Forum: empire-en
Board: [580] Update Questions & Feedback
Topic: [358876] Discussion Thread: Private Resource Villages
[5012125]
Batten (GB1) [GB1]
:: Nov. 27, 2018, 2:45 a.m.
1. RV’s were free now they cost something and can be purchased for rubies ergo they are more expensive and now have an attached cost. Free is better for resource players in small alliances. Tablets cost something to obtain and it takes inordinately long to obtain tablets than it did to launch in game with wolves bought with charcoal sent with earnt coins. So to summarise more rubies more effort more time to gain something you could obtain in seven minutes or less.BM Fujiwara said:Hiya, sorry about the delays in responding to a lot of these, RL is busy busy at the mo. Quick answers to some of the frequently asked bits and bobs, if I miss something, please yell at me:
1) OMG these are expensive, moar rubies needed
Not really. A level 10 private RV (same as public RVs) costs 35 tokens. From the pricing info we've been given so far 10,500 nomad/samurai tokens can be spent per event to buy 45 tokens. This gets you a level 11 private RV. Every 5 nom/sam events (total, not each) gets you enough tokens to get two level 15 RVs (in ice for example these are 60% boosts rather than 50%) with 5 tokens left over.
2) With all this extra food top players are going to be stupidly OP, widening the gap further
Again, not really. It's true that the highly active players and the big spenders will swap all theirs out, so for example in ice that'll be a 300% total RV bonus rather than 250%, but in turn this frees up 5 public RVs for "other people". Not only that, but everyone can gain access to RVs without needing to take them off someone else - you can gain the private equivalent of 9 public food RVs for every 7 nomad/samurai events (again, total, not each), so literally everyone should be narrowing the gap to the top players with this.
3) But what about the shells just hoarding even more RVs?
Yeah, this has been an issue ... However, it's unlikely that the update will impact it all that much - if anything it'll be less of an issue because this no longer deprives active players of being able to at least get their own RVs of a sort. Furthermore this practice has only been happening because the things are gold dust (particularly sand/fire food ones. If everyone has access to them, there's no actual incentive for shells holding RVs to be a thing any more.
4) Part of the point of the game has been fighting over this stuff and the strongest keeping them, what gives?
Yup, this is true, and definitely this is changing. A lot of people seem to have a preference for PvE grind over PvP festivities (and speaking personally this makes me sad, but this _is_ the more prominent behaviour in the playerbase whether I like it or not). RV wars are likely to become rather redundant after a few months of this update being in place. Eventually I guess there Rvs will be free everywhere and basically just a shortcut to getting started on your RVs before you replace them with private ones.
On the sad side, those who had to fight hard in big alliances to have a full stock of RVs are going to feel hard done by. On the bright side this will reduce the ruby gap, reduce the big alliance gap, and make it more possible for the smaller alliances to be competitive in fights in the kingdoms.
2. To obtain 75 villages at 10000 tokens each given level of activity of small alliance players takes say 30 weeks. For a hyperactive top player these days say takes a week. So a 29 week period during which said top player has a massive advantage even bigger than before over lower level player. Eventually gap closes then rv levels go up and gap extends again. This is how the game has worked for a long time and how the game has become so mind numbinglybsoul destroyingly uncompetitive. It’s just another top player centred update.
3. It doesn’t solve the problem it makes it worse we now have no way of removing the extra food benefit multiple accounts and shell accounts gain from RV’s we literally cannot drop them or strip them. And that food bonus translates into food sent to maintain otherwise unsustainable armies. Literally it is already impossible to starve armies that are resupplied from second third or fourth accounts. This is a much bigger nail in war coffin. Simply put war is unwinnable if this goes through without a meaningful purge of multiple accounts the actual problem this fails to address.
4. This in no way reduces the gap and with all the other changes to reduce the gap makes the game less competitive not more competitive and that’s because of the reality of player behaviour. Fair would be giving everyone 75 rvs at the same time at no cost. This isn’t that hence that disparity in the equality of approach creates inequality. Building more inequality onto existing inequality and the game in the short to mid term becomes more not less equal.
