Where is the Fairness in these FB's,, Wrath of WEOR

56 Replies
Jezebel
28 July, 2017, 12:42 PM UTC
Oracle said:

FB are spells, and I believe any kind of limitation or timbering with the nature of FBs will greatly upset the balance of the game, 

After all They 're Weors-Wrath, God-revenge. Its supposed to be like that, calamitous and not inimical. Otherwise they should just name it Oberon Blessings. 

We need more FB's like attacks. 

Like one that Kills Legendary units in catacombs, one you can send in the fort or beacon. 

Maybe group FB attacks. These game right now is, heading in the league-wide aspects of things, maybe we should have a league FB attack. With 40% of leagues having players with 250 mil + defense, I don't see why not. 
I wish we had a ban button for you so we could stop your senseless posts
UTC +0:00
7
Insanity Talisman
28 July, 2017, 1:02 PM UTC
It's with good reason that I refer to sorcery spells as "Idiot's Fire" and have yet to fling even one. With all the more worthwhile items to spend sapphires on, I really don't understand the urge to use them.
"You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist."
UTC +7:00
0
johnnie1uk
28 July, 2017, 1:06 PM UTC
Insanity Talisman said:

It's with good reason that I refer to sorcery spells as "Idiot's Fire" and have yet to fling even one. With all the more worthwhile items to spend sapphires on, I really don't understand the urge to use them.
Likewise wouldnt waste a saph on one
UTC +0:00
1
Oracle
28 July, 2017, 1:11 PM UTC

Insanity Talisman said:


It's with good reason that I refer to sorcery spells as "Idiot's Fire" and have yet to fling even one. With all the more worthwhile items to spend sapphires on, I really don't understand the urge to use them.

There are many bullies in these game, who hides behind their leagues banners. Knowing very well that no matter how much offense you use against them their league will form a WOD big enough to kill your offense. 

I play the game alone. And I love FB, and with time have learned to use them well. 

People who argue against FB are more likely to be playing a lot with defense. I like marching out and killing things. And FB are the best way of killing things. 

FB can be used to hurt anyone (especially bullies). Taking that away from players is wrong, especially considering the level of bullying in the game. 

Biohazard has killed the forum.
UTC +2:00
0
Insanity Talisman
28 July, 2017, 1:29 PM UTC

Oracle said: "And FB are the best way of killing things."


You truly believe spending five hundred sapphires for a one-time hit of twelve thousand offense against someone is the best way to kill things? Tactics are obviously not your strong suit.
"You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist."
UTC +7:00
2
djmoody
29 July, 2017, 1:59 AM UTC

Andromeda said:


Only players who cant play waste their money on mass FB attacks.

Totally agree.

When you get fireballed you just chalk the sender up as an idiot who is highly unlikely to have any "game". 99 times out of 100 that is exactly how it turns out.
Everyone has a right to an opinion. No one has a right to their opinion being respected by other if it can't be backed up with rational and logic explanation
UTC +0:00
1
djmoody
29 July, 2017, 2:03 AM UTC

Jezebel said:


I wish we had a ban button for you so we could stop your senseless posts

Funnily enough I was thinking about that the other day too. A blacklist feature for the forums. It would solve a lot of problems to simply not see posts from people you don't particular like or respect, rather than end up in arguments. 

I suspect Plarium would entertain the idea if it weren't for the fact that they are actually paying the person who most of us would blacklist to make posts. So I doubt it will come soon.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. No one has a right to their opinion being respected by other if it can't be backed up with rational and logic explanation
UTC +0:00
3
Andromeda
29 July, 2017, 5:36 AM UTC

Oracle said:


Andromeda said:




Real warriors fight with troops.


Only players who cant play waste their money on mass FB attacks.

Real warriors fight to win. There is no honor in winning. Valor is for the timid. These is the truth. You can have 500 million offence, and have all those funny rules like I don't hit castles lower i level than mine, ect ect those are your imaginary rules. There is no fun in following rules.

Or you can have 100 FB and fight like a true Lord killing


My Dear Oracle,

Well, in server 3. The server you don't care about and know nothing about. The server YOU said we should all be "put in line" and server 3 is only a foot note to KT when kabam players first commented here. There's a league called "Great Fireballs".

