Forum: empire-en
Board: [584] Players ask Players
Topic: [77008] Limiting Resource Villages ... is it fair?
[-77008]
ElConquistador [None]
:: Sept. 13, 2012, 3:14 p.m.
Just curious since the last update has now limited the number of RVs one can now possess to 5 of each, is it fair for those of us not holding the max of each to be pummeled for taking an RV from those holding way over the max? Although I agree the update was needed, GGS should be the ones to take their extra RVs back. Instead we must face the threat of retaliation from these bullies who refuse to give them up ... even though they are the ones in the wrong.
Make it fair GGS. You took the fourth outpost back when it was deemed "unfair" ... why not in the case of RVs?
Make it fair GGS. You took the fourth outpost back when it was deemed "unfair" ... why not in the case of RVs?
[1389567]
ElConquistador [None]
:: Sept. 13, 2012, 3:44 p.m.
Perfect example ... received this after taking an RV from a player holding almost 30 RVs:
Thief
You try to take one more of my villages and i will burn your castles to the ground. Is that clear?!?
Ham
pretty sad these P.I.T.A. are allowed to do as they please when they themselves are the one in fact cheating. GGS ... do you not think this should be dealt with? There is a ton of players that have no RVs to speak of and can't afford to take these bullies on to gain what rightfully should be available to them to start with
Thief
You try to take one more of my villages and i will burn your castles to the ground. Is that clear?!?
Ham
pretty sad these P.I.T.A. are allowed to do as they please when they themselves are the one in fact cheating. GGS ... do you not think this should be dealt with? There is a ton of players that have no RVs to speak of and can't afford to take these bullies on to gain what rightfully should be available to them to start with
[1389577]
Baldrick (GB1) [None]
:: Sept. 13, 2012, 4:04 p.m.
I think you're being a tad unfair to GGS here. They're making an effort to give all players a chance to obtain some RVs. The fact that you choose to try to take one from a player who could burn you down is your choice. And they don't get to do what they want, they do what they're capable of.
And please don't say "rightfully available to them in the first place". Players who already own RVs didn't get them by accident. Nobody has a right to anything in this game, you need to work hard and use tactics and politics to get what you want, or need.
If you didn't have any before this update then why are you complaining now?
And please don't say "rightfully available to them in the first place". Players who already own RVs didn't get them by accident. Nobody has a right to anything in this game, you need to work hard and use tactics and politics to get what you want, or need.
If you didn't have any before this update then why are you complaining now?
[1389581]
ElConquistador [None]
:: Sept. 13, 2012, 4:13 p.m.
There are no free RVs, look around. The reason is these players who are holding them will not relinquish them, even knowing they are the ones in the wrong. GGS set the limit at 5, not the players. As I said if they are to be fair, then make the RVs available for everyone to take, not just those who already have way more than are now allowed. They set the limit, they too need to be fair about it for everyone, not just a rule in favor of those already holding more than they should. Just curious Baldrick... how many are you still holding yet?
[1389582]
xl5box [None]
:: Sept. 13, 2012, 4:19 p.m.
Look if the person spent the soldiers to get ten it would be unfair to lose five just because low levels need more...
[1389583]
Baldrick (GB1) [None]
:: Sept. 13, 2012, 4:20 p.m.
I currently have 18 villages. I plan to give my excess ones to needy members of my current alliance, although for now, I'm holding onto 6 food so I can have some exrta troops.
And you keep saying these players with 10 are either breaking the rules or in some way wrong. They're not, they got their villages fair and square, why should they just give them up?
It's a war game and you need to be brave and just go for it. There may be consequences but aren't there always?
My point is, there are no rules here therefor nobody's breaking them. It sound to me like the small guys need to get together, tell the big guys, this is what we're going to do and have a mass attack on their excess RVs. They can't destroy everyone. Multiple attacks on every RV. All coordinated. They might end up respecting you for such a bold move rather than destroying anyone who dares to attack them.
Operation "village of the damned". I like the sound of that.
And you keep saying these players with 10 are either breaking the rules or in some way wrong. They're not, they got their villages fair and square, why should they just give them up?
It's a war game and you need to be brave and just go for it. There may be consequences but aren't there always?
