Cowards Hiding Behind a City Shield

[DeletedUser29404]

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.

Yes. I agree with you, and I only used some extreme examples to highlight the differences. The difference in City Shield and City defense is evident; and I didnt think I needed to clarify that. Perhaps better examples can be found, but nonetheless they exist.
The point still remains that *some* players use City Shield to protect their cities while terrorizing the hood. The mechanism, in some peoples opinion, is being abused.

 

[BruteForceAttack]

Yes. I agree with you, and I only used some extreme examples to highlight the differences. The difference in City Shield and City defense is evident; and I didnt think I needed to clarify that. Perhaps better examples can be found, but nonetheless they exist.
The point still remains that *some* players use City Shield to protect their cities while terrorizing the hood. The mechanism, in some peoples opinion, is being abused.

There are also some cowards who defended up their city a lot and terrorizing the hood.

 

[DeletedUser]

The point still remains that *some* players use City Shield to protect their cities while terrorizing the hood. The mechanism, in some peoples opinion, is being abused.

And some people build up their defense to over 700% and terrorize their hood.
And some people use good defensive units in conjunction with a good defense boost...and terrorize their hood.
And some people use a 2 spear defense, no plunderable buildings...and terrorize their hood.
There are many ways to terrorize a hood without risk of meaningful retaliation, are you going to propose banning them all?

 

[DeletedUser13838]

Yes. I agree with you, and I only used some extreme examples to highlight the differences. The difference in City Shield and City defense is evident; and I didnt think I needed to clarify that. Perhaps better examples can be found, but nonetheless they exist.
The point still remains that *some* players use City Shield to protect their cities while terrorizing the hood. The mechanism, in some peoples opinion, is being abused.

You're now using weasel words and replaced "unfair" with "abused". If you think the city shield is "unfair" and "abusive" you need to explain why and provide a reasonable alternative. "Some of my guildies don't like it" is not very convincing.

GOing back to defense boosts, how many people multiplied their defense boosts dramatically by farming watchfire upgrades? How much more useless did that make the 30% tavern defense boost? The real problem IMO, is that the tavern boosts are not at all balanced against boosts from buildings. At the cost of 1 oasis (800 pop, 5 goods per day), I can gain 48%/72% (level 1 vs level 2 watchfire) vs 2300 silver per day for a 3 day 30% defense boost. Or perhaps I can give up an HoF (520 crowns per day) for 36%/54% defense vs that same defense boost. That shows tavern silver is very valuable based on Innos pricing but we know that it isn't. THe city shield is likely priced right under Inno's pricing scheme but it's way too cheap with respect to its true value. Suppose a city shield is equivalent to a 1000% defense boost. That requires 250 tiles of level 1 watchfires which is about 50 fps/day worth of SoKs. I would easily pay 8k silver for 50 fps worth of value.

 

[Agent327]

The mechanism, in some peoples opinion, is being abused.

How can it be abused when all is done according to the rules? Nobody is stopping your guildies to do the same. Everybody has the same opportunities. How can that be abuse or unfair?

 

[USDAprimeRib]

Some people are suggesting creating a proposal with some of these ideas. How about adding to it something along the lines of increasing the price of the current city wall, but also adding a new, cheaper, tavern option called 'peace treaty' that prevents players from attacking your city, but also preventing you from attacking theirs?

 

[Algona]

) well advanced players hiding behind a city shield. I

regarding certain AF/OF/VF

I'm discussing Advanced Age players. AF/OF/VF players.

Who are sitting behind Tavern Shields while attacking and plundering some of your Guildies.

Which means those Guildies you are concerned about, that are getting attacked and plundered, are also AF/OF/VF.

Depsite your continued use of emotion laden meaningless terms like 'cowards', 'cheating'. 'unfair', 'abuse', 'terrorizing' and other nonsense, this still boils down to:

You want to change the game because these AF/OF/VF Guildies of yours can't figure out how to deal with being plundered.

Please don't try to change the game because of the problems your Guildies face because of their choices in play style.

 

[Algona]

new, cheaper, tavern option called 'peace treaty' that prevents players from attacking your city, but also preventing you from attacking theirs?

Would one use of this new option be targeted at one player in the hood? Or would one use prevent all players in the hood from attacking?

How long would it last?

 

[DeletedUser33179]

Some people are suggesting creating a proposal with some of these ideas. How about adding to it something along the lines of increasing the price of the current city wall, but also adding a new, cheaper, tavern option called 'peace treaty' that prevents players from attacking your city, but also preventing you from attacking theirs?

