• 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.

Forwarded: (Great Buildings) Flame & Tower GB's

  • Thread starter DeletedUser111907
  • Start date

Do you support this Idea

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser110131

@Agent327
I always read the OP, and always what I reply to. In this case, my question was a reply to your interest in whether OP had mentioned defensive attack. After all, you wouldn't quarrel on the issue, unless it was relevant to you, would you? Not to mention, there's always the possibility that this new information might affect your position in the "Colosseum" topic, where you argue that the change is insufficient for the Colosseum to even justify it's size.

As for your stated reason, it doesn't take into account that not all players are "at the end of the game". It also doesn't take into account that any ideas here will be mere starting points, without fully fleshed out balancing. Something as simple as diminishing returns alone is enough to make your objection irrelevant. They could also throw in an option for a slight increase in offensive boost. It is, quite frankly, a pretty anemic objection.

Edit is of some significance
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Agent327

Overlord
@Agent327
I always read the OP, and always what I reply to. In this case, my question was a reply to your interest in whether OP had mentioned defensive attack. After all, you wouldn't quarrel on the issue, unless it was relevant to you, would you? Not to mention, there's always the possibility that this new information might affect your position in the "Colosseum" topic, where you argue that the change is insufficient for the Colosseum to even justify it's size.

As for your stated reason, it doesn't take into account that not all players are "at the end of the game". It also doesn't take into account that any ideas here will be mere starting points, without fully fleshed out balancing. Something as simple as diminishing returns alone is enough to make your objection irrelevant. They could also throw in an option for a slight increase in offensive boost. It is, quite frankly, a pretty anemic objection.​

First thing, this idea isn't about the Colosseum, but about two other proposed GB's. Colosseum was thrown in later, but that really does not change anything. I am against the original idea and replacing that with the Colosseum does not change it for me. Most players at the top of the ranking have made it there by exploiting the game in any way they can. They are at the top of their neighbourhood and attack anyone they can. Using their power they either plunder or extort you. They have their nice little 1,9 clubs and forbid you to donate in their GB's. If you still do, you face attack and plunder again. The only problem they face at the moment is that their defence is'nt impregnable, so players can still strike back. Give them the opportunity to empty their inventory and use all the watchfires and flames they have accumulated and they will have it done in no time with their 1,9 clubs. In nmo time their defence will become impregnable. That's why I am against it and this isn't just about players at the end of the game. You can find these type of players in every era.

Because you are permanently negative about all ideas?

That must be it Mr Mod. No way I ever gave an idea a +1. I am just shooting them all down. Which ofcourse given the way I feel about how they deal with ideas, is totally useless, but hey, it keeps me off the street.
 

DeletedUser107476

That must be it Mr Mod. No way I ever gave an idea a +1. I am just shooting them all down. Which ofcourse given the way I feel about how they deal with ideas, is totally useless, but hey, it keeps me off the street.
No way you ever gave a +1? Well as you have been on forums less than a month really not that long a time. By the way I am not a mod.
 

DeletedUser110131

Most players at the top of the ranking have made it there by exploiting the game in any way they can.
Ah, you're one of those who simply can't believe that anyone could beat you fair and square. That explains your thoroughly negative attitude perfectly. It must be very frustrating, always being convinced that you're being unfairly treated.

That doesn't change the fact that your concerns in this instance could be easily addressed. Why not focus on emphasizing the need for limiting the strength of such buildings, and ways of doing so in a balanced way, rather than endlessly repeating the same irrelevant criticism?
 

Agent327

Overlord
No way you ever gave a +1?

https://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/index.php?posts/234863

By the way I am not a mod.

Then why are you acting like one? :?

Ah, you're one of those who simply can't believe that anyone could beat you fair and square. That explains your thoroughly negative attitude perfectly. It must be very frustrating, always being convinced that you're being unfairly treated.

Let's see. Players who took advantage of the Oracle did it fair and square. Players with crossdeals and push-accounts are doing so fair and square. Players that use GvG only to score points arer doing it fair and square. (OK, this is more of a grey area, but you get the point)

Can't even blame them for doing so since they have the chance, but I can blame Inno, cause they refuse to do anything about it.

https://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/cheating.34467/


That doesn't change the fact that your concerns in this instance could be easily addressed. Why not focus on emphasizing the need for limiting the strength of such buildings, and ways of doing so in a balanced way, rather than endlessly repeating the same irrelevant criticism?