My point is, there are no rules here therefor nobody's breaking them. It sound to me like the small guys need to get together, tell the big guys, this is what we're going to do and have a mass attack on their excess RVs. They can't destroy everyone. Multiple attacks on every RV. All coordinated. They might end up respecting you for such a bold move rather than destroying anyone who dares to attack them.
Operation "village of the damned". I like the sound of that.
[1389592]
ElConquistador [None]
:: Sept. 13, 2012, 4:44 p.m.
So we wanna be fair to those who already have them ... and what about the majority of us who don't? Leaving them retain them when the rest of us are limited is fair to who? The game is still in Beta meaning changes can and will happen, but make the changes fair for all, not a select few.
@xl5box Following your train of thought, why'd GGS take back the extra outpost? Those players also used their valuable men and resources ... including Rubies, to gain what was thought at the time to be a bonus. Sure that turned out to be a glitch, be no compensation was given that I've heard of. All I am saying is that as it is now, those holding their 30 RVs from before have a huge advantage in Everwinter and unless it changes, they always will. The only way for them to lose them as it is now is to have them taken by player. And when their armies, due to the extra RVs, is massive compared to most, I fail to see this being a viable option for the masses.
@xl5box Following your train of thought, why'd GGS take back the extra outpost? Those players also used their valuable men and resources ... including Rubies, to gain what was thought at the time to be a bonus. Sure that turned out to be a glitch, be no compensation was given that I've heard of. All I am saying is that as it is now, those holding their 30 RVs from before have a huge advantage in Everwinter and unless it changes, they always will. The only way for them to lose them as it is now is to have them taken by player. And when their armies, due to the extra RVs, is massive compared to most, I fail to see this being a viable option for the masses.
[1389602]
Baldrick (GB1) [None]
:: Sept. 13, 2012, 4:56 p.m.
I think your being to impatient ELC. It's not been that long since this change was introduced. And eventually, these strong player will lose villages. It WILL happen.
Would you rather they didn't implement the update at all? I don't think so.
Also, this is completely different to the fourth outpost. Anyone who got a fourth outpost should have known it was too good to be true. Spending rubies on them was a silly, greedy mistake. The villages were intended to have a max. of 10 of each, it was part of the game.
Seriously, have some patience. In a month if it's still the same you can moan about it.
Would you rather they didn't implement the update at all? I don't think so.
Also, this is completely different to the fourth outpost. Anyone who got a fourth outpost should have known it was too good to be true. Spending rubies on them was a silly, greedy mistake. The villages were intended to have a max. of 10 of each, it was part of the game.
Seriously, have some patience. In a month if it's still the same you can moan about it.
[1389608]
Unknown
:: Sept. 13, 2012, 5:09 p.m.
Hi all,
Perhaps i can shed some light on the situation.
Firstly, Baldrick is spot on (as usual
), if you want the villages you are going to have to take them. We deliberately didn't take them away to ease the transition for those that already had the outposts. If we had just taken them away then suddenly 100's if not 1000's of players would have been hung out to dry because they wouldn't have the resoruces to support their armies. This way the players with more than the limit of villages can adjust gradually and give their outposts away or wait for them to be taken.
We don't intend for players to be over the limit for long. In the event that the majority of players still have their outposts further downt eh line then it may be looked at again.
As for the outposts, that is a simple matter. It was an exploit that people were taking advantage of. Did they get refunded? Yes acutally. Any outposts that have already been removed have had the resource costs refunded and troops transferred back to main castles. If you read the recent announcement i made then you will see that players only have a certain time limit to report them before they will be removed with no refund.
Regards,
Malreyn
Perhaps i can shed some light on the situation.
Firstly, Baldrick is spot on (as usual
), if you want the villages you are going to have to take them. We deliberately didn't take them away to ease the transition for those that already had the outposts. If we had just taken them away then suddenly 100's if not 1000's of players would have been hung out to dry because they wouldn't have the resoruces to support their armies. This way the players with more than the limit of villages can adjust gradually and give their outposts away or wait for them to be taken.We don't intend for players to be over the limit for long. In the event that the majority of players still have their outposts further downt eh line then it may be looked at again.
