sir o the wise (US1) said:
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.
1 I totally agree with that, but that's not suprisce
2 I would say do 2.5x the number of attackers that's between 2 and 3. I would also suggest in this to have the strongest defenders compete, just like the system om the wall. (Would also be fair to those who send support, since most people have strongest defence in main, which is most under attack)
3 This is great, cause tools can fly these days (with baloons) so attacktools can do that to. What shouldn't they do it at an attack? The defender never gets them so are they lost then? This would be better.
1. Level cap is stupid. No fun otherwise since higher levels would just have to have war every single day as they can only attack the top players in top alliances. Besides if the lower levels get attacked, means that they want to level up faster and get vengeance.Lucas1999 (NL1) said:sir o the wise (US1) said:
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.
1 I totally agree with that, but that's not suprisce
2 I would say do 2.5x the number of attackers that's between 2 and 3. I would also suggest in this to have the strongest defenders compete, just like the system om the wall. (Would also be fair to those who send support, since most people have strongest defence in main, which is most under attack)
3 This is great, cause tools can fly these days (with baloons) so attacktools can do that to. What shouldn't they do it at an attack? The defender never gets them so are they lost then? This would be better.
2. Cap on number of defenders? Also stupid. If they win the wall and have 2.5k underground people with blood crow comm against your 6-7k defense troops? Sorry, but you will lose every single time.
3. 100% agreed. Unused tools should be sent back to main, or at least the majority of them. e.g 80-90%.
Are you usually defending alone or do you get support from your alliance?Milf Hunter (INT1) said:2. Cap on number of defenders? Also stupid. If they win the wall and have 2.5k underground people with blood crow comm against your 6-7k defense troops? Sorry, but you will lose every single time.
Milf Hunter (INT1) said:Lol.1. Level cap is stupid. No fun otherwise since higher levels would just have to have war every single day as they can only attack the top players in top alliances. Besides if the lower levels get attacked, means that they want to level up faster and get vengeance.Lucas1999 (NL1) said:sir o the wise (US1) said:
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.
1 I totally agree with that, but that's not suprisce
2 I would say do 2.5x the number of attackers that's between 2 and 3. I would also suggest in this to have the strongest defenders compete, just like the system om the wall. (Would also be fair to those who send support, since most people have strongest defence in main, which is most under attack)
3 This is great, cause tools can fly these days (with baloons) so attacktools can do that to. What shouldn't they do it at an attack? The defender never gets them so are they lost then? This would be better.
2. Cap on number of defenders? Also stupid. If they win the wall and have 2.5k underground people with blood crow comm against your 6-7k defense troops? Sorry, but you will lose every single time.
3. 100% agreed. Unused tools should be sent back to main, or at least the majority of them. e.g 80-90%.
Why would it be wrong to have a level cap? First of all, it think they should become wider as the levels are rising (so that the top like level 500 -800 players can attack each other. Wouldn't that make pvp more exciting since you have to rush each other as a great alliance. It sounds fair to me though.). Secondly, why would you want people to level up faster? I hope you too want the people in your alliance to make good comms and casts and build their castles at a good rate. That takes time so if you level up fast you're not ready for those levels yet.
That's also why this cap is great. It would make sure people that work hard would be ready for certain levels and not do things too fast. It would make sure fights be fairer and that would certainly be a good thing.
Klabeh (DE1) said:You do not really need any level limits, if you have a coherent PvP at eye level. As long as that is not, you will always go back to the weaker ones
That's just the problem, because i suppose the PvP at the higher levels is not coherent since they are all in huge alliances that are very strong. So it has to be enforced than, has it not?
1) No, it would not make it more exciting as no one would attack each other unless in war, which would also lead to few attacks because of OP defense stats. We send 30-50 in mass, they easily put 100-200k if they want.Lucas1999 (NL1) said:Milf Hunter (INT1) said:Lol.1. Level cap is stupid. No fun otherwise since higher levels would just have to have war every single day as they can only attack the top players in top alliances. Besides if the lower levels get attacked, means that they want to level up faster and get vengeance.Lucas1999 (NL1) said:sir o the wise (US1) said:
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.
1 I totally agree with that, but that's not suprisce
2 I would say do 2.5x the number of attackers that's between 2 and 3. I would also suggest in this to have the strongest defenders compete, just like the system om the wall. (Would also be fair to those who send support, since most people have strongest defence in main, which is most under attack)
3 This is great, cause tools can fly these days (with baloons) so attacktools can do that to. What shouldn't they do it at an attack? The defender never gets them so are they lost then? This would be better.
2. Cap on number of defenders? Also stupid. If they win the wall and have 2.5k underground people with blood crow comm against your 6-7k defense troops? Sorry, but you will lose every single time.
3. 100% agreed. Unused tools should be sent back to main, or at least the majority of them. e.g 80-90%.Why would it be wrong to have a level cap? First of all, it think they should become wider as the levels are rising (so that the top like level 500 -800 players can attack each other. Wouldn't that make pvp more exciting since you have to rush each other as a great alliance. It sounds fair to me though.). Secondly, why would you want people to level up faster? I hope you too want the people in your alliance to make good comms and casts and build their castles at a good rate. That takes time so if you level up fast you're not ready for those levels yet.