[5012191]
BM Fujiwara [None]
:: Nov. 27, 2018, 9:50 a.m.
1. I disagree. Firstly, they weren't free in practice, and you've been around long enough to know that as well as I do. Capturing RVs in the past were always double ruby sends and even then you were lucky if you got more than one or two as everyone else was racing for them as well. I spent huge amount of rubies getting the blasted things originally. Of course you could get them instead by an RV war, but that's always favoured the ruby players and the giant alliances for obvious reasons.
As a predominantly free player myself with a full stack of RVs on one server and nothing other than ice food RVs on the other, I'm fully aware that my chance of getting any food RVs in sand and fire on US1 is close to 0, unless I fancy trying to take them away from KoN or the Unnamed or a sub of one of the super alliances. For some reason I think this wouldn't be the best thing I could try to do.... however, sams and noms I _can_ do quite happily, so without needing to upgrade my stables (not a trivial cost in rubies), without needing to spend hours of my life watching the edge of the map, I get to build up to a full stock of 10 food RVs in both sand and fire without the fear of having some war take them all away again. I can promise you I will have 25 food RVs without spending a ruby within 6 months. This is completely unheard of before.
2. This is also just not true. The top players already have full RVs. All this does for the whales is release 25 food RVs to the rest of the server quickly, alongside the RVs those "other players" are also choosing to buy with their event tokens (and not rubies - seriously, no-one is going to spend rubies on these other than the very top end, who don't get a great deal of a boost to show for it).
3. Shells don't hold onto these for great numbers of troops. They hold onto them because they're prize assets that are very hard to come by, so when some new player or returning old player comes back they can dump a stack of nice shiny stuff on that player. This will no longer be relevant for RVs. When shells are used for war troop stacking, those are generally bought on the fly, where RVs are also not useful as the troops are bought, sent until dead, repeat. RVs are a straw man argument for this.
4. Non ruby players have already spent the last 3 years dealing with 0 RVs and a 0% bonus in sand/fire compared to a 300% bonus for the big players in the big alliances. Now, we'll have a situation in a year's time where the top players have gone up from a 300 to a 400% bonus and the rest have gone up from a 0 to a 300% bonus. Some rather weak back of the envelope maths would suggest 400% food to 100% food is a bigger gap than 500% to 400% food, no?
As a predominantly free player myself with a full stack of RVs on one server and nothing other than ice food RVs on the other, I'm fully aware that my chance of getting any food RVs in sand and fire on US1 is close to 0, unless I fancy trying to take them away from KoN or the Unnamed or a sub of one of the super alliances. For some reason I think this wouldn't be the best thing I could try to do.... however, sams and noms I _can_ do quite happily, so without needing to upgrade my stables (not a trivial cost in rubies), without needing to spend hours of my life watching the edge of the map, I get to build up to a full stock of 10 food RVs in both sand and fire without the fear of having some war take them all away again. I can promise you I will have 25 food RVs without spending a ruby within 6 months. This is completely unheard of before.
2. This is also just not true. The top players already have full RVs. All this does for the whales is release 25 food RVs to the rest of the server quickly, alongside the RVs those "other players" are also choosing to buy with their event tokens (and not rubies - seriously, no-one is going to spend rubies on these other than the very top end, who don't get a great deal of a boost to show for it).
3. Shells don't hold onto these for great numbers of troops. They hold onto them because they're prize assets that are very hard to come by, so when some new player or returning old player comes back they can dump a stack of nice shiny stuff on that player. This will no longer be relevant for RVs. When shells are used for war troop stacking, those are generally bought on the fly, where RVs are also not useful as the troops are bought, sent until dead, repeat. RVs are a straw man argument for this.
4. Non ruby players have already spent the last 3 years dealing with 0 RVs and a 0% bonus in sand/fire compared to a 300% bonus for the big players in the big alliances. Now, we'll have a situation in a year's time where the top players have gone up from a 300 to a 400% bonus and the rest have gone up from a 0 to a 300% bonus. Some rather weak back of the envelope maths would suggest 400% food to 100% food is a bigger gap than 500% to 400% food, no?
