DeletedUser26154
It's their version of a Plunder Achievement.
I don't know what it's like now, and any game that allows new players to get ganked is counter-productive.
I was making memes 20 years before the Internet was public.
-
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:
- Status
It's their version of a Plunder Achievement.
I don't know what it's like now, and any game that allows new players to get ganked is counter-productive.
I was making memes 20 years before the Internet was public.
DeletedUser26965
Counterproductive to what? Though their success has fallen since Cata WoW became like one of the most successful MMO's ever having that element, you really want to maintain it's counterproductive? FoE has had it now for over 5 years and this is their most profitable game. Really, I mean it's not to say these games or others games can't be successful without that element but it's a stretch to say it's counterproductive having it. You can't meme that away.
DeletedUser
DeletedUser26154
DeletedUser24787
just for ardak since he likes to view very muscular men and he disapproved of my justice jiggle lol
DeletedUser29404
I cocur 100% with your statements. I for one, see it constantly. I also plunder everyone in my hood. I dont care to a certain degree, if *you* are a "noob" et al. I look at it as retribution for the times when i was plundered incessantly. However, that incessant plundering "forced" me to look for a myriad of solutions. Chiefly, friending attackers, and M/P'ing them daily, BEFORE they had "chances" to attack me. Now, as a PE Plunderer of renowned proportions, I see weaker players "finding" the same solutions I used. It also compelled me to 'Get Better' fast. When I first started out, I stayed out of the hood business as much as possible. I stayed inside my shell and never used any social means of communication. Now, I warn everyone in my hood. I win my 2 Worlds Towers, every week, no matter which Age. I also try to win on (currently) 8 Ages of Towers. I have saved units from 6 of the previous Ages to attack "noobs" and 216 Armies. I find it more enjoyable to attack someone with a HUGELY beefed up Mounted Archers army, slapping a LMA or CA army around for a few thousand points. In short, my point is this: There are a HOST of options new players can use to sonewhat prevent daily attacks on their cities. Plenty. People refuse to think "outside the box".
Volodya
Well-Known Member
Good post. Sorry to see you go, but I understand. The fact that there are real people behind the avatars is something that the FoE thieves seem utterly unable to understand. "Unable" is probably too generous a term really; many of them understand perfectly well but just don't care. They enjoy hurting real people, hiding behind their specious mantra of "it's just a game."
DeletedUser29404
Real people who either failed to "get it" or failed to "learn or care enough about it" is more apropos
DeletedUser
You know, if we were actually physically harming these people, you would have a point. But we're not. We're not even really making much of a dent in their resources, truth be told. I have been in the position of being plundered often by multiple players, and it slowed me down slightly, but not much. If you are so sensitive that a little browser game plundering is "hurting real people", maybe you should stick to something more your speed, like...well, I can't think of a game without the possibility of someone winning and someone losing, so I think you might be out of luck. Sorry. (Not really, get over it.)
Volodya
Well-Known Member
You know, if we were actually physically harming these people, you would have a point. But we're not. We're not even really making much of a dent in their resources, truth be told. I have been in the position of being plundered often by multiple players, and it slowed me down slightly, but not much. If you are so sensitive that a little browser game plundering is "hurting real people", maybe you should stick to something more your speed, like...well, I can't think of a game without the possibility of someone winning and someone losing, so I think you might be out of luck. Sorry. (Not really, get over it.)
You have no idea what you are or aren't doing to people in the real world. How could you? The only thing you know for certain is that some people are genuinely upset by your actions. Why choose to do things that make other people unhappy? What makes that fun?
Winning or losing is measured sufficiently by the results of the battle. You might I suppose equate stealing in FoE to playing for stakes in poker, but stakes of some set value are the entire point of poker. There's really no game at all without them. Poker players choose the level of their potential loss. That's hardly the case here. All this can be solved with the addition of a simple opt-in/opt-out checkoff in a player's profile. If you opt in, you retain the ability to plunder and remain vulnerable to being plundered. If you opt out, you can't plunder others nor can you be plundered. What objection could there be to that addition to the game? For the record, I would opt in without hesitation, although I've never once in maybe four years playing FoE plundered anyone except in retaliation.
DeletedUser
I find it hard to even comment on this suggestion without being rude, it is so absurd. Not to mention that it is in violation of the Do Not Suggest list for proposals. Everyone starts the game equally, and gets mostly equal opportunities throughout the game. If you choose not to take any of the steps to minimize being plundered, why should the game be changed just to shield you from the consequences of your own choices? And it's not like there aren't things you can do to help yourself. Collect on time. Build up your defense. Use Tavern boosts/city shield. Aid or friend the attacker. Don't want to do any of those? Then don't go looking for sympathy from us. Simple as that.
