• 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

Stop the Plundering INNO !!!!!

  • Thread starter DeletedUser32439
  • Start date

Agent327

Well-Known Member
Please forgive the lack of quotes and carry downs.

-Please list any abuse potential and considerations for discussion.


-A player could select an IA hood and try to "allow" IA players to hit you and plunder you in exchange for fps...and others that chose IA for whatever reason may just hit you and plunder you for free. Please keep in mind the likelihood of a single high age player standing alone in an all IA hood is slim in this situation. Not impossible, just unlikely. You won't be able tell another player to "meet me in IA for next cycle" as normal hood grouping within those that select a particular age will still be as it is now. Can't tell a current hood member when you expect to see them again with any certainty. you could try to fleece weak players in that age for forge points by coordinating with them to drop def at a particular time for them to attack, maybe with some success...no different than it is now in current hoods with the exception being the rewards gained are much more valuable. But at the same time there could be any number of other non weak players from any other age and capability that you could also be sharing that age hood with who could very well attack and try to plunder at will.


-those that choose to fight and are in OF currently are already fighting OF, some do not fight at all. Under my theoretical environment, some OF may remain in OF to fight, some may choose another era for whatever reason. And no matter how stupid someone thinks it may be, there are several (if I may be very conservative) AF, even FE who are capable of defeating some OF defenses with AF or FE troops, not just a couple advanced age troops gained from quests and rogues...but even they were to use only a few unattached troops, that is already an effective strategy in ruling a hood. why would this example be any different? Hoods already have a wide variety of defenses in place, not always current age troops, not always effective by any measure...sometimes placed deliberately. the same factors that currently affect what you see in your hood defenses would be the same in this example. the difference being a hood will contain different ages/eras of players of varying capability and intent who are all capped at the same level for the highest age troop that can be used for an attack or defense. there will still be the easy pickin's as well as mega untouchables...just as it is now in any hood span.


" what one player selects as their hood battleground for that neighborhood cycle would not dictate what others choose." is not a contradiction as near as i can tell by anything i said but would be happy to attempt to clarify if misunderstood.

under this system of select-able Age/era's for next cycle hood battle ground, the decision is made by the player for whatever reason they choose a particular age. It is entirely possible, perhaps not plausible, that every player in a particular world chooses Iron Age as their next hood. Hoods reset and bam! every single player now finds themselves in a hood with all possible combinations of age cities and military capability. Not a single player can use any troop for attack and defense in their hood above an iron age troop. GE/GVG is all still exactly the same as it is now. There will still be one player who is able to run attacks top to bottom and beat every single player in their hood...just as there is now. But, it may not be the highest age player. It could be a camped LMA player who has the mega military boosts and unbreakable defense. That LMA player may go plunder any number of different age cities' goods, may only hit cities above their own age and leave lower age cities alone. Most who bother with this forum have played enough to know there is often no rhyme or reason to the motivations behind how some players interact in their hood at different times...much less any sort of universal standard. Part of the beauty of the game. How a player plays and interacts in their hood will be no different than it is now. The only differences would be 1.) the selected age of troops a player voluntarily opts to cap themselves at, and 2.) the span of available age/era cities that could now also be found in a players hood. Strong players can still attack and plunder weaker players...but no longer restricted to what age city you may find as any player from any era may have also selected the same era as you and wind up in your hood.


Lets also consider how this would impact other aspects of the game and potentially address other issues:
- Markets, imagine the trade potential in a hood that has any possible combination of age players mixed in...is there a down side or potential for abuse? Maybe, but i don't see it as any more or less than their is now.
-networking potential. App players have been in need of a global chat since the app was introduced to be able to network with upper age players for all the things low age players need upper age players for in the game outside of whatever they find in their guild. this scenario potentially brings those players in reach. Although unlikely an active, capable, high age player will drop to a low age often it would be possible. A confident, habitually timely city manager may not fear being plundered whatsoever because they collect on time and may choose a much higher age hood than their own to network. Will they have the age troops they need to defend themselves? not a chance. but what is needed to defend against plundering is universal no matter what age/strength of force breaches your defenses. Yet the possibility would exist that there are others with similar strength military and city age they may in fact be able to defeat and plunder.
-random drops from aiding. print drop potential from a wide span of ages for a player that chooses to aid their hood regularly no matter if it is access from high age players hoping to hide in lower age hoods or from brave low age players looking to jump in a higher hoods hunting for prints. If i'm a brand new iron age player that hasn't unlocked mil tactics yet, I may very well make my first stop an FE hood....and hope real hard i'm not suddenly surrounded by other IA players doing the same..lol
- there are other things such as some GB's that could be more useful in this scenario than they would be in a low age hood and even some things i haven't thought of or had others bring up in opposition (there's still time, hit me with it)