It's made up of one player with 10+ alts. Yes, yes alts are a no no in Plariums eyes, but he spends hundreds of thousands of saphs on FBs. Spends money on each alt so Plarium ignores the "imaginary" rule. Now, players spend thousands of $$$ on castle walls and a strong defensive army. You leave them out over night because you are expecting a raid from a totally different player. Time zones often don't line up with many. You wake up the next day and...... 100 x10 fbs have been dropped on you from 10 different accounts. Over 1/2 your D is gone (very large numbers). All those saphs spent on walls were for nothing. Oh and bug.ger all pvp for losing your D. He's gone click click click and that's it. Real expert gameplay.

Eventually no-one even bothers "playing" against him because he has no troops and only FBs in extremely large numbers. It is proven here that players who only FB kill the game. Your ideas on FBs are game killers to say the least. I'm sure your perfect realm full of lords who do nothing but fb each others alter of weor all day would be very entertaining :/


True Lord you say?


Yeah, like you're a true mod who knows what he's talking about.

UTC +10:00
2
Oracle
29 July, 2017, 7:39 AM UTC

Andromeda said:

My Dear Oracle,

Well, in server 3. The server you don't care about and know nothing about. The server YOU said we should all be "put in line" and server 3 is only a foot note to KT when kabam players first commented here. There's a league called "Great Fireballs".

It's made up of one player with 10+ alts. Yes, yes alts are a no no in Plariums eyes, but he spends hundreds of thousands of saphs on FBs. Spends money on each alt so Plarium ignores the "imaginary" rule. Now, players spend thousands of $$$ on castle walls and a strong defensive army. You leave them out over night because you are expecting a raid from a totally different player. Time zones often don't line up with many. You wake up the next day and...... 100 x10 fbs have been dropped on you from 10 different accounts. Over 1/2 your D is gone (very large numbers). All those saphs spent on walls were for nothing. Oh and bug.ger all pvp for losing your D. He's gone click click click and that's it. Real expert gameplay.

Eventually no-one even bothers "playing" against him because he has no troops and only FBs in extremely large numbers. It is proven here that players who only FB kill the game. Your ideas on FBs are game killers to say the least. I'm sure your perfect realm full of lords who do nothing but fb each others alter of weor all day would be very entertaining :/


True Lord you say?


Yeah, like you're a true mod who knows what he's talking about.

No one like to have his defense killed. I understand your frustration. 

But that doesn't make FB's bad. It make the players using them to kill your defense bad.

If you get bullied a lot, FB's are the only way you can retaliate. There are players out there who are hated, forced to quit, constantly raided day in and day out, sieges send their way every day. FB's are perhaps the greatest measure against bullies. 

Your hate for FB's is entirely based on the fact that you hate to lose. And my love for FB is based on my experience in these game, particularly S1. We have a league there that has been bullied so many times, its now practically dead. Thier marshal is a level 80 something and I think they're French. They are basically everyone punching bag. They get their revenge through FB. Taking away FB's will be taking away the only way a bullied person can get justice. 

I too get FB'ed

 http://prntscr.com/g1qbs4

On a side note. Its OKAY you know, to have different opinion than other people, That doesn't make you BAD it just give you a different perspective on things. 

Biohazard has killed the forum.
UTC +2:00
0
Oracle
29 July, 2017, 7:46 AM UTC

djmoody said:

Funnily enough I was thinking about that the other day too. A blacklist feature for the forums. It would solve a lot of problems to simply not see posts from people you don't particular like or respect, rather than end up in arguments. 

I suspect Plarium would entertain the idea if it weren't for the fact that they are actually paying the person who most of us would blacklist to make posts. So I doubt it will come soon.

I am afraid Plarium is not going to introduce such a feature. I see such a feature as  one that gives people freedom to express/harbor hate and lack of respect, something that the forum rules doesn't promote. HATE after all is Plarium greatest obstacle, it can destroy their player base. They produce a platform that serve to promote fun and attract as many people as possible. And fun can't exist in harmony with hate and lack of respect. 

But you can always make a suggestion in the thread. The developer are currently working on improving the forum, and they might incorporate your suggestion. 