As for the outposts, that is a simple matter. It was an exploit that people were taking advantage of. Did they get refunded? Yes acutally. Any outposts that have already been removed have had the resource costs refunded and troops transferred back to main castles. If you read the recent announcement i made then you will see that players only have a certain time limit to report them before they will be removed with no refund.
That does sounds pretty awesome actually!Baldrick wrote:Operation "village of the damned"
Regards,
Malreyn
[1389609]
Luke Fierysword [None]
:: Sept. 13, 2012, 5:10 p.m.
ElConquistador wrote: »Perfect example ... received this after taking an RV from a player holding almost 30 RVs:
Thief
You try to take one more of my villages and i will burn your castles to the ground. Is that clear?!?
Ham
pretty sad these P.I.T.A. are allowed to do as they please when they themselves are the one in fact cheating. GGS ... do you not think this should be dealt with? There is a ton of players that have no RVs to speak of and can't afford to take these bullies on to gain what rightfully should be available to them to start with
I don't see what's wrong with that? You should be grateful he actually warned you. Others would've just burned you to the ground. It's the nature of the game, either you deal with it, or simply focus on the Great Empire map.
[1389613]
LegendaryKing64 [None]
:: Sept. 13, 2012, 5:17 p.m.
ElConquistador wrote: »So we wanna be fair to those who already have them ... and what about the majority of us who don't? Leaving them retain them when the rest of us are limited is fair to who? The game is still in Beta meaning changes can and will happen, but make the changes fair for all, not a select few.
@xl5box Following your train of thought, why'd GGS take back the extra outpost? Those players also used their valuable men and resources ... including Rubies, to gain what was thought at the time to be a bonus. Sure that turned out to be a glitch, be no compensation was given that I've heard of. All I am saying is that as it is now, those holding their 30 RVs from before have a huge advantage in Everwinter and unless it changes, they always will. The only way for them to lose them as it is now is to have them taken by player. And when their armies, due to the extra RVs, is massive compared to most, I fail to see this being a viable option for the masses.
That reminds me of something funny that happened last night. I went to attack someone who was roughly 7 levels below me. About 10 minutes before he gets attacked, he calls me a bully. I thought, oh well, there is only way we can sort this. I proposed to give him a resource village just to show that it was nothing personal, just business. Anyway, he didn't want it so, fair-play to him too. However, a couple of minutes before my attacked landed, I managed to find 6 resource villages near to where his ice castle is. I noted down all the co-ordinates for him and I sent them in a pm.
He was actually surprised, since they were only 10 minutes away from where his castle is. He thanked me for it and I'll be honest, don't just search an area of 10 miles from the castle, it needs to be more. The new guys should be able to find them easier, it is just a matter of looking around. All in all, if I can find a bunch of 5-6 resource villages(that I could have taken anytime) then the others too. We worked hard to get ours, and the newbies have to realise that this is a war game, and as such, we have to force things. If your castle gets burnt, big deal, it is something that can be repaired. I just hope the newbies realise that the advanced players are not there to help them all the way to level 60.
[1389614]
LegendaryKing64 [None]
:: Sept. 13, 2012, 5:18 p.m.
Luke Fierysword wrote: »I don't see what's wrong with that? You should be grateful he actually warned you. Others would've just burned you to the ground. It's the nature of the game, either you deal with it, or simply focus on the Great Empire map.
Either the guy who sent him that message is a high-level player who can send thousands of troops or, he has observed ElConquistador 's castle and found that he has very few guards, in which case, he will be subjected to sabotage attacks.
[1389616]
LegendaryKing64 [None]
:: Sept. 13, 2012, 5:21 p.m.
CM Malreyn wrote: »Hi all,
Perhaps i can shed some light on the situation.
Firstly, Baldrick is spot on (as usual
We don't intend for players to be over the limit for long. In the event that the majority of players still have their outposts further downt eh line then it may be looked at again.
As for the outposts, that is a simple matter. It was an exploit that people were taking advantage of. Did they get refunded? Yes acutally. Any outposts that have already been removed have had the resource costs refunded and troops transferred back to main castles. If you read the recent announcement i made then you will see that players only have a certain time limit to report them before they will be removed with no refund.
