DeletedUser31592
Why do I continue to argue with someone who continually proves they don't know anything about the game? Y'all need to stop me when I start down that rabbit hole...
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
DeletedUser30900
See, sloppy joe made some strong allies. It really don’t matter what you intention was, the thing you are selling will only attract people like those 
no matter how you say it’s not about plundering, you only buyers are still just sheep
no matter how you say it’s not about plundering, you only buyers are still just sheepDeletedUser26965
Whatever helps you sleep better. Here, let's broaden it shall we? Let's say they get really inventive about the PvP structure and completely overhaul it, they wipe the slate clean and reset it all. You open FoE to find a new window telling you about this new PvP and they give you a choice, you can select differently on each of your worlds of course, which type of PvP you want to play on that world. The choices are;See, sloppy joe made some strong allies. It really don’t matter what you intention was, the thing you are selling will only attract people like those
1) Complete Chaos - All players from anywhere on the tech tree are mixed together, no other variables
2) Current Standard - What we have today, only variable is tech tree
3) Common Standard - What I advocate which is common in many sports and games, essentially classes based on many variables related to fighting
4) Peace, Love and Harmony - No PvP
You only get to choose one and the hood consists of Server wide players not World wide players.
There, now everyone is happy and you can choose #2 and call everyone else a pinko commie.
Salsuero
Well-Known Member
First of all, I'm sure my IQ is higher than yours. I don't care if you believe it. Second, you are saying it takes a high IQ to know what stealing is. What you fail to understand (or perhaps "grasp" to use your own words) is that plundering is ALLOWED in this game and is therefore nothing that needs to be rationalized/justified. It's legal IN THIS GAME. Third, you are equating IQ with morality? That's ignorant. Try again. Morality is nonexistent in gaming... or rather it is unnecessary. The only people who complain about morality (when it's not directly against the rules of the game) are low-IQ individuals who can't figure out how to play the game in a way that has them "winning" instead of "losing". And this is coming from someone who rarely plunders. So don't try and push the "but you're a plunderer, so of course you'd see it that way" narrative either. And lastly... what the heck does religion have to do with it? Because trying to use a "commandment" that only applies to one small subset of humanity... yeah, that's high-IQ thinking right there. By the way... it's "shalt". When you need an atheist to correct you on your command of commandment correctness, you should work on your IQ.
Agent327
Well-Known Member
Graviton
Well-Known Member
See, sloppy joe made some strong allies. It really don’t matter what you intention was, the thing you are selling will only attract people like those
If you knew communism as you claim then you'd know that despite the rhetoric it's really about preying on the weak and stupid: people too stupid to realize it's self-defeating and too weak to do anything about it. Comrade.
DeletedUser29623
I usually enjoy Tucker posts on account of viewing them as kookagrams from Crazytown, but this time, when you originally took issue with him, it seemed worthwhile because a newer forum reader who didn’t know better might think what he wrote was true. After that, though, yeah, it’s probably better to drop it because you aren’t going to make a dent.
DeletedUser27889
Really? 8 pages on a plunder debate again? At least plundering keeps the forums interesting.
I agree with OP on 1 point and 1 point only, set buildings. The plunderer should not receive the full value for the set building, they should receive the base of that buildings output with the additional (next to 1 next to 2 etc) rewards being left for the owner. The reason is because those bonuses are not there because the owner has the building in their city but rather where they put them, or what they put them next to. The plunderer did not arrange the city to place these things together the owner did. Those boosts are there solely due to the buildings location, not the building output itself, building output is base amount which is what the plunderer is entitled to. It's completely different from any other type of plunder.
That being said after the first set, the original Sakura, we all knew this was an issue. If you weren't playing then, then your guild or the forums could have provided insight that if you build a set and don't defend it this is whats going to happen. On my main world I knew I would have defense and be able to collect on time 99% of the time so I built several sets. On my other world I created a city for the sole sake of providing for a guild where I tend to collect late, have minuscule defense and went through the eras too quickly to get my arc/obs producing the right goods. There I didn't bother going on a set collection spree because I knew what would happen and I had other ways of making nonplunderable goods for the guild. I put down what I happened to win and am surprised when I log in every 30 hours or so and @icarusethan has left it for me.
