Disallow the Ability to Build a Great Building beyond your Age

[Volodya]

Can you explain how this would be "great abuse" when Inno advices you to do so? Do you now know their game better than they do?
.

Patently it's permitted within the rules, but where does Inno advise players to build gbs in advance of their current age?

 

[Volodya]

Actually for any current GB in the game this would never happen. It would create a class of "FoE Gods" who are low level players who already have the GB's, no one on par with them tech wise would have a chance to compete.
I would not have minded seeing them put a tech age lock on GB's going forth. For example the upcoming Terracotta Army has a "must be VF Age to build" requirement.

It could be implemented on a new world as an experiment, but Inno has never seemed interested in varying the rules from world to world.

 

[Volodya]

Like I said I would be surprised if I get any yeahs -- but seriously yes it took the initial folks a good amount of time to successfully acquire the blueprints and build the buildings the normal (game designed) way but now that "normal" way can be circumvented via a backdoor exploit that perhaps the designers had not considered. Of course if they have put their stamp of approval on this exploit (which is yet to be proved) then so be it. However if they have, as I said, that seems extremely contradictory from there stance on future proposals since it breaks not 1 but at least 2 of their prime directives.

Still I am curious how does this penalize those that have already obtained the buildings ?? It would actually do the opposite, they would get to benefit from all their hard work and effort it took them to get them while others who are lazier than they were will have to work at getting to the point where they can use those buildings as well.

Yes I concur building certain GBs way before their appropriate Age makes them even more useful but this has a flip-side to it as well. It makes various early Age GBs worth less for that very same reason. So the outcome of this would be early Aged GBs might become worth more if you cannot obtain those later Age GBs until you are in a later Age. Is that horribly bad. Further it promotes/benefits the achievers rather than the underachievers which the current methodology helps (aka the current methodology actually makes it easier to be an underachiever and do fairly well if you know the right people that is).

I actually think FoE might've been a more internally consistent and maybe more interesting game if building gbs more advanced than a player's current age had been impossible from the start. That ship has long since sailed though. It's hard to even imagine a change more overwhelmingly unfair to new or newish players than this would be.

I vote the strongest possible no.

 

[DeletedUser35351]

No.

Everyone can get any Great Building they want. It takes a lot of time, resources and friends/guildmates to do so. Well, some people also buy diamonds and get the goods and blueprints that way.

There are no other ways of building a Great Building, so it's not like some players are doing things others can't.

If you go through most neighborhoods, you'll see people at the bottom with few to no Great Buildings, buildings from several ages below their current one, improperly built special buildings (like peaces of the Indian Palace set scattered all over their city...).

Then, as you progress towards the top of the neighborhood, you'll see people with well organized cities, lots of Great Buildings with high levels and with some of them being from ages above theirs.
These players worked hard. Some of those who got their GBs by spending diamonds probably worked hard in real life, while most, who got their GBs through FP donations for blueprints and spent FPs to buy future age goods, worked very hard in the game (including me). They had to be patient, expand their in-game social network, plan carefully... Why would you want to punish such players?

It's mostly the underachievers who are bothered by such things. The game has been around for long time. Either be a part of the people who do this, or be a part of the people who, I suppose, get bored quickly, so they rush through the tech tree to experience new content. I'm sure your proposal will never be accepted for several reasons.

Okay other than you saying No you present no real arguments to back up that no.

1) Everyone can do it ? Okay just because everyone can cheat on their taxes should that make it legal to do so?

2) Some people are better organized than others ? Okay not seeing how this reflects whether something that is exploitative ought to be okay

3) Why would you want to punish such players? Who said I wanted to punish anyone (including myself as I am one of those much more organized players) I am just pointing out an aspect of the game that is outside the spirit that the designers have put forth.

4) It's mostly the underachievers who are bothered by such things. Uh that is very untrue -- I am far from an underachiever and while I am happy to use the exploit along with everyone else. Truth nudged me and said I ought to bring this up.

Still I said upfront I was pretty sure I would get no yeahs to this idea as it is faaaar to nice of an exploit. It is kind of like slavery in the old south, I am pretty sure not every slave owner fully felt it was right but it was sure very convenient so why look a gift horse in the mouth aye? Because Truth and Decency said so

 

[DeletedUser35351]

Even for sec lets say they take all the gbs away beyond their age, lot of ppl have 80 level arcs and used the arc to level all the other gbs. They will still hold advantage over any new player. E.g I have a 106 level zeus. Do you think I could have leveled my zeus to that high without arc. How is anyone new going to compete with me?

Okay so you are saying because its broken now we ought not to fix it going forward??

Further as you point out because its so broken now that if it were fixed no one could compete with those that utilized the exploit. I think that simply reinforces my position on -- its broken and ought to be fixed -- dont you think?

