Plundering

[DeletedUser96901]

if your palace is ready at the time of the attack but isn't plundered then you know that person doesn't plunder

so sometimes thinking beats reading

 

[DeletedUser108047]

I think this discussion is all very naive. This aspect of the game is not going to change....its part of the fundamental design of the game. And lets remember - its a game... anyone who substitutes real life motives or values is deluding themselves

There are lots of ways to play this game. One is to fight, another is to build. One of the very few options that is not available is to change the rules to suit your own style of play.

The beauty of this game is that these styles of play are not mutually exclusive. Rather success in the game requires a player to interact with all elements. The other beauty of this game is that there are myriad ways to play the game. And everyone of them involves some sort of compromise. So if you don't want to fight or plunder - don't; but don't expect the game to change or for you to be exempt from the rest of the game or the consequences of your decision as to how you want to play the game or judge other players for playing the game the way they want to.

As for some gross generalisations made on this and other threads about plunder...

• plundering is not bullying. It is an alternative within the game for the supply of consumables. And to label people who play within the rules 'bullies' is offensive
• I plunder when it suits me. I do so for lots of reasons: these might include - I need consumables for tech tree or GE or GvG or..., the other player is in a guild which I am at war with in GvG; I am retaliating; it's Tuesday etc. To ascribe some sort of antisocial value is quite frankly wrong
• there are already lots of ways for non-fighters to avoid plunder without changing the fundamental structure of the game
• Not all the plunderers are the same - I have a 400% defence and a 200% offence and that requires space so I can't put down 4 goods buildings. I fight. That is one of the options in the game
• If you are a dedicated player - fighting is the main part of the game. fighting in PvP whether you plunder or not is a major part of the game for dedicated players.
• whether you like it or not - the plunder element is a reinforcement of the social nature/interaction element of the game. Yes its not being 'social' and its pretty blunt, but fighting on PvP and plunder force the two parties to have some sort of interaction. Some of my best friends in game started off as plunderers or enemies.

And finally I doubt sincerely that Inno will change this aspect of the game. its been six years and these sorts of views/comments/ideas have been made regularly - and regularly ignored by Inno. In fact the release of the Atlantis Museum and Kraken suggest Inno believes this element of the game needs to be strengthened/encouraged not weakened or removed.

They have an extreme plunder style game in Tribal Wars and Grepolis and a no plunder game in Elvenar. From a market point of view - this game fills a niche and is not going to be changed to make it compete with other games it already produces.

 

[DeletedUser105078]

The current PvP system is not a proper fighting challenge. I only attack other players when I need battles for a quest, and it's always super-easy to win, all you have to do is attack all the players at the bottom of the neighbourhood. It doesn't pit player against player, all it does is create a parasitic system where a few players can live off others. I don't know how you can't all see that it stinks.

 

[Agent327]

• If you are a dedicated player - fighting is the main part of the game. fighting in PvP whether you plunder or not is a major part of the game for dedicated players.

So if I do not fight in PvP I am not a dedicated player?

I do not need the medals, I do not need the glory and I see no challenge in fighting my neighbours.

Apart from that I agree with you.

 

[DeletedUser108047]

So if I do not fight in PvP I am not a dedicated player?

I do not need the medals, I do not need the glory and I see no challenge in fighting my neighbours.

Apart from that I agree with you.

I meant that if you are playing daily for long periods, there is not much to do except fight. You can only do so much trading, building, negotiating etc before you need to wait for the timer to kick over.... And no not fighting PvP does not mean you are not dedicated... but I would say empiricaly most players who are dedicated to the game and devote an amount of time daily will be fighters and will fight PvP as there are otherwise not enough fights...

As for @SylverMoon fighting just the bottom of the hood? In my hood of 78 all are OF or AF. All have GBs and defences. All are experienced players. Some still use 2 spears, others put in very hard defences. On a tech basis I'm in the middle of my hood but on points and fights I'm way ahead of most Try fighting the whole hood at least 4 days out of 7.. it takes planning, skill and resources

 

[Agent327]

I meant that if you are playing daily for long periods, there is not much to do except fight. You can only do so much trading, building, negotiating etc before you need to wait for the timer to kick over.... And no not fighting PvP does not mean you are not dedicated... but I would say empiricaly most players who are dedicated to the game and devote an amount of time daily will be fighters and will fight PvP as there are otherwise not enough fights...

I can hardly call a person that puts in an army and clicks on auto a fighter. If you think youdo not have enough to do you can always keep looking for incidents all the time. That is about as heroic as fighting your neighbours.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

I can hardly call a person that puts in an army and clicks on auto a fighter. If you think youdo not have enough to do you can always keep looking for incidents all the time. That is about as heroic as fighting your neighbours.

