Plundering

[DeletedUser111815]

I have a few suggestions to the pludering 'problem'...

* There seem to be quite some players who are camping in an era (I am doing this too at this point). If you are smart and/or lucky, you can obtain units from 1 or 2 eras beyond your current era which makes fighting your neighbours (and the GE for that matter) a joke. I can currently fight into L4 clearing encounter 55 and I lose about 15 rogues along the way. The same goes for attacking my neighbours. I don't think that was the idea behind fighting in the GE and/or your neighbours. Whether this is a flaw that needs fixing, I don't know, but I can understand that some players don't like it.
SOLUTION: Define the neighbourhood based on POINTS rather than ERA, so that you are coupled with players from higher eras if you decide to camp. That will encourage those players to move up, so that they can defend themselves against attacks.

* On the other side, I have to say that fighting your neighbours is a tiresome process that costs a LOT of time and the rewards are rather small. On a good day, I get 20 FPs and some goods and on a bad day I lose 10 rogues and gain no FPs. I completely understand that getting robbed sucks and that this sucks even more if this is done by a player with troops from an era (or two) above yours with GBs upgraded so that their attack power is close to 100%. No fun, agreed.
SOLUTION: Have the option of plundering OR getting points for the PvP rank. If you decide to plunder, you get NO points. If you decide to get the points, you will NOT get the option to plunder. Then, change the rewards for the PvP towers. The bonuses are, no offence, very small. I'm swimming in medals and I'm in the LMA. Getting 300 for getting the Colonial Tower is a joke, so these rewards are basically none. Why not change these into FPs or even diamonds? That way fighting gets fun and the rewards are better AND you get the plundering option slightly nerfed.

Thoughts?

 

[Vesiger]

I think a lot of the bad feeling over plundering is related to the seven rogues 'exploit', which means that you can turn a single unit from above your era into an unstoppable army. If defending troops had some chance of fighting back, it wouldn't be so infuriating to the victims - although I assume that anyone who had been camping out an era for a long time would probably have enough advanced troops to plunder all his neighbours without any risk of retaliation anyway...

 

[DeletedUser105078]

Stealing is hard work for very little reward .

They may steal 10% of your output ... but I've never come across a rich thief.
It's like shoplifting ... they take a little but you grow much more.
It's more of an inconvenience (like rust) than a real threat to your ever-expanding empire.

Maybe you just need to focus on what you are gaining ... rather than worrying about the small amounts that you lose.


View attachment 13705
Water, weed and your garden will grow ... even if the insects steal a few mouthfuls too .

An eloquent apologia in defence of thieves. Wow, it never occurred to me, how hard life must be for all those who steal! Maybe we should change our national laws, and legalise theft, hey?

 

[DeletedUser105078]

Another solution that may solve the plundering issue is to set up a PvP neighbourhood map, similar to the GvG map, which starts the week with about a dozen "houses" owned by NPCs with 0% defence bonus. Any player in the neighbourhood can attack and occupy these "houses", but other players in the neighbourhood can attack your "house" and if they win, they become the new owner. Every day the house produces a chest of random goods, which you can collect if you are the owner of the house at the right time. The defence bonus on each house is 0% if it's an NPC, but it reflects your city's defence if you own the house.

With this solution, PvP would not involve attacking other people's cities, so plunder would no longer be an issue.

Obviously, players who are not keen on PvP would progress more slowly, as they would not benefit from the PvP chests or from winning points in the tournament. But everyone would be able to play the game at their own pace, with hard-core players fighting over the PvP map and more casual players being able to play at their own pace, without worrying about being bullied or robbed.

 

[DeletedUser]

Another solution that may solve the plundering issue is to set up a PvP neighbourhood map, similar to the GvG map, which starts the week with about a dozen "houses" owned by NPCs with 0% defence bonus. Any player in the neighbourhood can attack and occupy these "houses", but other players in the neighbourhood can attack your "house" and if they win, they become the new owner. Every day the house produces a chest of random goods, which you can collect if you are the owner of the house at the right time. The defence bonus on each house is 0% if it's an NPC, but it reflects your city's defence if you own the house.

