Forum: empire-en

Board: [818] General Discussion

Topic: [311646] Are we also partly to blame? [RVs will be main focus point]

[4471199] Wilson Wang (AU1) [None] :: June 27, 2016, 12:28 p.m.

ShadowOfEvil (US1) said:

While I agree it is quite unfair for alliances to ' hoard '  rvs, I think the inclusion of this idea would just further reduce proper PVP as players will be literally chasing after rvs all day 

lol....think about all the money GGS will make from food shortages lol

[4471332] Thirdmate (GB1) [GB1] :: June 27, 2016, 3:18 p.m.

imspecial456 (US1) said:

 RV "rules" 

Getting lots of hassle from alliances when we try to take an RV from a player who has all their castles in ruins. Why should an alliance start a war on behalf of a defunct player

[4471389] gazz65 (GB1) [GB1] :: June 27, 2016, 4:49 p.m.

because they can be giving to members of alliance which don't have enough rvs.
plus do what nearly everyone else has had to do find them and capture them. 

christ people want everything easy in this game now.  time skips pre built buildings 
next they will want ggs to send out attacks for them.

[4471404] mikesmight123 (GB1) [GB1] :: June 27, 2016, 5:04 p.m.

gazz65 (GB1) said:

because they can be giving to members of alliance which don't have enough rvs.
plus do what nearly everyone else has had to do find them and capture them. 

christ people want everything easy in this game now.  time skips pre built buildings 
next they will want ggs to send out attacks for them.

They beat you to it.

[4471445] gazz65 (GB1) [GB1] :: June 27, 2016, 6 p.m.

oops forgot about that Mike

[4471842] Iota (AU1) [None] :: June 28, 2016, 3:01 a.m.

ShadowOfEvil (US1) said:

While I agree it is quite unfair for alliances to ' hoard '  rvs, I think the inclusion of this idea would just further reduce proper PVP as players will be literally chasing after rvs all day 

How is taking people's RVs not PvP?
Sure you might not know who's it is but its still PvP

[4471874] ShadowOfEvil (GB1) [None] :: June 28, 2016, 5:01 a.m.

Iota (AU1) said:

ShadowOfEvil (US1) said:

While I agree it is quite unfair for alliances to ' hoard '  rvs, I think the inclusion of this idea would just further reduce proper PVP as players will be literally chasing after rvs all day 

How is taking people's RVs not PvP?
Sure you might not know who's it is but its still PvP

If its respawnable defenders then its pretty much the same as royal capitals...........and thats is defo NOT PVP

[4471926] Iota (AU1) [None] :: June 28, 2016, 7:15 a.m.

ShadowOfEvil (US1) said:

If its respawnable defenders then its pretty much the same as royal capitals...........and thats is defo NOT PVP

As far as I can see no one mentioned or suggested respawnable defenders

[4471929] Flare (GB1) [None] :: June 28, 2016, 7:27 a.m.

[4471945] ShadowOfEvil (GB1) [None] :: June 28, 2016, 8:05 a.m.

imspecial456 (US1) said:

you defend them yourself, put your own troops and tools in, except when taken you cant see who

maybe troops ca stop eating, or production remains the same until you next log on?, so no starving


vote honest opinions here

http://www.strawpoll.me/10608716

Ok sorry-thought unlimited defence referred to spawnable troops 

[4471953] Iota (AU1) [None] :: June 28, 2016, 8:17 a.m.

Sharing*

[4471996] Iota (AU1) [None] :: June 28, 2016, 9:11 a.m.

As I'm working my way down the list from the top alliances, I can see that its obvious that some alliances are not going to share this message in hopes that they won't find out and possibly loose all their precious RVs

So I'm sending a message to the leaders and then scoping out a general/s that doesn't hold any RVs

[4472050] perryl (US1) [US1] :: June 28, 2016, 10:23 a.m.

First, let me start by saying I completely agree with the original post.

Now, let me tell you why the RV rules benefit you more than they do me.

As an extremely active player that has basically unlimited gold and rubies I can easily take every RV owned by your alliance,  by myself. Simply take and drop. Forget your alliance. I can clear out the whole server if we're talking AU1.