DeletedUser
If you read the post that started this thread, Lucilla is doing all that, and he-or-she still feels frustrated because of this game's Invulnerable Plunder Mafia. Now, being good little nerds, we all know Captain Picard's saying about how "it is possible to make no mistakes and still lose -- that is not a weakness, that is life". But Lucilla apparently wants something besides constant frustration from his-or-her escapist experiences, and there's no need for you to start acting like a playground bully because somebody like Lucilla (or Volodya) holds that opinion. Some people just don't have it in them to be sado-masochists...well, no accounting for taste, right?
DeletedUser
Also, as far as the "just collect on time" dogma goes? Ahem:
A few of us have lives that aren't scheduled right down to the second, for days or weeks in advance. We might have to miss our collection times by 10 or 15 minutes, maybe -- gasp! -- a whole hour, because S*** Happens. And when S*** Happens, the game...in the form of the Invincible Plunder Mafia...absolutely will punish you for circumstances beyond your control. Whether or not that's "fair" or "realistic", it's not very much fun. And fun is, for most people, the whole point of playing a game.
A few of us have lives that aren't scheduled right down to the second, for days or weeks in advance. We might have to miss our collection times by 10 or 15 minutes, maybe -- gasp! -- a whole hour, because S*** Happens. And when S*** Happens, the game...in the form of the Invincible Plunder Mafia...absolutely will punish you for circumstances beyond your control. Whether or not that's "fair" or "realistic", it's not very much fun. And fun is, for most people, the whole point of playing a game.
DeletedUser
You know, if you're going to make up some silly term to make yourself feel better about being a victim, you should at least be consistent with it. Know what I mean?
DeletedUser12620
You know, if you're going to make up some silly term to make yourself feel better about being a victim, you should at least be consistent with it. Know what I mean?
Amen
DeletedUser
You know, if you're going to make up some silly term to make yourself feel better about being a victim, you should at least be consistent with it. Know what I mean?
Well, no. I don't. You've been throwing "silly terms" at people all through this thread -- insulting aspects of their personal character just because they're having difficulty in a friggin' Flash game -- and they've all been "inconsistent". So I can't see why you'd have a problem with it now.
You're not addressing Lucilla's or Volodya's concerns. You are, in fact, ignoring what they explicitly told you, and just repeating the same catchphrases about how The System is flawless and perfect, so anything bad that happens is your own fault. That excuse doesn't even wash in real-life society, much less in a friggin' Flash game.
Freshmeboy
Well-Known Member
My opinion is pvp is broken in this game because there is no risk for the attacker...you have the element of surprise, lower age offensive GBs before defensive ones, a 24 hour plunder window, a lousy AI and the worst of all a surrender button if the forces you encounter can win the battle...how broken can you get...? Shooting fish in a barrel with a bazooka is more like it. What if you had no surrender button..? And no 24 hour window..? And you had to use REAL troops and rogues rather than unattached troops. Yes, troops that need space in your city, cost resources to make and time to heal. To be a successful plunderer you would have to plan your city accordingly and the risk and potential loss would be real. If there were no resources to plunder you would get only the pvp points. Out of all the concepts for city planning, pvp requires the least and in my opinion is a flawed portion of the game.
DeletedUser
A) I have not insulted aspects of people's personal character. If you think I have, please post specific quotes from my posts.
B) I also have not been "throwing 'silly terms' at people all through this thread". Again, please post specific quotes from my posts to prove your assertion.
C) Lucilla has no concerns, she was merely posting a farewell to the game, with her reasons for quitting. Volodya also has no concerns, only complaints that others are playing the game better than he is. And if you're really concerned about personal attacks, how about this gem?
D) I also never said "The System" (your silly term) was flawless and perfect. If you had read half of my many posts you would know that.
E) I do applaud your consistency in using your new silly term, "friggin' Flash game", even down to the same italics both times. Bravo!
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Are you a plunderer? I'm guessing not. If you were, you would know that this is not accurate at all. I so rarely use the surrender button that I wouldn't care if it weren't there for PvP battles. Unattached troops are usually more precious than attached, because you can't simply build a building and train them. You have to either win them through actively completing quests or GE encounters, or you have to have a Traz plus barracks to acquire them. And if you lose them, you have to wait until next GE, or your next Traz collection.
To be a successful plunderer, you do have to plan your city/game accordingly. Do you think those troops and attack boosts just magically appear? Get real!
Freshmeboy
Well-Known Member
Sorry Mr. Longshanks...the pvp in this game is broken. I won't play it because it is so broken and the attacker has such a huge advantage..that is real and to deny the advantages of the attacker versus the defender is ridiculous. Why do you think I vote down every proposal that makes the mechanic easier...?
- Status