Then focus on it and come with a suggestion on how to limit the strength, cause now it's strength is unlimited the way I look at it.
 

DeletedUser110131

Let's see. Players who took advantage of the Oracle did it fair and square. Players with crossdeals and push-accounts are doing so fair and square. Players that use GvG only to score points are doing it fair and square. (OK, this is more of a grey area, but you get the point)
Of course not. However, your assumption that everyone who's doing better than you, must be among these, is baseless.

The Oracle was a mistake, and a brilliant example of why some things can't be rushed, and why you should quit whining about the time it takes to roll out new content. Cross-deals and push-accounts are already against the rules. Removing the possibility of doing those things, is technically impossible. Breaking the rule against push-accounts and cross-deals can be done in very nearly indetectable ways, making enforcement feasible only if the cheaters make mistakes. Even when they do, it's difficult. Legitimate players may have the same detectable behavior, for legitimate reasons. Because it comes down to something as complex as motive, intent, priorities, and plans, automated detection is nearly impossible. At some point, high level AI that may be able to detect it with sufficient precision to provide a short-list of potential cheaters, will become available, even at Inno's level. At present, it's not.

Then focus on it and come with a suggestion on how to limit the strength, cause now it's strength is unlimited the way I look at it.
For the topic at hand, I have. In a replies to your posts. Which you in turn have replied to. Apparently without reading them.
 

DeletedUser111907

There will always be concerns about new ideas and about game abuses but to be honest I think that is something for Inno to deal with not people coming up with the ideas, the inner workings and mechanics of the GB's come down to Inno's coding and only they know how their balancing systems work. As for abuses, well there will always be people in life who want to take a shortcut and your never going to prevent everything only what you can think of yourself.

Personally I'm nowhere near the end Era's my highest Era city has only recently broken into Modern Era and I don't have any high and powerful GB's I work with my guild for the guild to better that and our members game experience by passing on what I and others learn, the fact that there are massively high players on my server with level 100+ Arc's, Cape's and so on does not concern me as they are in different Era's to me and cannot attack me, if someone in my Era can overpower me and plunder my city then good on them, but I will fight back, change my collection times or suck it up as after all its a military based game and if I want to play it then this is going to happen and if I dont like it then I should go play Farmsville or similar.

Having said that I actually find the majority of high level players I speak to respectful and helpful both with information and trades if I need them, plenty of advice is offered and has helped improve my city and game experience.

Thanks for all the comments folks, both for and against my idea as it is only with criticism and re evaluation that things get to the point where the decision of whether something is worthwhile or not can be made :-)
 
Why carry on so? Some will like the idea and some won't. That really is too bad, but that's how it goes. Bandying this idea about isn't/won't change the outcome.

If it's offered, I'll build it and dump my 45 watchfires I now have in inventory into it along with my supply of 20 flames.

That's a whopping 340% increase in defense bonus!

Ya baby, sounds like a winner. That should put an end to all the plunders, which I assume is the objective of the idea to begin with.
 

DeletedUser110131

That's a whopping 340% increase in defense bonus!
No, it won't be. A simple algorithm can easily make the returns taper off, at any rate, at any level. Reaching 100% could easily be made to require anywhere between 25 and infinitely many watchfires, while still giving a one to one return on the first few. This is how they do it with many other GBs, if not all. The only difficult bit is to decide at which level to start the tapering off, and at what rate. They could also easily offset it by improving offensive boosts; these could be made specific to PvP, to make the balancing easier.

Basically, the whole thing could be done, without disturbing the balance between attack and defence, at all. What we'd get then, is another GB to consider strategically, and bad consequences if we don't. It would increase the difficulty of the game, for everyone, without changing the balance.
 

Agent327

Overlord
Of course not. However, your assumption that everyone who's doing better than you, must be among these, is baseless.

That's your assumption not mine. You are putting words into my mouth. Plenty of players do better than me and I can only respect them for that. I do however have no respect for players who do so by cheating.

The Oracle was a mistake, and a brilliant example of why some things can't be rushed, and why you should quit whining about the time it takes to roll out new content.

