• 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:
    Apply

Why I Don't Plunder

Alfred Rex

Member
Okay, but what's to discuss? At least in the "Plunder Progress" thread there's crymail to post, or stories about how two neighbors happily plunder each other for two weeks and then become friends. What is topic-worthy about not plundering anybody, every day? That's an honest question, I'm not trying to troll anybody. So, people come to this thread to specifically talk about how they didn't plunder today?
If you feel there is nothing here to discuss the why have you made three postings in this thread?
 

DeletedUser

Graviton

Well-Known Member
Saying plundering harms people is not a moral judgment, it is a statement of fact.

Firstly, it is indeed a moral judgement, as the definition of "harm" is necessarily a moral one. Harming someone else is an immoral act.

Secondly, in the context of the real world, plundering somebody is indeed an immoral act and it does cause harm. But in the context of this game, plundering somebody is neither immoral nor does it cause harm. A plunderer takes some imaginary stuff from another player's pile of imaginary stuff, and he is encouraged and aided in doing so by the game design and its developers. Nobody is truly harmed.

You've been on this forum since 2014. I'm sure you've read all of the past debates about this, there have been a few.

If you wish to frame it in a moral context, that is your prerogative. But I made no claim of moral superiority for choosing not to plunder.

You did, by the words that you chose to describe your choice. Words mean things.

I think I should state clearly that I have no problem with your chosen play style. Whatever works for you, whatever helps you enjoy this game, is fine by me. It's this stuff about how plunder is hurting people, or only bad people plunder; this moral judgement stuff about a game feature, is all nonsense that we've heard before on this forum. That is where the backlash is coming from. Nobody objects if you don't want to plunder, they object to the assumed superiority in that choice.
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
Saying plundering harms people is not a moral judgment, it is a statement of fact.

Please explain. Their city development is slowed. How does this cause harm to the person?

If harming someone is not morally objectionable then why are you against harming someone?

Is that sort of harm anything like you saying this

And unlike the ‘Plunder progress’ thread, everyone is welcome to contribute here.

then showing your welcoming attitude with this?

If you feel there is nothing here to discuss the why have you made three postings in this thread?

How can you play a game that encourages people to, in your words, harm others? Is your conscience that dysfunctional? Of course not, but you're reasoning is.

As I said earlier, you will be far better off leaving your morale judgements out of the topic. As you are rapidly discovering the problem with morale high ground? There's only one way to go, down.

I'm not sure which is funnier, that you don't have a reason for not plundering that can be clearly stated without morale connotations or that that the two posts in this thread that give actual reasons to not plunder are from a plunderer and an explunderer.
 

Alfred Rex

Member
Please explain. Their city development is slowed. How does this cause harm to the person?

If harming someone is not morally objectionable then why are you against harming someone?

Is that sort of harm anything like you saying this



then showing your welcoming attitude with this?



How can you play a game that encourages people to, in your words, harm others? Is your conscience that dysfunctional? Of course not, but you're reasoning is.

As I said earlier, you will be far better off leaving your morale judgements out of the topic. As you are rapidly discovering the problem with morale high ground? There's only one way to go, down.

I'm not sure which is funnier, that you don't have a reason for not plundering that can be clearly stated without morale connotations or that that the two posts in this thread that give actual reasons to not plunder are from a plunderer and an explunderer.
I will rephrase one part of my original post - plundering harms peoples’ game play.

But again, nowhere in any of my postings have I claimed moral superiority over any other person. If you wish to read into my words what you want to hear, well there is not much I can do about that.
 

DeletedUser

I will rephrase one part of my original post - plundering harms peoples’ game play.

But again, nowhere in any of my postings have I claimed moral superiority over any other person. If you wish to read into my words what you want to hear, well there is not much I can do about that.
And with your last sentence you continue your passive/aggressive pattern. Hint: If every one of us sees the same thing, we're not reading anything into it.
 

