Home English (UK) Ideas, Suggestions & Feedback

We need new Moderators!


ModeratorWe are always on the lookout for talented people to join the team. That means you! If you think you could help us organise and inform the community while entertaining everyone then apply. We need people to help out on the forum, behind the scenes with announcements, on Discord and on our other Social Media channels.


If this is something you think might be of interest to you, HERE

support glory

mad dog19mad dog19 Posts: 188
Why don't we have glory when we support someone??? Just then i supported another player in my alliance who would of lost for sure if it wasn't for me supporting him/her. But do i get any reward for supporting someone in my alliance who would of been pulverised?
So why don't we have glory or some other rewards system like a share in the loot from supporting defenses?
:huh:
Post edited by mad dog19 on
mad dog19 @ WWW 2
«1

Comments

  • xJadetsssxxJadetsssx Posts: 5,983
    edited 10.02.2013
    This get suggested and asked a lot, so make a search to see more information about this topic, I personally am against it, you should help your team because you want them to suceed, not to earn something back. on other threads you can see a more detailed discussion.
    TD7ircx.png
    Does this looks like the face of mercy?

    Lurking the forums since 2011.
    xJadetsssx @ Ɩ ǝsɹǝʌıun
  • YuragonerYuragoner Posts: 188
    edited 10.02.2013
    When you get attacked you get all the glory so it evens out.
    Yuragoner @ usa 1
  • andyd71andyd71 Posts: 21
    edited 10.02.2013
    i reward anyone who supports me with a shipment of res... it may not replace any troops they lost but its a nice thank you
    andyd71 @ usa 1
  • MartynyosMartynyos Posts: 17
    edited 12.02.2013
    mad dog19 wrote: »
    Why don't we have glory when we support someone??? Just then i supported another player in my alliance who would of lost for sure if it wasn't for me supporting him/her. But do i get any reward for supporting someone in my alliance who would of been pulverised?
    So why don't we have glory or some other rewards system like a share in the loot from supporting defenses?
    :huh:

    I COMPLETELY agree.
    Martynyos @ nl 1
  • SurfenSurfen Posts: 4
    edited 17.02.2013
    I agree, I support my alliance whenever I can. I lose troops due to poor defense setup or stronger forces as the case may be, I spend whatever it takes to get my troops there ahead of the attack forces, whether it takes coins or rubies (as I am a ruby player). It would be nice just to share in the Glory/Honor as compensation, at the very least some way for the alliance to know that you too contributed to the win/lose.
    Surfen @ usa 1
  • Ultimatereaper1Ultimatereaper1 Posts: 30
    edited 17.02.2013
    i also agree. who was the person you supported mad?
    Ultimatereaper1 @ WWW 2
  • Uriel SeptimVIIUriel SeptimVII Posts: 256
    edited 17.02.2013
    I like the idea. And I also agree you should help your alliances member because you want to do so. But you still should get compensated with glory for your soldiers dying like they would if you were attacked or you attacked. That is what being in an alliance is about, supporting one another but glory should be given to all who lost troops.
    "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."-Sun Tzu-[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • GleamerGleamer Posts: 166
    edited 17.02.2013
    xJadetsssx wrote: »
    This get suggested and asked a lot, so make a search to see more information about this topic, I personally am against it, you should help your team because you want them to suceed, not to earn something back. on other threads you can see a more detailed discussion.
    Yes, I want to help my teammates and see them succeed as well. When you send support, you win or lose as a team. Sure, your alliance do get the glory points but everyone who helped out should also share in the glory for being a team player.
    If you don't like reading criticism of the game, then don't read
  • Uriel SeptimVIIUriel SeptimVII Posts: 256
    edited 17.02.2013
    Gleamer wrote: »
    Yes, I want to help my teammates and see them succeed as well. When you send support, you win or lose as a team. Sure, your alliance do get the glory points but everyone who helped out should also share in the glory for being a team player.
    Well put Gleamer.
    "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."-Sun Tzu-[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Colt442Colt442 Posts: 2,168
    edited 18.02.2013
    Yeah this comes up every week do a search & see what all the other threads say this is rly getting old fast.
    If ya can't support your mates without reward then ya aint much of a team player enough said!
    20a6j54.gif
  • Uriel SeptimVIIUriel SeptimVII Posts: 256
    edited 18.02.2013
    Colt442 wrote: »
    Yeah this comes up every week do a search & see what all the other threads say this is rly getting old fast.
    If ya can't support your mates without reward then ya aint much of a team player enough said!
    The arguement isn't about if you are willing to support you alliance member for nothing and not be consider a team player. It's about being a team player and gaining something for your sacrifice of soldiers.