Wher do I whine about that. My view on that point is they should take their time and use the beta for what it is supposed to be used.

Cross-deals and push-accounts are already against the rules. Removing the possibility of doing those things, is technically impossible. Breaking the rule against push-accounts and cross-deals can be done in very nearly indetectable ways, making enforcement feasible only if the cheaters make mistakes. Even when they do, it's difficult. Legitimate players may have the same detectable behavior, for legitimate reasons. Because it comes down to something as complex as motive, intent, priorities, and plans, automated detection is nearly impossible. At some point, high level AI that may be able to detect it with sufficient precision to provide a short-list of potential cheaters, will become available, even at Inno's level. At present, it's not.

Great argument. Problem is that if you report someone with plenty of hard evidence they still do nothing about it. Hell, they even make it hard to report someone. Contact Support, select breach of rules and the response wil be that that is not the way how you should do it and no action will be taken.

For the topic at hand, I have. In a replies to your posts. Which you in turn have replied to. Apparently without reading them.

No you haven't. You do not come any further than "they should", "they could". Don't know about you, but I comment on the idea. Not on what they might turn it in to. That's like agreeing to an idea , cause maybe they will add a daily free 50 diamonds gift to it.
 

Agent327

Overlord
There will always be concerns about new ideas and about game abuses but to be honest I think that is something for Inno to deal with not people coming up with the ideas

Not?


Abuse Prevention:
Does your proposal open up possible exploits or make it possible for players to cheat? If so, then how can this be addressed?.
 
No, it won't be. A simple algorithm can easily make the returns taper off, at any rate, at any level. Reaching 100% could easily be made to require anywhere between 25 and infinitely many watchfires, while still giving a one to one return on the first few. This is how they do it with many other GBs, if not all. The only difficult bit is to decide at which level to start the tapering off, and at what rate. They could also easily offset it by improving offensive boosts; these could be made specific to PvP, to make the balancing easier.

Basically, the whole thing could be done, without disturbing the balance between attack and defence, at all. What we'd get then, is another GB to consider strategically, and bad consequences if we don't. It would increase the difficulty of the game, for everyone, without changing the balance.

Then what is the point of this building?

I think we need A simple algorithm to make this thread taper off!
 

DeletedUser110131

That's your assumption not mine. You are putting words into my mouth.
I must've been confused by the fact that you complained that the players at the top of their neighborhood are cheaters...
Wher do I whine about that.
You're right. You don't. I must've gotten things mixed up. My apologies.
plenty of hard evidence
Such as?
No you haven't. You do not come any further than "they should", "they could".
You asked me to "focus on it and come with a suggestion on how to limit the strength". I pointed out that I already had. Now you're complaining that what I had come up with was a suggestion. Apart from the fact that a suggestion was what you asked for, what else did you imagine I might come up with, that would be more substantial? An command for Inno? Precognition about what they'll do? Mind control?
Don't know about you, but I comment on the idea.
So do I. My comments occasionally include thoughts on how the idea may be improved or fleshed out.
Not on what they might turn it in to.
What do you think an idea is, if not a description of "what they might turn it into"?
That's like agreeing to an idea , cause maybe they will add a daily free 50 diamonds gift to it.
If you think that is a viable addition to this idea, you should suggest it. I'm eager to read the reasoning and details of your suggestion.

The simple fact of the matter is that your objection has simple solutions, that have already been pointed out. That makes the objection irrelevant. It's time to stop making it. If you believe that the proposed solutions are flawed, then make the case for that, instead of repeating a point that is now irrelevant.

Then what is the point of this building?
If I thought that the idea was about making the game easier, I wouldn't have given it a +1. The point would be to add more challenges; more ways to get things wrong, but also more ways to get them right. Figuring out which is which, is a central aspect of the game, in my opinion. I don't want them to add anything that will make the game easier, I want them to add things to make the game better.
I think we need A simple algorithm to make this thread taper off!
If you don't like the thread, there's a solution to that problem, which is entirely within your power. It's a very simple, and very short algorithm:
Leave the thread.
Do not enter it again.​
That's all there is to it. It's pretty foolproof. Why you would want an algorithm that affects everyone, is a mystery to me.
 

Agent327

Overlord
I must've been confused by the fact that you complained that the players at the top of their neighborhood are cheaters...

