Too many bullies

[vikingraider]

I preferred the original 18+ NSFW post

You didn't happen to get a screen of the post-watershed version, did you...?

 

[Dead-Eye]

Put campers with campers.

Not a bad idea at all. Top 20 in hood usually have the best stuff to nick so having 70 to 75 players to steal from instead of 15 to 20 works for me. Many would fight back too so one would have to up their game and stay on their toes.

 

[Agent327]

No need to try and implement any kind newfangled 'hood sorting system.
If you don't like your current neighbourhood, it'll change in 2 weeks time.

Weird argument. If you do not like a hood based on a new system system, it will change in 2 weeks time.

If you're getting plundered, there's plenty of things one can go to stop it, including asking the person/s plundering you for advice on how to better protect yourself.

Like that would help against a long time camper.

You'd be amazed how many of us "disgusting, filthy, basement dwelling bullying trolls with no life" will readily offer up advice on how to protect from plundering.

Ah, that's why there are several plunder threads. Always wondered what the use was.

And besides, if losing a single building's production is so disastrous that it halts your city's progress to a crawl, then guess what buttercup - YOUR city is awful and needs improvement!

Weird argument again. If your city is that great, why would you need the production of another player.

 

[Andrew420]

The way to prevent bullying both by age and by city development is to make neighbourhoods based on city starting time

This won't happen because basically that's the way the hoods were set up in the beginning days of FoE
They have since changed how often the hoods are merged and the criteria for being in that hood
Changing it to starting date would just be returning the hoods back to how they used to be
That would be going backwards and not an improvement to the game

The correct way to handle bullying is to stand up to them and don't let them intimidate you
Bullies don't pick on the strong they tend to prey on the weak

 

[Agent327]

Changing it to starting date would just be returning the hoods back to how they used to be
That would be going backwards and not an improvement to the game

It does not have to be starting date. It can de the date you entered an era.

The correct way to handle bullying is to stand up to them and don't let them intimidate you
Bullies don't pick on the strong they tend to prey on the weak

I would not consider them bullies, cause they do what the game allows them to. Fact is that some campers are so far ahead of the rest of the hood that everyone in the hood can be considered weak.

Every player in VF has had the same chances to develop. Every player in EMA not. Differences can be way to big.

A player with an Himeji Castel at level 60 already should not be in EMA, or if he is, in a hood with players that play in the same way.

 

[Cursedveggie]

You didn't happen to get a screen of the pre-watershed version, did you...?

Sorry no

 

[vikingraider]

Sorry no

Can you send me a pm with the gist of it please...

 

[Thomas Covenent]

For myself, this biggest issue I'd find with trying some foolish "put campers with campers and noobs with noobs" is that;
1. How do you define at what point someone is determined to be a filthy 'camping bully'?
Time spent in specific age? But, what about someone who's spent say 2-3 months actively playing in an age, but then due to RL reasons, takes say a 3-4+ month break? They're not actively camping, but can get labeled as such?
What if someone just prefers to stay low-era forever because they prefer the asthetics of the historical Iron - CA era buildings? What if they're not really building a bunch of high-powered GB's either? Now they're going to complain about being "bullied" too.
Etc, etc...

2. This whole "peaceful 'hoods" BS is just that.
Stop trying to change the game to suit one narrow play style!! If even the thought of being plundered is so soul destroying, then said player/s should go play Elvenar as it's basically FoE minus plundering. (with a high fantasy skin vs. historical -> futuristic)

3. This whole idea that "if everyone is OP then no one is and the game is 'balanced'" nonsense.
So now, we discriminate against one type of player and lump them all together, and now end up with massive issues during events because many in that particular group are now fethed in any & all 'hood related combat challenges! (hint: not all campers are military focused, equally as many are just super farmers!)
Anything like, "win 5-10 battles" or "defeat X enemies" becomes a nightmare. (especially if you've completed and/or are beyond your abilities to fight in GE)
Meanwhile, the "win X battles in row without losing" quest becomes basically impossible without incurring massive losses. (and not all campers are military focused either, so 'Traz'less players are royally screwed over!)

Brilliant games design!

And no, I'm not against 'tougher' or 'cutthroat' 'hoods for fear of being robbed blind... (my city honestly doesn't care about being plundered since 95% of my goods/fp's are non-plunderable, so there! )
Rather, I'd be terrified of basically being forced out of events and/or my current guild due to being forced to use GE exclusively for all combat related quests...

 

[Agent327]

For myself, this biggest issue I'd find with trying some foolish "put campers with campers and noobs with noobs" is that;
1. How do you define at what point someone is determined to be a filthy 'camping bully'?
Time spent in specific age? But, what about someone who's spent say 2-3 months actively playing in an age, but then due to RL reasons, takes say a 3-4+ month break? They're not actively camping, but can get labeled as such?

Stupid argument. Inactive players are not placed in a hood. When they bcome active again they are, so it is easy to take that into account.

What if someone just prefers to stay low-era forever because they prefer the asthetics of the historical Iron - CA era buildings? What if they're not really building a bunch of high-powered GB's either? Now they're going to complain about being "bullied" too.
Etc, etc...

Why should someone who is just playing for asthetics care about lost production?

