Unfair Advantage

Billy962 · 24.07.2014

luchien wrote: »

I get attacked by someone I believe is going to excuse the attack on an account that is on fire I have the right to send one food resource to let them know I am active, it's no different than an email. I want to insure someone that I am still active I send one food resource it's faster than sending emails. No harm done to anyone. Certainly not an excuse to attack. I suppose if GGS finds that my sending one food resource is outside the parameters of the game and I am somehow threatening or bullying someone they will ban me for that activity.

AS I said it's not personal I'm just playing the game. This thread isn't about any of that so why don't we just discuss the topic. You and Ben007 seemed very determined to keep changing the subject, and make it about me.

A mail is received faster than food. You can just copy/paste it.

You seem to think it's all about you. Quit being so self centered. I'm just addressing your points.

luchien (US1) · 24.07.2014

Billy962 wrote: »

A mail is received faster than food. You can just copy/paste it.

You seem to think it's all about you. Quit being so self centered. I'm just addressing your points.

LOL, again you seem to want to make this about me, how I choose to communicate is kind of irrelevant. The result (fast or slow) is the same, I have sent a msg. that essentially says, I'm logged on and playing. They get one email notifying them. They don't even need to open it just go on the the next or delete.

Again, the topic of the thread isn't about me or my situation. I'm sorry I used it as an example without using the names of the other players involved.

What are you ideas Billy. LOL, you wouldn't anyone to think you are intentionally trying to change the subject.

Andrew Milner (US1) · 24.07.2014

luchien wrote: »

LOL, again you seem to want to make this about me, how I choose to communicate is kind of irrelevant. The result (fast or slow) is the same, I have sent a msg. that essentially says, I'm logged on and playing. They get one email notifying them. They don't even need to open it just go on the the next or delete.

Again, the topic of the thread isn't about me or my situation. I'm sorry I used it as an example without using the names of the other players involved.

What are you ideas Billy. LOL, you wouldn't anyone to think you are intentionally trying to change the subject.

basically if the potatoes of the server want cops or to be a top alliance, then they need to work at it and learn the game like everyone else instead of whining about how the top alliances have kgs and its no fair. GGS isn't going to make end game content easily available just because so people don't want to put the work forth.

As for you sending 1 food i would take that as you don't care and your just trolling and would continue farming you.

Billy962 · 24.07.2014

luchien wrote: »

LOL, again you seem to want to make this about me, how I choose to communicate is kind of irrelevant. The result (fast or slow) is the same, I have sent a msg. that essentially says, I'm logged on and playing. They get one email notifying them. They don't even need to open it just go on the the next or delete.

Again, the topic of the thread isn't about me or my situation. I'm sorry I used it as an example without using the names of the other players involved.

What are you ideas Billy. LOL, you wouldn't anyone to think you are intentionally trying to change the subject.

LOL. Again, I was just replying to you.

LOL. Why would I want to suggest an idea? I don't think it needs any changing.

Lord Porky · 25.07.2014

luchien wrote: »

I get attacked by someone I believe is going to excuse the attack on an account that is on fire I have the right to send one food resource to let them know I am active....

There does not need to be any "excuse." It's part of the game.

Emperor Scott I · 25.07.2014

Lord Porky wrote: »

There does not need to be any "excuse." It's part of the game.

Thank you! GGE can you install a like button to the forums?

luchien (US1) · 25.07.2014

Lord Porky wrote: »

There does not need to be any "excuse." It's part of the game.

Hi Porky, first this thread has nothing to do with attacking players that are on fire. Billy and a few others apparently don't want a discussion about the premise of the thread, which, would be having four alliances control all CoP's in the game and agreed to work together as a super alliance.

I was responding to Billy concerning his position that I am insulting him and others. If you had read what was in the thread you would have seen I stated there is nothing prohibiting attacks on a castle that is on fire. I see you are from the sub of Dream Team. If you have a comment or suggestion about what the thread is about please feel free to post it.

luchien (US1) · 25.07.2014

Billy962 wrote: »

LOL. Again, I was just replying to you.

LOL. Why would I want to suggest an idea? I don't think it needs any changing.

Great, we now know you position. Is it now your intent to disrupt the thread continuously because you don't agree?

luchien (US1) · 25.07.2014

Billy962 wrote: »

LOL. Again, I was just replying to you.

LOL. Why would I want to suggest an idea? I don't think it needs any changing.

LMAO, how disingenuous of you Billy. This whole discussion was started by Ben007 and you. If you have nothing to add to the thread and you disagree with what is being discussed. Then it appears your intent is to disrupt any discussion as much as possible.

007Ben2 · 25.07.2014

Ok. In the interest of keeping "on topic," here is the original post.

luchien wrote: »

It seems (especially to those not in an alliance holding a capital, etc.) GGS has allowed an unfair balance of power on the server. I am curious as to why? Is it as some suggest GGS makes more money from the big ruby buying players in alliances like KoN, DT, GK, The Misc. Is there a possibility by keeping those alliances in power attacking others on the server at will promotes the purchase of rubies to just survive in the game? Is it possible for GGS to set penalties for a high LVL alliance with huge membership and resources that attacks smaller low lvl alliances as it does on the player lvl by taking honor/glory from the high lvl alliance attacking low lvl alliances.

