This is a letter that I have translated from the DE forum, which is being discussed there, it was written by the Roundtable Focus Group, and highlights their views around the PvP aspect of the last update... Let me know your thoughts on their points in the comments below, this isn't an official announcement from GGS, just something to share with you guys and get your views on... the views will be used in conjunction to the letter when discussing it with GGS in the Roundtable tomorrow... please stay on topic, all comments off topic will be removed....
"Dear GGS team,
We (the working group) are of the opinion that the upcoming update would completely destroy PvP and the game flow is only based on events!
We justify our statement by stating that, among other things, the reinforcement of the Deff troops in the secondary value (planned for the update on 30/05) and the changes in the raw material system represent a further step towards the death of PvP in the game.
Increasing these values will not be an improvement for the smaller players, because this change makes a PvP fight absolutely impossible for these players, and even these can be so hard in the defense, because they simply lack the camper voyages because they Are flooded by events. High-end players will also be affected by this, as they will struggle to find targets on their level who are tempting to attack… meaning more damage is done to smaller players as well – more attacks are sent in their direction…
As a small example to defend a high-end player:
Standard wall + construct 320 troops
+ 55 troopsNormal set bonus (15%) 56.25 troops
Bonus by stones x5 (55%) 206.25 troops
Hall bonus (25%) 93.75 troops
Total 731 troops
This value can also go without problems to almost 900 troops on the wall, with the addition of bonuses to the secondary statistic, this makes the castle an almost impregnable fortress.
This way of playing is also supported by the introduction of the favorable costs for the conversion of the hall and the planned introduction of the possibility of buying level 11 gems.
In addition, the planned increase of all the gems from the courtyard and
Troops on the Wall by 2% - this will give the possibility to bring a really high number of troops on the wall because there is no cap to cut the number of defenders on the wall.
A fight in the courtyard is superfluous with these players because these players will have more than 20K defenders with ease.
It follows that PvP defence against high-level players - no matter how good the attacker himself is - is almost completely free!
Due to the increase in the secondary value - the events "Foreigners" and "Bloodcrows" are also affected and will lead to a further outcry from players since the losses will increase. Not to be missed are the towers in the green and the Royal capital-Event (if it appears again).
Consequences:
More losses
Increased recruitment costs / recruitment times
Restricting players in the build-up phase
Less profit in coins (Technichus)
Conversely, weak players will never have the courage to defend because they are not compelled to defend (Fire Castys) on the one hand and the possibility of Opening your gates on the other hand. They have never learned to defend themselves because of the onslaught of events (missing PvP).
The cap for Fire reduction is therefore much too high (75%)!
Example:
Default value: 75%
Hero: 10%
Fire station: 40%
Total: 125% (without Fire pump)
"Protection against looting"
Default value: 70%
HoL: 50%
Overall: 120%
Small players will never face a PvP, because their resources are impossible to lose due to the 120% reduction, and they would not burn even with normal attacks because they have fire protection castellans. Attackers must attack with fire commanders in order to cause damage at all.
All in all, players who have joined the game over the last two years are hardly concerned with the mechanics of the game, and GGE does everything they can to keep it that way. An example of this is the "autofill" feature.
To get the point straight, a cap for the soldiers on the wall (50%) must be added, covering all aspects, to match this, the flank in the field should be covered (60-75%) .
In addition, the cap for the fire reduction statistic should again be set to 50%, even then a 100% fire protection is possible without much difficulty.
The costs to repair should be reduced and the feature “destroyer” should not be in the game anymore, because it is really expensive to build the buildings and the destroyer is not reasonable anymore.
In order to allow at least a small loss of raw material, the cap of "Reduced looting" must be reduced to 40% (as a result of potential changes coming in the June update).
Best regards
The remainders of the Focus Group"
wow now even the game system itself is telling us the game is messed up : * (
the game is calling itself messed up...get some more self confidence game
It was translated by Sistem you pleb "This is a letter that I have translated from the DE forum, which is being discussed there, it was written by the Roundtable Focus Group" this message is from Roundatable Focus Group... or smthShadow_21 (AU1) said:wow now even the game system itself is telling us the game is messed up : * (
the game is calling itself messed up...get some more self confidence game
yes it was 
anyway...yeah they have a point...
what does it mean "the remainders of the focus group"
does that mean that some have actually quit
or is it metaphorical?
1) Fire Reduction being capped at 75% is less than it was before, as you could have 50% + as much as you can get from gems. Its fine as it is now.
