Every attack to cost players coins and resources

[DeletedUser]

The number of -1's is a testament to how one-sided this idea has been designed

Absolutely not! The number of -1s is a testament to how vocal the PVP'ers are. If you examine Anwar's comment in another thread you will see that only about 10% of the people who play FOE are avid PVPers. It means there needs to be changes and you can either be part of the solution or let the developers do what they will without player input.

Before you shoot the messenger, I am not against PVP nor am I a huge proponent of it. I believe it is needed. If there are no wolves then the sheep wander off. So I am going to suggest that the costs referred to in this thread start off small and go up in tiny increments like the cost of buying forge points goes up and like the cost of obtaining expansions goes up and like the time of scouting missions goes up. OR . . forget the cost of attacking and make the cost related to plundering only (with the cost of plundering going up depending on how many times you have done it.)

 

[DeletedUser]

It is not an attacker's fault that farmers like yourself don't know how to fight back or defend your cities... the entire line of reasoning by everyone supporting this new "radical" (not) approach is incorrect.

It is not about me not being able to defend knockpg, which actually is not the case. It is about making the game progress be equal for both fighter and non fighters.
What we are trying to do here is influence the way in which resources are gathered by a player whoo decides to either go PvP or PvE.

All games should equally treat both PvE and PvP players... especially if only about 10% of players are actively engaging in PvP.
The game makes money by providing balanced content for all game play styles. Ideally they want to have an equal amount of incentives for all sides.

 

[DeletedUser1983]

Lol, you are twisting what Anwar posted into something that will kill this game. The active PvPers are probably the most active players in this game, followed by diamond buyers who are feasting on WWs. All others are casual players who log in twice a day to collect supplies/coins and use their forge points. Surely enough it doesn't make a difference to them whether there is a cost of attacks, etc.

As for your improvement suggestion about incremental growth in cost of attacks, that again will eventually kill the game for those most active players. If FP cost is any indication, my FPs currently cost 100k coins and I have now stopped buying FPs. Which means I will also be forced to stop fighting battles eventually since the cost of each battle will be too high! Come on guys, let's not ruin something that has grown Forge of Empires, a war game, and turn it into a Farmville! And if you or anyone else really enjoy farming so much then such people should play farmville, not FoE!!!

It is not about me not being able to defend knockpg, which actually is not the case. It is about making the game progress be equal for both fighter and non fighters.
What we are trying to do here is influence the way in which resources are gathered by a player whoo decides to either go PvP or PvE.

All games should equally treat both PvE and PvP players... especially if only about 10% of players are actively engaging in PvP.
[/COLOR]

I would like to know the battle counts and current ranking points of those players who are supporting this insanely stupid idea! The stats would show why they are proposing such changes.

The game makes money by providing balanced content for all game play styles. Ideally they want to have an equal amount of incentives for all sides.

By discouraging one style of game play (PvPing)? VERY SMART, VERY SMART INDEED!!

 

[DeletedUser8813]

Absolutely not! The number of -1s is a testament to how vocal the PVP'ers are. If you examine Anwar's comment in another thread you will see that only about 10% of the people who play FOE are avid PVPers. It means there needs to be changes and you can either be part of the solution or let the developers do what they will without player input.

Before you shoot the messenger, I am not against PVP nor am I a huge proponent of it. I believe it is needed. If there are no wolves then the sheep wander off. So I am going to suggest that the costs referred to in this thread start off small and go up in tiny increments like the cost of buying forge points goes up and like the cost of obtaining expansions goes up and like the time of scouting missions goes up. OR . . forget the cost of attacking and make the cost related to plundering only (with the cost of plundering going up depending on how many times you have done it.)

here is all of the post

Two things: According to our recent survey that's about 10% of the people who play FoE - looking at the threads AND the survey we have an overwhelmingly huge number who request improved AI. Second, the AI is an AI. Which means, as I mentioned elsewhere, it will always remain exploitable. Sure, it's a new AI and yes, it's not as easy to find the exploits as before (when they were served on a silver platter). But hey, isn't finding and exploiting the weakness exactly what strategy players want?

