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!
Suggestion for More Action Around RVs
daniel freed
Posts: 135
Now i know Goodgame have tried to introduce measures to change this but nothing seems to have worked, even the new attacks with shadow mercs update but i have a better idea.
Our rvs should periodicly be attacked by barbarian towers. Just a small force of say 10 macemen or crossbows. This way these guys who have 20/25 rvs with most just defended by 1 soldier would loose the rv and give newer players the opportunity to capture an empty rv.
Now i know there will be players who have more than 5 of each rv coz they captured thembefore the limit was introduced and they will moan that they will loose their hard earned rvs but as Ethan said on another thread, if you cant defend your rvs then you should expect to loose them. Anyway why would you want to have a significant advantage over everyone else anyway? The game is much more fun when you are playing on an even field.
Anyway i hope you guys at goodgame read this and let me know if this would be difficuld to code into the game.
To be the best, you must beat the best
Comments
This has been brought up many times, sir.
Here are some valid points on why this idea wouldn't be so great.
In the Great Empire, there are outposts. So, why aren't RB attacking outposts, because outposts are an extra motive to a main castle as well as resource villages are to those in the new kingdoms. Also, as I've heard many others say that the reason RVs are only stationed with one soldier is because if there happens to be an incoming attack on an RV, most likely with the bonuses from the alliance cash box, research categories and enhanced stables, supporting an RV is very simple and doesn't take time.
In addition to my claim, I would like to add on that these attacks on RVs would ruin the whole point of system attacks from Robber Barons and fortresses in the kingdoms. It would probably be useless if you put it in consideration, because as I said, I think those high levels with large alliances probably have the additional support, so this would be futile.
1. Support speed and support network. Why bother to station defenders when it is easy to support? This also applies to barbarian attacks.
2. When it comes to wood and stone RVs, yes they add a bonus to production and can be used to launch attacks, but losing them causes no problems to the owner, and in most cases they can be recaptured.
3. Attacks on RVs cannot cause fires, so players would rather keep their defensive forces in their castles where they can help with a reduction in ruby costs for putting out fires rather than leave them in RVs.
So, as you can see, there are no reasons for the strongest players to keep all their defenders in their villages. There is nothing GGS can do to change this. Also, do you think it's only the strongest alliances and players who use this system? Of course it's not. most players use this system as it's the best way to manage villages.
If GGS really want to change the way villages work then they need to increase food production (which they are planning to do) and reduce the cost of putting out fires.
whatever hair brained ideas people come up with, villages will operate the way they are now. They may try to force us to keep large defensive forces in all our villages, but that is only because that is the way they wanted them to work, but yet again, they got it wrong. So instead of blaming the players because they work out a better system, they should look at how they implement new things in this game instead. Don't fic the problem, fix the cause.
And if you think these attempts to make villages easier to capture will mean that lower level players will get more, you're wrong again. Weak players don't have villages because they are weak, not because of any gentleman's agreements that may exist.
Yet again, just like the shadows update, the only losers will be the weak. Those who don't have troops to station and who don't have good support systems.
It wouldn't balance the game at all, the strongest payers would simply retake their RVs if they lost them, which is unlikely.
Weak players would lose their RVs through lack of troops and support.
This idea, like the shadows update, will only further unbalance the game at the cost of those who it intends to help. The strong will stay as strong and the weak will become even weaker.
Isnt the idea of the game to attack eachother. Why do people/players like you do everything in your power to keep the peace. I love this game, i love war, i love attacking, i love being attacked, i love the action.
Tell me what is the point in recruiting soldiers, making defense and seige tools and aquiring equiptment if you are never gonna use any of it.
This game must be very boring for some people. No offense intended btw
To be the best, you must beat the best
I think you'll tend to find that all alliances have agreements, and they are usually with alliances of a similar strength.
Everyone complains that BSK, DU and UK are all pacted, and this is true, but if you look at other allainces you'll find the same thing happens all the way down to level 1 alliances who are pacted with similar sized alliances close to them. This is the nature of the game, and only when outside alliances of similar strength declare war do things get going. In the case of BSK, DU and UK, there just arent't really that many other alliances out there to have wars with, but does this mean we should declare on each other? No.