Houston Don

Member
Just a place for those of us that take a kinder, gentler approach to the game to share their thoughts.

And unlike the ‘Plunder progress’ thread, everyone is welcome to contribute here.

I started playing this game shortly after it was released. For those first few months while the game was still in its beta version, I started and stopped playing several times-playing under several different names. Once the ‘Final Version’ was released I settled on the name Alfred Rex and have been playing regularly ever since.

From the beginning I have never been a first strike plunderer. Though I would occasionally retaliate if plundered. But then the neighborhood merges started getting really bad. I frequently found myself in neighborhoods with players two, three and even four ages ahead of me. Needless to say retaliating against those players was practically impossible. I would inquire of the support team as to why neighborhoods were configured in this way, but was pretty much told that was the way it was, suck it up and stop pestering them. That was when I began to take a very dim view of plundering and those who engage in it. That was also when I stopped buying diamonds from Innogames!

Besides, harming others really is not who I am, in real or virtual worlds. I much prefer to help people. The idea that harming others, even if it is ‘part of the game’, just seems so unnecessary.

So what’s your story?
I've been playing FoE for a few years and was a farmer for much of that, getting plundered was a lot more common before INNO started limiting neighborhoods as much as they do now. But as this is a game of conquest and trading, why not try different strategies? It's not like there is any actual "harm" done to other players when you plunder them and doing so might motivate them to learn the nuances of the game better to prevent successful attacks or figure out that harvesting on time is an absolute defense to plundering. I used to get teased in my guild over the fact that I never fought, then INNO started adding dailies and fighting to events so I begrudgingly jumped in a bit more. As I built up some skill and better leveled my military buildings, I went from negotiating all of GE to fighting all of it, those who attack me eventually finding out that even when they "won", I left little for them to get for all their lost troops.

I still don't attack much more than for my HC needs and for events/quests once I finish GE and I'm not one to keep looking back on someone's city I attacked to get the best stuff but plundering does serve to show another player that they rushed eras too fast to protect their goods/city. If they react with a nasty-gram or some passive-aggressive message how I'm stealing, robbing, or harming them, I make sure they see the error of their ways. People plundering me taught me the value of working on my game skills and bettering my city, now successful attacks are not common and I can still help neighbors with selling them goods or donating to their GB's, the thought that those acts are mutually exclusive to plundering seems shortsighted to me. I wouldn't go on a forum about a tank game complaining how the only focus was on tanks or complain on a Farmville forum how much I hated farming, the thought that someone is so fragile to consider a major part of FoE "harms" other players must require a mindset alien to most of us as the #1 reason some players don't plunder is that they aren't well leveled or able to plunder, #2 being those who get bored of beating slackers that refuse to upgrade enough to make it worth their while. So anyone that is so inclined, come attack my city in L-world and we'll let the cards fall where they may. :)
 

DeletedUser37581

Take a game like Grepolis where the whole point is to completely destroy your opponent's city. Or any first person shooter (FPS) game where the point is to "kill" your enemy (who may well suffer in-game loss as a result). Or games like chess and checkers where you win by capturing your opponent's pieces.

In any competitive game, you get ahead by knocking your opponent backward. While some people choose to play FoE non-competitively, it is still a competitive game by design.
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
I will rephrase one part of my original post - plundering harms peoples’ game play.

World of diffeence there, eh?

So that is your sole reason to not plunder? It hurts their game progress? Fair enough.

nowhere in any of my postings have I claimed moral superiority over any other person.

That would be wrong, you did. That's why the majority of this thread has been about this, you set that tone and topic with your first post.

I will agree you never explicitly said so, but in light of what you seem to say is a misunderstnading on a lot of peoples part, you haven't explicitly denied it either, something that could have put that aspect to bed a long time ago.

Back in the Watergate days, the folks at the Post called this a non-denial denial.
 

