Join the official Goodgame Discord today!
Are you looking for a community of like-minded gamers to discuss your favorite games with? Look no further than the GoodGame Empire Family Discord Server!
Our server is the perfect place to connect with other gamers from around the world. Whether you're looking to chat about strategy, share tips and tricks, or just make new friends, our community has got you covered.
And that's not all - as a member of our Discord server, you'll also have access to exclusive giveaways and other special events. It's the perfect way to stay up to date on all the latest news and updates from GoodGame Studios.
So what are you waiting for? Join the GoodGame Empire Family Discord Server today and start connecting with fellow warriors from all over the world. Just head to https://discord.gg/goodgamestudios to join the fun!
Berimond Whitewash
daniel freed
Posts: 135
Just take a look at this Berimond. The red side is full of high level players and the blue is full of level30s. I will not bother with Berimond this time as the blue side face certain humiliation.
To be the best, you must beat the best
Comments
As leader of one of those big alliances, friends do sometimes ask which side we are on, and it's difficult not to tell them. As you can understand, an alliance who has a pact with another wouldn't really want to be fighting with them in an event.
Once one person knows, they tell another, who tells another etc etc etc. So it doesn't take long before everyone knows.
I do agree that Berimond is a one sided fight as a result, but please don't blame the players for this, they are only trying to ensure victory. And yes, not being able to choose a side would resolve this. I think that removing the option to choose, and also removing the ability to gain or lose honour and glory would make this a much more interesting event. It would be more of a demolition derby if players weren't concerned about losing their honour ranking to a level lower player from a small alliance.
To be the best, you must beat the best
To be the best, you must beat the best
Random sides would be the best plan, but then we have the honour and glory aspect to think about. Would you want to attack your leader and steal his/her honour?
And I think that hits the nail right on the head. Stronger players want to protect their honour, and for that reason they want to be on the winning side. Removing honour and glory would even out the playing field, but then a lot of the ruby income from this event probably directly relates to players spending money to protect their honour, so that falls down too.
We have always said that we don't want to remove the option of choosing which side since its not really fair to force players to play on a side they don't want to be on. I understand the reasoning for the suggestion, but i think you are all missing some of the problems that it would actually cause. What if you ended up on the same side twice in a row but you wanted to get the decoration from the other side?
Let's say for example that you are on the blue team and an alliance mate of yours was on the red team. Would you want to attack you own alliance members and cause them to lose honor? Some people would, but this would also cause problems within alliances because members would be forced into attacking each other. What happens if they don't attack? The event would pretty much grind to a halt.
I also understand Baldricks suggestion to remove the honor and glory from the event, but that is simply not possible without some serious recoding of the game which could end up causing more problems than it would acutally fix.
We are always looking for suggestions on how to improve the events, but i don't see restricting players chouices as being the way to improve the event.
Regards,
Ethan.
To be the best, you must beat the best
To be the best, you must beat the best
Perhaps only a set number of members per alliance could join the event.
The pros with this is that the big alliances would be less destructive to the young alliances.
The problem with this is that other members in the alliance who did not get chosen could get frustrated or annoyed.
It also could potentially decrease the rubys spent but at the same time it could also increase it if players in smaller alliances thought they had a chance if they spent them.
Member of BraveheartTitan EN1
Loyalty is the one true virtue of any member of an alliance. When loyalty is present you cannot complain.
"It is right to learn, even from your enemies"
-Ovid
Now let's look at the problems you mentioned it would cause...
How many times has the event been run now? 4 times in 6 months... so what if you are on the same side twice in a row. Maybe it will make you play harder to win when you do get on the side you need the achievement.
Remove honor/glory from event.
For someone who wrote the code, taking it out would be pretty straight forward (not like adding it). If your developers can't remove it without causing bugs (after testing of course), they need to be replaced! (and probably rethink their career choice)
Removing the choice is the perfect way for an event like this. All out battles, getting people to work together from different alliances, getting people to attack members of their own alliance... when else would that happen? Sure people wouldn't choose to go against their own team members, but that is the beauty of it.
The bonus strength/reduced res cost bonus was a nice attempt but it didn't/doesn't work.
And why invest huge amounts of money and effort in a battle where you already know which side will win? So GGE is also a loser right now.