That's also why this cap is great. It would make sure people that work hard would be ready for certain levels and not do things too fast. It would make sure fights be fairer and that would certainly be a good thing.
2) Level up faster = building more/attacking more
that means they have better castles and better everything else. Besides, equipment at low levels are terrible.
If you can't beat them, join them.
Put limits on the gems for attacking to encourage more defending....ok fine.
Jack up the bonus from defence gems....sure.
Increase the secondary defence stats of troops...starting to question sanity.
Reduce food consumption on defenders to turn the game into a farming stalemate....wtf.
Attack and defence balance before was terrible and GGE tried to fix it; I'll give credit for that.
Now the system has gone too far to favor defence, and there's no way GGS will undo these changes. Right now there must be increased incentives for attacking and defending. Don't remove the looting bonus just because people use dead accounts as farms, keep (or increase) the cap. for fire and loot (commanders and casts), give honor for defending, return tools from a failed attack....do SOMETHING to encourage PVP and not turn this game into Goodgame Farmer.
Maybe the owners got blinded by greed , and thought this could be our ticket out of the rat race. not a bad thing to want.
but now it is not a PVP game anymore players fighting do not generate income . so we playing an event game now . where if you want to succeed . then you must pay to play. And also this was not a big deal in the main .
But now the sucker punch has been given, no more tools trade, no more renegade free soldiers and tools , no more alliance war no more free feathers , no more decent events , berimond was totally taking apart , the fun suck of it , and they made a pc game where there are no winners .
So many events where you get so much equipment but nowhere to put it , wow i must get so much , so i can sell you to get it again ,and so on
But GGE fell for there own propaganda , and had to get rid of most of there staff because of greed , and now they change there own rules with the Gem fiasco .
You may say i am bitter even twisted, your right after being told by BM to talk to support about compensation . only not to get a response from them . you may say why dont you just leave , my answer to that i invested in my castles and i want to be here when it goes down the pan . and if there is any class action for them .
Tony
Now there are other events that disintegrate alliances and then finally leave the game. This game, now, is based on unnecessary, individual spending, and if it's a win, then it's small and worthless.
I say: GGS - mass suicide ... normal, of accounts. We as users will find another game. You'll lose
Most of what I read in Opening statement is garbage and I hope GGE will stop changing caps and things. You've pissed everyone off with this gem cap, constant adjustments making comms and casts we have made irrelevant is just stupid. I had to rework just about every comm and cast I have after this last mess, if you do it again it will probably be my queue to find something else to do with my time. BTW, not sure where they came up with the numbers but 750 is about the most possible troops/wall you can get with hall set to defense and every perk imaginable, don't know where the hell they get 900.
My suggestion to make high lv PvP more appealing is to cap support at maybe 15k. Ive run into 90k support before, its just kinda ridiculous. If you aren't LD hitting, hitting at 4am, or massing an alliance support gets stupid. My average hit mid day to a player in a top 20 alliance is 30-40k support.
That being said defending has to be more attractive if players cant stack up all that support. I noticed you finally raised glory in defense, but it can still be higher. Maybe a high coin payout based on how many attackers you kill (2k attackers defended=50k coin for example) I still like the idea of unused attack tools being kept by the defender although I see way it can be misused. I also mentioned before a running reward program for defending. Rewards for defeating 100/500/1k/2k/5k/10k/20k attackers, after 20k resets back to 0 to get rewards again. Give people reasons to take those fire casts down and close those gates.
well arent u doing the same? capturing yash OP and others OP using level 11 accts? baarati aint CHV acct? yet UAL started it ._. but still u followed it ._.Katamaran (IN1) said:It`s only your fault , you did the update without considering all posibilities ...
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
Answer, because you have zero regard, and i mean zero regard for your customers, time after time you make changes that screw them over, time after time you ask for feedback, and then totally ignore it. You really have zero intention of doing things with the feedback, I dont even know why you bother, maybe it makes you feel better to ask even though you totally intend to ignore it.
Make whatever changes you want in the game all i ask is that you dont screw your customers doing it. Let the game evolve and grow, that should be how changes are made. Changing the balance / the dynamic all fine change it however you want. Adding items to the game that your customers spend significant time / effort and in some cases real money to achieve. then taking them away overnight. Is a serious no no. Selling an item that costs £200+ one week then the week after you take away the effects that item gave is also an unforgivable no no. If you screwed up and you made a change you believe led to an imbalance, by all means correct it, but do the right thing and say sorry we messed up we should never have sold that item, we didnt forsee the issue. here is your money back and please take these items by way of an apology from us for your inconvienience. And here are some of the exciting things we are adding to the game, for you to spend your refunded money on.
That way you minimise the impact to your players whilst still making the changes you believe are necessary to ensure the playability of the game.
What you dont do is try and lay the blame on players for using equipment in a way that you allowed to happen in the game, for a very very long period of time in a way that generated you a significant amount of revenue. you put your hands up and say sorry we made a mistake, we got it wrong. but we are going to correct that mistake, but we will ensure you dont lose out.