This game, utilizing a player selctable age/era for their next neighborhood battleground, would do one thing primarily: limit the highest age military a player may be attacked by, attack with, use as or encounter as defense in their neighborhoods It does not dictate or limit the boosted strength of a player's troops in that age. It does not stop a player from beating and plundering another. On any server, any world and any age, the span of in age capability of players is huge! Anyone that worked from their current age and fought ahead on their continent map battling troops from ages ahead of their own, know you do not need a particular age troop to kick someone's butt with a higher age defense. This configuration would allow a player to select hoods above their own age...even if they lack the troops of that age. It caps it but does not stop a lower age troop than the age selected from being used. All the things we see in the game now would still be present. Players with crazy defense and no attack, players with crazy attack and no defense capability, a town hall of one age but a city from 3 ages prior and a military from earlier still would all still be found to varying degrees in any given hood of any given age. the potential for abuse would be not any greater than it is now...and may even be reduced a little. As near as i can tell, it would improve networking, trade potential and increase range for aid print drops. A significant downside for some players is they lose the ability to hit a player of the same age as them with troops from ages above them providing they have both selected their current age as their hood battleground. A counter to that is the player that has worked hard to get next age troops and develop strong boosts would no longer be restricted to tech based hoods and could then select a later age in hopes of finding a few later age players to hit. The strategic considerations for why a player would select an age different than their own would be exactly what you think they would be. weak players may hope to hide in lower age hoods (point) Other, not as weak players may also select that age and kick their butt anyway (counter point). the infinite combinations of age and capability that could be found in a hood brings back a bit of what was lost when the we got away from the hold system but still protect a player, to a degree, from much later age troops than they are capable of producing. I not only think there is some meat on the bone to seriously consider a proposal, i think it might increase hood activity and interest for many.

Ok negative nelly's let's hear it..lol
please take the time to actually give examples and information instead of just saying that's stupid (what's stupid?) or contradicting (what was the contradiction?) this will never go anywhere (does it ever?). Can you see this as a feature of the game?, do you see a problem or serious room for major abuse that we can discuss ways to mitigate or eliminate? Is the potential for abuse any different, better or worse than the game is now? Would it significantly help or hinder any particular style of player (diamond or otherwise) or negate years of effort of a current path that would be wasted if the game had a selectable hood? If you have anything constructive, critical or not, i'd like to hear it.

Tried to read it, but gave up after a few lines. You are rambling on and on and on and it is not clear at all what you are reacting to.
 

DeletedUser31592

FoE is a strategy game. There are many ways to play it. Some people choose to rush tech and fly through the ages. Some people prefer staying in an age indefinitely. Many fall in-between, at their own pace. Their decision. All methods have pros and cons. Lumping neighborhoods by era is the simplest, fairest way possible. Those getting attacked and plundered made decisions that caused themselves to be vulnerable to attack. If it is due to ignorance, there are plenty of ways to get help- guilds, global chat, the forums, etc... Everyone is going to run into a bully from time to time. That cannot be helped. But, even with some of these unnecessarily complicated proposals I've seen, someone will ALWAYS be on the bottom. Complicating things is just going to open it up to people being placed in the wrong neighborhood or being stuck with basically the same people rotation after rotation. I don't want this. I want neighbors to change. Neighbors are more than just attacking and plundering. Things like sniping can affect your guildmates. If you are basically locked into a neighborhood indefinitely due to this over-complicated method of division, you would never be able to get away from a sniper. And, within serious fighters, some are far more aggressive than others. Just because people have the military buildings and the attack/defense boosts doesn't mean they use them for PvP. It could be strictly for GE. Or maybe GvG. So, the current method is fair. Everyone has complete control over their city. The #80 person can make different choices and become the #1 person if they choose to do so. No one and nothing is stopping them.
 

DeletedUser35475

When I first started playing I was worried I would get plundered regularly and I didn't know what to do. It turned out I didn't get plundered 20 times a day and the few times I was plundered it was like ' meh ok I'll just build more stuff'.
I have had a few times where the same person plundered me every day for a period of time and they would go for what they think is a valuable building. If those buildings have different items for different collection times I just choose the 5 minute collection and leave it for them to plunder. It usually works because after 1 or 2 times of collecting a small amount of coins or supplies they generally don't come back. I also do put troops into defense and change them up now and then which seems to help too.
 

Triopoly Champion

Active Member
Really? 8 pages on a plunder debate again? At least plundering keeps the forums interesting.
View attachment 10295
I like attacking and plundering a lot because I can gain game rank and score points really quick, making 30 neighbors mad everyday, but at least it's legitimate. I have 869,000+ points now, without the plundering feature, I probably only would have only around 60% of the score.

Especially in the noob-filling neighborhood, plundering the Emperor Entrance is just so ideal.
 