I am not allowed to cap RVs from players, even though I very easily could. Sure, you might argue that you can cap RVs too, but do you have the ability to cap 300 at the same time? Most of you don't. Level 10 VIPs do. Especially if those level 10 VIPs have fast troops like macemen, or can loot heavy in winter.

I agree, GGS never intended for it to be this way. I am one who is opposed to player-made rules, but I am opposed to them because I would benefit if they didn't exist.

I'm totally for any of these changes. Why? Because I would cause chaos. Total chaos. It's nothing for me to train 20k macemen and send attacks that are so fast you can't defend. Even if you do defend. Ask anyone who has been on the receiving end of my untooled macemen attacks. They hurt.

On USA1 I don't have macemen, so it would be a little harder, but still very doable. I could just tool all of my attacks and buy 40k horrors and take all of your RVs.

These rules were put in place to put a leash on the whales. Go ahead. Remove the restrictions that make it possible for you to actually play the game.

@Lesky (AU1)
@JJJJJJSK (AU1)
@DHDF22 (US1)
@Serry (US1)

Thoughts?

[4472056] perryl (US1) [US1] :: June 28, 2016, 10:30 a.m.

Iota (AU1) said:

As I'm working my way down the list from the top alliances, I can see that its obvious that some alliances are not going to share this message in hopes that they won't find out and possibly loose all their precious RVs

So I'm sending a message to the leaders and then scoping out a general/s that doesn't hold any RVs

No worries. I just asked for the top alliances on USA And AU to provide their opinions by tagging them. I don't know if Serry would respond, but the rest should.

This would change nothing for us. Nobody would touch our RVs. We would bookmark them and still declare on alliances that capped them. We would obliterate your entire alliance and take every RV. Nothing changes, if anything you make it worse for yourself.

[4472079] zip (GB1) [None] :: June 28, 2016, 10:55 a.m.

imspecial456 (US1) said:

@zip (GB1) that is why I suggested(half the ideas Iota stole from me on a different thread) that you can only use a certain amount of troops. so only about 40 attackers can be sent to each RV, and unlimited defence. watch tower effects will be the same as the main castle, and maybe a moat can be built in RVs for a small amount of resources when you get it, like a button on the ring menu

Iota (AU1) said:

imspecial456 (US1) said:

@zip (GB1) that is why I suggested(half the ideas Iota stole from me on a different thread) that you can only use a certain amount of troops. so only about 40 attackers can be sent to each RV, and unlimited defence. watch tower effects will be the same as the main castle, and maybe a moat can be built in RVs for a small amount of resources when you get it, like a button on the ring menu

I think "stole" is a strong word, I liked your suggestions and added them as a suggestion for GGS to consider.
If you feel strongly about it I'll give you credit

zip (GB1) said:

Everyone here is missing the point of why taking rv's would be considered a war worthy offence. They transform your outers from useless in terms of food production, to 10k+ if you have your bases built right. Hence, anybody running any sort of decent burn could have their troops wiped out overnight by stealing their rv's. Now some of you will jump straight away to saying you should just station defenders there and hold them. The problem is though rv's are undefendable. How are you meant to stop a 6/5 wave attack or even a well tooled 4 waver with a good comm, when you have neither a moat or a WT in place to give you warning. 

All it would do is result in alliances hitting rv's rather than castles are why hit a defendable target when you can simply hit 10 soft targets and do as much damage?

Not sure about you but I went without RV's for a very long time and I was able to do well enough for myself without them.

Well that's the point, you should be defending those Resource Villages so you don't loose an army over night, we did establish that You can't send as many troops, something like a 25-50-25.
The Watchtower in your castle would still account for the RV's obviously.

As for that last sentence I'm not sure I understand, "All it would do is result in alliances hitting RV's rather than castles" Believe it or not the original Idea of the RV's was to actually fight over them, not horde and keep them like family heirlooms.

Also unclear on the very last part unelss the soft part of the RV is that it doesn't have a moat, That issue is accounted for if an enemy can only send a few hundred attackers

I'll answer you both at the same time as you make similar points.

