polish my pillar' or "motivate my monument", nudge nudge wink wink. However, I must warn you that excessively polishing one's pillar, may negatively affect one's eyesight, so do be careful not to overdo it.

Have fun pilfering, plundering, pillaging and pummeling my city. Tally-ho and cu l8r peckerheads.

With love

MadMountain"

Oddly enough, I made quite a few new friends who liked the message, but just in case I also built up my defenses. I also had one response that said "screw you madmountain", but I ignored him, as I was not accepting any proposals on that day.

It's a game, just enjoy it, and if someone keeps grabbing your melons every day, give the fruit farmer a couple of days off, and they might lose interest.

L8r

 

[DeletedUser107937]

@Chanla, @Ravenhook, @aj906

Two waves is fine by me, as long as limits are placed on the second wave. Otherwise, defense will become far too effortless. It should be accompanied with increased rewards, though. Allowing plundering of motivated buildings, for instance, or plundering of multiple buildings.

And you don't see the failure in that logic? It will just lead to the same argument, but on a greater scale. Eight initial defenders, with a follow up wave of three - just like we face in quests and on later maps is fine. Even a balance in attack/defence bonus for those who don't have GBs to help boost abilities...

 

[DeletedUser110131]

And you don't see the failure in that logic? It will just lead to the same argument, but on a greater scale. Eight initial defenders, with a follow up wave of three - just like we face in quests and on later maps is fine. Even a balance in attack/defence bonus for those who don't have GBs to help boost abilities...

And you don't see the failure in that logic?

GB boosts are supposed to be an advantage. If you give boosts to everyone, that advantage disappears. Having a strong defensive army is supposed to give an advantage. If you give defenders the opportunity to use numbers instead of quality, those who make the effort to get higher era troops will loose part of their advantage. Plundering is supposed to be both possible and profitable. If you give defenders both numbers, free boosts, and higher era troops, only some very few will be able to plunder, and even they will find the profit insufficient.

To maintain balance, every step you take that benefits the defender, must be matched by a step that benefits the attacker. It's not just me saying this: Inno makes a policy of flatly rejecting suggestions that alter the balance. Suggestions to alter the mechanism, the experience, the visuals, the procedure, or any number of other things, are welcome. Suggestions to make the game easier for some, at the expense of others, are summarily dismissed.

 

[DeletedUser111113]

Clearly plundering is a problem for a lot of players. So here's a few suggestions:

1) Change the way the neighbourhoods are structured (again), only this time set it up so that players who plunder are in neighbourhoods together and players who don't plunder get grouped together. That way people can play with other players who approach the game in similar ways. This would actually improve the balance within neighbourhoods.
2) When Player A attacks Player B's city, and Player B successfully defends against the attack, Player B should have the option to plunder Player A for the next 24 hours (just as Player A would have if they had won). Again, this improves the balance.
3) If a Player B activates the city shield, Player A should still have the option to attack Player B, but when they enter the battle, Player B's army should be immune to damage.
4) Create a building that is equivalent to a watchtower that improves the attack stats of your defending army. Or add a third GB that supports the attack stats of your DA to help balance the attacking and defending armies in a neighbourhood battle.

Right now there are no consequences for an unsuccessful attack on another player, but there are consequences for an unsuccessful defence. To my mind, that creates an imbalance, which is why some people view plundering as bullying. The way the plundering system is currently set up does lend itself towards favouring bullying.

 

[mrbeef]

If you don't like it, then don't play. If you don't like landing on a property with a hotel in Monopoly and having to pay the other player rent, then don't play monopoly, simple - the same goes for this game, attacking and plundering are part of it, accept it or find another game to play.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

Clearly plundering is a problem for a lot of players. So here's a few suggestions:

1) Change the way the neighbourhoods are structured (again), only this time set it up so that players who plunder are in neighbourhoods together and players who don't plunder get grouped together. That way people can play with other players who approach the game in similar ways. This would actually improve the balance within neighbourhoods.
2) When Player A attacks Player B's city, and Player B successfully defends against the attack, Player B should have the option to plunder Player A for the next 24 hours (just as Player A would have if they had won). Again, this improves the balance.
3) If a Player B activates the city shield, Player A should still have the option to attack Player B, but when they enter the battle, Player B's army should be immune to damage.
4) Create a building that is equivalent to a watchtower that improves the attack stats of your defending army. Or add a third GB that supports the attack stats of your DA to help balance the attacking and defending armies in a neighbourhood battle.

