Poll: Gem Stat Caps Update

QueenMaria (US1)

I am adamantly against this update even though most of it is beneficial to me. Right is right. This is wrong. GGS is too late to fix this. Many of these people have spent a lot of money. Not returning their money now would be fraud. This is criminal deception as it stands right now. Their TOS won't protect them.

Jack BellowsIII (US1)

One point on how stupid the proposed changes are.. the limitations they are considering are less than flanks and troops on the wall for the Elemental Cmdr's and Eagle Cast's pissin' off the peeps that bought heavy to stock items gge selling and putting them together in the proper fashion.. We all know gge don't think much but if they piss off  the peeps that bought in the most u really trying to step on ur own nuts in a deep and meaningful way.. including flanks of the cmdr's in the changes is only probably included cuz gge trying to limit how many peeps on def otw. The proposed changes readily show the lack of common sense.. I can see gge limiting M/Range to 110 for those peeps pissin' & moaning they got 180 Ranged cmdrs coming at them.. gge took no middle road and whoever came up with proposed limitations lack any imagination as far as I can tell or ever played the game to see how it functions..

Friedrich IV (US1)

I'm pretty sure the Eagle demon and the Elementalist come out to 45% more troops on the wall and 50% more on the flanks, respectively

Both of those numbers are at or below the proposed caps I believe

hionmentho (US1)

Real talk, kinda jealous of GGE's business model. If I continually told my clients to eat shit, they'd leave me. GGE does the same to us and it just doesn't matter. Brilliant.

periniium (US1)

I have been thinking this over since my last post because I thought i should mention something about this compensation aspect of this update. 


Great we will be able to remove the gems that made our coms / cast something of legend on this game. To what end? So i can have 21 Commander and 9 castillains that do the exact same thing. Yeah theres a winner of an idea!  (so it is not lost in translation to the winners on the other side of the pond... THIS IS A VERY BAD IDEA) 

If you really want to compensate us - Feel free to refund my paypall account. You have had access to it for years always flowing in your direction. I sure the guys at paypall might send a fraud alert if you start sending me back my money but i will assure them your going to do the wright thing a refund us. (Wishful thinking) 

I just figured I would put my hat out there. If gge is willing to send me half the money i have spent on this game i will gladly quite and play Arnolds Game Mobile Strike.


Gge needs to take a step back and deep breath before they end up like the socom franchise. 

Notagoodplaya (US1)

*Sigh*

All GGS says is they want to make the game better, improve it, but they always seem to fail. But when they brought of this idea, I was confused. I thought they wanted to make the game better.

At least they were smart enough share it before making the change but still not happy how they shared the idea and hid in their basement while all the disagreeing comments bombarded the thread.

If GGS goes through with this. I'll just add this to the bucket list of other things GGS has failed in.

Obviously, I disagree with this idea of having the caps on gems. It will hurt the cashers and people who spent time on getting these gems the most and to only slap their hardwork with one rework will just be devastating.

Whenever GGS gets more serious and starts to actually make good ideas, call me, but that won't be happening for awhile.


NGP 

CD1 (US1)

throw everything out but the free time to rearrange gems

kookiekooks (US1)

Now I know some people are going to disagree and argue, but I would suggest that arguments that state this unfair carefully look at everything.  Yes they will weaken commanders but at the same time the will weaken castellans.  The question is did they weaken both a similar amount (or in amounts to take of the inconsistencies in the game) or was is just an arbitrally change.  Yes the weaken Fire Cast but they also weaken commanders set up to cause damage.  Is the adjustment relatively the same?


Yes they GGE owes players that bought super gems or super commanders a reimbursement and they state that, they just have not announce the reimbursement.  How can you complain until you see what the compensation is?

Viability (US1)

kookiekooks (US1) said:

Now I know some people are going to disagree and argue, but I would suggest that arguments that state this unfair carefully look at everything.  Yes they will weaken commanders but at the same time the will weaken castellans.  The question is did they weaken both a similar amount (or in amounts to take of the inconsistencies in the game) or was is just an arbitrally change.  Yes the weaken Fire Cast but they also weaken commanders set up to cause damage.  Is the adjustment relatively the same?


