Plundering

[DeletedUser17123]

I have been playing FOE for about 7 years and still disappointed with the plundering. I don't think it's right to have people paying for diamonds to have people plunder their city. This is also a large disadvantage for those are new to the game or those are not at the same level. It's not needed in the game and hope FOE will remove this part of the game.

STOP THE PLUNDERING

 

[Jern2017]

I have been playing FOE for about 7 years and still disappointed with the plundering. I don't think it's right to have people paying for diamonds to have people plunder their city. This is also a large disadvantage for those are new to the game or those are not at the same level. It's not needed in the game and hope FOE will remove this part of the game.

STOP THE PLUNDERING

Don't exaggerate. If you're still here after seven years, it's apparently not such a big deal.

 

[Earl Underfish Grayvase]

It's not needed in the game and hope FOE will remove this part of the game

Whether plundering is needed or not is a matter of your opinion, to which you are certainly entitled. However, your rationale for believing it is "not needed" due to the diamond purchaser's plight holds little to no merit with me. In what ways is it disappointing to you? That you don't/can't/won't plunder or something else? When you choose to play a game that has a plundering element to it and then further make the conscious decision to purchase diamonds knowing the potential for the productions of those things acquired by using diamonds can be plundered, you have accepted the fact that it could happen. Remember that only the productions can be plundered, NOT the actual item.

There is no disadvantage because plundering is available to all players, free to play or pay-to-play players. How you decide to play may increase your chances of being plundered, but that too is your choice and not INNO's fault.

 

[Graviton]

STOP THE PLUNDERING

No.

 

[ExtraMile]

I have been playing FOE for about 7 years and still disappointed with the plundering.

I understand what you mean. Being plundered sucks. Just like getting your queen taken in chess sucks. Or landing on boardwalk in monopoly. Being outplayed in any game is not supposed to be pleasant. Why do you expect it to be different in FoE?

I don't think it's right to have people paying for diamonds to have people plunder their city.

Diamonds aren’t a “sure win”. They are a slight advantage. Nowhere does Inno games state that diamonds make players exempt from plundering (or any other part of the game). Diamond buyers know (or have every opportunity to know) what they are buying. How is this not perfectly fair?

This is also a large disadvantage for those are new to the game or those are not at the same level.

Remember that things aren’t supposed to be easy for new players. Events, GE, and GBG are all harder for new players to succeed at. If new players were instantly just as powerful as players who have been playing much longer, then what’s the point in spending time building up your city?

Also, players are grouped into neighborhoods with players of the same age. For this reason, the discrepancy between the top players and bottom players cannot be excessively large.

Once again, how is any of this unfair in any way?

Plundering is not going anywhere. If you don’t want to be plundered, there are plenty of ways the protect yourself. Considering you have been playing for 7 years, I’m sure you already know this. For this reason, I’m shocked that you came to the forum to complain about a perfectly fair game feature. Usually the players who come to the forum asking Inno to remove plundering are clueless noobs who simply need to learn more about the game (and how to succeed at it).

 

[DevaCat]

Three messages in 5 years and this last one a complaint about plundering. I haven't searched for the other two but ladies and gents we may have ourselves a hat trick here!

 

[Alpha Persei]

No.

same here, i won't stop ( it's too much fun )

 

[Alpha Persei]

i feel bad for saying this, but i like plundering people's stuff.
i would always imagine how angry that person would be and it would make me laugh . just hope i motivated them to work harder and fight back . i think that's what i needed when people began to plunder my place . and now here i am ( making people's life hell )

 

[Freshmeboy]

I'm not a fan of the PvP mechanic but plundering should never be removed from the game. Plundering forces players to play more often or least on a schedule...that means dollars to devs as data across the MMO world equates time played directly to profits. Inno seems to be indirectly canceling out much of the good plunderable buildings by creating event prizes that pump out large amounts of fps and goods through motivation.
I haven't planted a goods building since I started my new city and other than my train, i pump out 226 fps and gobs of goods daily that will never see the plunderers' icon..

 

[Iroh the Tea Maker]

I have been playing FOE for about 7 years and still disappointed with the plundering. I don't think it's right to have people paying for diamonds to have people plunder their city. This is also a large disadvantage for those are new to the game or those are not at the same level. It's not needed in the game and hope FOE will remove this part of the game.

