Great Buildings Make high era GBs require two-lane roads

[Greywolf]

-1
There are 2 things that I thoroughly loathe. One is bringing real-world logic into a game. Just stick to in-game logic. If you have an idea then explain how it affects gameplay and how it enhances the game experience. I don't care whether or not it makes sense from a real-world perspective, all I care about is whether or not it will make the game more enjoyable.

The other thing I loathe is forcing players to play a game in a certain way. Each player has his/her own preference when it comes to playing. There is no good or bad way to play a game. All that matters is that you have fun playing.

For these 2 reasons I disapprove of the idea in the original post. If this ever would make it's way into the game then I would probably say my goodbyes and leave FoE. And I'm afraid that I wouldn't be the only one.

 

[DeletedUser111848]

i would probably leave to

 

[ntnete0]

-1

 

[DeletedUser15986]

-1

 

[DeletedUser113110]

-1
2nd worst idea I have ever seen. A TON of my guildmates have Arcs, Traz, Kraken, Chateau... You name it. And they are mostly in LMA.

Spoiler

Worst idea in US Forum which somebody wants to uproot all of Inno's income by deleting diamonds, coins and supplies, and having a monetary system of reputation. He wanted to raise himself to the top. Not a joke.

Here is the link, if you want a laugh:
https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/a-currency-system-based-on-reputation.11509/
Oh, and here, more laughs:
https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/too-many-headstrong-people.11490/#post-88152

 

[Galladhorn]

–1

 

[DeletedUser103052]

I'm neutral on the subject, but I do like that someone is suggesting something that increases the difficulty of the game, not just trying to make it easier for themselves, so props to you for that!

 

[DeletedUser107412]

-1

Thoughts:
1) Good idea that a player must reach an age before they can have a GB from that age.
2) It should have been like that when the game began.
3) Unrealistic and impossible to do it now.

 

[Shad23]

i would probably leave to

 

[Emberguard]

-1

This would destroy peoples cities who would now have built everything around the GBs they've placed. It'd be devastating to expect people to either work at 50% or destroy all the hard work and build up again.

If this was something in place from the start it'd be fine, but not when it's been years and players have their entire cities formed around those GBs. You'd make it next to impossible for players to advance beyond where they are now (or even just maintain the status quo) without destroying their entire city assuming they have the resources to rebuild

 

[DeletedUser112892]

-1
Already built Arc, Traz and CF in HMA

 

[Emberguard]

If there were to be a GB nerf at all, I'd make it something really simple like only allowing contributions to be made into a GB upto the finished lvl 10 until you've reached the age of that GB.

 

[DeletedUser113755]

I get the feeling the original post was due to a sense of imbalance in the game with high powered players (those with the upper era GB's) PvP'ing vs low powered players. This applies in neighbourhood plundering raids or GvG. If you want a more balanced game then ask Inno to use a league system. More battle worlds within each era would have to be created. Then as you fight within an era during GvG eventually the strongest will end up in the higher league for that period and the weaker will be in a lower league fighting against players of similar ability or power. This could be applied to neighbourhood fighting as well, rather than just on the level of your city hall. New players start at the bottom , same IRL, and have to make their way up. If you don't like the fighting aspect of the game, then don't fight and you would drop down the leagues until you are in a position where you are satisfied to stay. There is no reason to destabilise the whole game.

 

[Agent327]

If you don't like the fighting aspect of the game, then don't fight and you would drop down the leagues until you are in a position where you are satisfied to stay. There is no reason to destabilise the whole game.

At which stage you start fighting and plundering. Does not stabilize anything.

 

[DeletedUser113755]

The proposal was for a major nerf of GB's which for the many reasons already posted does not seem viable. My view is that the proposal was made due to an imbalance in the PvP aspect of the game. How, therefore, can the proposal be changed to reflect the intent?
League systems address this problem IRL, the best want to be vs the best. So the proposal can be stated as to where , when and how it is used. Those against the proposal I put into the "when", they do not want a limit in era as to when they can build/use GB's. Those against the major nerf aspect and effect it would have on the game are in the "how" the proposal works. I agree with the arguments against the proposal on when and how reasons.
Does this leave a "where" possibility? . I would suggest only if Inno has the capacity to run side by side realms whereby similar ability/power is vs same hence the use of leagues.

 

[Agent327]

The proposal was for a major nerf of GB's which for the many reasons already posted does not seem viable. My view is that the proposal was made due to an imbalance in the PvP aspect of the game.

I view it differently. To me the proposal was made to make sure players that camp in the low ages can not have GB's from Modern or higher. It will hardly influence PvP.

How, therefore, can the proposal be changed to reflect the intent?
League systems address this problem IRL, the best want to be vs the best. So the proposal can be stated as to where , when and how it is used. Those against the proposal I put into the "when", they do not want a limit in era as to when they can build/use GB's. Those against the major nerf aspect and effect it would have on the game are in the "how" the proposal works. I agree with the arguments against the proposal on when and how reasons.
Does this leave a "where" possibility? . I would suggest only if Inno has the capacity to run side by side realms whereby similar ability/power is vs same hence the use of leagues.

In my opinion you have the intent wrong. It isn't about the nerf aspect at all. Nerfing is only done to limit early age players. It isn't a general nerf.

Your suggestion can lead to easy abuse. I do not fight my neighbours for a few weeks, drop down in leagues and then start fighting again against much easier competition, where I can plunder with ease.

 

[DeletedUser113755]

start fighting again against much easier competition, where I can plunder with ease.

Very well spotted and quite correct because that effect is already in place. But would a league system or any other method alleviate the problem even if for a short while i.e. by fight and plunder they go back up the tables.
The reason why I tried to explain this under where when is because ih8regin mentions the proposal as a major nerf in a later post. The rules of this Forum are that we stick to topic so I mention an alternative and not just a "no this wont work" as I am not trying to bring up a new idea purely for its own sake. If you wish to discuss leagues or alternatives then maybe a different thread would be better.
I would prefer to see peoples comments on how the proposal can be modified so that it can work, or definitive explanations as to why it wont.

 

[Agent327]

Very well spotted and quite correct because that effect is already in place. But would a league system or any other method alleviate the problem even if for a short while i.e. by fight and plunder they go back up the tables.

No it isn't in place. At the moment the top player has it easy with about 50% of the hood. With a league system you can drop to 100%. Sure you can go back up the tables, so you drop again. Plunder rewards will be still higher than they are now.

 

[Emberguard]

The neighbourhoods as they are now are fairly balanced, you've just got to keep playing through the occasional plunder - it's part of the game. Those in the top spots? They've been plundered too.

And I agree with Agent. This thread is about removing GBs higher then a players era from their city or removing their effectiveness. Something which this late in the game would only be partially achieveable without destroying the whole game

 

[Ceban]

-1 on current proposal, but if you adapt it a bit...
why to relate those GB's to kind of roads wich you have and if your final goal is to rush players trough the ages then why not do it both ways, positive and negative? If you are above era of GB you get +5% bonus on it for every era you are above GB's era and you get -5% for every era you are below era bonus if you are below. Go with logic that with new era you learn new ways how to use something in better way so you will learn to use traz 10% better way in PME than in PE so you will get 110% of its normal production for that level and in TE you wont be able to use arc full potential so you will get only 95% of normal goods for example.