DeletedUser26965
Oh, that reminds me I do have a proposal tailored just for you it seems Sassy Frassy's Neighborhood Merge
Last edited by a moderator:
-
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:
Algona
Well-Known Member
Why I don't like this:
based solely on the second most important aspect of combat: the bonuses, ignores the most important aspectL the Era of the troops.
no prevention against players of vastly different Eras being in the same hood.
rewards players who choose to not build their city and capabilities by giving them easier opponents to attack and defend against.
punishes players who choose to build their city and capabilities by giving them tougher opponents to attack and defend against.
encourages players to stay below PvP tech even longer to prepare
----------
We have 3+ years experience of a hood shuffler that does not use tech as the primary sort for hoods. The results?
The hood shuffler was the most complained about aspect of the game on these boards.
The hood shuffler was changed to the current system and the results?
This thread went 4 months without a comment. Folks do complain about campers blowing them up, but nowhere near as frequent as we used to see complaints about being attacked by higher Era players under the old system.
We changed from a system where players had the overwhelming advantage of superior troops to a situation where players have to invest copious game Resources (months of time and thousands of FPS) into development in order to have an overwhelming advantage.
You want to change the current system you are gonna have to come up with something a lot stronger then what I quoted, cause I'm damned sure I don't want to go back to anything near the old system.
DeletedUser26965
I said A/D values which I was thinking would include units as well a players personal bonus, I mean it's kind of a given really though I'm sure there could be some issues regarding unit abilities that would also have to be worked out.
Quite the opposite in most cases I would think, however I can see if someone in IA let's say a fighter has a +100% A/D boost, Kraken, A/O, RH's, 90/100 city defense, etc. could possibly be placed in with higher age players of lesser personal strength since they have units of higher individual strength. But I can't see it going to the stretches of the old system too far anyway, I mean it all depends on how strong the player is that will keep it competitive for them, that's the whole point here.
I'm not exactly sure how, a player like that would still be at the bottom of the spectrum, still be able to be attacked, still be able to be plundered.
I'm not sure why you see competition as a punishment, the hoods would still be a spectrum of players, just not as wide a spectrum as now.
Why? If they move up in class it's simply more incremental so I think it would actually encourage a dynamic of build up as you go along rather than camp forever like we have now. As I mentioned, there exists now a futile element when one looks up the hood and sees they have no chance the further up they look, in my opinion it's that dynamic that encourages camping forever because if your hood always has a higher end of players you're always incentivized to stay longer to build up to them. If you reduce that spectrum you can build up to the top faster as you can "see the finish line" so to speak, it wouldn't look futile to those on the lower end of the spectrum, they would be encouraged they could get there as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Algona
Well-Known Member
That changes things. recommend you explicitly state that should you go forward with this idea.
How do you calculate for a players troops capability? The most advanced og any given type no matter what Era if they are part way through tech? What about players who gain troops above their Era through CMap?
One small point, since AO only works on same Era troops, how do you fit it into evaluating hood placements that may span multiple Eras?
There are certain Eras where the troops are vastly superior to the Era below. For example IndA light and heavy get ranged attacks but have essentially the same base stats as their ColA counterparts. AA is vastly superior to anything in PME but stats wise not significantly stronger. I donlt know about fighting beyond CE, but it seems a lot of folks think some lower Era troops are superior to Higher Era troops.
My point in that is that a player can manipulate their A/D totals to get very good advantages against lower Era players with higher cobmat bonuses. I donlt know how easy this would be, but no one predicted that camping would turn out to be a dominant strategy when the current hood system was adopted.
Your idea increases competition. Anything that increases competition will result in more camping pre PvP where it;s easier to build up capabilities because you can't;get plundered.
Because you don't get as much plunder, as many Medals, lose more troops and do get plundered more often. Call it whatever you want, that seems like punishment to me.
Just as the 'slacker' gets plundered less often, gets more plunder, medals, and loses fewer troops. Call that whatever you want, but it sure seems like rewards to me.
DeletedUser26965
Well, I'm not going forward with anything really, just making a suggestion, either they'll see it and consider it or they won't, not too concerned either way really.