Where did I do that?

You're right. You don't. I must've gotten things mixed up.

That happens a lot./


Look at this forum. The complaints are there. If you open a support ticket and select "Breach of rules" to report someone, you get told you you have to report that person in-game otherwise they will do nothing about it. Problem is that you are limited in the players you can report that way.

The simple fact of the matter is that your objection has simple solutions, that have already been pointed out. That makes the objection irrelevant. It's time to stop making it. If you believe that the proposed solutions are flawed, then make the case for that, instead of repeating a point that is now irrelevant.

So you can not command Inno, you have no precognition of what they do and you have no mind control, but you do have the power to decide when something has become irrelevant? Have other players here been informed about that?

If I thought that the idea was about making the game easier, I wouldn't have given it a +1. The point would be to add more challenges; more ways to get things wrong, but also more ways to get them right. Figuring out which is which, is a central aspect of the game, in my opinion. I don't want them to add anything that will make the game easier, I want them to add things to make the game better.

I think I get it now. What you think is relevant, what others think is irrelevant. Hate to tell you this, but being able to place more buildings on the availabe space by stacking them is easier, not better.

If you don't like the thread, there's a solution to that problem, which is entirely within your power. It's a very simple, and very short algorithm:
Leave the thread.
Do not enter it again.​
That's all there is to it. It's pretty foolproof. Why you would want an algorithm that affects everyone, is a mystery to me.

Give it a shot and let me know if it works. No rush there. Early 2020 is fine by me.
 

DeletedUser110131

Where did I do that?
I'll assume that you won't deny that you've complained about "cheaters" before. In this specific thread, you've referred to practices you clearly view as unfair advantages:
Most players at the top of the ranking have made it there by exploiting the game in any way they can. They are at the top of their neighbourhood and attack anyone they can. Using their power they either plunder or extort you. They have their nice little 1,9 clubs and forbid you to donate in their GB's. If you still do, you face attack and plunder again.
Your position here, and elsewhere, clearly express that you find effective use of GBs to be abuse, and that you believe that the proposed GBs will be abused in the same manner. You have a point, though. For the sake of precision, I should've written that you believe they "are abusing advantages", rather than "are cheaters". There's a difference, and I was imprecise.

Look at this forum. The complaints are there.
Complaints in the forum, that's your definition of "hard evidence"? If so, I'm not surprised that Inno "will not do anything" about your reports. If not so, I wonder why you keep refusing to give even the simplest description of the evidence.

you do have the power to decide when something has become irrelevant?
Whether something is irrelevant or not, isn't decided by anyone. It either is, or it isn't. However, if something is irrelevant, I do have the power to point it out. I even gave the reasons for my conclusion. You know, something that you could actually present arguments against, rather than just make snide comments. Not that I mind snide comments, obviously. It's just that I believe they need to be backed up with some reasoning.

being able to place more buildings on the availabe space by stacking them is easier,
That would be true, if the new GBs weren't balanced properly, for instance in the ways I've mentioned. However, with proper balancing, not having the building will become a disadvantage, which makes the game harder. All GBs make the game easier, if you have them, just as it becomes harder if you don't have them. The challenge is in picking the advantages that your strategy requires, and accept the disadvantages that your strategy can tolerate. Not to mention, pick a strategy where such a balance is possible. Assuming that they will be balanced, these new buildings will add to that challenge.

Give it a shot and let me know if it works. No rush there. Early 2020 is fine by me.
That algorithm is intended for those who feel uncomfortable with a thread, and, honestly, you seem much more annoyed and harassed by this thread than I am.

For your next reply, would it be too much to ask for some reasoning behind your statements? I feel like we're being stuck in endless repetition, which takes the fun out of it. For instance, since I've expressed the reasoning behind my view that the buildings can and will be balanced, would you enlighten us as to why don't you think that they can/will?

Edit: I had left two sentences uncompleted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser110131

@Vesiger
I understand the sentiment. I have a weird sense of humor, though, so I won't be blocking him. At least not yet. I do need to get him back on topic, though. I'm not an on-topic extremist, but the discussion is out on the brink, threatening to tip over entirely. If it does, in good conscience, I'll have to leave it. Of course, talking about him in the third person probably won't calm him down much...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top