Agent327
Well-Known Member
Move up in age and find out, although I think an attack with 8 hovers will do the trick as well.
-
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:
Plundering rationale
- Thread starter Yugi the 7empest
- Start date
Move up in age and find out, although I think an attack with 8 hovers will do the trick as well.
Graviton
Well-Known Member
You keep trying to dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as only diehard plunderers. You and I have gone back and forth about this before: plundering is not part of my play style, and yet I completely disagree with you. Many others on this forum disagree with you, and not because they might be personally impacted but because they can see a bigger picture that you’re missing.
The attacker has an advantage because game designers understand that winning is fun, and if players don’t win more than they lose they won’t play anymore. If that’s an imbalance it’s intentional. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
The attacker has a tactical advantage for that reason. Army versus army matters for the battle but, and here’s what you seem to overlook, has almost zero to do with plundering. Other, different factors are involved there, including timing, city planning, and the attention of the target player. Attacking a city and plundering it are two distinct actions.
Your years-long crusade to lump both together, to reduce plundering by reducing the attacker’s chance of winning; altering the algorithm you view as lacking in strategy; ironically would serve to reduce the strategy involved in defending against plunderers. Players could take less care to plunder-proofing their cities. Don’t have to worry about timing production carefully, nor prompt collection, nor replacing plunderable buildings with unplunderable. You would make the whole thing one-dimensional, all about the battle, when right now it’s only the first thing to overcome.
So despite your insistence to the contrary, there are reasons to disagree with your perspective that have nothing to do with personal impact. Continue to ignore and dismiss those reasons if you want but that won’t make them go away.
Farfle the smelly
Well-Known Member
Yep. Learned that the hard/quick fix way.
Edit: I believe my city is defended right now with a Zeus, horses and archers, a color guard and a champ. I am very plunderable after the last event. I still haven’t actually been plundered yet. Attacked, yes. And oddly only 2 got in, and he was a career plunderer who took the time to learn how I kept changing my defense against him every day. I respected him a great deal for the absolute thought and work he put into it. It also allowed me to learn more about how units work. There’s significant strategy involved in both sides and frankly I think it’s cheap to say plunderers are cheaters. They’re not. In fact, they’re probably the best players in their guild battlers for GBG. Because they learn and pay attention.
Like deva said, it’s a feature. Can we move on? Plunderers are people too. Lol
Last edited:
Jern2017
Well-Known Member
Exactly.
I've always viewed attacking and plundering as a way to interact and socialize with other players more than a way to generate any substantial amount of resources. Consequently, it doesn't cost the plundered player too much either - not nearly enough to stall their progress in any meaningful way. It's not like half of your inventory gets stolen or your buildings destroyed, which happens in certain other games with PVP elements.
People complain about how unfair the power and ranking difference is in neighborhoods, but apart from an active fighter with highly leveled GBs stealing 5 FPs from their Maharaja's Palace, it doesn't affect the advancement of their city at all.
You can try following the "collect on time" mantra, which most players can't do (I can't imagine someone with a job, family and a social life being able to log in at the exact same time every single day), you can try making your city plunder proof by only placing buildings that cannot be plundered, work on strengthening your city's defense so only a handful of dedicated fighters will be able to beat you, use a City shield, fight back with that overpowered 7+1 tactic (it's impossible to lose, right?), or simply... notice the plunder icon over one of your buildings, chuckle and move on, because you lost nothing.
Farfle the smelly
Well-Known Member
Ahem. Please, let’s not try to sell that plundering is a way to socialize. I’m an avid apologist, but even I know that this is a silly argument. But it IS a way to be more engaged in the game, and that is totally justifiable.
Again, I will say that as a newer player there are countless mornings that I’m up to 3 hrs late to get my collections (what?! I’m not a morning person, Judgy!). And I still haven’t been plundered despite having hippos in both cities, one of which is obnoxious in size (in fact, I had to delete tracks just to fit in my sparkly new Arc).
Anti-plunderers have to admit (I did the same after I was attacked a few times) that it’s really the feeling of a lack of control that is the adjustment. Nobody likes to feel like a victim.
But if you read Plunder Progress, you’ll note that most of the time folks aren’t plundering the Louvre et. al. Those 20+ FPS are an exception, which means (lol) a lot of times plunderers attack you and are insulted by the coins and supplies you’ve left them, so they don’t bother actually plundering (good job, you!). They lost expensive units for 125 coins. In a sense, they’ve victimized themselves. Does that make you feel better? (note, it shouldn't: this is just a game, after all...)
Again, I will say that as a newer player there are countless mornings that I’m up to 3 hrs late to get my collections (what?! I’m not a morning person, Judgy!). And I still haven’t been plundered despite having hippos in both cities, one of which is obnoxious in size (in fact, I had to delete tracks just to fit in my sparkly new Arc).
Anti-plunderers have to admit (I did the same after I was attacked a few times) that it’s really the feeling of a lack of control that is the adjustment. Nobody likes to feel like a victim.
But if you read Plunder Progress, you’ll note that most of the time folks aren’t plundering the Louvre et. al. Those 20+ FPS are an exception, which means (lol) a lot of times plunderers attack you and are insulted by the coins and supplies you’ve left them, so they don’t bother actually plundering (good job, you!). They lost expensive units for 125 coins. In a sense, they’ve victimized themselves. Does that make you feel better? (note, it shouldn't: this is just a game, after all...)
Jern2017
Well-Known Member
@Farfle the smelly, it may be a silly argument to you, but I have made more friends and allies (sharing sniping opportunities, helping with BPs...) by plundering than all other in-game activities combined.