2) Why remove the Destroy Building function? The % of actually destroying a building is very low. And if they're complaining about people Firecasting, then having Destroy% from Hall and people risking losing buildings if they choose not to defend, is a good thing. They seem to contradict themselves here.
3) The Reduced Looting cap to 40% is also retarded. If an Attacker has +50% Looting from Hall, that means you have 150% total Loot% (as 100% is the base).
Reduced Looting is 70% EQ + 50% Hall + 25% Hero - which is still less than 150%. Not to mention most event comms have +Loot%, such as the BC Comm, Prince of Thieves, Beri Invasion Comm, etc.
All this post tells me is that the people on the DE Server are morons and have no grasp of how the game functions. They're just spouting complaints about irrelevant things.
In regards to PvP aspect of the game, I agree its broken. Removing RV hitting, jacking up defenders stats, reducing defenders food consumption...awful ideas. If GGE needs to change anything, its Attackers losing all their troops when they lose an attack. That is the main thing that discourages people from attacking - you lose the attack and you lose $10 worth of tools.
Yes some players have quit. The groups had many players at the beginning but it takes a lot of your gaming and free time. As a consequence several players left the group. There were more than 15 players at the beginning now there are only 7 active playersShadow_21 (AU1) said:...what does it mean "the remainders of the focus group"
does that mean that some have actually quit
or is it metaphorical?
Expell
Hello I want to answer to the loot problem(point 3)Morentz (US1) said:I half agree, and half disagree.
1) Fire Reduction being capped at 75% is less than it was before, as you could have 50% + as much as you can get from gems. Its fine as it is now.
2) Why remove the Destroy Building function? The % of actually destroying a building is very low. And if they're complaining about people Firecasting, then having Destroy% from Hall and people risking losing buildings if they choose not to defend, is a good thing. They seem to contradict themselves here.
3) The Reduced Looting cap to 40% is also retarded. If an Attacker has +50% Looting from Hall, that means you have 150% total Loot% (as 100% is the base).
Reduced Looting is 70% EQ + 50% Hall + 25% Hero - which is still less than 150%. Not to mention most event comms have +Loot%, such as the BC Comm, Prince of Thieves, Beri Invasion Comm, etc.
All this post tells me is that the people on the DE Server are morons and have no grasp of how the game functions. They're just spouting complaints about irrelevant things.
In regards to PvP aspect of the game, I agree its broken. Removing RV hitting, jacking up defenders stats, reducing defenders food consumption...awful ideas. If GGE needs to change anything, its Attackers losing all their troops when they lose an attack. That is the main thing that discourages people from attacking - you lose the attack and you lose $10 worth of tools.
we have information from the close beta server that the looting from hall is replaced for an NPC- loot bonus so you have only your 100% and the bonus from your commander
thomas
please excuse my english:)
Dear @Shadow_21 (AU1)Shadow_21 (AU1) said:wow now even the game system itself is telling us the game is messed up : * (
the game is calling itself messed up...get some more self confidence game
This letter was published by the system. However, it does not represent the viewpoint of GGE and this is very important to notice! This letter was written by a German Working Group and was published in the German System.
The group is also not saying that the game is messed up, they are saying that there are some important issues which maybe should be changed or at least GGE should take a look at it again.
It is only a letter with ideas and the viewpoint of the Working Group (however, there many who agree) and we hope to get some international feedback. For this, we asked for help and that is why it was published here so we could get a general overview of the situation.
i agree on most of these points...the fire casts and loot casts i do think need caps..going up in a war against alliance that just put these on and hide their troops away are incrdebly boring
now i dont know what side to take with the reduce food for defenders...because i like it that i can know hold more defenders, helping me defend against big attacks...however the opposite reaction also occurs, i dont like it that it will be harder to attack...and yes it is more likely that most people will attack weaker players out of fear, because they know the types of numbers the high end players will have
so yeah i agree with some but others i dont know because they both help and dont help players in different ways
my suggestion is having a poll...just to see what players think...and then go from there
This "letter" seems to be very specific in it's viewpoint of how the game is to be played. While it is true that I have only been playing for 18 months, in the current version of GGE there are multiple ways to play it. It seems to me, that is by design.
To limit the style of gameplay, would limit those who would want to play.
It is up to GGS to decide if they want a limited number of PvP players for a PvP based game, or an expanded number of players who can play either PvP or PvE.
Yes, I prefer the option do play both styles.............
