Idea for a New Plundering System

[DeletedUser]

I've spent hours reading post after post, thread after thread, complaining either about being plundered or about those people complaining about being plundered ('plunderees' and 'plunderers,' respectively.) Well, after reading numerous ideas and suggestions to either change or dismantle the plundering system altogether, a light bulb went off in my head. Somewhat inspired by a suggestions posted by astar in http://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/showthread.php?6703-Goods-plundering/page5, I think that it might be worth thinking about a way to limit plundering to those who like plundering and/or don't mind being plundered for one reason or another, while keeping more... peaceable players from that mess (and I don't say 'mess' as a bad things; some people really like gettin' messy.)

The idea that I thought up was that, perhaps, there ought to be a button of some sort that essentially protects a player from being plundered on the player's HUD. Now, by activating this, that player would no longer be able to engage in battle, consequently being unable to plunder, as well. Now, notice how I just said that it would prevent the player from being plundered, but left out being attacked. Since being attacked, on its own, really doesn't do any harm, the 'protected' player should still be able to be attacked.

Let me give an example:

Player 1 is sick of being plundered and clicks the proposed button on their HUD. Other players can no longer plunder them.
Player 1 can no longer attack, or, consequently, plunder their neighbors, but NPCs are naturally fair game.
Player 2 attacks player 1 and wins; player 2 gets the normal points for defeating player 1's defense, contributing to their tournament score.
Player 2 does not get the option to plunder player 1, despite having breached player 1's defenses.


With this system, players who focus on military might and enjoy the competition of tournaments can still attack all of the neighbors around them, advancing them in the tournaments, but simply can no longer plunder players who choose to opt out of the fighting element. In a way, players who choose to be exempt from being plundered would also pay a price by no longer being able to attack or plunder their neighbors. I think this would balance things a little better. Naturally, this button would be togglable so that, at any time, a player can turn off the protection and once again be able to fully participate in fighting and plundering while also being vulnerable to plundering. It could also be a very useful strategy for people who are away; for instance, it could be a safety measure for when people are sleeping or offline to guarantee they don't get plundered while they're away. However, when they become active once again, if they want to battle and plunder, they turn it back on and once again become vulnerable to plundering while they're active.

I'd like to hear other opinions. This is not a way to somewhat 'nerf' the plundering system or an intermediary to take plundering away altogether. I just think that this could be an effective way to make both sides happy. It wouldn't be such a broad 'fix' as many people have proposed, effecting pretty much anyone and everyone indiscriminately, or through large groups (protecting stone age players, bronze age players, and iron age only, as I've seen has been proposed.) This method would make it so that only those who don't want to be plundered can choose not to be plundered, whereas everyone else is fair game. And by limiting the players who don't want to be plundered by taking away their ability to both attack and plunder their neighbors, it would also discourage players from abusing it so that they're invincible but also wreaking havoc on others. The non-destructive, non-frustrating aspects are left intact (protected players can still be attacked, just not plundered.) The destructive, frustrating aspects are removed (players who don't want to be plundered can opt to not be plundered) while balanced (they cannot attack or plunder while they are protected.)

 

[DeletedUser]

The pvp in this game is already low compare to other games and we always only lose very VERY little when plundered. I don't see how protecting those who don't want to play pvp and leaving those aggressive players without targets would help this game.

I'm happy that this game doesn't let other players destroy my whole city overnight like, for example in tribal wars but if you take that very little away, then (yes, I know, it's an old classic answer...) you end up with a Sim city game and it's no fun.

In my opinion, if you're truly "getting sick and not sleeping well" over losing the production of 1 or 2 buildings a day, you should really change the style of game you play online, maybe even not play online at all. Every MMO is about being better than the next player.

All this game has is collect and attack, there is no end game, no race to the finish, so I say don't take away the little pvp and plunder we have.

 

[DeletedUser7137]

Player 1 can no longer attack, or, consequently, plunder their neighbors, but NPCs are naturally fair game.

