Limit the people within the neighbourhood that people can attack

[DeletedUser]

Hey Roxxie, welcome to the FoE forums.

well..when a number 1 player in a neighborhood constantly harrasses a lower players because his military might is huge,it wont be long before the frustration causes a dropout of the new players....no new players...no one to bully/plunder...poof no players.I like the idea of attacks/plundering,part of the game.

There is always a choice; we all make choices on a daily basis. This holds true for the way you play the game too. There are players who get frustrated when attacked/plundered. Then, there are others who choose to be pro-active and find creative ways (be they military or diplomatic) to deal with this. Regarding players dropping out - this can be due to several reasons, but just last month a new world started so I don't think we have to worry about no one playing the game.

And I know the moderators make fun and laugh at the new guys who complain.

Nobody is laughing at the expense of (new) players. In fact, if you look around, you will find that all moderators are very approachable and ready to help out.

However, please keep the discussion on attacks confined to the proposed idea only. If you want to discuss the attack/plunder debate in detail, you can join the lively discussion in this thread.

 

[DeletedUser10135]

Hi,

It is correct that being plundered is frustrating but loots are simply ridiculous in FOE compared to all other Inno games : Grepolis, Tribal Wars, etc where you just lose your city/village when attacked by a big fish and his fellow thugs.

I am myself ranking 1st in my neighborhood and I do attack and plunder neighbours almost everyday. I only spare allies and friends whom I motivate/polish everyday too.

Why attack your neighbours :

1) to get PvP battle points to rank 1st and earn medals (only 250 for the Ca tower). Medals have become an issue with the medal drop of the Deal Castle. And medals do allow new extensions so we have to get as many medals as possible.

2) if you want to make points in FOE, motivating/polishing and building new items in your city is not enough. You have to fight a lot. Believe me your point raise will be susbtantial. How do you think some players got 500 or 600,000 points ?

Of course, it is vital for you to collect your productions in time. Some even disconnect their buildings to the town hall to avoid being plundered.

I have to admit that I feel like a coward to attack my low point neighbours since I'm the first with complete GBs but, one main exciting aspect of FOE compared to Grepolis for instance is that you can lead manual battles which is very important to develop military strategies. However, I agree that tournaments should be made between players with the same military skills or bonuses and point levels. It would be fairer indeed for low players.

Don't worry the CPU defense is going to be increased soon and people will even be allowed to defend their city manually. We won't undergo passive battle reports anymore, like in Grepolis.

 

[DeletedUser]

ok,,,thanks for the reply..I see now how to work it...I learnt..like you said,and now that I have figured it out,your right,,,I do plan to attack and plunder those that took advantage of my inexpierence....I also plan to help those who ask...congrats for your rise to the top.......

 

[DeletedUser]

I think the main point is that this is a win-win. If players are limited to x neighbourhood attacks per day they will likely focus on the bigger players for more xp and then polish lower players for drops.

Also - This makes the pvp ranking MUCH FAIRER - as neighbourhood size makes less difference (players with bigger neighbourhoods currently have a big advantage).

MOST IMPORTANTLY - It will save me having to attack 40 default defences (no fun) just to keep in the running for the pvp tower :-)

 

[DeletedUser8813]

I think the main point is that this is a win-win. If players are limited to x neighbourhood attacks per day they will likely focus on the bigger players for more xp and then polish lower players for drops.

Also - This makes the pvp ranking MUCH FAIRER - as neighbourhood size makes less difference (players with bigger neighbourhoods currently have a big advantage).


MOST IMPORTANTLY - It will save me having to attack 40 default defences (no fun) just to keep in the running for the pvp tower :-)

this will not make players focus on the bigger players for xp they will still attack everyone for global xp points ,it just means only a certain amount of point will go to pvp towers.
size of neighborhood makes no difference to pvp towers as you only compete against the players in your hood it is not hood against hood so everyone in the hood has the same chance to win.
it is your choice to attack the 40 with the default defence you could just polish them

 

[DeletedUser]

My suggestion is to limit the number of neighbourhood attacks not to allow them all but only make x number count.