STOP THE PLUNDERING

I personally do not plunder but I dont think the feature will go away, it's in the DNSL. I believe this game was intended to be PvP. So..

 

[DreadfulCadillac]

Nope, buying diamonds gives you no entitlement to not be plundered.
if you hate plundering so much and need a break once and awhile buy a city sheild in the tavern.
but if youve been playing for 7 years shouldnt be that big of a deal.

 

[Ericness]

What worlds do you all play on with active plundering? I've been playing for 3-4 years and rarely even get attacked, let alone plundered regardless of age or standing in the hood. If anything I wish the game was more lively in this regard.

 

[Mustapha00]

" I understand what you mean. Being plundered sucks. Just like getting your queen taken in chess sucks. Or landing on boardwalk in monopoly. Being outplayed in any game is not supposed to be pleasant. Why do you expect it to be different in FoE? "

Given the mechanics of the game, I question your conclusion that the player being plundered is actually being "outplayed".

To extend your chess analogy a bit, would you be "outplayed" if your opponent had, say, three Queens to your one?

 

[BruteForceAttack]

I have been playing FOE for about 7 years and still disappointed with the plundering. I don't think it's right to have people paying for diamonds to have people plunder their city. This is also a large disadvantage for those are new to the game or those are not at the same level. It's not needed in the game and hope FOE will remove this part of the game.

STOP THE PLUNDERING

Are you not able to collect on time?

 

[Iroh the Tea Maker]

Also, players are grouped into neighborhoods with players of the same age. For this reason, the discrepancy between the top players and bottom players cannot be excessively large.

Come on we all know that's irrelevant. An HMA player with rogue hideouts and a traz, with attack boosts of 200% is the top player in my hood. The lower players are all 2-3% A/D with 2-3 military buildings. They are just new players. and this game is ruthless on new/casual players. (Most games try to separate new players from experienced players via the ranking system to avoid this). I mean plundering is fine...but let's not make false statements.

 

[Triopoly Champion]

I have been playing FOE for about 7 years and still disappointed with the plundering. I don't think it's right to have people paying for diamonds to have people plunder their city. This is also a large disadvantage for those are new to the game or those are not at the same level. It's not needed in the game and hope FOE will remove this part of the game.

Don't research "Military Tactics" in Iron Age, you can still build Champion's Retreat, Legionnaire Barracks, Archery Range, Soldier Barracks also unlock cultural settlements. I do this frequently in the minor worlds.

 

[ExtraMile]

Given the mechanics of the game, I question your conclusion that the player being plundered is actually being "outplayed".

Fair enough. I think it is fair to say that the victim who is plundered is “defeated” (or at least their defense army is). In this sense I do believe that the player who is defeated is “outplayed”, at least in that particular instance. That’s not to say that they are “outplayed” in every other aspect of the game. When I used the word outplayed, I only used it in reference to the particular situation when one is plundered. Not their game as a whole.

To extend your chess analogy a bit, would you be "outplayed" if your opponent had, say, three Queens to your one?

Good question. I would say that it depends. If a player gets two additional queens from crossing two pawns across the board, this is in full compliance with the rules, so yes I would say that they have “outplayed” their opponent. I would liken this situation to when a FoE player gets units of a higher age. While it puts their opponents at a disadvantage, this disadvantage is completely fair because this is done in full compliance with the game rules (and every player has an equal opportunity to do this).

Now if the chess player just started out the game with two additional queens, I would not say that they have outplayed their opponent. I would say that they have cheated, because a chess player can only have one queen (unless a pawn crosses the board, and is changed to a queen). If a FoE player somehow managed to hack the game to make their army stronger (or break game rules in any way to achieve this), I would say that they are cheating as well. But as long as a player is following the game rules, I think my analogy is valid.

——————————————————

An HMA player with rogue hideouts and a traz, with attack boosts of 200% is the top player in my hood. The lower players are all 2-3% A/D with 2-3 military buildings.

As I said:

Remember that things aren’t supposed to be easy for new players. Events, GE, and GBG are all harder for new players to succeed at. If new players were instantly just as powerful as players who have been playing much longer, then what’s the point in spending time building up your city?

