Idea: Stop players without proper defense!

[DeletedUser14423]

Proposal:
My proposal is, that players who have no defensive army or have defensive troops from very old ages below theirs, are penalized on their city's hapiness. When a city has no defenses, or defenses and inexperienced siege is over, its citizens can not be excited. In fact they are terrified.

Have you Checked the Ideas section for the same idea posted by someone else? Is this idea similar to one that has been previously suggested?
I have checked through the Ideas section as well as used the forum search function and found a threat similar but very diferent. The threat is "Idea: Slight change to the "Default 2 Spearmen" defense".


Reason:
My idea is to stop or decrease the number of players who do not use the army defense, or put much earlier ages units defending, in order to not give points to other players. the happiness of the city influences the entire game. Either in attacks or in gathering resources. This change leads many players to consider if in fact it is advantageous not to have defense. With 24 hours of the buildings, is advantageous because it will hardly be plundered. On the other hand, if they need to fight and want to have the maximum power in their troops, they must have some defense. If this measure is effective, also the fighting will be more competitive, and all players can enjoy the best the game has to offer.

Details:
8 defensive units from the appropriate age or the age before that don't give penalty of happiness
For each defensive unit missing, the city loses 10% of happiness.
each old defensive unit, the city loses 5% of happiness


Visual Aids:
No visual aids necessary for this Idea.


Balance/Abuse Prevention:
Should create no balance or abuse issues, as far as I can tell.


Summary:
Increase the number of players with defense will improve the competitiveness and gameplay PVP. This measure will contribute to a more realistic and strategic component of this great game.

 

[DeletedUser14782]

Nice idea, but many people don't discover the defensive army tab right away, and people are sometimes in "full project mode", and don't want to waste their gold and supplies on their army.

 

[DeletedUser8813]

the increasing number of players is certainly making the pvp side of it very dull...when you can do most of your hood on auto its not real exciting.
the one that are opting for the no defense feel they get plundered anyway so whats the point of defend.
that being said i cant see them taking this route and implementing any thing like this.
maybe they should just upgrade the defensive army automatically with troops from the age you are in ,and more of them

 

[DeletedUser7798]

terrible idea that will mainly benefit diamond players

-1

its such a terrible idea it would be a good reason for me to never log on again.

enjoy my 1 spearman in this PTW game.

 

[DeletedUser]

maybe they should just upgrade the defensive army automatically with troops from the age you are in ,and more of them

I suggested this fairly recently, actually, but it was shot down due to a few holes in the idea (that I agree with, now that they have been mentioned).

I could see similar issues with this idea. Such as players not keeping a defense usually, but just assigning units to defend when they collect from their town, and removing them afterwards. Or what about players being affected because they prefer to use a previous age's units because they work better in some ways, such as Archers instead of Mounted Archers, or Trebuchets instead of Cannons.

 

[DeletedUser14423]

Nice idea, but many people don't discover the defensive army tab right away, and people are sometimes in "full project mode", and don't want to waste their gold and supplies on their army.

In the tutorial, could be included a mission that involves gaining happiness through the protection of the city. And the fact that expend resources to create eight units every two ages would not greatly affect the productivity of the player.

terrible idea that will mainly benefit diamond players

Sorry, not follow. What does the diamonds have to do with what I propose? I think almost nobody spends diamonds to heal units. Honestly I consider a waste. Why spend diamonds when you can have all the units you need to win the entire neighborhood?

I suggested this fairly recently, actually, but it was shot down due to a few holes in the idea (that I agree with, now that they have been mentioned).

I could see similar issues with this idea. Such as players not keeping a defense usually, but just assigning units to defend when they collect from their town, and removing them afterwards. Or what about players being affected because they prefer to use a previous age's units because they work better in some ways, such as Archers instead of Mounted Archers, or Trebuchets instead of Cannons.

I saw your threat, and mentioned it in my first post. I think the idea of having defense is underrated in this game, well as the fact of stay in one guild. The military component has to be worked on and will not improve with players taking off their defenses. Strategy games must have players with skill and flexible to pass obstacles. Remove the defense or put with a Spearman defending is a coward's strategy

 

[DeletedUser7798]

Why spend diamonds when you can have all the units you need to win the entire neighborhood?