1 The first problems of high vs. Low players can be easily solved in my opinion. As i played Shadow Kings I know of the effect when you put a locket on attack from a certain level. For example a level 70-800 could not attack a level 70-200 anymore and the other way around. It would force people to look for people of their own strength
2 i question why events would be effected since those castellans rarely have gems.
3 I’m a weak player, but i know how to defend my castle. I agree the automatic filler is bad, but that doesn’t mean everyone that might not be that strong is following it/cannot defend
4 Cap for fire-reduction should stay the same. Before people could easily make fire cast with gems, now you need somewhat more with the Fire Pump (only for main) or HoL. The last is only for level 70 players so 100% has become more rare if you don’t want to use rubies (which fire station requires)
5 Protection against looting should stay the same too. It is only above 70 with HoL, so for under 70 and low 70 players it would be not fair. The solution for the problem would be to reduce the reduction that the HoL gives to you. In that way you do favour smaller players, who mostly aren’t at that point of the HoL yet.
6 About the people on the wall, that is something that is indifferent to me
7 Feature destroyer should indeed be out of the game if you would ask me. It is unfair for the defender. On the other side i could not that defenders have become stronger so that winning should be more possible.
So I hope GGE will continue the way they have shown us at the last update and make sure the game stays fair for all!
Kind regards
Lucas (A concerned person due to this letter)
It is said upthread that this 'focus group' consists of LESS THAN 10 PLAYERS !
There were more, of course (FIFTEEN !) but some have abandoned the effort,
apparently.
I don't think that that small a number, out of the tens of thousdands world-wide who supposedly
play this game should have any meaningful impact on the game's future, DE or not.
Yeah, I get that this thread is an attempt to gain more input/ideas/whatever, but again
GGE will reach a miniscule number of people who actually play the game, much less
those who have devoted thought to how to 'improve' the game.
First off, PvP will NOT prosper as long as GGE tolerates multi-accounts, PW sharing and
'bots, along with other forms of cheats. I for one if I'm faced with a 700/850 with 6 waves
of vet horrors will send my troops on walkabout and let the fire cast handle it best
it can. The attacker will get some glory, some loot, but I'll have saved thousands of
troops and the coin/rubies which would have gone to replace them..
Now let some 700/250 come at me, we'll have a nice fight, win or lose.
If PvP is to be saved, it needs to have a tiered combat system such as is already in place
for levels below 70 and an ENFORCED rule about attacking within force boundaries
(i.e. 70/0-100, 70/101-250; 70/251-500 etc.)
Finally, everyone needs to stop talking about this being a 'wargame'. I've been playing
wargames of all types for well over 50 years. In a WARGAME, there is/are clear
winners and losers. In this game, the ONLY winner is GGE's bank account.
Were this a wargame, MC's could be captured or destroyed - oh, wait, that would remove
a revenue source from GGE.
Guess that idea will never happen, eh ?
Ed Mohrmann
There are bigger concernes right now in the game that these ones like fking capturing 800 legendary OPs with a 13 level account , HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE ? There should be a damn gap between players , like you can't attack a player who is under 70 or who is under ~200 legendary level lower than yourself...
Only this will encourage low players to play against their near power enemies , only a gap
And about 13 level accounts i`m trying to say " A 13 level player send captures on your op , a 500 legendary player cleares your defenders and the capture flag gets in , they gather 200k defenders there and when you want to repell the capture you find out you can send 30 troops on flanks and 50 on center , because it is a fking 13 level player . When capturing , it should be like on a royal tower , considered level 70 !
I`m sorry i`m not on the topic but maybe you will give attention to this post .
ON TOPIC : Fire castellan bonus it`s good as it is , because it's the only way not to burn when you are massed by the entire server , that's why there are "Fire commanders " to combat the "Fire Castellans"
Limit on the walls should not be fixed , because everyone works for those bonuses , this is how you prove you are the best and the most active , if you put a limit , then everyone could achieve it easily , because it isnt so hard to get a 50 % limit on the wall , 15% is given by the ice castellan only ...
off topic again
I saw that coins on attack was a little increased , it should be a little MORE increased , because coins are very used now , you spend 10 hours to make let's say 5 milion coins and you spend them in 10 minutes in tehnichus or in moving army in kingdoms , either remove the coins needed for army movement , or increase them to ~50k per attack
So yes, I predict attacks will fall on lower hol level players for the most part, why take the risk?