In my opinion, any advantage that is fairly achieved is not excessive or unfair.

Come on we all know that's irrelevant.

Maybe you think it is, but automatically assuming “we all” agree with you comes across as ignorant.

but let's not make false statements.

I’m not. You have the right to your opinion, but so do I. Just because I disagree with you, doesn’t mean what I said is false. Simply a difference of opinion.

 

[Iroh the Tea Maker]

Fair enough. I think it is fair to say that the victim who is plundered is “defeated” (or at least their defense army is). In this sense I do believe that the player who is defeated is “outplayed”, at least in that particular instance. That’s not to say that they are “outplayed” in every other aspect of the game. When I used the word outplayed, I only used it in reference to the particular situation when one is plundered. Not their game as a whole.



Good question. I would say that it depends. If a player gets two additional queens from crossing two pawns across the board, this is in full compliance with the rules, so yes I would say that they have “outplayed” their opponent. I would liken this situation to when a FoE player gets units of a higher age. While it puts their opponents at a disadvantage, this disadvantage is completely fair because this is done in full compliance with the game rules (and every player has an equal opportunity to do this).

Now if the chess player just started out the game with two additional queens, I would not say that they have outplayed their opponent. I would say that they have cheated, because a chess player can only have one queen (unless a pawn crosses the board, and is changed to a queen). If a FoE player somehow managed to hack the game to make their army stronger (or break game rules in any way to achieve this), I would say that they are cheating as well. But as long as a player is following the game rules, I think my analogy is valid.

——————————————————



As I said:

In my opinion, any advantage that is fairly achieved is not excessive or unfair.



Maybe you think it is, but automatically assuming “we all” agree with you comes across as ignorant.


I’m not. You have the right to your opinion, but so do I. Just because I disagree with you, doesn’t mean what I said is false. Simply a difference of opinion.

calm down it's an opinion about a GAME. no need to get salty.


> In my opinion, any advantage that is fairly achieved is not excessive or unfair.

is a poor argument. it's true for all games. new players need to be able to play without being bullied.

 

[Mustapha00]

ExtraMile:

I should have been more precise in my scenario- you did a better job than I did.

I would say that Inno, by the way they have constructed this facet of their game, would be more akin to a chess player (the aggressive player in FoE) starting the game with three Queens. Inno is, of course, absolutely free to construct PvP in any manner they wish, as it is their game, but players should also be able to level criticisms of their decisions.

Inno has made it abundantly clear that they not only support PvP but tilt the game so as to give an overwhelming advantage to aggressive players.

Yes, I can put up a City Shield to thwart attackers....but that's little more than a band-aid on a severed limb. I have the ability to create and deploy a defensive Army, yet that Army is almost totally ineffectual, even if its defensive rating is several hundred percent higher than the attacker's offensive rating. Just as I oppose aggressive players having a virtually guaranteed win 'strategy', I oppose defensive players having a guaranteed win strategy. I want my defensive Army to have a reasonable chance of defeating an attacking player, not Tavern silver involved.

There is a solution, and it would involve making one change: change the City defense Army AI to that of the Continent Defense Army AI. While the City Defense AI targets Rogues to the exclusion of other units, which allows the infamous "1+7" attack scheme in which an attacking player uses 7 Rogues and 1 real unit to attacking, moving the real unit to usually the top left corner and sending his Rogues into battle. The Continent Army Defense AI has some chance of targeting Rogues in an attacking Army, which makes "1+7" at least somewhat less effective. Removing what I consider the "easy button" would force players to actually have to use some measure of strategy when attacking neighbors. Would that be so bad for the game?

 

[Graviton]

Yes, I think it would be bad for the game. If you make it more difficult to defeat DAs fewer people will do PvP. If people are being attacked less, and their DA defeated even less, they'll stop bothering to sign on regularly to collect on time, which Inno wouldn't like. Fewer people will use the Tavern and items to boost attack and defense, which means the value of those things is diminished. Fewer people will spend diamonds to either boost defense or to heal troops because they're doing less fighting. The value of GBs that boost defense, and those that boost plundering, will be diminished.

Yours is a solution in search of a problem, that would actually cause more problems as far as Inno is concerned.