GGEs Existence

hge (US1)

BM_Friedrich said:

hge (US1) said:

It was an example FFS.  But it isn't that hard to click through a couple hundred reports and permaban the defender and/or attacker on all the stacked ones. That would put an end to it VERY quickly.

And who do you propose go through these BRs?

To police all the BRs of any reported players/alliances on the entire server (and I can tell you, everyone would be reporting everyone based upon nothing but "I dont believe they can get that much glory"), would take an absolutely astonishing amount of manpower, and that's something GGS cannot afford to divert resources to. It's simply too expensive a solution.

@BM_Friedrich
Did... you..... even... read... my..... statement????   ALL REPORTS OVER X AMOUNT OF GLORY get looked at by y set of people. Say BMs.  People would not report other people.  The BMs would take 30-40 mins of their precious time to scroll through reports every few days, and INSTANTLY PERMABAN people who boosted.  Within a week or two, NO-ONE would be boosting, and it would take even less effort.  Either that, or monitor how many archers someone has (including support) in their castles. If it goes over like 500, then you would monitor their RPC reports for the next few weeks and ban them if they were boosting.  Or do the same, but watch the number of certain troops types. (melee or ranged) If everything in their castle is ranged, then you would be suspicious, and you would check their RPC reports for a while.  Y'all get the point. Well, the more intelligent ones do.

Friedrich IV (US1)

We don't have the power to ban people in-game, and that power will NEVER be given to anyone that is not a GGS employee.

I did read your post, and even to go over x amount of glory, is still THOUSANDS of battle reports A DAY.

Whether intended or not, the repercussions of your suggestion is GGS hiring new staff for no reason other than to look at battle reports during alliance tournaments, or diverting staff from elsewhere for the same task.

K1LLER (US1)

Easy solution for glory boosting is during alliance tourney, make it a points based system.
1 glory point = 1 point
50k = 2 points
100k = 3 points
Adjust the rewards accordingly 
So if people did want to glory boost they would have to set up many 100k hits instead of a few 2 million hits... 

Friedrich IV (US1)

grey foxhound (US1) said:

Easy solution for glory boosting is during alliance tourney, make it a points based system.
1 glory point = 1 point
50k = 2 points
100k = 3 points
Adjust the rewards accordingly 
So if people did want to glory boost they would have to set up many 100k hits instead of a few 2 million hits... 

That rips off any legitimate hits over 100k glory though, a 100k BR is really easy to get if you're using flags, even 500k isn't that hard to get legitimately, at what point do we cut it off and say sorry your higher quality BRs are only worth this much?

Maybe a combination could be done, where both a total glory ranking and a point ranking are shown?

K1LLER (US1)

BM_Friedrich said:

grey foxhound (US1) said:

Easy solution for glory boosting is during alliance tourney, make it a points based system.
1 glory point = 1 point
50k = 2 points
100k = 3 points
Adjust the rewards accordingly 
So if people did want to glory boost they would have to set up many 100k hits instead of a few 2 million hits... 

That rips off any legitimate hits over 100k glory though, a 100k BR is really easy to get if you're using flags, even 500k isn't that hard to get legitimately, at what point do we cut it off and say sorry your higher quality BRs are only worth this much?

Maybe a combination could be done, where both a total glory ranking and a point ranking are shown?

True, my solution is simple but ruins the fun for legit players, yours may just work
No easy solution that wont screw over the legit hitters

hge (US1)

Coming to the conclusion that BM just doesn't want to have it fixed.  He doesn't seem to realize how easy it is -_-

Friedrich IV (US1)

hge (US1) said:

Coming to the conclusion that BM just doesn't want to have it fixed.  He doesn't seem to realize how easy it is -_-

You don't seem to realize the sheer amount of consequences from most of your suggestions. Or those of other peoples', for that matter

Manatee (US1)

hge (US1) said:

Coming to the conclusion that BM just doesn't want to have it fixed.  He doesn't seem to realize how easy it is -_-

There is nothing about this that is easy.  To say so means you haven't honestly taken into consideration what the BM is telling you, or really thought through the consequences of these suggestions.

Examples:

1) BMs doing reviews and banning would result in giving BM's power over players in game.  It would give moderators access to other player's in-game IP activity (possibly).  It would necessitate many additional resources to monitor it.  It would bring in arbitrary decisions.  ALL of which would create a lot of backlash on here (believe it).