Right now there are no consequences for an unsuccessful attack on another player, but there are consequences for an unsuccessful defence. To my mind, that creates an imbalance, which is why some people view plundering as bullying. The way the plundering system is currently set up does lend itself towards favouring bullying.

1. Not everyone always plunders everyone, a few do attack everyone and plunder them. You are also discounting the guy who plunders something relatively worthless for a quest, should he be lumped in with the barbarian horde? This suggestion was using a sledgehammer to fix a problem that can be solved easily by the player: Collect on time and improve your defenses. Or quit FoE and play Elvenaar, which is identical to FoE gameplay-wise but has no combat.
2. When you defend, your army is at your city, you are not at theirs, you did not break their defense. This one is quite stupid.
3. And the stupid idea gains a friend....this just sounds like you dislike people who are better at fighting.
4. Well this one isn't stupid....a third defensive GB would be nice indeed....maybe something to replace any of the currently worthless-in-their-own-age GBs, like Notre Dame, or Colosseum.

 

[joesoap]

Clearly plundering is a problem for a lot of players. So here's a few suggestions:

1) Change the way the neighbourhoods are structured (again), only this time set it up so that players who plunder are in neighbourhoods together and players who don't plunder get grouped together. That way people can play with other players who approach the game in similar ways. This would actually improve the balance within neighbourhoods.
2) When Player A attacks Player B's city, and Player B successfully defends against the attack, Player B should have the option to plunder Player A for the next 24 hours (just as Player A would have if they had won). Again, this improves the balance.
3) If a Player B activates the city shield, Player A should still have the option to attack Player B, but when they enter the battle, Player B's army should be immune to damage.
4) Create a building that is equivalent to a watchtower that improves the attack stats of your defending army. Or add a third GB that supports the attack stats of your DA to help balance the attacking and defending armies in a neighbourhood battle.

Right now there are no consequences for an unsuccessful attack on another player, but there are consequences for an unsuccessful defence. To my mind, that creates an imbalance, which is why some people view plundering as bullying. The way the plundering system is currently set up does lend itself towards favouring bullying.

1: this works until a player who doesnt plunder, attacks their neighbours for points & out of curiousity checks to see what they could plunder & then constantly notices that these players in their safe hoods are so complacent that they make no effort to collect on time & the non plunderer converts to being a plunder & collects tons of free stuff
2: this knocks the balance off, player B hasnt done anything to deserve an opportunity to plunder, plundering is the reward for a successful attack that takes time & units
3: what is the point of being allowed to go into a battle where you cant damage the other units but risk getting your own units damaged

 

[DeletedUser111113]

1: this works until a player who doesnt plunder, attacks their neighbours for points & out of curiousity checks to see what they could plunder & then constantly notices that these players in their safe hoods are so complacent that they make no effort to collect on time & the non plunderer converts to being a plunder & collects tons of free stuff
2: this knocks the balance off, player B hasnt done anything to deserve an opportunity to plunder, plundering is the reward for a successful attack that takes time & units
3: what is the point of being allowed to go into a battle where you cant damage the other units but risk getting your own units damaged

1) At that point, the new plunderer gets moved into a neighbourhood with other plunderers. Even in the current system neighbourhoods are theoretically not stable.
2) Player B has maintained a strong defensive army and built up the GBs to support that army. They won the battle, they should get a reward for that (using your logic of plundering as a reward).
3) The point is that there should be a risk to going into battle in the hopes of plundering loot. Particularly with the neighbourhoods as they are now (with everybody from similar ages) there is far less risk in attacking someone further down in the rankings than you are. If the only thing a player has to do to get plundered is be 10 minutes late in their collections, then I'd say there should be some additional risk to plunderers for attempting to steal other people's goods (and yes, it is stealing, that's the definition of the word 'plunder'). Particularly once you have a Traz, the loss of a couple of troops in a battle is barely noticeable (at the lower ages, it is more costly). If the plunderer wants to avoid losing troops, once they realise the other side is not taking damage, they can surrender and save their troops.

 

[DeletedUser111113]

1. Not everyone always plunders everyone, a few do attack everyone and plunder them. You are also discounting the guy who plunders something relatively worthless for a quest, should he be lumped in with the barbarian horde? This suggestion was using a sledgehammer to fix a problem that can be solved easily by the player: Collect on time and improve your defenses. Or quit FoE and play Elvenaar, which is identical to FoE gameplay-wise but has no combat.
2. When you defend, your army is at your city, you are not at theirs, you did not break their defense. This one is quite stupid.
3. And the stupid idea gains a friend....this just sounds like you dislike people who are better at fighting.
4. Well this one isn't stupid....a third defensive GB would be nice indeed....maybe something to replace any of the currently worthless-in-their-own-age GBs, like Notre Dame, or Colosseum.

