Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Proposals' started by Stephen Longshanks, Jun 11, 2018.
What is it that you think distinguishes an "advantage" from an "unfair advantage"?
Why should you when you can place them in your defence?
In a game where planning for the future is key, I could easily use troops two or three ages below my town hall in GE to induce the next shuffle to take me to that eras' younger hoods......goods to plunder AND trade in that era would be my motivation. Roll down to IA for two weeks and stock up on that era's goods, then up to HMA, back to Bronze, up to Colonial, etc.....Your proposal is a passport to travel, raid and trade through the era's...Hmmmm......lot of 'work' or THE prime strategy in the game...?
According to his proposal the age you are in is leading, unless you use troops from a higher age. You can never go lower by using troops from a lower age.
I stand corrected Agent...however, if this were implemented I would seek the Cmap in more events (right now I refrain from Cmap usage because of getting too far ahead) knowing that I would be able to travel through three or four ages and gain goods from each. For the third time, this proposal needs tweaking....Perhaps units OWNED might be better than units USED...
You're still using units that you place in defense.
You are right. That makes it another reason to vote against it. Starting players are happy with the one age up units they win, so they can put them in defence. Not like they have much other options to become stronger in defence.
I don't hate the idea, but I am going to have to go with a no. I think such a change would remove a stategy that is open to anyone.
No, Longshanks... not you too!!! My vote is no. Why? You only get a very limited number of those higher age troops to work with and they are a very unique and special prize for your effort. I don't see why you'd be scared of someone from a lower era competing against you, but it would be pretty unfair to have you attacking them at the bottom of a higher-age hood and them having just a few troops from that era that they got from the continental map to defend with. You'd make them into easy targets for their efforts, something they can only mitigate by not using the troops they earned for in-game effort... effort every player can put forth equally... or by aging up, which is an unfair way to force what people think is the "best" way to play this game.
My question is why are people so clingy and or seemingly defensive reactionaries when it comes to the current PvP model and any potential changes to it? I realize how a few players might be because the current model incentivizes camping in order to run roughshod over the rest of the hood but I can't see how anyone but those type players would be for maintaining the current status quo. Who and/or what are people defending and why? Is there no vision beyond what is now? Is there some cosmic command that what is now must always be? Is it merely a matter of fear of the unknown?
In response, SJS, I have advocated a change to the pvp model since I started playing...the present model is, in my opinion, poorly designed with too much emphasis on attack and too little on defense...Allowing defending armies to use their attack GBs values while defending would be the easiest and most fair way to level the playing field...More fps in higher attack GBs all around is a good thing...
I think it's a pretty simple fear.
Current System = Good, normal, benchmark.
Different System = Potentially not as Good, abnormal. Or Purism dictates it cannot be as good, period.
Usually, have to address the individual who rejects it on their level. Even then, some people will take a counter-argument as an 'attack' and rationalize their position to be the 'one & only correct one' ad infinitum.
The interesting choice here is the framing of this as a potential punishment for the players who use the higher age units. I'm getting close to being in a position to be effected by such a change. As a plunderer, I'd love the opportunity to see if it would be viable to jump up an age and see what my take is.
Fear? How about that we simple think the current system is simple and 'fair'? Kind of amusing that anyone who disagrees with your changes must be afraid rather than simply coming to a different conclusion than the conclusion of others in this thread. Frankly i don't really see the problem with using troops from ages ahead as your competition can do so (3 worlds - 2 world I have advance troops but honestly I don't bother with them for PVP. I do use them now and again for my GE but that's mostly to change up the fights from FE a bit). The current system is relatively straight forward and so easy to understand and players can learn how to work the system to their benefit with relative ease.
How much of these proposed changes in this thread is coming from a desire for a 'better' system and how much is coming from players that have been here so long that they want a change up so that they can regain the same sense of game that they had when they began?
Oh and how many are a result of playing so many worlds that you've diluted the time you can spend on the worlds to maximum the benefits of the current system?
I can't answer for later posts by others that put forth other ideas, but for my original proposal it's pretty simple. I just think it's only fair that if you have and use higher age troops, you should be grouped with players from that age. No personal axe to grind. Won't put me into a depression, or a fit of anger if it doesn't go anywhere. And I've been on both sides of the coin on higher age troops. I have never actively pursued them, but I have ended up with them on some worlds at one time or another just with how it worked out on that particular world. Sometimes I use them, sometimes I don't.
Last hood shuffle I was in, I got attacked and defeated by a neighbor who used current age units, in this case, Indy. The punk then knocked off part of my Cherry Garden set. This necessitated my usual response, a counter attack. I attacked his city to find myself facing 4 Commandos, 2 Battle Tanks, and 2 Rogues backed up with a 287% defense partially produced by a level 10 Basil and a level 10 Deal.
Even with a with a Howitzer and 7 Rogues and a 141/90% bonus, that was a little much for me, the two biggest problems being on the 1.5 scale map with pre-PE units and that said map was loaded down with Light Units 3 ages ahead who have an advantage rather than a disadvantage against my Heavies. A rather big advantage at that.
This attack happened near the end of the hood shuffle, so I didn't have an opportunity to try again, this time with some Riflemen to see if they could make a difference against the Commandos, but those damn tanks would have likely complicated things. Anyway, I didn't come to the forum whining about how unfair it was, for which I would have been rightfully mocked and scorned for all the boasting I've done over in the Plunder Progress thread. I still didn't enjoy it though. Using units more than one age ahead isn't something I've done myself, largely because I don't want to mess up recurring quests by advancing too far on the map. Of course, now I've looked ahead a few ages to get a better idea of how to earn such units myself, especially since spamming supply production quests after Colonial kind of sucks.