With this solution, PvP would not involve attacking other people's cities, so plunder would no longer be an issue.

Obviously, players who are not keen on PvP would progress more slowly, as they would not benefit from the PvP chests or from winning points in the tournament. But everyone would be able to play the game at their own pace, with hard-core players fighting over the PvP map and more casual players being able to play at their own pace, without worrying about being bullied or robbed.

I really like your idea. It sounds a lot more fun and rewarding that the current plunder system.

 

[DeletedUser111866]

set up a PvP neighbourhood map, similar to the GvG map

These should also be split by age like with GvG. And I'd rather have provinces more specialized than just goods. Coins, supplies, goods of current age, extra def% or atk%, maybe good boosters or FP generators, or even diamond generators. But there should also be a protection system, such as too fast changing hands should be limited to a degree. Maybe like with the city, offending army gets hurt and defending isn't, and a timer before successive attacks should be there somewhere. There might also be a problem of rehauling current bonuses of buildings, esp when someone woukd gain control of more than a single "house". So far I like this idea, but a lot of details need to be considered.

 

[potatoskunk]

Another solution that may solve the plundering issue is to set up a PvP neighbourhood map, similar to the GvG map, which starts the week with about a dozen "houses" owned by NPCs with 0% defence bonus. Any player in the neighbourhood can attack and occupy these "houses", but other players in the neighbourhood can attack your "house" and if they win, they become the new owner. Every day the house produces a chest of random goods, which you can collect if you are the owner of the house at the right time. The defence bonus on each house is 0% if it's an NPC, but it reflects your city's defence if you own the house.

With this solution, PvP would not involve attacking other people's cities, so plunder would no longer be an issue.

Obviously, players who are not keen on PvP would progress more slowly, as they would not benefit from the PvP chests or from winning points in the tournament. But everyone would be able to play the game at their own pace, with hard-core players fighting over the PvP map and more casual players being able to play at their own pace, without worrying about being bullied or robbed.

I think the idea needs a bit of work on the details, but as a rough idea, it's not bad.

There is one drawback to replacing the current system, though. It takes away the ability to repeatedly plunder someone to punish them. For example, we recently had someone come into the guild and scam our FP swap threads; if any guild member ends up in the same neighbourhood, we plan to make sure we extract as much payment from him as we possibly can. But that's very much a fringe purpose for plundering, and maybe your idea could be adapted in a way to give an alternative even for that.

 

[DeletedUser110179]

There is one drawback to replacing the current system, though. It takes away the ability to repeatedly plunder someone to punish them. For example, we recently had someone come into the guild and scam our FP swap threads; if any guild member ends up in the same neighbourhood, we plan to make sure we extract as much payment from him as we possibly can. But that's very much a fringe purpose for plundering, and maybe your idea could be adapted in a way to give an alternative even for that.

Lol ... too funny.

 

[DeletedUser108379]

Another solution that may solve the plundering issue is to set up a PvP neighbourhood map, similar to the GvG map, which starts the week with about a dozen "houses" owned by NPCs with 0% defence bonus. Any player in the neighbourhood can attack and occupy these "houses", but other players in the neighbourhood can attack your "house" and if they win, they become the new owner. Every day the house produces a chest of random goods, which you can collect if you are the owner of the house at the right time. The defence bonus on each house is 0% if it's an NPC, but it reflects your city's defence if you own the house.

With this solution, PvP would not involve attacking other people's cities, so plunder would no longer be an issue.

Obviously, players who are not keen on PvP would progress more slowly, as they would not benefit from the PvP chests or from winning points in the tournament. But everyone would be able to play the game at their own pace, with hard-core players fighting over the PvP map and more casual players being able to play at their own pace, without worrying about being bullied or robbed.