2) Doing a points based system is not simple like it sounds.  The suggestion by grey foxhound is a good one to use:  1 point for 1 glory, and 3 points for 100k+ glory?  I'd expect to see someone to simply hit 3 castles with 32 excess defenders and no tools, for the tiny 5 glory or so each... which are each worth a point... so that's 3 points right there.  Meanwhile I'm blowing up a 2,400 man army and expensive tools / flags to kill 3,000 defenders for 100k glory which is just 3 points.  And if made more difficult?  Then perhaps players share passwords just to get the ideal setup to give whatever point amount is needed with the least tool / troop loss, versus real hits costing a fortune.

Is there an answer in either of the above?  Possibly.  Probably.  But it's not easy.  Otherwise you would have come up with a solution that didn't have such obvious flaws.

Don't stop though, keep going back to the drawing board, offer suggestions, and when someone can point out the issues with it... then use that to refine or scrap those ideas as needed.  Don't shoot the messenger.

hge (US1)

Manatee (US1) said:

hge (US1) said:

Coming to the conclusion that BM just doesn't want to have it fixed.  He doesn't seem to realize how easy it is -_-

There is nothing about this that is easy.  To say so means you haven't honestly taken into consideration what the BM is telling you, or really thought through the consequences of these suggestions.

Examples:

1) BMs doing reviews and banning would result in giving BM's power over players in game.  It would give moderators access to other player's in-game IP activity (possibly).  It would necessitate many additional resources to monitor it.  It would bring in arbitrary decisions.  ALL of which would create a lot of backlash on here (believe it).

2) Doing a points based system is not simple like it sounds.  The suggestion by grey foxhound is a good one to use:  1 point for 1 glory, and 3 points for 100k+ glory?  I'd expect to see someone to simply hit 3 castles with 32 excess defenders and no tools, for the tiny 5 glory or so each... which are each worth a point... so that's 3 points right there.  Meanwhile I'm blowing up a 2,400 man army and expensive tools / flags to kill 3,000 defenders for 100k glory which is just 3 points.  And if made more difficult?  Then perhaps players share passwords just to get the ideal setup to give whatever point amount is needed with the least tool / troop loss, versus real hits costing a fortune.

Is there an answer in either of the above?  Possibly.  Probably.  But it's not easy.  Otherwise you would have come up with a solution that didn't have such obvious flaws.

Don't stop though, keep going back to the drawing board, offer suggestions, and when someone can point out the issues with it... then use that to refine or scrap those ideas as needed.  Don't shoot the messenger.

I did not say it had to be BMs. Y'all don't seem to get what I mean when I say "for example".  It could be support techs.  I guarantee you that there are not that many people reeling in legit 1M glory reports.  If every report over 1M glory was looked at, it would take about 30 mins and you'd find a bunch of your boosting players.  After the first round of permabans, your problem would be 99% solved.  You could keep moving the number back till you hit 600k (def more reports, but still not a bunch), whereupon you would stop.  Say it takes 5 seconds to check a report. Say you get 10000 reports, total. 50,000 seconds. ~833 minutes. ~14 hours for ONE person doing it.  Whenever they see a boosted one, they ban the attacker and the defender.  I find it hard to believe that GGS can't spare about 2 people to monitor reports during the alliance tourney.  NO-ONE would boost after the first 2 tourneys or so, because it would result in a permaban.  Then you could just check like 700k plus ones, every 2 or three tourneys.  That would prevent people starting to boost again.  Really wouldn't take much manpower, and would make it possible to bring back the alliance tourney and hush up all the players complaining about either the lack of it, or the boosting.  I've talked with multiple people who say that they won't buy rubies until the tourney comes back.  So, diverting 2-3 people to do this would result in happier people, and more money for GGS. The problem being, they are apparently too FRICKING DENSE to understand basic PR and company management skills.

Katukov (US1)

The more reasonable solution would be to have a minimum of 1,000 glory which equals 1 point, so people can't send 32 men at 100 castles and get 100 points as pointed above. You could even raise the minimum bar to 5,000 glory. Then you can have increments of 50,000 or 100,000 glory and add 1 point. 
So, 5,000 glory = 1 point
55,000/ 105,000 glory = 2 points
and so on...

You should also reward players for defending. Would use the same algorithm as above, but different numbers. This will actually motivate players to defend instead of popping on a firecast and moving on. 