GamerGac5754 (GB1) said:Tools are the big issue for PvP play - 7-800 tools on a 6 wave attack, plus the cost of any troops bought, is a significant obstacle. Maybe £25 gone iy you lose an attack? I can't do that once a week on my game budget, once a month maybe...
So yes, I predict attacks will fall on lower hol level players for the most part, why take the risk?
Wait...... so because you RISK £25 in tools and troops, you should be guaranteed a win?
How EXACTLY is that the problem?
You don't want to RISK losing, DON'T send the attack.
love the veiled threat to the lower levels, because "I can't afford to lose against a strong player"......
GamerGac5754 (GB1) said:Exactly, easier to pick a weak target that has little or no chance of defending succesfully.
GamerGac5754 (GB1) said:Question is whether that is good for the game, or does it encourage what some would describe as bullying style of play?
Ok, I had to pause a bit to think this over. I believe I made have read some of the OP opinions into your post, and I should not have.
You stated that a person's ability to spend, will influence their attacking style. That is undoubtedly correct. IF a player DOES have $$$ or £££ to spend, they don't need to worry about the tools/troops they may lose. But, this in itself does not mean the player will only attack equal level opponents. What it really means is how often they can attack, and how many attacks they can send at one time. In reality, no one wants to lose tools / troops. Even the free ones from events. Therefore, the question of how much an attack costs, is not directly relevant to the choice of opponent. There are plenty of Non-Ruby players who will hit 100's of legendary levels below for a perceived "easy win". Be it for resources, glory, honor, or just for fun. There are also Ruby players who would NOT do so. And YES, there are those who would ONLY hit lower than themselves to "get the most for their money". (or time invested)
This question of "bullying style" has more to do with the players viewpoint of the game, than the costs involved. If this is a PvP game where you are expected to farm other players for resources to upgrade your castle, then there is no such thing as "bullying". (this is restricted to the meaning of hitting players much lower than you - not about cyber bullying - please do not apply alternate meanings to my words) IF this is a PvE game, and you are expected to get your resources from the event castles, the production buildings, and the rewards, then hitting other players for them WOULD be a form of "bullying". (Same disclaimer on the word as above)
The reality is, that this game's current form is a MIX of PvP and PvE. These two worlds do not always get along. But, due to this MIX, we do need to have a MIXED understanding of what is and is not "part of the game". The other problem with the mixed nature of the game, is that it leaves a vacuum that some players seek to fill. What is "fair play"? But, before I go way off on that tangent, I will stop. (And the crowd cheers this restraint)
As this slight side-tracking relates to the thread, is that the OP's viewpoint seems heavily weighted on PURE PvP from the Attacking side. Those on the Defending side of PvP would disagree, as would those who prefer only PvE.
ok, I got to go sit down for a while..........
I completly agree with this, there is only one thing to do against it, open the gates and have positive food production with a minimum of 1000 defenders in the op. But what can you do when you are not around and the attack comes from a very close range and takes only about 8-10 minutes. (this is where your alliance members could help, but pass sharing is illegal as we know)Katamaran (IN1) said:And about 13 level accounts i`m trying to say " A 13 level player send captures on your op , a 500 legendary player cleares your defenders and the capture flag gets in , they gather 200k defenders there and when you want to repell the capture you find out you can send 30 troops on flanks and 50 on center , because it is a fking 13 level player . When capturing , it should be like on a royal tower , considered level 70 !
And there is one more thing: tool burning, if somebody uses fire cast it can take away the tools from one wave of the attack. That is not nice, but it is still not as bad as if the attackers are using this strategy, they can send 32 troop attacks (troops on each side in six waves) in front of real attacks. And they can send as many as they want, so it doesn't matter how many troops you have on the wall, without defensive tools, the attack will go through every time.
This game needs a lot of changes, especially in PvP. But I don't think I will be around so long to see if you can work it out.
a level 800 player on the Hungarian 2 server
1) as stated repeatedly above, set a legend level difference cap for attacks, perhaps 200 levels.
2)put a cap on the number of defenders that will fight in the cy. maybe 2x the number of attackers in the hit? maybe 3x? defenders are at this point way easier to get and maintain, so while the low a cap would make better than 1-1 kill rates much easier, in terms of actual work lost, the attacker still loses more.
3)if tools can teleport from rvs and ops to your main when you lose them, attack tools not used on the wall can also teleport back to the attacker's castle if defeated. this will greatly balance the cost difference between offence and defense.