Goodgame Studios forum archives ::

[-347419] David Noble (US1) [None] :: Feb. 3, 2018, 1:35 a.m.

I am thankful that my server did not crash, but as for those that did crash I do have to ask. You could say that 7.5k is not enough to cover the losses, but what about those who had less casualties than others from starvation? Lets just say someone lost 100k troops while another player lost none at all or only a few thousand? How could it even be possible to fairly compensate everyone on an entire server? If someone lost 100k and received a much higher number than 7.5k with maybe something like 50k+ and everyone else were to get that same amount of 50k+ including those that lost little or none at all including shell accounts and some of which may have never spent money even once ever on the game would that be fair? And no, the support team may not necessarily always be reliable in resolving problems either.

I am just saying that players with way above average number of troops are fewer in number than players who have less and players who have the most soldiers could also be more likely to be ruby whales as well who spend 100 U.S. dollars a month or more or an equivalent to that amount per month depending on the type of currency that is being used. GGS losing money because of unhappy costumers is not good for business, but GGS still has to tackle the problem with resolving issues related to server crashes that is fair for everyone which I would argue there is no easy solution to resolve this problem that is also complicated with absolutely nothing that will 100% guarantee to please everyone. I can only hope that it will be a long time before any server has another crash.

[4907803] David Noble (US1) [None] :: Feb. 3, 2018, 1:35 a.m.

Bottom line is that I think GGS is simply doing its job of wanting to compensate everyone on the entire server because of a crash regardless of whether they are a multi or not. I would also argue that receiving compensation is better than not receiving any compensation at all especially for those who deserve it and would be much easier for GGS to compensate everyone on an entire server than tracking "all multis" down which are numerous on many servers and banning them.

[4907851] OxO (AU1) [AU1] :: Feb. 3, 2018, 10:41 a.m.

They just gave everyone the loads of ruby troops and food so they don't have to individually sort out the issues, and so it looks like they care and are doing something

[4907972] David Noble (US1) [None] :: Feb. 3, 2018, 7:04 p.m.

OxO (AU1) said:

They just gave everyone the loads of ruby troops and food so they don't have to individually sort out the issues, and so it looks like they care and are doing something

Exactly my point. People complain about pretty much everything on the Forum, but 7.5k demon and 7.5k deathly horrors is also a lot of troops as well. Not to mention these are pretty much almost the best troops in the entire game with the only exception to this being Veteran demon and deathly horrors. Also more simplistic than individually sorting out the issues. Also, the total number of attackers for the compensation is actually 15k attackers total and defenders is 5k total which is a lot.

Important to keep in mind that at least on some servers anyway their are literally thousands of players and at least some of which are not multis. Although the multis might be too numerous to count on the bigger servers I bet their are a lot more players in the game who are main accounts than those who are multiple. Also, at least some of the multiple accounts could also be dead accounts that players are no longer using with inactive castles that are burning or in ruins. Just because a dead account can receive those troops does not mean that the player will start using that account again either even during a time of war.

[4908030] Philt123 (GB1) [GB1] :: Feb. 3, 2018, 10:02 p.m.

the point is, and its a simple point its GGE's job to protect the integrity of the game, thats its very function, thats why companies spend a fortune building redundancy / backups etc etc so they can pause / reset / restore the position of the game. giving out a blanket compensation is in itself inherantly unfair. the only reason they do it is that its quick and easy, and requires no effort. the very least any and every play should expect from every game is that if the game glitches they shoudl be re imbursed with what they lost, not a troop more or less. the problem si 90% of people benefit fro these types of payouts and 10% lose and lose badly. trust me if you were 80k troops down where all your enemies were 20k troops up i think you may not be as happy with the result. no player should end up better or worse off as a result of a programming crash, failiaure to achieve this result is a catastrophic failiure.

[4908044] David Noble (US1) [None] :: Feb. 3, 2018, 10:36 p.m.