A plunderer might autobattle everything, but not everyone autobattles, because the AI is retarded and gets your army messed up. Lazy play is always rewarded with suffering....and before anyone says it, no it does not matter if they have traz and a million unattached units IF they have any interest in winning the tourney towers, because you lose points when your army takes damage.

 

[Agent327]

A plunderer might autobattle everything, but not everyone autobattles, because the AI is retarded and gets your army messed up. Lazy play is always rewarded with suffering....and before anyone says it, no it does not matter if they have traz and a million unattached units IF they have any interest in winning the tourney towers, because you lose points when your army takes damage.

What if they do not care about the tourney or the points?

This game isn't just about fighting and it even does not have to be the main part, so if you state that a person that does not fight in PvP isn't a dedicated player, you are really shortsighted. A player that plays daily for long periods has a choice. A player that uses the 2 hour he has every day and choses not to fight in PvP can still be as dedicated as the other. You can not base dedication on just fighting PvP.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think this discussion is all very naive. This aspect of the game is not going to change....its part of the fundamental design of the game.

I would question the statement in italics. It's not fundamental to the design of the game, as if it were to be removed, not much would change for a lot of players. However long it has stood, the truth is that as a PvP feature, it stinks. The AI doesn't allow for any really interesting fighting or for any really useful defence (army-wise). The idea about conquering houses or a PvP arena where players fight against one another in real-time battles would be much more interesting and rewarding.

The fact that Inno wants Forge of Empires to have a PvP feature does not mean that such feature has to be as it is now.

 

[Agent327]

I would question the statement in italics. It's not fundamental to the design of the game, as if it were to be removed, not much would change for a lot of players.

I do not agree with you on that. Removing it would have a big impact on the game. If I can not be plundered I do not have to defend. I do not have to plan my production. I can remove buildings and GB's that have become totally useless. I would be a very happy Sim City player.

 

[DeletedUser]

I do not agree with you on that. Removing it would have a big impact on the game. If I can not be plundered I do not have to defend. I do not have to plan my production. I can remove buildings and GB's that have become totally useless. I would be a very happy Sim City player.

I understand that, and I do agree that for some players the game would change a lot, and some buildings would be rendered obsolete. That being said, it would still be a game about advancing through the ages, unlocking technologies, building a city, gathering resources, and, if you want, fighting some.
I do not think that PvP should be removed from the game, but I do not think that the PvP system that we currently have should be untouchable. If, for instance, PvP was about controlling resources outside of your city (so you can risk your troops for goods if you want, but you cannot actually lose your own productions), defensive buildings would still be useful (as they would help you defend controlled resources) and you would still have to place defensive armies.

 

[DeletedUser108047]

I can hardly call a person that puts in an army and clicks on auto a fighter. If you think youdo not have enough to do you can always keep looking for incidents all the time. That is about as heroic as fighting your neighbours.

A fighter with experience will know when to use auto battle or not. If you have the right troops, terrain and advantage then auto battle can be useful as the outcome is certain. I use it occasionally but I judge when to use it based on 23k fight experience.

Again we seem to be confusing personal judgments and values with playing a game. References to 'heroic' or 'bullies' or even 'neighbours' are being infused with some sort of moral code that is not part of the game - it may be part of your life and it may be the way you play the game but it is not a rule in the game.

Just because the game puts some one in my neighbourhood group does not automatically give that player some sort of moral reference or value. The game lets me interact with that player in a variety of ways - attack, plunder, friend, aid, ignore...as I choose - they are all valid.

As for incidents - I assume you are being sarcastic?

 

[Agent327]

I understand that, and I do agree that for some players the game would change a lot, and some buildings would be rendered obsolete.

Not for some players. For all players. Every building with a defence bonus would be obsolete. A defending army would be obsolete. It would make it a totally different game.

I do not think that PvP should be removed from the game, but I do not think that the PvP system that we currently have should be untouchable. If, for instance, PvP was about controlling resources outside of your city (so you can risk your troops for goods if you want, but you cannot actually lose your own productions), defensive buildings would still be useful (as they would help you defend controlled resources) and you would still have to place defensive armies.

This is about plundering, not about the PvP system. What on earth are you supposed to defend if you can not be plundered?

A fighter with experience will know when to use auto battle or not. If you have the right troops, terrain and advantage then auto battle can be useful as the outcome is certain. I use it occasionally but I judge when to use it based on 23k fight experience.

Nice for you, but rather meaningless. There are plenty of players that get it way before 23k fight experience. Even then, the main reason they use auto is cause they are lazy, not cause they are very experienced.

Again we seem to be confusing personal judgments and values with playing a game. References to 'heroic' or 'bullies' or even 'neighbours' are being infused with some sort of moral code that is not part of the game - it may be part of your life and it may be the way you play the game but it is not a rule in the game.