I'm sure those and many other considerations would have to be worked out in development but seeing as I'm not at IG's testing facility I can't possibly answer to every given scenario. You still have a range to work with like it is now, it's not like trying to make it a completely flat competition, and of course no system is perfect.
Well, who knows really, we're all just speculating here as to the what the effects of any such a system would be, as I started with I think it would have positive effects for the game as a whole. Would you, icarusethan and Sassy Frassy have as many bottom end players to faceroll? Nope, but if that's what you're advocating for that's fine, I'm just going more towards a route with what I see in real life competitions is all.
Algona
Well-Known Member
There's always gonna be someone at the bottom of the hood.
So yeah, I will. I may not be smart enough to figure out the best way to game a new system, nut folks like you are. I am smart enough to lesten to folk smart enough to figure it out.
Meanwhile there are a ton of lazy and stupid players who won't figure it out. They'll put themselves in the same place they are now, at the bottoms of their hoods. Where pretty much every regular in this forum will still be able to pound the snot out of them.
The current system has a singular merit that no other system has. It's wonderfully simple to understand. Which means any player who does a little thinking can see the answers.
Your idea? Just means more players confused on how to not be a victim of it.
You've been here long enough to see the disastrous results when INNO accepts a half baked idea from the players. .
So yeah, I will. I may not be smart enough to figure out the best way to game a new system, nut folks like you are. I am smart enough to lesten to folk smart enough to figure it out.
Meanwhile there are a ton of lazy and stupid players who won't figure it out. They'll put themselves in the same place they are now, at the bottoms of their hoods. Where pretty much every regular in this forum will still be able to pound the snot out of them.
The current system has a singular merit that no other system has. It's wonderfully simple to understand. Which means any player who does a little thinking can see the answers.
Your idea? Just means more players confused on how to not be a victim of it.
You've been here long enough to see the disastrous results when INNO accepts a half baked idea from the players. .
DeletedUser26965
Oh I agree it's more complex of a system but I'm not sure why that would necessarily mean then more players would become confused on how not to be a victim, I assume by "victim" you mean plundered, since all the same recommendations apply like the often mentioned "collect on time". I mean sure it's easy now to understand that if you stay in IA locked behind PvP for two years an do nothing but power level all your military GB's and get a whole bunch of city defense, etc. you'll get to a point where you're essentially untouchable and can't be a "victim" and if that's the kind of game they want nothing I can say will change that.
My hope is though that is not the kind of game they want because as I said that promotes extended camping, discourages lower spectrum players from even trying because they can't see the goal post, etc. But, yes, they'll always be the "slackers" as you call them or perhaps they're just casual city players or any variety of Playstyle Variants of FoE. The game has quite the variety of players that can be considered beyond just the extended camper who wants to faceroll IA forever.
DeletedUser29726
My main concern with trying to make it even 'fairer' is that it'll destroy the utility of trading in hoods even further in the name of 'balancing' an activity that is relatively rare to begin with. I don't recall the last time a top OF player has been worth trading with for me. Occasionally some of those folks whose names i don't recognise who just play the game are.
DeletedUser26965
besides the point really, and I can't see this destroying trading and all that was pretty well covered when this change was made. Trading is so relative to each player that without any real data on the overall picture, which none of us has, it's really impossible to say with any accuracy what has become of trading since and it mainly just becomes speculation. Apparently it can't be that bad as people still progress through the ages, get GB's etc.
DeletedUser26965
Quit poisoning the well and provide something useful for once. It's not just about "mega players" so quit trying to pigeonhole me into a position I don't hold.You could apply this same logic to your "problem" of having mega players in certain hoods.
Algona
Well-Known Member
Not really. Hood placement manipulation has moved way up in plunder mitigation effectiveness since the change to the hood shuffler and the addition of DCs. It's simple to understand and see the effects of changing your hood placement.
Your idea? Hood placement will still be important, but how are folks going to know what to change?
Endless complaints, endless questions, and more unhappy folk. And no answer to the question of how do I get out from the bottom of my hood?
That has much less to do with gettiing plundered and a lot more to do with the fact that the major prizes in GE and DC do not scale with Era.