If this map would be for fighting only, not a bad idea.
But if it were implemented there would be a lot of whining from those who do not like to fight, that they are left out, like in the beginning of GE (as there was no trading for a short time), so that would be no alternative in the long run for the neighbourhood fights.

 

[DeletedUser]

If this map would be for fighting only, not a bad idea.
But if it were implemented there would be a lot of whining from those who do not like to fight, that they are left out, like in the beginning of GE (as there was no trading for a short time), so that would be no alternative in the long run for the neighbourhood fights.

Maybe they could also implement an option to bribe the defending army away from the house with goods.

 

[DeletedUser]

Maybe they could also implement an option to bribe the defending army away from the house with goods.

Actually, I said that as a sort of joke, but after thinking about it for a while, I think it might work. Maybe you could have the option to either conquer or buy a house. If you buy it, you've got to pay a certain amount of goods to the player who owns it.

On the other hand, if non-fighting players complain that they are being left out, well, that was what many of them were asking for to start with, wasn't it? They want to be left out of PvP.

 

[DeletedUser112037]

The purpose of the idea is good. Ruining the enjoyment of the game for the vast majority by a small minority is a long well known problem. Game modification implemented in October, which does not allow neighborhood attack until late IA is a good first step to address this problem, but not enough.

My suggestion slightly different from the original one and also simpler to implement and may cause only minimal or no disruption to the current system.

In the setting menu there will be a switch to set "neighborhood attack/plunder allowed". It may be on by default. There will be 2 types of neighborhoods, attack/plunder allowed and not allowed. If the player decide to unset the option, then at the next neighborhood reshuffle the player will be member of a peaceful hood. The allow option will put the player in a hood setting identical to the current one. The option can always be switched on and off, but will only take effect at the next reshuffle.


All the other subsystems of the game are unaffected and remains the same.

Plunder-enthusiast wont even realize the change in game other than finding their game experience enhanced with much more attack and plunder. They can be absolutely sure that they wont receive protesting messages any more and even start receiving "thanks for your attack and plunder on my city" acknowledgments. The plunder-enthusiasts can have a heaven among their like minded fellows. Plunder haters will obviously also love the change.

 

[DeletedUser108379]

The purpose of the idea is good. Ruining the enjoyment of the game for the vast majority by a small minority is a long well known problem. Game modification implemented in October, which does not allow neighborhood attack until late IA is a good first step to address this problem, but not enough.

My suggestion slightly different from the original one and also simpler to implement and may cause only minimal or no disruption to the current system.

In the setting menu there will be a switch to set "neighborhood attack/plunder allowed". It may be on by default. There will be 2 types of neighborhoods, attack/plunder allowed and not allowed. If the player decide to unset the option, then at the next neighborhood reshuffle the player will be member of a peaceful hood. The allow option will put the player in a hood setting identical to the current one. The option can always be switched on and off, but will only take effect at the next reshuffle.

All the other subsystems of the game are unaffected and remains the same.

Plunder-enthusiast wont even realize the change in game other than finding their game experience enhanced with much more attack and plunder. They can be absolutely sure that they wont receive protesting messages any more and even start receiving "thanks for your attack and plunder on my city" acknowledgments. The plunder-enthusiasts can have a heaven among their like minded fellows. Plunder haters will obviously also love the change.

In my eyes that is a very bad idea. Why? Because fighting is a part of that game, I like that part and therefore I will attack my neigbhours (because I get points from doing so and medals if I win the tower). I do not like to plunder, so I do not plunder. There are not many who attack me and even less who will plunder (I do not know in most cases, if they don't plunder, because there is nothing to be plundered, or whether they don't plunder like me). In your scenario if I choose the neighbourhood with attack the likelihood of being plundered would increase a lot.

And those in the no attack neighbourhood would not need to bother at all with defence or collecting on time.

I do not think that such a difference in neighbourhoods would be fair.

 

[DeletedUser111589]

Has anyone seen plunderer with great defensive boost? I don't think so.