That does sounds pretty awesome actually!
Regards,
Malreyn
Originally Posted by Baldrick
Operation "Children of the damned"
That song from the Irons sounds pretty damn awesome and better...;)
[1389621]
Synderion [None]
:: Sept. 13, 2012, 5:31 p.m.
About the limiting of resource villages... did it work? I took one from a player that had over 15. He took it back... he is now sitting on 17 resource villages. I thought players were now limited to 15?
[1389628]
Baldrick (GB1) [None]
:: Sept. 13, 2012, 5:39 p.m.
About the limiting of resource villages... did it work? I took one from a player that had over 15. He took it back... he is now sitting on 17 resource villages. I thought players were now limited to 15?
Are you sure it was in Everwinter Glacier and not one of the other kingdoms? And are you sure he had more than 5 of that type? The limit isn't 15, it's 5 of each type.
[1389634]
puffolino2 [None]
:: Sept. 13, 2012, 5:51 p.m.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:there are people nearly level 45 and they dont have a single recaurce villiage ELC please regognize how hard it is for us to capture a recaurce villiiage and you are saying that you have 30 rv and you are trying to keep them be imaginative a litle if i was you and you were me how would you feel oh then you would say you cant feel it beacuse you never did
[1389636]
Baldrick (GB1) [None]
:: Sept. 13, 2012, 5:53 p.m.
puffolino2 wrote: »:rolleyes::rolleyes:there are people nearly level 45 and they dont have a single recaurce villiage ELC please regognize how hard it is for us to capture a recaurce villiiage and you are saying that you have 30 rv and you are trying to keep them be imaginative a litle if i was you and you were me how would you feel oh then you would say you cant feel it beacuse you never did
There are villages popping up in EN1 all the time. You just need to look for them and take them.
[1389657]
skoringen [None]
:: Sept. 13, 2012, 6:19 p.m.
In that case I will not expand more, the system just remove what i have spent houers of buliing, sorry it was a nice game
[1389662]
UltimateStu [None]
:: Sept. 13, 2012, 6:26 p.m.
GGE: It seems pretty simple to sort to me... Half the number of resource villages you can hold and boost the %age increase it provides to compensate. That way you can actually take back the excess RV from those that have too many and they won't be hung out to dry. Then comes the problem of putting those RV back up for grabs... split them into four equal groups (equal number and equally spread over the map), then release a group every 6 hours.
I will point out at this point that I have more than 5 food RV. I would be happy with 5 if the boost remained the same as 10.
I will point out at this point that I have more than 5 food RV. I would be happy with 5 if the boost remained the same as 10.
[1389672]
ElConquistador [None]
:: Sept. 13, 2012, 6:42 p.m.
Thank you for your reply CM Malreyn. That is exactly what I was questioning, now I understand the reasoning.
@Baldrick Thanks also! Like the idea ... village of the damned.
And to whoever thought I was fighting to keep my RVs ... I am not holding the max in any but food. I am one of those higher levels who only has a handful ... and had to fight for them all. RVs popping up are based on players, or castles, joining the new world. Some worlds receive very few new players that make it all the way to the ice world. And I'm sure that's not the only one ... but in those worlds the same, new RVs are a rarity. If there was new RVs to be had, don't think I wouldn't shoot for there first.
I do know this is a game of war, and am not complaining of the fact. I don't mind the attacks on me and Ham should know by my reply ... I would just like to see the game be a bit more fair to everyone in a few situations such as this one.
@Baldrick Thanks also! Like the idea ... village of the damned.
And to whoever thought I was fighting to keep my RVs ... I am not holding the max in any but food. I am one of those higher levels who only has a handful ... and had to fight for them all. RVs popping up are based on players, or castles, joining the new world. Some worlds receive very few new players that make it all the way to the ice world. And I'm sure that's not the only one ... but in those worlds the same, new RVs are a rarity. If there was new RVs to be had, don't think I wouldn't shoot for there first.
I do know this is a game of war, and am not complaining of the fact. I don't mind the attacks on me and Ham should know by my reply ... I would just like to see the game be a bit more fair to everyone in a few situations such as this one.