Two things that make me evaluate whether to continue playing this game

[Vibe]

1. The cities defenses general needs to be fired for incompetence. I constantly evaluate whether I want to continue this game for one simple reason. The algorithm set in place for defending cities is to attack rogue units first, then attack legitimate fighting units. This means that attacking players can send in one legitimate fighter with seven rogues. My first six shots against the attacking player is wasted on a rogue unit who then turns into a legitimate fighter. The rest is history...cities defenses nearly always get defeated because of those first six wasted shots. Any smart general defending the city would attack the legitimate fighting unit, then proceed with knocking out the rogue units one by one...done, city is defended; not defeated. Don't get me wrong, rogue units are nice to have, but they should be limited in use to only quests, guild challenges and fighting on the territorial map for more land/resources.
2. After a cities defenses have been defeated (keeping in mind the above paragraph) the player then has up to 23 hours, 59 minutes to come back to plunder what they attacked up to nearly 24 hours prior. This crap pisses me off. If there is nothing to plunder at the time of defeat, then that should be it. If they have to wait nearly 24 hours to come back to plunder then another attack should be warranted...not just a free plunder without consequences.

I know I am not the only player with this angry outlook on the game. Please respond to make this thread cause changes in the game play to make it a fair fight.

 

[DeletedUser31540]

1. The cities defenses general needs to be fired for incompetence. I constantly evaluate whether I want to continue this game for one simple reason. The algorithm set in place for defending cities is to attack rogue units first, then attack legitimate fighting units. This means that attacking players can send in one legitimate fighter with seven rogues. My first six shots against the attacking player is wasted on a rogue unit who then turns into a legitimate fighter. The rest is history...cities defenses nearly always get defeated because of those first six wasted shots. Any smart general defending the city would attack the legitimate fighting unit, then proceed with knocking out the rogue units one by one...done, city is defended; not defeated. Don't get me wrong, rogue units are nice to have, but they should be limited in use to only quests, guild challenges and fighting on the territorial map for more land/resources.
2. After a cities defenses have been defeated (keeping in mind the above paragraph) the player then has up to 23 hours, 59 minutes to come back to plunder what they attacked up to nearly 24 hours prior. This crap pisses me off. If there is nothing to plunder at the time of defeat, then that should be it. If they have to wait nearly 24 hours to come back to plunder then another attack should be warranted...not just a free plunder without consequences.

I know I am not the only player with this angry outlook on the game. Please respond to make this thread cause changes in the game play to make it a fair fight.

Ya the defense targeting rogues is a bit unrealistic when attacked by 7 / 1 rogue / x compositions.

But that is the way inno has made their game and it is unlikely to change. Honestly I am fine with the way it is and would be fine if they changed it too.

In the meantime you can attack your neighbors with 7 rogues and take advantage of this feature and on Defense make your army composition with atleast 3 siege units and some ranged units as well to force the rogues to change into regular units before the armies clash ... this usually brings about moderate to heavy losses on the attacking side (especially when coupled with a good defensive boost) and even if they defeat you they might think twice about attacking you a 2nd time.

Happy Forging

 

[Freshmeboy]

Yeah, you're right..the pvai here sucks and it won't likely change unless INNO sees more profits flying out the door because of it. If every player who left the game fired off a note to INNO, I'm sure it would have an effect...but here on the forums you are likely to meet a wee bit 'o resistance....Good luck

 

[DeletedUser31540]

Yeah, you're right..the pvai here sucks and it won't likely change unless INNO sees more profits flying out the door because of it. If every player who left the game fired off a note to INNO, I'm sure it would have an effect...but here on the forums you are likely to meet a wee bit 'o resistance....Good luck

Yea I think us forumers as a whole object to change as a general rule

Even good ideas are shot down regularly with the oft-used refrains, "this is a strategy game," "learn to plan ahead," or "go play candy crush"

I find the typical responses frustrating at times because they are indicative of a 'fan boi' mentality where inno can do no wrong and limit discussion of potentially good ideas

That being said the players who back inno, as well as inno themselves have almost always invested more thought, time, and energy into the game and have reasons for stubbornly latching on to the status quo.

As with most things I try to see the merit of both sides and am usually stuck in the middle of the debate :/

 

[Freshmeboy]

I don't know if you can call it a fanboi mentality....I have spent 6 months here on the forums watching many of the same complaints come through the proposal system as players run into the same problems. For me it boils down to a few simple items: Does the proposal benefit the majority of players...? If it's a major change in the game mechanics, where is INNO's incentive...? Is the proposal thwarting the core concepts of the game (planning for events, city design, etc.) to make it easier, ie. The Easy Button proposal...? There have been many proposals I would love to have voted YES to but refrained due to this philosophy. Not everybody has this take on the game but I believe most would concur on part of this philosophy....And, yes, I rip INNO a new one when I deem their actions as a violation of trust with the gamers who are their profit base....

 

[Algona]

Even good ideas are shot down regularly with the oft-used refrains, "this is a strategy game," "learn to plan ahead," or "go play candy crush"

That simply is not true.

