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!
SUGGESTIONS, PRAISE AND CRITICISM: This is criticism!
Zan Wrai (GB1)
Posts: 317
Criticism 1: Achievements.
Why have event achievements? What about all the lions in EN1 who will never get all the achievements? This is bad. With the latest update came the Thorn King achievements, and I will never be able to get them, as I joined after the event. I think I speak for hundreds of players when I say that you should REMOVE event achievements.
Criticism 2: Adventure map.
Why do you need the WHOLE map? Some players have the entire path to the treasure castle, but they can't proceed because some obscure piece in the wilderness is missing. This shouldn't happen. At least let the final piece be a part of the path, not a piece of the wilderness.
Criticism 3: Alliance diplomacy.
Why do you have a limit of five pacts and five non-aggression agreements, but infinite war space? This is a fine example of GGS logic. And I've never seen an alliance with more than two wars, except those weirdos who are trying to prove they're the strongest/stupidest alliance on a world server.
Thanks for reading my criticisms. Please use the poll.
Comments
1, there will be more berimond battles
2, Makes sense
3, I don't see any problem as it currently is...
You will have to wait until next time...
All the rest since 'all' is just 'cause the previous message was too short.
Why have event achievements? To reward active players who complete them, rather then passive players who either miss them or fail to complete them time and time again thus not completing the achievement. Certain event achievements like the Thorn King event are sign of these who played for that length of time, veteran players so to speak. There is no reason to rob them of their achievement of how long they have played the game. I likely speak for many dedicated players to leave them be.
A wise general would wish to survey the whole area including the surrounding wilderness in case lets say there happens to be a camp in the wild which could possibly be called for as reinforcements. It eliminates the element of surprise. You don't want to be following the road only to realize that there is a tower off-road (which they can easily implant in the next maps), I see nothing wrong with this whatsoever and it is such a diminutive factor anyway.
I would of thought this would be the most obvious one of them all. I remember there being huge outrage before the capital update of sister alliances and the whole concept of large alliances just forming alliances among one another then picking on these below them. Point being this helps prevent this to an extent. This is a war strategy game, it would make sense for them to encourage war in any way possible as it is a fundamental "action" and tactical part of the game. If we had it your way we could possibly have "empire peace" on some servers, dull as hell. Not good for marketing.
unfortunately, GGE did not account for human nature, naturally, none of us want to be attacked, so we make peace with everyone...
frankly, i disagree with all of them, the ones about berimond and thorn king presumably meant that these events will come round again (although nobody liked either of them oh well) b.stinson described pretty well why we only hav 5 pact and NAA spaces, and @ the map critisism, yeah, i guess so, but it's not really that important, i don't really care, and i doubt many other people do to be honest.
I think calling players who wish to actually fight in a war game "weirdos" is weird. Seriously, ever been at war with two major alliances with 30 divisions each? Sometimes, they declare war on you for burning them, and sometimes you declare war on them for them burning you. This is a war game, so why would you sterotype players who like to fight by saying that they're all "Weirdos who want to prove their the strongest?"
Sorry for the confusion, my point was to have wars limited, not pacts unlimited.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I simply meant that sometimes these threads come up, "Who is the bravest alliance in EN1", "Who is strongest in USA1", etc.. and some of the guys just go and declare war on hundreds of random big alliances, win the "Who is bravest" thing(or not), and then get ripped apart. I was not steriotyping players who want to fight, only those who declare hundreds of wars for no reason and claim to be the best.