What exactly do you mean by "naturally fair game"?

Player 1 turns on the plundering protection, and Player 2 to Player 80 does the same. No more attacking or plundering for the whole neighborhood. Kills the PvP feature.
Who would put up a decent defense when they have no worries about being plundered? 2 spearman in defense, 240 battle points, no plunder. Kills the PvP feature.

 

[DeletedUser]

-1 bad idea

 

[DeletedUser]

What exactly do you mean by "naturally fair game"?

Player 1 turns on the plundering protection, and Player 2 to Player 80 does the same. No more attacking or plundering for the whole neighborhood. Kills the PvP feature.
Who would put up a decent defense when they have no worries about being plundered? 2 spearman in defense, 240 battle points, no plunder. Kills the PvP feature.

By 'naturally fair game,' which taken out of context says something completely different, I meant that 'naturally, NPCs would be fair game' regardless of if the protection mode was on or off - players could always attack NPCs.

As for your idea that a whole neighborhood turning off the plundering, I think it would be extremely unlikely, and then the neighborhoods are shuffled anyway. By turning on the protection, you're also disabling your ability to attack and plunder, and there are plenty of players who would rather be vulnerable to plundering while also going out and doing some plundering on their own, making it so that plundering isn't obsolete. Besides, if everyone did really disable plundering in whole neighborhoods, then maybe the plundering in this game really is a problem. But with what I'm proposing, I don't think that the PvP would die, it would just make it so that certain individuals aren't forced into participating, while willing individuals can continue doing what they were doing, anyway.

While the decent defence argument is certainly valid, there would most certainly still be plenty of people out there who would have decent defences and who would fully utilise the PvP features of the game. Those who participate in the tournaments would really have to be competitive if only a handful of others were competing, most likely giving those who compete with one another directly an edge, and those who could only fight the protected people with most likely two spearman or something more still have a fighting chance, even if it's not for first place. Anyone who still uses an army to conquer sectors would have a plenty powerful army, even if it isn't primarily used to shield themselves from other players in PvP. Whenever they weren't using that army as their attacking army, it could be used as their defending army - protected from plundering or not. I think that you (all) are reacting with very dire, extreme expectations of what would happen if this got implemented. Of course, it was just a suggestion and more of a seed or first draft and I'm sure that it could be refined.

As I said initially, this idea is not to inhibit PvP - PvP would be almost totally left intact. It's simply to hamper the frustrations of many players caused from being plundered while letting all PvP-style players continue their style. Every tournament competitor would maintain an equal-grounds point system (just because there might be fewer points from lowered defences, which surely I'll acknowledge would happen to some degree, it's still in the same neighborhood, so every competitor has the same set of defences to breach and get points from, meaning essentially the same amount of points to gain, except when attacking other competitors who would keep their raised defences, but possibly be harder to breach because I imagine PvP-style players would often be in the higher ranks of each neighborhood.)

I want people to be constructive, not simply say things like, 'this is a bad idea.' If you think it's bad, actually give some useful input! Maybe suggest some changes or modifications. Ignoring the plundering issues is not the way to go. I haven't been able to move more than one step in my technology tree in about a week because the supplies that I direly need are being plundered from me! My play style is obviously different from those plundering me - just about the opposite - but it doesn't make sense to me that they should fly on through, progressing in the game at a fast rate, while stunting me dramatically, just because they have a more capable army, likely due to buying diamonds, which many people simply cannot do. This is a free-to-play game, but it isn't worth being a free-to-play game if it's virtually impossible to progress without paying large sums of money to get diamonds from getting decimated from those who pay such sums of money.

But I'm getting off topic and babbling on. I believe that plundering needs to be modified somehow, to appease more players on a broader spectrum, if nothing else.

In my opinion, if you're truly "getting sick and not sleeping well" over losing the production of 1 or 2 buildings a day, you should really change the style of game you play online, maybe even not play online at all. Every MMO is about being better than the next player.

