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!
Comments
Castle gardens only increase the number of troops you could potentially keep, not how many you can send. A level 60 could have a castle full of Festival Squares and be stronger than a level 70.
Research could be instantly completed by anyone who has unlocked it.
Equipment again, is irrelevant. There are level 50 players out there with better equipment than some level 70s.
KGs are irrelevant also, anyone in a capital alliance can recruit these, not just level 70s. And you can achieve the terrible status as easily at level 60 as you can at level 70.
I'll say it once more, there is no difference between a level 60 and a level 70 when it comes to sending out attacks. You could as easily say that ruby players should only attack ruby players, because they have better PO or access to ruby glory tools etc etc.
There are many criteria that make one player stronger than another, and after 60, level has nothing to do with it.
If your argument was true, then level 60s wouldn't be allowed to attack level 50s either.
proud member of TheDarkDominion
That's a great idea, but in reality, probably unworkable. As an example, If anyone managed to burn Brian58 with wooden tools for defying the plan, I'd eat my main castle.
Your second, third and fourth points are only applicable to ruby players (in fact, they are really only applicable to players with virtually infinite rubies) and/or, in the case of the point about equipment, EXTREMELY active players who have time to sit around attacking RBs all day. For everyone else, PO, research and equipment take time.
Your fifth point suggests that the level disparity between a level 70 and a level 51 is not unfair if the level 51 is in an alliance with a capital. Fine, but what about all the other level 51s?
I'm not suggesting that every battle between a level 60 and a level 50 will be fair, but I recognise that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and a rule that no-one could attack anyone below their own level would be going too far. 10 levels seems to me to be a fair place to draw the line.
The unfairness which exists as between ruby players and non-ruby players has to exist in order for GGS to make their money, so it is pointless to think that might be changed. But there is no reason why level 70s could not be discouraged from attacking more than 10 levels below.
Two more points in addition to the ones I made above:
(6) Level of development in Burning Sands and Fire Peaks (level 70s have had much more time to develop their castles in these kingdoms).
(7) Likelihood of having lots of RVs in BS and FP (for players who accessed these kingdoms very recently, it can takes ages just to get a small handful of RVs, even if you are actively looking; level 70s have had longer to accumulate them).
Just take a step back for a moment: the idea that the average player is not stronger at level 70 than they were at level 51 is absurd!
That is not my argument at all. It could also be said with equal measure that a level 60 is far stronger than a level 51. The difference between level 60 and level 70 is what we are debating here and what additional benefits a level 70 will have over a level 60.
Between level 60 and level 70 not much goes on really, just XP points. The level cap was raised by GGS because they wanted to extend the end game, but they provided virtually no additional features.
Here's something to think about:
If GGS decided to raise the level cap to 80, and between 70 and 80 all that happened was that more tower XP quests and new wall, gate, tower and keep levels were introduced would you only let them attack level 70s? This is exactly hat happens after level 60, which is why most alliances allow their level 70 players to hit level 50s.
We are talking about one player attacking another players in a single battle here.
Yes it is true that most level 70 players will have stronger castles in Burning Sands than a level 51, but so will level 60s. At level 60 all players should have finished their sand castles.
PJboi @ WWW 1 (inactive)
PJboi @ usa 1 (inactive)
proud founder of Sargent of TDS elite on UK server and War marshal of LOST SOULS HB currently general
contact me if u want to join us
I know this may seem weird but hen you reach level 70 you can start to strategise your attack to gain maximum glory so you can become archduke ????? the terrible or conquerer and this allows them to recruit kgs that is probs what the guy was doing he is just working to get kgs because he has no capital and he is level 0 has a bit more time as I guess a few less quests to do so has time to recruit thousands of troops
Yes it was, but then Tim reached level 51 and became a glory target for level 70s. Yes, at that level it's going to be hard to defend against larger attacks from higher level players, but that applies as much to level 60s as it does to level 70s. Leve51 is a bad place to be really, because players haven't had the time to build the new features and be in a position to defend themselves properly, but that could be said for various stages of the game, and also applies to every player who enters a new kingdom or captures a new outpost. It's just a part of the game, and GGs loves it. Puts players in a position that they are under a lot of pressure to get defenses upgraded, work on equipment, hold more troops and be in an alliance who can suitable support them.
this is not a level issue in my view, it is a game issue and can be seen throughout empire. If everyone always felt secure then they would be less inclined to work hard on strength.
