Disallow the Ability to Build a Great Building beyond your Age

[DeletedUser35351]

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.....

Actually in my experience its the ones that got those things for free that will scream the loudest. And those that actually paid money for it will be much more calm about it ... granted not all of them but enough to make them a non-issue. Further you speak as if this Delphi Debacle was a game killer but it appears the game is still here. Perhaps my observation about this issue is not far off the mark. Again my proposal spoke nothing to how those that used the exploit ought to be treated -- my only proposal was to stop the exploit -- that is it and nothing more. Everyone else keeps bringing up how bad it will be when INNO games goes to balance the game AFTER stopping the exploit. No one has actually addressed the actual proposal -- except for a few and they did it in a supportive way.

Again the biggest noise in my experience is going to come from the exploiters (the ones that got something for next to nothing or for nothing at all) rather than the ones that actually worked at getting that stuff on their own without using the exploit because it was not available to them. Truthfully tell me you did not benefit greatly from the exploit and perhaps your words will actually be worth listening to.

I have asked numerous individuals basically the same question -- if this issue did not exist within this game currently -- and someone proposed that we ought to let folks build any GB in any Age -- I am sure you would see that idea get axed and added to the list of -- Do Not Suggest This -- no one has even addressed this or spoken to it because frankly I believe everyone knows its an exploit; they are all just afraid if they acknowledge it then it would go away. I am not afraid if it goes away. I would not stop playing the game. It would alter some strategies and such but that is about it because I am not afraid to work for what I get, still I am not stupid either, if INNO games chooses to leave the exploit in the game I have no issues with using it for as long as its there but just because I will use it does not mean I will not acknowledge that it is an exploit -- for based on what has been presented to be as "official" designer intentions it is an exploit and until proven otherwise it is all I (or anyone else for that matter) has to go on. However, I do understand it is what it is and if it goes away I will understand that as well and if INNO games chooses a means to rectify the current situation post stopping the exploit I will simply roll will the flow and make adjustments accordingly. It is just a game after all -- as such its overall importance in my life as a whole is fairly minimal. Speaking out for the truth however is something I consider worth doing almost always even if its only in or for a game.

 

[Agent327]

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

In the tips you see when you open your city. On the official wiki. In tutorials on the forum.

We are having a discussion here with someone who has very little knowledge of the game, has heard something, doesn't understand it, but decides something has to be done about it cause it is ABUSE!

For God's sake. He thinks the do not suggest list from the EN server is a Prime Derective!

His first proposal was to trade 4 BP's of a GB for one of an other random GB. His second is that you are not allowed to place those GB's you might get.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[Agent327]

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 obviously a contradiction to what the only source we have says what the game designers intents are with the game design.

It's the only source you have and you fail to interpret it right.

If you want more sources, there are 24 country servers and each has it's own forum with an ideas section and what not to suggest. Go for it! There are plenty of Prime Directives for you to discover!

 

[DeletedUser35475]

First off I will be surprised if I get any yeah votes for this because frankly I doubt this suggestion is going to be at all popular. Heck I kind of like the exploit myself but when I look at it in the light of the Prime Directives put down by the Game Designers for proposals this one blatantly exploits a loophole that I feel ought to be stitched up.

Proposal

Still allow the acquisition of Great Building Blue Prints from any age but make one of the requirements of building the Great Building to be that the player must either be of the Age of that Great Building and/or perhaps the Age just before it.

Current System

By networking with other higher level players and/or one of your own accounts that is much higher level. You can farm for Blueprints for buildings way in advance of your current Age. Then via this same mechanism build said building regardless of what Age you are in. Applies to Iron Age and up only of course.

Abuse Prevention

This whole proposal is about current abuse prevention. Currently the system as it is allows for great abuse of building Great Buildings before their time making the game not just easier but extremely easier and greatly benefitting players who are either using multi-accounts or have created a mutual network. It also helps folks create Diamond Farming Cities whose only purpose is to greatly increase their Diamond production thus making the game easier and them richer which is a different matter and another current exploit that I am not sure how best to handle.