[5012243]
dandelion1958 (GB1) [GB1]
:: Nov. 27, 2018, 1:31 p.m.
@BM Fujiwara just an additional question - do these Rv's count towards the achievements ?
PS I remember the fun sending wolves to cap ruby spawns when predicted -unlike some i still have my original Ice Rv's which spawned and raced to gain them ! sands & peaks i've had to recap as lost a load to UK pugs in dec 2013 ! nearly the last proper war i was in as the skirmishes at the 10th legion were just that !
Bring back the alliance tourney and we might get some PvP but even at Leg 800 i can't compete with the ruby whales !
PS I remember the fun sending wolves to cap ruby spawns when predicted -unlike some i still have my original Ice Rv's which spawned and raced to gain them ! sands & peaks i've had to recap as lost a load to UK pugs in dec 2013 ! nearly the last proper war i was in as the skirmishes at the 10th legion were just that !
Bring back the alliance tourney and we might get some PvP but even at Leg 800 i can't compete with the ruby whales !
[5012325]
neuterable (US1) [US1]
:: Nov. 27, 2018, 8:58 p.m.
But can you give them funny names?
[5012339]
jennyj (AU1) [AU1]
:: Nov. 27, 2018, 9:59 p.m.
All this back and forth means nothing at the end of the day, the fact still remains it a game of we will give the ruby player what they desire and stuff everyone else.
Yes they can get a village after a long and mind numbing journey but when the ruby whales start levelling up the village it goes back to the gap it was before, so how does that close the gap
it's like the SS casta.. it was to strong for the ruby player so was removed to suit them.. bring it back .. oh no that wouldn't suit, have to make it weaker first
same crap just the name changes to see if we notice
Yes they can get a village after a long and mind numbing journey but when the ruby whales start levelling up the village it goes back to the gap it was before, so how does that close the gap
it's like the SS casta.. it was to strong for the ruby player so was removed to suit them.. bring it back .. oh no that wouldn't suit, have to make it weaker first
same crap just the name changes to see if we notice
[5012348]
Philt123 (GB1) [GB1]
:: Nov. 27, 2018, 10:51 p.m.
Yet again, GGE totally miss the point. Instead of addressing the elephant in the room, and getting rid of the shells that are hogging all the rv's and outposts. They yet again make a work around that at first may seem to address the issue, but in reality will make it even less likely that old accounts will ever die.
so in 6 month time you have a top end player that decides to leave the game with a full set of maxed out private RV's and how likely do you think that account will dissapear? not a chance in hell it will be worth even more and grow to the ever increasing army of shells that sit there. Why on earth would any new play actually bother to build an account, when all you have to do is join the right alliance and you will be gifted a fully maxed out account.
this is yet another case of changing the game as a direct result, of the game operators complete and utter failiure to enfore the rules of its own game.
In the short term it wont do any harm, in the log run it will be just another nail on the empire coffin. If you really want to do something to improve the game, then ensure All players can only play one account, ensure that when players leave the game their accounts go with them, ensure rubies cost the same for ALL players, so there is no advantage to players that use software to fool the game into thinking they are playing from a cheap country.
until you do that, you are kidding yourself that any update you come up with will make any difference to the longevity of the game, as it will be slowly strangled with shells and multis.
so in 6 month time you have a top end player that decides to leave the game with a full set of maxed out private RV's and how likely do you think that account will dissapear? not a chance in hell it will be worth even more and grow to the ever increasing army of shells that sit there. Why on earth would any new play actually bother to build an account, when all you have to do is join the right alliance and you will be gifted a fully maxed out account.
this is yet another case of changing the game as a direct result, of the game operators complete and utter failiure to enfore the rules of its own game.
