• 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.

Rejected Week of the pirat/plunderer

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pachom

Farmer
Reason
It enhaces the importance of the attac and the defence values. And gives a variety in gaming.
Details
In the plunderperiod ( week, ten days) the protection by Motivation, the not being blunderability of whishingwells and other buildings, is set aside.
Balance
The defence is often irrelevant, that ist turned round, and all These fields of whishingwells etc are Not that sure and demand more attention for a limited !!! Time once or twice in a year. Gives certain buildings a bigger importance. Means, some will perhaps reconfigurate their cities for this time. The City shield feature should as well as the Motivationprotection be disabled in this time, and the paid Tavernetime of the shield feature can just be proceded afterwards.
Abuse Prevention
No abuse posible, because it is a special time, the time for the Pirates.
Summary
The overprotective way of boring whishingwells towns will be broken by The Weeks of the plunderers.
Have you looked to see if this has already been suggested?
Didnot find this suggestion
With the new Galata and the general idea to vitalize fighting,
visiting your neighbours with better plunder options for a certain period of time because the protection, that makes cities and certain buildings fully untouchable is put aside.
 
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
all players should get the same

Players strategies, particular strength / weakness, play time periods, time zones and others impacts how much they will be affected by plunderers. The idea may disarm them of some actual strategy but new ones could be set to counter the Pirates/Plunderers if the Week is implemented.
 
Last edited:
so thinking there doesn't exist anything until the production is finished is just wrong

If the City Owner cant collect until completed, then the plunderer cant plunder until it is finished.
Allowing to plunder before the collection time is wrong.

If adding during the Week a special plundering option to raid production buildings that are still producing the plunderer should get just a partial reward, if building is at 75% of the mie required then the plunderer to receive 75% of what the building was set to produce. Inno to work on rounding rules if needed.

If this option is added, the plunderer should not know which building has complete production ready or just partial production (still working). The risk of choosing a less rewarding plunderable building must remain.
 
If you want see thousands and thousands of unhappy players, see how innogames starts losing money and see how people start leaving the game, make this idea something true XD , this Idea should be deleted as soon as possible XD

In my 1st post (Post #3) I mentioned issues vs the DNSL.
  • Extreme changes (new battle system, ...) : your idea impacts Battles at neighborhood / Plundering, plus the mechanics for Motivation, Tavern Shields, and Building designs (removing non plundering characteristics)
  • Changes to Great Building Bonuses. if there is an issue with a GB that needs balancing this should be discussed in a feedback section rather than as a new idea. - You cant impact the way Great Buildings work via an idea. Therefore you cant include cancelling the new Galata Tower protection, or cancelling the non plunderable characteristics of Great Buildings like Cape Canaveral.
  • Changes to existing rewards. - Your idea expands the rewards opportunities after a victory at a Neighborhood battle by including buildings not currently allowed for plundering and by disabling current anti plundering strategies like Tavern shields, etc.
Further discussion have eliminated the conflict with "Changes to Great Building Bonuses." Refer to Post #7 from the OP Pachom. Also the OP reduced impact of "Changes to existing rewards" / "Extreme Changes" by keeping protection of collecting on time, refer to Post #7, the discussion have provided other opinions in favor and against this. Improvements have solve the issues? More to come before evaluation time? Lets see.

Debate continues to improve/challenge/solve balance / abuse issues or to defeat the idea/suggestion until the Moderators decide it is enough to evaluate and transfer the idea to another subforum: forwarded? archive? do not suggest?

@Moderators, please add a poll to cast votes in favor / or against the idea. (Edit: thanks).
 
Last edited:

Emberguard

Emperor
so you are saying when something is produced in 24 hours it doesn't exist 23 hours 59 minutes and in the last second it is created :rolleyes:
well yes. If it’s not a full and complete product then you don’t have the complete item to steal.

If I’m trying to make wine and you take it before it’s finished then you would either have to throw it out because it’s undrinkable, or it’d still be grapes or cider vinegar, or an entirely different quality of wine from what was intended.

If my men are in the forest picking out a tree to cut down it’d be mighty hilarious to watch your guys try to snatch it while it’s still in the ground attached to its roots

If it’s electronic or mechanical you don’t want a faulty item blowing up in your face when you turn it on because you interrupted production.