Jern2017

Well-Known Member
You used the title "Why I don't plunder" and a part of your original post was explaining it. Nothing wrong with that. Different people play this game. Some love to fight and plunder, some don't. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. But in every message you posted in this thread, you wanted everyone to know you're such a nice person for not plundering other players and that the ones that do are big, bad virtual warmongers who like to harm people.

I don't think this thread was about you wanting to hear why other players don't choose to plunder. It was about you seeking assurance from other people that you are superior for not plundering your neighbors.

This thread would have far less replies if you had posted something in the lines of "hey everyone, I choose not to plunder because I don't like it and I don't want someone to lose their productions because of me. Why don't you plunder? Is your city not developed for fighting? Do you prefer to aid because you have a Dynamic Tower or a Seed Vault? Have you become friends with someone you were regularly aiding and maybe developed a closer relationship by swapping FPs, chatting or trading goods?"

But you had to subtly suggest those who plunder are morally inferior, so you shouldn't be surprised most people commenting here have to say something about that.
 

DeletedUser39682

I don't plunder for two reasons. One is that it is extremely wasteful. The few times I've plundered I only got 1 good. That means at least 3 goods were lost each time, probably more. It isn't as bad as using the market merchants but it is still horrendously wasteful.

Secondly I like not provoking neighbors into putting up defenses. That way I, as a fairly non-military minded player, can complete the "win 4 battles" quests on time.
 

- KQ -

Well-Known Member
act of war would probably be a more accurate statement then war crime


Also the sweetest thing happened a while back when I took a break from plundering while I rebuilt my troop stock. I’d been plundering this guy every day for a while
View attachment 13833

❤️ Getting that message was just like... now I’ll feel really bad if I take anything from them. They care more about my wellbeing then if their only terrace farm is plundered.

Priceless!
 

saknika

Active Member
When I first started I chose not to plunder. I hated being on the receiving end, so I decided not to be on the giving end. Then there would be the quests that would force it, and I'd just plunder a house and send an apology, I felt so bad.

After a while though... I don't know, I guess I got sick of being the nice guy? LOL In all reality I think it was when I was getting plundered, and realized that it didn't really hurt to lose the things I had lost. Adding to that the fact that I like to fight, and sometimes I did need goods I was struggling to trade for, and I hit the hood to see what I could find. Plundering is addictive.

So I changed my game plan to "aid before raid, few exceptions made". I do GvG, and my guild has some enemies, so they always get hit. Now my policy is that I will hit you if you are in an enemy guild (and always plunder if I can), or if you don't aid me. For the non-enemies though, I tend to plunder only if your defense army is garbage. Give me points or give me your stuff.

I think the meanest thing I do though to enemy guilds is during event questlines, I purposefully plunder their blacksmiths to screw up their quest completion. LOL My co-founder says I'm savage. Hahaha

Is it a more aggressive play style? Absolutely! Am I potentially making the game a bit more challenging for someone else? Yup! But hey, even Sim City had natural disasters, and those were a lot harder to recover from than me taking your Maharajah's Palace as far as games go in my opinion. :)

And hey, as a plunderer, I do get hit back. That's a risk I chose to take, and accept for what it is. Last week I was in a plunder war with about four other folks in my hood. All hitting and trying to get each other's stuff. It was the most excitement I've had in FoE in a long time. :D
 

DeletedUser31540

When I first started I chose not to plunder. I hated being on the receiving end, so I decided not to be on the giving end. Then there would be the quests that would force it, and I'd just plunder a house and send an apology, I felt so bad.

After a while though... I don't know, I guess I got sick of being the nice guy? LOL In all reality I think it was when I was getting plundered, and realized that it didn't really hurt to lose the things I had lost. Adding to that the fact that I like to fight, and sometimes I did need goods I was struggling to trade for, and I hit the hood to see what I could find. Plundering is addictive.