In the short term it wont do any harm, in the log run it will be just another nail on the empire coffin. If you really want to do something to improve the game, then ensure All players can only play one account, ensure that when players leave the game their accounts go with them, ensure rubies cost the same for ALL players, so there is no advantage to players that use software to fool the game into thinking they are playing from a cheap country.
until you do that, you are kidding yourself that any update you come up with will make any difference to the longevity of the game, as it will be slowly strangled with shells and multis.
[5012360]
Batten (GB1) [GB1]
:: Nov. 28, 2018, 1:22 a.m.
Spot on Phil. Solve the root cause of the problem don't create a new one to make things worse.
1. RV's were free if you were technically proficient. It was always about spotting early, having the right troop types and the volume of attacks sent. I sent on every RV and was prepared in advance to send on every RV and with some going slow I took some close to thirty minute travel time because of blanket coverage and a bit of luck . You roll the dice and take the chance and keep rolling the dice until your numbers come up. You might build more slowly but the point is you could build. And I in terms of RV's I knew what I was doing. I lost my first two sets in wars with BSK this is my third full set. I never played in a top ten alliance during the time I captured my RV's. So from my perspective the idea that they are the province only of top players isn't true. We use to take RV's and pass them down to the chain to partner alliances. RV wars were originally tactical exercises not the tribute style of taking them that is more prevalent now. And if the problem is specific to the US server then test it solely on the US server and see if it works there first before inflicting a untested problem on the rest of us.
2. Alliances like the Syndicate have always released RV's from inactive players to other lower ranked alliances. It's only really the top alliances that traditionally passed them or ops to retirement home alliances for safe keeping. You take out the inactive accounts which are used as holding points for surplus RV's accounts which shouldn't have been passed and should have been closed when the original player left then there isn't a lack of RV's given the level of inactivity there is a massive surplus of RV's for people to go at. Players in top alliances have shown no indication of dropping excess RV's and have claimed in war Op's of players that have long since left going as far as to attempt recaptures during war. So can you trust that these RV's if dropped won't simply be retaken through war from their B, C or D alliance accounts at a later point. You can't. Though they may prove me wrong. But you are talking about people who openly used bots to get ahead who often aren't who they claim to be so clearly they can be relied upon to suddenly view fairplay as an essential part of gameplay.
3. Having watched and recorded which accounts RV's taken in the last war I participated in - a rare guest appearance - went to they weren't in the alliance that took them. Those RV's contained troops significant defensive troop numbers making them a pain to retake and reducing overall offensive troops to be used to fight the actual alliance declared on. But again the problem is the use of a dead account that shouldn't still be active to do this. These are accounts that are burning so badly they make towering inferno look like a candle flame by comparrisson. Removing any tactical application of RV's is just reversing fast from a key strategic element into a cul de sac. So we have private RV's to get more food to build more troops to send more hits. On no hang on a sec 65 players in each top alliance have each just drop 75 RV's each we could hit with a pretty good chance of success and replaced them with 75 RV's each we can't touch great that works brilliantly in terms of encouraging more attacking play and more PVP. On but hang on it's okay because those top players have let their RV's go that they didn't need and can now have fun taking them from genuine players in lower level alliances using their second third and fourth accounts. Genius. Absolute genius. But hey don't worry you can just play Reapers Wrath or Shapeshifters and do pretend PVP where you hit things that don't hit back. When we tried to take out big alliance in the past smaller subs could be involved through targeting RV's those small sub alliances are now excluded because they can't hit main castles with any chance of success.
4. The problem is PO not food. The disparity in PO rewards has driven the gap not RV's which are more set and the use of second accounts to supply food in war and frankly the troop offer not being limited. Those are the most signficant issues to be addressed. RV's are a side bar as war these days seems more focused on green than he outers based on my fleeting experience. Very few players once they get to a point of being competitive have no RV's. It isn't a huge issue on ice in EN1, and Sand and Fire have always been tough. But given how much player loot it's not like food or resources are a problem for attacking players.
