Cowards Hiding Behind a City Shield

[Emberguard]

I find no problem with someone shielding and attacking as an option. It's available to everyone and if everyone has a shield no one can be attacked

I would like to see a cooldown on the shield though so inbetween uses have a pre-determined window of opportunity. But aside from that I see no reason to punish a player for utilising their resources in a efficient manner. What city will keep their walls down deliberately when they know they're likely to be attacked? Not a wise one.

 

[Emberguard]

First, we're discussing players who have 50M+ points. If they havent figured this shiz out by now, that's their problem.
Second, this is a discussion. NOT A PROPOSAL. Obviously its touched a nerve amongst some of you trolls.

Ok it's their problem. But you've made it everyones problem by sharing your guildmates frustration

 

[DeletedUser36572]

So I'd like some feedback regarding certain AF/OF/VF players who (or ANY player) purchase a Tavern City Shield, and block neighbors from attacking their cities. Meanwhile, they run rampant throughout the Neighborhood attacking other players.
This seems wrong. In other games across the Internet, there is a mechanism which prevents these cowards from launching attacks from their unassailable cities.
I think perhaps we could start a discussion about formulating a proposal to see *IF* Inno would make a change that better serves the Neighborhood(s) from people who choose this method of "cheating."
If others have experienced this, please feel free to respond. I'd like to get the FoEs' community's input on this. Further input could lead to a Vote-able proposal to make changes to this particular issue, with Inno.
Thanks!

Using an option the game offers everyone, and that is accessible to everyone simply by upgrading their tavern and earning silver, cannot be considered “cheating”.

Otherwise there is no difference in taking any number of measures to either support your ability to attack another’s city, or defend your city. It doesn’t matter if you attack your neighbors and actually have the wherewithal to effectively defend yourself against retaliation. That is considered smart and not cowardly.

.

 

[DeletedUser28147]

After reading all posts up to this point I am of the opinion that MorrGorr created this thread specifically to bate people into an argument. I'm not sure he even really wants to solve anything at this point, I think he just likes watching people argue.

Forge Of Empires is categorized as a strategy game for a reason. It takes time to figure out the right strategy to find optimum results within the game. The people that work at InnoGames have thought out all the mechanisms of the game quite thoroughly over a long period of time, if they really thought the City Shield wasn't a viable part of the game they wouldn't have implemented it.

If you can't figure it out, try and try again until you do.

 

[DeletedUser29404]

I think instead of trying to speak for your guildies you might advise them to create their own forum accounts so they can ask their own questions and learn how not to worry about getting plundered, and how it's not cheating in any way. To be frank, your experience and advice would help them more than trying to bail them out by discussing how Inno could make things easier for them.

TBH a few have accounts here, but in a way, I

Quite frankly, if you have the TS to spend and strong military GB, then why not? It's a good strategy. Basically, it's attacking without ever having to be attacked, and the player getting free rewards.

I get that. Sure, it's a *viable* strategy. But it's not a "fair" strategy. Esp when your city probably could contend with Attackers that bring a 500%+ AB.

 

[DeletedUser28147]

There is no such thing as "fair" in a strategy game, that is why it is called strategy, whoever has the best one wins.

 

[DeletedUser13838]

I get that. Sure, it's a *viable* strategy. But it's not a "fair" strategy. Esp when your city probably could contend with Attackers that bring a 500%+ AB.

I have done this on occasion and don't feel bad about it at all and I don't see anything unfair. It's a question of game balance. Not to say there aren't issues with the tavern, though.

A 3-day 30% defender boost costs 7k silver and is essentially worthless. A 3-day city shield costs 24k and is clearly much better value. I have millions of tavern silver and not much to spend it on. If I want to use the tavern to improve my defense, I'm going to use a city shield and the cost is not going to deter me. It seems to me that the attack/defender boosts should be based on age (much much higher than 30% for a VF city) and the city shield should be a lot more expensive.

I'm in VF and generally near the top of my hood In VF (usually range from 10-15) and there isn't much attacking/plundering going on so my defense isn't stopping anyone - my only defense is my ability to retaliate so I don't want to use up a lot of space for city defense. I can easily get to say 500%--750% defense but how much of my production would that cost me? I'd have to be getting plundered a lot to make that even remotely worth while. I tend to retaliate on attackers who plunder so if I'm being attacked and plundered once or twice per day and I'm not going to be able to be on for my collections, I'll turn on the city shield and continue retaliating and as I said I don't feel bad about it at all. You can call me a coward but I'll just cite you for whining about how the rules are unfair and I'm just a mean bully (yes someone actually sent me a message in game asserting that).

 

[Jern2017]

I regularly plunder, but never activate the City Shield boost.

With that being said, I personally have no issue with someone who attacks and uses a city shield. It costs a lot of silver to activate one and unless you're willing to spend diamonds, you can't activate another boost for at least a day.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

... Sure, it's a *viable* strategy. But it's not a "fair" strategy.
...

“Fair” is the first four letters of fairytale ... Nothing else.

.

 

[Emberguard]

It seems to me that the attack/defender boosts should be based on age (much much higher than 30% for a VF city) and the city shield should be a lot more expensive.

scalable defence boost seems like a viable option (providing 30% is the lowest it'd become)

City shield expense not so sure about changing without using a different system of charging. Depends on how long the accounts been around to whether or not it's an expensive thing and city age won't determine the cities ability to generate silver.

If it kept the same prices and added a % fee of all silver above the base price that would be one way of addressing how long a player could continue using a shield.