Building up defense is pretty much futile with the kind of AI is a general for town defense. I am a farmer, for the most part, and I'll much rather have high attack bonus to strike back in case someone attacks me. So far retaliation worked.

Grouping people by their play styles is a bad idea. Plunderer doesn't want to be plundered and they'll hate being in such hood which is in contrary to what someone above my comment said. I'm not saying that the plundered one likes it, I know how bad it is.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

A small minority plunderers are not, mindlessly plundering when your defenses aren't up to the task of at least repelling someone using 8 regular units is just asking for retribution, so I think many wait until they have beefed up their defenses to at least achieve this goal. I have a plan in the works on all of my played worlds that will make me immune to counter-attack....this is all I am waiting for and then it's open season on everyone. This is what those who don't want plundered and don't plunder should be doing. Build St. Basil's, build Deal Castle, level them high and set a defense that will be hard to kill. Only a dedicated plunderer will press on in the face of a defense that has a high attack of its own in addition to hundreds of % on their defense value.

 

[DeletedUser112037]

In my eyes that is a very bad idea. Why? Because fighting is a part of that game, I like that part and therefore I will attack my neigbhours ..

In your scenario if I choose the neighbourhood with attack the likelihood of being plundered would increase a lot.

And those in the no attack neighbourhood would not need to bother at all with defence or collecting on time.

I do not think that such a difference in neighbourhoods would be fair.

Read my post. I did not suggest removing the fighting part of the game. On the contrary. Those who love hood fighting would have the same opportunity as now.

"In your scenario if I choose the neighbourhood with attack the likelihood of being plundered would increase a lot." Maybe or maybe not. If attackers do not plunder like you said you do not, then not. But a player will have an option to choose among hoods.

"And those in the no attack neighbourhood would not need to bother at all with defence or collecting on time." Yes, that is the point. But I do not think it is a problem for you, since you would choose the attack/plunder hood.

 

[DeletedUser112037]

Has anyone seen plunderer with great defensive boost? I don't think so.

Building up defense is pretty much futile with the kind of AI is a general for town defense. I am a farmer, for the most part, and I'll much rather have high attack bonus to strike back in case someone attacks me. So far retaliation worked.

Grouping people by their play styles is a bad idea. Plunderer doesn't want to be plundered and they'll hate being in such hood which is in contrary to what someone above my comment said. I'm not saying that the plundered one likes it, I know how bad it is.

"Plunderer doesn't want to be plundered and they'll hate being in such hood...."
I do not think so, because normal human beings do not do something to others what they do not like themselves. And the "I attack but I do not plunder" argument is also invalid, because those being attacked do not know that.

 

[DeletedUser111589]

What you said sounds naive. If they weren't doing such thing, why are armies existing? By that logic, every soldier abroad would quit and go home because they don't want army of other country in their own.

Plunderer plunders because he wants to get something from his attack other than points. Besides, being such player is expensive (at lower ages at least with less space). And everyone hates having stuff forcibly taken from themselves, except possibly masochists.

They learn. Check history through town hall, you'll see who attacked and result of battle. If player is plundered you get one quite distinctive icon of a thief on plundered building. I have never called out or attacked someone who just won and left not to come pick stuff.

 

[DeletedUser]

Grouping people by their play styles is a bad idea. Plunderer doesn't want to be plundered and they'll hate being in such hood which is in contrary to what someone above my comment said. I'm not saying that the plundered one likes it, I know how bad it is.

Isn't that part of the point of the idea? We all know that, for the most part, plunderers like to plunder on easy prey who don't know how to defend themselves or retaliate. They hate being plundered as much as everybody else. Well, so what? Put them with people who play like them and they will all be playing the same game. The problem here is that, the way things are now, people are playing two different games in the same neighbourhood.

 

[DeletedUser105078]

the "I attack but I do not plunder" argument is also invalid, because those being attacked do not know that.

Actually that's no quite accurate, many players advertise on their profile that they don't plunder, so if I see my city has suffered defeat, I normally go and check the attackers profile.