Rejected selection to whom can add to great buildings

[jasmine12345678910]

Reason

want to level them myself or choose who I would like to give rewards to

Details

click a box to select or unselect

Balance

no changes to anything else , may possibly help lower ranked players

Abuse Prevention

none

Summary

none

Have you looked to see if this has already been suggested?

y

I think there should be the option to select or deselect who and who you dont want adding to your great buildings

 

[CrashBoom]

that default is good

actually that default is terrible
with every of your posting you make your idea worse

if a new / inexperienced player don't know that he must add players nobody will help him

new hood, player forget to add new neighbors: bad for them. old added neighbors gone. new are not on the list
new guild members can't help if not added (and you must add all in a good guild. or how do you explain them only the players with Arc below level 80 are allowed to help in the 1.85 sponsoring. or using the x FP chains)

 

[jasmine12345678910]

actually that default is terrible
with every of your posting you make your idea worse

if a new / inexperienced player don't know that he must add players nobody will help him

new hood, player forget to add new neighbors: bad for them. old added neighbors gone. new are not on the list
new guild members can't help if not added (and you must add all in a good guild. or how do you explain them only the players with Arc below level 80 are allowed to help in the 1.85 sponsoring)

old players wouldnt be gone because they were accepted to add , why would they need to be removed unless you were to remove them first

 

[jasmine12345678910]

you are so funny
you talk about players who are gone and can't donate anymore.
removing players who can't donate to prevent them from donating would just plain stupid

what about the actual part of my posting
every new player (hood, guild, friend) must be added

whys that ? they can let a player in the hood add 1 fp for first place then hood gets changed but that player stay's first and gets reward !

 

[jasmine12345678910]

whys that ? they can let a player in the hood add 1 fp for first place then hood gets changed but that player stay's first and gets reward !

well thers those little info boxes that pop up add one of those

 

[Emberguard]

that doesnt specify that atall .

Then what does the hood rotation info popup say if not that you have both enemy and ally in the neighbourhood?

well thers those little info boxes that pop up add one of those

And are you certain players would understand it the first time?

whys that ? they can let a player in the hood add 1 fp for first place then hood gets changed but that player stay's first and gets reward !

That's one very good reason against the proposed feature: too easy to abuse it.

 

[jasmine12345678910]

Then what does the hood rotation info popup say if not that you have both enemy and ally in the neighbourhood?

And are you certain players would understand it the first time?


That's one very good reason against the proposed feature: too easy to abuse it.

cant be certain they will understand first time , like most of things on game they dont understand first time can see that just looking in global chat sometimes.
no one pays any attention of what you write on profile I have found so unless you read it you wont know , I have players to quick to add to my gb's in one of my cities in main game and my profile clearly states to not add as they will just lose there fp as I will delete the gb they add to , and this is what I have been doing and thers been thousands of fp wasted already .

 

[CrashBoom]

cant be certain they will understand first time

and for that reason your default setting would be terrible

I have players to quick to add to my gb's in one of my cities in main game and my profile clearly states to not add as they will just lose there fp as I will delete the gb they add to , and this is what I have been doing and thers been thousands of fp wasted already .

you already found your solution

so no need to punish players who don't understand this new feature

 

[Emberguard]

I have players to quick to add to my gb's in one of my cities in main game and my profile clearly states to not add as they will just lose there fp as I will delete the gb they add to , and this is what I have been doing and thers been thousands of fp wasted already .

Then that's your choice to cost yourself FPs. This is a strategy game and each strategy has its own trade off. Your suggestion would remove all need to think ahead for unlocking GBs or disconnecting them from the road

 

[CrashBoom]

the funny thing is
if a player would read: "if somebody donates to my GB I will delete them"
and I see a level 60 Arc where I could donate 1700 FP for place 1 I would just for fun donate it to see him delete that GB

 

[jasmine12345678910]

all it has to be is like the animation etc tick boxes to select or deselect , simple

thers no fp lose on my part just those who add 1200 at a time then lose them for not reading
you play this game at your own pace nobody elses , Ive lost alot of interest over the years of playing and thats alot now .

wouldnt need to keep disconnecting from road if this option was avaliable .