    I for one, do not mind sacrificing my soldiers to help a fellow alliance member to victory, but giving the supporting cast a percent of the glory or glory for their dying soldiers wouldn't hurt the game. Wouldn't change ruby sales. Wouldn't give players advantages. So it isn't a bad idea no matter how many times it is suggested. It wouldn't hurt the game as a whole.
    "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."-Sun Tzu-[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Mickey5612 (US1)Mickey5612 (US1) US1 Posts: 20
    edited 18.02.2013
    Even partial glory, maybe based on the commander you send with the supporting troops would be in line. You get glory for attacking, glory for being attacked, but nothing for sending your troops into the valley of death.
    Mpinto55 @ usa 1
  • evets4evets4 Posts: 3,798
    edited 18.02.2013
    Either way the glory and honor lost/gained goes to the alliance... it has no real purpose.
    evets4 @ usa 1
    Retired From Goodgame Empire
    Coordinates: 715:639 | |
    (Former)General of The Impervious
    http://theimpervious.webs.com
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Zoe TheroncrossZoe Theroncross Posts: 19
    edited 18.02.2013
    Good suggestion; the idea of glory is to get credit for battle action. Why do you not get any credit when you act in battle on someone's behalf?

    A possible solution would be to award glory based upon a formulaic comparison of armies. For instance, if you support me and the troops you provide me with are 2/3 of the defending army's overall strength, You should get 66% of the awarded glory for the victory. Basing it on percentage of overall strength of the defending army is significant versus sheer numbers of troops (if you are providing 2/3 of the army in sheer numbers but have only supported with low level ranged and melee fighters and only 20% of the defending strength- not really possible, I know- you would not be entitled to the same 66%).

    This would not only give incentive to support each other within the alliance, but if I am only getting 30% of the value for defending my own castle I will be more inclined to be more attentive to my own defenses rather than relying upon others.

    Finally, it prevents a player whom is not supporting him or herself sufficiently from moving up in title based upon glory that they did not truly earn.
    Zoe Theroncross @ usa 1
  • Zoe TheroncrossZoe Theroncross Posts: 19
    edited 18.02.2013
    Colt442 wrote: »
    Yeah this comes up every week do a search & see what all the other threads say this is rly getting old fast.
    If ya can't support your mates without reward then ya aint much of a team player enough said!

    Colt442, while I respect your opinion and understand that hearing the same thing over and over can be annoying, I think you may be a bit short sighted on the argument you provide. It really isn't about being or not being a team player, it has more to do with giving credit where credit is due. If you provide me with troops that lead to my victory where I might otherwise would have lost and I take all the glory points for it, I do not really have much incentive to keep on top of my own defenses and am going to move up in glory status disproportionate to my abilities. If I have not earned the title of Baron on my own accord, why should I be entitled to the same status as someone such as yourself who did?

    Additionally, you have sacrificed players at the cost of time, money, and resources for only the mere satisfaction of knowing you helped. While this altruistic standpoint may be seen as good teamwork, it is altruistic non the less. I do not have a huge army with which I can offer support (I am fairly low level) and rebuilding lost soldiers is costly and difficult. As much as I want to help a fellow alliance member I may not be able to justify it from a cost/no benefit standpoint.

    I think giving proportionate credit in a fight is not only fair, it is appropriate.
    Zoe Theroncross @ usa 1
  • Baldrick (GB1)Baldrick (GB1) Posts: 4,948
    edited 18.02.2013
    This has been brought up a lot and I too am against it, although I did once post a thread asking for exactly this, but I have now come to the conclusion that it wouldn't be good for the game.

    Imagine this scenario:

    Player A is in an alliance of 20 players and is getting attacked but is in a position to defend him/herself.

