Stop the Plundering INNO !!!!!

[Volodya]

Why are you against a no-plunder world in FoE? I'm genuinely curious. I wouldn't even play on it, but what harm would it cause?

I've never played Elvenar, but my understanding is that it's pretty much a no-plunder FoE, albeit with different graphics.

 

[DeletedUser26965]

Why are you against a no-plunder world in FoE? I'm genuinely curious. I wouldn't even play on it, but what harm would it cause?

I don't know what his answer would be but I would say it goes against their entire model so they would probably be scared to try for fear of losing revenue. I think they should try it and see though but it aint my money they're risking so

 

[DeletedUser32973]

I don't know what his answer would be but I would say it goes against their entire model so they would probably be scared to try for fear of losing revenue. I think they should try it and see though but it aint my money they're risking so

Their entire model is based on plundering? The only thing I can think of that would really damage FoE is that it might upset the balance of "sheep" and "wolves" in the regular servers. I kind of doubt they'd lose money though, as I think you'd see a lot of returning players and higher player retention. It's not uncommon to see the empty cities with little anti-plunder messages. I may be underestimating the impact it would have on regular worlds.

But yes, as with any significant game change/addition I suppose it would be a risk.

I've never played Elvenar, but my understanding is that it's pretty much a no-plunder FoE, albeit with different graphics.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my question, but yeah it's similar to FoE. I tried playing it a bit, but it wasn't enough to hook me. Living proof that just switching to Elvenar wouldn't be an option for some people.

 

[DeletedUser34910]

As others have said, if you want to play a game with no fear of being plundered then play Elvenar. It seems like that was Inno's response to those people who did not want to deal with it. I don't understand why this is an ongoing issue.

Also, as a funny and kind of unrelated, I was attacked by a higher level player because he said that I attack weaker players (or words to that effect)....LOL!!! Take a look in the mirror buddy, and enjoy my coins because that's all you're getting unless you get lucky one day that I'm not active.

I love this game!

 

[wolfhoundtoo]

They had a no plunder FOE. They opted to put in plundering is my understanding (which caused a fair bit of upheaval or so I was told as it was before I came along).

 

[DeletedUser26965]

Their entire model is based on plundering?

Of course, why else introduce RH and WF in the same event with a stupid AI and a bunch of plunder bait special buildings in hoods where there's always a dominant top end, you'd have to be blind not to see the model in that, it's the classic mouse wheel, a psychological premise where the defense will never exceed that of offense, yes game designers actually use psychology in their game designs. Why I shut the sounds off, all the casino type sounds to induce that gamblin mind

 

[DeletedUser32973]

Of course, why else introduce RH and WF in the same event with a stupid AI and a bunch of plunder bait special buildings in hoods where there's always a dominant top end, you'd have to be blind not to see the model in that, it's the classic mouse wheel, a psychological premise where the defense will never exceed that of offense, yes game designers actually use psychology in their game designs. Why I shut the sounds off, all the casino type sounds to induce that gamblin mind

Good grief at least someone is responding with an actual answer besides "play Elvenar." That's pretty significant though I agree. It makes all those defensive buildings and GBs worthless, which do make up a large portion of structures.

To everyone else, the problem with the "play Elvenar" argument is it has nothing to do with FoE. There is also the fact that I have no problem with plundering and would rather play on a plunderable world in the first place. The question is what would make Inno more profits. Inno loses customers due to plundering. Try to look at this from a perspective that's not wearing the plunder or anti-plunder glasses.

 

[Agent327]

So I assume you are one of those guys put your tv in a public living room and cry after it got stolen?

What's wrong with that?

 

[Triopoly Champion]

it's the classic mouse wheel, a psychological premise where the defense will never exceed that of offense

There are 3 offense military GBs, Zeus, CoA and CdM, only 2 defense military GBs: SBC and DC.

It's impossible to put up your defense as high as those enemy troops you see by the end of GE level 4, consider how high the attacking boosts of those defense troops get. 90% boosts for both the attacking and the defensing of the defensing troops in Colonial GE encounter #64, that'll require level 39 SBC and level 39 DC which no players will be investing those fps into them.