GGE, you're killing me from your game. I came here to fight others, and you show up to shove events down my throat. I don't even play half the events, they're so repetitive. If you're going for a event game, at least introduce more events and run different ones at the same time. The more diverse you get, the more interest sparks. 

If I'd known this was the direction of the game two years ago, I would've never played.

Finally, make property allowed to be taken. This will spark a lot of PvP between the bigger alliances. 

I'm sure someone at GGS has a brain. At least I hope. 

Acrone (US1)

rentalguy (US1) said:

The more reasonable solution would be to have a minimum of 1,000 glory which equals 1 point, so people can't send 32 men at 100 castles and get 100 points as pointed above. You could even raise the minimum bar to 5,000 glory. Then you can have increments of 50,000 or 100,000 glory and add 1 point. 
So, 5,000 glory = 1 point
55,000/ 105,000 glory = 2 points
and so on...

You should also reward players for defending. Would use the same algorithm as above, but different numbers. This will actually motivate players to defend instead of popping on a firecast and moving on. 

GGE, you're killing me from your game. I came here to fight others, and you show up to shove events down my throat. I don't even play half the events, they're so repetitive. If you're going for a event game, at least introduce more events and run different ones at the same time. The more diverse you get, the more interest sparks. 

If I'd known this was the direction of the game two years ago, I would've never played.

Finally, make property allowed to be taken. This will spark a lot of PvP between the bigger alliances. 

I'm sure someone at GGS has a brain. At least I hope. 

Been super busy to post on my own thread, sorry folks! 

Good to come back and see it has grown quite a bit. 

I think this point system could work for the Alliance Tournament, I personally never was able to participate in the AT much since im a returning player and by the time I got stronger, they took it away. 

Maybe they can even offer a good amount of boulders and defense tools as rewards, tools are hard to come by so that for sure would motivate players to grab those rewards. 

Just a cool thought, but would it be interesting if they had special titles during the alliance tournament, seperate from glory titles and gallantry titles, not sure what bonuses these titles would grant players though.

If I knew that GGE was heading this direction then I probably wouldn't be here either but its never to late to turn things around.

[EDIT]: What if they had 2 sections of AT, One for attacking and one for defending, one could be focused on more attacking based rewards and the other defending. 

~ Acrone 

Friedrich IV (US1)

hge (US1) said:

I did not say it had to be BMs. Y'all don't seem to get what I mean when I say "for example".  It could be support techs.  I guarantee you that there are not that many people reeling in legit 1M glory reports.  If every report over 1M glory was looked at, it would take about 30 mins and you'd find a bunch of your boosting players.  After the first round of permabans, your problem would be 99% solved.  You could keep moving the number back till you hit 600k (def more reports, but still not a bunch), whereupon you would stop.  Say it takes 5 seconds to check a report. Say you get 10000 reports, total. 50,000 seconds. ~833 minutes. ~14 hours for ONE person doing it.  Whenever they see a boosted one, they ban the attacker and the defender.  I find it hard to believe that GGS can't spare about 2 people to monitor reports during the alliance tourney.  NO-ONE would boost after the first 2 tourneys or so, because it would result in a permaban.  Then you could just check like 700k plus ones, every 2 or three tourneys.  That would prevent people starting to boost again.  Really wouldn't take much manpower, and would make it possible to bring back the alliance tourney and hush up all the players complaining about either the lack of it, or the boosting.  I've talked with multiple people who say that they won't buy rubies until the tourney comes back.  So, diverting 2-3 people to do this would result in happier people, and more money for GGS. The problem being, they are apparently too FRICKING DENSE to understand basic PR and company management skills.

You would be very surprised at the sheer amount of battle reports that come out of top players.

And if they don't perma ban botters on first offense, why would they ever ban boosters on their first offense?

They'd give them 3-4-5-6 chances to quit before they go so far as to permaban. That would likely take the course of a few events, and lots of time.

Support techs don't even have enough time to answer their own tickets, let alone take a look at a bunch of BRs. It would also take more than 5 seconds to check the report, what's inside the report, and to go and apply bans to the players involved. I figure about a minute to do each, which is quite a bit more time than you have estimated up there. If not longer, I'm not sure how easy it is for them to view battle reports en masse based upon glory and give out bans with a specific timer on them.