2. This whole "peaceful 'hoods" BS is just that.
Stop trying to change the game to suit one narrow play style!! If even the thought of being plundered is so soul destroying, then said player/s should go play Elvenar as it's basically FoE minus plundering. (with a high fantasy skin vs. historical -> futuristic)

One narrow playstyle? It is the general playstyle. Camping is the narrow playstyle here.

3. This whole idea that "if everyone is OP then no one is and the game is 'balanced'" nonsense.
So now, we discriminate against one type of player and lump them all together, and now end up with massive issues during events because many in that particular group are now fethed in any & all 'hood related combat challenges! (hint: not all campers are military focused, equally as many are just super farmers!)
Anything like, "win 5-10 battles" or "defeat X enemies" becomes a nightmare. (especially if you've completed and/or are beyond your abilities to fight in GE)
Meanwhile, the "win X battles in row without losing" quest becomes basically impossible without incurring massive losses. (and not all campers are military focused either, so 'Traz'less players are royally screwed over!)

Brilliant games design!

Lame argument. It does not have to be like that. It is their choice. They are free to move on and avoid it.

And no, I'm not against 'tougher' or 'cutthroat' 'hoods for fear of being robbed blind... (my city honestly doesn't care about being plundered since 95% of my goods/fp's are non-plunderable, so there! )
Rather, I'd be terrified of basically being forced out of events and/or my current guild due to being forced to use GE exclusively for all combat related quests...

You wouldn't be. It is all your choice.

 

[Vesiger]

A large chunk of the problem (as with most game balance issues) is that the game was not designed on the assumption that players would try to spend months in an era that they were expected to want to complete within a few weeks - or that they would be able to obtain buildings like Alcatraz (to say nothing of the ubiquitous Arc) that didn't even exist when those eras were created. It's very difficult to legislate for extreme cases or player exploits.

 

[Agent327]

A large chunk of the problem (as with most game balance issues) is that the game was not designed on the assumption that players would try to spend months in an era that they were expected to want to complete within a few weeks - or that they would be able to obtain buildings like Alcatraz (to say nothing of the ubiquitous Arc) that didn't even exist when those eras were created. It's very difficult to legislate for extreme cases or player exploits.

Very true. You can not stop them doing it, but you can weed them out and put them together, so they have less influence on how you want the game to be.

 

[Praeceptor]

This thread again?

I have several cities in low ages with ludicrously high powered neighbours. I'm seldom plundered because I collect on time.

I you can't afford the occasional missed collection being plundered, you're playing it wrong.

 

[Agent327]

I have several cities in low ages with ludicrously high powered neighbours. I'm seldom plundered because I collect on time.

Good for you. Does not take anything away from the fact that some players are exploiting the game.

 

[DeletedUser108359]

And besides, if losing a single building's production is so disastrous that it halts your city's progress to a crawl, then guess what buttercup - YOUR city is awful and needs improvement!

very true, whenever i think there is a possibility that an attacker might plunder because i miss a collection, i look at my stuff and figure, ok, he can only hit 1 building and whatever he takes i can remake and just keep on going.
But it can become a problem if you are fairly small and getting plundered by 5 to 10 people a day, that will hurt a lot. But there is an option for this too, mail support and ask to be moved, explaining why.
Most times they will move you within 24 hours.

I think the biggest issue is not the plunderer but yourself, your attitude towards this part of the game and how you handle it.
No one likes their stuff stolen and for a long time it irked me and made me mad.
But i read a lot of peoples advise and opinions and slowly my attitude changed.
I Still dont like it, but i live with it and try outwit and outplay the other person.

 

[Praeceptor]

Good for you. Does not take anything away from the fact that some players are exploiting the game.

Exploiting? How? By playing by the rules? Can't see a problem myself.

 

[Agent327]

Exploiting? How? By playing by the rules? Can't see a problem myself.

You dont have to see a problem. Same as in the law, you have the rules and interpretation of the rules. If this game was meant to be played to EMA and no further, there wouldn't be more era's. If all players want to do is reach EMA and no further, fine by me. Just put them in a hood witj others that think likewise. Now how could they be opposed to that? They can only benefit from being with players that think alike.

 

[DeletedUser]

You dont have to see a problem. Same as in the law, you have the rules and interpretation of the rules. If this game was meant to be played to EMA and no further, there wouldn't be more era's. If all players want to do is reach EMA and no further, fine by me. Just put them in a hood witj others that think likewise. Now how could they be opposed to that? They can only benefit from being with players that think alike.

Entirely agree here.
Also because it might be nice to give a real new player a sort of chance to get the groove.

 

[Praeceptor]

I can see how annoying it would be to be plundered over and over by players camping in low ages, but the point remains - plundering is avoidable by playing smart, and has been a central part of FoE from day one. Inno are never going to change it no matter how many whinging threads get posted here.

The only answer is learn to deal with it or play another game.

 

[DeletedUser116572]

Inno are never going to change it no matter how many whinging threads get posted here.

inno changed neighbourhoods before and could change again if they felt they had a viable solution instead of just changing one problem for a different one

 

[Agent327]

the point remains - plundering is avoidable by playing smart

No it isn't. It can be limited, but it isn't avoidable.

and has been a central part of FoE from day one.

True, but there haven't been campers from day one.

Inno are never going to change it no matter how many whinging threads get posted here.

Same has been said about many other ideas.

The only answer is learn to deal with it or play another game.

Or Inno takes control and make the game like it was intended.