This proposal is designed to close the currently exploitable loop-hole that allows an Iron Age player to build The Kraken for instance. The concept here is both mechanical and esthetical. It is sort of like building an automobile before gasoline is invented for without the gasoline you would simply have a metal carriage that would still need to be pulled by actual horses thus making it less pratical than a lighter wooden one of that Age but for some reason the mere building of the automobile makes everything else you need to operate that automobile suddenly available. Okay so you have The Kraken do you have all the things you would need to maintain and operate that Kraken well if you are in the Iron Age I would highly doubt it.

Lastly it would stop the exploit that makes the game not just easier but extremely easier by letting players have access to certain great buildings far before they ought to have access to them without disallowing them to collect the Blueprints in preparation for building that Great Building once they advanced to a more appropriate age for building it.

I look forward to any constructive comments on this. Does anyone feel it ought be limited just to the Age of the Great Building or greater or is one Age prior sufficient restriction to significantly curtail this horribly abused exploit?

Like you I find it odd that you can theoretically build the most advanced GB in the game when you are in the Iron Age if you want to. Picturing a Spearmen standing guard over the Kraken gives me a chuckle. While I probably won't ever do it because of my style of play I see no reason why someone else should not be able to build any GB they want whenever they can. You should be able to play the game the way you like even if some of the ways it is played by others are just strange to you.

It has very little impact on you if you are in the Middle Ages with just buildings of that age or lower and everyone else in your hood has an Arc or a Blue Galaxy or every other GB above them. The only way it can possibly effect you is if you are constantly attacked and plundered and GB's aren't required for that to happen anyway.

 

[Salsuero]

Here's an alternative line of thinking that should eliminate all your issues. I know it won't because you sound like you're angry that people don't play the way you want them to and so you'd like to stop them from doing so. But the premise of your argument is that these Great Buildings shouldn't be allowed because they are in the player's future eras. The reasoning is sound if you consider players to be in a bubble where building things is concerned.

However, I don't believe the tech tree is something that the people of your town "discover" as they get more advanced. I believe the tech tree is something that your people become more self-capable with. Meaning... just because you can't produce a higher-age thing doesn't mean that this higher-age thing is unknown to them or impossible to acquire. You have friends. You have a guild. Those folks are capable of "investing" in your town. In the real world, this happens. A lower-resource, less capable society may not be able to develop high-tech industry on their own, but that doesn't mean the infrastructure can't be built by someone from outside their community... even using labor from within the community to do so. The tech can't be built locally because they don't have the means, but they still have access to it. They might even look strange with a cell phone tower in the middle of a mostly farm-based community. But if cell phones allow them to export their goods and bring in much-needed trade, then who are we to look at them funny? Maybe as they grow and thrive, they will advance and be able to do more and more internally. But in the meantime, they shouldn't be relegated to sticking only to the things they can do.

So... a town that is centered around the appeal of a low-tech kind of "ancient" tourism shouldn't be expected to remain in the age of that tourist draw for all things. For one, it wouldn't be a very good tourist attraction if it did. You still need ATMs, cell phone and internet access, etc. for the tourists and for the people in charge of marketing the tourism, among other needs. You may be in a lower age of tech internally because your town is "mostly" stuck in the middle ages, for example, but you've added some key components to allow your middle-age town to thrive as a tourist destination. Perhaps a modern hotel for folks who don't want to sleep in a barn. Maybe a bank so they can spend money in your town and you don't have to keep that money under your mattress. How about a nice restaurant for people with food allergies so they know you aren't going to kill them for dinner. These are examples of towns that might be internally low on the tech tree, but that have had things introduced as amenities despite the low-tech nature of their existence.

The thing about camping in a low era that folks dismiss is that it doesn't necessarily have to be thought of as a town stagnating at a low level, but could be thought of as a town that is purposely not "aging" itself, but still finding ways to advance that are more subtle, but highly useful. Many European towns are visually stuck in the past, but that doesn't mean they haven't found a way to generate electricity or offer indoor plumbing. If we age our town using the tech tree, we lose our "quaint old town" appeal. Many towns in the real world purposely hold on to this. I see no reason why we shouldn't be allowed to do the same, while still finding ways to exist in a modern world as well.

 

[DeletedUser26965]

Now if you could produce something that actually backs your position

"...I can't see a huge issue that we should have tackled differently."
-InnoGames Senior Product Manager Stefan Walter
https://www.pocketgamer.biz/interview/66138/innogames-on-the-evolution-of-forge-of-empires/

And as it pertains to player suggestions
"...listening to them is one key factor, but also having a vision in place within the boundaries we have - being realistic, having a strategy..."