So I changed my game plan to "aid before raid, few exceptions made". I do GvG, and my guild has some enemies, so they always get hit. Now my policy is that I will hit you if you are in an enemy guild (and always plunder if I can), or if you don't aid me. For the non-enemies though, I tend to plunder only if your defense army is garbage. Give me points or give me your stuff.

I think the meanest thing I do though to enemy guilds is during event questlines, I purposefully plunder their blacksmiths to screw up their quest completion. LOL My co-founder says I'm savage. Hahaha

Is it a more aggressive play style? Absolutely! Am I potentially making the game a bit more challenging for someone else? Yup! But hey, even Sim City had natural disasters, and those were a lot harder to recover from than me taking your Maharajah's Palace as far as games go in my opinion. :)

And hey, as a plunderer, I do get hit back. That's a risk I chose to take, and accept for what it is. Last week I was in a plunder war with about four other folks in my hood. All hitting and trying to get each other's stuff. It was the most excitement I've had in FoE in a long time. :D

:) great post !

I am starting to see a theme from multiple posters —— plunder / plundering is good for the game

I agree !

Though i thibk a tiered hood system could make plunder and the issues surrounding it even better (lumping players who rush through tech with similar players and lumping campers with fellow campers) .... this would be a massive change with several advantages and some disadvantages as well ... im gonna sit on it and make a proposal
 

saknika

Active Member
Though i thibk a tiered hood system could make plunder and the issues surrounding it even better (lumping players who rush through tech with similar players and lumping campers with fellow campers) .... this would be a massive change with several advantages and some disadvantages as well ... im gonna sit on it and make a proposal
Eh... I don't see the point. Camping/rushing are both player choices and you'll have to live with the consequences of that particular choice. Sorting hoods (which would likely be complicated too) based on how long a player has sat in an era doesn't seem like it'd be all that great. Especially since we already have overflow hoods for those who don't make it into the one based on where you are in tech (and you might be paired with folks up to two eras higher than you). Most likely your proposal for that would be shot down as a DNSL item for making the game easier, since now those who are "weak" from rushing are away from those who are "strong" from camping. ;)
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
Saying plundering harms people is not a moral judgment, it is a statement of fact. If you wish to frame it in a moral context, that is your prerogative. But I made no claim of moral superiority for choosing not to plunder.
Curious statement. You can state facts and still have a moral dilemma from it. Morals merely mean defining right and wrong. The only way for you to say it harms others and not have morals interjected is if you neither define harm as right or wrong.

But if theres no morals involved at all why then state you “began to take a very dim view of plundering and those that enagage in it”? You cannot possibly have been wronged ingame if there is no moral stance. If you haven’t been wronged there’s no reason to have a dim view of plunderers merely because you were plundered.

Do you see where the contradiction is? It’s alright to choose not to plunder. Just be aware that by holding it against those that plunder you for doing so that in itself is passing moral judgement of some kind
 

- KQ -

Well-Known Member
I will rephrase one part of my original post - plundering harms peoples’ game play.

Your claim is that plundering harms another player's game play is short sighted. If you're attacked and plundered, you have choices to avoid it happening again. Some of those choices may strengthen your game play in the long term.

If you want a Win/Win situation, aid me and I'll aid you back. If you don't aid me, odds are good that I'll plunder you. This is a game that rewards collaboration or combat/plundering. The game is designed that way.

There aren't any losers in this game unlike say Monopoly or Chess. Getting plundered doesn't make you lose the game, nor does it make you a victim unless you choose to feel victimized by the design and rules of a game you choose to play.
 

DeletedUser14354

Saying plundering harms people is not a moral judgment, it is a statement of fact. If you wish to frame it in a moral context, that is your prerogative. But I made no claim of moral superiority for choosing not to plunder.

Your lack of self-awareness is remarkable.

For the record, I wasn't referring to the reference to harming people. You are correct that is not a moral judgement. Its just an absurd statement. I was referring to the statement about how you choose to help people instead, both in the real world and in the game.

Feel better now?
 
Top