-Sebastian-
Active Member
I found a 1.9 list in one world, by sniping with my baby Arc. She asked me nicely to go up to 1.9, and mentioned that she was on a 1.9 list. I went up to 1.9, and asked if I could join. She added me. I never had to worry about Arc blueprints again.
Deitized-Karma
Active Member
More suggested than aid all button lmao
generalwoo
Member
I can understand the angle about making friends through fighting. I don't plunder let alone attack my neighbors, but when the heavier hitters scale my defense, I message them, and we usually have a nice chat. As I'm genuinely curious about how long it must've taken someone in HMA to amass a 350% attack boost, I like to ask how long they've been camping. Some have ended up sending me a friend request rather than the other way around. It's always a pleasant surprise as I have 130 active friends and lost the ability to friend someone long ago.
Falconwing
Well-Known Member
Please don't lump Monotony and Chess together. One is a pure strategy game between two players relying on skill and capitalizing on your opponents mistakes, while not making any yourself, and the other relies on lucky rolls of the dice and drawing random cards.
The only real strategy in Monopoly to build as many houses as you can, never build hotels. If you play by the written rules (99.9% do not), you only have 32 houses total for the game. Once those are gone, they are gone, until someone turns some back in. Using up all the houses prevents others from building them and can prevent people from getting hotels. You specifically have to turn in four houses when you build a hotel. You can not just pay the price for four houses and then buy a hotel.
The 99.9% who have never actually read the rules will argue up and down when you do it, even when you show them the rules. They'll be like "well that's not how we play". Games have rules for a reason, even if you don't agree with them.
Nicholas002
Well-Known Member
Fun Fact of the Day: Charles Darrow, one of the inventors of monopoly, is my relative.
Cousin of my great-grandfather, I think. (I could go check on the old scroll with my ancestry tree, which follows back to napoleon, Oliver Cromwell, several English Kings, etc. [not sure how accurate it is that far back, lol])
Darrow was in real estate, and during the Great Depression, when the market crashed, he had nothing to do but sit around and invent monopoly. (why does this sound eerily familiar?)
Cousin of my great-grandfather, I think. (I could go check on the old scroll with my ancestry tree, which follows back to napoleon, Oliver Cromwell, several English Kings, etc. [not sure how accurate it is that far back, lol])
Darrow was in real estate, and during the Great Depression, when the market crashed, he had nothing to do but sit around and invent monopoly. (why does this sound eerily familiar?)
Last edited:
Falconwing
Well-Known Member
Hmm... Creating a game about what you know while stuck at home for a long time. I should create a game called Strangle the Barnyard Fowl.
Farfle the smelly
Well-Known Member
Oh my! *blush*
Mustapha00
Well-Known Member
I see the exact same people defending the mechanic. Conversely, I see new people complaining about the imbalance all the time. I think that rather significant.
Ever consider the other side of that equation? That losing all the time might not be much fun?
No, the attacker has an advantage due to a poorly thought out game mechanic.
I really do not think reducing the chance of winning from 95% to, say, 75% is such a burden on aggressive players.
All the things that you mention- city planning, production timers, etc.- would still be an immensely important facet of the game if the virtual certainty of winning was reduced to an overwhelming possibility of winning.
Further, Inno gave certain military Units advantages against certain other Units and disadvantages against still others.You do understand that this facet of the game is rendered completely unnecessary by the current AI mechanic, right? What would be so wrong with forcing aggressive players to tailor their attacking armies so as to give them a true tactical advantage against a defending army? I mean, if you want strategy to be a part of the game, well there';s a perfect example of how it could be made so.
Obviously, there are reasons to disagree with my suggestion. Some are more well-thought-out than others. Most distill down to
"I Want My Easy Button!", and I have zero respect for that argument or for those who use it.
I don't want Plundering to be removed from the game. I just want aggressive players to actually have to work for their spoils.
Mustapha00
Well-Known Member
I did so only because the person with whom I was debating did so.
Plunder Queen
Active Member
I’m with ya. I’ve actually made friends with my plunder friends lol.
Farfle the smelly
Well-Known Member
But you didn’t intend on becoming buddies with them, it happened organically because you were engaged in the game (and they had an excellent attitude about plundering/FoE). But plundering in itself isn’t about becoming buddies with someone. It’s about coming up and having some financially beneficial fun while you risk your units. And that’s 100% okay! But let’s not sell the idea of plundering as an inconvenient mode to friendship. Because we shouldn’t need to make excuses to participate in a major play strategy that is wholly encouraged by the game creators.
There is nothing wrong with plundering.
Emberguard
Well-Known Member
new people have been complaining since the game began
Graviton
Well-Known Member
I didn't compare them in terms of strategy, and you misconstrued my point entirely. My point was that someone new to a game probably shouldn't be trying to change the rules until they've played enough to understand why they exist. It had nothing to do with comparing chess to Monopoly, or strategy in general, at all.
But it's not. New players complain about losing stuff, while experienced players have come to understand the game and have learned how to deal with it. The only significance to your observation is: that's how experience works.
You're missing the point. Attacking and losing is not fun. When your DA loses, you actually lose nothing. You don't lose time, you don't lose troops and if you're not plundered you don't even notice it. It's meaningless.
Your refusal to acknowledge why the system is the way it is doesn't make it a bad game mechanic.
Even if unit strengths and weaknesses are unnecessary for PvP, they are still important to every other aspect of the game that involves fighting.
I've yet to see anyone actually use that, and yet you act as if that's the only one you see.
Good luck with your crusade.
Agent327
Well-Known Member
Only thing significant there is it shows players learn. Once they get more experience they stop complaining.