Oh, and also something to note, every (free) MMORPG I've ever played, you could very well keep to yourself and be successful without having to be 'better than the next player.' Competition is best when all of the participants actually want to be competitive. MMOs, of all games, should offer a wide range of viable play styles without forcing a large amount of people either into a style they aren't comfortable with, or out of the game entirely. And I never personally said that I was "getting sick and not sleeping well,' as you said, but was trying to approach the situation from multiple vantage points.

 

[DeletedUser]

What exactly do you mean by "naturally fair game"?

Player 1 turns on the plundering protection, and Player 2 to Player 80 does the same. No more attacking or plundering for the whole neighborhood. Kills the PvP feature.
Who would put up a decent defense when they have no worries about being plundered? 2 spearman in defense, 240 battle points, no plunder. Kills the PvP feature.

Actually I think the idea presented is a very good idea. Those that like the army aspect of the game can play it, those that do not do not have it imposed on them.

Actually, the PvP system works well for those who like medals and the expansion from winning. Plundering can hardly be the main attraction.

I have no armies at all, just the handy 2 spearmen, and carefully managed buildings that keeps plundering gains to zero or very little ( 5 minute collections of goods are not much now are they :p)

 

[DeletedUser7137]

I don't buy diamonds. The only diamonds I've ever used was the one that I got from quests. Still, I could say that I have a rather decent military setup in my city. I have plundered, and I have also been plundered. I have never actually been halted in my progress because I was plundered. It was frustrating, of course, when the goods I was expecting to get was taken away by someone else. But I make that as my fault because I wasn't there to collect it when it was done. So I just reset the building and make the production once again. My city is still there, I can still use the forge points to research the other branch of the tech tree while waiting for my goods to finish, and most importantly I can still play the game.

Your suggestion, while it may seem to be fair to your style of play, would be very unfair to the players who "live" by the attacking and plundering style. By turning on the plundering protection, a player won't have to worry whether someone attack them or not, whether they have a defense for their city or not. Commonsense would be to put no defense. Why bother? No one can plunder you, just give them 240 points.
By turning on the plundering protection, a player will have to rely on battling the NPCs for battle points and for PvP Tower. They can't attack the neighbors, fine, it's their choice to turn on the protection anyway. But for those who doesn't use the protection system, they too would eventually have to rely on the continent map for bigger battle points. How many sectors can you open or fight in a week? 10? or 20? And what happens when someone who has already finished the continent map, but still need the medals for further expansion? Continent map = done. Neighborhood = Plunder protected. You can't expect to win the PvP Tower when you have no big source for battle points.

The plundering system is just fine, it's how a player adept to that system that needs changing.

 

[DeletedUser]

But in the suggestion made, players could still plunder--they could plunder other players who want to participate in that system.
The plundering system is NOT fine and this is a good suggestion made for its change.
And undercutting plunderers on their market bids-- has no one thought of how much effect controlling a market can have? Its rather interesting round my way again today. Plunderers try to get rid of ill gotten gains for profit on the market. Another day of 2-1 deals means their offers are rather unattractive!

Do you mean to say its unfair to have a 2 spear defense and well timed buildings?!!!

 

[DeletedUser7719]

The plundering system is NOT fine

Yes it is not fine, but read:

Player 1 turns on the plundering protection, and Player 2 to Player 80 does the same. No more attacking or plundering for the whole neighborhood. Kills the PvP feature.
Who would put up a decent defense when they have no worries about being plundered? 2 spearman in defense, 240 battle points, no plunder. Kills the PvP feature.

There's your problem

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, is it? In some respects the same thing is achievable by not keeping a defensive army and only having 2 spearmen to defend. Atm I keep no armies at all. Better use of my space and resources to produce things. Why keep an army only to let others rack up points for themselves? It is a waste of my resources and space. And well timed buildings means the plundering is of little gain.

