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!

11144

Comments

  • Jammi2Jammi2 Posts: 18
    edited 02.09.2012
    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.

    See there job is to keep the game from failing and they would have to shut down if they started to ban there high ruby buyers since lot of people think there already struggling to keep afloat
  • BobFighter834 (INT2)BobFighter834 (INT2) Posts: 2,762
    edited 02.09.2012
    Jammi2 wrote: »
    See there job is to keep the game from failing and they would have to shut down if they started to ban there high ruby buyers since lot of people think there already struggling to keep afloat

    If they do not ban cheaters, and this fact is made public (which it would, eventually) then every sensible person would either get 100 accounts on 1 world or quit the game. They would lose more from not following their own rules.

    Even $100 per month (the amount you originally mentioned) isn't that much for a big company. I think someone said that there are about 300 staff at GGS - that would be an extra 33 cents per month for them.
  • Jammi2Jammi2 Posts: 18
    edited 02.09.2012
    If they do not ban cheaters, and this fact is made public (which it would, eventually) then every sensible person would either get 100 accounts on 1 world or quit the game. They would lose more from not following their own rules.

    Even $100 per month (the amount you originally mentioned) isn't that much for a big company. I think someone said that there are about 300 staff at GGS - that would be an extra 33 cents per month for them.

    You think that its only one person who does it i bet the top 100players in all the servers do it and they all spend alot of money on this game so if they would just start banning them they would lose all there income and the only people that would know that there not enfforcing the rules is the people who run the game
  • BobFighter834 (INT2)BobFighter834 (INT2) Posts: 2,762
    edited 02.09.2012
    Jammi2 wrote: »
    You think that its only one person who does it i bet the top 100players in all the servers do it and they all spend alot of money on this game so if they would just start banning them they would lose all there income and the only people that would know that there not enfforcing the rules is the people who run the game

    I would make a bet that more than 50% of the top 100 players (based on honour) in all servers have never broken any of the game rules - multi-accounting or otherwise.

    Let's say exactly 500 top players have 2 accounts. They each pay a total of $100 per month for both of their accounts. That means $50,000 per month, which is still only an average of $166 per month per employee. If they did not ban these players, and we found this out, I would expect that they would lose 25% of their income for players without 2 accounts. I imagine that they make more than $200,000 per month from smaller ruby buyers (total), so they would lose money.


    But this isn't a matter of money. This is a matter of morale. I certainly wouldn't work for a company if it was as shallow as you are implying that it is. GGS ban all who are proven to have multiple accounts.

    If you have proof that a person has 2 or more accounts on the same world, report them to support. GGS are not psychic, so they will not know unless you tell them.

    Now, can we get back to the topic, which is the Capital Cities and how terrible they are. Oh, and also, we were complaining about not enough room for the training ground.
  • Jammi2Jammi2 Posts: 18
    edited 02.09.2012
    I would make a bet that more than 50% of the top 100 players (based on honour) in all servers have never broken any of the game rules - multi-accounting or otherwise.

    Let's say exactly 500 top players have 2 accounts. They each pay a total of $100 per month for both of their accounts. That means $50,000 per month, which is still only an average of $166 per month per employee. If they did not ban these players, and we found this out, I would expect that they would lose 25% of their income for players without 2 accounts. I imagine that they make more than $200,000 per month from smaller ruby buyers (total), so they would lose money.


    But this isn't a matter of money. This is a matter of morale. I certainly wouldn't work for a company if it was as shallow as you are implying that it is. GGS ban all who are proven to have multiple accounts.

    If you have proof that a person has 2 or more accounts on the same world, report them to support. GGS are not psychic, so they will not know unless you tell them.

    Now, can we get back to the topic, which is the Capital Cities and how terrible they are. Oh, and also, we were complaining about not enough room for the training ground.
    Well since its a free game im gunna assume they aren't paying more then 10 people since the base income can only be determined by the people who pay for the month specials so yeah I think there more then 100 players in each server that have more then one account now I feel that its wrong to do im just being reasonable in thinking there not gunna ban there money players for something as simple as breaking a rule in which no one would know there not enforcing
  • BobFighter834 (INT2)BobFighter834 (INT2) Posts: 2,762
    edited 02.09.2012
    Jammi2 wrote: »
    Well since its a free game im gunna assume they aren't paying more then 10 people since the base income can only be determined by the people who pay for the month specials so yeah I think there more then 100 players in each server that have more then one account now I feel that its wrong to do im just being reasonable in thinking there not gunna ban there money players for something as simple as breaking a rule in which no one would know there not enforcing

    If player X sent in a support ticket reporting player Y with proof that the player had 2 accounts on the same world, they would expect a reply. Support would have to reply.