You are wishing for penalty to those who do not put up a defence. Defeating a entire neighborhood fully defended require A LOT more than 90% of the players can conjure without diamonds. Your proposal would lead to nothing, but a vast point advantage to the paying players and a very small bonus to the rest of us who have our armies severely weakened long before attacking top30 neighbors. I'm personally maximized non PTW player with more than enough sufficient skills to do good combat toward a worthless AI. Attacking someone with a sufficient CA defense without most of the bonuses available cripple army. This is common knowledge. Point denying cheating players are self explanatory and appreciated by many for obvious reasons.

In a fantasy FOE where everyone is in end of CA your proposal would be more fit. Thats not how FOE is. You already valse over everything up to HMA and beyond if your in CA, forcing them to put up defence leads to nothing, but more points for a minority. Rest of the players would only further lose on this, having to build military and gain a even larger gap between them and the top players as space is spent on giving cheaters more points instead of more supplies/coins/goods to themselves.

I originally started this game for the war aspect, but with diamonds I'm leaning toward farmville. I do not participate in unfair combat on a regular basis unless i feel like bumping medals for an expansion. Diamond players can have their poor competition and win the tower without any competition. Be bored. You make me.

 

[DeletedUser]

Summary:
Increase the number of players with defense will improve the competitiveness and gameplay PVP. This measure will contribute to a more realistic and strategic component of this great game.

Considering that there is nothing the players can put up to defend themselves, especially in unbalanced neighborhoods, this will only improve the active pvpers ranking, by giving them more points in each run.

So -1 from me. IMO some of the tweaks to the neighborhoods system that has been previously suggested, will solve this issues as well.

Sorry, not follow. What does the diamonds have to do with what I propose?

Nothing, he just got a diamond stack up his...

 

[DeletedUser3707]

TERRIBLE IDEA.

There's already an incentive for player to create defensive military units to secure their production (goods, supply, gold). A player can either be very active economically, to collect their production once it's done - before plundering, or be very lazy militarily (set up a strong defence ,and log in whenever they want to collect their production - no worries of being plundered).

DON'T FORCE PLAYERS TO PLAY MILITARILY. This only benefits diamond buyers, and people who attack players purely for points/medals.

 

[DeletedUser14423]

Sorry for not agreeing with you. I don't play in the EN server, I play on the PT server in arvahall . This world has 10 months, and i only have neighbors with CA's troops on neighborhood's top 20. And only the top 10 has GB with defensive bonus in higher levels. Usually we know that in FoE's batles the players will always have more advantages in attack than in defense. I just need to have enough troops to win all troops from earlier ages and then i avance to the CA's troop.

 

[DeletedUser]

I will add my -1 to the idea. It seems like most do not like the idea of forcing a player to conform to a defensive style of play. Ghandi would have approved with this opposition to the idea.

I would suggest the opposite point of view and have it possible for utopians to totally delete their defensive army and let the invaders waltz in unopposed, thus giving the invaders no points but still allowing them to plunder, which they were going to do anyway. Those who do not like it could put a post-it note on their screen not to bother attacking the defenseless players.

If everybody did this type of defense then it may be necessary to add some NPCs to the neighborhood with strong defense for the war mongers amongst us and rich plunder if you get through the defense.

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't think players should be penalised for playing differently, I do however think that the default defensive soldiers should scale with the current age of the player and not always be 2 spearmen.

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't think players should be penalised for playing differently, I do however think that the default defensive soldiers should scale with the current age of the player and not always be 2 spearmen.

No, there should not be a default defence and it should not scale as you progress - the two spearfighter defence should stay.

If you choose not to put any defences up then everyone can pillage you (even someone who has only just started the game); this is the choice you make by not putting up any defences. If defences scaled and you had two light infantry of your age then this would prevent this from happening as it would be very difficult for 8 bronze age troops to take on two Rangers or two Jaeger.