 

[DeletedUser4202]

Player 1 turns on the plundering protection, and Player 2 to Player 80 does the same. No more attacking or plundering for the whole neighborhood. Kills the PvP feature.
Who would put up a decent defense when they have no worries about being plundered? 2 spearman in defense, 240 battle points, no plunder. Kills the PvP feature.

If everybody in a neighborhood turns on the plundering protection it is not a problem because then nobody in the neighborhood wants it. In that case it would not kill the PvP feature since they never wanted it in the first place.

For those neighborhoods where certain players turn on the plundering protection everybody else who´s doing PvP are still playing on the same field, the can still attack and still get PvP points just the same as if there was no plundering protection. And those that don´t want plunders don´t get plunders and they can´t plunder or attack others.

+1 for me. This is a great idea.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, I don't like some of the details of this idea although I would like to see something like a pvp-free neighbourhood or such as I don't like battling myself I much rather coexist peacefully and hand out free hugs and the sort..

As for my thoughts on the idea: having it toggleable at will is silly. I could attack everyone and plunder them, hit my toggle and be protected again until I do my rounds again.. That's not cool. Either a one-time choice or a very long timer before you can toggle it again would at least be needed. I do see the problem with being plundered a lot, if you are a weaker player in a battle-oriented neighbourhood, you might potentially be plundered around 70 times / day. Despite it being the best protection, it is also understandable that not everyone can schedule their whole life around the game and be there to count down the seconds til production finishes Overall I think it is a minor issue but for some it -is- an issue.

If something like this was to be implemented in the game, I would also like to see an indicator next to the player name saying they can't be plundered, so attackers don't bother for nothing if they are in it for the loot.

For those who say the toggle would kill the pvp, here's my take on things:

I have a strong army in defense and only one person in my hood can get through it atm. The rest get no points whatsoever, only losses if they try. If I turned on my plunder protect, got rid of my army and played happily on, most of the hood would actually get more points out of my 2 spearmen.

If I had a weaker army / stronger neighbourhood, it would be a waste of resources to keep an army since it wouldn't keep the plunderers away anyways, so I would already have only the 2 spearfighters, again no change in points for plunder protect.

Another little thing: If everyone in your hood has their pvp toggle on and mere 2 spearfighters, no one else can get pvp points at all so you'll win all the towers

 

[DeletedUser9759]

I think this is a terrible idea. This game is called Forge of Empires. If you want to make an empire you are going to have to deal with war. If you loss a battle you are going to loss goods.

However, if this was ever to be considered it would need to be done on a server wide basis. People that want to be able to plunder would play on PvP servers

People afraid to play the game for real would play on PvE servers.

 

[DeletedUser]

Your suggestion, while it may seem to be fair to your style of play, would be very unfair to the players who "live" by the attacking and plundering style. By turning on the plundering protection, a player won't have to worry whether someone attack them or not, whether they have a defense for their city or not. Commonsense would be to put no defense. Why bother? No one can plunder you, just give them 240 points.
By turning on the plundering protection, a player will have to rely on battling the NPCs for battle points and for PvP Tower. They can't attack the neighbors, fine, it's their choice to turn on the protection anyway. But for those who doesn't use the protection system, they too would eventually have to rely on the continent map for bigger battle points. How many sectors can you open or fight in a week? 10? or 20? And what happens when someone who has already finished the continent map, but still need the medals for further expansion? Continent map = done. Neighborhood = Plunder protected. You can't expect to win the PvP Tower when you have no big source for battle points.

Wrong. You see, by having it so that those who have the protection turned on can still be attacked, players without the protection on can still gain points by attacking those who do have the protection on - they simply can't plunder. Sure, many who turn it on may very likely stick with only 2 spearmen, and thus only 240 points to be gained. However, say a neighborhood of 80 has 70 people turn on the protection because the higher 10 are decimating them and plundering them regularly (keep in mind, this is purely hypothetical.) Now, say the average amount of points to be gained from attacking the 70 who have the protection on is about 549 - 45 with only 240, 5 with 120, 15 with 360 [3 spearmen], and 5 with 1200 [5 spearman.]) That leaves 38,400 points for the top 10 players who still do PvP to reap.