But you go ahead and triple down now on the rhetoric, I'm sure that will change things.

 

[Graviton]

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

What "truth"? That building higher-age GBs is an exploit or a problem? That's your subjective opinion, it's not an objective truth. It's no more "truth" than saying you don't like anchovies, and proposing that the world stop producing and packaging anchovies for everybody else. And then yelling at everybody who likes anchovies because they're too stupid to understand the "truth".

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.

An exercise in futility since it will never be adopted since its a self-evidently bad idea based on nothing but one guy's flawed perspective. If you want to discuss how it would impact game balance and other issues, do it in Forge Hall.

 

[Freshmeboy]

So you admit that your proposal would cause a game imbalance....? But that isn't enough to pi ss people off so they quit....? Oh my, you are indeed clueless and blinded by the love of your own proposal...filled with airy comments about 'seeing the Truth' and 'prime directives'. You want Truth...? You can't handle the Truth....! INNO designed the game this way to let players gain this edge because it makes HUGE STINKING GOBS of MONEY.....contrary to whatever altruistic ideal YOU may have, INNO is in this business to make money short and long term. Future GB acquisition is part of their plan since it's initial design. Whatever changes they make should be in added ages- not what exists presently. Why...? Because alienating your long term revenue base is a terrible business decision. And decreasing your short term revenue base is foolhardy. This would have been better in Forge Hall as a debate subject about the merits of the existing system, what could be done in the future, etc. but as a proposal, it's probably one of the worst I've seen on these forums.....Massive NO vote here

 

[Volodya]

In the tips you see when you open your city. On the official wiki. In tutorials on the forum.

We are having a discussion here with someone who has very little knowledge of the game, has heard something, doesn't understand it, but decides something has to be done about it cause it is ABUSE!

For God's sake. He thinks the do not suggest list from the EN server is a Prime Derective!

His first proposal was to trade 4 BP's of a GB for one of an other random GB. His second is that you are not allowed to place those GB's you might get.

Does that make sense to you?

Oh, we're in complete agreement that this guy has some really basic and bizarre misunderstandings about pretty much everything involved in FoE. I've never seen anyone claim the dnsl is a rule book. Ive literally never put anyone on ignore, not on this forum or anywhere else. There's a first time for everything though.

I've never noticed however Inno actively, explicitly advising players to for instance build an Arc in LMA. Maybe I just missed it. I doubt that, but I'll watch for it.

 

[DeletedUser33179]

Thank you for posting what you view as the main prime directive for your argument, the DNSL from another country's forum - and for pointing out that bullet #1 justifies it all...

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.

Lets see which way of playing FoE is "easier", and therefore wrong (as your agrument states).

I spend lots of time in the forum & wikia over the past few months, reading & learning about the varied mechanics of game. All the while, I build my cities while paying close attention to optimizing everything to fit the play styles that interest me - tavern, city layout, building size & stats, gathering blueprints for every GB I'll ever want, placement on the tech tree, recurring quests, friends list, playing GE (can complete level 4 in all of them), bidding for spots on others GBs, & on and on. Doing so, and without using diamonds or being in a guild, I steadily accumulate plenty of goods/fps, and then trade for the higher GBs I've learned will compliment & enhance my style of play. The other, lower/mid level GBs I obtain early myself, trading goods for goods only (again without diamonds or guildmates). All this time, hard work & skilled implementation of several layers of varying strategies -- exactly what the game was meant to be by decree of that forum moderator.

On the other hand, we have your game-world vision - remove any ability to go beyond one's era in GBs. By dramatically stunting the growth of those who would challenge themselves & work hard, it effectively minimizes the need for you & many others to do any of the above mentioned things to a high-skill level of any degree. You all have it easy now. Better ranking in points in the hood. Less plundering of your city. GvG fights easier. And on and on. So very few folks who can now get farther & stronger & bigger than you all as you sit where you are growing hapazardly (if at all anymore). Really, why bother with all that stuff, as the game can be just as good played this simpler, less varied method. Right?

Oops! That breaks the Bullet Point #1 Prime Directive.