 

[CrashBoom]

wouldnt need to keep disconnecting from road if this option was avaliable .

wouldn't need to keep disconnecting from road if you would know how to play

sniping is only possible if you allow it to happen

 

[jasmine12345678910]

the funny thing is
if a player would read: "if somebody donates to my GB I will delete them"
and I see a level 60 Arc where I could donate 1700 FP for place 1 I would just for fun donate it to see him delete that GB

like me wouldnt that player get fed up with it over time and decide to quit costing foe players , thankyou for just putting that because thats a great example for why this would be a good option

 

[CrashBoom]

like me wouldnt that player get fed up with it over time and decide to quit costing foe players , thankyou for just putting that because thats a great example for why this would be a good option

thats a great example for players allowing sniping and it is their fault because they play wrong

don't unlock Arc.
search 2 people who make 1 & 2 at the rate you want (1.9 or 1.85 or whatever you can get)
unlock when both are ready.
can't be sniped

 

[Emberguard]

like me wouldnt that player get fed up with it over time and decide to quit costing foe players

If a player will delete their own city purely because FoE is a multiplayer game and they're trying to place single player then your idea won't make them stay. They'll still quit

 

[Emberguard]

If anything your idea would make far more people quit because then they have to constantly click on who is allowed to interact with their city

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

Who can add FPs to a Player's GB?

• Guildmates
• Friends
• Neighbors
• GB Owner

As a player you can control your friends list. If you don't want the friend to donate to your GBs just remove him/her as a friend. Probably the player would cancel the friendship first when he/she notices that he/she is forbidden to donate to your GBs. Your value as a friend is reduced if you set a rule that the friend cant donate to your GBs. I have friends that were chosen just for the objective of GB investing, I dont care if they visit my tavern or not, or how many times per week they motivate/polish at my city. If I cant invest at their GBs they will be removed from the friends list at once.

Part of the privileges of being in a guild is the ability to invest in all GBs at guild members cities. Your idea would limit that, create frictions between guildmates, and a lot of drama. As a Founder of guilds I would remove members that set such a rule, less conflicts to mediate with means a lot for Leaders and Founders.

A player cant control his/her neighbors. you may ask Support to change you to another neighborhood but I dont think "Neighbor X donated 50 FPs to my Arc" will be considered valid a justification. The game provides the neighborhoods to allow social interaction between players, including: motivation, polishing, plundering and GB investments. You may limit plundering with Taverns Shields, but that comes with a high cost. To limit/block GB investments, if it is ever implemented, shall come with similar costs.

 

[jasmine12345678910]

If a player will delete their own city purely because FoE is a multiplayer game and they're trying to place single player then your idea won't make them stay. They'll still quit

did not say the idea would make players stay ! and no mention to saying about a single playing game, if you have option to selct deselect players thats still multiplayer game.
you dont have to constantly select to have animations etc deselected or selected everytime you go on your game

 

[Emberguard]

did not say the idea would make players stay !

If it won't make them stay then what's your point?

like me wouldnt that player get fed up with it over time and decide to quit costing foe players , thankyou for just putting that because thats a great example for why this would be a good option

Guess we can scrap that sentence as you've just backtracked on it.

and no mention to saying about a single playing game,

If you don't want single player then why are you trying to isolate your city from the outside?

 

[Emberguard]

you dont have to constantly select to have animations etc deselected or selected everytime you go on your game

No, but this idea would require selecting every player someone comes into contact with from neighbourhood rotations if they want any free donations.

 

[Goldra]

Im disagree

I use my arc90 to get extra fp of my neighboors and friends. You're idea will cut this and allow cheats, because you can allow only one player to get a prize on your gb, and let him to get more than 1000 fp just for 1 fp.