DeletedUser29933

lol..well, was entertaining at least. following a process or reading in general can be difficult. I gave it a shot...back to twitter!
 

Triopoly Champion

Active Member
Everyone has complete control over their city. The #80 person can make different choices and become the #1 person if they choose to do so. No one and nothing is stopping them.
Have a Traz and can keep attacking neighbors will be the best path to #1, stay in Colonial with the noobs forever.
Forge of Empires - Plunder 1612.jpg
At least it was so fun to read the nasty messages sent in by the victimized neighbors.
 

DeletedUser12620

Have a Traz and can keep attacking neighbors will be the best path to #1, stay in Colonial with the noobs forever.
View attachment 10356
At least it was so fun to read the nasty messages sent in by the victimized neighbors.

That's nothing I'm at 2,800 out of 3,000 on Z You are on a more established and older world.
 

Triopoly Champion

Active Member
That's nothing I'm at 2,800 out of 3,000 on Z You are on a more established and older world.
It's obvious that world Z is not your first world, I can start a new world and play again to have a much higher record within much shorter period of time.

Mount Killmore is my first world, I insist to keep playing that 1 because it's my very 1st created city.

Have a Colonial comeback will impact that C00KIEGUY23145 much deeply than starting a brand new 1. My Zeus, CoA, CdM are already leveled at 8, 8, 7, thus not too far from triple 10.

C00KIEGUY23145 said it was no worth it to manage the comeback after reaching HMA or higher, so I'd like do it this way.

When I first entered LMA in Mount Killmore half a year ago, my game score was less than 100k and my battle count was barely 200+.

Glad I knocked a girl guild leader named "Sunnypelt" out of the FoE game(she deleted her FoE account) because she kept saying she was better than me half a year ago and eventually blamed on her own bad luck of acquiring the blueprints(Arc, Traz, Inno).

Dec 2017 -> Sunnypelt: 67,000+, tuckerkao: 51,000+
Jun 2018 -> tuckerkao: 801,000+, Sunnypelt: 129,000+

I reserved my IA Graveyard and EMA Scarecrow in my Colonial city in Mount Killmore, so most people would know it has been the same city despite the complete change in foundation layout.

If I've played in a world with the expert mode from the very beginning(power leveling Arc since IA), nobody will be upset enough to delete their accounts.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser26965

Cause he loves to start threads. If you do not start a thread you have no value for the FOE Community.
Actually what I said is if you never post your own stuff while simultaneously trolling everyone else's posts you are in fact a coward. I know that's a concept beyond your comprehension but I'm not replying for your sake.
 

DeletedUser31882

I gave it a shot...back to twitter!

You brave, brave soul...

The game has changed a lot from inception I don't see any problem with reconsidering the PvP model. I think the choice to PvP or not PvP would be a good thing, after all...

"...choices are mostly what makes games cool..." - Anwar Dalati
@17:18
http://www.gamesauce.biz/2015/09/04/anwar-dalati-the-crucial-question-is-why-casual-connect-video/

A bit dry of a presenter, but was a fun watch. Not sure how much we can apply to the current topic, due to the focus on math.

The part that we could get into is the pacemaker. Since FoE is all about resources and they are limited by timers, it makes sense why plundering is so hated/loved. The people who liberally plunder are rewarded with more resources, so their progression is faster. The people who are chronically pillaged suffer from slower progression, which sours them on right quick on the plunderers, and potentially the game.

So it makes sense that the pillaged, especially the chronic kind, will contemplate leaving the game. The question then becomes, so what? From a business side of freemium games, I predict the drive to compete may pull in more money than the easy going drive to construct at one's own pace. Plunderers, having shown they are fine competing on a hood/city level may be more likely to spend money in their thirst for acceleration of the resource pacemaker as well as enlarge their ability to pillage. The slower moving city builder that gets overly upset about pillaging may only be competing with their time investment; I predict these are a lower spending demographic.

Of course, I ain't got no data, but I think this is why we usually see freemium games have mechanics that drive competition, and through p2w offers, drive the hyper-competitive wannabe winners to invest money into the game(Rank Points/GvG/Hood domination). This is why pillaging will never be removed unless all the spending players disappear and Inno decides to attempt to salvage the income stream of FoE by changing their primary demographic.

As far as opening up a care bear server? Hard to show there is a market to capture. Unless the angry players that are victims of chronic pillaging hang around and organize to send a combined message that "We will spend money, if you give us the product we want!", I don't see any incentive for Inno to invest energy in capturing the occasional forum complainer who isn't invested enough in their own complaint to weather the opposing view, understand it and then seek a compromise. Most just flake out or become entrenched while the 'sympathizers' have a fun time debating ideas. As a potential 'sympathizer', I have no reason to invest in someone who only bitterly complains and does nothing more to change the system, man.