Plundering is part of the game and while I think they should maybe be more upfront about that in the beginning it's also part of what makes the game fun. PvP can bring a fun rivalry to a hood if the participants know how to take it. In other games other players can completely destroy your empire and cost you weeks of work, here you lose 1 building per successful attack. It's really not that bad and not worth quitting the game over, don't take it so personally. I say that not as a plunderer myself but someone who only does so in retaliation or when required to by a quest so it is unbiased.
I agree with OP on 1 point and 1 point only, set buildings. The plunderer should not receive the full value for the set building, they should receive the base of that buildings output with the additional (next to 1 next to 2 etc) rewards being left for the owner. The reason is because those bonuses are not there because the owner has the building in their city but rather where they put them, or what they put them next to. The plunderer did not arrange the city to place these things together the owner did. Those boosts are there solely due to the buildings location, not the building output itself, building output is base amount which is what the plunderer is entitled to. It's completely different from any other type of plunder.
That being said after the first set, the original Sakura, we all knew this was an issue. If you weren't playing then, then your guild or the forums could have provided insight that if you build a set and don't defend it this is whats going to happen. On my main world I knew I would have defense and be able to collect on time 99% of the time so I built several sets. On my other world I created a city for the sole sake of providing for a guild where I tend to collect late, have minuscule defense and went through the eras too quickly to get my arc/obs producing the right goods. There I didn't bother going on a set collection spree because I knew what would happen and I had other ways of making nonplunderable goods for the guild. I put down what I happened to win and am surprised when I log in every 30 hours or so and @icarusethan has left it for me.
Plundering is part of the game and while I think they should maybe be more upfront about that in the beginning it's also part of what makes the game fun. PvP can bring a fun rivalry to a hood if the participants know how to take it. In other games other players can completely destroy your empire and cost you weeks of work, here you lose 1 building per successful attack. It's really not that bad and not worth quitting the game over, don't take it so personally. I say that not as a plunderer myself but someone who only does so in retaliation or when required to by a quest so it is unbiased.
DeletedUser31882
Thank you for the history!
Well then. That 'evil/evil/bad' quote is the one to throw down once someone strays into the 'it ain't stealing/wrong!' side of pillaging ethics/etiquette.
Fun note in regards to the PvP feature in the quote: Since that forshadowed GvG, that quote can be used as solid evidence that Inno considers GvG to be part of PvP and thus PvP towers. *shrugs*
One can do both. Prosper with the current rules and work to change the rules to be 'better'. Of course, 'better' can be the hotly debated part. Taking your logic to the extreme, nobody should complain when rule changes are proposed, because they should just adapt to the new system, prosper and not complain.
I'm all for arguing that pillaging is 'bad' as a chosen action, regardless of the game allowing it, but I stop way short of getting into the holier-than-art-thou rhetoric. I also prefer thinking more positively of the 'low IQ' plunderers by acknowledging that video games add a distinct filter or nuance dimension to moral quandaries. After all, "Thou shall not kill" is a Commandment, yet self-defense forces us to recognize that not all killings are equal.
Also, as a low IQ plunderer, I take offense to your self-righteousness!
See, sloppy joe made some strong allies. It really don’t matter what you intention was, the thing you are selling will only attract people like those
Eh, Liberalism has it's fair share of sheep too. All ideologies end up having them. I feel this conversation thread would benefit from more tree examination than looking at the forest. That's just my gut talking though.
Good save! I'll go back to chomping on my bit.
Religion has a lot to do with morality and how to act, so... it has a lot to 'do' with it. Rather, it's an easy authority to use for raining down hellfire on people you disagree with.
To be fair, mister atheist, shalt = shall in our contemporary vernacular. If thou wish to use ye olde english as an argument, I commend you, but recommend ye all look at the great vowel shift in old/middle English. And we should also use the original language of the bible to avoid translation issues. Mayhap we should focus on taking the plank out of our own eye before we throw the first stone.
I'd say it's less debate and more shouting down & sideways. Considering OP dropped their opinion, mentioned their new GB strategy and is no longer a participant shows how riled up everyone gets about the subject, regardless of the validity of the OP's argument.
Last time it was ethics philosophy, this time we are hitting communism versus liberalism and now maybe a dash of Religion. Plunder sure does bring everything and everyone together!