It's just a question of degree. All other things being equal, a level 70 will be stronger than a level 60 and a level 60 will be stronger than a level 50. I don't think the fact that there are relatively few game features which are absolutely inaccessible below level 60 (other than level 5 walls/towers) changes that fundamental reality.
Whatever the history, the question is: is it good for the game to have level 70s attacking level 51-59s or not? I think not. As a level 51 in an alliance with several active players in the 50s, I am well placed to say that huge attacks from long-established level 70s pursuing the never-ending chase for glory are a problem. Attacks from level 60s are notably less common. This may simply be because these days there is an accumulation of level 70s looking for people to attack. But this is actually another angle on the same point: even if we assume that level 60s are generally as strong as level 70s, protecting people in the 50s from attacks from level 70s would be beneficial because it would dramatically reduce the number of attackers. So from the point of view of level 50s there's really no doubt that the rule change I'm proposing would be a positive thing.
Then, of course, you have to look at the other side of the coin. How would it affect the level 70s on the glory trail if they could only attack people over level 60? Well, they'd have fewer people to attack. This would have two possible consequences. First, they might resort to attacking each other more. Seems to me that would be no bad thing: it might even add a layer of excitement that attacking a level 50-something does not offer. Second, they might just get less glory. These two points bring the argument full circle, back to the original question as to what can be done to narrow the gap between the top few alliances and the rest. The gap might perhaps be narrowed if the large numbers of level 70s in the top few alliances had to either attack each other more or settle for less glory.
Everyone wins, no?
The more players that are available as targets should in theory be better for the game, and by enabling level 70 players the option of hitting anyone over level 50 that should spread the load. More targets = less chance of being attacked.
Pacted alliances will never end up attacking each other due to a lack of targets, but they would attack the existing targets more often if there were less available.
I guess it all comes down to personal choice, some level 70 players only attack other level 70 players, some don't. Some only attack fully built level 4 castles as a minimum, some don't. Some try to gain the most glory form attacks, some pick easy targets for the win.
What I think would help the game a lot would be that all players within a certain level range could provide glory no matter what their honour. More targets is good
Level 45 ruby buyer beats level 60 non ruby buyer.
Level 40 ruby buyer beats level 50 non ruby buyer
Level 14 ruby buyer beats level 33 non buyer ( in most cases)
Need I say more?
Ruby Buyers win. Period.
Big alliances are strong because they have lots of ruby buyers.
Small alliances are weak because they have few ruby buyers.
I think that's a fairly narrow minded point of view, and you are assuming that all ruby buyers can afford to send full armourer attacks and spend money on equipment, and that all non ruby buyers can only afford wood defense tools and have bad equipment. And also that all big alliances are ruby rich and that all small alliances are ruby poor.
We are talking about one player attacking another here. Certainly at higher levels, all active players should be able to afford armourer defense tools whether they buy rubies or not. With the in game rewards and events ALL players should be able to use ruby and armourer tools for occasional attacks and for defenses.
Not trying to boast here, but I have some pretty good castellans and commanders and I have spent zero rubies on equipment. I have good equipment from hitting towers, completing events and generally being active.
Maybe you need to reword that post and replace "non ruby buyer" with "inactive non ruby buyer" and "small alliance" with "inactive, small alliance".
This is unsustainable. I see no alternative - I will now run my honour right down. 500-600 honour should do the trick? What a sad state of affairs.