so to me that says that only about 10% of people who played foe took the survey.not 10% are avid pvp'ers
and the comment is about improved AI not .pvp in general ,
this is about making us pay to fight,you are not taxed to farm..so its still a big NO from me

 

[DeletedUser1983]

Here is how the current setup is balanced:

1. Players have the option to be fighters or farmers.
2. Fighters sacrifice a lot of their space into making military GBs, military buildings, and population to support such large setup. They make, on an average for a non-diamond player with maxed out St Marks/RAH/LH about 200k coins/200k supplies less than the farmers! Farmers use their space for additional houses and supply buildings, along with may be 1-3 military buildings and defense GBs (If I were to convert into just another farmer, this is the total extra space that would be available to me for farming: 25 (castel) + 24 (aachen) + 6 (Zeus) + 24 (2 Hows) + 12 (1 Lancer) + 27 (3 jaegers) + 9 (1 rifle) + 30 (2 BL factories) + 24 (FG camps) = 181 Cells or 12 Ceramic Factories!)
3. 80% players (Farmers) spend about 25% of the time (and in most cases diamonds) other 20% players spend on this game. Therefore, balance in this game, if Innogames is a sensible business organization, would be to keep the balance as it is at the moment. If anything, Innogames should try and encourage more fighting and hence increase their profitability from this game.

'nuff said.

 

[DeletedUser]

Forge of Empires, a war game,

Forge of Empires is not meant to be a war game primarily. It is rather a farm with war properties from what i know.

By discouraging one style of game play (PvPing)? VERY SMART, VERY SMART INDEED!!

Apparently you do not know how to constructively debate an idea.

This idea has been presented and we are now remodeling it to fit our community. We could for example increase taxes on attacking players that are 1,2,3 or more ages below the attacker. This would be a fare thing that would encourage the accommodation of new players in an old server.

Again, we could provide more incentives by alternatively decreasing the costs of conquering new provinces through negotiation.

If anything, Innogames should try and encourage more fighting and hence increase their profitability from this game.

And that's about how unbiased your point of view is.

 

[DeletedUser8813]

How does charging the pvp players to fight balance the game...?..

where are the taxes to offset the cost of farming..or did you forget it costs to farm as well.

all i see is the farmers trying to stop the pvp side of the game .

 

[DeletedUser]

Well obviously farmers are trying to "stop" the pVp side of the game because for now it is very clear that engaging in active PvP is better than farming. And i will say this again both should be equally profitable.

 

[DeletedUser1983]

Well obviously farmers are trying to "stop" the pVp side of the game because for now it is very clear that engaging in active PvP is better than farming. And i will say this again both should be equally profitable.

I applaud you for your sense of humor.

If you know how to farm properly, you can go through the ranks quickly, and in most cases faster than attackers. Check out the rank 2 player on Avarhall... Nobody is stopping farmers from farming the way this player in Avarhall does. SO... your point is?

 

[DeletedUser8813]

Well obviously farmers are trying to "stop" the pVp side of the game because for now it is very clear that engaging in active PvP is better than farming. And i will say this again both should be equally profitable.

ahhh so you want FOE to become farm ville.
foe is a building game with a pvp aspect that is clearly stated..but no the farmers are not happy ,so all pvp should cease and desist to suit them .
if all you want to do is farm why play FOE..farm ville would be more suited.
no i think this game has the correct balance and you can take your game in any direction you choose.
why do you cry so much ,,you lose nothing in the fight.
farmers are doing very well in the game, maybe pvp players get more points but we work for the points,we are on hour after hour .whilst the farmer comes in once or twice a day collects ..then proceeds to complain pvp score to many points..
the game rewards activity as any game should,those that are willing to put in the time and effort should be rewarded.

 

[DeletedUser4906]

I've always been drawn to the Orange Bar at the base of player's avatars, it says.............ATTACK.