 

[DeletedUser8813]

My suggestion is to limit the number of neighbourhood attacks not to allow them all but only make x number count.

yes we can see that..... but whats the point of having 80 in the neighborhood if we cant attack them..? ...
there are 80 in the hood i want to attack the lot if i choose to do so..if you want to limit the attacks to [lets just chuck a number in ] 40...then the hood size may as well be reduced to this number as well..
what the use of 39 players you cant do anything with?...you might say polish but i dont want any more to polish..i have a full guild and a pretty full friends list thats more than enough for that.

 

[DeletedUser]

Because the vast majority of people only have 30 people in their neighbourhood. Why should you get an advantage in the rankings just because you are lucky enough to get a full neighbourhood? That doesn't make you the pvp king - it makes you the luckier than most king.

You can still polish/encourage other players for blueprints and/or trade with them so extra people in the neighbourhood are still useful.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

Has anyone even agreed to this idea? Why is it still going on?

 

[DeletedUser8813]

Has anyone even agreed to this idea? Why is it still going on?

probably not...?.....just being friendly

 

[DeletedUser]

Has anyone even agreed to this idea? Why is it still going on?

All I'm concerned about is if the dev's think it's a good idea. Just because a few active forum members (which make up 1% of the player base) disagree with me doesn't make a big difference.

And yes Martynius agrees with me

 

[DeletedUser]

All I'm concerned about is if the dev's think it's a good idea. Just because a few active forum members (which make up 1% of the player base) disagree with me doesn't make a big difference.

And yes Martynius agrees with me

Sorry, but I don't. If you are referring to the post of mine I've quoted below then I was pointing out a flaw in the system you are proposing and trying to quantify with a numerical example one of the significant flaws in the suggestion.

However, if you are referring to my statement that it bore some similarity to my suggestion (click here) then please note the qualifier that I thought this one was less flexible. By limiting the range of people you can attack to the players immediately adjacent in the ranking then there is an immediate reduction in the number of players you can attack but it does not guarantee that players are attacking the best value targets. My suggestion does not limit the number of attacks a player can make (beyond the current limitation of not more that once per player in 24 hours) but just says that only the top 50 scoring battles per tower per week will score you points (so if you fight in all 6 towers then you can have 300 battles count towards points) and any battles beyond the top 50 in each tower will score zero points. It gives players an incentive to fight against the most difficult opponents and a disincentive to pick on the weakest without limiting the actions a player can take.

This a little bit like my suggestion (click here); however, it is a lot less flexible (but easier to code).

Let me just point out a small scenario: Imagine a neighbourhood with 40 people in it. The top 10 players in the neighbourhood all have colonial age defences of 8 dragoons (5760 points for defeating without loss) and the other 30 players all have 2 spearmen (216 points for defeating without loss). [Yes this is a made up example but it illustrates the point nicely.]

If you can attack 10 players closest in rank to you then:

• Players ranked #1 to #6 can attack players #1 through #11 and get 5760*9+216*1 = 52056 points/day
• Player #7 can attack players #2 through #12 and get 5760*8+216*2 = 46512 points/day
• Player #8 can attack players #3 through #13 and get 5760*7+216*3 = 40968 points/day
• Player #9 can attack players #4 through #14 and get 5760*6+216*4 = 35424 points/day
• Player #10 can attack players #5 through #15 and get 5760*5+216*5 = 29880 points/day
• Player #11 can attack players #6 through #16 and get 5760*5+216*5 = 29880 points/day
• Player #12 can attack players #7 through #17 and get 5760*4+216*6 = 24336 points/day
• Player #13 can attack players #8 through #18 and get 5760*3+216*7 = 18792 points/day
• Player #14 can attack players #9 through #19 and get 5760*2+216*8 = 13248 points/day
• Player #15 can attack players #10 through #20 and get 5760*1+216*9 = 7704 points/day
• Players ranked #16 to #40 can only attack players with default defence and get 216*10 = 2160 points/day

So, although this example is very contrived, you see the point that under this system a players points would be limited by his immediate neighbours and if someone was progressing through the ranks and suddenly found that their neighbours stop playing and put on a default defence then their progress is severely hampered.

