Forum: empire-en
Board: [816] News from the world of Empire
Topic: [343383] Event Teaser: Attack of the shapeshifter
[4863531]
usman7864 (INT2) [None]
:: Nov. 12, 2017, 1:27 p.m.
killing all the interest in game
[4863639]
Friedrich IV (US1) [None]
:: Nov. 12, 2017, 5:53 p.m.
I give them credit where I feel it's due I just don't think these last few updates deserve it. Limiting event performance by drastically reducing skips was a really bad idea no matter how you slice it, and this event doesn't look much better.Stumpyalaskan (US1) said:@BM_Friedrich
I doubt you will be a moderator much longer. You don't drink the GGE koolaid and tell us how great they are.
If they want to drop me that is entirely their prerogative but the way I see it I live in the US of A and am entitled to my opinion regardless
As per this event - I'm being told that the number of points is based upon the attack instead of the defense. Great. So we get points based on how many expensive troops/tools we send to die? Awesome!!!!!!!!!!! /sarcasm
If we assume this is true, defender griefing doesn't matter a ton until you get into empty castles that 3 flank to waste tools, which I'm sure will happen constantly because lets face it everyone that plays this game is spiteful af lol
EDIT: I think the CMs are great. I do not think, however, that the developers are great, nor do I think support is great. This game has too many bugs for me to worship the devs, and we all know how I feel about support..
[4863656]
icelord (GB1) [None]
:: Nov. 12, 2017, 6:41 p.m.
Do you think they will change their attitudes towards everything (including the community and the game's development) because as far as I can see, they don't give a single fuck about us the players(community) and as of recent updates, they don't give a shit about the game eitherBM_Friedrich said:I give them credit where I feel it's due I just don't think these last few updates deserve it. Limiting event performance by drastically reducing skips was a really bad idea no matter how you slice it, and this event doesn't look much better.Stumpyalaskan (US1) said:@BM_Friedrich
I doubt you will be a moderator much longer. You don't drink the GGE koolaid and tell us how great they are.
If they want to drop me that is entirely their prerogative but the way I see it I live in the US of A and am entitled to my opinion regardless
As per this event - I'm being told that the number of points is based upon the attack instead of the defense. Great. So we get points based on how many expensive troops/tools we send to die? Awesome!!!!!!!!!!! /sarcasm
If we assume this is true, defender griefing doesn't matter a ton until you get into empty castles that 3 flank to waste tools, which I'm sure will happen constantly because lets face it everyone that plays this game is spiteful af lol
EDIT: I think the CMs are great. I do not think, however, that the developers are great, nor do I think support is great. This game has too many bugs for me to worship the devs, and we all know how I feel about support..
@BM_Friedrich
[4863700]
David Noble (US1) [None]
:: Nov. 12, 2017, 8:07 p.m.
Part of the problem is the difficulty of getting Goodgame Studios to care about our complaints. They may give in to some of the complaints eventually, but they seem to not be easily swayed by the community. Unless if it involves Goodgame Studios making more money, any other time Goodgame Studios seems to rarely care about our complaints from the community. You would think that the people who play the game should be more important to Goodgame Studios than about making more money, but it seems to be increasingly more running in the opposite direction being increasingly more about making more money and less about the people who actually play this this game besides the ruby buyers. Those who eventually decide to become buyers themselves would first need to have a reason to enjoy the game before deciding to spend money on the game. The kind of people who are the most likely to become potential buyers themselves eventually are those who enjoy playing this game as well, but if a new event that is added does not give in to the demands that the community wants then that could also mean less money for Goodgame Studios and less likely of a chance that those who have never spent money on the game are going to start spending any money on the game. Even with the nice ruby double people who play this game would need to have a reason to enjoy it before deciding to spend including enjoyment of the game which also involves the events and invasions as well.
[4863738]
Friedrich IV (US1) [None]
:: Nov. 12, 2017, 10:30 p.m.
They listen it just takes a long time, they need to learn to be proactive about accepting feedback.icelord (GB1) said:Do you think they will change their attitudes towards everything (including the community and the game's development) because as far as I can see, they don't give a single fuck about us the players(community) and as of recent updates, they don't give a shit about the game either
@BM_Friedrich
The quickest I have seen them listen was the gem update, they did alter a couple things in that before it came out. I'm not sure why that one had the most attention brought to it, but it did get changed before release.
We all complained about the skips but they did nothing to change it from before release to after, so I really don't know what was different from before.
[4863803]
David Noble (US1) [None]
:: Nov. 13, 2017, 7:05 a.m.
