We need better neighbourhood merge

[DeletedUser15290]

Not all players with all GB's are diamond players. I have all GB's except one CA, and 2 IA GB's, and I haven't spend a diamond on blue prints.

I hear you on that one but the players in my neighborhood have every diamond: goods building, happiness building from all the ages plus random houses. I know the longer that people play the more chances they will have to get GB's. I'm 2 or 3 blueprints away from 5 buildings or so GB's but diamond players have too much of an advantage in most cases.

 

[DeletedUser15290]

I got banned over this comment so if anyone is in Cigard please let my guild know what happened, (Illusion).

 

[DeletedUser]

If you are banned on the forums, you can still play the game and vice versa - unless you are banned there as well.

 

[DeletedUser15290]

If you are banned on the forums, you can still play the game and vice versa - unless you are banned there as well.

I don't know what's going on, but I haven't been able to log in for about 48 hrs.

Edit: It's working again now finally.

 

[DeletedUser]

the FoE team it seems has taken notice of the problem, which many people brought to their attention, with points when 'recalculating' totals, when the next update was due. Perhaps, if enough people express their concerns at the injustice of the unevenness of 'hoods, then a solution which allows fair play to all, and not just some, with the addition of a meaningful ranking system would then follow....

 

[DeletedUser14587]

i have about 47 player and didn't get reshuffle from 3 months its seems it took forever to get a reshuffle i will suggest the in game moderator to work more on that its not fair how some people have 80 some have less than 40 as it doesn't help anyone either trader or fighter i guess u should skip merging and start arranging those neighbourhood according to ages or category of same ranking that will give small player a fair game to play and chance to progress which all ur rules is talking about FAIR PLAY from what i see in arranging the neighbourhoods it really doesn't seem fair at all

thank you

 

[DeletedUser]

Sorry to see you can't plunder so many people anymore :p, but as you saw in the previous replies, "many" is rather relative .
Maybe your neighbourhood knows by now that you plunder each and everyone, and makes sure you can't get the best things or high amounts of supplies anymore that's part of the tactics too!

By the way, merging is not only based on the number of people in a neighbourhood, it's also based on the average progress, so it's not a matter of just putting people together.

In my opinion I think that the progress of a neighbourhood should be taken out of the equation as top players often like to compete in the lower level tournament towers too. If they don't have lower developed players in their neighbourhood then those medals will not be available to them and they will go to waste. I think that development should be taken out because of one key element and that is that it doesn't matter what combination of units you use to protect your city the best defense is to collect your goods and supplies as soon as they are produced.

Just my thoughts on this topic,

~ddrd1981

 

[DeletedUser]

If some ppl where only allowed to research half their tech tree, or only fight with 4 units instead of 8, then i am sure there would be 'uproar' about the unevenness. The situation with the 'hoods is exactly the same. Yet nothing seems to be done about it. As already said, lets have FAIR play for all!

For all those that have read and replied to this tread, please participate in the new FoE survey, and express the unfairness of the present 'hood system.Thankyou

 

[DeletedUser15326]

Hey, my neighbour hood has been sat at 40neighbours for ages now and as of today is 39 so I know what you mean about the lack of people to gain points from, I would actualy like someone to try to plunder me as it doesn't happen too often being highest neighbour.. please merge us with wallachian.. could do with some good compition

 

[DeletedUser]

Neighborhoods CAN go over 80. They don't merge to more than 80 but inactives can come back and push the size of the neighborhood much higher.

So my question is: Why the arbitrary limit for neighborhood merges? Why not allow a neighborhood with 39 people to merge with one of 44 people? Will the extra 3 people blow a fuse? I think not. I also think that new neighborhood will shrink to below 80 within a couple weeks so it really should not be a big deal. Where should the limit be? Perhaps we are looking at the wrong end. Perhaps the limit should be 45 minimum in the neighborhood. It means whenever your 'hood gets down to 44 neighbors then you merge with the first compatible group who also have less than 45. Or set it to 50 if you like. I bet the program will handle it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Does anyone knows if the size of the hood for the purpose of merger determined by number of active players or just players?

 

[DeletedUser]

Does anyone knows if the size of the hood for the purpose of merger determined by number of active players or just players?

Active players (ones that are visible in your neighborhood bar).

 

[DeletedUser7719]

Neighborhoods CAN go over 80. They don't merge to more than 80 but inactives can come back and push the size of the neighborhood much higher.

So my question is: Why the arbitrary limit for neighborhood merges? Why not allow a neighborhood with 39 people to merge with one of 44 people? Will the extra 3 people blow a fuse? I think not. I also think that new neighborhood will shrink to below 80 within a couple weeks so it really should not be a big deal. Where should the limit be? Perhaps we are looking at the wrong end. Perhaps the limit should be 45 minimum in the neighborhood. It means whenever your 'hood gets down to 44 neighbors then you merge with the first compatible group who also have less than 45. Or set it to 50 if you like. I bet the program will handle it.

That's kind of like saying (currently) we go to 75, and those 5 extra people won't blow a fuse...

 

[DeletedUser]

That's kind of like saying (currently) we go to 75, and those 5 extra people won't blow a fuse...

OK, I'm confused with that one. Currently we go to 80 when possible. I was in a merge that went to 81 (because someone came back right after the merge I suspect). So I don't get your point.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

I'm saying if you want to have more neighbors in a hood, you might as well say to bring up the neighborhood max to 85 or 90. I don't personally don't see a problem with having more neighbors, but I still don't think it's the best solution...

 

[DeletedUser6065]

I hate the neighborhoods. I dream of the day of a world wide neighborhood.

