Plundering rationale

Graviton

Well-Known Member
As a relatively new player ...
To be brutally honest, as a relatively new player you should try first to understand and adapt to the game rather than assuming it's "broken" and lobbying to have it fundamentally changed. As a new player of Monopoly did you think it was "broken" that you could end up losing turns in jail? As a new player of chess did you think the pawns "broken" because they could only move one square?
 

Falconwing

Well-Known Member
So what then could Inno's rationale possibly be to continue with such a broken system?
The rational behind it is simple. This game is, for the most part, based off history. All through history, attackers have plundered the cities they attack, if they just don't take it over and keep it. Vikings didn't just come by and kill people, they took their stuff too. Nothing broken about that.

The other part is that there are dedicated campers in the game. Fun solution to that part would be to force players to move on after a certain time.
I think one of the larger mistakes Inno made was GB's. Not the buildings themselves, but allowing people to build them at a lower age than the GB. Camping would never have been a thing, or at least the problem it is. I enjoy my higher age GB's, but from a game standpoint, it didn't improve the game. I remember I had a Cape Canaveral in EMA. I hadn't discovered electricity, or paper yet, but I managed to build an Apollo rocket. Couldn't see where I wanted to go, didn't have an Observatory at that time.
 

mangelwurzel

Active Member
I think one of the larger mistakes Inno made was GB's. Not the buildings themselves, but allowing people to build them at a lower age than the GB. Camping would never have been a thing, or at least the problem it is.
I don't think camping is a problem. There's no "goal" in this game - we each have to play in a way that makes it fun for us. If people want to stay longer in Iron Age, or Future Era, or wherever, why not? Sure, they're intentionally cutting themselves off from the bleeding edge of the game, but if that's how they want to spend their time and money, what's wrong with it?
 

Emberguard

Senior Ingame Moderator
I think one of the larger mistakes Inno made was GB's. Not the buildings themselves, but allowing people to build them at a lower age than the GB. Camping would never have been a thing, or at least the problem it is. I enjoy my higher age GB's, but from a game standpoint, it didn't improve the game. I remember I had a Cape Canaveral in EMA. I hadn't discovered electricity, or paper yet, but I managed to build an Apollo rocket. Couldn't see where I wanted to go, didn't have an Observatory at that time.
Or alternatively if they had restricted GBs to Lvl 10 cap until reaching that age. That would have changed a few things in how players approach the game. Maybe the emphasis would be more towards get Arc asap to lvl 10 and then get to Future?

The GBs themselves are awesome to have ahead of time. But it does skew the game balance and can potentially stunt a players growth not in a resource manner but in a ability to adapt manner due to just how advanced GBs are when placing below the introduced age.
 

jsc29

Member
Well, personally, plunder is an important part of my advancement strategy and resource for me to evolve my city. Take this morning, for example. I had a full set of goods for doing negotiations in GBG, except Silk, I was missing silk. By plundering a few worthless lowbies I was able to quickly gather 60 Silk and continue on to have a successful GBG morning that netted me 50 forge points. As for the suppliers of my goods, they are just low time casuals who probably play the game on their phone and will quit in a few weeks when they get bored with it. So, basically the Silk is being put to much better use with me, a high activity player who buys a lot of diamonds, the kind of player that makes Innogames successful. There is a transfer of wealth from the worthless gazelles to valuable lion players. When I was a newbie like you I never got plundered because I always collected on time, and if you were not a gazelle, you would be doing the same.

Also, you should be aware that the game records from your mic and has AI to recognize the sounds of sobbing and weeping, which is stored to the servers. So, when you cry over your plundered Winter Train, it gets recorded and the devs like to listen to it later.
 

Farfle the smelly

Well-Known Member
Well, personally, plunder is an important part of my advancement strategy and resource for me to evolve my city. Take this morning, for example. I had a full set of goods for doing negotiations in GBG, except Silk, I was missing silk. By plundering a few worthless lowbies I was able to quickly gather 60 Silk and continue on to have a successful GBG morning that netted me 50 forge points. As for the suppliers of my goods, they are just low time casuals who probably play the game on their phone and will quit in a few weeks when they get bored with it. So, basically the Silk is being put to much better use with me, a high activity player who buys a lot of diamonds, the kind of player that makes Innogames successful. There is a transfer of wealth from the worthless gazelles to valuable lion players. When I was a newbie like you I never got plundered because I always collected on time, and if you were not a gazelle, you would be doing the same.