Now some people have mentioned using CA units in LMA. I've done that, and it wasn't terribly uncommon for me to run into people who were also using CA units on defense. That comes from the bonus questline at the end of the original continent map, and it's not terribly difficult to pick up a pair each of Grenadiers and Musketeers for defense an age early. I routinely saw people down into the 20s in the hood rankings with the units. I only had trouble with said units when the defense was somewhere over 100% and I had trouble damaging Grenadiers; the Musketeers were annoying with their range but still easy enough to deal with using Heavy Knights or Field Guns if necessary. I don't have a problem with this, in fact I think it was probably designed so people could do this.
Now I only skimmed the story quests up into PME over on Wikia and I only have a vague idea of how it works (complicated by the complex branching paths). I feel that instead of penalizing players who've earned advanced units, a better solution would be to readjust the quests, primarily to require a player to be no more than one age below the units that are earned. So with the Commando example I gave above, that should only be rewarded after completing a quest that requires a player to be at least in the Modern Age. Many of these quests don't do that, and with careful examination of said quests a clever player can avoid too much unwanted advancement while gaining fairly powerful units for his own use.
I don't want to see the current system changed too much, it's a decent balance, or at least better than things were when people could be matched with players more than 2 ages ahead and be overwhelmed. Players with units only 1 age ahead aren't too badly imbalanced, after all, it can happen when a player levels up (smart players do this right after a hood shuffle). And having units from an age ahead helps other players to learn how combat changes in a new age. I would prefer neighborhoods where there's a good mix of easy and challenging players to fight, if they're too easy PvP get boring, and if there's too many difficult players it gets frustrating. And I think tweaking the quests, rather the the hood shuffle algorithm is probably the better approach.
I've said my piece. Now I'm going to go see how I can force neighbors who attack me into fighting WWI with their Civil War/Crimean War era armies.
I don't see how that would be the better approach. I'm willing to bet there's a lot more players who have a much higher advantage due to camping in order to obtain/level GB's, get more city defense, more special buildings than there are players who have units from above their age for PvP.
I play on all the worlds and see the imbalance all the time and because most of them are IA it's very stark and obvious, so for example just today I open A world and a guy(skunkhaze) with +9mil points(SoZ 21, CoA 10, CdM 60, Traz 11, AO 12, Kraken 29, RH's 8, WF's 57, RF's 30) is mixed in with players with less than 2,000 points, it's pretty obvious even if this were changed so that guy couldn't have units above his age it would still be wildly unbalanced.
I think they should do away with the hood system altogether and just have a PvP button off to the side you press that allows you to attack random players from the world if not the entire server. There should be a range of players you get matched to that fits the "not too hard not too easy" sentiment taking into account the units being used and the attack/defense parameters and the player you successfully attack can revenge attack at any time with some sort of expiration I'm sure. They could even add extra stuff to the system like a new reward system for it, a new championship system for it, all kinds of things they could do that would all probably have a positive effect on the game overall rather than what we currently have which is camp, faceroll, farm GvG
So just to make sure that I understand you correctly, your issue is with players camping in Iron Age while you are currently playing all of the worlds? There is already protection against that guy in Iron age since you have to unlock PVP now. Don't unlock it and your fine. Once you unlock it you should have no problem leaving the camper behind in Iron Age while you advance...…..unless of course that would interfere with what I presume is a truly impressive number of diamond farms.
To clarify IA is merely an example to show such a stark contrast, I have other cities in other ages which essentially shows the same type disparities. The main point remains the same across all ages, mixing a player, like the IA example I gave, with players on the opposite end of the spectrum, as we have now because it's only based on tech, creates more of a disparity than units an age ahead. I think that's pretty much stating the obvious though so not sure if one is for limiting matchups based on units they would not also be for a range of matchups based on other important factors such as those mentioned in the example.
I would actually be for limiting players to only the buildings/units (including GBs) up to the age of their Town Hall. That ship sailed long ago, but it has gotten so out of hand with Iron Age (and sometimes Bronze Age) players getting OFE GBs that the game is really kind of becoming a joke to some extent. I believe that my proposal is at least a start to reversing that, but I don't hold out much hope that it will go anywhere. I think at some point I will tire of playing the game due to this aspect of it.
I wonder if IG keeps their basic PvP structure because they think it sets them apart from the competition. I think it does but not in a good way. I think forcing people into the PvP aspect unwillingly and for the most part unwittingly is not good for the game as a whole and I've never understood why they handle it the way they do.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of players quit once they realized it was a game with a PvP aspect they couldn't get out of. To me that almost reeks of taking people for suckers, get them in long enough to get some plunder bait then throw them in a hood with someone who has been playing for 2+ years, good grief.
PvP can be such an enjoyable aspect to a game to when it's done right. I loved PvP on WoW, I always thought the PvP on here was silly and should get in line with more of an industry standard so to speak. I agree with the essence wolfhoundtoo expressed that PvP, or even gaming in general, is boring when too easy, futile when impossible, so any PvP structure should be designed with that in mind. And for those looking to challenge themselves beyond their capabilities there should be an element of that as well.
I really think an entire restructuring of PvP in FoE like I mentioned above with all of this in mind would be great for pretty much everyone.