• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can     REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.

Do Not Suggest Complaint and suggestion- GB disconnecting should be not allowed!

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser5882

Guest
I just had the nastiest GB disconnecting incident!

A player had his Arc reach 69 and I checked his GB. All levels (p1/2) was sniped with regular 50% placement. Definitely nothing 1.9 or so. I thought now it is 70 so not many would want to place fps since profit is much less so I decided to go for his p1. Normally I am cautious but this is a good thing for a player if they have no 1.9 support so did not mind and placed on my pc with normal speed.

Suddenly while 110 fps was remaining to complete, the GB got disconnected. Later He got someone to fill p1 deliberately causing me a huge loss over 1K fps! Any honor and decency should not be looked in people like these!!!!

However now the thing is, this is outright robbery!! There is no other explanation for something like this and FoE has no rules or protection against such robbery and despicable behavior!

Either make it possible to keep placing fps even if disconnected or add a feature to make it possible for GB owner to block the GB from placing any fps before!

And I would like to know if this is a support matter because as I said, this was deliberate and simply robbery since the GB owner had zero loss and te other player did even make profit ... over me !!!!

EDIT: NormaJeane - 2018-12-14 - removed player names.​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0 Downvote
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.

ebs the drunk

Squire
Darrth Eugene Vader said:
No. No player (GB Owner) should be allowed to forbid or prevent me to invest in his/her building, and risk my FPs to secure a top wining spot if the game has given me the right to do so (by placing me as a neighbor, or while being a friend or guildmate).

No player (GB Owner) has the right to telling me what I do or not with my FPs.
Click to expand...
I agree to an extent. I would like to prevent players from leveling the GB (taking the last fp) without disconnecting the building. So in that regard, I would like to tell other players what to do with their FP.
 

DeletedUser8859

Guest
Ebs the Drunk said:
So in that regard, I would like to tell other players what to do with their FP.
Click to expand...

You can tell (send a message) in an firm / assertive tone if you want / need to, but without insults.

But you can not control, prohibit or force how another player play the game.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I really, really can't believe what I am reading :D Sniper caught with his pants down and whining :D Thank you, that was the second most funny topic I've ever read on this forum :D
 

ebs the drunk

Squire
Darrth Eugene Vader said:
You can tell (send a message) in an firm / assertive tone if you want / need to, but without insults.

But you can not control, prohibit or force how another player play the game.
Click to expand...
Or they can add an option to lock the building or prevent it from auto leveling when completed.
Disconnecting prevents what others do with their FP as well. Buying the city defense prevents people from attacking you. There's plenty of ways to control how others "play" with your city. In fact, leveling other peoples controls how the owner plays. So your argument makes little sense.

I don't care about the snipers or who gets what place, but preventing players from leveling my buildings is a control that makes sense.
 

DeletedUser8859

Guest
Maybe modify the Ignore List function to include that an Ignored Player cannot invest in the Ignoring Player GBs.
  • If the Player has FPs invested in the current level of the GB, and then he/she is sent to the Ignore List, the game would allow donations to continue during this level. (Donations started before being ignored).
  • On the new level of the GB, then the now Ignored Player would not be able to add FPs.
 

ebs the drunk

Squire
Darrth Eugene Vader said:
Disconnecting a GB hurts the GB Owner more than the sniper.
Click to expand...
0mNTKj5.gif
 

DeletedUser8859

Guest
Ebs the Drunk said:
but preventing players from leveling my buildings is a control that makes sense.
Click to expand...

That is a strategy used by (among others) victims of plundering to get "even" with their plunderers. A "locking option" that would stop the GB from leveling up if not by the GB Owner is not likely to be implemented.
 

ebs the drunk

Squire
Darrth Eugene Vader said:
My argument is that no player can order a second player "Do not invest in my GB".
Click to expand...
Yea and my argument is only about the last FP, about the rest of it.
You said "you can not control, prohibit or force" and while that's technically false, as for who invests and who gets what place, I agree with you, that should be fair game. But I only want control, as an owner, over who completes the level. There's no point in messaging every single person as there's nothing I can do to prevent someone from leveling it and that's that part I have an issue with.

Darrth Eugene Vader said:
A "locking option" that would stop the GB from leveling up if not by the GB Owner is not likely to be implemented.
Click to expand...
A lock is already there after lv10, it just needs adjusted to prevent "completion" to allow owners to collect on their own terms and needs applied to lower levels.
J9pGX14.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser8859

Guest
Darrth Eugene Vader said:
Maybe modify the Ignore List function to include that an Ignored Player cannot invest in the Ignoring Player GBs.
  • If the Player has FPs invested in the current level of the GB, and then he/she is sent to the Ignore List, the game would allow donations to continue during this level. (Donations started before being ignored).
  • On the new level of the GB, then the now Ignored Player would not be able to add FPs.
Click to expand...

What about the above proposed solution?
 

DeletedUser8859

Guest
Ebs the Drunk said:
A lock is already there after lv10, it just needs adjusted to prevent "completion" to allow owners to collect on their own terms and needs applied to lower levels
Click to expand...

That existing lock is to open new levels (from level 11 up) with payment of full set of BPs, not lock to prevent complete current level FPs.

A lock to protect the "double dipping" by owner, to eliminate the revenge strategy of leveling up the GB by (for example) plundered victims, or to prevent leveling by "accident" has been asked before in other forums.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top