My vote for this proposal is NO

 

[Agent327]

Oh, we're in complete agreement that this guy has some really basic and bizarre misunderstandings about pretty much everything involved in FoE. I've never seen anyone claim the dnsl is a rule book. Ive literally never put anyone on ignore, not on this forum or anywhere else. There's a first time for everything though.

He is posting the same stuff on the EN forum. I think he desperately needs attention.

I've never noticed however Inno actively, explicitly advising players to for instance build an Arc in LMA. Maybe I just missed it. I doubt that, but I'll watch for it.

Not in those words, but they do tell you how you can get BP's and how you can get them from an age other than yours.

 

[DeletedUser35351]

Like you I find it odd that you can theoretically build the most advanced GB in the game when you are in the Iron Age if you want to. Picturing a Spearmen standing guard over the Kraken gives me a chuckle. While I probably won't ever do it because of my style of play I see no reason why someone else should not be able to build any GB they want whenever they can. You should be able to play the game the way you like even if some of the ways it is played by others are just strange to you.

It has very little impact on you if you are in the Middle Ages with just buildings of that age or lower and everyone else in your hood has an Arc or a Blue Galaxy or every other GB above them. The only way it can possibly effect you is if you are constantly attacked and plundered and GB's aren't required for that to happen anyway.

Yes I do concur that the direct effect upon another player would only come about by the lose-lose scenario of plundering but the indirect effect is that one person gets a decided advantage over another -- which is one of no-no prime directives that I was referring to. Personally I could careless myself. I was just going put a proposal in place and read those prime directives of what not to propose and the why you should propose them. Which then got me to thinking about this extremely imbalanced issue that totally contradicts those prime directives and so decided to make that a proposal. Just to see what kind of response I would get, and to speak truth to the community at large. Of course I got mostly the kind of response I was expecting -- abysmally poor but then basic human nature is what basic human will be.

 

[DeletedUser35351]

Thank you for posting what you view as the main prime directive for your argument, the DNSL from another country's forum - and for pointing out that bullet #1 justifies it all...

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.

Lets see which way of playing FoE is "easier", and therefore wrong (as your agrument states).

I spend lots of time in the forum & wikia over the past few months, reading & learning about the varied mechanics of game. All the while, I build my cities while paying close attention to optimizing everything to fit the play styles that interest me - tavern, city layout, building size & stats, gathering blueprints for every GB I'll ever want, placement on the tech tree, recurring quests, friends list, playing GE (can complete level 4 in all of them), bidding for spots on others GBs, & on and on. Doing so, and without using diamonds or being in a guild, I steadily accumulate plenty of goods/fps, and then trade for the higher GBs I've learned will compliment & enhance my style of play. The other, lower/mid level GBs I obtain early myself, trading goods for goods only (again without diamonds or guildmates). All this time, hard work & skilled implementation of several layers of varying strategies -- exactly what the game was meant to be by decree of that forum moderator.

On the other hand, we have your game-world vision - remove any ability to go beyond one's era in GBs. By dramatically stunting the growth of those who would challenge themselves & work hard, it effectively minimizes the need for you & many others to do any of the above mentioned things to a high-skill level of any degree. You all have it easy now. Better ranking in points in the hood. Less plundering of your city. GvG fights easier. And on and on. So very few folks who can now get farther & stronger & bigger than you all as you sit where you are growing hapazardly (if at all anymore). Really, why bother with all that stuff, as the game can be just as good played this simpler, less varied method. Right?

Oops! That breaks the Bullet Point #1 Prime Directive.

My vote for this proposal is NO

Okay that is actually a rather interesting view point and opinion. Of course your lead off statement about about using another country's forum seems to show your extreme bias. Especially since its that same foreign country where this game actually comes from both in the past and going forward (at least for now). The US is just a mirror of that foreign countries game. So when looking for the best material for using as a source it is always best to go to the actual source most of the time. Thus making your slanted initial comment totally meaningless which can only mean you are trying to shore up a very weak stance.

As to the first paragraph I to do all those things that you mention and probably a bit more do to past experience with game designing. And I have two cities my first one which I am developing as I began in the best manner available to me with all aspects of the game (exploits included) and my EN game (which I began because the EN forum had a message I wanted to add to and eventually did) which I have now decided to develop using no exploits but using a very similar strategy in development. Of course I cannot use the exact same one since using the exploits greatly changes the strategy almost from get go.

