Forum: empire-en
Board: [818] General Discussion
Topic: [311646] Are we also partly to blame? [RVs will be main focus point]
[4472147]
gazz65 (GB1) [GB1]
:: June 28, 2016, 11:43 a.m.
My impression is Iota came back to the game,that had changed found it hard to get rvs and now wants to steal them from people.
If you also want to attack labs rvs monuments I am guessing you don't attack many mains or ops
and just want easy option of a rv right on ur doorstep.
If you also want to attack labs rvs monuments I am guessing you don't attack many mains or ops
and just want easy option of a rv right on ur doorstep.
[4472163]
Iota (AU1) [None]
:: June 28, 2016, 11:55 a.m.
You'd be 100% correct with the first part.gazz65 (GB1) said:My impression is Iota came back to the game,that had changed found it hard to get rvs and now wants to steal them from people.
If you also want to attack labs rvs monuments I am guessing you don't attack many mains or ops
and just want easy option of a rv right on ur doorstep.
I did come back and found that it was incredibly hard to get them.
But I actually hold 7 RV's as of now which came from alliances whom if they did find out I actually stole from them I'd be burned out of the game and my alliance crushed, in all honesty I don't know how I got away with snatching 7 from top 20 alliances but I managed
However you're accusing me of wanting an easy option which is half right.
I want an option where I don't feel pressured but not necessarily easy, like this Topic
Hidingfromyou (US1) said:
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.
Assumptions are dangerous
[4472169]
MUSHY (AU1) [AU1]
:: June 28, 2016, noon
So the players who actually work hard to grow their castles, stables etc, work on events to get fast coms, check the edges daily have to work even harder to protect them? So those who don't work for rv's can just take them with no repercussions? Also doesn't this unwritten rule stop the bigger guys taking them off the smaller alliances also?
[4472171]
Diavolo (US1) [US1]
:: June 28, 2016, 12:03 p.m.
It's not an assumption. That's what I'd do, what I will do if the RV situation changes. Because it's the only logical course of action, it's what everyone would try to do. Only the powerful people would fully succeed here. The only problem I foresee is that another powerful person, in my own alliance, is near my castle there. So it would be a race between he and I to cap as many as possible when the change happened.Iota (AU1) said:You'd be 100% correct with the first part.gazz65 (GB1) said:My impression is Iota came back to the game,that had changed found it hard to get rvs and now wants to steal them from people.
If you also want to attack labs rvs monuments I am guessing you don't attack many mains or ops
and just want easy option of a rv right on ur doorstep.
I did come back and found that it was incredibly hard to get them.
But I actually hold 7 RV's as of now which came from alliances whom if they did find out I actually stole from them I'd be burned out of the game and my alliance crushed, in all honesty I don't know how I got away with snatching 7 from top 20 alliances but I managed
However you're accusing me of wanting an easy option which is half right.
I want an option where I don't feel pressured but not necessarily easy, like this Topic
Hidingfromyou (US1) said: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.
Assumptions are dangerous
Sorry you can't cap RVs easily now, but the reality is you were here when they were first introduced and in flux. That's now over and you've entered a different environment.
[4472178]
TurtleHunter (AU1) [AU1]
:: June 28, 2016, 12:16 p.m.
how are you supposed to defend them though. sure, people may need to defend their main castles in that kingdom too but how are you supposed to spread troops evenly, they all depend on the main castle for food. unless they have their own food supply it will not work.
[4472187]
perryl (US1) [US1]
:: June 28, 2016, 12:27 p.m.
You likely got lucky and took them from inactive players in alliances that probably share too many reports for them to even know it's gone. Likely, these same allies, doesn't have a very active group.Iota (AU1) said:You'd be 100% correct with the first part.gazz65 (GB1) said:My impression is Iota came back to the game,that had changed found it hard to get rvs and now wants to steal them from people.
If you also want to attack labs rvs monuments I am guessing you don't attack many mains or ops
and just want easy option of a rv right on ur doorstep.
I did come back and found that it was incredibly hard to get them.
But I actually hold 7 RV's as of now which came from alliances whom if they did find out I actually stole from them I'd be burned out of the game and my alliance crushed, in all honesty I don't know how I got away with snatching 7 from top 20 alliances but I managed
However you're accusing me of wanting an easy option which is half right.
I want an option where I don't feel pressured but not necessarily easy, like this Topic
Hidingfromyou (US1) said: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.
Assumptions are dangerous
There is no chance you could take one from us.
His assumptions are spot-on. Do you honestly think you can take on a 6 wave hitter? lol
[4472188]
perryl (US1) [US1]
:: June 28, 2016, 12:29 p.m.
Your first point, yes. We should have to work harder to protect our RVs. I support that.FabulousMUSHY (AU1) said:So the players who actually work hard to grow their castles, stables etc, work on events to get fast coms, check the edges daily have to work even harder to protect them? So those who don't work for rv's can just take them with no repercussions? Also doesn't this unwritten rule stop the bigger guys taking them off the smaller alliances also?
Your second point. There would still repercussions. As we've already explained.
Your third point. No, this does not affect us taking from smaller alliances. If anything it makes it significantly easier for us to take RVs from smaller alliances and now there would be even less they could do about it.