It's the equivalent of someone saying that your alliance should remove all pacts and declare on your friends. There is no difference other than the fact that your alliance has many other alliances to have a fair war with, we don't.
And although we receive less attacks than most alliances, it doesn't mean that we can get away with having no defenses, not tools or bad equipment, we do get attacked, and sometimes we even lose, but most of the time we win. Why do we win? Because we have good defenses, strong tools and good equipment. If we didn't we would get attacked a lot more often. We are always the first to say that we like being attacked, and we have never declared or or mass attacked anyone for sending an honourable attack on us, this is a war game as you say. Anyone who wants a decent fight knows where we are, and I'm not talking about a full on war, just a good fight.
Fair enough post and i agree with most of what you are saying. I dissagree with Be The Best when he says that most large alliances are pacted with eachother to stop mayhem ensuing. I believe that you guys are pacted with eachother to ensure you are not knocked off your perch at the top of the heap and it is well within your rights to do that. It is the responsibility of the not so large or strong alliances to grow more powerfull.
There are a few up and coming alliances who are growing fast and i believe will mount a decent challenge to the top 4 or 5 but i dont think anything will happen for a while but when it does it should be fun and interesting.
Lol anyway this thread has gone AWOL. I only started it coz alot of lvl25/30 players are not progressing and leaving the game coz they cannot compete in the kingdoms.
To be the best, you must beat the best
Yes, that is a problem, but the blame should not lie with the strongest alliances, which is the point of view of a lot of players.
The blame can only lie with GGS, who have designed a game that deliberately forces players to either buy rubies or suffer. Everyone can survive to an extent in the great empire as everyone has the same opportunities to build their castles and outposts to the same level without having to attack others. The problem lies with the new kingdoms and the difficulty in obtaining and holding villages, which make or break a players ability to grow and attack/defend.
I just think the recent update, and the suggestions by players, wont actually work, and in my view will only make it harder for these players to flourish.
What GGS need to do is to is to enable these players to have a decent sized army without the need for as many villages. They could change the base production in the new kingdom castles and reduce the bonuses from gained from villages. This wouldn't devalue the villages too much and we would still fight over them, but not having any wouldn't make the game unplayable, and more players would remain in the game past level 40.
Simple?
What about the thousands of players who would lose troops as the food supply would drop once the RVs are lost?
All this would do would increase the cost to play and annoy the players even more. Terrible idea.
Is that all you do? Troll the message boards and crap on everyone else's suggestions? Actually, its a great suggestion. Players would have to adjust to the "loss" of food. Truth is the only players that would be affected are the top guys that have bullied their way to owning all the RV's. The little guys would actually have a chance to own RV's and build their cities. Another SIMPLE concept is to make this change to wood and stone RV's only, and keep the food. In 5 seconds I've shot down your only criticism of the game because I took the time to figure out potential bugs. The only thing terrible is your sense of how this game should run. Do you actually play the game or does your enjoyment come from posting the most on the forum? Jeeesh
Do you really think the only players affected by this would be the strongest, most active? Don't be silly. Every single player who has food RVs would be affected, and the weakest, most inactive would suffer the most, because they wouldn't be online or have the troops to get any more villages. This is just another idea that would actually make those players you are trying to help worse off.
Do you understand what would actually happen with this suggestion? Weak players would lose their RVs and never get them back. Players trying to recapture their RVs or obtain new ones would be spending rubies and coins trying to get them and most would fail. It would be village hell for eveyone, and an expensive hell at that. Villages will always end up being owned by the strongest alliances, that will never change as they have the strength, time and resources to capture new ones. The players you are trying to help may obtain some from this suggestion, but they will only lose them again either at the hands of other players or at the hands of your suggestion. I'm not trying to put this idea down because it would damage high level palyers, it's because if would affect everyone with villages.
The idea that this would enable lower levels to obtain villages and build their "cities" as you call them is nonsense.