We are not confusing it. You are confusing it. The game allowes it and I am fine with it, but most players attack and plunder those that are way weaker than they are. They attack the bottom part of the neighbourhood group. Not thiose above them. That makes them bullies, even if it is within the rules.

As for incidents - I assume you are being sarcastic?

Hell no. You can even decide to only search for the rhino on a raft. That can keep you busy for hours.

 

[rjs66]

the biggest question is - why are you playing the game if you don't like it ?

and don't say you do like it if you want to change the way it works, because that proves you don't like it, and want it to be a different game

 

[DeletedUser110179]

I think this discussion is all very naive. This aspect of the game is not going to change ... its part of the fundamental design of the game. And lets remember - its a game ... anyone who substitutes real life motives or values is deluding themselves.

Games change.

One of the origins of modern football include human sacrfice among the Aztecs. Roman Gladiator Games included duels to the death. Maybe most of the audience at that time felt that the games would never change while others were pushing to have it changed. Quite frankly, the spectacle of death was probably seen in a similar way that we see battle in action movies today (or even battle in FoE).

Games are related to "real life" but like movies they may also have an affect on peoples real lives and "real life" experiences can intrude on the game. Plundering in FoE isn't real but if people feel that it's somehow wrong (or unpleasant) for whatever reason ... they are at liberty to influence and canvas for change (if they feel that it's worth their effort).

Inno is a business not a charity organization. We can play for free but they still need to finance the operation and make a profit. The original intention was to include plunder, battle and GvG. Inno have already been "partly forced" (by technology and mobile innovation) to exclude GvG from the mobile experience. Further decay of battle has been caused by the implementation of "negotiating the GE". This has had the effect of totally removing the need for battle in playing the game ... into an almost mainstream phenomenon. Veterans may be part of a dying breed who experienced "total war". In a sense, veterans are playing a very different game compared to newer players who joined more recently.

I don't think the removal of battle play or plunder would be a positive development but changes do happen ... driven by technology, people and profit ... we all influence the direction and outcome of FoE.
I guess it's all good in the end ... it's only a game ... we all enjoy playing it, until we don't.

Delusion makes it so.

 

[DeletedUser]

Not for some players. For all players. Every building with a defence bonus would be obsolete. A defending army would be obsolete. It would make it a totally different game.

The key phrase there was a lot. Of course it would somewhat change for everybody, but many players don't have a whole plethora of defensive buildings. Why, some of them don't even bother setting up a defence.

This is about plundering, not about the PvP system. What on earth are you supposed to defend if you can not be plundered?

I used to play a game where the PvP was about controlling mines for a certain time. If you managed to defend it for a certain amount of time, you would get resources. If not, you wouldn't. You could defend that.

The point is that a PvP system can be made that does not make defence obsolete and does not include plundering a player's city.

 

[DeletedUser105078]

For the hard-core players and developers who are no longer in touch with the way the "common" people feel, here is a guild conversation about plunder (I have rubbed out names for the sake of confidentiality):

 

[Agent327]

For the hard-core players and developers who are no longer in touch with the way the "common" people feel, here is a guild conversation about plunder (I have rubbed out names for the sake of confidentiality):

I can show you Guild conversations of "common" people that like to plunder and give eachother tips. Not all "comon" people feel the same.

 

[DeletedUser96901]

you can protect yourself: the city shield

even some plundered uses that to get not plundered

and btw:
every building that can be motivated can be plundered if not motivated
so theoretical a Tribal Square can be plundered

 

[DeletedUser105078]

I can show you Guild conversations of "common" people that like to plunder and give eachother tips. Not all "comon" people feel the same.

Your guild obviously does not contain many "common" people. I have cities in 11 worlds, and since I started playing, I've been in at least 30 different guilds or more, and I've only come across one guild where the leaders encouraged members to plunder (obviously, I left that guild pretty quickly). In all my other guilds, nobody likes the plunder feature. That's what I found so weird: how this forum does not reflect the views of most players. None of my guild mates frequents this forum, even though I did in the past encourage people to take part in discussions here. I think the professional plunderers must have take over the forum and give any "whingers" such a hard time that they quickly disappear. I keep coming back maybe because I'm a sucker for punishment, or maybe because I've always gravitated towards forums; years ago I was forum mod for for quite a while for another game I played. But this forum is a bit like banging one's head against a brick wall. I really dislike how it does not reflect the wider player-base.

every building that can be motivated can be plundered if not motivated
so theoretical a Tribal Square can be plundered

Not a problem when I have a friendly guild plus 80 friends and am on good terms with my non-plundering neighbours, lol.