• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account, you need a forum account. You can
    REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

BULLYING

Agent327

Overlord
I have been plundered while collecting. When it happened to me every single day for awhile, it eventually spoiled the fun of the game and made me want to give up, because NOTHING I did helped.

And it never dawned on you they knew the time you collect, so you were the perfect target?

With that level of size discrepancy, it is not possible to defend successfully, nor to attack them in return.

You mean it is not possible for YOU. There are plenty who can do it.

So yes, I agree with the comment that some adjustments to the neighborhood assignments are needed so that players are at least within some reasonable size distance from one another. When a neighborhood ranges from 17 million to 300 million, it cannot possibly be fair to the bottom half of the group.

It has been explained at least a hundred times, but there are those that will never get it. Size is not equal to strength.

Stating that "it is a part of the game" is a pointless reply; everyone knows that. The majority of players don't plunder significantly smaller players. so clearly it is not a "necessary" part of the game even it is permitted. Additionally, alllowing the constant attacks on people who have some sort of complaint is a good way to shut people up, especially the less extroverted or angry -- if that's what is wanted, it is working very well.

That argument is moot. There are many more things that are part of the game, are permitted and not necessary.
 
I offer all my neighbors that we aid each other which I consider to be a friendly act from my side, those who don't care about it might get plundered a few times a week. And yet I was also called a bully last week by one neighbor which obviously has the same mind set as you. Many players will not give you any choice but plunder you mercilessly each and every day and you think giving a choice is bullying? Makes me want to turn into one of those players who don't give any allowance. And btw I'm in AF, I don't go after noobies
 
I agree with Kat1030. Ever since this one guy started plundering me every day, I have started to dislike this game. I prefer to negotiate rather than fight but I find that the former option is rather an illusion in this game. If you choose the way of politics and economy instead of violence, it seems to me that you just get stomped. That's not precisely realistic for a game that proposes to let us play through historical eras.

It should be possible to choose whether or not to PvP given that we already have NPC enemies to contend with.

If not, it should be possible to move to a less hostile neighborhood.

If not that either, it should either be less expensive to purchase city shields or it should be possible to purchase shields with diamonds. (Psst: money making opportunity here Innogames.)

If that's unreasonable as well, then why not randomise the city that prospective plunderers will attack to make it impossible for the attacker to target one specific player? That would eliminate bullying and still let plunderers have their fun and reap the spoils they desire.

There's plenty of options to explore to keep the game fun for all regardless of preferred playstyle. We don't have to settle for "Just be a bigger bully." That's not historically accurate or necessarily how the game has to work.
 

Agent327

Overlord
I agree with Kat1030. Ever since this one guy started plundering me every day, I have started to dislike this game. I prefer to negotiate rather than fight but I find that the former option is rather an illusion in this game. If you choose the way of politics and economy instead of violence, it seems to me that you just get stomped. That's not precisely realistic for a game that proposes to let us play through historical eras.[/quiote]

How is someone that attacks you to know that you choose the way of politics and economy instead of violence?? How does the attack prevent you from playing through historical eras?

It should be possible to choose whether or not to PvP given that we already have NPC enemies to contend with.

It isn't and it is DNS.

If not, it should be possible to move to a less hostile neighborhood.

Great suggestion. I am sure there are players that love to get eassier fights.

If not that either, it should either be less expensive to purchase city shields or it should be possible to purchase shields with diamonds. (Psst: money making opportunity here Innogames.)

City shields are well balanced and diamonds ios another DNS.

If that's unreasonable as well, then why not randomise the city that prospective plunderers will attack to make it impossible for the attacker to target one specific player? That would eliminate bullying and still let plunderers have their fun and reap the spoils they desire.

Another DNS.

There's plenty of options to explore to keep the game fun for all regardless of preferred playstyle. We don't have to settle for "Just be a bigger bully." That's not historically accurate or necessarily how the game has to work.

There are also plenty of options to prevent plundering. Why should lazy players get help?
 