    15 members of his alliance decide to send support, even though it is not required, simply to gain some glory.

    Instead of receiving 3,000 glory is is split and he only gets 3,000/16 which is 187.5. Quite a difference (based in an even split).

    There's also a possible loophole (sorry Uriel) where if an alliance has an inactive member all the remaining members could fill that players castle with troops and then someone else leaves the alliance and sends an attack, giving glory to all those who support without any risk of damage to their castle.

    Gaining glory for defending should only go the the target in my opinion as he/she is at risk of building damage and loss of loot. These risks do not apply to supporters.

    I am of the opinion that supporting is something you should do to help your alliance and not for personal gain. you do it for someone and they'll do it for you, so everyone ends up getting glory anyway.
    It's been a while.....



  • Uriel SeptimVIIUriel SeptimVII Posts: 256
    edited 18.02.2013
    I see your point and I agree, but the supporter is risking his defending army by supporting. There have been times I have sent over hundreds of a mixture of halbs & long bowmen only to find out 10% of my troops survived when my alliance member troops barely were scratched. I was then left to re-recruit my entire defending army taking a little chunk out of my coin.

    As I've stated I'll sacrifice my entire army helping by supporting, but having to recruit while advanced level robber barons are bearing down on you or maybe a possible player attack can be a hassle. Something should come of it whether it be glory or coin for the defense win since the reports do come to you as well.
    "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."-Sun Tzu-[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Baldrick (GB1)Baldrick (GB1) Posts: 4,948
    edited 18.02.2013
    Yes, supporting weaker alliance members can be really frustrating especially if your troops are stronger then theirs as they go on the wall first. Worse if they haven't got any tools in place. Ive lose 1k defenders in this way.

    I don't think that glory should be given but maybe there could be some other reward that isn't instant. Maybe even an achievement? Or some kind of recognition in the alliance, maybe a total number of troops who have supported next to the donations would be a way of showing your support without an actual reward.
    It's been a while.....



  • Uriel SeptimVIIUriel SeptimVII Posts: 256
    edited 18.02.2013
    Achievement is more like it, you get them for sending resources, why not supporting troops? I'd be satisfied with that.
    "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."-Sun Tzu-[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • GleamerGleamer Posts: 166
    edited 18.02.2013
    Baldrick wrote: »
    This has been brought up a lot and I too am against it, although I did once post a thread asking for exactly this, but I have now come to the conclusion that it wouldn't be good for the game.

    Imagine this scenario:

    Player A is in an alliance of 20 players and is getting attacked but is in a position to defend him/herself.

    15 members of his alliance decide to send support, even though it is not required, simply to gain some glory.

    Instead of receiving 3,000 glory is is split and he only gets 3,000/16 which is 187.5. Quite a difference (based in an even split).

    There's also a possible loophole (sorry Uriel) where if an alliance has an inactive member all the remaining members could fill that players castle with troops and then someone else leaves the alliance and sends an attack, giving glory to all those who support without any risk of damage to their castle.

    Gaining glory for defending should only go the the target in my opinion as he/she is at risk of building damage and loss of loot. These risks do not apply to supporters.

    I am of the opinion that supporting is something you should do to help your alliance and not for personal gain. you do it for someone and they'll do it for you, so everyone ends up getting glory anyway.
    The person can always tell his alliance members that he doesn't need any troop support. If they insist just to get glory points, then they really aren't much of a team-mate anyways.

    It doesn't have to be an even split. What if the person whose castle is being attacked will received an automatic 30%. The other 70% will be calculated based upon number of soldiers defending, of which the castle lord's share must be at least equal to the highest amount (X) allocated. Thus, his share will be (30+X)%.

    No matter what, he'll still get a sizable amount of the glory points available.

    As for the possible loophole that you mentioned, the inactive member will receive (30+X) regardless. Is it still worth it to send huge troops to die on both side just to get a small percentage of the glory points? Building troops requires time and coins. If you're going to sacrifice them, since 1 side has to lose anyways, doesn't it make more sense to attack someone else for the full glory and honor instead of wasting both you and your team mates army?

    If you share the pain, then you should share the gains as well.
    If you don't like reading criticism of the game, then don't read

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file