Even longer if you have the decency to send emails to the account's address telling them why they're banned, which is an improvement I'd like to see for various reasons.

hge (US1)

BM_Friedrich said:

hge (US1) said:

I did not say it had to be BMs. Y'all don't seem to get what I mean when I say "for example".  It could be support techs.  I guarantee you that there are not that many people reeling in legit 1M glory reports.  If every report over 1M glory was looked at, it would take about 30 mins and you'd find a bunch of your boosting players.  After the first round of permabans, your problem would be 99% solved.  You could keep moving the number back till you hit 600k (def more reports, but still not a bunch), whereupon you would stop.  Say it takes 5 seconds to check a report. Say you get 10000 reports, total. 50,000 seconds. ~833 minutes. ~14 hours for ONE person doing it.  Whenever they see a boosted one, they ban the attacker and the defender.  I find it hard to believe that GGS can't spare about 2 people to monitor reports during the alliance tourney.  NO-ONE would boost after the first 2 tourneys or so, because it would result in a permaban.  Then you could just check like 700k plus ones, every 2 or three tourneys.  That would prevent people starting to boost again.  Really wouldn't take much manpower, and would make it possible to bring back the alliance tourney and hush up all the players complaining about either the lack of it, or the boosting.  I've talked with multiple people who say that they won't buy rubies until the tourney comes back.  So, diverting 2-3 people to do this would result in happier people, and more money for GGS. The problem being, they are apparently too FRICKING DENSE to understand basic PR and company management skills.

You would be very surprised at the sheer amount of battle reports that come out of top players.

And if they don't perma ban botters on first offense, why would they ever ban boosters on their first offense?

They'd give them 3-4-5-6 chances to quit before they go so far as to permaban. That would likely take the course of a few events, and lots of time.

Support techs don't even have enough time to answer their own tickets, let alone take a look at a bunch of BRs. It would also take more than 5 seconds to check the report, what's inside the report, and to go and apply bans to the players involved. I figure about a minute to do each, which is quite a bit more time than you have estimated up there. If not longer, I'm not sure how easy it is for them to view battle reports en masse based upon glory and give out bans with a specific timer on them.

Even longer if you have the decency to send emails to the account's address telling them why they're banned, which is an improvement I'd like to see for various reasons.

That's their prob for not permaing them on first offense.  Everyone knew it was wrong, everyone should have been banned on first offense.  It seems to me that the effort would be worth the gain, but maybe I'm wrong.

overlord90098 (GB1)

BM_Friedrich said:

hge (US1) said:

I did not say it had to be BMs. Y'all don't seem to get what I mean when I say "for example".  It could be support techs.  I guarantee you that there are not that many people reeling in legit 1M glory reports.  If every report over 1M glory was looked at, it would take about 30 mins and you'd find a bunch of your boosting players.  After the first round of permabans, your problem would be 99% solved.  You could keep moving the number back till you hit 600k (def more reports, but still not a bunch), whereupon you would stop.  Say it takes 5 seconds to check a report. Say you get 10000 reports, total. 50,000 seconds. ~833 minutes. ~14 hours for ONE person doing it.  Whenever they see a boosted one, they ban the attacker and the defender.  I find it hard to believe that GGS can't spare about 2 people to monitor reports during the alliance tourney.  NO-ONE would boost after the first 2 tourneys or so, because it would result in a permaban.  Then you could just check like 700k plus ones, every 2 or three tourneys.  That would prevent people starting to boost again.  Really wouldn't take much manpower, and would make it possible to bring back the alliance tourney and hush up all the players complaining about either the lack of it, or the boosting.  I've talked with multiple people who say that they won't buy rubies until the tourney comes back.  So, diverting 2-3 people to do this would result in happier people, and more money for GGS. The problem being, they are apparently too FRICKING DENSE to understand basic PR and company management skills.

You would be very surprised at the sheer amount of battle reports that come out of top players.

And if they don't perma ban botters on first offense, why would they ever ban boosters on their first offense?

They'd give them 3-4-5-6 chances to quit before they go so far as to permaban. That would likely take the course of a few events, and lots of time.

Support techs don't even have enough time to answer their own tickets, let alone take a look at a bunch of BRs. It would also take more than 5 seconds to check the report, what's inside the report, and to go and apply bans to the players involved. I figure about a minute to do each, which is quite a bit more time than you have estimated up there. If not longer, I'm not sure how easy it is for them to view battle reports en masse based upon glory and give out bans with a specific timer on them.