I don't know what DNS means in this context. Could you please explain?

The thing which is making it difficult to progress is that I lack the goods necessary to negotiate sectors when expanding. Perhaps most people choose to solve the encounters with military force but that's not how I choose to play. I prefer making trade agreements to spilling blood. That's supposed to be one of the ways to play the game, but it seems to not be very viable.

Also, the whole thing with being able to afford the research. Well you know how it goes.

I don't expect people to somehow know that you are pacifistic or militaristic. I don't expect militaristic players to stop enjoying the game the way they want to play it. What I'm saying is, the way that some players use the game mechanics makes it impossible (or just unreasonably difficult) for other players to play the game any other way. It just really makes the game dull and 2 dimensional to me.

With a couple of changes, everyone could have what they want and be happy. This is a really excellent game. The art style is highly detailed, the music is so relaxing I sometimes leave it on while sleeping, and watching my civilisation change over time is really cool. I'm something of a history buff, so that's what appealed to me from the beginning. I really don't want to stop playing. I just really enjoyed the gameplay I experienced during the first couple ages when I wasn't getting attacked every day.

I really don't have the energy to get mad. I'm not a hardcore competitive kind of person. Just really chill and happy to help other players have fun. Is that lazy? I dunno man. I have two jobs and another part time gig plus volunteering. I game to relax. I can't be attached to my tablet 24/7. If FoE requires players to be always on the alert, checking in multiple times per day, and organizing your real-life schedule around picking up electronic goods, that's called an "excessively needy game" in the gaming industry.

Why shame players for being casual gamers when you could just make a couple changes to accommodate? It does nothing to the enjoyment of the hardcore player's enjoyment of the game. Unless easy prey that doesn't fight back is a critical part of their enjoyment.
 

Agent327

Overlord
I don't know what DNS means in this context. Could you please explain?

"the Lazy" fits you. If you want to be on a forum, read the rules and the posts you are supposed to read.

The thing which is making it difficult to progress is that I lack the goods necessary to negotiate sectors when expanding. Perhaps most people choose to solve the encounters with military force but that's not how I choose to play. I prefer making trade agreements to spilling blood. That's supposed to be one of the ways to play the game, but it seems to not be very viable.

So you pick another way to play. Who is forcing you to progress faster than the way you picked allows you?

Also, the whole thing with being able to afford the research. Well you know how it goes.

No I don't. Enlighten me.

I don't expect people to somehow know that you are pacifistic or militaristic. I don't expect militaristic players to stop enjoying the game the way they want to play it. What I'm saying is, the way that some players use the game mechanics makes it impossible (or just unreasonably difficult) for other players to play the game any other way. It just really makes the game dull and 2 dimensional to me.

So you want militaristic players to enjoy the game the way they play, You just don't want them to play according to game rules and plunder others. You want them to enjoy it, but you do not want them to enjoy it, cause their enjoyment clashes with your alternative style. Makes perfect sense.

With a couple of changes, everyone could have what they want and be happy.

What changes? I want to plunder. Plundering makes me happy. How will you keep "everyone" happy?

This is a really excellent game. The art style is highly detailed, the music is so relaxing I sometimes leave it on while sleeping, and watching my civilisation change over time is really cool. I'm something of a history buff, so that's what appealed to me from the beginning. I really don't want to stop playing. I just really enjoyed the gameplay I experienced during the first couple ages when I wasn't getting attacked every day.

Start a new city with the "knowledge" you have. Do not research Military Tactics and you can fall asleep with the music and watch your civilisation change for as long as the game will be available.

I really don't have the energy to get mad. I'm not a hardcore competitive kind of person. Just really chill and happy to help other players have fun. Is that lazy? I dunno man. I have two jobs and another part time gig plus volunteering. I game to relax. I can't be attached to my tablet 24/7. If FoE requires players to be always on the alert, checking in multiple times per day, and organizing your real-life schedule around picking up electronic goods, that's called an "excessively needy game" in the gaming industry.