Biohazard has killed the forum.
UTC +2:00
0
Andromeda
29 July, 2017, 10:59 AM UTC

Oracle said:


Andromeda said:

My Dear Oracle,

Well, in server 3. The server you don't care about and know nothing about. The server YOU said we should all be "put in line" and server 3 is only a foot note to KT when kabam players first commented here. There's a league called "Great Fireballs".

It's made up of one player with 10+ alts. Yes, yes alts are a no no in Plariums eyes, but he spends hundreds of thousands of saphs on FBs. Spends money on each alt so Plarium ignores the "imaginary" rule. Now, players spend thousands of $$$ on castle walls and a strong defensive army. You leave them out over night because you are expecting a raid from a totally different player. Time zones often don't line up with many. You wake up the next day and...... 100 x10 fbs have been dropped on you from 10 different accounts. Over 1/2 your D is gone (very large numbers). All those saphs spent on walls were for nothing. Oh and bug.ger all pvp for losing your D. He's gone click click click and that's it. Real expert gameplay.

Eventually no-one even bothers "playing" against him because he has no troops and only FBs in extremely large numbers. It is proven here that players who only FB kill the game. Your ideas on FBs are game killers to say the least. I'm sure your perfect realm full of lords who do nothing but fb each others alter of weor all day would be very entertaining :/


True Lord you say?


Yeah, like you're a true mod who knows what he's talking about.

No one like to have his defense killed. I understand your frustration. 

But that doesn't make FB's bad. It make the players using them to kill your defense bad.

If you get bullied a lot, FB's are the only way you can retaliate. There are players out there who are hated, forced to quit, constantly raided day in and day out, sieges send their way every day. FB's are perhaps the greatest measure against bullies. 

Your hate for FB's is entirely based on the fact that you hate to lose. And my love for FB is based on my experience in these game, particularly S1. We have a league there that has been bullied so many times, its now practically dead. Thier marshal is a level 80 something and I think they're French. They are basically everyone punching bag. They get their revenge through FB. Taking away FB's will be taking away the only way a bullied person can get justice. 

I too get FB'ed

 http://prntscr.com/g1qbs4

On a side note. Its OKAY you know, to have different opinion than other people, That doesn't make you BAD it just give you a different perspective on things. 


It didn't happen to me, it happened to a friend of mine. Fbs are the only way to fight back? Rubbish. I've seen non coiner kick a coiners butt. You have to know your enemy and be at the right place at the right time. Tactics and use your imagination. Also there are other ways to get revenge on bullies. It may take weeks or even months. It just makes the victory so much sweeter. 

UTC +10:00
2
MENTAL
2 August, 2017, 10:00 PM UTC
Oracle said:

FB are spells, and I believe any kind of limitation or timbering with the nature of FBs will greatly upset the balance of the game, 

After all They 're Weors-Wrath, God-revenge. Its supposed to be like that, calamitous and not inimical. Otherwise they should just name it Oberon Blessings. 

We need more FB's like attacks. 

Like one that Kills Legendary units in catacombs, one you can send in the fort or beacon. 

Maybe group FB attacks. These game right now is, heading in the league-wide aspects of things, maybe we should have a league FB attack. With 40% of leagues having players with 250 mil + defense, I don't see why not. 
So less stradegy in a stradegy game. Just when you think you have heard all the crazy Oracle has to offer, he replies again.
UTC +0:00
1
Gadheras
3 August, 2017, 12:54 AM UTC
ACE said:

Oracle said:

FB are spells, and I believe any kind of limitation or timbering with the nature of FBs will greatly upset the balance of the game, 

After all They 're Weors-Wrath, God-revenge. Its supposed to be like that, calamitous and not inimical. Otherwise they should just name it Oberon Blessings. 

We need more FB's like attacks. 

Like one that Kills Legendary units in catacombs, one you can send in the fort or beacon. 