I usually have a full colonial age defence - sometimes I will put a 1 spearfighter defence on for a few minutes/hours when I am actively competing with other players in my neighbourhood for a PvP tower and I know they are going to attack me (and the AI is so bad that I can't prevent them winning) so that they get next to zero points - that is a tactical decision I take to compete with my neighbours and should not be taken away from me.

 

[DeletedUser14423]

I usually have a full colonial age defence - sometimes I will put a 1 spearfighter defence on for a few minutes/hours when I am actively competing with other players in my neighbourhood for a PvP tower and I know they are going to attack me (and the AI is so bad that I can't prevent them winning) so that they get next to zero points - that is a tactical decision I take to compete with my neighbours and should not be taken away from me.

This is an effective tactic, and my suggestion would not influence it. One thing is to have 1 spearman for minutes or even hours. Another thing is having for weeks or months.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is an effective tactic, and my suggestion would not influence it. One thing is to have 1 spearman for minutes or even hours. Another thing is having for weeks or months.

It's no different really - about 1-in-4 players in my neighbourhood are in colonial age and the rest have little chance of defending their towns if any one of us attacks (especially those with offensive GBs) so they can make the long-term tactical decision to put up no defence to stop the high ranking players getting points and discouraging them from attacking for ranking points - if they time their resource collections properly then they can prevent plundering (and the associated chance to get BPs) then it becomes pointless to attack those players and you might as well just polish/motivate instead.

I see no problems with this strategy as it's their game to play and not an attacker's to dictate.

 

[DeletedUser14423]

I made arrangements for these players defend their cities, and in exchange for not plunder them. They are the smallest problem. The problem is players who are at advanced ages, competing with you. I call it the "Unfair-play".

And what kind of kings and queens leave their kingdoms unprotected? Implement set an option that allows damaging buildings, we will see if this strategy remain.

 

[DeletedUser]

The problem is even if you had the matched defense for your levels they are still going to be abliterated by those players who attack you from levels above. For example as an Iron age player I was being attacked by colonial players who attack with cannons etc. that are long range and heavy hitters, they basically one shotted my troops. The only way i would agree about forcing defense units is only if people of the same technology are the only ones that can attack you. cureently defending your city is so much in the favour of the attack of high levels that you got to ask yourself whats the point on spending lots of resources and money on troops that will be wipped out so easily.

 

[DeletedUser]

The problem is players who are at advanced ages, competing with you. I call it the "Unfair-play".

What you call "unfair", I call tactical play and perfectly acceptable.

And what kind of kings and queens leave their kingdoms unprotected? Implement set an option that allows damaging buildings, we will see if this strategy remain.

I can put on a full Colonial Age defence with a 110% defensive bonus and a player with 50% offensive bonus can still beat it - and you want to suggest that players are allowed to damage buildings if they win an attack. Sorry, but that seems like a plan to drive players away from the game - a bad idea.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree with the previous posters that there should be no (more) negative consequences to not having a "proper" defence.
The players who currently choose to leave the default defence in place (due to several reasons, mostly tactical) already deal with the chance of getting their goods plundered and often have their houses or supplies plundered instead, if the attackers could not get their hands on the goods.

The main reason why I don't like the idea, is because there are players out there who do not have a single military building in their town. They choose to focus on trade and use the extra town space to build additional goods buildings. That way they can trade more and also mitigate the occasional plunder if they did not collect on time.

I would not like to see something implemented, which forces players to change their game strategy or else face the consequences.

 

[DeletedUser3723]

Lord Vortican I does not suppose this proposal and never shall. Those who suggest it are merely infuriated at the prospect of winning points by attacking their neighbors and not being able to do so. To they, I say, "HAHA! FOOLED YOU!" Respectfully, of course. Lord Vortican further notes that those players interested in attacking their fellow nobles will soon discover which of them provides an adequate defense and which do not. Those who do not will likely be left alone, for it is a waste of time to attack such a noble who has no benefits. Even looting goods is not worth the effort and time. Ironically, those who complain the most about such an issue are the very same people who attack and plunder every noble within sight, as if THEY are being deprived of something. Lord Vortican yawns as he sends his two worthless spearmen to guard his mighty land, to their deaths...