It can't be a proposal, as anything whatsoever that could limit plundering is on the Do Not Suggest List.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

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.

Edit:
Here’s an awesome idea ... When people get upset they are being destroyed by players with enough common sense to employ a simple defensive mechanism against retaliation ... Instead of making some emotional hogwash argument to change the game ... You can just let the upset people know the Tavern has a Defensive Shield boost that will protect their city from attack in the first place.


.

 

[*Arturis*]

With nothing to use for the extra silver, if you have a tavern from the start, you should have around 3M silver or 375 days shield, assuming you use all that, then you will accumulate more during that 375 days, so technically, you can have your city shield for a very long time.

 

[DeletedUser29404]

Edit:
Here’s an awesome idea ... When people get upset they are being destroyed by players with enough common sense to employ a simple defensive mechanism against retaliation ... Instead of making some emotional hogwash argument to change the game ... You can just let the upset people know the Tavern has a Defensive Shield boost that will protect their city from attack in the first place.


.

Your discussing two differen things. City Defense, in most situations, doesnt prevent an attacker. It only bolsters a players Defense of their Defending Army

 

[DeletedUser29404]

Who are sitting behind Tavern Shields while attacking and plundering some of your Guildies.

Which means those Guildies you are concerned about, that are getting attacked and plundered, are also AF/OF/VF.

Depsite your continued use of emotion laden meaningless terms like 'cowards', 'cheating'. 'unfair', 'abuse', 'terrorizing' and other nonsense, this still boils down to:

You want to change the game because these AF/OF/VF Guildies of yours can't figure out how to deal with being plundered.

Please don't try to change the game because of the problems your Guildies face because of their choices in play style.

No one that I know of, is "interested" in changing the game....least of all, me.
I can reiterate that this particular issue never affects me, personally. I put this out there, to ascertain other players thoughts/feelings. That is all. Than, I can direct those people to this thread, to see what they take away from it.

 

[DeletedUser29404]

And some people build up their defense to over 700% and terrorize their hood.
And some people use good defensive units in conjunction with a good defense boost...and terrorize their hood.
And some people use a 2 spear defense, no plunderable buildings...and terrorize their hood.
There are many ways to terrorize a hood without risk of meaningful retaliation, are you going to propose banning them all?

Are you being serious?

 

[DeletedUser29404]

There are also some cowards who defended up their city a lot and terrorizing the hood.

Point taken.

 

[DeletedUser29404]

With nothing to use for the extra silver, if you have a tavern from the start, you should have around 3M silver or 375 days shield, assuming you use all that, then you will accumulate more during that 375 days, so technically, you can have your city shield for a very long time.

Not all players have been in the game since it started. Some may have raced up the research tree in remarkable fashion.

 

[DeletedUser29404]

You're now using weasel words and replaced "unfair" with "abused". If you think the city shield is "unfair" and "abusive" you need to explain why and provide a reasonable alternative. "Some of my guildies don't like it" is not very convincing.

GOing back to defense boosts, how many people multiplied their defense boosts dramatically by farming watchfire upgrades? How much more useless did that make the 30% tavern defense boost? The real problem IMO, is that the tavern boosts are not at all balanced against boosts from buildings. At the cost of 1 oasis (800 pop, 5 goods per day), I can gain 48%/72% (level 1 vs level 2 watchfire) vs 2300 silver per day for a 3 day 30% defense boost. Or perhaps I can give up an HoF (520 crowns per day) for 36%/54% defense vs that same defense boost. That shows tavern silver is very valuable based on Innos pricing but we know that it isn't. THe city shield is likely priced right under Inno's pricing scheme but it's way too cheap with respect to its true value. Suppose a city shield is equivalent to a 1000% defense boost. That requires 250 tiles of level 1 watchfires which is about 50 fps/day worth of SoKs. I would easily pay 8k silver for 50 fps worth of value.

which words make you more comfortable?

 

[DeletedUser13838]

Specific words that actually explain your position.

 

[DeletedUser29404]

Specific words that actually explain your position.

My position? Perhaps you didnt read the many posts....

 

[DeletedUser13838]

My position? Perhaps you didnt read the many posts....

You posts simply state it's unfair and abusive without expalaining why. What is unfair about it? Why is it abuse? Is the city shield button broken in your game that you can't use it?