320+55 = 375DHDF22 (US1) said:Most of what I read in Opening statement is garbage and I hope GGE will stop changing caps and things. You've pissed everyone off with this gem cap, constant adjustments making comms and casts we have made irrelevant is just stupid. I had to rework just about every comm and cast I have after this last mess, if you do it again it will probably be my queue to find something else to do with my time. BTW, not sure where they came up with the numbers but 750 is about the most possible troops/wall you can get with hall set to defense and every perk imaginable, don't know where the hell they get 900.
My suggestion to make high lv PvP more appealing is to cap support at maybe 15k. Ive run into 90k support before, its just kinda ridiculous. If you aren't LD hitting, hitting at 4am, or massing an alliance support gets stupid. My average hit mid day to a player in a top 20 alliance is 30-40k support.
That being said defending has to be more attractive if players cant stack up all that support. I noticed you finally raised glory in defense, but it can still be higher. Maybe a high coin payout based on how many attackers you kill (2k attackers defended=50k coin for example) I still like the idea of unused attack tools being kept by the defender although I see way it can be misused. I also mentioned before a running reward program for defending. Rewards for defeating 100/500/1k/2k/5k/10k/20k attackers, after 20k resets back to 0 to get rewards again. Give people reasons to take those fire casts down and close those gates.
375*1.95 = 731 (ice cast + 4 eagle gems)
731*1.25 = 913.75
Milf Hunter (INT1) said:320+55 = 375DHDF22 (US1) said:Most of what I read in Opening statement is garbage and I hope GGE will stop changing caps and things. You've pissed everyone off with this gem cap, constant adjustments making comms and casts we have made irrelevant is just stupid. I had to rework just about every comm and cast I have after this last mess, if you do it again it will probably be my queue to find something else to do with my time. BTW, not sure where they came up with the numbers but 750 is about the most possible troops/wall you can get with hall set to defense and every perk imaginable, don't know where the hell they get 900.
My suggestion to make high lv PvP more appealing is to cap support at maybe 15k. Ive run into 90k support before, its just kinda ridiculous. If you aren't LD hitting, hitting at 4am, or massing an alliance support gets stupid. My average hit mid day to a player in a top 20 alliance is 30-40k support.
That being said defending has to be more attractive if players cant stack up all that support. I noticed you finally raised glory in defense, but it can still be higher. Maybe a high coin payout based on how many attackers you kill (2k attackers defended=50k coin for example) I still like the idea of unused attack tools being kept by the defender although I see way it can be misused. I also mentioned before a running reward program for defending. Rewards for defeating 100/500/1k/2k/5k/10k/20k attackers, after 20k resets back to 0 to get rewards again. Give people reasons to take those fire casts down and close those gates.
375*1.95 = 731 (ice cast + 4 eagle gems)
731*1.25 = 913.75
eagle gems add 20% troops each, not sure what *1.95 is, and its off the base amount of troops (320) not 375 after the construction yard widget.
Same thing for your next calculation, you cant multiply what I assume is the hall perks by 731 on the wall, they multiply off base of 320 as well.
Which actually makes it a very nice piece of kit.
320+55=375DHDF22 (US1) said:Milf Hunter (INT1) said:320+55 = 375DHDF22 (US1) said:Most of what I read in Opening statement is garbage and I hope GGE will stop changing caps and things. You've pissed everyone off with this gem cap, constant adjustments making comms and casts we have made irrelevant is just stupid. I had to rework just about every comm and cast I have after this last mess, if you do it again it will probably be my queue to find something else to do with my time. BTW, not sure where they came up with the numbers but 750 is about the most possible troops/wall you can get with hall set to defense and every perk imaginable, don't know where the hell they get 900.
My suggestion to make high lv PvP more appealing is to cap support at maybe 15k. Ive run into 90k support before, its just kinda ridiculous. If you aren't LD hitting, hitting at 4am, or massing an alliance support gets stupid. My average hit mid day to a player in a top 20 alliance is 30-40k support.
That being said defending has to be more attractive if players cant stack up all that support. I noticed you finally raised glory in defense, but it can still be higher. Maybe a high coin payout based on how many attackers you kill (2k attackers defended=50k coin for example) I still like the idea of unused attack tools being kept by the defender although I see way it can be misused. I also mentioned before a running reward program for defending. Rewards for defeating 100/500/1k/2k/5k/10k/20k attackers, after 20k resets back to 0 to get rewards again. Give people reasons to take those fire casts down and close those gates.
375*1.95 = 731 (ice cast + 4 eagle gems)
731*1.25 = 913.75
eagle gems add 20% troops each, not sure what *1.95 is, and its off the base amount of troops (320) not 375 after the construction yard widget.Same thing for your next calculation, you cant multiply what I assume is the hall perks by 731 on the wall, they multiply off base of 320 as well.
15% from ice, 80% from gems 25% from hall adds to 120%
Seems my calcs were wrong :P
375*2.2 = 825
(320+55)*(1+.8+.15+.25)=825
(base+build item)*(base+gems+ice cast set bonus+ hall)