Maybe group FB attacks. These game right now is, heading in the league-wide aspects of things, maybe we should have a league FB attack. With 40% of leagues having players with 250 mil + defense, I don't see why not. 
So less stradegy in a stradegy game. Just when you think you have heard all the crazy Oracle has to offer, he replies again.
Dude, there is no strategy in a game such as this when your only limitations is how wide you willing to open your wallet. Some people are spending endless stream of cash on this....  Its like play whack a mole with jack in the box. 
UTC +2:00
1
Bear
18 October, 2017, 10:52 AM UTC

There are pluses and minuses to using FB's and to a low 40+ level user, a possible way of retaliation and to a high end level, the use of a strategic attack before a raid.... and so on.


I would however, like to suggest a compromise in that users can purchase FB's, but this is restricted to a fixed number of FB's purchased in a month. (The amount purchased IMO, would be relatively small and would need further discussions)  

This creates a purchasing cap and if a person eagerly uses their maximum FB purchases in a month, then they are unable to buy more until the next opportunity.

I would further suggest that people could bank these if they wished and if for example, a limit of 10 FB's a month was agreed on by whoever makes these decisions, then people could save them up and after 3 months, could send 30 FB's or whatever they had.


I personally don't like using FB's although confess to using them in attacks and therefore see some value to them but as mentioned in a previous comment, I would only buy them if they were reduced because of financial limitations.

Note: My suggestion has its flaws and accept comments both positive and negative, although I would appreciate feedback that is constructive either way.

Thank you for your time in reading this

UTC +1:00
0
BiohazarD
Moderator
18 October, 2017, 4:52 PM UTC

Bear said:


There are pluses and minuses to using FB's and to a low 40+ level user, a possible way of retaliation and to a high end level, the use of a strategic attack before a raid.... and so on.


I would however, like to suggest a compromise in that users can purchase FB's, but this is restricted to a fixed number of FB's purchased in a month. (The amount purchased IMO, would be relatively small and would need further discussions)  

This creates a purchasing cap and if a person eagerly uses their maximum FB purchases in a month, then they are unable to buy more until the next opportunity.

I would further suggest that people could bank these if they wished and if for example, a limit of 10 FB's a month was agreed on by whoever makes these decisions, then people could save them up and after 3 months, could send 30 FB's or whatever they had.


I personally don't like using FB's although confess to using them in attacks and therefore see some value to them but as mentioned in a previous comment, I would only buy them if they were reduced because of financial limitations.

Note: My suggestion has its flaws and accept comments both positive and negative, although I would appreciate feedback that is constructive either way.

Thank you for your time in reading this

As a low level player, be careful what you retaliate against though.  If you're a level 40-60 player getting hit by a level 80+ player you've never seen before, they probably just hit you because you looked like an easy target and they needed easy pvp or resources, and would soon forget about you.  But if you go and throw a bunch of fireballs at them they'll probably come back and hit you again.  

I don't see plarium doing a limit like that, because it would annoy a lot of big coiners who like to spam fireballs.  Plus it would just encourage alt accounts.  Somebody could keep a bunch of level 41 alts lying around, then when they want to fireball somebody they log into them and send 10 fbs from each one.  
Any opinions expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of or constitute official statements by Plarium.
UTC +0:00
0
Alina Phoenix
Community Manager
19 October, 2017, 9:39 AM UTC

BiohazarD said:


Bear said:


There are pluses and minuses to using FB's and to a low 40+ level user, a possible way of retaliation and to a high end level, the use of a strategic attack before a raid.... and so on.


I would however, like to suggest a compromise in that users can purchase FB's, but this is restricted to a fixed number of FB's purchased in a month. (The amount purchased IMO, would be relatively small and would need further discussions)  

This creates a purchasing cap and if a person eagerly uses their maximum FB purchases in a month, then they are unable to buy more until the next opportunity.

I would further suggest that people could bank these if they wished and if for example, a limit of 10 FB's a month was agreed on by whoever makes these decisions, then people could save them up and after 3 months, could send 30 FB's or whatever they had.


I personally don't like using FB's although confess to using them in attacks and therefore see some value to them but as mentioned in a previous comment, I would only buy them if they were reduced because of financial limitations.

Note: My suggestion has its flaws and accept comments both positive and negative, although I would appreciate feedback that is constructive either way.