You are right and actually the gem complaint was not the only thing that Goodgame Studios actually listened to. Many people complained about the card game on the forum and GGS took notice of this which is why it disappeared completely from the Samurai Invasion and changed to something else now more similar to the Nomad Invasion. (It is now more different because of the Kahn's revenge, but it did not always work that way besides the different rewards.) Do I sometimes miss the card game? Yes, but the point is that Goodgame Studios actually payed attention to the complaints involving the card game. That was a long time ago though way back when GGS actually seemed to care more about the community.BM_Friedrich said:They listen it just takes a long time, they need to learn to be proactive about accepting feedback.icelord (GB1) said:Do you think they will change their attitudes towards everything (including the community and the game's development) because as far as I can see, they don't give a single fuck about us the players(community) and as of recent updates, they don't give a shit about the game either
@BM_Friedrich
The quickest I have seen them listen was the gem update, they did alter a couple things in that before it came out. I'm not sure why that one had the most attention brought to it, but it did get changed before release.
We all complained about the skips but they did nothing to change it from before release to after, so I really don't know what was different from before.
[4863865]
Diavolo (US1) [US1]
:: Nov. 13, 2017, 11:01 a.m.
Basically GGE has developed an event to reduce our tools further. Their khan nomad very effectively wipes out defense tools. I imagine this will effectively wipe out offense. I wonder if we'll get the unused tools back like we would if we win in pvp.BM ang1243 said:Hey @douwew (NL1)douwew (NL1) said:
The attacker will lose tools in all modes, but they won't lose troops in normal mode
[4863866]
Diavolo (US1) [US1]
:: Nov. 13, 2017, 11:02 a.m.
That's why they developed this event. So you have to buy boulders with rubies. Oh, don't have enough? Just buy rubies.douwew (NL1) said:@BM ang1243 but that is the hole problem of PvP. I am always low on boulders. Troops I can make but boulders not.
It's all about balance.
[4863916]
Unknown_Master (NL1) [None]
:: Nov. 13, 2017, 1:01 p.m.
I would first like to know how
many points you get about per attack, and what you can do with those
points. Because who knows maybe the prices are good and worth it.
But thats my personal opinion
But thats my personal opinion
[4864072]
Madara. (INT1) (Banned) [INT1]
:: Nov. 13, 2017, 6 p.m.
so when we use late comander will it effect the time for the target to see our attack more late ?
in other words will late comander effect work here ? @BM ang1243
in other words will late comander effect work here ? @BM ang1243
[4864114]
makale (AU1) [None]
:: Nov. 13, 2017, 7:05 p.m.
Ahhh, i would not be getting all bent out of shape over this. We are after all talking about GGE, will be so full of glitches and cock ups they will pull it after 2 days. In fact may not even get off the ground at all !!!!!
[4864158]
sir-haba (SKN1) [SKN1]
:: Nov. 13, 2017, 8:34 p.m.
It is going to come once and after that they find huge bug in it and then you have to wait for year them to fix it. a bit like some other events.SteelSlayer (US1) said:Honestly, starting out thought we were going to have a third FL's.... But looking at it, I like all but one aspect. The troops being the same, I don't wanna waste tails on a castle with 8k troops then realize 7k of it is offense...
Few questions...
1. How often will this come?
2. How long will it usually run for?
3. If the defender loses nothing, does the attacker get resources?
4. If the alliance can not support, can they see the horns?
5. How many people would have us as targets/do we get battle reports for defending? I would not enjoy it if I left for 8 hours came back and my inbox was filled with defensive BR's from this event.
6. Is the cooldown 24 hours, or do they just reset every day at a certain time?
EDIT: 7. Does the defender get glory in the battle?
EDIT: I also do like this because it gives the defender a chance to try new setups without losing tools/troops in the process.
[4864200]
HardCase (US1) [US1]
:: Nov. 13, 2017, 10:54 p.m.
Sounds sooooo cool! I can't wait!
[4864215]
Batten (GB1) [GB1]
:: Nov. 13, 2017, 11:58 p.m.
I think the general trend towards more and more tightly controlled outcomes is concerning.
1. It isn't player versus player clearly it's player vs computer as the attack is a simulation. So to describe it is as PVP is misleading and that error should be corrected.
2. To imply there are likely to be multiple startegies is also misleading as GGE provide the optimum strategy which is effectively bought to guarantee the win. It isn't a competition in any sense other than who spends most on boosts or the equivalent and given offers vary the quality and length of the boost is directly proportional to the likelihood of a player boosting. Essentially the strategy will also be determined by the strongest alliances everybody else follows that these days because of planted accounts there is very little innovation or distinctiveness between alliances and this won't change that in my view. One of the top two alliances will win everytime and one of the top five or so players will win every time the system encourages conformity and continuity by constantly strengthening the strongest players removing the competitiveness and interest from the game. This does nothing to change that.