Now, sure, this might be lower than some or many gain, normally, but here's the thing: it doesn't matter! Even if there were 380,400 points out there to take each day for each PvP-style player, there's 380,400 points out there to take each day for each PvP-style player. Changing how many battle points a player can make doesn't matter when all PvP-style players can only make that amount, making it perfectly even playing ground. You might start seeing much lower points in each and every ranking in a PvP Tower, but that doesn't change the fact that there will still be a first, second, third... and so on place. PvP Towers will be unaffected.

As for my thoughts on the idea: having it toggleable at will is silly. I could attack everyone and plunder them, hit my toggle and be protected again until I do my rounds again.. That's not cool. Either a one-time choice or a very long timer before you can toggle it again would at least be needed. I do see the problem with being plundered a lot, if you are a weaker player in a battle-oriented neighbourhood, you might potentially be plundered around 70 times / day. Despite it being the best protection, it is also understandable that not everyone can schedule their whole life around the game and be there to count down the seconds til production finishes Overall I think it is a minor issue but for some it -is- an issue.

If something like this was to be implemented in the game, I would also like to see an indicator next to the player name saying they can't be plundered, so attackers don't bother for nothing if they are in it for the loot.

For those who say the toggle would kill the pvp, here's my take on things:

I have a strong army in defense and only one person in my hood can get through it atm. The rest get no points whatsoever, only losses if they try. If I turned on my plunder protect, got rid of my army and played happily on, most of the hood would actually get more points out of my 2 spearmen.

If I had a weaker army / stronger neighbourhood, it would be a waste of resources to keep an army since it wouldn't keep the plunderers away anyways, so I would already have only the 2 spearfighters, again no change in points for plunder protect.

Another little thing: If everyone in your hood has their pvp toggle on and mere 2 spearfighters, no one else can get pvp points at all so you'll win all the towers

I really like all of your points here! The toggle-at-will option, I admit, I was pondering about for a while already. Perhaps it could only be toggled every 48 hours so that a person can't attack, be protected for 24 hours, then quickly hop out of protection to attack again. They would have to skip a whole day of PvP because they turned on their protection once, and if they had turned it off to attack, they would also be vulnerable for a full 48 hours. This could discourage the use of abusing the toggle while still making it so that people aren't plainly stuck with the decision of 'to PvP or not to PvP.' They toggle it, decide, 'hey, I really want that victory expansion!,' wait out the rest of the time, mandatorily missing a whole day or two of attacking and possibly plundering, and then can get right back into the PvP game. They might have a little catching up to do, but hey - that's the price of protection!

People have suggested needing to spend diamonds on military protection to help deter fighters - if we all could buy the diamonds for that, then there's really no point, because we could also buy our way through progression! Some people have suggested only being able to attack within your age and one or more higher - just because someone is in the same age doesn't mean they have the means to defend themselves, and the AI is so pathetic, with a beating, a player with a strong military can still breach the defences of the lower ranked members of the next age. Some people have suggested making it so that players in the first three ages can't be attacked at all! - but then the easiest and most viable victory expansion would have to be dramatically offset for the players in those ages, both protecting them from bigger, stronger players and hindering them in even-levelled battle. While, sure, my idea needs some refining - definitely - I think it's the most viable and adaptable option currently out there to solve the epidemic of unhappy lower-ranked members of neighborhoods who are getting pillaged and raped quite literally!

I'm glad that some people, at least, could see it from both angles like I have. The PvP is maintained as much as the majority of each neighborhood would want it to be, without forcing anyone into a situation they don't want. If only one person has plundering protection turned off, they're likely the automatic winner of a PvP tower just by attacking one person! Goody for them! If all of the people turn it on, then obviously no one in that neighborhood wanted PvP to begin with, or were too sick of plundering to endure and fight! If only a few people turn it on, then it really isn't affected at all! No matter what, I think it can be a win-win situation for everyone.