1) You can always set up the neighbourhoods to be grouped together by frequency of plundering. People who plunder once or twice can be grouped together, and people who plunder every day can be grouped together. As for saying 'collect on time', this argument has always seemed ridiculous to me. What you're really saying is that this game should somehow be more important than real life. I'm not going to step out of a meeting or dinner with my family to do my collections...that's nuts. Some people have schedules that don't always guarantee that they're free to play the game at the same time every day.

As for the rest, calling someone's argument stupid is not helpful, nor is it a useful counter-argument. Come back with something constructive. As for not liking fighting...I enjoy fighting in the game. I love GVG, I love GE. I've even plundered people in retaliation for attacks on me or people in my guild. I don't like the plundering aspect of the game, but if it is going to be there, then I think there are ways to make it a little more balanced, because right now, it seriously favours the attacker.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

2) Player B has maintained a strong defensive army and built up the GBs to support that army. They won the battle, they should get a reward for that

Their reward is not being plunderable. They risk nothing, lose nothing if they win, and even if the AI loses the fight the attacker can still wind up with nothing.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

Come back with something constructive.

My reply to 2 and 3 were as constructive as those two points were deserving of. A defending player loses nothing if the attacker gets through, the attacker on the other hand suffers every lost unit, or pay diamonds to save them. This idea that successful defenses should give a reward beyond the satisfaction of having made the attacker go away, possibly with unrequited losses, is one that has popped up before, and shot down the same way....if a defender is to gain rewards from successfully defending, they must then permanently lose units that die in defenses, and with all the players who could attack you, you could be left defenseless in very short order. If you think a handful of people attacking you now is bothersome, just wait until your entire 'hood attacks you and leaves your city barren of anything collectible.

 

[DeletedUser111113]

My reply to 2 and 3 were as constructive as those two points were deserving of. A defending player loses nothing if the attacker gets through, the attacker on the other hand suffers every lost unit, or pay diamonds to save them. This idea that successful defenses should give a reward beyond the satisfaction of having made the attacker go away, possibly with unrequited losses, is one that has popped up before, and shot down the same way....if a defender is to gain rewards from successfully defending, they must then permanently lose units that die in defenses, and with all the players who could attack you, you could be left defenseless in very short order. If you think a handful of people attacking you now is bothersome, just wait until your entire 'hood attacks you and leaves your city barren of anything collectible.

I disagree, but as we can see from this entire thread, there are lots of different, valid views on this.Thanks for providing a constructive response.

 

[stevejohnson]

What and when are FOE going to do about this kind of action. I have constant attacks and plundered by jeckles of the Hudson Bay co and if I leave my city longer than the time of my goods maturing they are immediately plundered. I have mailed them and they are not interested and continue to attack daily. I have played this game for over 5 years and I'm now at the stage of wondering if its worth to continue as my progress has now ceased due to these attacks. I have no chance to retaliate due to this person having a much higher status and fire power in the game. It would be like attacking a nuclear power with bows and arrows.

Waiting to see how FOE treat bullies.

Sir_Heat

there are some on here I would consider bullies they attack for the sake of it, a good defence was costing one offender dearly, but he kept coming again and again, very pleased with the 2 weekly change of neighbourhood, that got rid of the annoying little jerk

 

[DeletedUser110195]

there are some on here I would consider bullies they attack for the sake of it, a good defence was costing one offender dearly, but he kept coming again and again, very pleased with the 2 weekly change of neighbourhood, that got rid of the annoying little jerk

That is precisely how to deal with so-called bullies(I just can't take that word seriously....it conjures up images of childish whining and parental failure to teach their kid to stand up for themselves)because just like real life, when you stand up to them, they'll go away and pick a softer target.

 

[stevejohnson]

I used to get plundered a lot daily. Six people or something like that? Yeah that wasn't fun, but I was about to talk to all of them and just through negotiations I cut down half the plundering. Four guy dropped randomly for some reason, then I beefed my defense and made another guy quit. In the meantime I just built more goods buildings to mitigate my losses and did 24 hour collections.

Yeah you forgot about that, huh.

I think some people forget that they are attacking real people I asked one person what that was all about and he replied sorry I needed supplies