PJboi @ WWW 1 (inactive)
PJboi @ usa 1 (inactive)
proud founder of Sargent of TDS elite on UK server and War marshal of LOST SOULS HB currently general
contact me if u want to join us
Well this is something that all players see at some point. Making it to level 51 means you can receive larger attacks and opens up the game mechanics so that you can be attacked by anyone and glory can be provided if your honour is high enough.
Once you have your walls, towers and gate upgraded you'll be in a better position to defend, but now the most important thing to be doing is working on equipment. Looking at the weekly rankings I see you have looted zero so far. If you can't spend millions of rubies on equipment, you need to get looting to get the items and the coins to upgrade them, it's the only way to be competitive in this game. My guess is that you lost so many troops because your castellan didn't match up to the commander, and combined with the restrictions of troop numbers on your walls, that meant that you sustained high losses.
Players are always looking for good glory, and it seems you might be able to provide that. But as I've said previously in this thread, a level 60 players could have sent the same attack, same tools and had the same commander, so a 10 level rule wouldn't really help you that much, as the problem at this point has to do with the number of troops you can fit onto the walls and the equipment you have installed.
Dropping honour will certainly help, and if you are unable to defend that honour then it seems like the best plan. It's much easier to defend when players can send less troops and less tools at you.
But back to the topic, would any of the suggestions help you in this situation with regard to alliance level? Single attacks from player to player would still be allowed, so not sure if it would help you much at all. At this point, your best bet would be to talk to your local Dark players and see if you can work something out with them. You seem to be in the same geographical area, and from your posts I would imagine your diplomatic skills are quite good.
I am not sure if the idea of making it impossible for level 70 to hit level 50 would help the game. From one side if it would lead to a lot more level 60-70 players it could work positive. However if there would still be many players who quit between level 50-60 for other reasons, and belief me there are a lot of other reason player quit then just being pick on by higher level, it would only end in having less targets for the few level 70 in game. This would probably lead to even more level 70 quitting. Personaly i think the second option is what will happend.
This problem of being attack a lot is not new. I remember when I first started playing if you got your hp above about 1000 you became an instant target no matter what your level was, max level was I think 40 maybe lower. The way the game is setup if you do not want to be hit often you either need to get into a strong alliances or you need to keep your hp low it has been like this for +2 years now regardless of level.
If I look at the journey my own alliance has had, It took us about 1.5 years to max out all the important alliances improvements like members amount and support speed. I don’t even want to know how much real money that cost I am sure it would be scary
I still think a new alliances could theoretically grow to be very strong if you find enough active player and at least a hand full of decent ruby spenders who got the patient to be the underdog for a long time. Thing is most people, and I can understand this, don’t have the patient to be burned over and over again, to keep their hp really low and to basically play like it’s a castle builder game most of the time for months if not years, until you finally get to the point where you show the big dogs you are no longer a puppy.
When I first started playing I think my alliances was like the stubborn underdog for about 5-6 months then we had built enough strength and in game coalition with other smaller alliances to stand up against the strong families of that time.
I like the idea of baldrick for making it possible for alliances to merge depending on the price this could help out a lot. More players is not necessary a stronger alliances but if they are active it makes it a lot easier to at least defend yourself against stronger family’s and have a stronger position in peace negotiations. Also makes it easier to collect rubies for upgrade like support speed if you got more player willing to donate.
I think that the biggest thing ggs can do to decrease the gap is to significantly reduce the cost of most upgrades or increase the amount of rubies an alliances can earn in game. For example by increasing the rewards for higher alliances gp level. Another option could be to offer some sort of event where an alliances could earn increased levels of the perks like support speed for say 3-6 months to help them out then the free perkexpires and you would need to do the event again. This event needs to not be a race between all alliances like the gp event that would just result in the big family's taking the price. it should be more like an individual event like the colossus.
I do spend time working on my equipment when I'm not putting out fires and replacing defenders
However, I'm not suggesting I'm the best a level 51 can be: of course I'm not, and there are ways I could make myself stronger. However, I'm not the worst level 51 either, by a long chalk. I'm very active, I understand the game well, I have enough rubies to buy ruby defence tools, and I have a decent alliance. If these issues are a problem for me, isn't it likely that they're a problem for many level 51s in mid-ranking alliances? And isn't it likely that they contribute to players in the 50s either looking for a move to the top alliances or giving up?