I don't see FARM anywhere.

Correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[DeletedUser1983]

I've always been drawn to the Orange Bar at the base of player's avatars, it says.............ATTACK.

I don't see FARM anywhere.

Correct me if i'm wrong.

lol... very true.. but think of those poor farmers like ______ (since i am not allowed to put names) for whom the "attack" button is not orange, it's grey!

 

[DeletedUser]

farmers are doing very well in the game, maybe pvp players get more points but we work for the points,we are on hour after hour .whilst the farmer comes in once or twice a day collects ..then proceeds to complain pvp score to many points..
the game rewards activity as any game should,those that are willing to put in the time and effort should be rewarded.

True, however please do explain to me how I get rewarded when I'm on for hours and hours a day just farming (using 5 or 15 min productions only, other than over night) and negotiating all my sectors?

I've tried this, and must say it's been nerve wrecking simply because I don't progress any faster than by logging into the game 'only' 3-4 times a day at most. (Disregarding those few points I get from collecting resources, which I personally don't really see as a reward in either case)

I'll agree that PvPers should get some kind of benefit/reward for taking the time to build and maintain an army to attack their entire neighbourhood on a daily basis. Yes, that's fine.

Nevertheless, I do feel a little 'penalized' as a farmer when I'm online just as much and all I get is more resources and goods, that can be stolen from me at any matter of time if I'm not paying attention. I know that there are measures to minimize getting plundered, and I'll admit I'm hardly ever plundered at all lately (but that is subject to change, since I've been inactive for a few months), however I simply can't get over the feeling that PvPers are rewarded just a bit more for being just as active.

Currently, the major difference is that PvPers can get medals via tournaments and goods or resources through plundering, while a farmer can only get these medals through GBs (which take up the space they'd actually use for producing more goods/resources) and the goods/resources through their own buildings. (Regarding costs: it costs to produce goods, just like it costs to build/maintain an army)

Conclusion: I don't see additional costs being necessary for PvP oriented players, instead I simply see the need for farmers to receive an adequate reward system for medals that would take into consideration something like amount of goods/resources produced per week or something.

Regards,
Bloodwyn

 

[DeletedUser]

I have to give respect to those PVPers who are fighting their neighborhoods every day and getting their scores to extreme limits. I sense an 'Us or Them' ambiance in this (and other) threads and I am not convinced it is warranted.

I am not out to 'kill PVP'. I don't see others out to do that either. I want more balance. Picture yourself going for a golf game with Tiger Woods every week. What are your chances of ever winning a weekly tournament? Thats about the same chance that an average member of your neighborhood has of winning a tower against you 'Top Guns'. How much fun is that? Not giving the average guy a handicap is what will kill PVP. Not controlling your urge to plunder when you are a zillion points ahead, don't need the goods, get no points for plundering goods (notice I did not say coins or products) but you do it anyway . . that turns people off PVP.

So come up with a better way to handicap the people who excel at PVP to give the average guy a chance and you might just have something.

Conclusion: I see the need for farmers to be able to compete with the PVPers on a more even field. I see the need for TopGun PVPers to be handicapped on how much plundering they can do. I equate those needs with a need for additional costs/taxes applied to some/all PVPers and/or Plunderers.

 

[DeletedUser]

Bloodwyn and GrossEyeEh +1

 

[DeletedUser8813]

True, however please do explain to me how I get rewarded when I'm on for hours and hours a day just farming (using 5 or 15 min productions only, other than over night) and negotiating all my sectors?

before gbs medals were the sole domain of the pvp.so if you wanted the medals for expansions you had to fight..this is a choice you have to make.
as to rewards doing the short runs gives you more supply which in turn gives more game points so you are rewarded for your activity.