Sending a small amount of attackers to a wt site doesn't work under your complaints either. I know if rv rules where lifted I would be able to sit on the closest rv's to me and not worry about them. Level 10 wt to a rv when you can only send say 100 troops which was the upper limit you mentioned? Would make any decent payers rv's impossible to take both in and out of war. So often those who complain about ''fair play rules'' are those who benifit the most from them. 

You say you here doing well for yourself without them, we probably have different opinions of what a good amount of troops are.What do you consider a decent amount of defenders? Is it enough to self support vs 6 waves? 

Rv's where meant to be fought over, and they still are. If you want to take rv''s by force go to war and take them, instead of whining that players get angry when you just rob them. It's a war game, and rv's used to be won and lost. Idea of rv's been out of the question on war is ridiculous just be ready for enemy allies to step in as wars used to be fought. As @perryl (US1) said, free rv taking would be chaos, and the top players, those who are already full of rv's(lets face it only rv's you need are food, I use my res rv's as launching points to attack players) and in big alliances. Removal of rv rules would mean a carte blanche, we would have you back moaning next week that you took a rv off someone and they then proceeded to burn your whole alliance for the next few days, at least under this system weaker players actually have a chance!

Don't let me even start on when I would take a rv say 2 click from your castle at 3am, then proceed to hit you from your rv and then dump said rv. GGS made no rules when they made the game, but it is drastically clear to anybody who plays the game they lack an understanding of what makes it tick. All such a change would do is  force less active and lesser spenders out.

[4472086] perryl (US1) [US1] :: June 28, 2016, 11:01 a.m.

zip (GB1) said:

Don't let me even start on when I would take a rv say 2 click from your castle at 3am, then proceed to hit you from your rv and then dump said rv.

Totally forgot to point out that one.

[4472104] Diavolo (US1) [US1] :: June 28, 2016, 11:17 a.m.

CM Popeye said:

I actually like the idea of anonymous RV's as it could possibly solve this problem with the unwritten "no stealing rv's" rule. Of course the idea of the rv's was to have people fighting over them, but that is obviously is not how it turned out. I can mention this one to the team, and see what they think.

-Popeye

People automatically organize into social hierarchies and the RV one is the outgrowth of that. The most powerful players and alliances don't want their RVs stolen, so they punish people who take them. That led to the unwritten rule that RV theft is bad.

[4472109] Diavolo (US1) [US1] :: June 28, 2016, 11:22 a.m.

CM Popeye said:

I actually like the idea of anonymous RV's as it could possibly solve this problem with the unwritten "no stealing rv's" rule. Of course the idea of the rv's was to have people fighting over them, but that is obviously is not how it turned out. I can mention this one to the team, and see what they think.

-Popeye

Also, if you made RVs anonymous I would just take every RV around my castles. And when someone took them, I'd just recap them. I'm lvl 430 or something, so stronger than most people. If you made RVs anon, this is what every powerful player will do, cap every nearby RV and monopolize them. Eventually, everyone would simply assume that RVs belonged to the nearest, most powerful person.

So you'd just be trading one monopoly for another, more defendable one.

[4472122] Diavolo (US1) [US1] :: June 28, 2016, 11:29 a.m.

perryl (US1) said:

zip (GB1) said:

Don't let me even start on when I would take a rv say 2 click from your castle at 3am, then proceed to hit you from your rv and then dump said rv.

Totally forgot to point out that one.

Holy, that's a good point. We'd probably know who hit us, and from where, and that would tell us who to burn

[4472127] perryl (US1) [US1] :: June 28, 2016, 11:31 a.m.

Hidingfromyou (US1) said:

perryl (US1) said:

zip (GB1) said:

Don't let me even start on when I would take a rv say 2 click from your castle at 3am, then proceed to hit you from your rv and then dump said rv.

Totally forgot to point out that one.

Holy, that's a good point. We'd probably know who hit us, and from where, and that would tell us who to burn

Absolutely. This doesn't hurt us in any way. lol