Oh, and one more thing - I've noticed that most people against limiting PvP in one way or another wouldn't actually be affected negatively by my suggestion (if improved on and refined, such as implementing the 48-hour toggle instead of an at-will toggle), and only complain that other players aren't 'fully playing the game.' This doesn't affect you, PvP-ers! It just supports more playing styles as viable options! The game was set-up so that players could focus on military, trading, or somewhere in-between. However, because of plundering, the trading and 'somewhere in-between' options have been broken. I'm sorry to say, but not everyone can completely devote their lives to this game, or so much that they perfectly time everything! Things come up in real life, and real life should always take precedence! If you choose to spend every waking moment of your life playing this game and trying to be the best you can be, then that's your choice, but that isn't most people. I once got side-tracked doing something and was a few minutes late to collect my goods. What happened? Two out of three of my 1-day good supplies got stolen! My goods get stolen enough that I'm wasting supplies and money and can't progress in the game at a reasonable pace. I can't devote my life to the game like some of these people! I shouldn't get penalized for that, though!

I seem to be in an unfortunate position in my current neighborhood - I don't have a strong enough military to fend off the upper echelon of players in the neighborhood and they seem to really like my goods buildings, and I'm not strong enough to attack back, but I'm not so weak that I'm an unappealing target and those upper echelon players get quite an appetizing bounty! I've tried diplomacy, but that failed horribly. I would try increasing my army's strength, but I can't because my progression is stunted by these 'hard-hitters'! I would lower my defences to be a less appealing target, but then I'm just open for a beating from even more people. No matter where I look, I'm screwed - all because of that horrid plunder option! Now, I'm trying to think of as fair of an option as I can. Yes, I've been on the wrong side of the plundering, and yes, that's definitely colored my views on this whole subject, but no, I am not being unreasonable, whining, or trying to stunt other players in retribution! I'm trying to maintain as much of the currently applicable playing options from PvP and plundering to no PvP or plundering! Please, I beg of everyone who doesn't, try to see it from more than just your own angle! You accuse some of us of only seeing one angle because it may not completely agree with yours, but that doesn't make us all only see it from one angle, either!

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, is it? In some respects the same thing is achievable by not keeping a defensive army and only having 2 spearmen to defend. Atm I keep no armies at all. Better use of my space and resources to produce things. Why keep an army only to let others rack up points for themselves? It is a waste of my resources and space. And well timed buildings means the plundering is of little gain.

This is your choice and you have the right to make that choice, it's part of the strategy in this game, which buildings to build?

But I fail to see why those who make the choice of peace to have better production should have the option to not be plundered and gain an advantage? You want the butter and the money from the butter as they say around here.

I vote that if the opt out of plunder option exist, then those who stick with the military part of this MILITARY strategy game gets a bonus on production of everything, say a good 10-20% to make up for those we wouldn't be able to plunder anymore.

Not fair you say? Well to me it's the same thing as your protection system you're asking for.

p.s. Sorry Najjar, didn't read that, way too long for this late hour.

 

[DeletedUser7137]

I can't devote my life to the game like some of these people! I shouldn't get penalized for that, though!

Sure, and those who devoted their time and life to the game should get less because you can't? It's online, real time strategy game, what do you expect? Play with a good strategy, not play with "tuned-to-your-own-style-of-play" feature. You can do that with normal PC Games, just pause the game when you need to do something else and continue once again when you're free to play.

Now, with the Great Building feature being introduced, plundering is a need. Attack, no plunder, no chance of blueprints. Polish/motivate, chance of blueprints, no PvP. Plundering is part of the game, an essential part to some, though not really needed for others. Putting a button for no plundering would be the same as throwing all together the plundering feature.