And please don't use the word "bullied". Do you think the mid level players got all their villages fair and square? They didn't. This game is one big food chain, everyone is at it. For your information, I got my food RVs when everwinter was opened, not from weak players.
The idea of making this wood and stone only could work but what players need are the food RVs so they can hold a decent number of troops.
I have posted many suggestions as to how to enable players to survive in the new kingdoms, maybe you should read them before you criticise.
You haven't shot down anything at all except your own suggestion, which has many flaws.
And yes, I play the game. I am the leader of a 150 member alliance family, I'm in the top 10 looting every week, I'm level 70, King ranking or above and I have 6,390 achievement points.
As I said, look at some of my suggestions on RVs, they are much better than yours :P
My suggestion is great. Nothing could be lost as all the top players currently hold max RV's. If they lose food RV's it requires more work for them to gain back. But take out the food rv's, the biggest fix would be to get stone/wood rv's into the hands of the newer guys. With the resource changes made to improving buildings, it now takes lower levels a massive amount of time to build to catch up to the big boys. All it has done is made the chasm greater between the haves and have nots.
GGS would be wise to learn from the lessons of other games that catered to "established" players and lost the newer guys because they just cant compete. This is a new revenue stream that they are alienating. For example, it bothers me that I have to compete with high level guys that benefitted from the coin bug and were able to use technicus to obtain max commanders. For me to reach that level I have to do 2x or 3x the amount of tower hits as they did for enough coins.
There has to be some way to skew the formula to allow beginners to improve faster (to hold their attention) and then slow the process down as rank improves. Making more RV's (wood/stone) available for guys that don't have many can only be a positive. Established players don't need them much anyway, as by level 70 they have lvl 5 walls/towers/etc. GGS better be looking at their retention rate of new players and ways to improve that.
How do you find the time to stay on the forum 24/7 and manage all you claim to manage? You remind me of the Occupy Wall Street 30 yr. old unemployed "protesters" that complained about the injustices of society then went back to live in their Mom's basement. I hate turnips.
Whilst I completely agree with you that the upcoming players need more resources and food in the new kingdoms in order to compete and make the game fun enough to continue, I think the problem is that in reality, this suggestion wouldn't work as you intend it to.
Here's a scenario, I'll use three players:
Player A: Level 70, has max villages.
Player B: Level 40, has 3 of each.
Player C: Level 30, has 1 food village.
So let's say player A loses 9 villages in a one day period, 3 of each. these villages are now available for capture.
Player B spots them and launches, gets them all, but on the same day loses the villages he already had. He ends up with more villages and the level 70 player has less. Yipee! It's working.
Player C loses his food village and isn't online to notice. the level 70 player takes that village and all the villages that player B lost. He then captures more villages that have been abandoned due to this update and ends up full again. Other level 70 players take the rest and steal what villages player B has to replace the ones they just lost.
Player B sees some more villages and launches at them, gets there too late and has no villages.
This would repeat to fade and the biggest loser? The guy that had one village. Player A and B just spend 10k rubies and thousands of coins in this process. The winner: GGS, more income from all the captures.
This is what would actually happen, no lower level players would benefit, it would only cause more frustration for all.
I also understand the problems with equipment before the coin update, but again, you can't blame us high level players, we were only playing the game as it was designed. GGS need to come up with a method to retain players without penalizing the higher levels, you know the ones who run the alliances and usually spend the most money. My idea of increasing the base production levels for castles and reducing the bonuses from villages would actually help and wouldn't cause anyone to lose out. But yeah, it's my idea so you probably don't like it much.
I work freelance, I did about 100 hours last week (you'll notice the gaps in my forum posts), I also work from home a lot, and have strange work/sleep patterns. I'm also an adult. I love turnips, and this game.
The name Baldrick comes from a UK TV comedy show. He was a character who was the manservant to Lord Blackadder. It was the first thing I came up with when deciding a name for this game (I only really expected to play for a day or two).
Part of the theme of the show is that Baldrick is extremely fond of turnips, I just went with it really.