Two things to improve fairness of the game

[DeletedUser96819]

1. Successful defenses of the city should be awarded by the points just as successful attacks are.

2. Defense GBs (e.g. St. Basil & Deal Castle) should boost troops attack force just as they boost def force. The way it is now, defense troops stand no chance against attacking troops that have 100+ defense boost. With no attacking force added, defense troops barely scratch attacking forces having 100+ defense boost.

Regards, J

 

[DeletedUser13805]

the best way to bring fairness to the game is to get rid of castles then its only troops v troops and a fair result will be had, it would give people an interest and also end the stupid way people can plunder weak players without fear of the weaker player getting strong enough to plunder them back. castles are the worst thing this game ever had for pvp there are to many players now who are on silly boosts that it just makes people not even bother to get decent units.

 

[DeletedUser96819]

Agree, but that is rather radical... my proposal is somewhat half way...

 

[DeletedUser]

1. Successful defenses of the city should be awarded by the points just as successful attacks are.

2. Defense GBs (e.g. St. Basil & Deal Castle) should boost troops attack force just as they boost def force. The way it is now, defense troops stand no chance against attacking troops that have 100+ defense boost. With no attacking force added, defense troops barely scratch attacking forces having 100+ defense boost.

Regards, J

+1

I like both your points

However, expect people to start shoot down this idea as soon as they read it. I made a very similiar suggestion a while ago (Offensive & Defensive Great Buildings), and see what happend to it. Some think that "it's supposed to be this way", it's supposed to be unfair...

Well I agree with you, boost the defenders attack aswell, or remove the military buildings totally, and add another bonus for those GBs instead, like reduced healing times or reduced training times

 

[DeletedUser7719]

1. Successful defenses of the city should be awarded by the points just as successful attacks are.

-1, if you wanted this to be implemented, you should also consider that your defense is fully healed once the next attacker comes by.

 

[DeletedUser96819]

-1, if you wanted this to be implemented, you should also consider that your defense is fully healed once the next attacker comes by.

Sure. But, defender should be given advance notice in what time attacker is coming... so that he is aware and prepares defense. And that is going way to far for the current game engine. My proposed two fixes are easy and quick to implement, and would eliminate favoring of the attackers - will be more balanced and would require skills to attack. As it is now, attacker having latest army & 100+ att/def boost, can hit "auto" button and will win regardless of defenders GBs boost.

 

[DeletedUser]

Soon we will be able to manually control our defenses when another person attacks us. This should help even the playing field a bit.

 

[DeletedUser]

Soon we will be able to manually control our defenses when another person attacks us. This should help even the playing field a bit.

No, it won't, because the defender will still have a hard time to even make a scratch on an attacker with +150% boost. It will just annoy people even more to manually control their armies and still don't make any difference.

 

[DeletedUser13805]

Soon we will be able to manually control our defenses when another person attacks us. This should help even the playing field a bit.

how can that ever work ? what happens is one player isnt online at the same time ?

 

[DeletedUser]

how can that ever work ? what happens is one player isnt online at the same time ?

Then the AI takes control

 

[DeletedUser6065]

the best way to bring fairness to the game is to get rid of castles then its only troops v troops and a fair result will be had, it would give people an interest and also end the stupid way people can plunder weak players without fear of the weaker player getting strong enough to plunder them back. castles are the worst thing this game ever had for pvp there are to many players now who are on silly boosts that it just makes people not even bother to get decent units.

Truer words have not been spoken on this issue. As I posted before, the combat attack/defense strengths is one aspect of FoE the Devs should never have messed with. Add in the watchfires, and the situation is just laughable. The two spear defense with GB backing becomes a very real threat to inflict damage, if not outright destruction on units 2 ages above them. Unrealistic, and just plain pitiful game development. A very sad state of affairs all the way around. I often wonder how people with Great Pukers are able to enjoy the game. No skill whatsoever. Just hit the auto finish, sit back, collect points. Repeat as necessary . . . . mk

 

[DeletedUser96819]

No, it won't, because the defender will still have a hard time to even make a scratch on an attacker with +150% boost. It will just annoy people even more to manually control their armies and still don't make any difference.

Dead on.... and simple change I proposed would make the whole world of difference. Defender would be on equal with the attacker and game would be worthwhile playing. The way it is now, I do not see a single point in defending cities. No points for defense.. doomed to loose... not a happy situation.

 

[DeletedUser]

-1 This is def a make the game easier idea
Each side has always saught to use any advantage technological or otherwsie at their disposal. Europe is littered with castles used for defence and control and I take umbridge by what is effectivly a suggestion to make figthing easier for those without these advantages because you dont wan't to or can't get a castle etc - As a player who worked hard (not buying diamonds) to get my GB's it always annoys me when posts like this spring up - using the make it easier its unfair argument

 

[DeletedUser96819]

As a player who worked hard (not buying diamonds) to get my GB's it always annoys me when posts like this spring up - using the make it easier its unfair argument

This thread is not about removing GBs. It is about making defense equal to attacking, by simply adding boost to defending troops' attack.

 

[DeletedUser13805]

sorry my fault i would support anything really that promotes fairness to the game

 

[DeletedUser]

No, it won't, because the defender will still have a hard time to even make a scratch on an attacker with +150% boost. It will just annoy people even more to manually control their armies and still don't make any difference.

True, and that's why I said "should" and a "bit". I'm not saying it's going to allow you to defeat the attacker, but that's not always necessary. It should allow you to inflict more damage than the AI does by playing smarter defense than the AI does. Remember, when defending your city, inflicting enough damage on the attacker is often enough to make the attacker at least consider skipping you the next time. Once we are able to control our defense, you might see attackers surrender when they see a human is controlling rather than AI. Especially now that neighborhoods are huge, players can't afford to take much damage or they won't make it through the neighborhood. Military buildings are much larger now, so we don't have to room to build as many as we could in earlier ages. Less reinforcements means less damage we can afford to take. Also remember, we don't lose our units in defense. So even if the attacker wins, we get those units back. So a good defense will probably be to just focus on a single attacking unit at a time. Killing even 2-3 units could be enough.

 

[DeletedUser96819]

I do not expect my ideas to be accepted, but, is there anyone here from the development team of the game to comment?

 

[DeletedUser276]

the developers dont usually respond to things like this as their time is very valuable on trying to get content out to players. The lopsidedness I know you think may be a bit off.... but they are like that for a reason. I cannot say why as it kertails to future updates and stuff coming that right now is a bit secretive and fluffy like a bunny.

 

[DeletedUser96819]

Understood. Some way of filtering and submitting valuable feedback back to the game strategists must be in place. My hope is that the person(s) that are first line in that "feedback" loop would read this and think about it.

Here is another "pro" my proposal - Some sectors on the map have defending troops with increased att/def values. That makes conquer of those sectors more challenging. Troops that defend cities should be treated the same (both att & def values increased), which is not the case at present.

 

[DeletedUser13805]

Understood. Some way of filtering and submitting valuable feedback back to the game strategists must be in place. My hope is that the person(s) that are first line in that "feedback" loop would read this and think about it.

Here is another "pro" my proposal - Some sectors on the map have defending troops with increased att/def values. That makes conquer of those sectors more challenging. Troops that defend cities should be treated the same (both att & def values increased), which is not the case at present.

i dont agree with you on the point of troops getting boosts to be harder to kill or more of a challenge as the way the game is set up people who are in lower ages find trying to beat a defence of pe age troops impossable so the troops do there job as there strong enough without boosts.