It is equally possible that a large majority of the top players decide to opt for a default defence - in which case those lower in the rankings could progress faster while those at the top can be hampered in their progress by other player's choices.

(Note: I understand that '10' is arbitrary but having 10/15/20 still raises the same issues when you get a clump of players with the basic defense in the same neighbourhood.)

 

[DeletedUser]

No. I was referring to my ammended suggestion which resulted from your feedback.

It's gets around the issues with your post.

 

[DeletedUser10135]

Actually I think all neighborhoods should have the same amount of players. THAT would be fairer.
10 is definitely not enough, 80 would be good. I just began in Dinegu with a 80-player area.

Besides, we must take into account the total amount of players in a given world : they should be equally spread through neighborhoods, or spread regarding their points or level, then you wouldn't have "player 1" with 400,000 points like me attacking "player 50" with only a few thousand points....

 

[DeletedUser]

Would be interesting if each week after the pvp tournies have finished it reshuffles the neighbourhoods. Would make it easy to keep people in full neighbourhoods and would mix the pvp up a bit as you'll be with different people each week.

I dare say the suggestion couldn't be less popular than this one.

 

[DeletedUser]

I want to make it explicitly clear - I do not support the idea in post #1 or any subsequent posts.

If you are talking about post #18 then I do not support it because:

• It is an entirely different idea and should be in a different idea thread rather than trying to confusingly hijack your own idea with a post at the bottom of page 2;
• There are 6 different PvP towers and limiting the number of attacks to 20 or 30 makes it almost impossible to fight in more than one or two of them; and
• Finally, because you tried to attribute something to me that I had never said - which makes me very ill-disposed towards your point of view.

 

[DeletedUser]

The idea of a thread is to get feedback and ideas change with feedback. Thats not unusual, infact it's expected and it's not a case of hijacking. It would be redicoulous to start a new thread every time an idea was ammended.

Anyway if I wrongly assumed we were on similar paths with our similar suggestions. I appologise.

Besides - not being able to compete in lower tier pvp towers is a good side effect. The last thing lowly players need is end-game players rolling them on the bronze/iron age pvp tower.

 

[DeletedUser]

Firstly, amending an idea is fine - IF, and only if, the amendments produce a suggestion of a similar nature (i.e. the amendments are minor) and if they are noted in the first post AND CLEARLY indicated what was the original idea and what was the amendment. Having an amendment in a post half way though the thread is not useful especially if it significantly changes the nature of the idea. Post #18 is almost a completely different idea so would be better in a new thread (it has a different set of pros and cons). You can tell this by how the discussion has changed in the last few posts.

Not being able to compete in multiple PvP towers is a bad thing - by the nature of it, if I am in CA and want to compete in a Bronze Age tower then I need to use Bronze Age units and if my opponent cannot field an army that can compete against a Bronze Age army then there is something wrong with their strategy.

The point is that you should be encouraging players to compete on equal terms and not encouraging players not to compete.

 

[DeletedUser]

Expecting someone who just entered the Iron age to compete with someone in HMA who decides to fields Iron age units is rediculous. You'll have all the buildings where they likely only have the first couple, you have more space and more resources and a defence on your city they cant possibly breech.

Definitely not what I would call 'equal terms'

 

[DeletedUser8813]

Expecting someone who just entered the Iron age to compete with someone in HMA who decides to fields Iron age units is rediculous. You'll have all the buildings where they likely only have the first couple, you have more space and more resources and a defence on your city they cant possibly breech.

Definitely not what I would call 'equal terms'

it makes no difference what age you are in if you wish to compete in the iron age tower you have to use iron age troops so it is an equal footing.same as bronze age or any other age.just because he is HMA doesnt mean the iron age troops he has are better than yours unless he has a military gb
but as to the defense of the city just about any defense is breachable,you just need the right combination and strategy.
ok so the ones at the lower end of the hood may not be able to compete with the top players defense but he should expect to..unless the top player is only using the default defense and a lot do..