Seems odd to me you objecting to a certain play style considering the next thing you say espousing the variety of play styles:
I read it. It;s a right scholarly work. Puts down clearly something that most long term posters know, that there are a lot of ways to play this game. Which is one of the best parts of this game.
But just because folks choose a certain play style, does that play style deserve to have rules changed to support that play style at the expense of other play styles?
Campers evolved as an adaptation to changes in the rules environment, they are a successful mutation. Just as successful,as GvG, RQ, DC, Diamond, and GE farmers and Plunderers have adapted to the changing rules of the game, That you don't like some way the game is played is fine.
But just because folks don't like a certain play style, does that play style deserve to have rules changed to punish that play style?
----------
Oh, and you don't get to say this:
And turn around and say this:
Reject it all or accept it all, but no cherry picking your anecdotal data.
----------
Who deserves more consideration for rules changes? The people who have demonstrated they put effort into the game or the people who have demonstrated they won't put effort into the game?
DeletedUser26965
I'm not sure what you mean by hood placement manipulation, plunder mitigation etc. The same basic principles apply. How do you get out of the bottom of the hood? Same as you do now except with this system it's by being at the top of your class like boxing, reach a certain weight and you go into that class, you can be at the top weight for that class or the bottom weight for that class but once you outweigh that class you move up to the next class. However that's structured would all be handled by developers of course. Complaints are not what I'm seeking to address with this idea, though I'm sure they can be related I suppose. People always complain, not sure why my idea has to be contingent upon potential complaint level.
I'm not sure what your point is here. I was addressing your point of being a victim but you're taking it to mean some judgement against camping or something? Huh? call me confused on that one.
I'm not sure where you're getting this from. My dislike that you may be picking up on is with the system that IG apparently wants to fix, their efforts, this hood change/PvP lock, if genuine, as I say fall short in my opinion. I say if they're going to do it at all they might as well do it in accordance with what many other games/sports do and my suggestion is inline with that and not against anyone out of some dislike of how they play.
Okay perhaps I should have restated the qualifier I first used;
Thought that was all pretty clear from the start also when I reiterated with;
So again, not really sure where you're going with this. Saying phrases like "cherry picking" and "anecdotal" don't really apply to the conversation and seems like you're using them to try to prove something rather than just genuinely conversing about the topic like you started out doing.
I suppose that would be a question for IG.
DeletedUser30900
You are so lost if you put me into a group with Stephen and Algona, I don't want to change the current system because I'm happy about it and getting a good amount of extra points and goods because of it. Those two, at the same time, is actually with you about the fair play but they have doubts about creating a better system. But I guess you just simply put anyone who goes against your idea together and attack them as a group. It's understandable.
Algona
Well-Known Member
Allow me to clarify my position. Hood position is critical to preventing casual plundering. Nothing will stop a determined plunderer. Players that put more effort into the game will be more likely to succeed no matter the hood shuffler, players that don't put in as much effort will be more likely to be where they always are, at the bottoms of their hoods.
You suggest an incomplete idea poorly worded with no substantial recommendations as the basis for INNO changing the hood shuffler to prevent people getting plundered by same Era players who have camped and develop[ed their capabilities all within the rules of the game as is.
----------
I disagree with your idea for the following reasons.
INNO screws up way too many imprecise player presented ideas. This alone is more then enough reason to be against your mass of meaninglessness which you conveniently refuse to clarify.
Nobody understood how the previous hood shuffler worked. There was no way for a player to reliably influence their hood position. Complaints about the hood shuffler were the number one complaints on these forums.
The current hood shuffler is easily understood. All players can chpose to easily influence there hood position. The number of complaints about the current shuffler are an order of magnitude less the the previous shuffler and due almost entirely to not understanding that RP has nothing to do with which hood a player is in, merely the position in the hood.
Your idea will return the players to a state of ignorance. Once again players will not be able to reliably influence theor hood position, once again the number of player complaints will escalate.
The current hood system rewards players for putting effort into their city. Your idea punishes them and rewards players who do not put effort into their city.
----------
Lastly, you don't get to cherry pick what anecdotal evidence you get to use and exclude. All or none.