Battle-wise, yes this sounds great. Giant dog-pile/free-for-all/everybody join in. But (you knew it was coming), trading-wise, this , IMHO is a nightmare. Thousands of trades, how do you find 'yours'? How many 2 x for 1 y trades will you slog through to ge the 50 for 50? Unfortunately, trades are about the only justification for the neighborhood set-up as it stands. I suppose some would say 'Go Guilds or Go Away', but I personally am not yet guild-motivated (I'm anti-social, so plunder me!). I stand with the larger neighborhoods (100-150), with a periodic (every 6 months?) totally re-structure of the neighborhood. And yes, we do need both 'upppers' and 'lowers' in neighborhoods, again, for trading ('uppers'' still need previous goods to climb the tree, and what 'lower' doesn't dream of the I give you 25 glass/ you give me 50 lumber scenario?). . . . . . mk

 

[DeletedUser]

Unfortunately, trades are about the only justification for the neighborhood set-up as it stands.

IMO it adds social aspect and sense of achievement for us, as well as a way to balance things for the devs. Without them the strongest players would have endless people to farm, unless you create an arbitrary bound e.g. an ever changing "hood" made of 80 people in front and after you in score. Also towers need it.

I stand with the larger neighborhoods (100-150), with a periodic (every 6 months?) totally re-structure of the neighborhood. And yes, we do need both 'upppers' and 'lowers' in neighborhoods, again, for trading ('uppers'' still need previous goods to climb the tree, and what 'lower' doesn't dream of the I give you 25 glass/ you give me 50 lumber scenario?). . . . . . mk

I see two problems:
1. How do you intend todo a 'total re-structure' of hoods and keep both 'upppers' and 'lowers' in neighborhoods i.e. by which criteria you will decide who is going to start first/last in a hood for six month?

2. If you dont have criteria to mix hoods, then making hoods larger won't fix the issue of people getting stuck for a long time without a merger. (Because obviously this is the same problem as before only with a different size, so you'd still be able to get stuck with 30 players waiting for 120 hood, while your opponent having fun with 150. Furthermore, i think it will make it worse, because now you'll have to wait for larger number of players to drop out for a merger to occur, I suspect this will effect the most the higher tires )

So the only benefit is initially larger number of players to interact with. which has it's up's and downs(I don't know about trade, I never had any problems there. However, I can see how it will give those with extra time more targets to attack and pol/mot for BP farming) Also from one of the comments here, I understand that the devs had been running another world with a larger hood size, I suspect that this is to determine the optimal size for everyone.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think the solution is to make the neighborhoods much bigger, like 150-250 people. They still never get broken apart, but they merge in such a way that none of them are ever below 80 people, even if that requires some big differences in players from 'hood to 'hood. The balancing factor would be to limit the amount of attacks or pol/mot to 80 per day, per player. It would provide some built in protection for lower point players, because it would be a waste of the higher players limited amount of attacks to go after them. So it wouldn't really matter how big the point differences were.

This system would work as far as I can see, and it would pretty much solve all the problems put forth in this thread.

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't mind the larger hood size, though 250 hood sounds dreadfully long to scroll through

They still never get broken apart, but they merge in such a way that none of them are ever below 80 people, even if that requires some big differences in players from 'hood to 'hood.

I have a problem with this part. It seems as if you wish to change the merge from 'similar progress hoods', with just fill it up with whatever. Such mergers will usually result in lower ages merges(there is more lower age players and they have a much high rotation). So for example, if now two hoods of long time players most of which in later ages are stuck at 41. Instead of waiting for another two players to drop and merge them, they will be merged on the spot with whatever comes along even bronze age players... Basically this will turn hoods into random groups(since similar progress will become irrelevant after such merge) i.e. Quantity over quality. I suspect that this will decrease the chance for higher level hoods(decrease challenge) and increasing player rotation in the lower end.(though with 250 people I doubt anyone will notice)

The balancing factor would be to limit the amount of attacks or pol/mot to 80 per day, per player.

I really like the idea of limiting number of actions. It will address the issue of farming and make you choose on who you want to spend those actions(I especially like it in regard to support actions). Few issues of note:
1. It doesn't limit the amount of action you can receive, worse case scenario you might be attack/plundered 250 times a day.
2. It will increase the chance to gain BP for a specific GB(With 250 players it easy to find 80 players with buildings of an appropriate age)
3. I suspect that due to interface limitation, certain groups of players will enjoy the vast majority of pol/mot actions.

It would provide some built in protection for lower point players, because it would be a waste of the higher players limited amount of attacks to go after them.

I am not certain that it will protect lower point players, it would make them less lucrative targets for the highest level players. However, there will be 4 time as many players across the map, with all the easiest targets still at one end and after all goods farm is a goods farm...

 

[DeletedUser]

Change the merge from "similar progress 'hoods"? Is that a joke? Every server I play on has me with neighbors of all points/progress ranges. There's virtually no similarity at all. If the goal is to keep current neighbors together (which I fully agree with), then it will be impossible to achieve that similarity anyways. Not to mention it would be game-breaking and actually way less fun for newer players if they were grouped all together instead of with a range of more experienced players.

1. True, but technically one could be plundered 80 times a day in the current setup, still pretty bad if you ask me. Does that ever happen though? I doubt it.
2. Yeah it would, sounds good to me.
3. Maybe, but if you're relying on your neighbors to mot/pol you, you have a whole different problem. If everyone in my 'hood stopped supporting me, I wouldn't even notice. If you really wanted to, you could reach out to some people anyways, you would have 249 options in that case.

It would protect new players by making them less lucrative targets, and also giving victims an option for social revenge. I think higher players would be a lot more willing to help out the newbies if they didn't have to rely on every single person in their 'hood for pvp points. Also I think you're overestimating the amount of people in the Ind. age who would be interested in "farming" iron age or EMA goods if they had the choice.

Choice is integral in this plan, the right for players to decide how they want to play.