3. The travel distance is just one example of how different it is from PVP other players aren't an equal distance from our castles the distance varies massively as does the relative chance of success. That variablehas been smoothed out and casually removed removing an important element of realism.
4. The illusionary opponent captures a castle at a point in time castles change evolve minute to minute if players are on as things constantly move, this mock up won't reflect that. The fact virtually every attack now is an attack whilst players are offline means there castle are often static means the odds are having the ability to change defence is completely wasted unless you only allow attacks on live players, otherwise players castles become simply another type of NPC.
5. If the reflection is just main castle then it is likely a poor reflection to create an event reflective of a real conflict the generator would need to throw up a sand castle, fire castle an outpost occasionally players where players attack is at a point of weakness not strength. Does the system reflect that or is it just main again effectively skewing defences in green and forcing changes of strategy on players again.
6, The idea that you get to choose the target as in PVP is again misleading doubtless you get to choose from one of ten as in foreign legion. That is pot luck isn't it. If you get a farm alliance or an inactive alliance how can you compete. You can't essentially. So basically you will have a limited choice and be effectively hampered unless you are in a top alliance one would imagine. So not really a level playing field yet again in the sense Storm or Berimond originally were.
7. Clearly the optimum strategy is a lot of overnight attacks which can't be supported again not realistic and hardly teaching players to play PVP in an alliance context. If it's supposed to be attack versus defence would be nice to be allowed to actually defend occassionally. Doubt that will be an option. Currently PVP tends to mean place an account in an alliance so you can see when players are on then hit them when they are not reducing the risk of a losing troops or tools. How exactly are you going to prevent that type of information sharing from within an alliance skewing an outcome.
8. Keeping your powder dry and not sharing defensive of offensive set up may not be a popular strategy or even recognised as such but from what I can see you are effectively going to take my set up and responses without having sought my permission or giving me a choice and share them with effectively with as many players as you can on the same server given them ample opportunity to see the range of set ups and approaches used beyond what they are used to. So bang their goes the element of surprise if I play the game the way you intend. So clearly I won't do that I'll either ignore it or put up a standard set up to ensure I can keep my secrets. There is no value, none in giving actual opponents an advantage. What you are proposing is actually the antithesis of PVP it's a training exercise nothing more and less meaningful for that.
9. The matchmaking system is effectively going to fix the result and yet again disadvantage good players who are loyal to their alliances. They will be matched below their ability because you will use rankings which are unsafe and fail to adequately reflect actual back to the wall player ability. Experience, win ratio, money spent how are you going to rank us fairly exactly given the abuse of the system and lack of trust in the rankings as shown.
10. I don't see with planted accounts and mutli-accounts how you can be sure of protecting our anoynmity and if you can't you'll be putting players at risk given the level of abuse of the game rules which you have openly now published statistics on. Player A hits Player B from top alliance, planted account in Player A's alliance feeds back who made the hit player A loses all his RV's and his outposts for a few points. Without a guarantee of protection to high a risk. The reason we don't hit players in top alliances now is because we know they can't be trusted to respond responsibly within the rules. I don't see this event being any differently and I would encourage players in smaller alliances to be very careful in how they approach the event.
11. I don't see how in what is broadly described as an empire building or war game you can present an event with no consequences seemingly as representative of that. The whole point is there are risks and consequences the skill is in calculating them or mitigating against them. Risk or consequence, uncertainty is necessary to generate excitement or interest, there is no risk there is no consequence and as a result there is declining interest and no excitement as we pretty much know who wins. There is really little of no incentive for established accounts in another suit of armour or another gem. The way you've thrown about PO items, equipment and gems has devalued them as a game currency, excitement and unpredictability are worth far more and you've singly failed repeatedly to provide that. Berimond provided it before it was butchered, Nomads was fun before the Khan Camp rendered it unwinable and as for the other events well the gap in points between players now is a gaping chasm.
I think you need to at least try and think differently. I like this game but you are going in the wrong direction in my view. I'll admit now when busy to looking at the royal quests when signing on and thinking it isn't worth the effort. The questbooks are the opposite of motivation, I manage the first royal quest without realising it and have missed all 8 since, I don't play a game to follow instructions that explicit it too much and frankly a little offensive. Smaller players in smaller alliances or people with less time are disadvantaged every time one of those things crops up and that gap just gets bigger. I'd imagine player numbers peak between 4- 11 weekdays post school college work and I would of thought short intensive events flash events might be something to consider seriously. These events are unnecessarily complicated badly explained and essentially no fun to play to the point I search out Space Invaders post Stranger Things to remind what made gaming so exciting in the early 80's
This just doesn't seem like an event simply another procession...