However your second paragraph (perhaps due to the lack of examples maybe) is pure opinion and conjecture. No solid facts whatsoever as to how it would adversely affect the game both short-term and long term. You mention it would stunt the growth of "hard" working players by curtailing their ability to use an exploit that promotes laziness -- seems like an oxymoron to me. As to it minimizing the need for say myself or others to work hard -- I do not see it at all -- in fact do you realize the first players the ones that ventured where no one had ventured before played this game exactly that way. Now that they are established players and this exploit exists virtually no one seems even interested in trying to do things in that manner. So tell me are you saying those original players that paved the way for people like you to take the lazy route are inferior players as you basically seem to imply anyone thinking that not using the lazy-persons exploit would be?

BTW as you can see extremely bias'd slanted verbiage can paint the conversation into just about any light you want but it still does not actually hide the truth if one cares to look carefully at what is being said.

In short your argument holds as much water as a colander please either try again and/or use quality unbiased examples to support your opinion.

 

[DeletedUser35475]

Yes I do concur that the direct effect upon another player would only come about by the lose-lose scenario of plundering but the indirect effect is that one person gets a decided advantage over another -- which is one of no-no prime directives that I was referring to. Personally I could careless myself. I was just going put a proposal in place and read those prime directives of what not to propose and the why you should propose them. Which then got me to thinking about this extremely imbalanced issue that totally contradicts those prime directives and so decided to make that a proposal. Just to see what kind of response I would get, and to speak truth to the community at large. Of course I got mostly the kind of response I was expecting -- abysmally poor but then basic human nature is what basic human will be.

Your game is not effected at all by what anyone else does, except plunder, so what advantage do they get over anyone else if they build every GB in the game while they are in the Iron Age?

Anyone who wants to build a GB above their age can do it, all it takes is a single print and $150.00 on your Visa card to build the Arc regardless of your current age. It's not like the game makes it hard to do. If you don't like the idea of building GB ahead of time don't do it. It's your city and you should build it the way you like. Others should do it the way they like.

I knew people who use to play Doom in god mode. I used to ask them why and they because they could. It seemed to take a lot away from the game for me but it wasn't my game they player, it was theirs. This game function is no different. People do it because they can.

 

[Graviton]

However your second paragraph (perhaps due to the lack of examples maybe) is pure opinion and conjecture.

Where are your "quality and unbiased examples" that getting higher-age GBs is a problem? Come on, man. Enough.

 

[Salsuero]

Funny how he completely skipped what I said because it made too much sense.

 

[DeletedUser26965]

You know what's more "exploitative", "abusive", "cheating" and "lazy"? buying diamonds p.e.r.i.o.d.

 

[DeletedUser35351]

View attachment 10460

Where are your "quality and unbiased examples" that getting higher-age GBs is a problem? Come on, man. Enough.

Your analogy is about as accurate as your statements which are horrendously incorrect or totally inane.

As for examples I think I have provided quite a few but to humor your chanllengedness...
Let us look at The Kraken where one IA city possess this and one does not. Obviously the individual with The Kraken is going to have an advantage in direct PvP as well as an advantage when dealing with any combat situation (GE, Campaign, or GvG). And that is just one unbiased example that just about anyone could have figured out. Well I guess anyone but you. So in your own words -- Enough -- with your lame comments be intelligent or be quiet.

 

[Salsuero]

unbiased

 

[DeletedUser35351]

"...I can't see a huge issue that we should have tackled differently."
-InnoGames Senior Product Manager Stefan Walter
https://www.pocketgamer.biz/interview/66138/innogames-on-the-evolution-of-forge-of-empires/

And as it pertains to player suggestions
"...listening to them is one key factor, but also having a vision in place within the boundaries we have - being realistic, having a strategy..."

But you go ahead and triple down now on the rhetoric, I'm sure that will change things.

Okay how exactly does this back your position? The first one is an extremely broad statement about Forge of Empires in totality including things like taking it to mobile as such this issue would be but a drop in a bucket and I would highly doubt that it would have come up in that interview.

The second comment actually supports my points -- in that those prime directives about game proposals are directly in line with this comment.

I do not have to triple down on anything as you simple present nothing of substance.