So my feeling is that if GGE can't fix Berimond by randomly assigning the side of the player, and removing the honor and glory, then really GGE should just stop doing the Berimond event and replace it with something else. Sorry, but if its dead, you might as well bury it.
the royal leader of the_wild_family the leader allience of Comman Wealth Alliences
Yeah right. The lions are slaughtering the Bears.
[email protected], General of Ninth Legion, 78th in the alliance honour rankings.
Soon the empire world will be united under one banner...[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
To be the best, you must beat the best
To be the best, you must beat the best
Member of BraveheartTitan EN1
Loyalty is the one true virtue of any member of an alliance. When loyalty is present you cannot complain.
"It is right to learn, even from your enemies"
-Ovid
To be the best, you must beat the best
Simples. If a person has an achievement for one side, it automatically picked the other. If a player has neither or both, it randomises it with favour towards giving stronger players to the weaker side and vice-versa. C'est la vie. It comes around often enough that it wouldn't be a problem.
Take out the honour for the battles. It's not like there's not plenty of decent chances for honour fights in the main kingdoms already.
I struggle to believe this (and as a professional software developer that's worked on online games as well as offline games, I'm not ignorant of coding issues). You have a location at which a battle is fought, and you must have a code chunk that calculates honour. Why is it not as straightforward as:
if (location != berimond)
{
calculateHonor();
}
Or equivalent.
I wonder how the players feel? If I join an event, I want a fun challenge worth spending my resources on. The PvE events I'm thoroughly enjoying (Blade Coast / Thorn King) and I'd be interested in more PvE adventures like the discussed changes to treasure maps.
For PvP I think it needs a few things to be interesting:
1) A close and interesting battle
2) Not too costly to be on the losing side
3) Some incentive to win
Of these, 3) is give or take. I can get decorations, and I can make kit. It's nice, it's important, but it's not anything spectacular.
2) is important, and can lead to grind issues. Honour / Glory removal would fix this.
1) is IMO the most important. It's not fun being on the side that's winning _or_ losing by a big margin. If the side selector basically tried to match a running tally of players, a running tally of levels, and prioritise a side that someone hasn't won on, it should balance well enough to be about 5 times more interesting.
And I'm saying all this as a BSK player who expects to win every time as things currently are - right now it just ain't fun.
first picking a side or being forced to pick doesn't solve the issues. some servers I have seen are more balanced it just takes longer for the stronger team to get to endgame. It really isn't a fight though. There is no back and forth. randomly deciding who is on what team wont fix the issue. this isnt like alliance wars. if there is a strong player his power will be multiplied from conquering multiple castles. either way the stronger team with stifle the other side's efforts. The working together already happens. This wont change as you will have members of the same alliance on the same side. this essentially just leads to less people participation imo. also with being forced to pick essentially if you wanted the other decoration you may not be able to get it as you could be on the losing side the time you are selected for the opposite team reward.
The other being glory and honor itself. The code actually may not have been written by the current coders. The old ones could have been fired. the support system itself went through a huge personnel change. Secondly depending on how the code was written it may not be so easy to undo. If written so things weren't tied in together as much it would be quite simple but if it was tied in together it wouldn't be quite that easy and you would risk screwing up things.
Being forced to pick on those requirements will only lead to the same slaughter we have not but automatically being put on the opposite team. How is it determined if a player is a stronger player? I know plenty of players in strong alliances with honor only because they are in that strong alliance. Idk if there is an effective criteria to decide if you are a strong or weak player without considering everything that play has and that would be hard to write into the code.
I have no trouble believing that they cant implement this. Have you seen the bugs that have occurred in this game? the coders for this game certainly are not the best i have seen.
your solution to stopping honor in berimond only works if you created the rest of the system like that. if they tied in systems you may not be able to type in the berimond location so simply. If the system treats a battle the same no matter where it occurs it may not be able to track that it occurred in berimond and therefore you would have no location to input to eliminate this issue.
as for berimond competition yes id like more competition I just dunno how you incorporate it. power there gets multiplied and those that spend rubies are always going to be able to multiply it faster. there also isn't an effective balance or catch up measure and i'm not sure one could be implemented easily.
overall i wish they would scrap the event once they found a suitable replacement as this event is the least challenging and fun. I just dunno if it is worth the time and effort to try and salvage this event. Too much needs to be changed to fix it.
To be the best, you must beat the best