 

[DeletedUser35351]

Even for a second lets say Inno does this, how is it going to change anything much. Most players already have gbs beyond their age, it will only cripple the new users who will get frustrated that they cannot have something that everyone one else has. So net-net new users will not continue to play the game and inno will not make money. So why would Inno do this? Think about it.

Well this really depends on how Inno Games would decide to fix the situation really but first things first you have to close down the delivery system before trying to remove all that garbage that has already been delivered.

Again this lies outside the proposal. I mean do you think so lowly of the game designers that you do not feel they could fix the situation in a fair manner that allows new players to prosper normally? I think they would be able to do so, and if not I am sure the community would make proposals to help even the playing field -- if this proposal were put into play and that sooo lovable exploit were done away with. So much defense for something so obviously against the spirit of the game. Like I said, I highly doubted I would get any yeahs to this.

I fully expect -- heck no -- I love this exploit -- I mean feature -- it makes the game a lot easier and makes me much more wealthy in the game than I would be without it --- both of which should be the red flags considering the guidelines you have for making proposals. *sigh*

 

[DeletedUser35351]

One of the source of income of inno is probably folks buying bps and goods for gbs, still don't understand why would inno kill it. Inno also gives out prizes beyond your age e.g. astronaut statue was given away for an event. Game allows you to acquire higher age army/goods thru quests

Hey I never said they would -- like I said I come across companies where duplicity walks the halls.

I made the proposal to mainly see if anyone had the courage to be honest about this issue. So far all I have heard is whining about how bad it would be for folks if it were done away with -- keep in mind I am one of those folks and I am not whining about it. Personally I do not care. I simply saw something that was fairly obviously a in-your-face aspect that totally contradicted the guidelines for submitting proposals that it just screamed you should make a proposal to end this as it is totally anti-spirit of the game as per outlined by the game designers. If it is not removed, I will (just like everyone else) continue to capitalize upon it because frankly it makes playing this game for free that much easier. Oh and btw there is your reason why Inno games might want to nip this one in the bud - or at least as soon as possible anyway since its no longer a bud but a fully blossomed flower.

 

[Graviton]

 

[Graviton]

I made the proposal to mainly see if anyone had the courage to be honest about this issue.

Oh yes, of course, because anybody who is against your proposal is obviously dishonest. There can't possibly be any honest disagreement. Clearly people who've played the game for ten minutes know better than those who've played for years. Those long-term players are just know-nothing jerks.

 

[DeletedUser35351]

The game was purposefully designed to allow several ways to obtain GBs beyond a player's current level. Always has been. There's no "exploit" here. As several have already said, some players are more experienced than others on using this particular game methodology.

I've no idea why you keep referring to this game forum's Do Not Suggest List for Proposals as a "prime directive" outline of what Inno intends the "spirit" of the game to be. It's no such thing.

As clearly stated at the beginning of the Do Not Suggest thread:
This is a list of proposals that are not to be suggested. This can be either because they have been suggested and declined in the past, have been ruled out by the developers, or they are already being worked on and it's best to see how they're delivered before giving any further ideas. Please also use the search feature before proposing anything, make sure what you are proposing is something new and hasn't been suggested before.

Oh I am sorry I got my hands on the original source of things you should not suggest perhaps this will help you understand things more clearly

In particular, please do not suggest the following ideas, as they will not be implemented:

• Ideas to make yourself richer.. or make the game easier. The game is meant to be played over time and is meant to have a lot of strategy to it.
  
• Better units to fight against other units (ie no monster/super units that can sweep all others). New units ideas must be balanced with existing ones.
• Better trade ratios (things are supposed to be limited so there is no account feeding).
• Trading of items other than Goods (this is simply too open to abuse, and is potentially a breach of our game rules).
• Rotating buildings to fit in a different shaped space (placing your buildings in optimum positions is part of the game).
• Holding areas or storing of buildings (it is an intended challenge to work with the space you have).
  
• Easier access to Diamonds (Diamonds are the lifeblood of the game. We need them bought to pay for servers and everything else. If we gave out easier diamonds then no one would buy them).

Then using the above and the definition as follows:

Exploit : A feature/tool used to take advantage of a flaw in a program, typically for personal gain.

As you can see this breaks bullet point 1 in very BIG way. Further it facilitates the breakage of the last bullet point as well. These are what I call the spirit of the game as not only do they say what not to propose but they indicate why from the game designer's perspective.

So if the above list are the things the game designers do not want to see -- then obviously something that so greatly contradicts it would be an Exploit. Thus the reason I am calling it thus -- as I do believe in calling a spade a spade -- rather than a card with a black shovel-like symbol on it.

 

[DeletedUser35351]

What if INNO had required all GBs from Modern age on to connect to two-lane roads?

I am surprised -- nice someone actually thinking about a method to fix the issue in a different manner.