Yes they GGE owes players that bought super gems or super commanders a reimbursement and they state that, they just have not announce the reimbursement.  How can you complain until you see what the compensation is?

Because we know GGE. Many people are owed cash refunds. What they suggest is a typical bait then switch. It's fraud to sell something then take it away without giving money back.

Venom (ASIA1)

Am all for the update but I know that many players have spent too much real money to let this update go through with and I would hate to see players lose so much money to GGS fault. Would like this update to be stopped.

Diavolo (US1)

kookiekooks (US1) said:

Now I know some people are going to disagree and argue, but I would suggest that arguments that state this unfair carefully look at everything.  Yes they will weaken commanders but at the same time the will weaken castellans.  The question is did they weaken both a similar amount (or in amounts to take of the inconsistencies in the game) or was is just an arbitrally change.  Yes the weaken Fire Cast but they also weaken commanders set up to cause damage.  Is the adjustment relatively the same?


Yes they GGE owes players that bought super gems or super commanders a reimbursement and they state that, they just have not announce the reimbursement.  How can you complain until you see what the compensation is?

It's not about making coms and casts weaker, it's that they're narrowing the potential creativity of players by sharply limiting the usefulness of all gems.

FighterAde (GB1)

if the update goes as plan i will be moving forward to deleting my account. as i had enough of them. i worked hard to get those gems and even return in real money for my time will not be gge wishful thinking to do. so if they go ahead i will hang my gloves and retire from this game. been here for more then 4 years and this kind of things are outrageous on gge side.

bish bash bosh (GB1)

I see the vote is currently a strong majority against the cap, and i voted against, but i also want a fairer game, one where people who spend stupid money do not have such a large advantage, so change needs to evolve but not by the method proposed, gge needs to go back to the drawing board.

kookiekooks (US1)

Hidingfromyou (US1) said:

kookiekooks (US1) said:

Now I know some people are going to disagree and argue, but I would suggest that arguments that state this unfair carefully look at everything.  Yes they will weaken commanders but at the same time the will weaken castellans.  The question is did they weaken both a similar amount (or in amounts to take of the inconsistencies in the game) or was is just an arbitrally change.  Yes the weaken Fire Cast but they also weaken commanders set up to cause damage.  Is the adjustment relatively the same?


Yes they GGE owes players that bought super gems or super commanders a reimbursement and they state that, they just have not announce the reimbursement.  How can you complain until you see what the compensation is?

It's not about making coms and casts weaker, it's that they're narrowing the potential creativity of players by sharply limiting the usefulness of all gems.

Maybe I missed something.  I did not see a limit placed on courtyard strength (courtyard gems) .  I did not see a limit placed on a few other things.  Therefore they are no limiting the usefulness of all gems, just some, they feel have given some players an unfair advantage one way or the other.  

Altaïr6 (FR1)

Hello "International Community"....

Sorry for my english, i'ts very badly^^

In french server, all community disagree the choice of GGS on Update cap stats of gem !!

GGS (goodgames studios = badgames studios) dont respect his player and builder

We pray to GGS find another solution on the gameplay, if not, a lot of player will stop this game definitly

GGS have to listen his player's community !!

Have fun

Altaïr, french community (and badly speaker on english language )

Warrior_Lord (US1)

Yea hiding I didn't see them limiting storage gems, get owneeddd

d4x (INT1)

David Noble (US1) said:

A 50% reduced fire reduction is not going to be enough for people who want more for their fire cast. 

A G R E E

╱╱┏╮
╱╱┃┃
▉━╯┗━╮
▉┈┈┈┈┃
▉╮┈┈┈┃
╱╰━━━╯

Mushroom :3 (US1)

It makes it harder for players to make a firecast, which increases PvP.

+1 for the new update.

Sting-Ray (US1)

Thank you @Temprance

dreamtree (US1)

OnionGod (AU1) said:

It makes it harder for players to make a firecast, which increases PvP.

+1 for the new update.

Increasing fire doesn't increase pvp. Losing honor is enough to make people need to defend... I know people avoid wars because of the risk of fire. I would say fire reduces pvp, not increases it.