Home English (UK) Update Questions & Feedback

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!

Discussion - The Capitals have arrived!

11044

Comments

  • marco37marco37 Posts: 778
    edited 02.09.2012
    Well, i think that the problem of mulit accounts / sharing password is of all the worlds!

    Hope GGS will do something about it and ... you may not have multi account from one ip! Read the rules!

    "1. Account
    The owner of an account is always the holder of the e-mail address that was deposited in the account. The user is responsible for his password and the security of its data himself.
    The rightful owner of an e-mail address to which a game account is created, is always in the right to allow the account to be edited or deleted.
    An account may only be played alone at all times. "Account-sitting is not allowed.
    The exchange, giving away or selling of accounts is strictly prohibited
    2. Multiple accounts
    Each player is allowed to operate only one account per World / network.
    If two or more people usually, occasionally or permanently play by the same
    Internet access (eg schools, universities, Internet cafes or ), it is recommended that this information is told to the support: http://support.goodgamestudios.com/?lang=en, if this does not happen there will be a ban for multi accounting."

    Then you will have to get in contact with GGS and tell them this. So GGS knows who is playing with more then one on the same ip number. Usely GGS says that when family is also playing with you on the same ip number, the players should be on a other world (int1 or int 2 etc). So they can't be in the same world.

    Still hope GGS is taking some action about this.

    With the new update, these multi account get a very big advantage
  • DerkenDerken Posts: 2
    edited 02.09.2012
    Seems like the same old thing GGS pushing people towards buying rubies (or more rubies!) with every update.

    Taking the fun out of the game - big ruby alliances/players will have too much advantage no matter whether it's troops/resources or whatever. Can't compete in Ice and Sand worlds already - now getting more difficult in first world.
    I've gotten to level 40 without buying rubies but think I won't get much further.
    Every update pushes non ruby players further out - gap is getting wider every time - no wonder there are so many ruins!
  • dylan23dylan23 Posts: 23
    edited 02.09.2012
    to true i almost fell into ruins because i didnt buy any rubys
  • HelmlerHelmler Posts: 978
    edited 02.09.2012
    One of the problems with multi-accounting or other forms of cheating in mmo games is that they are often done by high-spending ruby players so it is not in the developer's interest to do anything about these players.

    As many have pointed out already; GGS is a business and they have to make money. That is why they have added upgrades to existing ruby buildings and some completely new buildings too. I don't really have a problem with this, although their financial model is still all about the whales who spend huge amounts on rubies every month. Instead of thinking of new ways to spend rubies companies should think about ways to encourage f2p players to part with a little cash. But giving ruby players newer and bigger advantages all the time is not the way to do this in my opinion.

    The real problem here is the capitals. As far as I know most of the complaints about the big alliances is that they are too strong. This may be one of the reasons that f2p players are less likely to start spending money. But this latest update will only make the strongest, most aggressive alliance(s) more powerful, even more so if they are the only ones who will be able to have one. CM Pinky can claim he used the wrong words but the implication is clear; GGS are trying to get rid off the winged alliances. I guess GGS want some kind of utopian warzone where smaller to medium-sized alliances attack each other constantly, providing a steady stream of cash. Or for the wings to join together so that they make more money from member increases. But this is not the way to do it.

    I can't wait for the comments after they are introduced. I imagine most of the people who thought they were a good idea will change their minds pretty quickly. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe this update will be a good thing for the game. But I seriously doubt it. I would have a lot more respect for GGS if they said, "OK, maybe we got this one wrong. We are delaying the update temporarily while we look at how it will be implemented." The capitals will almost certainly lead to an increase in bullying as high level players take the resources they need from weaker players. Either the winged alliances will find a way around the system and little will change or they will destroy each other, allowing one winged alliance to take control of the whole map, probably the one that spends most on rubies as they will be able to have the maximum number of members.

    If GGS really wants to make some more cash then I suggest that they have a lot more capitals on the map, so that big and small alliances can have one. Then look at ways to get money from the capitals themselves. Instead of using resources there could be an option to use rubies as well, players could have extra recruitment slots available for rubies so that they can recruit more soldiers faster. There could be ruby only upgrades, ruby buildings in the capital. Pretty much anything you can do in your main castles basically, thereby doubling their revenue stream.

    What I object to is an update that so clearly benefits only the biggest, strongest alliances. I know GGS need to make money but content should be available to all. The difference is that people who spend money get more of everything and they get it faster. These capitals are just a tease for most of the players on the server as they will never be able to receive the benefits, let alone see what they are like.

    edit: even "ruby players" seem to agree http://en.board.goodgamestudios.com/empire/showthread.php?31234-Better-recourse-tools

    Two great comments by MaJeStiic and Baldrick - my sentiments exactly
  • Aaa343Aaa343 Posts: 217
    edited 02.09.2012
    Lots of people are saying that multiaccounters will get a huge advantage with this update. I dont see how, can someone explain?
  • PrakaashRaajPrakaashRaaj Posts: 53
    edited 02.09.2012
    The main motive of this update is to make players fight against each other which other, This is a war game but many don't fight, so this update will make many fight:)
  • HelmlerHelmler Posts: 978
    edited 02.09.2012
    Aaa343 wrote: »
    Lots of people are saying that multiaccounters will get a huge advantage with this update. I dont see how, can someone explain?