There is something called Sim City. Maybe that is something for you. You entered a game where fighting is a part of it. Nobody cares how many jobs you have or if you volunteer. Do you think anyone considers that when they plunder you? To me you are nothing more than another player with a stupid name that leaves his stuff lying around. What makes you think I care about your real life?

Why shame players for being casual gamers when you could just make a couple changes to accommodate? It does nothing to the enjoyment of the hardcore player's enjoyment of the game. Unless easy prey that doesn't fight back is a critical part of their enjoyment.

Problem is that casual players do not accept they are casual players and they start complaining about players that really like the game and as a result of that are willing to put a serious effort into it. Those players play according to the rules, so you should accept you are not more than mediocre and stop wanting the game to be adapted to "mediocre".
 
You've heard of games where it's an option to put up your PvP flag if you want to PvP, yes? It's a pretty successful model. The people who wanna eff each other up for fun get to do that and the people who would rather not don't have to. Everyone wins.

I do know Sim City, yes. But advancing through the eras of history? That's not really a SimCity thing. Otherwise I would be there and not pestering anybody here. If you have other suggestions for civilisation building games where PvP is optional (or at least less obnoxious) I'd be really thankful for them.

And yes it is a stupid name, thank you. I like providing amusement to someone's day when they stumble upon me unawares. It's fairly descriptive too I think. I'm not lazy about helping my guildmates or friends. I just don't have the impetus to fight wars. Seems like a waste of resources to me. Are you likely to be attacked by someone called Farticus the Lazy? Probably not. At least a bit less than Bane the Terrible or something.

But at the end of the day, yeah, I do care about other people's feelings. It's just how I roll. I think it's safe to say I did not realise that this game was edgelord territory for people with no chill and a lot of free time. I wish I had known that before I got invested in it and made a bunch of friends.

The advertisements are different depending on what game you we're playing wherein you watched the advertisement. The game studio's marketing team will tailor ads to entice players depending on the type of game they play and sometimes even go as far as buying stats from Facebook to better lure in new players. It's a bit of a sleazy thing to do and you often get a high churn rate because of people realising that the game isn't what they thought it was, but all's fair in love and economics I guess? Some studios actually don't care if their customers are satisfied especially if they retain enough players to stay afloat regardless of how many people they cheese off.
 
Oh I'm sorry! I missed answering your question. You asked what changes I would make to the game in order to please both the plunderers and those who aren't so keen on it. I made several suggestions earlier that are based on other games I've played (or that I've watched my wife playing). You said something about DNS in response and seemed disinclined to point me in the right direction when I asked for clarification of the term. I did read the rules of the forums and the FAQ and I can't seem to find any reference to this acronym.

I'd love to bainstorm with you further as you seem really knowledgeable and well-acquainted with the game but I can't really do that if I'm not on the same page. I'd rather look like a fool for a moment and ask for the info I need than pretend to be suave and savvy and remain ignorant. Can you point out what I've overlooked?
 

Emberguard

Legend
If you choose the way of politics and economy instead of violence, it seems to me that you just get stomped. That's not precisely realistic for a game that proposes to let us play through historical eras.
as far as history goes, that actually sounds somewhat accurate. Being passive has in history resulted in many countries being taken over or occupied by military countries. Just look at China and Japan or even Malta. Countries have never stopped themselves from attacking based on purely if the neighbour wants to play politics, only on whether it benefits them not to attack. Hence why we’ve all got nukes tucked away in all the major countries of the world. It’s not just for show, it’s because history has shown mutual destruction is a deterrent to invasion.