DeletedUser30900
The only problem about this “everyone is happy” solution is that you taking away my sheep and letting me fight against other wolves. I don’t think any wolf would be happy.
DeletedUser26965
Not sure, I think it could be read as separate as well despite the PvP comment preceding it, so I wouldn't call it solid so to speak.
Wolves partake in cannibalism by the way.
DeletedUser30900
That gives you a reason to take away the sheep? Brilliant.
DeletedUser26965
I think you would do much better if you tried to argue your position rather than bad analogies, silly little insults and mischaracterizations. Look back at this comment when the hood change was coming to Live, this fella is arguing the same as you but you'll notice it's the opposite in a sense;
Notice there how he's calling you campers the lazy and weak ones? How he had the advantage over you before and now he doesn't? You getting what I'm laying down here? But at least he tried to argue the point.
I think the real question should be what's good for the game overall. Do the dynamics of PvP/Merges, no matter their structures, help or hurt the game and if so which best serves that to help? I know you only like to think of this in terms of your own self interest, that's natural, but perhaps you should try to step outside that for a moment and try to look at the bigger picture because in the end that is also in your self interest though you may not realize it.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser30900
So what kind of logic you are using to convince me to give up a 100% chance to win and pick a 50/50?
DeletedUser26965
So you continue to mischaracterize? What kind of logic is that? Faulty. I have not presented you with this false dichotomy as you state.
DeletedUser30900
Okay, let me rephrase. Right now I can 100% be the top dog in my neighborhood and plunder majority of the hood. If the merge system change, I have a chance not be able to do so. Or maybe I still can. But it’s either works for my interest or against it.(50/50) Why would I give it a try?
DeletedUser29055
I know this was not targeted to me, but: I would not choose 3. Why? Because I think it wouldn't do any good for the game. I do think that if players were to bundled together with the same level, then many players would not be encouraged to improve their play style and advance their city and game. Because, why would I need to invest in my city, in my GB, in anything, if I don't really have to? I think it would discourage advancement and learning.
It's like you are getting motivated when you see the Big Guys and what is possible. And you want that, too. Like the player who encountered someone with advanced units. He started to ask. Got an answer. And now, he can decide if that is something he wants to do. Or see someone with a 50 level or higher CdM. That creates desires. At least works with me, lol.
I personally like the current tech tree based grouping. It gives you a possibility to encounter different player strength without being too much of a disadvantage.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser26965
I have the opposite feeling of what such effects might actually be. But first let me say that we don't know what the effects would be and I think such should not be the requirement of any such request for change, it should of course be tested to see, gather data, etc. but that is all on IG not on me.
I've likened this in the past to a foot race, one can use many analogies we already have in life now. But let's use baseball this time. Let us say the old system was like putting the Tee Ball players in with the Major Leagues, except sometimes the Majors would have a couple other Majors. The current system still is somewhat the same as that except it's somewhat like a Little Leaguer who stayed in Little League his whole career.
Let's try this.
Now I ask, do you think any of those kids really feel encouraged to play? I don't think so. But if they're in somewhat of the same range of other players they'll feel as though they have a chance and as they advance and get stronger they can move up with the bigger kiddies. It's an incremental encouragement.
I think possibly what you may be assuming to some degree is that option 3 would be a flat hood. It would not and I don't advocate for such. You would still have a range of players just not as much of a range as it can often be now. You characterize the current system as "without being too much of a disadvantage", this harkens back to the it's better than the old system argument, thing is we don't have to look at this as this compared to that, we can look at the current system for its own sake.
Regardless I disagree with the characterization of it not being too much of a disadvantage. It can often be just that, that's why icarusethan and others like him are so sensitive to the issue, they know they have too much advantage over others, why risk any threat to that. And you don't have to get facerolled by players to understand you have to level up your GB's and such but like I mentioned you'd still have a range, in other words stronger players at the top of the range and weaker players at the bottom, so the weaker players would still have someone to look up to rather than get their faced bashed in.
Last edited by a moderator:
Volodya
Well-Known Member
I think you've described a chicken more than a wolf.
Agent327
Well-Known Member
Really strong words. You are very brave, but then again everyone would be since those wolves are being protected by an IA that would lose anyhow.