Thank you for your time in reading this

As a low level player, be careful what you retaliate against though.  If you're a level 40-60 player getting hit by a level 80+ player you've never seen before, they probably just hit you because you looked like an easy target and they needed easy pvp or resources, and would soon forget about you.  But if you go and throw a bunch of fireballs at them they'll probably come back and hit you again.  

I don't see plarium doing a limit like that, because it would annoy a lot of big coiners who like to spam fireballs.  Plus it would just encourage alt accounts.  Somebody could keep a bunch of level 41 alts lying around, then when they want to fireball somebody they log into them and send 10 fbs from each one.  

Hello, my Lord.

First of all, thanks for your feedback and suggestions.

Unfortunately, we can't add this kind of limitation because as it was already mentioned by Biohazard, it can cause the increase in the number of alternative accounts.

As a part of the work against the activity of the players with the alternative accounts, devs always consider what advantages this or that update will give to them, and if there are any advantages, this features is not added.

 Still, on Facebook devs already added a temporary Castle skin that protects your Castle from Fireballs. More likely, in the future, this feature will be added to plarium.com as well.
Community Manager
UTC +2:00
0
MENTAL
19 October, 2017, 10:18 PM UTC

Current issue is that the only protection you get from FB limits your game play. Make it simple and add that protection to the smolderstone keep and give us a 30 day purchase option similar to 30 day paragon activation. If this feature is implemented the protection from FB should also turn off your ability to FB others while using, if not thought through you can create a very bad situation if someone is allowed to FB at will while being protected from them himself, that would make our current situation worse. There should also be a requirement of achieving a certain level before being allowed to use FB or another limiting factor to limit the use of alts to FB. Whether that be a castle level a lost art or another clever way to stop a FB (alt) castle, right now if you have a handful of alts and cycle through them waiting to buy the largest discount package to get FB then move to next castle so the discount package has time to increase in value there is no control to such action. These castles never develop nor build troops they are useless to the rest of the game for raiding and they extend the map size so our travel times keep increasing and their only purpose is to buy FB and hide the true owners identity so they can FB anonymously. There is no fear of retaliation since there are no troops and no value to the person using them so they do not care about retaliation, the only way to curb this action is force that castle to achieve a certain level before allowing FB. Right now we have a section of hamlets only available to players under lvl 70 if I remember correctly for their protection from larger players but what is in place to stop the use of alt castles (low level non developing castles with no troops or actual game play stats) from being used as FB only castles which can FB any level even if they have never been attacked by that player. Certain hero items can't be used until you reach a level, same holds true with relics, why not FB??



 

Here is another thought, you don't get to use Weors protection immediately after attacking similar to having to wait between castle relocates. My suggestion would be a one hour cool down from your last attack before you can enable weors protection. Too many abuse the system of FB then hide immediately after the FB hits with weors, this is not playing a strategy game, this is people abusing a system and a game to irritate others because their real life is lacking


UTC +0:00
0
bhagya_anne
20 October, 2017, 1:54 AM UTC
Jezebel said:

https://plarium.com/forum/en/stormfall-age-of-war/suggestions/35979_your-suggestions---2-2/?post=351703


i really don't like them either but I will use them since they are available but i buy them at discount if they were full price at all times I probably would not bother with them at all


the introduction of fireballs has taken away an aspect of the game that used to be common - I used to defend my castle at all times now I see it as pointless to defend as I am not willing to lose numerous defense units to fireballs - it takes 2-3 times longer to build defense as it does offense in this game so i would rather not waste it giving free points to people who are too lazy to raid and build their armies then actually USE them 

wow that is surprising, i am constantly resending archers to castles that you send Fireball to, thought you were a big fan.  I don't think i ever have to re-send my archer to castles you raid
UTC +7:00
1
Alina Phoenix
Community Manager
20 October, 2017, 12:08 PM UTC

MENTAL said:


Current issue is that the only protection you get from FB limits your game play. Make it simple and add that protection to the smolderstone keep and give us a 30 day purchase option similar to 30 day paragon activation. If this feature is implemented the protection from FB should also turn off your ability to FB others while using, if not thought through you can create a very bad situation if someone is allowed to FB at will while being protected from them himself, that would make our current situation worse. There should also be a requirement of achieving a certain level before being allowed to use FB or another limiting factor to limit the use of alts to FB. Whether that be a castle level a lost art or another clever way to stop a FB (alt) castle, right now if you have a handful of alts and cycle through them waiting to buy the largest discount package to get FB then move to next castle so the discount package has time to increase in value there is no control to such action. These castles never develop nor build troops they are useless to the rest of the game for raiding and they extend the map size so our travel times keep increasing and their only purpose is to buy FB and hide the true owners identity so they can FB anonymously. There is no fear of retaliation since there are no troops and no value to the person using them so they do not care about retaliation, the only way to curb this action is force that castle to achieve a certain level before allowing FB. Right now we have a section of hamlets only available to players under lvl 70 if I remember correctly for their protection from larger players but what is in place to stop the use of alt castles (low level non developing castles with no troops or actual game play stats) from being used as FB only castles which can FB any level even if they have never been attacked by that player. Certain hero items can't be used until you reach a level, same holds true with relics, why not FB??



 

Here is another thought, you don't get to use Weors protection immediately after attacking similar to having to wait between castle relocates. My suggestion would be a one hour cool down from your last attack before you can enable weors protection. Too many abuse the system of FB then hide immediately after the FB hits with weors, this is not playing a strategy game, this is people abusing a system and a game to irritate others because their real life is lacking



Hello.

The protection against FB was already added to Castle Skin on Facebook. In the future, devs can add this skin to plarium.com as well.

> There should also be a requirement of achieving a certain level before being allowed to use FB or another limiting factor to limit the use of alts to FB. 

This limit already exists. Only players with the level 40+ can purchase FB.

Weor's protection is a temporary Item and a player can hide behind it forever. You need just wait when the Item will get inactive and then attack this player back.

Community Manager
UTC +2:00
0
Jezebel
20 October, 2017, 2:29 PM UTC

Alina Phoenix said:


MENTAL said:


Current issue is that the only protection you get from FB limits your game play. Make it simple and add that protection to the smolderstone keep and give us a 30 day purchase option similar to 30 day paragon activation. If this feature is implemented the protection from FB should also turn off your ability to FB others while using, if not thought through you can create a very bad situation if someone is allowed to FB at will while being protected from them himself, that would make our current situation worse. There should also be a requirement of achieving a certain level before being allowed to use FB or another limiting factor to limit the use of alts to FB. Whether that be a castle level a lost art or another clever way to stop a FB (alt) castle, right now if you have a handful of alts and cycle through them waiting to buy the largest discount package to get FB then move to next castle so the discount package has time to increase in value there is no control to such action. These castles never develop nor build troops they are useless to the rest of the game for raiding and they extend the map size so our travel times keep increasing and their only purpose is to buy FB and hide the true owners identity so they can FB anonymously. There is no fear of retaliation since there are no troops and no value to the person using them so they do not care about retaliation, the only way to curb this action is force that castle to achieve a certain level before allowing FB. Right now we have a section of hamlets only available to players under lvl 70 if I remember correctly for their protection from larger players but what is in place to stop the use of alt castles (low level non developing castles with no troops or actual game play stats) from being used as FB only castles which can FB any level even if they have never been attacked by that player. Certain hero items can't be used until you reach a level, same holds true with relics, why not FB??



 

Here is another thought, you don't get to use Weors protection immediately after attacking similar to having to wait between castle relocates. My suggestion would be a one hour cool down from your last attack before you can enable weors protection. Too many abuse the system of FB then hide immediately after the FB hits with weors, this is not playing a strategy game, this is people abusing a system and a game to irritate others because their real life is lacking



Hello.

The protection against FB was already added to Castle Skin on Facebook. In the future, devs can add this skin to plarium.com as well.

> There should also be a requirement of achieving a certain level before being allowed to use FB or another limiting factor to limit the use of alts to FB. 

This limit already exists. Only players with the level 40+ can purchase FB.

Weor's protection is a temporary Item and a player can hide behind it forever. You need just wait when the Item will get inactive and then attack this player back.

apparently this new castle skin is double the price of the current temporary one and will cost you $20 per week if you want it


can't see myself wasting my money on something like that
UTC +0:00
0
1780985 users registered; 48438 topics; 287420 posts; our newest member:patrickluxem