I just understand wrecking a part of the game that works and is exciting frustrating challenging and fun to play which adds a real strategic value to the game and replacing it with another quasi granary thats fireproof just give us a fireporof granary and have done with it. I'd much rather have RV's in the game that fixed dull mechanics like Shapeshifters and Reapers Wrath where players seem to expect to be congratulated for managing to hit the maximum numbers who aren't on because well that's incredibly exciting comparatively isn't it.
Harsh maybe but we have been waiting years for inactive account issue to be properly addressed and this fudge is presented as a solution???
1. RV's were free if you were technically proficient. It was always about spotting early, having the right troop types and the volume of attacks sent. I sent on every RV and was prepared in advance to send on every RV and with some going slow I took some close to thirty minute travel time because of blanket coverage and a bit of luck . You roll the dice and take the chance and keep rolling the dice until your numbers come up. You might build more slowly but the point is you could build. And I in terms of RV's I knew what I was doing. I lost my first two sets in wars with BSK this is my third full set. I never played in a top ten alliance during the time I captured my RV's. So from my perspective the idea that they are the province only of top players isn't true. We use to take RV's and pass them down to the chain to partner alliances. RV wars were originally tactical exercises not the tribute style of taking them that is more prevalent now. And if the problem is specific to the US server then test it solely on the US server and see if it works there first before inflicting a untested problem on the rest of us.
2. Alliances like the Syndicate have always released RV's from inactive players to other lower ranked alliances. It's only really the top alliances that traditionally passed them or ops to retirement home alliances for safe keeping. You take out the inactive accounts which are used as holding points for surplus RV's accounts which shouldn't have been passed and should have been closed when the original player left then there isn't a lack of RV's given the level of inactivity there is a massive surplus of RV's for people to go at. Players in top alliances have shown no indication of dropping excess RV's and have claimed in war Op's of players that have long since left going as far as to attempt recaptures during war. So can you trust that these RV's if dropped won't simply be retaken through war from their B, C or D alliance accounts at a later point. You can't. Though they may prove me wrong. But you are talking about people who openly used bots to get ahead who often aren't who they claim to be so clearly they can be relied upon to suddenly view fairplay as an essential part of gameplay.
3. Having watched and recorded which accounts RV's taken in the last war I participated in - a rare guest appearance - went to they weren't in the alliance that took them. Those RV's contained troops significant defensive troop numbers making them a pain to retake and reducing overall offensive troops to be used to fight the actual alliance declared on. But again the problem is the use of a dead account that shouldn't still be active to do this. These are accounts that are burning so badly they make towering inferno look like a candle flame by comparrisson. Removing any tactical application of RV's is just reversing fast from a key strategic element into a cul de sac. So we have private RV's to get more food to build more troops to send more hits. On no hang on a sec 65 players in each top alliance have each just drop 75 RV's each we could hit with a pretty good chance of success and replaced them with 75 RV's each we can't touch great that works brilliantly in terms of encouraging more attacking play and more PVP. On but hang on it's okay because those top players have let their RV's go that they didn't need and can now have fun taking them from genuine players in lower level alliances using their second third and fourth accounts. Genius. Absolute genius. But hey don't worry you can just play Reapers Wrath or Shapeshifters and do pretend PVP where you hit things that don't hit back. When we tried to take out big alliance in the past smaller subs could be involved through targeting RV's those small sub alliances are now excluded because they can't hit main castles with any chance of success.
4. The problem is PO not food. The disparity in PO rewards has driven the gap not RV's which are more set and the use of second accounts to supply food in war and frankly the troop offer not being limited. Those are the most signficant issues to be addressed. RV's are a side bar as war these days seems more focused on green than he outers based on my fleeting experience. Very few players once they get to a point of being competitive have no RV's. It isn't a huge issue on ice in EN1, and Sand and Fire have always been tough. But given how much player loot it's not like food or resources are a problem for attacking players.
I just understand wrecking a part of the game that works and is exciting frustrating challenging and fun to play which adds a real strategic value to the game and replacing it with another quasi granary thats fireproof just give us a fireporof granary and have done with it. I'd much rather have RV's in the game that fixed dull mechanics like Shapeshifters and Reapers Wrath where players seem to expect to be congratulated for managing to hit the maximum numbers who aren't on because well that's incredibly exciting comparatively isn't it.
