DeletedUser35475
Only if you have enough silver and chairs and it protects all buildings as opposed to only protecting 1. It would seem the plunderers would like only 1 building protected instead of all of them.
-
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
Only if you have enough silver and chairs and it protects all buildings as opposed to only protecting 1. It would seem the plunderers would like only 1 building protected instead of all of them.
DeletedUser35475
In my IA city I give 1 FP to those who plunder me. I feel sorry for them as they only get to steal some coins or supplies.
Graviton
Well-Known Member
WTH?!?
DeletedUser35475
Why not. I give one and send them a message expressing my sorrow that they are doing so poorly that they needed 132 coins or 648 supplies. 1 FP is nothing, I get plundered so infrequently it doesn't really make much difference.
DeletedUser33179
To each their own, I guess.
I'm more concerned about a plunderer's overall health. If I simply give things away, she/he is likely to become fat, lazy, and with the potential for premature cognitive decline. That's terrible. Much better to have them work for a living.
RazorbackPirate
Well-Known Member
What you describe evolved after many pages of discussion about the original proposal, and the intent behind the original proposal, as stated by the OP. Having since been edited multiple times, it is no longer the proposal that the first 4 pages of discussion, was discussing.
However, the first 4 pages of discussion still serves to place the entirety of my post, not just the first sentence, into its proper context.
Quoting just the first sentence, as you did, intentionally takes it out of context. You then making a comment about the sentence, completely unrelated to its original context, which you purposely removed, twists the meaning of the sentence entirely.
While I'm not sure what your goal was in doing so, intellectual honesty was not one of them.
DeletedUser35475
The 'collect on time phrase' is always brought up whenever anyone comments or complains about plundering. The fact is that real life usually has a lot to say about whether collecting on time is possible.
I think the original idea was good and the arguments against are as predictable as the sun rising in the East.
DeletedUser35712
Well, I will only support an anti-plunder potion if it protects only alabaster masons. If your alabaster mason gets plundered, everybody knows that you lost the entire game and you have to restart the world.
Graviton
Well-Known Member
There's a reason they're predictable: because they're not wrong. Particularly that part about it being on the DNSL.
Last edited:
DeletedUser35475
It depends on how Inno interprets the suggestion. It did not change plundering, in fact most of the time it would be wasted as it only protected 1 building for a certain period of time and you would need to guess right when you used it. You could still plunder, nothing changed that.
Apparently a lot of people do not like plundering as there seems to be a never ending suggestion asking for some sort of modification. There are over 90,000 people listed in the player list, on average, in most of the worlds I am in. I would bet that worlds I am not in have a similar number. Tens of thousands appear to be inactive. I wonder how many stopped because of issues with plundering?
If you can't even bring up ideas that would make the game more interesting then that seems to defeat the purpose of the proposal system
Graviton
Well-Known Member
It's really not so vague that it's open to interpretation. It clearly limits plundering, that is its sole purpose!
I don't know how many people quit due to plundering. Plundering is part and parcel of this game so unless you're going to argue that it be eliminated completely, the fact that some people don't like it is entirely moot. Inno created the City Shield for players who complained about being plundered, but since it's too expensive to have activated 24x7 the squeaky wheels want something more.
That's a bit of an overreaction. Nobody says you can't propose interesting things, unless those interesting things are on the DNSL. Even outside of that, every proposal isn't necessarily "more interesting". I don't consider this proposal something that makes the game more interesting, just slightly easier. It's really nothing more than a salve for those who consider being plundered more of a problem and an inevitability than it really is.
I'm all for good proposals, but this isn't one.
I don't know how many people quit due to plundering. Plundering is part and parcel of this game so unless you're going to argue that it be eliminated completely, the fact that some people don't like it is entirely moot. Inno created the City Shield for players who complained about being plundered, but since it's too expensive to have activated 24x7 the squeaky wheels want something more.
That's a bit of an overreaction. Nobody says you can't propose interesting things, unless those interesting things are on the DNSL. Even outside of that, every proposal isn't necessarily "more interesting". I don't consider this proposal something that makes the game more interesting, just slightly easier. It's really nothing more than a salve for those who consider being plundered more of a problem and an inevitability than it really is.
I'm all for good proposals, but this isn't one.
DeletedUser33179
The DNSL is very clear regarding proposals to not suggest, allowing no room for alternative "interpretations"...
- Any proposal to alter, delete, or limit plundering
And while the suggestion is a different approach to limiting plundering than the more common ones posted in forum, I definitely would not agree it "would make the game more interesting." It's merely an excuse for folks to not learn all the ins & outs of a game that was designed to be very complex & dynamic.
Players don't need to be protected from plundering. They need to be gradually taught & learn over time ways to develop their cities so that plundering is only a minor nuisance, and not a detriment to their goals. This is very doable for anyone. But only if folks stop treating themselves & others as "victims", instead choosing to take up the challenges the game offers and grow.
DeletedUser35475
It can be interpreted any way Inno wants. Perhaps they wold say it effect plundering in such a small way it doesn't violate the list. I mean if you use it and don't get attacked then how did it effect plundering?
DeletedUser35475
I don't know either but given how many complaints and suggestions about it I would guess more than a handful have left because of it.
DeletedUser35712
Oh come on. Just because there was that one scenario doesn't mean that as a whole, plundering is unaffected. You're straight up denying this effect on plundering.
DeletedUser35475
It doesn't alter it or delete it or limit it. It lets you make 1 building you normally could not motivate be motivated for a period of time. Exactly what a self motivation kit does.
So not knowing if the building you plan on plundering is protected make the game less interesting? That deciding when and what to use one of the few potions you have on makes the game less interesting?
DeletedUser35475
Was plundering effected by the City Shield? Did Inno put it in because nobody made suggestions or complained about plundering even though the list existed? A single use boost would do nothing more than a self motivation kit does except it would work on other buildings.
RazorbackPirate
Well-Known Member
Yet the phrase "collect on time" doesn't appear in any one of my posts. I suggest you go back and re-read them (twice if you have to) then see if you can put together a coherent thought that relates to them.
'cause this ain't that.
-1
DeletedUser35712
I never mentioned anything about the city shield, and I do not care about debating over the city shield. Stop derailing from my comment. I'm saying that your use of a hypothetical small example in the last sentence to make the assertion that plundering in general wouldn't be affected is ludicrous.
DeletedUser34800
Which limits plundering. You have taken a building that could not be motivated to protect from plundering, and now made it unplunderable because of this potion.
What happens when I buy or save up a ton of them? I can then use them all on my special buildings and goods buildings at once. Now all of a sudden those buildings are protected and cannot be plundered. Which then LIMITS the available buildings to be plundered when someone attacks and breaks through.
It's pretty simple to see that a potion called the 'anti-plunder potion' limits plundering as it makes less available buildings to plunder.
It's not even a good idea. A lower age/newer player who is frustrated by all the plundering wouldn't be able to make enough of these potions to even have a difference in them being plundered. A high age/older player doesn't need these potions because they know what they're doing and how to react (better defense, timers set for collection times, make friends with said plunderers, pay the plunderers off with FPs, etc).
End of the day, this idea is bad for lots of reasons. DNSL, not gonna be acquired in an amount that'd be useful, doesn't actually teach the plundered player how to adapt or defend, etc.
- Status