    If they replied with "we have banned Y", X would check and find that Y was still playing. X would then tell someone about this and then word would spread.

    If they replied with "we have not banned Y because Y gives us money", X would then tell someone about this and then word would spread.

    If they didn't reply, X would then tell someone about this and then word would spread.

    GGS do enforce their rules, and they had better keep on doing that. I have sent in a ticket reporting a player for swearing and being homophobic today. If they do not ban that player or give me a GOOD reason why the player should not be banned, then I am coming straight to this forum, making a new thread telling everyone what happened, talking to every single player I have any contact with and then quitting the game forever. So they had better enforce their rules.

    If GGS did not want the rule, then they would have altered it. "We ban any players with multiple accounts who have never bought rubies." Admitting it would actually mean that players wouldn't leave in disgust when word got out.
  • King Avalon 2King Avalon 2 Posts: 767
    edited 02.09.2012
    It is advisable to do as Bunzy said to do and get back on topic or you could be banned or whatever!
  • Jammi2Jammi2 Posts: 18
    edited 02.09.2012
    If player X sent in a support ticket reporting player Y with proof that the player had 2 accounts on the same world, they would expect a reply. Support would have to reply.

    If they replied with "we have banned Y", X would check and find that Y was still playing. X would then tell someone about this and then word would spread.

    If they replied with "we have not banned Y because Y gives us money", X would then tell someone about this and then word would spread.

    If they didn't reply, X would then tell someone about this and then word would spread.

    GGS do enforce their rules, and they had better keep on doing that. I have sent in a ticket reporting a player for swearing and being homophobic today. If they do not ban that player or give me a GOOD reason why the player should not be banned, then I am coming straight to this forum, making a new thread telling everyone what happened, talking to every single player I have any contact with and then quitting the game forever. So they had better enforce their rules.

    If GGS did not want the rule, then they would have altered it. "We ban any players with multiple accounts who have never bought rubies." Admitting it would actually mean that players wouldn't leave in disgust when word got out.

    Except that GGS could tell player x that they have determined that player y does not have multiple accounts
  • HelmlerHelmler Posts: 978
    edited 02.09.2012
    I sent a message to support a week or more ago about a possible multi-accounter and haven't received a reply. In fact they discourage you from reporting people as false accusations can be punished too. But as Bunzy says (and I am one to talk, I know) we are way off thread. I suggest this discussion is continued in the multi-accounting thread, if at all...

    Back to the capitals please ^^
  • BobFighter834 (INT2)BobFighter834 (INT2) Posts: 2,762
    edited 02.09.2012
    Helmler wrote: »
    I sent a message to support a week or more ago about a possible multi-accounter and haven't received a reply. In fact they discourage you from reporting people as false accusations can be punished too. But as Bunzy says (and I am one to talk, I know) we are way off thread. I suggest this discussion is continued in the multi-accounting thread, if at all...

    Back to the capitals please ^^

    What multi-accounting thread?

    So, um... don't you just agree that the capitals are terrible? And also, since this question definitely hasn't been asked before, when is "it" "happening"?
  • Jammi2Jammi2 Posts: 18
    edited 02.09.2012
    Helmler wrote: »
    I sent a message to support a week or more ago about a possible multi-accounter and haven't received a reply. In fact they discourage you from reporting people as false accusations can be punished too. But as Bunzy says (and I am one to talk, I know) we are way off thread. I suggest this discussion is continued in the multi-accounting thread, if at all...