Harsh maybe but we have been waiting years for inactive account issue to be properly addressed and this fudge is presented as a solution???
[5012369]
bernhardt (US1) [US1]
:: Nov. 28, 2018, 6:09 a.m.
I'm on the fence regarding private rvs. I see them closing a food gap, at least until GGE comes up with their next rezzie/ruby gap widener. It will come. They did it with the flat rate food item, and then introduced the base rate food items along with the higher PO items. We already have a new food building- the greenhouse. There's just too much food once a player reaches a certain point for PvP given how much fire power one can send in an attack. I'm not talking war PvP here, but rather the one off sporting fun PvP hit.
[5012371]
UD1 (INT1) [INT1]
:: Nov. 28, 2018, 6:27 a.m.
i have complained about multi players sent proof and nothing change . so now i do not bother, will not waste my time doing this as GGE are not interested in confronting this issue.
and never will as long as they make money
and never will as long as they make money
[5012465]
BM Fujiwara [None]
:: Nov. 28, 2018, 11:45 a.m.
Can we please keep the discussions on track RE: the RVs - I'm not denying there are issues with shells, multi accounts, bots and other things that have always been totally against ToS yet been mysteriously resilient, this just isn't the thread for them. Plenty of genuinely good points that have been fed back though, so I guess the litmus test will be how things end up in practice 
[5012660]
Batten (GB1) [GB1]
:: Nov. 29, 2018, 2 a.m.
The problem is the multi accounts are the reason the development is necessary they and the bots and other tos breeches are why corrective development is necessary. Frankly it’s a bit late to be trying to fit a small and inadequate bolt to the stable door after the horse has joined Shergar in the never never. It’s a development that clearly hasn’t been tested has been delayed and then reworked which GGE have provided inadequate information to allow a meaningful assessment. There is little evidence they have any confidence in it and basically looks like they are winding game aspect down and ramping superstore up. The gaps don’t close unless they enforce their own rules. I won’t play large aspects of game now from pvp through shapeshifters through reapers as I’m not getting a good return on my money. I don’t view subsidising dishonest players as a good investment and don’t i’m Alone in playing other games as well now restricting time on gge until they regain control of the rules.
[5012709]
UD1 (INT1) [INT1]
:: Nov. 29, 2018, 11:05 a.m.
GGE are looking at this update as buisness, we are looking at the cause of why the private rv are needed because or alliance hogging them , and for new players no chance to get them , so instead of gge allocating more rvs in new worlds for new players , they made private rv which is okay, but ruby player will become stronger which is also fine, but it do not address the real problem .BM Fujiwara said:Can we please keep the discussions on track RE: the RVs - I'm not denying there are issues with shells, multi accounts, bots and other things that have always been totally against ToS yet been mysteriously resilient, this just isn't the thread for them. Plenty of genuinely good points that have been fed back though, so I guess the litmus test will be how things end up in practice
GGE quote us there tos and ban us when needed , but they have never address multi players in there TOS , my guess it is not beneficial for them to address the proble.
[5012860]
David Noble (US1) [None]
:: Nov. 29, 2018, 6 p.m.