And certainly if I’m making 30 toys, 30 did not exist for the entire production time. It took 2 days to make 30
 

Hiep Lin

Viceroy
With the new Galata and the general idea to vitalize fighting,
visiting your neighbours with better plunder options for a certain period of time because the protection, that makes cities and certain buildings fully untouchable is put aside.
If I propose a week during which it is impossible to attack the neighbors, do you like it?
The attackers are already advantaged, no need to add more, and especially not the possibility of looting diamonds.
Secondary worlds should not be used to loot diamonds for a primary world.
 
If I propose a week during which it is impossible to attack the neighbors, do you like it?

That would be the "Week of the DA", maybe with Tavern Shields with a huge discount. But that requires a separate Idea/Proposal.
It does not matter if the OP of this idea likes that idea or not. In the worst case he/she can debate against and vote No.

Secondary worlds should not be used to loot diamonds for a primary world.

Diamonds obtained in secondary worlds, by any means Inno decides to provide available, will likely be used at the Player's Main City. If Inno release a Diamonds producing building, with a plunderable characteristic, the player can use diamonds plundered from it at any city he/she chooses (likely the Main one). There is no "Global Diamonds" counter for diamonds available to be used in any city at the account vs another "City Diamonds" counter for diamonds with restriction to be used only at current city (city from where they were originally collected (or won, or plundered)).
 
Last edited:

Hiep Lin

Viceroy
Currently it is not possible to plunder diamonds. It must not and will not change.
plunder the w wells will never be possible, besides a motivated building either.

I do not understand that a player can come up with such an idea. it is so obvious that it will not be accepted by the players or by inno.
 
Currently it is not possible to plunder diamonds.
Correct.

It must not and will not change. plunder the w wells will never be possible, besides a motivated building either.
Must not? I agree.
Will not? Will never? Master Yoda would reply "Impossible to see the future is."

I do not understand that a player can come up with such an idea. it is so obvious that it will not be accepted by the players or by inno.
Understand?
  • Each player is a different person, multiple opinions will exist on this and every other topic.
Obvious?
  • Well, Players so far are rejecting the idea 4 YES vs 14 NO. Voting are not closed yet.
  • No feedback from Inno yet, but what is the record from Inno so far?
    • To favor the attackers/plunderers? or
    • To favor those against plundering?
 
Last edited:

miSc

Steward
Silly idea. Good way to force players to abandon game. It's already an issue now, and you wish to make it worse?
I stopped plundering completely, and gained a lot more instead. Friendly messages, a ton of aiding and players giving FP to GBs + taking trades.
Plundering only leads to nasty PMs, upset players, and a 10 page long ignore list.

I'm surprised the plundering feature hasen't been removed entirely. Rest of the game encourages teamplay, and this feature does the complete opposite.
There are plenty of other games where people can live out their need to be an jack***.
 

Emberguard

Emperor
I'm surprised the plundering feature hasen't been removed entirely. Rest of the game encourages teamplay, and this feature does the complete opposite.
Actually this fits in perfectly with the rest of the game. What do you think GvG and GBG is if not choosing who to fight against as an enemy and who to ally with? Neighbourhoods are the exact same thing but on a individual level. Even GE has an opponent

You also couldn’t remove plundering easily without obsoleting a huge chunk of players cities for those that have focused on building city defence or on plundering. You’d have to repurpose every event building, every special building and every GB that either adds to city defence or interacts with plundering directly as the bonuses function

And if you did repurpose in order to remove plundering players may not want the repurposed version. How would you compensate those who spent tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of FPs on city defence if you removed it? How would you compensate those that spent real money on plundering or defending against plundering (directly or indirectly) who would have never bought those items if plundering didn’t exist?

There are plenty of other games where people can live out their need to be an jack***.
It’s not being a jerk to plunder. You’d lose far more resources losing a province/hex in GvG and GBG, and in GvG/GBG you have even less options to defend yourself. It’s simply playing the game that you signed up to play. It only becomes personal once someone makes it personal. If you find it a big deal to be plundered then you’re either way too attached to the game resources or need to change strategy so the losses are minimal.
 