I do not know do you feel this would curtail the abuse of this exploit sufficiently enough to make it less abusive??

 

[DeletedUser35351]

You keep mentioning 'abuse' in the form of gaining GBs before you have reached the appropriate age...that is NOT abuse, it's game strategy. INNO makes a BUNDLE on new worlds as players race to gain upper era GBs and buy BPs and goods so why would they want to shoot themselves in the foot...? It does them no good to have an emerging new generation of players bound by different rules who will quickly quit when they realize they are massively outgunned and poorly prepared for upper ages just to reach levels for the better GBs. How many vets would start on established worlds under the new rules..? Frankly, your proposal, if implemented, would probably be the death-knell for FoE..why try to ring that bell...?

I think I cover this in one of my previous posts -- because the current exploit actually reduces the amount of money that might be spent on the game by making it extremely easy to get something for basically nothing. Further how would this effect the "New World" process, since when you open a new world (Age) I presume no one has the blueprints already nor have the buildings already. So instead of everyone having to bust their bunnies and by diamonds some just sit back and wait to ride the free train created by the smaller group of deep pocketed individuals.

Personally I think you extremely overrate the effect. Sure there would be some adjustment pains and there would be need for game balancing due to the gross misuse of this exploit but once that was all ironed out everything would be just fine. The only folks that would miss the exploit would be those that used it -- no one new would even know about it. So it would definitely not kill the game as you so aptly put it.

 

[DeletedUser35351]

Actually for any current GB in the game this would never happen. It would create a class of "FoE Gods" who are low level players who already have the GB's, no one on par with them tech wise would have a chance to compete.

Actually they already exist, I have seen Iron Age cities with extremely advanced Age GBs in them. These folks greatly outpower a normal player coming up through IA unless they are able to tap into this exploit themselves in order to level the playing field it bit better --- still then you run into the issue that this IA player has been playing so long that no one will ever be able to truly compete with them in that Age due mainly to this simple exploit being abused as it has been thus far.

I would not have minded seeing them put a tech age lock on GB's going forth. For example the upcoming Terracotta Army has a "must be VF Age to build" requirement.

I am glad you seem to see the issue at least in part if not fully.

 

[DeletedUser35351]

Oh yes, of course, because anybody who is against your proposal is obviously dishonest. There can't possibly be any honest disagreement. Clearly people who've played the game for ten minutes know better than those who've played for years. Those long-term players are just know-nothing jerks.

And thus far there has been none -- your mere dismissal of the truth does not make it any less true. Most of the disagreements so far have been mostly whining about what would happen if this proposal took effect. The only one that did not whine about this tried to discredit my claim that it is an exploit which I have hopefully shown how it is actually what I claim it to be.

So other than your balderdash comments do you have anything intelligent to say towards this or is that your limit?

It would be really nice if folks put their energy to perhaps conceiving a way that if this proposal were to take affect what would be the best way to handle the game imbalance it created. Only one suggestion thus far in that regard. I mean what if INNO did this -- other than the screaming by all the lazy minded players that cannot imagine this game without this exploit -- would there be any proposals of how to balance the obvious imbalance that now exists?

 

[Graviton]

And thus far there has been none -- your mere dismissal of the truth does not make it any less true.

It's not true in the first place. Thus the dismissal.

So other than your balderdash comments do you have anything intelligent to say towards this or is that your limit?

Since it's not an exploit your proposal merits no such consideration. I have granted it all the attention it deserves.

 

[DeletedUser35351]

It's not true in the first place. Thus the dismissal.

Since it's not an exploit your proposal merits no such consideration. I have granted it all the attention it deserves.

Really you are willing to make those claims and yet cannot back them up at all. While I have already presented evidence to the contrary.

No I imagine you have granted it all the attention your mind can handle. Since your comments are just derogatory gibberish filled with no truth.

 

[Freshmeboy]

Perhaps you weren't here when they nerfed GBs in the past or were around for the Delphi Debacle....Players rage quit in a storm of middle fingers pointed directly at INNO. The backlash was incredible. Your proposal is a game killer..no exaggeration. You claim players will quickly adjust to having their games nerfed to make it even for new players...? That it will 'iron itself out'...? You have no clue...Players would storm this forum and demand their money back...especially if they spent to buy these goods or fps or prints to gain an advantage...you'll take my LMA arc when you can pry it from my cold dead keyboard.....

 

[DeletedUser26965]

Then using the above and the definition as follows:

Exploit : A feature/tool used to take advantage of a flaw in a program, typically for personal gain.

As you can see this breaks bullet point 1 in very BIG way.

All that is is the the Do Not Suggest description from the EN server What not to suggest? You can't use that as your guiding principle to what IG wants as their overall guiding philosophy as to how the game ought be designed then retrospectively apply that in a pretend world as if GB's are currently not allowed out of age and that someone is suggesting they should be then on top of it all call it an exploit and against the Suggestion criterion. That has got to be one of the most bizzare defenses I've seen and ultimately makes no sense whatsoever.