 

[DeletedUser]

But I fail to see why those who make the choice of peace to have better production should have the option to not be plundered and gain an advantage? You want the butter and the money from the butter as they say around here.

I vote that if the opt out of plunder option exist, then those who stick with the military part of this MILITARY strategy game gets a bonus on production of everything, say a good 10-20% to make up for those we wouldn't be able to plunder anymore.

Not fair you say? Well to me it's the same thing as your protection system you're asking for.

p.s. Sorry Najjar, didn't read that, way too long for this late hour.

Okay, I'll try to make this shorter. I actually like your suggestion for a little boost to production for going all or most military and being vulnerable to plunder. The thing is, though, that my concept is not to help one and hurt another - as I've said more than once. My intent is to make it so that people who don't focus on military don't lose on both accounts. Now, by opting out of plundering, they're also essentially opting out of victory expansions, which - on the opposite end of the spectrum - military-focused players seem very adamant about trying to get (it is just one of a number of bonuses to military strength.) Now there are plenty of in-between players out there, like myself, who kind of go halvesies on military and trade. I'm not a plunderer, so I needed some means of getting goods, and I'm not one to leave my guard totally down, either.

Let me put this into respect of many of those MMORPGs out there. You have your magic types, your dextrous types, and your strong types. Magic types have very low defenses, but are great supporters most of the time - this is like traders in FoE. Dextrous types try to get a little of everything, which works in some areas and is detrimental in others - this would equate to people like me who like a fairly rounded experience even if they aren't the best at any one thing. Finally, the brute types are like the damage-takers/damage-dealers - they're the 'barbarians' and 'knights' of this game, going all out military strength. A good, rounded game utilises all of these, and a good, rounded game world combines the abilities and features of all of these things. I don't want to take any of these parts OUT, I just want to balance them. I'd say military might is the easiest way to go in this and - when equated to the brutes in other games - probably one of the easiest roles in most games. They can take a beating and give a beating quite will, but they don't necessarily have that more crafty side or supporting side involved in the other roles. Now, games where players are typically intended to work together in groups, much unlike this game, expect you to try and mix multiple roles into one force. You can't do that here! So making one role much better than any other role is just unacceptable.

I admit that traders are on the other end of the spectrum and can work out well in their own right, as the game is now, as long as they aren't getting totally ganged up on by a whole, or better part of, a neighborhood! The well-rounded types have the biggest struggle because while they aren't especially deficient in any area, they aren't especially good at anything, either. I get the few production buildings I can maintain and raise pillaged, hindering my ability to trade and progress in the tech tree and on the continent map. I also cannot adequately get pay-back of any sort because I can't maintain a big, hulking army. Now, understand that this is likely looking like me trying to come up with a way to only protect myself, but I'm simply referencing my own experience as I can't very well reference anyone else's - that's their own job to do or not to do.

SO! Yes, a 10-20% (perhaps optimally 15%) boost of production to goods production for those who do not enable the protection mode sounds perfectly reasonable to me. This is the sort of thing I'm wanting - input from all points of view to make an optimal system that makes everyone happy! Or, better yet, perhaps players who remain vulnerable to pillaging also get a 10-20% boost to their battle points! That could potentially make up for some of the lost points from people reducing their armies when protected (even though, as I pointed out, that really is irrelevant to the PvP tower.) It'll make PvP-ers feel like they aren't at a total lost with battle points.


And one thing that I want to point out to all of you pro-plunder/PvP players! Do you not see how many of you there are? So how in the world could the button that protects an individual from plundering take plundering out of the game entirely? There would still be heaps of people who are PvP-ing and plundering one another. This finalistic, 'PvP is dead' mentality is extremely unrealistic. From what I've seen there are probably about as many people who don't want to be plundered as there are people who don't care and/or like to plunder. This means that there will be plenty of PvP players and plunderers, while keeping the other group happy, as well. Why do people think it has to be one or the other? That's simply not the case. And this feud is turning into a real 'Edward or Jacob' situation from Twilight (I had to look up their names - I'm very disinterested in such needless, ridiculous conflicts.)