Another way would be to base the price of reactivating the shield on when the last shield was activated. Maybe a 50% increase if activated within 24hrs of the last shield and the price resetting to normal once 24hrs have passed. The increases could even stack if the shield is being continuously activated within 24 hrs of each one ending

 

[DeletedUser36572]

...
Another way would be to base the price of reactivating the shield on when the last shield was activated. Maybe a 50% increase if activated within 24hrs of the last shield and the price resetting to normal once 24hrs have passed. The increases could even stack if the shield is being continuously activated within 24 hrs of each one ending

Only if they are willing to make any offensive bonuses from all sources deteriorate with use.

The Defense Shield is the same as any other asset a player can acquire through normal game operations. There is no reason to penalize someone in any way for using something currently available (as is).

It is available to everyone. It currently costs player resources like every other item that provides an attack or defense advantage. There is no need to change how people tailor their game to meet the challenges they encounter to meet some imaginary balance to suit anyone else’s desires.

 

[DeletedUser26120]

I deleted a bunch of posts here, let's try and stay on topic. If you have a problem with another member then please PM them or pm a mod.

 

[Emberguard]

@BlackSand the Sly city shield is a straight up nothing can get through with nothing required from the player other then tavern silver. So it wouldn't be unreasonable to make it have a cool down inbetween turns regardless of whether it's a set time limit or a increase in price if activating within a short time of the boost ending

other boosts for attack/defence simply add onto what you already have. Unlike the city shield you have to sacrifice space in the actual city for it to mean anything. So I don't see any reason why adding a % cost to city shield should justify altering any other boost [given it's not really defence it's a block]

 

[UBERhelp1]

@BlackSand the Sly city shield is a straight up nothing can get through with nothing required from the player other then tavern silver. So it wouldn't be unreasonable to make it have a cool down inbetween turns regardless of whether it's a set time limit or a increase in price if activating within a short time of the boost ending

+1. Make a proposal of it.

 

[Emberguard]

+1. Make a proposal of it.

Cool, would you prefer it to be in form of price increase or a set time before city shield could be re-activated? I'm thinking set time limit would be easier and simpler for implementation/explanation once it's in the game

 

[UBERhelp1]

Cool, would you prefer it to be in form of price increase or a set time before city shield could be re-activated? I'm thinking set time limit would be easier and simpler for implementation/explanation once it's in the game

Time limit. Otherwise it would go the way of buying FP, and would end up costing way too much for the players that actually use it.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

@BlackSand the Sly city shield is a straight up nothing can get through with nothing required from the player other then tavern silver. So it wouldn't be unreasonable to make it have a cool down inbetween turns regardless of whether it's a set time limit or a increase in price if activating within a short time of the boost ending

other boosts for attack/defence simply add onto what you already have. Unlike the city shield you have to sacrifice space in the actual city for it to mean anything. So I don't see any reason why adding a % cost to city shield should justify altering any other boost [given it's not really defence it's a block]

Tavern silver is no different than Forge Points, Diamonds, Supplies, Gold, Florins, Footballs, Snowflakes, Sugar Cookie Stars ... Or whatever. They can all be earned by players and they can all be used to increase the opportunity for the player to better the chances in offense or defense.

Tavern Silver at the amount it takes to employ the shield takes a substantial amount of game time to secure. The number of players you can have as friends, the number of seats you can have at the table, and other upgrades, already limit the amount a player can earn in a day.

There is no need to pretend there is some kind of difference in the player spending resources of one kind or another on one thing or another. Some benefits are better than others and that is just the way things are. Sorry if you want to make things more complicated than they need to be.

Don’t be foolish enough to try and make a case that a player making themselves invincible one way is any different than making themselves pretty much invincible any other way. No need to be hating on the shield just because it is a hell of a lot more efficient, accessible or expedient.

.

 

[DeletedUser29404]

scalable defence boost seems like a viable option (providing 30% is the lowest it'd become)

City shield expense not so sure about changing without using a different system of charging. Depends on how long the accounts been around to whether or not it's an expensive thing and city age won't determine the cities ability to generate silver.

If it kept the same prices and added a % fee of all silver above the base price that would be one way of addressing how long a player could continue using a shield.

Another way would be to base the price of reactivating the shield on when the last shield was activated. Maybe a 50% increase if activated within 24hrs of the last shield and the price resetting to normal once 24hrs have passed. The increases could even stack if the shield is being continuously activated within 24 hrs of each one ending

Those are reasonable ideas.

 

[DeletedUser29404]

Tavern silver is no different than Forge Points, Diamonds, Supplies, Gold, Florins, Footballs, Snowflakes, Sugar Cookie Stars ... Or whatever. They can all be earned by players and they can all be used to increase the opportunity for the player to better the chances in offense or defense.

Tavern Silver at the amount it takes to employ the shield takes a substantial amount of game time to secure. The number of players you can have as friends, the number of seats you can have at the table, and other upgrades, already limit the amount a player can earn in a day.

There is no need to pretend there is some kind of difference in the player spending resources of one kind or another on one thing or another. Some benefits are better than others and that is just the way things are. Sorry if you want to make things more complicated than they need to be.

Don’t be foolish enough to try and make a case that a player making themselves invincible one way is any different than making themselves pretty much invincible any other way. No need to be hating on the shield just because it is a hell of a lot more efficient, accessible or expedient.

.

I'm not "hating" on City Shield. I, personally, never have reason to use it. I've fortified my city. What gnaws at my guildies is the fact that certain ADVANCED AGE players have no sense of "fair" play. It's completely different, to me, if a PE player (as an example) is being attacked by, say, a OF player, yet the OF player has Shielded his/her city from retaliation. The mechanism is being usurped by nefarious individuals. Those who have a CLEAR and overwhelming advantage, to start with. This is what irks them.

 

[DeletedUser13838]

You keep using the term "unfair" (and the "asking for a friend" trope) without explaining what you mean. Using city shield vs city defense is just a different allocation of resources, which is what this game is about. The idea of OF vs PE is nonsense since those players are never in the same hood.