Also, you should be aware that the game records from your mic and has AI to recognize the sounds of sobbing and weeping, which is stored to the servers. So, when you cry over your plundered Winter Train, it gets recorded and the devs like to listen to it later.
So you’re just freeing up that silk so it can be the best possible silk it can be? My, how altruistic you are. ;)
 

Nicholas002

Well-Known Member
Well, personally, plunder is an important part of my advancement strategy and resource for me to evolve my city. Take this morning, for example. I had a full set of goods for doing negotiations in GBG, except Silk, I was missing silk. By plundering a few worthless lowbies I was able to quickly gather 60 Silk and continue on to have a successful GBG morning that netted me 50 forge points.
If you are spending your goods down to zero, and rely on a neighbor you can attack, happening to have exactly the goods buildings you need, and those being ready to plunder when you need them to be able to do GBG, you are doing something wrong.

sure plundering is fun, but if you fully rely on such a variable income source for your city to be successful, you may want to focus more on increasing your other income sources (i.e. RQs, market profit, etc.)
 

Emberguard

Senior Ingame Moderator
Well, personally, plunder is an important part of my advancement strategy and resource for me to evolve my city. Take this morning, for example.
Agreed it’s a viable strategy and well worth doing

By plundering a few worthless lowbies I was able to quickly gather 60 Silk and continue on to have a successful GBG morning that netted me 50 forge points. As for the suppliers of my goods, they are just low time casuals who probably play the game on their phone and will quit in a few weeks when they get bored with it. So, basically the Silk is being put to much better use with me, a high activity player who buys a lot of diamonds, the kind of player that makes Innogames successful. There is a transfer of wealth from the worthless gazelles to valuable lion players. When I was a newbie like you I never got plundered because I always collected on time, and if you were not a gazelle, you would be doing the same.
Now here’s where we’ll have to disagree. You may be better at playing the game, that doesn’t make you above them. I would never call the plundered worthless or a lesser player. They’re just a player like you. Some may quit but you won’t know which ones. The game was not designed to be played solo.
 

Falconwing

Well-Known Member
I don't think camping is a problem.
It drives away new players. I had three friends start when I did. All of them bailed when they saw the power discrepancy of the Hoods. I've also met players who played for a bit and give up because of it. It took me two years to get to the point to where I could pound them back, or at least reasonably try, and that's an excessive amount of time to play a game just to get to where you can defend yourself. I've played quite a few PvP games, some more brutal than others, but I've never seen such a difference in the power levels of your opponents since Evony. At least in Evony, attacks took time, you'd get a warning of the incoming hit and you and your Guild could reinforce each other so if a power player did attack a low level guy, the power players in your Guild could send troops for defence. Here, it's just an ass whooping til you can hit back, if ever. Only reason I managed to stick around is cause I spent four years in Evony, 3.5 years in War Commander, and I was just looking for something stress free to kill time with.

Or alternatively if they had restricted GBs to Lvl 10 cap until reaching that age. That would have changed a few things in how players approach the game. Maybe the emphasis would be more towards get Arc asap to lvl 10 and then get to Future?

The GBs themselves are awesome to have ahead of time. But it does skew the game balance and can potentially stunt a players growth not in a resource manner but in a ability to adapt manner due to just how advanced GBs are when placing below the introduced age.
That actually would have been a great solution. Still get the GB's, but if you want to power level them, gotta age up.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
Other side, those that get plundered do nothing about it, but complain.
Disagree yet again.

There have been many suggestions made by many players on how to better balance the system. The fact that you might not agree with the suggestions does not mean suggestions have not been made.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
To be brutally honest, as a relatively new player you should try first to understand and adapt to the game rather than assuming it's "broken" and lobbying to have it fundamentally changed. As a new player of Monopoly did you think it was "broken" that you could end up losing turns in jail? As a new player of chess did you think the pawns "broken" because they could only move one square?
One of the differences between Monopoly and Chess and FoE (at least in this narrow sense) is that, unlike plundering in FoE, success in Monopoly and Chess require at least a modicum of strategy.

Sorry, but "1+7" requires zero strategy.
 

Emberguard

Senior Ingame Moderator
Disagree yet again.

There have been many suggestions made by many players on how to better balance the system. The fact that you might not agree with the suggestions does not mean suggestions have not been made.
I think what Agent is saying by "do nothing about it" is players aren't using what they have available. Not that suggestions haven't been made which potentially shifts the responsibility onto the game to change instead of the player adapting with what they have

There are certainly things which could be tweaked, but if players aren't using what's already there then tweaks aren't going to help them until the player changes how they approach the game
 

Graviton

Well-Known Member
One of the differences between Monopoly and Chess and FoE (at least in this narrow sense) is that, unlike plundering in FoE, success in Monopoly and Chess require at least a modicum of strategy.

