DeletedUser10415
Having two or three rogues in very specific defensive armies used on occasion can be effective, but in general rogues are useless for defense.
Yes, but you cant "beat" him.....plus why would you want to bother?
Are you talking about having a good enough defence to stop him winning that fight...........or are you talking about being able to beat HIS defending army?
Whichever way round it is............you still have higher troops than he has..........and you cant beat him in either scenario. And it hasnt anything to do with Rogues.
Rogues are useful as ATTACKING troops......
Lets say you get some rogues tomorrow.....how would that help you??
Yes, we know as you have said on every thread.probably in both cases. I tried to come up a better defense against his attacking rouges. On the bright side the player account appears to be banned by INNOgames. Yesterday morning i found out his city is gone and only Late middle ages townhall and Tree of Love remains. I was shocked because all the GB's and watchfires he had was gone too. The hood merge came and went and had no change in the merge at least for me. I checked the rankings for towers, the player's name was removed also. Now i can maximized my goods productions once again. I.AM.UR.KING has fallen, Long Live the Empire
Unjustifiable Conclusion: It’s better for everybody if no one plunders. But since that ain’t gonna happen you should be plundering.
Unjustifiable Conclusion: It’s better for everybody if no one plunders. But since that ain’t gonna happen you should be plundering.
My reply is: who cares what is better for everybody. It is better for ME if I plunder, so why wouldn't I do it?
Because what is better for society as a whole can ultimately better you. For example, when you plunder someone's house, you gain whatever coins the house contains. If this house is lesser of value than the lowest value producing house in your city, then ultimately you got a worse deal than if the same person you plundered motivated one of your houses (doubling its production output). So you see, you would have been actually better off had you not plundered than had you actually did (in terms of earnings efficiency).
My personal opinion on plundering: I don't really care if it happens to me. I've got so much gold, I couldn't possibly spend it all. If someone else wants to plunder it, they can go ahead and take it.
Thats all fine and dandy, but the majority of plunderers want your goods.
But....attacking them...(which means they might not Aid me) I get Tower Points AND I can plunder AND the chance of a Blueprints. Tower Points = Medals = Expansions.
Because what is better for society as a whole can ultimately better you. For example, when you plunder someone's house, you gain whatever coins the house contains. If this house is lesser of value than the lowest value producing house in your city, then ultimately you got a worse deal than if the same person you plundered motivated one of your houses (doubling its production output). So you see, you would have been actually better off had you not plundered than had you actually did (in terms of earnings efficiency).
My personal opinion on plundering: I don't really care if it happens to me. I've got so much gold, I couldn't possibly spend it all. If someone else wants to plunder it, they can go ahead and take it.
Then it is too bad that this game does not reflect society as a whole. In this game, if no one plundered then obviously things would get better for the plunderee, but that doesn't make it better as a whole. I can take Player A's goods by force, or trade with that person, in which case it may cost me an FP. I would also have to put up a bunch of goods buildings, which I don't normally do (I have some up right now for the new era, but they won't last longer than the tech tree). If I only aid someone, then I get 20 gold. Anything else I may get from that neighbor I can get cheaper and easier with guildmates and friends.
Also, if everyone plundered, then most people would still have to have goods buildings. You can't assume that because someone plunders they don't have a goods building. You may or may not break even depending on what you plundered and what got plundered from you.
I disagree that not plundering is better for FOE society. Of course there are more goods for me to take since not everyone plunders, but in this game, what happens in the rest of your hood has little to no effect on the other players. You can aid them or you can attack them (and plunder) or you can do nothing at all. Those are your options. I occasionally put a few FP into a hoodies GB if I think there is a chance I can poach some points, but otherwise my FP's stay in the guild.
Then are my plunderers going to be disappointed. :laugh:My goods production is on a 24 hour schedule, with the completion time set for a specific time I would almost always be at my computer to collect. It would be nearly impossible for them to actually collect goods from me. So for the most part, they just take my useless coins.
I see, and indeed that is a good point. Though PVP medals have lost their luster with me ever since I got the Mad Scientist's Lab. I've been pumping out Medals 'round the clock. In a week, I can triple the amount I would normally win through the PVP tower.
Ultimately, I agree with plundering. To those complaining about plunderers, just set your goods production on a similar schedule to what I have. All they can take at that point is useless coins.
So then what happens when you try to plunder people like me who have goods production on a strict 24 hour schedule? 99% of your attacks against me would end up fruitless. You'd have to try to figure out when the exact collection time occurs, which of course is highly unprobable. Therefore, plundering for goods is just as pointless as aiding someone.
So then what happens when you try to plunder people like me who have goods production on a strict 24 hour schedule? 99% of your attacks against me would end up fruitless. You'd have to try to figure out when the exact collection time occurs, which of course is highly unprobable. Therefore, plundering for goods is just as pointless as aiding someone.
As stated so eloquently by Ruby, 0% of my attacks would be fruitless. You still contribute to my point total, you still contribute battle points to my tower which gets me medals which gets me expansions, and then there is the bonus opportunity to possibly get your goods if I am lucky. I get that rather than 20 gold and an aid from you (which I may still get anyway) that would probably be useless because of my full friends list and large guild. I may not get your goods, but I find that the most hatemail I get is from the player who is religious on collections and missed one day so I got something. Now they tell me how lucky I was to get anything and it won't happen again. No matter what, I am still better off attacking and trying to plunder you than mindlessly aiding you every day.
No. Plundering is the taking of goods or other items from a neighbours town after a successful attack........Attacking someone doesnt = Plundering. Its a choice.Then you're not plundering. Plundering is attacking a person for the expressed goal of stealing their goods (as was defined by the OP). So if you're just attacking me for points, they you might not even use the "Plunder" action! That's what the OP was saying. Ultimately, plundering is inefficient.
Then you're not plundering. Plundering is attacking a person for the expressed goal of stealing their goods (as was defined by the OP). So if you're just attacking me for points, they you might not even use the "Plunder" action! That's what the OP was saying. Ultimately, plundering is inefficient.
Let me toss an ethical aspect into this discussion:
Does the player community consider a player that plunders non-good (coin or supplies) differently than someone who goes after goods?