You will continue to deny, not understand, argue, or whatever word games you feel like playing, but it all boils down to for some reason you want to argue in favor of a piss poor idea that based on what you;ve said to this point has no merit. I see no reason to argue against a piss poor idea that you have not even tried to demonstrate does anything good for the game.
Or as you put it a few minutes ago you should:,
DeletedUser26965
whatever, whenever you feel like going back to genuine discussion let me know.
Algona
Well-Known Member
Statement assumes facts not in evidence, to wit, you had at any point engaged in a substantive discussion of the merits of your idea.
Which is odd, because when you are rationale, when you do talk turkey, when you bring data, you're irrefutable. You demonstrate that constantly.
You also constantly want to play the word games you've been playing this entire exchange that don't do anything useful
So yeah,I;d love to find out and discuss why you think this is a good idea, but since that does not appear to be what you want to do, then carry on.
DeletedUser26965
lol, okay, it's that kind of thing is when I get dismissive, our exchange I thought at first was genuine then to me it began to go off the rails with your "cherry picking" "anecdotal" comment, then it seems to me you went full on hog so I gave the only proper response, but like I said once you want to get back to genuine discussion and stop acting like you're in a debate I'll be here.
DeletedUser26965
I'm way beyond that at this point, you can keep thinking whatever you believe, doesn't relly matterI see. So your posts about players in IA with 100/100 attack/defense, AO and Kraken was just a red herring to distract us? Yeah right. You get awful dismissive of other people's comments, while acting like anything you say is gospel. Convenient.
DeletedUser34910
Okay, new player question here...please bear with me
How does your ranking in a hood affect your ability to win an attack? Is this just based on the assumption that if your ranking is higher then you have better attack, defense, etc? Or does your ranking actually influence your outcome? I hope I made my question clear...
I've been playing less than two months and have 54k points in IA, and for attack GBs so far I have Zeus at level 8 and CoA at level 3 (most in my hood have 2 Spears as defense and their only GB is an Oracle...quite boring but very lucrative for me)
I aid everyone when in a new hood the first day, then whoever doesn't aid back gets plundered every day after that. I'm 6th in my hood and am 50K points below #5, 340K points below #4, and 2.65M (really...) below #1. I had no trouble successfully attacking #5 but I didn't even bother with 4 and above. I have been attacked a number of times but only 2 players defeated my defense, and even then only one of them was able to plunder me because I usually collect on time (they got 18 coins lol).
Is losing my units the worst that can happen to me by attacking the higher point players, assuming I collect on time? They can attack me back but there won't be anything good, if at all, available to them...
All the thoughts and things.
How does your ranking in a hood affect your ability to win an attack? Is this just based on the assumption that if your ranking is higher then you have better attack, defense, etc? Or does your ranking actually influence your outcome? I hope I made my question clear...
I've been playing less than two months and have 54k points in IA, and for attack GBs so far I have Zeus at level 8 and CoA at level 3 (most in my hood have 2 Spears as defense and their only GB is an Oracle...quite boring but very lucrative for me)
I aid everyone when in a new hood the first day, then whoever doesn't aid back gets plundered every day after that. I'm 6th in my hood and am 50K points below #5, 340K points below #4, and 2.65M (really...) below #1. I had no trouble successfully attacking #5 but I didn't even bother with 4 and above. I have been attacked a number of times but only 2 players defeated my defense, and even then only one of them was able to plunder me because I usually collect on time (they got 18 coins lol).
Is losing my units the worst that can happen to me by attacking the higher point players, assuming I collect on time? They can attack me back but there won't be anything good, if at all, available to them...
All the thoughts and things.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser27889
I am... so confused. Rp... meaning rank points? Then zero. Your points are nothing but a show off they do nothing to help you. There was a time guilds were ranked by member points, that time is long over. Though high points work as a deterrent to being attacked as often I have found.
Your GBs seem very good for your place in game.
Yes losing units and bringing on the wrath of your hood are the only negative things that can happen to you if you attack and fail.
I hope this is what you were talking about, RP isn't such a common acronym I hear in this game often but that is the only thing I could figure you meant in this context.