Great Buildings Choosing when to level a building

[DeletedUser110195]

Proposal: Allow an owner to choose when to level their great buildings.

Nothing similar that I have found

Reason: To help keep great building collections synchronized to everything else.

Details: Instead of having the building level automatically when the points contributed reach the requirement to level, add a button for the owner to tap/click that will level it if the FP requirement has been reached, which would be grayed out if not.

No possible abuse, no visuals, no balance issues

Searching through the forums to check for something similar to another idea I'd had, I came across some old ideas and this just came to me, as a means of controlling when your great buildings level, without having to disconnect them and probably most of your city.

 

[joesoap]

-1
sometimes adding the last fp to a neighbours gb to stop them doing a double collect & knock their collections offtime is revenge to getting plundered

 

[DeletedUser103370]

+1

Brilliant idea, the fact that the flaw in the current solution allows someone to deliberately sabotage someone's cycle shows that it'd be important. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was never intended to be able to do that.
I'd even go further, and say put a simple checkbox in the GB "Auto advance", so you could choose which one you prefer!

 

[DeletedUser110195]

+1

Brilliant idea, the fact that the flaw in the current solution allows someone to deliberately sabotage someone's cycle shows that it'd be important. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was never intended to be able to do that.
I'd even go further, and say put a simple checkbox in the GB "Auto advance", so you could choose which one you prefer!

Indeed, buildings like Zeus, and ToR, which have no collection don't really need this, and if you don't particularly care about a buildings production, only its passive, then whether it breaks from the collection cycle is immaterial. Or for those odd individuals, who spend every waking moment on FoE, staring at their city....they don't have collection cycles.

 

[DeletedUser103052]

Proposal: Allow an owner to choose when to level their great buildings.

Nothing similar that I have found

Reason: To help keep great building collections synchronized to everything else.

Details: Instead of having the building level automatically when the points contributed reach the requirement to level, add a button for the owner to tap/click that will level it if the FP requirement has been reached, which would be grayed out if not.

No possible abuse, no visuals, no balance issues

Searching through the forums to check for something similar to another idea I'd had, I came across some old ideas and this just came to me, as a means of controlling when your great buildings level, without having to disconnect them and probably most of your city.

Many similar things have been suggested and repeatedly shot down. (Including one of your own proposals - https://forum.en.forgeofempires.com...reat-building-contribution.32880/#post-212198 )
This is because sniping can be seen as a tactical move, and also, if a player quits the game, but you invested hundreds of FPs in one of their GBs, then you might want to put in a few more in order to get them back. Whatever the situation, if someone is willing to put in loads of FPs to level your GB, then you should be thankful, and if you leave it with only a couple left, then that's your own fault.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

Many similar things have been suggested and repeatedly shot down. (Including one of your own proposals - https://forum.en.forgeofempires.com...reat-building-contribution.32880/#post-212198 )
This is because sniping can be seen as a tactical move, and also, if a player quits the game, but you invested hundreds of FPs in one of their GBs, then you might want to put in a few more in order to get them back. Whatever the situation, if someone is willing to put in loads of FPs to level your GB, then you should be thankful, and if you leave it with only a couple left, then that's your own fault.

You think this would stop sniping? If anything it would allow MORE sniping because people could put points on a building all the way to the total required. Also, you shouldn't contribute to GBs of people who've stopped playing, I don't know why this foolishness needs to leave active players vulnerable to their collection cycle being screwed with, just because some punk wants to mess with you, or because they have no patience.

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

Ramification:
What happens if a player wants to contribute to the NEXT level of the GB? If the player owning the GB controls when the levelling is taking place, they also now control who/when contributions for the next level start.

Mechanics:
Would player's bonuses be paid out regardless of the levelling, so that contributing players are unaffected, or would their benefits only be paid out when the owner chose? The owner might never chose! If players can be paid out before the levelling, what happens if the contributions take the GB to yet another level: in effect, the GB would have two levels, one being the contribution level, the other being the owner's level.

It could all work but is it too complex, after all?

 

[DeletedUser110195]

Mechanics:
Would player's bonuses be paid out regardless of the levelling, so that contributing players are unaffected,

That's not a bad idea, if it can be done.

As I've said in other threads, I find the whole concept of 'revenge leveling' to be unbelievably absurd. "You better watch out....I'm going to help you finish your work faster! That'll teach you not to mess with me! Mwahahahahaha! Feel my helpful wrath!"

 

[DeletedUser103370]

Ramification:
What happens if a player wants to contribute to the NEXT level of the GB? If the player owning the GB controls when the levelling is taking place, they also now control who/when contributions for the next level start.

Mechanics:
Would player's bonuses be paid out regardless of the levelling, so that contributing players are unaffected, or would their benefits only be paid out when the owner chose? The owner might never chose! If players can be paid out before the levelling, what happens if the contributions take the GB to yet another level: in effect, the GB would have two levels, one being the contribution level, the other being the owner's level.

It could all work but is it too complex, after all?

For the first one there would be a rather easy and elegant solution, until the GB is levelled (and of course it's full and ready to advance), only players who contributed in the current level could enter, and there could be some kind of graphical indicator too (that the GB is full), so you don't waste your time checking.
Or they could enter, simply wouldn't be able to put in FPs.

And yeah you'd control when the next level starts, but it's YOUR GB isn't it? That is a strategy, obviously you would do it when it best suits you.

No, you won't control who sits in.

I think it should be paid out regardless of levelling, after all the level is finished, it'd just not advance to the next one automatically (if you choose to do it manual)

And it couldn't happen that you get through two levels, since next one wouldn't start until you finish the current, which is the same as now, and you wouldn't be able to put more FPs into.

Basically all this would do, is give you a way to manually advance, and better fine-tune your cycles.
People argue that it's a strategy for them to use the current system, so they can interrupt other's work.
I totally understand that, though in my opinion this is only a result of something not properly designed, and not the other way around. And of course in time people learn to take advantage of these flaws, but I doubt this was the initial goal.

But again, if the devs made it like this DELIBERATELY, so you can mess with other's GBs, then there is no debate.

 

[DeletedUser653]

the system works now and offers a chance to spike a GB by dropping in that last FP and thus stop double collecting.
cannot see a need to change it so

-1​

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

But again, if the devs made it like this DELIBERATELY, so you can mess with other's GBs, then there is no debate.

I suspect there is some design to it. At any time, you can suspend all contributions just by disconnecting the GB from the road network.

 

[DeletedUser103370]

I suspect there is some design to it. At any time, you can suspend all contributions just by disconnecting the GB from the road network.

That's true, but Prinza it still feels like a "dirty hack". I'm very happy that you pointed this out, because it shows that you can already suspend a GB this way, what I think is it would be better if we could do this in a more "civilized" way!

 

[DeletedUser110195]

I suspect there is some design to it. At any time, you can suspend all contributions just by disconnecting the GB from the road network.

Well that's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[DeletedUser103370]

Well that's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

ahahaha, sometimes you guys make me laugh