    Back to the capitals please ^^

    well id like to know more about the training grounds
  • BobFighter834 (INT2)BobFighter834 (INT2) Posts: 2,762
    edited 02.09.2012
    Jammi2 wrote: »
    well id like to know more about the training grounds

    The training grounds seem to be a new building that can be made once but upgraded multiple times that will cost rubies and increase recruitment of soldiers. Apparently, maneuver (research), drill instructor (ruby hero), the feast, PO and upgrading your barracks all give too little of a bonus on recruiting speed.
  • Jammi2Jammi2 Posts: 18
    edited 02.09.2012
    What multi-accounting thread?

    So, um... don't you just agree that the capitals are terrible? And also, since this question definitely hasn't been asked before, when is "it" "happening"?

    I do agree i was excited when i first saw the coming soon message and now that i have read everything it seems like a terrible update
  • BobFighter834 (INT2)BobFighter834 (INT2) Posts: 2,762
    edited 02.09.2012
    Jammi2 wrote: »
    I do agree i was excited when i first saw the coming soon message and now that i have read everything it seems like a terrible update

    Yeah - I was looking forward to it, but there are going to be less than 50 capital cities so I think it's been an opportunity wasted. Yet again, GGS came up with a good concept (only this time it was actually a player that got the idea) and ruined it: this has happened before with swordsmen (they are terrible but good multi-purpose soldiers could have introduced new tactics) and the Thorn King event (they failed to realise the psychological aspects - people saw "final reward = 300 rubies" and "90% resources lost" and instead of using their brains and working out that they didn't have to send over resources or that you get rubies along the way and up to 500 amazing soldiers, they freaked out).
  • LOL LOL2LOL LOL2 Posts: 566
    edited 02.09.2012
    The whole main purpose is to have few of them so alliances actually fight ofr them and not have GGS hand out castles for everyone to have in their possession.
  • Jammi2Jammi2 Posts: 18
    edited 02.09.2012
    Yeah - I was looking forward to it, but there are going to be less than 50 capital cities so I think it's been an opportunity wasted. Yet again, GGS came up with a good concept (only this time it was actually a player that got the idea) and ruined it: this has happened before with swordsmen (they are terrible but good multi-purpose soldiers could have introduced new tactics) and the Thorn King event (they failed to realise the psychological aspects - people saw "final reward = 300 rubies" and "90% resources lost" and instead of using their brains and working out that they didn't have to send over resources or that you get rubies along the way and up to 500 amazing soldiers, they freaked out).

    I like the update in theory and I understand that they want people to fight over them it is suppose to be a war game but only adding 50 when they're over 2000alliances (at least in my server) is just another good idea poorly executed
  • BobFighter834 (INT2)BobFighter834 (INT2) Posts: 2,762
    edited 02.09.2012
    LOL LOL2 wrote: »
    The whole main purpose is to have few of them so alliances actually fight ofr them and not have GGS hand out castles for everyone to have in their possession.

    In theory, that sounds great. In actual fact, it is GGS wasting time and money for something designed to destroy "wing-to-wing alliances" which won't work anyway.

    Resource villages were designed to be fought over. What actually happens is big players get 30 per world, small players get 1/2 total and when you capture one the person you took it off starts getting extremely angry.
  • LOL LOL2LOL LOL2 Posts: 566
    edited 02.09.2012
    Well who wouldnt be angry if you took a rv off of them its just to much of an hassle to retake it.
  • LOL LOL2LOL LOL2 Posts: 566
    edited 02.09.2012
    In theory, that sounds great. In actual fact, it is GGS wasting time and money for something designed to destroy "wing-to-wing alliances" which won't work anyway.

    Resource villages were designed to be fought over. What actually happens is big players get 30 per world, small players get 1/2 total and when you capture one the person you took it off starts getting extremely angry.

    well destroying wing-wing alliances wouldn't work for various reasons, one of them being say if an alliance chose not to be an alliance under someone more powerful, guess what would happen to them everyone would attack them like crazy.
  • bloodyepicnessbloodyepicness Posts: 42
    edited 02.09.2012
    LOL LOL2 wrote: »
    Well who wouldnt be angry if you took a rv off of them its just to much of an hassle to retake it.

    lol a rv is a rv
    a resource village is just part of a game
    There's too much drama in this game

    I like the idea of breaking up the "wing-wing alliances"
    This game is supposed to be a war game.
Sign In to comment.