You asked whether my original proposal (that whether glory is obtained from a battle should depend on respective alliance levels as well as the respective honour and xp levels of the players) would really help with the problem I have identified. Well, yes it would. The attacks which give rise to a real problem are not just random attacks from any old level 70s; they are almost all from level 70s in the top few alliances (to be honest in the case of my alliance they're almost all from the TDU trio of alliances).
Let me try a football analogy. Alliances are like football teams, and like in football the best players mostly play for the best teams. In football, the teams are split up into divisions so that they generally play against teams of broadly equivalent stature. Under my proposal, GGE would work in a similar way. Level 21-35 alliances would generally fight each other (unless they were willing not to get honour or glory), level 8-20 alliances would generally fight each other, and so on. The best level 8-20 alliances would eventually rise to level 21 and effectively be "promoted". In other words, they would start fighting the top alliances when they were ready to give it a good crack.
Pursuing the football analogy a little further, the way GGE works at the moment is that Man United are allowed to choose to play Torquay every week, whether Torquay like it or not, and they get rewarded in more or less the same way as if they had chosen to play Arsenal.
yes I agree they should make a new ranking structure for alliances so its fair and bsk TDU and UKnighted wont be at the top and it will give alliances something to aim for
PJboi @ WWW 1 (inactive)
PJboi @ usa 1 (inactive)
proud founder of Sargent of TDS elite on UK server and War marshal of LOST SOULS HB currently general
contact me if u want to join us
Also, alliances would try to lose glory in order to avoid attacks. Simply jump out when the attack lands to ensure maximum personal glory and minimal alliance glory. I can tell you for a fact, this is what would happen. Players will do almost anything to get the upper hand and benefit personally from loopholes.
If the aim is to avoid attacks from the stronger alliances then the simple solution is to lose all your honour. Honour is where the divisions come into effect in this game and the stronger alliances tend to have higher honour. But then we are back in the situation that there are less available targets and therefor players with higher honour will be attacked more often.
The best solution to this game would be to restrict the effect of fires and make it easier to repair. Honour and glory are to an extent free in this game, it's the fires that cost so much and are probably the main reason for so many players leaving. How about GGS make the fire system based on alliance level and that might help a lot. This could work in real time with the cost to complete being based on the level of the alliance you are in during the repair time frame. I know what you are all thinking now, but the player could just jump back to Yerovil Town for the repairs. Well, hopefully I have a solution to that:
Lets say a player has 1,000 units of damage to their castle. So in my new fire system, all the damage would be lumped together into one big repair and that could fit into a single construction slot. so let's say 1,000 units takes 20 hours to complete and used 4,000 resource units in the current system. For a level 40 alliance that would not change. But for a level 1 alliance that could be quartered. Making the entire repair time 5 hours and the resource units needed only 1,000. The time remaining would be adjusted if you moved alliances. So if you jumped to a level 40 alliance the invested time and resources would start to run out faster, and the repairs would only partially complete. A player would then need to restart the remaining damage repairs dependent on their current alliance level and the process would start all over again.
I'm slightly confused now, but I think the system might actually work.
Let's help with the fires, it's the most expensive and restrictive part of the game. Fix this and you will fix a lot of what has gone wrong in the game.
Ideas on a postcard...
EDIT: Afterthought.
How about the cost to open gates is based on level difference? With in 10 levels the cost remains the same, but for larger level difference the cost is significantly reduced, with attacks of more than 20 levels being completely free.
1-20 member alliance
21-35 members
36-45 members
45+ members
PJboi @ WWW 1 (inactive)
PJboi @ usa 1 (inactive)
proud founder of Sargent of TDS elite on UK server and War marshal of LOST SOULS HB currently general
contact me if u want to join us