CrashBoom

Legend
I'm surprised the plundering feature hasn't been removed entirely.
probably because it is one of the very few things that are part since the beginning of the game

and that are not much things that are part of the game since the beginning
- research (ended after late middle age)
- world map (also ended after late middle age, no ema bonus questline)
- trading with neighbors: no friends or guilds at that time and even worse: not even neighborhood changes. so hoods become smaller and smaller when players stopped playing
- motivating but only directly in the neighbors city. no aid button
- attacking and plundering neighbors
 

miSc

Steward
Actually this fits in perfectly with the rest of the game. What do you think GvG and GBG is if not choosing who to fight against as an enemy and who to ally with? Neighbourhoods are the exact same thing but on a individual level. Even GE has an opponent

You also couldn’t remove plundering easily without obsoleting a huge chunk of players cities for those that have focused on building city defence or on plundering. You’d have to repurpose every event building, every special building and every GB that either adds to city defence or interacts with plundering directly as the bonuses function

And if you did repurpose in order to remove plundering players may not want the repurposed version. How would you compensate those who spent tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of FPs on city defence if you removed it? How would you compensate those that spent real money on plundering or defending against plundering (directly or indirectly) who would have never bought those items if plundering didn’t exist?

It’s not being a jerk to plunder. You’d lose far more resources losing a province/hex in GvG and GBG, and in GvG/GBG you have even less options to defend yourself. It’s simply playing the game that you signed up to play. It only becomes personal once someone makes it personal. If you find it a big deal to be plundered then you’re either way too attached to the game resources or need to change strategy so the losses are minimal.

What you mention there are all teambased, as I understand we are talking about the "individual level".
Rest I can't argue with, but fact remains - it's a major nuisance to a lot of players.
I doubt Innogames would want to build on that anger.. lol

We can easily agree that people make it personal, I get a ton of messages every time I plunder some one. I personally have no problem with it, as I simply manage my harvesting times and plan out production carefully. You don't even NEED defences really..

BUT... I also understand it can be very annoying, I have emphathy for those who experience constant plundering. However, it's part of the game.
On the individual level its just too big an issue (I think), judging from the daily hate mail.. lol
Hence why I wonder innogames haven't removed it, as it causes so much grievance.
 

miSc

Steward
probably because it is one of the very few things that are part since the beginning of the game

and that are not much things that are part of the game since the beginning
- research (ended after late middle age)
- world map (also ended after late middle age, no ema bonus questline)
- trading with neighbors: no friends or guilds at that time and even worse: not even neighborhood changes. so hoods become smaller and smaller when players stopped playing
- motivating but only directly in the neighbors city. no aid button
- attacking and plundering neighbors

I know, I've been here since 2011/12. :)
I was the one suggesting the overall aidbutton, as players are getting severe arthritis from all the clicking! lol

But lots of events and features have been implemented since, making some of the older ones obsolete.
 

Emberguard

Emperor
What you mention there are all teambased
But still the same thing just on a bigger scale. You choose who to make an enemy and by participating the enemy will lose resources because you‘re taking land from them in order to participate.

On the individual level its just too big an issue (I think), judging from the daily hate mail.. lol
Hence why I wonder innogames haven't removed it, as it causes so much grievance.
Receiving hate mail isn’t a good indicator on its own of it being a issue without digging deeper. If those giving the hate mail will object to every tiny interaction and aren’t looking for a solution then it’s not the game that’s the issue. It’s someone who doesn’t want to play a multiplayer but signed up to a online multiplayer anyway. And that’s what I tend to find from those I talk to. No matter what solutions are provided they reject it because they don’t want a multiplayer BUT insist on reaping all benefits that come with keeping it a multiplayer which is a unrealistic expectation.
 

miSc

Steward
I get why it can get personal though, as they invest their own real money into the game. SURE it's with a risk, everybody knows that.
 

CrashBoom

Legend
I get why it can get personal though, as they invest their own real money into the game. SURE it's with a risk, everybody knows that.
what if I invest money in an online shooter game ?
can't I get shot/killed anymore ?

but good news
FoE plus could have an auto-collect.
then a player investing real money can't get plundered anymore because there are no finished uncollected productions anymore :rolleyes:
 

Emberguard

Emperor
I get why it can get personal though, as they invest their own real money into the game. SURE it's with a risk, everybody knows that.
That’s a ridiculous reason to get upset though. It’s like buying better armour for a character. Unless it states otherwise you’re not buying invincibility, just a better load out to compete with
 

Tahrakaiitoo

Marquis
Sounds absolutely horrible to me. If something like that would happen; I would disconnect all my buildings and just not log in for that period of time.
I don't think that's the kind of thing Inno would want to happen.

If all of that would be an opt-in event, then sure. But not something that's forced on the whole playerbase.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top