I think you would really do well to drop the entire rhetoric of exploit, abuse, cheat or however you want to disparage it to try to prove a point, you're really doing yourself a disservice by continually doing so. Had you started from the beginning without all the rhetoric why you believe it would be better for the game you might have gotten a bit more of a sympathetic ear to the position, as it stands you've essentially muddied your own waters, built your own strawmen and ultimately sabotaged your own position. It's self defeating you see.

 

[Agent327]

Interesting if you are going to make claims you should back them up with facts (aka URL links to the claims you are making)

Open your city multiple times.

And you seriously do not believe this is happening are you that extremely naive.

Interesting if you are going to make claims you should back them up with facts (akaplayernames and multi accounts)

I already stated those rules which I know full well you are aware of since you quoted them to me.

So you agree it is allowed and not up to you to decide it isn't.

No loop-holes are also called creative work arounds that while they do not break the letter of the law they do break the spirit of the law. Take that claim you are making to an actual court of law and see just how fast you end up in jail.

Ever been to court in Germany?

Again you make a claim without any backed up evidence to the fact. If it is true great but I find that odd since their Prime Directives about proposals point things in the opposite direction. Still it is not the first I ran across a company that functioned in duplicity.

What do directives for proposals have to do with how the game can be played?

Yes considering its extremely wide spread use, and the fact that it flies in the face of more than 1 prime directive seems to pretty much place it in that category

What prime directive?

 

[DeletedUser35351]

All that is is the the Do Not Suggest description from the EN server What not to suggest? You can't use that as your guiding principle to what IG wants as their overall guiding philosophy as to how the game ought be designed then retrospectively apply that in a pretend world as if GB's are currently not allowed out of age and that someone is suggesting they should be then on top of it all call it an exploit and against the Suggestion criterion. That has got to be one of the most bizzare defenses I've seen and ultimately makes no sense whatsoever.

Very interesting. Yes I used that outline from the EN Server and what pray-tell are you using for a source? Anything or are you just stating that using the guidelines stated as being what is and is not wanted by the programmers to be a lie. If so you ought to take that up with the individual that posted that list. Or perhaps you have some inside information that you can prove that you actually know anything at all? Further considering that INNO games is a European based company one would have to think that the EN Server is probably the more reliable of the 2 servers to use as a source. It being closer to home and all *shrug*

I think you would really do well to drop the entire rhetoric of exploit, abuse, cheat or however you want to disparage it to try to prove a point, you're really doing yourself a disservice by continually doing so. Had you started from the beginning without all the rhetoric why you believe it would be better for the game you might have gotten a bit more of a sympathetic ear to the position, as it stands you've essentially muddied your own waters, built your own strawmen and ultimately sabotaged your own position. It's self defeating you see.

Why would I want to stop calling a spade a spade... it is what it is... nothing more nothing less. I am not actually looking for a "sympathetic ear" I posted an obvious issue fully expecting all the garbage that has been thrown out there in response. My actual hope was to perhaps get folks to acknowledge that it is an extreme exploit and they are currently using it because it does make the game a lot easier and allows them to spend less money. What is wrong with stating the truth. Does it make you a better person to hide behind a lie? Frankly there is the outside chance that one of the game designers or someone that knows one will actually see this and realize that this exploit is actually costing INNO games probably considerable revenue and that perhaps it ought to be fixed.

Of course if the community had supported the basic concept for the overall good of the game rather than their own self-interests. The discussion might have been more about how to lessen the impact and such that an implementation would go smoothly if the game designers actually chose to do something about it. Yeah I know I tend to be a dreamer when it comes to that, give people more credit than they are due but that is something I will always do. Give folks a chance to stand up for what is right.

As it stands two voices out of the lot seemed to get the basic concept. Most likely the rest just do not fully understand the lose-lose aspect of it ... *shrug* or the potential win-win that could be achieved by fixing what is fairly obvious contradiction to what the most reliable source we have says about what the game designers intents are with the game design.

Now if you could produce something that actually backs your position I would be more than interested in reading it but fancy rhetoric about how I failed to get a sympathetic ear really is totally valueless and rather clueless to the whole discussion. Further this strawman you talk about does not even exist. I simply presented a straight forward and fairly simple to understand concept. Then proceed to challenge every nay-sayer to validate their stance. So far no one including you have produce an ounce of proof to validate your position and all that most of you have done is to try and besmirch the actual most valid source I produced.

So straight up are you saying that OVERTYPE lied in his post ?? If so you should bring that to the forum moderator's attention on the EN server. But I am guessing that is not the case at all and you are just slandering a good individuals name by implying that his post is totally meaningless.