Oh, and one last little thing. Can anyone point me to where the game specifically identifies itself as merely a 'military strategy' game? Certainly it's an aspect, but that's all it is - an aspect, and one of several. Even the quest lines imply from the very beginning that there are multiple intended methods to playing this game, including focusing on trade, if one so wishes.

 

[DeletedUser]

few random thoughts.
I signed up to play this game as it is mostly non-violent. I have very strong personal and religious beliefs against violence. So finding a game that is not solely focused on violence is hard. This game has some limited violence, that I do not have to take part in ( save for the 2 spearmen and that is not me, its AI). I can tolerate the violence in this game, in that, I do not have to take part in it to be in the game.

It is very hard, sadly, to find non violent games.

Why should plunderers be able to tell what buildings are ripe for plucking? Why give them any indication? Let them make a choice, if there is nothing to take, tough luck. ( if the system we have now in place is not altered).

I am in no hurry to stampede through the ages. I play to relax. So I can use the market to my advantage and deliberately to the disadvantage of the plunderer. If they are seeking a good, I seek the same thing for the same trade at a much better price for the trader. If they are offering a trade, I offer a better one. They pay a high price in trade in my hood to get what they want.

I trade a lot so I have lots of goods i dont my self produce.

check out a plunderers' city, they have one maybe 2 workshops and can contribute little to the supply of trade goods in a market. hence they are parasitical. slow down the advancement not through plundering but through contributing nothing, only taking. I dont mean plundering alone, also they contribute nothing in trade.

There is no virtue in playing one way or another, and I am amused by the outrage of the plunderer style player who thinks their way is somehow superior. It is not. It is all a game...

 

[DeletedUser]

There is no virtue in playing one way or another, and I am amused by the outrage of the plunderer style player who thinks their way is somehow superior. It is not. It is all a game...

This game has not too unfittingly attracted some very imperialistic, elitist individuals. As long as they keep those things to themselves instead of imposing them so much on others, I'd be fine with that, but to be as self-righteous as some of them are is rather off-putting. And I'm being extremely general and non-specific here, not pointing fingers or anything. But I think there's a bit of that on both sides. Many people who play this game, regardless of their personal playing preferences, seem to think that their way is the way. Not true. People on both sides of this plundering argument are very quick to say one or the other is completely wrong, while they say they're completely right! And, because I'm essentially trying to say that both sides are a little wrong and a little right, I feel like neither side is especially fond of my idea, sans perhaps the more open-minded individuals open to the possibility of improving the game, not the player.

Also, this is an idea, not an ideal. Ideas are meant to be brainstormed, elaborated on, improved on, refined, and so on. I just planted the seed and want to see it sprout into something better.

Oh, and I've also notice that the rhetoric of the three main sides is comparable to peace-loving hippies, militaristic imperialists, and classic people-pleasers and/or centrists. I'm being intentionally dramatic in the comparison, but that shouldn't take away from the core meaning behind it. But I am very proud to identify as a centrist. But - hey - look at American politics; the centrists never gain favor because they aren't extreme.

 

[DeletedUser]

Somewhere there is a calculation that was done showing it is more cost effective to gain the territories through negotiation than with armies.

On the plundering v non plundering--- what if there were an aspect of the game that somehow forced people into trading ( I don't know how that would work, this is just a what if example) whether they wanted to or not. Because this is a game about trading! :p If you want real historical examples, empires were often expanded to acquire trade goods and trading rights and routes. My what if suggestion is more real life historical than some of the pro mandatory plundering arguments put forth. Not that I think that real life is a basis for what is programmed into a click and grow computer simulation... but if you want to advance those arguments at least get the history right. :p

Mandatory trade makes far more sense that allowing all and sundry to be plundered.

How about the paying of scuttage and tribute?

etc...