Philt123 (GB1) said:

the point is, and its a simple point its GGE's job to protect the integrity of the game, thats its very function, thats why companies spend a fortune building redundancy / backups etc etc so they can pause / reset / restore the position of the game. giving out a blanket compensation is in itself inherantly unfair. the only reason they do it is that its quick and easy, and requires no effort. the very least any and every play should expect from every game is that if the game glitches they shoudl be re imbursed with what they lost, not a troop more or less. the problem si 90% of people benefit fro these types of payouts and 10% lose and lose badly. trust me if you were 80k troops down where all your enemies were 20k troops up i think you may not be as happy with the result. no player should end up better or worse off as a result of a programming crash, failiaure to achieve this result is a catastrophic failiure.

Okay, but what you just mentioned does not resolve the problem. How could GGS possibly keep track of losses of every single player on a server and especially on large servers? How would they know what specific players need compensation the most? Are you suggesting that having no compensation for everyone is better than having a compensation that is reasonable overall for the vast majority?

Also, the support team can also be sometimes unreliable unfortunately as well in resolving problems which may include people who lost 80k troops because of this server crash as well. I have seen numerous complaints about the support team on the forum to prove this. Now you could still try to contact them if you lost like 80k troops because of the server crash, but if they do not respond back or take weeks to respond back that would be annoying as well. I think that the best thing for GGS to do is to keep server crashes at minimum. Having a server crash like maybe once a year for example is much better than having a server crash once every month.

[4908055] Defectus (US1) [US1] :: Feb. 3, 2018, 11:14 p.m.

I haven't seen any complaints about players who are claiming that they didn't receive enough compensation troops—most players wouldn't have had 15k attackers and 5k defenders out at a time (some, yes—but not very many).

The problem, like others have said, is that GGE isn't interested in what players lost, but rather in a quick and easy fix that will allow them to deal with the problem in a minute or two. (What probably took the longest in regards to the problem was writing the forum post explaining it.)

GGE's blanket compensation meant that alts, dead accounts, and players who weren't affected at all just gained 20k troops. This causes a multitude of problems that have already been explained?

How, you ask, could GGS possibly keep track of everyone's losses? GGS has tremendously large servers and databases, and every single move you make on Goodgame Empire goes through GGS' machines and is processed. GGS probably already has memory installed on their servers, and if they don't, they are very unusual compared to most gaming companies.

It shouldn't have been too hard for them to track down all of the troop movements that had been sent before the crash and set to return during or after the crash. It shouldn't have been hard for them to locate the exact amount and type of troops in those movements. Finally, it shouldn't have been hard for them to write in the code to either replace the exact amount of lost troops or essentially undo the troop movements that had been set to arrive during the downtime.

A company with such a large database and so many employees should've been more accurate.

[4908057] David Noble (US1) [None] :: Feb. 3, 2018, 11:16 p.m.

TheBlueIcicle (US1) said:

I haven't seen any complaints about players who are claiming that they didn't receive enough compensation troops—most players wouldn't have had 15k attackers and 5k defenders out at a time (some, yes—but not very many).

The problem, like others have said, is that GGE isn't interested in what players lost, but rather in a quick and easy fix that will allow them to deal with the problem in a minute or two. (What probably took the longest in regards to the problem was writing the forum post explaining it.)

GGE's blanket compensation meant that alts, dead accounts, and players who weren't affected at all just gained 20k troops. This causes a multitude of problems that have already been explained?

How, you ask, could GGS possibly keep track of everyone's losses? GGS has tremendously large servers and databases, and every single move you make on Goodgame Empire goes through GGS' machines and is processed. GGS probably already has memory installed on their servers, and if they don't, they are very unusual compared to most gaming companies.

It shouldn't have been too hard for them to track down all of the troop movements that had been sent before the crash and set to return during or after the crash. It shouldn't have been hard for them to locate the exact amount and type of troops in those movements. Finally, it shouldn't have been hard for them to write in the code to either replace the exact amount of lost troops or essentially undo the troop movements that had been set to arrive during the downtime.

A company with such a large database and so many employees should've been more accurate.

Okay. Was skeptical as to how GGS could make things fair for everyone when it comes to compensation, but thanks for the info.