Of course most long term forum members don't like change. We like the game for the most part the way it is, that's why we've played for years. We're emotionally invested in the game to the point where we take the time to come to the forums.

The problem with most ideas and most players is that opinions of 'good' ideas are ideas that benefit that player's play style but with no thought whatsoever for whether the idea is good for the game.

Take the notion that changing the AI is a 'good' idea. This is constantly brought up, it has surpassed unbalanced hoods as the most discussed topic on the forums.

And yet no one actually discusses the deeper ramifications of changing the AI, they just want it changed.

Think it through, then share that analysis and reasoning. Is FoE the same game with a strong city defense AI? Is that game the game you want to play?

 

[*Arturis*]

Simple solution at least for me:
1/ Have zero defense and 8 champs for whoever wants to hit to get points.
2/ Not putting up any buildings to produce stuffs that can be plundered.

 

[DeletedUser28670]

2/ Not putting up any buildings to produce stuffs that can be plundered.

of course you can do that lol but most new players cant

 

[DeletedUser28670]

1. The cities defenses general needs to be fired for incompetence. I constantly evaluate whether I want to continue this game for one simple reason. The algorithm set in place for defending cities is to attack rogue units first, then attack legitimate fighting units. This means that attacking players can send in one legitimate fighter with seven rogues. My first six shots against the attacking player is wasted on a rogue unit who then turns into a legitimate fighter. The rest is history...cities defenses nearly always get defeated because of those first six wasted shots. Any smart general defending the city would attack the legitimate fighting unit, then proceed with knocking out the rogue units one by one...done, city is defended; not defeated. Don't get me wrong, rogue units are nice to have, but they should be limited in use to only quests, guild challenges and fighting on the territorial map for more land/resources.

2. After a cities defenses have been defeated (keeping in mind the above paragraph) the player then has up to 23 hours, 59 minutes to come back to plunder what they attacked up to nearly 24 hours prior. This crap pisses me off. If there is nothing to plunder at the time of defeat, then that should be it. If they have to wait nearly 24 hours to come back to plunder then another attack should be warranted...not just a free plunder without consequences.

Even good ideas are shot down regularly with the oft-used refrains, "this is a strategy game," "learn to plan ahead," or "go play candy crush"

I find the typical responses frustrating at times because they are indicative of a 'fan boi' mentality where inno can do no wrong and limit discussion of potentially good ideas

That being said the players who back inno, as well as inno themselves have almost always invested more thought, time, and energy into the game and have reasons for being stubbornly latching on to the status quo.

Ognor,
We have reasons for saying that, including, the person not asking politely, the person whining whining whinining, personal insults to plunderers, etc...
I personally really dislike whiners and insulters who want to change the game just for them

 

[DeletedUser31206]

1. The cities defenses general needs to be fired for incompetence. I constantly evaluate whether I want to continue this game for one simple reason. The algorithm set in place for defending cities is to attack rogue units first, then attack legitimate fighting units. This means that attacking players can send in one legitimate fighter with seven rogues. My first six shots against the attacking player is wasted on a rogue unit who then turns into a legitimate fighter. The rest is history...cities defenses nearly always get defeated because of those first six wasted shots. Any smart general defending the city would attack the legitimate fighting unit, then proceed with knocking out the rogue units one by one...done, city is defended; not defeated. Don't get me wrong, rogue units are nice to have, but they should be limited in use to only quests, guild challenges and fighting on the territorial map for more land/resources.
2. After a cities defenses have been defeated (keeping in mind the above paragraph) the player then has up to 23 hours, 59 minutes to come back to plunder what they attacked up to nearly 24 hours prior. This crap pisses me off. If there is nothing to plunder at the time of defeat, then that should be it. If they have to wait nearly 24 hours to come back to plunder then another attack should be warranted...not just a free plunder without consequences.

I know I am not the only player with this angry outlook on the game. Please respond to make this thread cause changes in the game play to make it a fair fight.

Good concept but you forgot to put it in a proper format.
In order to maintain a sense of uniformity in all submitted ideas, it is requested to follow the following format when posting new threads in the Proposals section. In including the following information in your proposal will ensure smooth exchange of ideas. Please include the section headers to make it easy to check the format.

NOTE: As of January 2015, we will move improperly formatted proposals to Forge Hall for discussion. The voting and submitting process is difficult with improperly formatted proposals. It is perfectly fine to discuss a proposal in Forge Hall prior to formal submission here. Do not create your proposal with a poll, unless instructed to do so by a staff member.

Many examples of properly formatted proposals can be found here: https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?forums/submitted.76/

Proposal Format

Proposal
Briefly outline what your proposal entails.

Current System (if applicable)
The system that currently exists in-game that is being replaced or improved by the feature you are proposing.

Details
Here you should give the details of your idea, explaining how it works, why you've suggested it and all other information you feel is necessary to convey the importance of the addition of your proposal.