The problems are that number 1 players are more likely to get banned when having issues with making payment to a game regardless of whether that is a multiple account or not as opposed to people who abuse the game with multiple accounts by abusing other players in the game and number 2 their may in fact be a large number of multiple accounts who spend real money on the game and perhaps in theory as high as almost 50% (40-45% or less) of all multiple accounts on the U.S. server alone have spent money on the game at least once making them more difficult to be banned than multiple accounts that have never spent money on the game. But, if one were to decide they were going to ignore the problem with multiple accounts that goes to show that perhaps their are too many multiple accounts at this point including those that spend real money on Goodgame Empire for Goodgame Studios to really care about multiple accounts. A large percentage I believe of all accounts on the U.S. server alone are multiple accounts and perhaps might be similar or even worse than US1 on other servers when it comes to multis that I am guessing could be as high as somewhere between 25%-33% of all accounts on our server. The total number of players on our server is about 26,033 which like I had said before many of those 26,033 players are most likely multis. Now the amount of 25%-33% of all players on the US1 server perhaps may be over exaggerated and perhaps might actually be less than 25%, but my point is that their are a large number of players who are multiple accounts on the US1 server regardless of how many of them are actually multis and if Goodgame Studios was serious about dealing with multis perhaps they should have done so early on when the game first started within its first or second year.BIGTtheMULLER (INT1) said:GGE are looking at this update as buisness, we are looking at the cause of why the private rv are needed because or alliance hogging them , and for new players no chance to get them , so instead of gge allocating more rvs in new worlds for new players , they made private rv which is okay, but ruby player will become stronger which is also fine, but it do not address the real problem .BM Fujiwara said:Can we please keep the discussions on track RE: the RVs - I'm not denying there are issues with shells, multi accounts, bots and other things that have always been totally against ToS yet been mysteriously resilient, this just isn't the thread for them. Plenty of genuinely good points that have been fed back though, so I guess the litmus test will be how things end up in practice
GGE quote us there tos and ban us when needed , but they have never address multi players in there TOS , my guess it is not beneficial for them to address the proble.
[5012868]
David Noble (US1) [None]
:: Nov. 29, 2018, 6:29 p.m.
While 25% to 33% of all players on the US1 server being multis may seem high it is important to take note that many players on our server have low activity or lack thereof as well which also includes multis. As multiple account numbers continue grow and multiply however it becomes more difficult for Goodgame Studios to ban them all and especially the ruby buyers which explains why from my earlier comment Goodgame Stuios should have dealt with them more seriously early on instead of dealing with them now.
[5012877]
Emattosalves (BR1) [BR1]
:: Nov. 29, 2018, 6:58 p.m.
I support completly withy body and soul the private villages idea.
Its has been a long time that i notice that 99% of RVs are in hands of powerfull alliances and their "support" acounts. This alone should not be a problem if players were allowed to fight for RVs (as GGS originaly intended) but, in the pratice, if you do that, its almost like a suicide. In the server were i play (BR 1) and i belive in the majority of the others, its almost a crime with death penality you take RVs from another active (or "inactive") player. This gives a HUGE disvantage for medium and weak alliances, as new players have 0,1 chance of getting RVs on fire and sand kingdoms.
This new change will allow all players have access to RVs. The ruby buyers will always have the advantage and will most likely to have max level private RVs. But the vast majority of normal players will have at least some 10% or 20% RVs (by their cost i belive, still waiting to see).
It will be the paradise of balance? no, it will not be, but is still better than this hell that we have with unachiveable RVs today.
Sorry for my bad english
Its has been a long time that i notice that 99% of RVs are in hands of powerfull alliances and their "support" acounts. This alone should not be a problem if players were allowed to fight for RVs (as GGS originaly intended) but, in the pratice, if you do that, its almost like a suicide. In the server were i play (BR 1) and i belive in the majority of the others, its almost a crime with death penality you take RVs from another active (or "inactive") player. This gives a HUGE disvantage for medium and weak alliances, as new players have 0,1 chance of getting RVs on fire and sand kingdoms.
This new change will allow all players have access to RVs. The ruby buyers will always have the advantage and will most likely to have max level private RVs. But the vast majority of normal players will have at least some 10% or 20% RVs (by their cost i belive, still waiting to see).
It will be the paradise of balance? no, it will not be, but is still better than this hell that we have with unachiveable RVs today.
Sorry for my bad english
[5012907]
ndd (US1) [US1]
:: Nov. 29, 2018, 8:40 p.m.
I just bookmarked youLadyThundara (US1) said:The majority of the Alliances in this Game do not attack other players Outposts. It is kind of an unspoken rule that you don't do this, although some of the most bloodthirsty alliances do.ndd (US1) said:I like the way you guys are thinking but why stop at private RVs?? We need private OPs that can't be hit as well. Also give them base 10k food production and make regular OPs obsolete.