[4472189]
gazz65 (GB1) [GB1]
:: June 28, 2016, 12:31 p.m.
big ruby players can just buy as many armies as they want take rvs from everyone drop them and
and someone takes them over and over same cycle and then people get sick of it and leave the game.
Think Iota knows why he just wants to steal them because the game has changed
and its harder to get rvs so like i said he wants easy option.
mind i hope alliances on Aus server are reading this and stealing his rvs and
his alliance rvs right now.
and someone takes them over and over same cycle and then people get sick of it and leave the game.
Think Iota knows why he just wants to steal them because the game has changed
and its harder to get rvs so like i said he wants easy option.
mind i hope alliances on Aus server are reading this and stealing his rvs and
his alliance rvs right now.
[4472190]
perryl (US1) [US1]
:: June 28, 2016, 12:32 p.m.
You guys would share though. No big deal. haha.Hidingfromyou (US1) said:
The only problem I foresee is that another powerful person, in my own alliance, is near my castle there. So it would be a race between he and I to cap as many as possible when the change happened.
TurtleHunter (AU1) said:how are you supposed to defend them though. sure, people may need to defend their main castles in that kingdom too but how are you supposed to spread troops evenly, they all depend on the main castle for food. unless they have their own food supply it will not work.
If they had their own food supply we could stack even more offense. I wouldn't even defend them. Just fill them with offense and wipe out castles around them. lol
[4472213]
TurtleHunter (AU1) [AU1]
:: June 28, 2016, 1:09 p.m.
see, there is your issue. you can make them an offensive a target making them easier to defeat or make them defensive and no matter what the attacker will win somehow. if you find another solution i would be happy to hear it.
[4472600]
TannerM. (US1) [US1]
:: June 28, 2016, 8:01 p.m.
I agree with Perry, would be stupid af to make rv caps anonymous because then your larger players are just gonna take what they want. Aside from that, people would just bookmark them then (if they removed the feature, I'd just write down coords for mine) then declare anyway.
Everyone complains that they were meant to be fought over but don't realize that only about 5% of players could hold their rvs uncontested without these rules in place because any old idiot like myself could just send 32 wolves at non-defended rvs.
Everyone complains that they were meant to be fought over but don't realize that only about 5% of players could hold their rvs uncontested without these rules in place because any old idiot like myself could just send 32 wolves at non-defended rvs.
[4472615]
John OGroat (GB1) [GB1]
:: June 28, 2016, 8:18 p.m.
The basic problem is that RV spawning was set up by GGS with the assumption that the servers would continue to grow for ever more. Clearly, this was never going to happen and at best it would level out. Natural wastage would then release enough RVs into the open for the new players to take over, should they be able to find them. The problem now is that the server numbers are reducing before saturation point has been reached, so new entrants are falling into ruins when they join a kingdom, while the RVs are still in demand by the remaining players. Added to this the high number of accounts being held alive in order to house RVs, there is little chance for new guys to get RVs unless they are passed to them by their Alliance.
To my mind, GGS should have designed the game so that once players have completed a set of requirements in a kingdom, they should be forced to move onto the next kingdom, and the assets held at that stage removed for redistribution. This would have the effect of limiting Ice to players of level 25-45, Sands to 35-55 and Fire to 50+. However, since presence in a kingdom is quite handy for looting etc, perhaps total removal may not be the answer. Instead,a 'kingdom completion award' decoration could be given which would replace the bonus currently available by holding RVs to allow others to claim the originals.
Just my rambling thoughts over the years of playing
To my mind, GGS should have designed the game so that once players have completed a set of requirements in a kingdom, they should be forced to move onto the next kingdom, and the assets held at that stage removed for redistribution. This would have the effect of limiting Ice to players of level 25-45, Sands to 35-55 and Fire to 50+. However, since presence in a kingdom is quite handy for looting etc, perhaps total removal may not be the answer. Instead,a 'kingdom completion award' decoration could be given which would replace the bonus currently available by holding RVs to allow others to claim the originals.
Just my rambling thoughts over the years of playing
[4472685]
DHDF22 (US1) [None]
:: June 28, 2016, 9:52 p.m.
I'm with Perry, I agree with Op only because I really dont care that much about my rvs (doesnt mean any of you can have them :-) ), I dont do much but hit some towers in outers now and could have fun creating chaos with wolves for everyone else.
One thing I find funny is the comments about trying to create more PvP and adding events and changing things to create more of this.... yet during alliance tourney 90% of the server opens gates and most alliances even say they wont defend in their descriptions, doesnt seem like many people want PvP lol.
I think the problem is the disparity not only with the average player to the top 10% active players, but the disparity in attacking power compared with ability to defend. You're either "picking on" a weaker player which is 90% of the server fro active/ruby players, or you are attacking highly active players in big alliances and running into 20-30k support. There is no happy medium in this game at all in that regards, and I dont know what the answer is. I think thats why this game has transitioned more into an event fueled NPC game with 10% of the server still attacking players while the other 90% just sends back hate mail and sabos lol.