Even longer if you have the decency to send emails to the account's address telling them why they're banned, which is an improvement I'd like to see for various reasons.

if the supporters are having such a hard time answering current tickets why do think that is the number of bugs or a conspiracy theory? 

Friedrich IV (US1)

overlord90098 (GB1) said:

if the supporters are having such a hard time answering current tickets why do think that is the number of bugs or a conspiracy theory? 

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to ask, pls rephrase

David Noble (US1)

The biggest problem with pvp are both boulders and also fire moats not being easy to get which are practical for pvp. If you do not have a strong cast and/or fire moats the player might open gates or use fire cast if the attacker is too strong and if you do not have boulders then what is the point of only using mantlets, rams, and ladders, but no boulders which are a must have for engaging in pvp against strong players now a days? You also have to factor in arrow slits and the best gate tools as well. Again you may need to spend a lot of rubies to get those too if you want to have a significant number of them which are now also needed for Kahn's Revenge as well along with the fire moats also melee wall tools. One could also argue that maybe Goodgame Studios should have never included fire cast, damage to buildings bonuses, and open gates in the first place to make the game more competitive in pvp as well. The only exceptions to this would be the firestation, research tower, and Hall of Legends for reduced building damage and increased building damage only coming from the Hall of Legends as well.

John Titor (INT1)

David Noble (US1) said:

*SNIP*

There is 2 kind of problems. Boulders sure are too expensive and second, fixing fires is also too expensive. Get 50% off, say like 5k rubies or even less. And drop also boulders price. Now full tooled attack cost over 20k rubies. And dont even bother send under tooled attack against good players. Not going to work. And also unused tools should return even on loss. There is always someone on your army who chickens out and can get those back

At least they give us lime bombs, when grinding hard nomads... why not boulders too?

David Noble (US1)

John Titor (INT1) said:

David Noble (US1) said:

*SNIP*

There is 2 kind of problems. Boulders sure are too expensive and second, fixing fires is also too expensive. Get 50% off, say like 5k rubies or even less. And drop also boulders price. Now full tooled attack cost over 20k rubies. And dont even bother send under tooled attack against good players. Not going to work. And also unused tools should return even on loss. There is always someone on your army who chickens out and can get those back

At least they give us lime bombs, when grinding hard nomads... why not boulders too?

Any used tools should be returned back even after a defeat. Lets say an opponent defended only one flank. It would not be right to lose the unused tools on the other positions also including the unused boulders and also unused mantlets, ladders, and rams as well. Maybe what needs to happen is have one lone attacker return back with the remaining tools along with your commander and/or make boulders at least somewhat easier to get. Fire moats can cost a lot too, but it may cost even more rubies to attack strong players with boulders. And so you have a point. Boulder discounts are nice, but we do not get it often while from the mercenary camp you can only get a few of them at most for lots of gold coins and they are also not always available for gold coins either.

CopyClop (GB1)

PvP is dangerous

CopyClop (GB1)

David Noble (US1) said:

John Titor (INT1) said:

David Noble (US1) said:

*SNIP*

There is 2 kind of problems. Boulders sure are too expensive and second, fixing fires is also too expensive. Get 50% off, say like 5k rubies or even less. And drop also boulders price. Now full tooled attack cost over 20k rubies. And dont even bother send under tooled attack against good players. Not going to work. And also unused tools should return even on loss. There is always someone on your army who chickens out and can get those back

At least they give us lime bombs, when grinding hard nomads... why not boulders too?

Any used tools should be returned back even after a defeat. Lets say an opponent defended only one flank. It would not be right to lose the unused tools on the other positions also including the unused boulders and also unused mantlets, ladders, and rams as well. Maybe what needs to happen is have one lone attacker return back with the remaining tools along with your commander and/or make boulders at least somewhat easier to get. Fire moats can cost a lot too, but it may cost even more rubies to attack strong players with boulders. And so you have a point. Boulder discounts are nice, but we do not get it often while from the mercenary camp you can only get a few of them at most for lots of gold coins and they are also not always available for gold coins either.

If all your men are dead, who is going to bring it back, u maybe saying commander will, but com on can one man bring back that many tools back? . Also they should not return the tools, because then players will not take pvp seriously and prob send attack after attack to break player defence.