Great Idea GGS!!!
But seriously. Retain some bonus for people that have to compete for RVs vs giving them to everyone which essentially takes them out of the game.
[5012940]
Batten (GB1) [GB1]
:: Nov. 30, 2018, 1:54 a.m.
Maybe just don’t call them resource villages call them safe havens, bolt holes hidden camps fortified villages. It’s a different command centre / game resource. I dislike them being called rvs and being given the same status because the process through which they were acquired is fundamentally different. It’s just a weird narrative to have armies of 4000 plus unable to hit a village when they can take out built castles with 15,000 defence and significant fortification. What exactly are the villages made of mist? At least give us some plausible narrative to soften the blow. The idea that rvs are what needs rebalancing as a priority is bizarre. I recommended in ideas and suggestions a long long time ago that we needed more things like ports bridges passes with attached strategic value to fight things in real battles which have real strategic worth. A strategy that consist of purchase advantage used purchased advantage to gain greater advantage doesn’t require on whole lot of planning or skill. Just isn’t a challenge anymore rv’s were.
[5012993]
Philt123 (GB1) [GB1]
:: Nov. 30, 2018, 10:01 a.m.
I think talking about multis in this instance is Bang on thread, as its the fact so many Multis are in our game that there is a need for this update at all. the reality is the rv model is only broken because pretty much no account ever dies when its owner leaves the game, therefore they become either genuine multis if the account is good enough, if its not they become glorified storage hubs for alliances, storing food / res / Ops and rv's.
The ONLY reason the rv's need addressing is because old account never die. IF GGE enforced its TOS and made it 1 account per person. And when they account was deleted so were the RV's then you could make new spawns, like there always used to be. And newer players could learn the skills required to capture them, Building nice fast comms, sitting watching a certain area you had identified as the next spawn site, or by encouraging your new players to jump to a new relm in a certain direction to "force" a new spawn.
All this skill, has died, the hidden depths to the game that were only learned with time and experience. IS gone, and the only reason its gone, is becasue GGE cannot enforce the rules of its own game, so end up trying to make work arounds. And you end up with a dumed down version of what was once a good game.
So I will repeat again there is nothing wrong with the origional model of RV's they worked and would still work perfect fine, IF you made sure it was 1 account per person, Basically this update is an admission that GGE are either not prepared to or not capable of adressing the multi account issue that blights the game.
And as a result we end up with a further dummed down game. or like i said just another nail in its coffin.
The ONLY reason the rv's need addressing is because old account never die. IF GGE enforced its TOS and made it 1 account per person. And when they account was deleted so were the RV's then you could make new spawns, like there always used to be. And newer players could learn the skills required to capture them, Building nice fast comms, sitting watching a certain area you had identified as the next spawn site, or by encouraging your new players to jump to a new relm in a certain direction to "force" a new spawn.
All this skill, has died, the hidden depths to the game that were only learned with time and experience. IS gone, and the only reason its gone, is becasue GGE cannot enforce the rules of its own game, so end up trying to make work arounds. And you end up with a dumed down version of what was once a good game.
So I will repeat again there is nothing wrong with the origional model of RV's they worked and would still work perfect fine, IF you made sure it was 1 account per person, Basically this update is an admission that GGE are either not prepared to or not capable of adressing the multi account issue that blights the game.
And as a result we end up with a further dummed down game. or like i said just another nail in its coffin.
[5013004]
UD1 (INT1) [INT1]
:: Nov. 30, 2018, 10:52 a.m.
I may of missed this , but like an old rv you could place troops there, with the private rv can you still place troops there and if you can will they be immune from any attack. or have i missed the use of these private rv
[5013185]
bernhardt (US1) [US1]
:: Nov. 30, 2018, 9:55 p.m.
In the announcement it said you don't have to put troops there. Now translating from GGE speak to English, I'm going with you can't put troops there.