One thing I find funny is the comments about trying to create more PvP and adding events and changing things to create more of this.... yet during alliance tourney 90% of the server opens gates and most alliances even say they wont defend in their descriptions, doesnt seem like many people want PvP lol.
I think the problem is the disparity not only with the average player to the top 10% active players, but the disparity in attacking power compared with ability to defend. You're either "picking on" a weaker player which is 90% of the server fro active/ruby players, or you are attacking highly active players in big alliances and running into 20-30k support. There is no happy medium in this game at all in that regards, and I dont know what the answer is. I think thats why this game has transitioned more into an event fueled NPC game with 10% of the server still attacking players while the other 90% just sends back hate mail and sabos lol.
[4472739]
makale (AU1) [None]
:: June 28, 2016, 11:18 p.m.
Just leave it the way it is. GGE could solve this problem (?) by simply introducing more RV spawns, why do they not do this? Answer is simplicity itself......money !!! Let people start stealing (taking) Rvs and more money will be spent on getting attack troops, defensive troops, tools and all the other stuff. Iota, i sort of feel for you, but it has taken me some time to get the achievements that go with RV ownership finished (still not complete though) and the thought of having to recapture RVs day after day is, quite frankly boring!!!
If GGE go with your suggestion, a think a lot of people would just say F**K it, and walk away. Then you can have all the RVs you want !! (if you can hold them....which i doubt!!)
If GGE go with your suggestion, a think a lot of people would just say F**K it, and walk away. Then you can have all the RVs you want !! (if you can hold them....which i doubt!!)
[4472747]
tumeke (AU1) [None]
:: June 28, 2016, 11:30 p.m.
Not sure if you understand the game, Mak.
Rv spawns are triggered by player population within each realm, GGE do not dictate when it will trigger.
Rv spawns are triggered by player population within each realm, GGE do not dictate when it will trigger.
[4472751]
makale (AU1) [None]
:: June 28, 2016, 11:36 p.m.
Hi T, i do understand how RVs are spawned, you taught me !! what i am saying is that GGE could introduce random spawning of RVs, so those who look for them on a daily basis have a chance of capturing them
[4472777]
tumeke (AU1) [None]
:: June 29, 2016, 12:33 a.m.
Need more people in the server to join a realm.
More people provide gge with more % of ruby purchases.
More ruby purchases provide gge with less reason to do what you said.
More people provide gge with more % of ruby purchases.
More ruby purchases provide gge with less reason to do what you said.
[4472782]
SoSkeet (US1) [None]
:: June 29, 2016, 12:48 a.m.
anon rvs is a poop idea....poop
[4472878]
jim3doors (AU1) [None]
:: June 29, 2016, 4:21 a.m.
Skimmed over most posts and cannot believe the stupidity of Iota.
Do you seriously think this will help you? Your a bottom feeder because your a lazy player no other reason. You have been playing 3 and a half years and yet your castellans absolutely stink. One of them has no equipment at all and your defence settings and tools are horrible. Maybe if you put the time you have spent on the forum into searching for rv's you would have a few more.
This change will not help you, your alliance or other people in the same situation. If your willing to do the hard work and find rv spawns then you will simply lose those rv's under your new proposal to larger alliances/players who actually put the effort/time/money into the game.
So form what I can gather, all RV's would look the same, nobody would know who would hold it? If that assumption is correct then whats to stop you mistakenly taking your alliance mates rv's? You could put an alliance flag on the rv and not name the player but that will just lead to the alliance as a whole being punished not just the player (This happens half the time as it is to send a message).
Sure perhaps the RV rule is boring but with what GGS gives us the RV's are simply not defend-able and if your caught taking them with or without rv rule in place your going to burn. A better solution would be to come up with a system of actually being able to defend an RV. This anonymous stuff is just rubbish.
Edit: Yes I had better things to do than spy your castles, like type this post
Do you seriously think this will help you? Your a bottom feeder because your a lazy player no other reason. You have been playing 3 and a half years and yet your castellans absolutely stink. One of them has no equipment at all and your defence settings and tools are horrible. Maybe if you put the time you have spent on the forum into searching for rv's you would have a few more.
This change will not help you, your alliance or other people in the same situation. If your willing to do the hard work and find rv spawns then you will simply lose those rv's under your new proposal to larger alliances/players who actually put the effort/time/money into the game.
So form what I can gather, all RV's would look the same, nobody would know who would hold it? If that assumption is correct then whats to stop you mistakenly taking your alliance mates rv's? You could put an alliance flag on the rv and not name the player but that will just lead to the alliance as a whole being punished not just the player (This happens half the time as it is to send a message).
Sure perhaps the RV rule is boring but with what GGS gives us the RV's are simply not defend-able and if your caught taking them with or without rv rule in place your going to burn. A better solution would be to come up with a system of actually being able to defend an RV. This anonymous stuff is just rubbish.
Edit: Yes I had better things to do than spy your castles, like type this post
[4472879]
Iota (AU1) [None]
:: June 29, 2016, 4:21 a.m.
a 6 waver.....
You'd only be able to send 600 troops max [not including gems]
Pretty defendable
You'd only be able to send 600 troops max [not including gems]
Pretty defendable