I've tried this, and must say it's been nerve wrecking simply because I don't progress any faster than by logging into the game 'only' 3-4 times a day at most. (Disregarding those few points I get from collecting resources, which I personally don't really see as a reward in either case)

i dont know why you say this as i some times do 5 min runs with my supply.i now have wheelwrights so i will use them as a base .on 5 min intervals i can do 12000 (i think this is an unboosted number)supply per hour per building ,compared to 1800 hour enthused no boosts involved in these or motivation .so the reward there is a lot more game points and supply for all my time.
so the advancement is huge.
.so it still comes back to making a choice you either want the medals for those expansions or you don't..we all made a choice to what style of game we want to play..dont try to make others play your way.and accept you chose not to have the medals by not fighting in the towers to win them

 

[DeletedUser]

so it still comes back to making a choice you either want the medals for those expansions or you don't..we all made a choice to what style of game we want to play..dont try to make others play your way.and accept you chose not to have the medals by not fighting in the towers to win them

I love how people think that there should be those who choose to be losers and those who choose to be winners. That are 2 different game styles in your opinion i suppose?

Again double read what i have written. I offer the advice to balance things and give equal chances to PvP and PvE gameplay. You guys are only showing how afraid you are that players who prefer a different game style might one day shoot up in ranking just because they like a different game style.

 

[DeletedUser4906]

I love how people think that there should be those who choose to be losers and those who choose to be winners. That are 2 different game styles in your opinion i suppose?

Again double read what i have written. I offer the advice to balance things and give equal chances to PvP and PvE gameplay. You guys are only showing how afraid you are that players who prefer a different game style might one day shoot up in ranking just because they like a different game style.

Your advice isn't needed, people see but don't read the words...

Afraid?.......It's a game not real-life.


Just MY humble opinion.:cool:

 

[DeletedUser7719]

lol, different idea Blood (I do see your point in there, but I'm not too fond about it)

I've always been drawn to the Orange Bar at the base of player's avatars, it says.............ATTACK. I don't see FARM anywhere. Correct me if i'm wrong.

lol, that got a nice chuckle from me.

Wow, talk about a heated argument. Fights and Farmers! Who's gonna win? Oh yeah the fighters since that's what they do :p

Ok, back to the discussion-ish:

WELL DONE MODS! It gives me a solid reason to now consider applying to be a moderator

Don't call out the mods. Remember those guys are the ones who take care of reporting/fixing bugs

 

[DeletedUser]

While I understand that farmers feel that they want more benefits, I don't think that the right approach is to punish pvp-ers. I think a much better solution would be to offer a more "extended" market where farmers will have a slight benefit becouse of their high production.



Extended market:

This market would allow players to trade more "exclusive goods" with each other, for instance, goods, medals, forgepoints, diamonds etc and maybe even units.



[NOTE 1]: Trades between players on the same internet connection will not be aviable (in the same way as GB donations).
[NOTE 2]: Diamonds are traded between players, this means that they are not "free", it's just possible for a player to trade 49 diamonds into 1 FP with another player instead of trading them in directly to the game. The diamonds don't change value, they just change the owner.
[NOTE 3]: The market does not allow trades with coins and resources.
[NOTE 4]: Units that are traded on this market will become "Unbound" for the new owner. The "trainer" (old owner) will lose the unit as if it would have been killed, with the possibility to train a new one.
[NOTE 5]: This market would need fixed price ratios, so friends and guilds wouldn't be able to "boost" each other with mini-prizes. For instance, 1 FP will always cost 49 diamonds in the market, this ratio is unchangeble, however the player can choose how many trades he/she should put up on the market.
[NOTE 6]: Just for clarification: There's not any "trading-mechants" in this market, it's entirely controlled by players, if noone puts up a trading offer, it will be empty. This way it cant be abused.

Farmers would absolutely benefit from this as they produce so much goods. Pvp-ers would even be able to drop their production if they wish to and for instance trade some medals for the desired good. Also, this would benefit the farmers without punishing the pvp-ers.

Just my idea and opinion on this matter

EDIT: Blueprints should also be tradeble in this market. A perfect use for all duplicates