• 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:
    Apply

should we stop plundering ????

Not sure why people don’t like it. I’m only plundered when RL gets in the way of my collection time which is normally at a time when I shouldn’t be dealing with RL. Now, if they really wanted to overhaul PvP, instead of taking a completed production, allow the plunderer the option to cancel out a production buildings timer. They don’t get anything but neither does the owner.
 

Nicholas002

Well-Known Member
. Now, if they really wanted to overhaul PvP, instead of taking a completed production, allow the plundered the option to cancel out a production buildings timer. They don’t get anything but neither does the owner.
Then no one would plunder at all. If you do that you might as well remove plundering all together, which IMO is VERY bad idea.
 

OutlawDon

Member
Then no one would plunder at all. If you do that you might as well remove plundering all together, which IMO is VERY bad idea.
I don't do much plundering myself, but I like the feature because it adds complications to the game. Interesting to work on defense.
 

OutlawDon

Member
I don't do much plundering myself, but I like the feature because it adds complications to the game. Interesting to work on defense.
And if you have a real bully in your neighborhood, you don't have to worry much because he will probably disappear when the neighborhood changes.
 
getting plundered is kinda like telling the cashier to keep the change, whereas getting sniped is more like wrecking your car, and you're not insured..
I completely agree. People complain relentlessly about plundering. Ive been called every name in the book and have received many threats over the years for plundering but people rarely complain about sniping. They dont seem to care that I can cost them more fps in one snipe than i can in two weeks of plundering.... smh. I think some people just like to complain. IMO if I get plundered I messed up by leaving something out for them to take. It was my fault not theirs. People need to remember that this is a game of war, so act accordingly
 

planetofthehumans2

Well-Known Member
I completely agree. People complain relentlessly about plundering. Ive been called every name in the book and have received many threats over the years for plundering but people rarely complain about sniping. They dont seem to care that I can cost them more fps in one snipe than i can in two weeks of plundering.... smh. I think some people just like to complain. IMO if I get plundered I messed up by leaving something out for them to take. It was my fault not theirs. People need to remember that this is a game of war, so act accordingly
People use the same justification for sniping, like why did you let your GB be snipeable? Why did you donate to a GB before the spots were locked? Why didn't you stop at the red light??

A game of opportunities.
 

DeletedUser12889

i Only Attack & Plunder People That i Dont Like' That have set me on ignore :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Johnnie

Member
I think a player who wants to plunder should have to battle the player rather than an auto-battle it's only fair. Sure, use a city battle defense and attack percentages as pvp but, at least the attacker and defender would have to be somewhat matched. It really isn't right that a player with zero to ten percent of either can win against the auto-battle even if, the city they attack has fifty or more percent than them.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
No, I have never and would never ask that Inno remove Plundering from the game.

I would- and do- ask that they balance things a bit.
 

DeletedUser12889

i Wish There was This Option on the Fourms...
 

Attachments

  • Thumbs DOWN.png
    Thumbs DOWN.png
    102.4 KB · Views: 0

Falconwing

Well-Known Member
It kills me when I see people complain about the PvP aspects of this game. I've played a lot of these types and the PvP of this game is very light and painless compared to others. A building gets plundered? Aww... Other games I've had my city burned to the ground and took 3-4 days before everything was fixed. Sometimes a building would get permanently destroyed and had to be replaced at great expense. Other games allowed you to build multiple cities and they could be taken from you. Imagine your flagship city, all shiny and filled with maxed out buildings, being snatched from you while you sleep. Hate to sound insulting, but if you can not handle the PvP aspect of this game, you need to avoid PvP games altogether.
 

Johnnie

Member
The thing is: It is Not Truly a PVP battle! It is a player battling against an automated unmanned army, not another player. The option to plunder is fine but, you should have to fight a person that has control of how their army moves, etc.
 

DeletedUser36572

Complaining about Plundering in Forge of Empires ... Is like complaining about being fat because you keep eating gallons of ice cream.

If you don’t like the game, quit playing it ... But by all means don’t try to screw it up because you lack the wherewithal to understand your problem with plundering isn’t the game’s fault.

Gas, Fire ... Boom,
It Doesn’t Care What You Think.

.
 

DeletedUser36572

I think a player who wants to plunder should have to battle the player rather than an auto-battle it's only fair. Sure, use a city battle defense and attack percentages as pvp but, at least the attacker and defender would have to be somewhat matched. It really isn't right that a player with zero to ten percent of either can win against the auto-battle even if, the city they attack has fifty or more percent than them.

Uh, no ... Even in the real world some military powers can just push a button and fight, while the defender will most likely get slaughtered. If a player decides to capitalize on what they gain from a better standing in the overall arms race ... It costs them time, resources and sometimes real money to do so.

That Bill Has Already Been Paid ...
And The Deal Was ‘As Is’, Not
‘Whatever Someone Can Think Of To Nerf Crud You Already Paid For’!

.
 

Johnnie

Member
The key feature of weapons that autonomously select and apply force is that the user will not know the exact target that will be struck, nor its location and surroundings, nor the timing and circumstances of the application of force. There are consequently significant difficulties in using AWS in a manner that retains the user’s ability to reasonably foresee (predict) the effects of the weapon in the circumstances of use and to make the context-specific value-based judgments required. Ethical considerations are central to the debate about the use of AWS because it is ‘precisely anxiety about the loss of player control over weapon systems and the use of force’ that broadens the issue from simply compliance with the game to wider questions of acceptability to ethical standards and social values. ‘There is a sense of deep discomfort with the idea of any weapon system that places the use of force beyond player control’. Ethical considerations have often preceded and motivated the development of new constraints on means and methods of warfare, including constraints on weapons that pose unacceptable risks. Deontological approaches, based on the ethics of an action or process, place emphasis on the duties governing the player's role in the use of force and the rights of those against whom force is used, rather than solely on the consequences of the use of an AWS in a specific circumstance. Here the central concern with AWS is about delegating ‘win or lose’ decisions, and ethical considerations center around three interrelated duties and rights for decision making on the use of force: player agency, moral responsibility, and player dignity. So what does player control that reduces or compensates unpredictability while ensuring player agency in decisions to use force look like in practice? Strict implementation of the action- or process-driven approach would require a player to engage in affirmative reasoning about every use of force, which would generally rule out AWS altogether, at least where their use poses dangers to players and their property.
 

cbalto1927

Active Member
Uh, no ... Even in the real world some military powers can just push a button and fight, while the defender will most likely get slaughtered. If a player decides to capitalize on what they gain from a better standing in the overall arms race ... It costs them time, resources and sometimes real money to do so.

That Bill Has Already Been Paid ...
And The Deal Was ‘As Is’, Not
‘Whatever Someone Can Think Of To Nerf Crud You Already Paid For’!

.
True, Then again, in real-world we have nukes and air defense systems that would detect incoming missiles. The defender would have auto/semi auto-response to launch theirs. There would always be someone to monitor the system just in case. In this game, the defender doesn't have those systems. When we sleep and attacked while sleep, we would be SOL and plundered. So the game is not even close to real-life warfare.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
True, Then again, in real-world we have nukes and air defense systems that would detect incoming missiles. The defender would have auto/semi auto-response to launch theirs. There would always be someone to monitor the system just in case. In this game, the defender doesn't have those systems. When we sleep and attacked while sleep, we would be SOL and plundered. So the game is not even close to real-life warfare.
Actually we do have those systems. You set a city defence. It automatically defends against the opponent
 
Top