• 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.
  • Halloween Event 2021


    Read all about the Halloween Event 2021 here!
  • Castle System

    The Castle System is a brand new feature in Forge of Empires which aims to reward players that are playing Forge of Empires actively. Come check it out in your city!
    Do you want to know more about this new feature? Then click here!
  • Cultural Settlement - Mughal Empire

    We are proud to present you our brand new Cultural Settlement: The Mughal Empire!
    This is the fifth of our Cultural Settlements, and your job is to help expand the Mughal Embassy.
    Read all about it here!

Spoiler New GB "Galata"?

Hiep Lin

Baronet
You can repeat this, a lot of newbie players will not be convinced.
They want to play without a schedule and without obligations.
If they are often looted they do not change the way they play, they quit the game. If it is necessary to supervise the crops, the game becomes a chore instead of a fun.

Forwards have a particular advantage, complaining that a GM for defenders is smaller than the Atlantic Museum seems a little odd to me.
 
This building won't in any way affect newbies rate of being plundered by low era campers unless the % chance to stop a plunder is extremely high at very low levels. If they can't get better than a level 4 or 5 Oracle and no Zeus by LMA, what makes you think they will have a decently leveled Galata by then (or earlier)?

It won't stop any whining or crying about being plundered either by these same players, and in the end they will quit the game the same as if the GB had never existed.

This could be a good endgame building though... especially for players who have real lives and can't always collect their cities on time. Terrible for plunderers though which I think are already disadvantaged enough.
 

derdelyi beta

Merchant
1. Harvest in time
Not an option for casual players. A casual player does not want to or cannot harvest just in time each day. That's the definition of the casual player.

2. Shield
For a casual player, the shield is really expensive. 9000 silvers for a single day protection? It would require ~6 full table collections in a max level tavern. Definitely not a long term solution for a casual player.

3. Aiding (trains, hippodromes, ...), including self-aiding
Noone has enough self-aid kits for this purpose. Casual players usually not members of high level guilds and have no 140 friends. So their city is not always fully motivated becasue they receive motivations mainly only from neighbours.

4. taking buildings off the street
Really? That's not a solution, because they do not know when they can log in next time :D It could be only a solution for a vacation weekend. But not a regular solution for the everydays.

My most concern about the new building is, that it is far smaller as the Atlantic Museum. Make it the same size and same price in goods as well as in FP and I´m (almost) okay with it.
Atlantic Museum is used by advanced players. This new GB will be used by casual players to protect themselves. (Note: advanced players won't build this GB because they harvest just in time :) ) So it's logical to make this GB cheaper than the Atlantic Museum.

Summary: Remember, most players in this game are casual players, who do not have a perfect city and they cannot harvest just in time. They just would like to go throug the ages and they don't want to camp in a specific age for years...
I think it could be really frustrating for them if their buildings are continously plundered becasue there are always some OP players in their neighborhood, who plunder all their neighbours each day.
This new GB may be a solution for these casual players to do something effective against plundering.

So please stop complaining against this new GB. Plundering is part of this game and will remain part of it. This GB won't give a 100% protection. It will give only a chance to fight back ;)
 

derdelyi beta

Merchant
This building won't in any way affect newbies rate of being plundered by low era campers unless the % chance to stop a plunder is extremely high at very low levels. If they can't get better than a level 4 or 5 Oracle and no Zeus by LMA, what makes you think they will have a decently leveled Galata by then (or earlier)?

It won't stop any whining or crying about being plundered either by these same players, and in the end they will quit the game the same as if the GB had never existed.

This could be a good endgame building though... especially for players who have real lives and can't always collect their cities on time. Terrible for plunderers though which I think are already disadvantaged enough.
It could be an interesting game mechanic, if the blueprints for this new GB could be collected only from plundered buildings :D e.g 100% chance to receive a bp from a plundered building. This would be a direct notification for the plundered players about the possible protection.

In addition, this GB will have X% chance for protection with Y charges. That could be interesting if the X% would be relative high at low levels, e.g.: lvl1 - 25%, lvl5 - 50%, lvl10 - 66% and slow down the increasing from this point and cap it around 80% at lvl60. On the other side the Y would be relative small. e.g.: 1 at lvl1 and 3-4 at lvl10.
 

griaxe

Merchant
casual players dont make money for INNO... let them quit if they cannot handle plundering...
where is this world coming to when people cannot suck it up and change their game play instead of whining or quitting? I say let them quit... there are more cut throat games out there ( like Tribal Wars for example) and FoE is not one of them... you cannot accommodate/protect every snowflake in this game... dont punish active players who actually finds time to go and attack hood! plundering is their reward and plundering was already made difficult with all those unplunderable buildings.
 