Sorry, but "1+7" requires zero strategy.
"Strategy" is not the issue here. People aren't complaining about being plundered because they think attacks should be more strategic. And that has nothing to do with the point I was making with those comparisons.
 

DevaCat

Well-Known Member
One of the differences between Monopoly and Chess and FoE (at least in this narrow sense) is that, unlike plundering in FoE, success in Monopoly and Chess require at least a modicum of strategy.

Sorry, but "1+7" requires zero strategy.
And there you go again. I wondered how long it would take to insert the "1+7" bone you like to gnaw into this thread. Like a broken record.

People are now complaining about being plundered for the same lame reasons they have always complained about being plundered. Rogues are not the problem, even if you seem to believe that their use is the root of all evil in FoE.
 

Agent327

FOE Team
Forum Moderator
Sorry, but "1+7" requires zero strategy.
That is just a mantra used by those that lack the insight about what strategy really is.

Depending on the age you are in, and the attack boost you have there are much better combinations. Coming to that conclusion is strategy. Saying it requires 0 strategy is actually having 0 strategy.
 

Farfle the smelly

Well-Known Member
I agree with the above. The ‘strategy’ is how to get your game balanced and advanced enough to be able to defend yourself WITHOUT rogues. Which I am able to do in my cute little Iron PewVille (or whatever I named it). Do you know how many times I had my butt handed to me simply because I thought rogues were the quick fix? They’re not.

Edit: not to gang up on you. Just thought a younger player should also provide feedback. Hope it helped?
 

Emberguard

Senior Ingame Moderator
I agree with the above. The ‘strategy’ is how to get your game balanced and advanced enough to be able to defend yourself WITHOUT rogues. Which I am able to do in my cute little Iron PewVille (or whatever I named it). Do you know how many times I had my butt handed to me simply because I thought rogues were the quick fix? They’re not.
btw, the 7+1 is usually referring to the attacker.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
And there you go again. I wondered how long it would take to insert the "1+7" bone you like to gnaw into this thread. Like a broken record.

People are now complaining about being plundered for the same lame reasons they have always complained about being plundered. Rogues are not the problem, even if you seem to believe that their use is the root of all evil in FoE.
"There I go again" because it happens to be absolutely true.

And you might try actually addressing an argument I make rather than one you want me to make. Nowhere have I ever said that the problem is with Rogues specifically. I have been more than clear that my problem- and the problem of what appears to be quite a few other posters- is the abysmally-implemented city defense AI in which defending units attack Rogues to the exclusion of any other unit, thus virtually assuring the attacking player of a victory.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
That is just a mantra used by those that lack the insight about what strategy really is.

Depending on the age you are in, and the attack boost you have there are much better combinations. Coming to that conclusion is strategy. Saying it requires 0 strategy is actually having 0 strategy.
To the extent that a player needs to acquire various buildings and other items that boost their ATT rating, I'll concede that does constitute "strategy", though it constitutes patience a good bit more.

As I have said before, I cannot recall the last time my City with 500%+ DEF was beaten by anything other than "1+7". But then I cannot recall the last time my 500%+ DEF City was attacked by someone using other than "1+7".

If, as you claim, these aggressive players are virtual Sun Tzus, then it should be nothing for them to defeat City Defense >>NOT<< using "1+7", right? Then why don't they do so?
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
I think what Agent is saying by "do nothing about it" is players aren't using what they have available. Not that suggestions haven't been made which potentially shifts the responsibility onto the game to change instead of the player adapting with what they have

There are certainly things which could be tweaked, but if players aren't using what's already there then tweaks aren't going to help them until the player changes how they approach the game
The only "tweak" necessary would be to replace the awful City Defense AI with the Continent Map Defense AI.

Believe you me, I recognize that many players, some of whom are fairly advanced in the game, do not use "what they have available". While I am not in endgame in any world on which I play, I am at Future or later and I still see a fair number of players using the default 2 Spearfighter defense for their city. There really is no excuse for not putting up the best defense that a player can (thanks Algona!), but, at the same time, players should know that to rely on your City Defense Army to prevent being Plundered is not as effective as it should- or could- be.

The single change that would go the greatest length to restoring some balance and requiring some degree of strategy in the game is the AI change I've called for literally for years- which is why those who benefit from the current imbalance are the most vocal defenders of the status quo.