 

[Jase249]

Why are you against a no-plunder world in FoE? I'm genuinely curious. I wouldn't even play on it, but what harm would it cause?

Because it's ridiculous to start crafting new worlds with different rules packages. Others have floated the idea of worlds without the Arc. Still others have suggested a world where GBs are capped at a certain level. Once you do that it's opening Pandora's Box. How many different worlds with different rules packages have to be introduced before everyone's satisfied? My guess is it's the same as it always is in situations like this-no matter how many different iterations there are, someone somewhere will find something to whine about and say "why was [insert name]'s request granted and mine wasn't? It's not fair, Inno needs to make a new world the way I want it, they did it for [whatever/whoever] why won't they do it for me?"yada yada yada.

I tried Elvenar. It's basically a carbon copy of FoE gameplay with a different skin and no PvP. There's no need to go down the rabbit hole of starting new worlds with different rules when there's a perfectly good alternative game already available.

 

[DeletedUser32973]

Because it's ridiculous to start crafting new worlds with different rules packages. Others have floated the idea of worlds without the Arc. Still others have suggested a world where GBs are capped at a certain level. Once you do that it's opening Pandora's Box. How many different worlds with different rules packages have to be introduced before everyone's satisfied? My guess is it's the same as it always is in situations like this-no matter how many different iterations there are, someone somewhere will find something to whine about and say "why was [insert name]'s request granted and mine wasn't? It's not fair, Inno needs to make a new world the way I want it, they did it for [whatever/whoever] why won't they do it for me?"yada yada yada.

I tried Elvenar. It's basically a carbon copy of FoE gameplay with a different skin and no PvP. There's no need to go down the rabbit hole of starting new worlds with different rules when there's a perfectly good alternative game already available.

The "pvp" and "non-pvp" rule sets make sense to me since I'm used to seeing them in MMORPGs. It's a common practice to have separate worlds for people who like pvp and for people who don't. I don't think that would lead to an infinite number of worlds with different rule sets.

 

[Triopoly Champion]

How many different worlds with different rules packages have to be introduced before everyone's satisfied? My guess is it's the same as it always is in situations like this-no matter how many different iterations there are, someone somewhere will find something to whine about and say "why was [insert name]'s request granted and mine wasn't? It's not fair, Inno needs to make a new world the way I want it, they did it for [whatever/whoever] why won't they do it for me?"yada yada yada.

I tried Elvenar. It's basically a carbon copy of FoE gameplay with a different skin and no PvP. There's no need to go down the rabbit hole of starting new worlds with different rules when there's a perfectly good alternative game already available.

It's just very boring that every world is exactly the same, like cloning. If I can win in 1 world, I can copy-cat my 1st world, then win in the 2nd world. Power-leveling The Arc in every world -> most top players keep doing that.

I simply just copy my old Mount Killmore world into Parkog and into Walstrand.

I kind of hope to try in a world that put age restraints to the GBs, so the players can only get The Arc after reaching FE, Traz for PE and Inno for CE.

 

[DeletedUser34910]

Good grief at least someone is responding with an actual answer besides "play Elvenar." ....To everyone else, the problem with the "play Elvenar" argument is it has nothing to do with FoE.

The "play Elvenar" response comes in because this topic has been discussed at length so many times that there is a dedicated thread titled, "Help, I am being plundered!" and members are tired of seeing this pop up time after time. Repeated complaint, repeated answer.

forge synonyms: hammer out, beat into shape

There is also the fact that I have no problem with plundering and would rather play on a plunderable world in the first place. The question is what would make Inno more profits. Inno loses customers due to plundering. Try to look at this from a perspective that's not wearing the plunder or anti-plunder glasses.

I like the PVP aspect (although we are fighting a computer, I know). I like the threat against my city, it makes me a better player and more involved in the game to look after my collectables. It adds another "X factor" which makes it fun. I would lose interest in a game without this element which is why I don't play city building games. They would lose other like minded players if plundering were removed.