This screed brought to you by a former EVE Player who quit EVE online because it wasn't care bear enough(AKA: The pacemaker of 'risk versus reward' for dangerous sectors wasn't worth my time) for them to invest money for a subscription. I probably should have joined a guild and gotten involved with PvP murderin' or other coordinated play, instead of solo mining space rocks and pirates in a years old space economy.
 

DeletedUser30900

You brave, brave soul...



A bit dry of a presenter, but was a fun watch. Not sure how much we can apply to the current topic, due to the focus on math.

The part that we could get into is the pacemaker. Since FoE is all about resources and they are limited by timers, it makes sense why plundering is so hated/loved. The people who liberally plunder are rewarded with more resources, so their progression is faster. The people who are chronically pillaged suffer from slower progression, which sours them on right quick on the plunderers, and potentially the game.

So it makes sense that the pillaged, especially the chronic kind, will contemplate leaving the game. The question then becomes, so what? From a business side of freemium games, I predict the drive to compete may pull in more money than the easy going drive to construct at one's own pace. Plunderers, having shown they are fine competing on a hood/city level may be more likely to spend money in their thirst for acceleration of the resource pacemaker as well as enlarge their ability to pillage. The slower moving city builder that gets overly upset about pillaging may only be competing with their time investment; I predict these are a lower spending demographic.

Of course, I ain't got no data, but I think this is why we usually see freemium games have mechanics that drive competition, and through p2w offers, drive the hyper-competitive wannabe winners to invest money into the game(Rank Points/GvG/Hood domination). This is why pillaging will never be removed unless all the spending players disappear and Inno decides to attempt to salvage the income stream of FoE by changing their primary demographic.

As far as opening up a care bear server? Hard to show there is a market to capture. Unless the angry players that are victims of chronic pillaging hang around and organize to send a combined message that "We will spend money, if you give us the product we want!", I don't see any incentive for Inno to invest energy in capturing the occasional forum complainer who isn't invested enough in their own complaint to weather the opposing view, understand it and then seek a compromise. Most just flake out or become entrenched while the 'sympathizers' have a fun time debating ideas. As a potential 'sympathizer', I have no reason to invest in someone who only bitterly complains and does nothing more to change the system, man.

This screed brought to you by a former EVE Player who quit EVE online because it wasn't care bear enough(AKA: The pacemaker of 'risk versus reward' for dangerous sectors wasn't worth my time) for them to invest money for a subscription. I probably should have joined a guild and gotten involved with PvP murderin' or other coordinated play, instead of solo mining space rocks and pirates in a years old space economy.
Nah, you are going against SJS’s theory, even though these people who staying at the bottom most likely never paid a penny to Inno, we still have to give them a “fairer system”. Maybe it’s gonna hurt people who paid real money, SO WHAT? It’s “fair”, that’s all it matters:p
 

DeletedUser26965

Of course, I ain't got no data
I have to tell ya, it's nice having you around to actually discuss the game, so thank you.

So, yeah, as usual lack of data makes much of any conversation pretty an exercise in futility really because none of us really have much of any data to go on, just limited and anecdotal data and experience with other games as you pointed out. I came from WoW prior to here where they have PvP and PvE servers, of course you can still PvP on the PvE servers it's just more of a choice. They've been around for over 17 years so clearly it can be done in that case anyway, of course it's a subscription game too but who knows how that plays into it all relative to a f2p/p2w game like this.

Who spends the money and why and is that all that matters? Who knows, aint my company.

One fact is less than 10% of FoE players are paying players
@6:18

As far as this game goes the ones I see spending a ton of money are new worlders who clearly have no interest in camping rather getting through the tech tree right to FE to get arc and to also get to the AA map to start dominating GvG in order to be on top of the leaderboard and quickly leveling the guild, not sure how much PvP plays into any of their spending decisions.

I'm sure any potential change made to the game, PvP or otherwise, is scrutinized through the lense of the bottom line but I'm not going let that hold me back in terms of suggestions because that's for them to figure out not me.

The CEO and creator Hendrik Klindworth and former lead game designer Anwar Dalati both consider FoE more of a city builder game than a PvP game really, not sure how that primary philosophy plays into it all.

@4:45 "...FoE has a more city building aspect, it's not so much about fighting and conquering..."

@2:37 "...FoE is primarily some would say a city builder..." @4:38 "...because this is not a PvP game..."

Of course FoE has always had a PvP element and I don't see it going anywhere but the City Shield, hood change of Jan 2017 and PvP locked to tech all indicate a pretty clear direction away from its original state towards, well, something else whatever you want to call it, doesn't really matter because it shows they have in fact changed PvP, how far they're willing to go and how any of it would affect revenue though will obviously be up to them to consider and figure out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top