    If it requires resources to upgrade capital then they can use all their production for this, as they don't use them for building/upgrading. They also have access to a lot more resources than those who play fair, as there is no limit to their production. It's only limited by the number of accounts they have, not by space or only having 3 outposts etc like the rest of us.
  • Aaa343Aaa343 Posts: 217
    edited 02.09.2012
    That only works on the assumtion that all multiaccounters are in big alliances. While I would believe you if you siad it was true, I have not experienced it first hand
  • HelmlerHelmler Posts: 978
    edited 02.09.2012
    The main motive of this update is to make players fight against each other which other, This is a war game but many don't fight, so this update will make many fight:)

    Why do people think just saying "this is a war game" is enough to justify everything? If more players start leaving the server because of bullying/disparity between players or alliances who will be fighting then?
    Aaa343 wrote: »
    That only works on the assumtion that all multiaccounters are in big alliances. While I would believe you if you siad it was true, I have not experienced it first hand



    The problem as a player is that it's very hard to tell. If some random castle is sending resources to the multi-accounter every few hours how can we see that? The only people who can really do anything are GGS.

    Posts merged due to double posting. Please READ board rules - Bunzy
  • marco37marco37 Posts: 778
    edited 02.09.2012
    multi account and rubie players ... twice not fare! GGS is only looking at the money! Well i can tell GGS, there are also fare playing rubie player and they don't like the multi account players / password sharing players. Without these update it was fine, the only think to worry was the amount of soldiers one could have. But with these update .... the advantage with the resource, the many soldiers etc etc. Just getting more unfair with these multi account / password sharing people. Still hope GGS look at the multi account players / password sharing players and kick them out of the game.

    Well, i have made my point i think. For the update: i still believe it is a great update.
  • tack the king3tack the king3 Posts: 20
    edited 02.09.2012
    when will this happen
  • matmo32matmo32 Posts: 390
    edited 02.09.2012
    whenwiillthishapen
  • BobFighter834 (INT2)BobFighter834 (INT2) Posts: 2,762
    edited 02.09.2012
    when will this happen
    matmo32 wrote:
    whenwiillthishapen

    As soon as it is decided when this update will be implemented, we will be informed. Please do not make useless posts asking questions that cannot be answered just yet.
  • edited 02.09.2012
    Helmler wrote: »
    One of the problems with multi-accounting or other forms of cheating in mmo games is that they are often done by high-spending ruby players so it is not in the developer's interest to do anything about these players.

    I am going to respond to this briefly and then go back to topic. We have no issues banning players regardless of the amount of rubies they have spent once we can prove they are multi accounting. Anyone who knows me will tell you that it is number one on my list, and yes I can confirmed they get banned just like any low level multi.

    (dear all please read through the thread to avoid posting something that has already been asked)

    Enough said, back to topic - The Capitals have arrived.
  • Jammi2Jammi2 Posts: 18
    edited 02.09.2012
    Bunzy wrote: »
    I am going to respond to this briefly and then go back to topic. We have no issues banning players regardless of the amount of rubies they have spent once we can prove they are multi accounting. Anyone who knows me will tell you that it is number one on my list, and yes I can confirmed they get banned just like any low level multi.

    (dear all please read through the thread to avoid posting something that has already been asked)

    Enough said, back to topic - The Capitals have arrived.

    I've seen your work before and I know your a great moderator I just cant believe that the game would ban someone that spends over $100 a month on the game for breaking a rule in a game since lately its been obvious that all they have cared about is making quick buck regardless of how it influences the game
    Ps sorry for going off topic
  • Baldrick (GB1)Baldrick (GB1) Posts: 4,948
    edited 02.09.2012
    Jammi2 wrote: »
    I've seen your work before and I know your a great moderator I just cant believe that the game would ban someone that spends over $100 a month on the game for breaking a rule in a game since lately its been obvious that all they have cared about is making quick buck regardless of how it influences the game
    Ps sorry for going off topic

    Think about it this way, if they ban a high ruby spender that player may well return and start spending again from level 1. Double money!
  • Jammi2Jammi2 Posts: 18
    edited 02.09.2012
    Baldrick wrote: »
    Think about it this way, if they ban a high ruby spender that player may well return and start spending again from level 1. Double money!

    i doubt that a high level player will wanna start all over and keep spending money
  • BobFighter834 (INT2)BobFighter834 (INT2) Posts: 2,762
    edited 02.09.2012
    Jammi2 wrote: »
    I've seen your work before and I know your a great moderator I just cant believe that the game would ban someone that spends over $100 a month on the game for breaking a rule in a game since lately its been obvious that all they have cared about is making quick buck regardless of how it influences the game
    Ps sorry for going off topic

    If I was working for GGS, I would be quite offended. I realise that most people have being saying that all GGS cares about is money, but do you really think that they are so corrupted that they will let rules go un-enforced just for a tiny bit of extra cash?
  • Jammi2Jammi2 Posts: 18
    edited 02.09.2012
    If I was working for GGS, I would be quite offended. I realise that most people have being saying that all GGS cares about is money, but do you really think that they are so corrupted that they will let rules go un-enforced just for a tiny bit of extra cash?

    Yes i do since it is a computer game not real life.
  • BobFighter834 (INT2)BobFighter834 (INT2) Posts: 2,762
    edited 02.09.2012
    Jammi2 wrote: »
    Yes i do since it is a computer game not real life.

    It is part of real life. I am a real person typing with real hands and there are real people who work for GGS and would likely struggle financially if this game wasn't successful and they lost their job.
Sign In to comment.