Simply put:
You: they lose profits from players who don't like plundering
Me: they will lose profits from players who like plundering if this feature is removed

The profit issue is a stretch on either side with no concrete research other than your or my personal view. (someone else might have this information?)

 

[Agent327]

On one world, I have had the exact same player attack and plunder me at least five times a week. He has never used anything other than 1 real unit plus 7 Rogues. Due to AI, he doesn't have to. Meanwhile, I have varied my defense probably half a dozen times in the three or so weeks in which we've shared a Neighborhood. For all the good it's done me, I should just use two Spearfighters. My defense on this world is in the mid-200s at present, but it might as well be in the mid-20s; it is utterly and completely ineffective.

Do you defend with 8 the same units, or do you mix your units?

On another world, my city defense is roughly 325%. In the first days after a Hood rotation, I will generally be attacked by several players who have more points than I do. Most of the time, even the "1+7" attack is ineffectual, as the damage my army takes is usually 1 or perhaps 2 points per hit, and that gives me time to defeat the Rogues after they've transformed and then the "real" unit. I've gotten several messages from players complimenting me on that level of defense, and almost none will try again. It's not because I'm impervious to attack but rather the cost of attacking and defeating me is so much higher than it is for other players that attackers will just move on to easier targets.

So it is possible.

I agree with you that it isn't carved in stone. It is easier in one era than it is in the other, but even with the bad AI it can be ddone.

Again, just to be clear: I do NOT blame the player. I blame Inno. It would be an absurdly easy fix to implement and it would make PvP combat a strategic exercise rather than start the attack manually, park your real unit in a corner and then hit Autobattle.

From what I learned from Inno it is impossible to implement. They are afraid that if they do they will fuck up the entire game.

 

[Triopoly Champion]

Simply put:
You: they lose profits from players who don't like plundering
Me: they will lose profits from players who like plundering if this feature is removed

The profit issue is a stretch on either side with no concrete research other than your or my personal view. (someone else might have this information?)

I think it'll add in different challenges to a world with no plundering. I can always get the goods I need after plundering the 2-spearman defenders, boost up my battle counts to a very high number. Having different worlds to satisfy different groups of people will expand the strategy, not shrink it.

I can keep plundering in Mount Killmore even after a no-plunder world created, there are plenty of players active on all servers. Otherwise, Inno game developers can just put everyone on 1 server, so the plunderers can earn the most profits from them.

 

[Volodya]

What’s wrong with that?

Well, some players like a competitive challenge, not simply crushing obviously weaker players. I wish you played on E. I'd enjoy waiving my no-plunder policy specially for you.

 

[DeletedUser32973]

Simply put:
You: they lose profits from players who don't like plundering
Me: they will lose profits from players who like plundering if this feature is removed

The profit issue is a stretch on either side with no concrete research other than your or my personal view. (someone else might have this information?)

Irrelevant. I'm talking about the proposed additional worlds without the pvp aspect, not removing plundering from all worlds. I don't think the profit issue is a stretch, but it is true neither side has concrete research on the matter.

How does opening up 1 or 2 non pvp worlds affect the current pvp worlds?

 

[DeletedUser30900]

Well, some players like a competitive challenge, not simply crushing obviously weaker players. I wish you played on E. I'd enjoy waiving my no-plunder policy specially for you.

such a shame how about going to W and crash me there?

 

[Volodya]

such a shame how about going to W and crash me there?

Heh. Tempting though it is, I only play on one world and doubt I'll find the time to try another.

 

[DeletedUser34910]

Irrelevant. I'm talking about the proposed additional worlds without the pvp aspect, not removing plundering from all worlds. I don't think the profit issue is a stretch, but it is true neither side has concrete research on the matter.

How does opening up 1 or 2 non pvp worlds affect the current pvp worlds?

I missed that you were talking about a separate world lol

I do not have an answer or opinion on that...haha! Proceed.