Usually politics only results in not being stomped over when it’s beneficial to both sides. This means either
(A) both sides are not seeking conquest. You’re both pacifists
(B) you’re strong enough to fight back against your enemy. Even if you can’t beat them they recognise losing too many troops against you would weaken them too much against other enemies. Therefore peace can be brokered
(C) it’s more beneficial to have a economic trade then to fight or take the country over. Japan was threatened to be invaded if they didn’t open up their borders to trade. Guess what happened? Japan didn’t want to go to war so they opened their borders to trade
 

Opting out of PvP is one of the things specifically mentioned on the do not suggest list
Thank you! DNS usually means Domain Name Server so I was understandably confused! I've never herd of a game having a Do Not Suggest list. Generally speaking, if a suggestion keeps coming up, it's in the studio's best interest to listen. But we have no control over that so, I'll let it be.

The ability to buy shields for gems, however, is not on that list.

Emberguard, I have no idea to what degree you've studied history so I really can't comment on your knowledge. However, I will say that I would very much be open to trade with the fella who keeps attacking me. I'm currently trying to negotiate a deal with him rather than beefing up my military and forcing him to waste resources attacking me. This is a standard tactic throughout history. Pay tribute and your big powerful neighbor leaves you alone more or less. I'm fine with that.

I'd also like to point out that, at a certain point, it becomes too dangerous to make war. If we all send our nukes off, the entirety off humanity will die horribly. We cannot afford large scale war any longer because we've become too adept at killing. What a curious problem! To that end, I wanted to play my civilisation as pacifistic as possible, having learned the lessons of the past. War is catastrophically wasteful. But maybe the game wasn't intended for that kind of philosophical stuff?

Can you play the game and enjoy it if you don't care about being top dog and are content with being "mediocre" as Agent put it? Is that a valid playstyle?
 

Emberguard

Legend
Can you play the game and enjoy it if you don't care about being top dog and are content with being "mediocre" as Agent put it? Is that a valid playstyle?
I dare say so. The more one tries to control their environment the more they’re going to notice resistance to what you’re trying to control. This can be good or bad depending on what it is and how you’re reacting to it. The good news is even if plundered daily you’d need multiple plunderers for that to stop a city from growing. Even then there’s plenty of options that can’t be plundered anyway. Quests, rewards from fighting (continent map, GE, GBG) and buildings that can’t be plundered etc.

Also, if you have a moment, please have a look at the principle of Soft Power to get a broader understanding of the political strategy I'm talking about.
Yes. I agree that’s a great option. What I’m saying is it only works on someone willing to put down their weapon. If they’re hell bent on glory through conquest then good luck convincing them when they’re already at your gate. It really only works on a enemy already known to you.

However, I will say that I would very much be open to trade with the fella who keeps attacking me. I'm currently trying to negotiate a deal with him rather than beefing up my military and forcing him to waste resources attacking me. This is a standard tactic throughout history. Pay tribute and your big powerful neighbor leaves you alone more or less. I'm fine with that.

I'd also like to point out that, at a certain point, it becomes too dangerous to make war. If we all send our nukes off, the entirety off humanity will die horribly. We cannot afford large scale war any longer because we've become too adept at killing. What a curious problem! To that end, I wanted to play my civilisation as pacifistic as possible, having learned the lessons of the past. War is catastrophically wasteful. But maybe the game wasn't intended for that kind of philosophical stuff?
True. But here’s the thing, if negotiation could solve everything we never would have developed the weapons in the first place. It’s said a country must always be ready for war. Why? Because you can’t control your opponent.
 
Last edited:

Vesiger

Monarch
The ability to buy shields for gems, however, is not on that list.
The ability to buy a city shield at all is a very recent one (and it probably won't surprise you to learn that all the plunderers on this thread had previously predicted that the sky would fall in if players were given the chance to put up an impenetrable guard against neighbourhood attack, and that Inno were ruining gameplay for those who understood how to play it properly and pandering to the whining of incompetent players, etc. etc.)

In practice, the proportion of players who opt for the play style of plundering their neighbours appears to be pretty low - my experience is that you will only find yourself in the same neighbourhood as a plunderer for a few weeks at a time, and a few times per year. Of course while it lasts it's not pleasant.
 
Top