Abuse Prevention
If there are any avenues for abuse that open with your proposal, state any safeguards present in your idea that closes them.

Visual Aids
Post any images you have created to demonstrate the implementation of your proposed feature. Please remember that any images posted must fit within the file size restrictions specified in the Forum Rules.

Conclusion
Any final comments to try and gain your proposal the favour of the community.

 

[*Arturis*]

People paid for the RH because it is what it is, if you change that, they won't get what the paid for, I don't think the game want to deal with all the outrages and possible lawsuit over it. On our 2nd topic, this is a browser game and there are relay in the game, so having the 24 hours after successful attack to plunder makes sense, you also have 24 hrs to plan out your production and collect them when they are due.

 

[DeletedUser31206]

1. The cities defenses general needs to be fired for incompetence. I constantly evaluate whether I want to continue this game for one simple reason. The algorithm set in place for defending cities is to attack rogue units first, then attack legitimate fighting units. This means that attacking players can send in one legitimate fighter with seven rogues. My first six shots against the attacking player is wasted on a rogue unit who then turns into a legitimate fighter. The rest is history...cities defenses nearly always get defeated because of those first six wasted shots. Any smart general defending the city would attack the legitimate fighting unit, then proceed with knocking out the rogue units one by one...done, city is defended; not defeated. Don't get me wrong, rogue units are nice to have, but they should be limited in use to only quests, guild challenges and fighting on the territorial map for more land/resources.
2. After a cities defenses have been defeated (keeping in mind the above paragraph) the player then has up to 23 hours, 59 minutes to come back to plunder what they attacked up to nearly 24 hours prior. This crap pisses me off. If there is nothing to plunder at the time of defeat, then that should be it. If they have to wait nearly 24 hours to come back to plunder then another attack should be warranted...not just a free plunder without consequences.

I know I am not the only player with this angry outlook on the game. Please respond to make this thread cause changes in the game play to make it a fair fight.

I have tried before to go after the other fighters and to leave both Champions and Rogues for last and while on my first attack it let's me choose other troops the game never lets me stick to the strategy.

 

[DeletedUser]

The rest is history...cities defenses nearly always get defeated because of those first six wasted shots.

Not always true. I pay lots of attention to defense boosts, so it is the rare player that gets past my city defense. No need to change the game for those that don't want to "waste time" on building up their defense. Absolutely a no from me.

 

[Volodya]

People paid for the RH because it is what it is, if you change that, they won't get what the paid for, I don't think the game want to deal with all the outrages and possible lawsuit over it. On our 2nd topic, this is a browser game and there are relay in the game, so having the 24 hours after successful attack to plunder makes sense, you also have 24 hrs to plan out your production and collect them when they are due.

The idiotic defensive AI is my only ongoing complaint about this game. It has nothing to do with rogues per se. As far as I'm concerned, Inno could double the attack of rogues, triple it, give 'em defensive hit points, in short, make rogues a lot more powerful than they are now. That's all good with me. It insults my intelligence though to be "defended" by an AI that systematically chooses the worst possible strategy against a 7-rogue army, an "intelligence" that would lose to a three year old in tic-tac-toe.

 

[DeletedUser31440]

The idiotic defensive AI is my only ongoing complaint about this game. It has nothing to do with rogues per se. As far as I'm concerned, Inno could double the attack of rogues, triple it, give 'em defensive hit points, in short, make rogues a lot more powerful than they are now. That's all good with me. It insults my intelligence though to be "defended" by an AI that systematically chooses the worst possible strategy against a 7-rogue army, an "intelligence" that would lose to a three year old in tic-tac-toe.

Maybe you should ban your General from the tavern, sounds like he is drunk.

 

[Volodya]

Maybe you should ban your General from the tavern, sounds like he is drunk.

Oh? Please elaborate.

 

[DeletedUser32389]

I like the idea of having advantages that you have earned, that's really what this game is about. When the AI for the continent map changed to make rogue-heavy armies less effective INNO admitted that the defense AI was weak as it is. The only thing that's worth discussing as far as I'm concerned is: What would be the price / trade-off for gaining the "continent map" AI on your own city defense?

 

[DeletedUser31440]

Oh? Please elaborate.

You tell the tavern keeper, don't let him drink. Not that complicated...

 

[Volodya]

You tell the tavern keeper, don't let him drink. Not that complicated...

Fine, I'll play. What is it about my post that you found to be incoherent or difficult to follow? Granted, it does contain a five syllable word, but if you sound it out really slowly you should be OK.

 

[DeletedUser31440]

Fine, I'll play. What is it about my post that you found to be incoherent? Granted, it does contain a five syllable word, but if you sound it out really slowly you should be OK.

Nothing was incoherent, I just think the leader of your defensive armies is drunk. While being drunk and in the town guard usually go hand in hand that works best in times of peace. If during times of war he is still hitting the bottle and making poor battlefield decisions it might be time to ban his drinking. Now if the tavern keeper continues to serve him you may need to resort to public executions, the more gruesome and painful the execution, the more effective the lesson is taught.