1. It isn't player versus player clearly it's player vs computer as the attack is a simulation. So to describe it is as PVP is misleading and that error should be corrected.
2. To imply there are likely to be multiple startegies is also misleading as GGE provide the optimum strategy which is effectively bought to guarantee the win. It isn't a competition in any sense other than who spends most on boosts or the equivalent and given offers vary the quality and length of the boost is directly proportional to the likelihood of a player boosting. Essentially the strategy will also be determined by the strongest alliances everybody else follows that these days because of planted accounts there is very little innovation or distinctiveness between alliances and this won't change that in my view. One of the top two alliances will win everytime and one of the top five or so players will win every time the system encourages conformity and continuity by constantly strengthening the strongest players removing the competitiveness and interest from the game. This does nothing to change that.
3. The travel distance is just one example of how different it is from PVP other players aren't an equal distance from our castles the distance varies massively as does the relative chance of success. That variablehas been smoothed out and casually removed removing an important element of realism.
4. The illusionary opponent captures a castle at a point in time castles change evolve minute to minute if players are on as things constantly move, this mock up won't reflect that. The fact virtually every attack now is an attack whilst players are offline means there castle are often static means the odds are having the ability to change defence is completely wasted unless you only allow attacks on live players, otherwise players castles become simply another type of NPC.
5. If the reflection is just main castle then it is likely a poor reflection to create an event reflective of a real conflict the generator would need to throw up a sand castle, fire castle an outpost occasionally players where players attack is at a point of weakness not strength. Does the system reflect that or is it just main again effectively skewing defences in green and forcing changes of strategy on players again.
6, The idea that you get to choose the target as in PVP is again misleading doubtless you get to choose from one of ten as in foreign legion. That is pot luck isn't it. If you get a farm alliance or an inactive alliance how can you compete. You can't essentially. So basically you will have a limited choice and be effectively hampered unless you are in a top alliance one would imagine. So not really a level playing field yet again in the sense Storm or Berimond originally were.
7. Clearly the optimum strategy is a lot of overnight attacks which can't be supported again not realistic and hardly teaching players to play PVP in an alliance context. If it's supposed to be attack versus defence would be nice to be allowed to actually defend occassionally. Doubt that will be an option. Currently PVP tends to mean place an account in an alliance so you can see when players are on then hit them when they are not reducing the risk of a losing troops or tools. How exactly are you going to prevent that type of information sharing from within an alliance skewing an outcome.
8. Keeping your powder dry and not sharing defensive of offensive set up may not be a popular strategy or even recognised as such but from what I can see you are effectively going to take my set up and responses without having sought my permission or giving me a choice and share them with effectively with as many players as you can on the same server given them ample opportunity to see the range of set ups and approaches used beyond what they are used to. So bang their goes the element of surprise if I play the game the way you intend. So clearly I won't do that I'll either ignore it or put up a standard set up to ensure I can keep my secrets. There is no value, none in giving actual opponents an advantage. What you are proposing is actually the antithesis of PVP it's a training exercise nothing more and less meaningful for that.
9. The matchmaking system is effectively going to fix the result and yet again disadvantage good players who are loyal to their alliances. They will be matched below their ability because you will use rankings which are unsafe and fail to adequately reflect actual back to the wall player ability. Experience, win ratio, money spent how are you going to rank us fairly exactly given the abuse of the system and lack of trust in the rankings as shown.
10. I don't see with planted accounts and mutli-accounts how you can be sure of protecting our anoynmity and if you can't you'll be putting players at risk given the level of abuse of the game rules which you have openly now published statistics on. Player A hits Player B from top alliance, planted account in Player A's alliance feeds back who made the hit player A loses all his RV's and his outposts for a few points. Without a guarantee of protection to high a risk. The reason we don't hit players in top alliances now is because we know they can't be trusted to respond responsibly within the rules. I don't see this event being any differently and I would encourage players in smaller alliances to be very careful in how they approach the event.