Xocolatl

Farmer
It's kind of ironic that so many people ridicule the whiners who don't want to be plundered, and then go on whining about a building that makes plundering harder. ;)

I wouldn't build it since I prefer revenge to prevention, but I think it would be a good idea for those who have a problem with plunderers. A more direct approach than city defense for those who don't mind being attacked but hate being plundered.
 

Emberguard

Regent
It's kind of ironic that so many people ridicule the whiners who don't want to be plundered, and then go on whining about a building that makes plundering harder. ;)
I just hope this isn't aiming to make it impossible to plunder. Making it harder is one thing, this..... I'm skeptical until we know more given we already have so many ways of preventing plunder post-battle. At what point do we say there's enough ways to defend yourself (or rather prevent the plunderer from having options)? Personally I'd prefer to make the defending army have better defending capabilities then to make the emphasis further on post-battle. What's the point of having a army if we're going to negate the fight result?
 
It's kind of ironic that so many people ridicule the whiners who don't want to be plundered, and then go on whining about a building that makes plundering harder. ;)
While I did state above that I thought that plundering was already watered down enough, I have no problem with the premise of this building outside of the fact that people are going to spend way more fp leveling this up than they would ever have plundered out of their cities just for a sense of security, and it won't stop the whining when people are plundered.

To me the question of whether this building will be worth taking any space and fp from my city is the passive daily collection. If it's great I'll likely build it. If it's good, then maybe. If it is supplies, coins, or happiness, not a chance.
 
It'd be interesting if the GB would allow us to set defenders for a second round army. Like a level 10 building has 2 extra defending units and level 100 has a full 8 for a total of 16. Maybe a gambit for attackers since they'd get less points, maybe would get people to stop their whining.
 

Teak

Merchant
I guess it’s an old book with a new cover:
Players who need it, don’t have the FP to get it to a proper level- players who can afford to level it to a proper level ( >70), don’t need it.
this will be a “prestige snack” for high players - get the blueprints, get it to 80 in a week, don’t touch it anymore.
Just crunching the numbers:
If it’s as cheap as an Obs or ToR it will be rushed - lower players will have a better RoI if they just level their FP buildings;
If it is as expensive as a mars or asteroid building the effect is even worse.
buildings like that ( I get Inno’s Intention of protecting “lower” players) make the situation even worse for them, because they dump their FPs for a mediocre effect: the real protection is for the players, who don’t care if they would lose 5 or 10 FPs now or then- nevertheless they can afford to boost it so they have proper % or stacks.
In the end lower players get plundered while they can’t retaliate anymore
good f4cking job :)
 

xivarmy

Emperor
considering it is only 3x3, it might really be interesting...
I recon, it could be something like X% chance to repel a plunder X times. both parameters going up with the GBs level - otherwise it would be way too mighty as there usually only are a few plunderers in a hood and a guaranteed block (even if it only is 4 blocks per day) could banish plundering completely.
Even a significant chance to block a plunder is way too powerful. Plunder needs more incentive not more ways to make it futile - they had slowly been moving in that direction with trains and the racetrack - if this comes to bear its firmly throwing the middle finger up at that. Also calls into question their defense of their deplorable PvP tower of "well you can still fight and plunder your neighbors" (no actually I can't, you made that easy to prevent).

I'm still pissed city shields exist - but at least they require pretty much a person's entire tavern income to maintain. A GB is too far.
 

xivarmy

Emperor
While players have to accept the risk of looting, looters can accept that they have the opportunity to defend themselves.
Let me loot their entire city then ;) Their building can let them keep 30% of it :p Attackers get a chance to pick up *1* building. Amongst a very small selection of "buildings worth a damn". If it's unmotivated. At an unspecified time. If the owner who knows when it's ready doesn't make it there first. It's hardly even worth the bother as is. It doesn't need to be even less worth the bother.

Edit: The lack of people who engage in neighborhood combat to begin with is indicative of the issue. If "attackers" had it so good, one would expect half your hood to attack you. Not 0-2 people as is typically actually the case.
 
Last edited:

coolyfooly

Squire
I would love to see a GB give 10% boost to any other GB that is touching it, and maybe 0.1% increase per lvl after lvl 10. So if Arc touching it would give it 90 to 99% increase would be awesome :)