11. I don't see how in what is broadly described as an empire building or war game you can present an event with no consequences seemingly as representative of that. The whole point is there are risks and consequences the skill is in calculating them or mitigating against them. Risk or consequence, uncertainty is necessary to generate excitement or interest, there is no risk there is no consequence and as a result there is declining interest and no excitement as we pretty much know who wins. There is really little of no incentive for established accounts in another suit of armour or another gem. The way you've thrown about PO items, equipment and gems has devalued them as a game currency, excitement and unpredictability are worth far more and you've singly failed repeatedly to provide that. Berimond provided it before it was butchered, Nomads was fun before the Khan Camp rendered it unwinable and as for the other events well the gap in points between players now is a gaping chasm.
I think you need to at least try and think differently. I like this game but you are going in the wrong direction in my view. I'll admit now when busy to looking at the royal quests when signing on and thinking it isn't worth the effort. The questbooks are the opposite of motivation, I manage the first royal quest without realising it and have missed all 8 since, I don't play a game to follow instructions that explicit it too much and frankly a little offensive. Smaller players in smaller alliances or people with less time are disadvantaged every time one of those things crops up and that gap just gets bigger. I'd imagine player numbers peak between 4- 11 weekdays post school college work and I would of thought short intensive events flash events might be something to consider seriously. These events are unnecessarily complicated badly explained and essentially no fun to play to the point I search out Space Invaders post Stranger Things to remind what made gaming so exciting in the early 80's
This just doesn't seem like an event simply another procession...
[4864216]
Batten (GB1) [GB1]
:: Nov. 14, 2017, 12:01 a.m.
Essentially what I'm saying is I'd like an opt out and for my actual castle not to be used in this event.
[4864227]
Stumpyalaskan (US1) [US1]
:: Nov. 14, 2017, 1:16 a.m.
It is simple, every attack I send will have no tools or wood tools as I could care less if I lose. I don't actually lose the troops.
[4864235]
makale (AU1) [None]
:: Nov. 14, 2017, 3:04 a.m.
Good ole GGE, you have come up with another real winner, hit the ball out of the park (enter any/all other metaphors etc you can think of) It did not take long for the community to ping this piece of crap for what it is...a piece of crap, a placebo to try and stop people complaining about the real issues, namely the cheats and multis who now inhabit your game !!! Listen to what your CUSTOMERS are telling you. SORT OUT THE FEKKIN MULTIS !! until then you have zero credibility with the players (well those that do not cheat that is !!!)
[4864238]
Defectus (US1) [US1]
:: Nov. 14, 2017, 3:07 a.m.
That's exactly what I was thinking. It depends on how the rewards work, though—if we only get rewards for winning, then that strategy is defeated. If we get rewards similarly to how glory works, however, the whole event will just be based off of who can send the most attacks with the most troops at a time.Stumpyalaskan (US1) said:It is simple, every attack I send will have no tools or wood tools as I could care less if I lose. I don't actually lose the troops.
[4864248]
David Noble (US1) [None]
:: Nov. 14, 2017, 5:37 a.m.
Batten (GB1) said:
Nomads was fun before the Khan Camp rendered it unwinable.
You have a lot of good points, but I do disagree with you about the Kahn Camp for various reasons. Nomad Invasion is more fun with Kahn Camps and not before they were available and besides the different rewards their was too much of a similarity to this and the Samurai Invasion. With this however you can get really nice rewards when getting medals, you can get other kingdom resources besides iron ore, Nomad Invasion is now more different from the Samurai Invasion because of the Kahn's revenge, the attacks are more similar to real pvp when taunting, you have an option to request support before taunting, and the ability to taunt gives you an option to be attacked only when you are online.
As for it being unwinable it is actually easier now to complete 5 pages. I completed all 5 pages from the last invasion without needing to use any 24 hr, 5hr, or even 1 hr time skips or rubies to skip the cooldown even from a level 93 Kahn Camp. (The longest cooldown I had was like only 38 minutes for entire invasion, but before it used to be that I would need to use the 5 hr and 24 hr time skips even before I completed page 5.) Now 1st place and top 100 might now be harder to get because of the Kahn's Revenge, but very few people can even get these rewards anyway even before the addition of Kahn's Revenge.
[4864358]
OuelletFighter (US1) [US1]
:: Nov. 14, 2017, 2:29 p.m.
i have being test since yesterday morning but you guys dont have anyting to test and this morning i click on that guy castle to attack i set up attack but insted ov my 1900 guys going to is castle i lost all my guys whit no attack going i think you guys schoud look twice cause ther no event or anything in test to test lol so now that i lost all my attack troups for noting cause they just went mising in action , ho wayt ther was no action so they went mising and ther is no blue boxe aeter wy ar we even in test what ar we testing ????? let me know wen you figure out what you ar doing good game till then i will look for my troups that went mising in action whit out having any asction