It's a strategy game. Some people are better tacticians than others. On day one of the CoP update, they were all unoccupied and now have found owners. I don't see any connection with GGE allowing this other than not installing a limit, which would have to have been present at the time of the update. Now it would make a ton of top alliance members mad.

See, this is where so many have gone wrong. As a general rule, never put another player or alliance's name in the fourms connected with anything negative. They can search their name/ alliance name and see everything anybody ever said about them.

Why? Because screw those lvl 40 alliances with 65 members. (GGE does not offocially recognize subs without pacts/NAAs)

This would have reprocussions far beyond the indended target(s). My lvl 13 alliance has lvl 70s down through lvl 16 (as of yesterday). What if a lvl 70 hit a lvl 69 from a rival alliance. Pretty even matchup, right? Well, screw you, lvl 70. That player is in a lvl 4 alliance. You just lost honor. Vice versa, the lvl 69 revenge hits and drops a 90% late detection commander attack on our lvl 16. With that commander, nobody can support in time. The lvl 16 loses to nobody's suprise. No loss of honor since honor gain from alliance lvl and loss of honor from player lvl cancel out.

Billy962 · 25.07.2014

luchien wrote: »

LMAO, how disingenuous of you Billy. This whole discussion was started by Ben007 and you. If you have nothing to add to the thread and you disagree with what is being discussed. Then it appears your intent is to disrupt any discussion as much as possible.

You know, I don't have to stay on topic if you don't.

Lord Porky · 25.07.2014

luchien wrote: »

Hi Porky, first this thread has nothing to do with attacking players that are on fire. Billy and a few others apparently don't want a discussion about the premise of the thread, which, would be having four alliances control all CoP's in the game and agreed to work together as a super alliance.

I was responding to Billy concerning his position that I am insulting him and others. If you had read what was in the thread you would have seen I stated there is nothing prohibiting attacks on a castle that is on fire. I see you are from the sub of Dream Team. If you have a comment or suggestion about what the thread is about please feel free to post it.

Okay, Luchien, good answer. Many of the discussions and threads on this forum make me want to take a baseball bat to some people... I feel that this game's forum has an over-abundance of childish people, nutty people, and insecure people. I also admit that I can be a total brat myself, at times.

It seems (especially to those not in an alliance holding a capital, etc.) GGS has allowed an unfair balance of power on the server. I am curious as to why? Is it as some suggest GGS makes more money from the big ruby buying players in alliances like KoN, DT, GK, The Misc. Is there a possibility by keeping those alliances in power attacking others on the server at will promotes the purchase of rubies to just survive in the game? Is it possible for GGS to set penalties for a high LVL alliance with huge membership and resources that attacks smaller low lvl alliances as it does on the player lvl by taking honor/glory from the high lvl alliance attacking low lvl alliances.

I'm retired and my account is in an "old folks' home" alliance. I was in the main Dream Team for a fairly long time. It was a big thing when we finally got a Capital, but personally after doing that, the game held much less interest for me. I'm surprised how many people held on through the very long war with Hive that recently ended.

Anyway, there is no external standard of what is "fair" in this game. The server programming is what it is, and multi-accounting is forbidden, and you're not supposed to make real threats to other people, but other than that we have a ton of freedom as players.

The game is not "very old" as such games go, and things are still changing and settling out. There are now many alliances with pretty much all level 70 players. This was much less the case a year ago, say.

The game is also a type of big social experiment, and it's fascinating how things develop on a server. Not to say that a given person will be pleased by it, but it shows us things about human nature, and about how many people approach this game.

For example, there is often a tendency to want to be in "a big alliance" or a "huge group of alliances," due to perceived increased safety and a lesser chance of getting attacked. I once heard it described as, "wanting to graze safely in a big herd." We have seen numerous times that it may not be all that safe, and that enormous meta-alliances with 10, 20, 50 wings may be very weak, overall. I have seen this happen in other games too.

I don't like where many servers are at - with a group of powerful alliances which is relatively invulnerable. It's tough to avoid that, though - if your alliance is one of 4, 5, 6 or more "big guys," then if try to go it as a lone wolf, you may find that it's your team against all the others, and thus people want to aggregate things.

It's not going to be a static thing - people get bored and it is a wargame, after all, and we have seen and you will see wars among the big guys. As far as GGS changing things to prevent such groupings, they have done nothing and may not do anything.

As far as ruby-buying, I don't know if changing things would increase it or decrease it. You can be sure that Empire's owners and controllers monitor it closely, and they are evidently satisfied with the way things are going.

(Personally, I think they have taken a "rich" option where they hope for a relative few players that spend lots of money on rubies. Costs for playing the game at a certain level have gone up over the past couple years, and the gap in playing-power between heavy ruby users and non-ruby players is extreme, in my opinion. Of course I don't know this for sure, but I think that if they went with a more "middle income" or relatively "cheap" option, i.e. catering to players who buy a moderate or smaller amount of rubies, then the player base would increase so much that in the end they'd make more money in total. I was aware of some server populations declining, and this is with literally hundreds of millions of people just getting online around the world, and the number of online gamers skyrocketing. There are games with millions of paying customers, and the basic gameplay here is sound and fun - I think it could be huge....)

Of course it's possible for GGS to program the servers differently than they are now, which would further penalize "big" alliances from attacking "small" ones, or outright prevent it - make it impossible. I really don't think this will happen, though. It would have to be that the smaller one would then be prevented from attacking the big one, and you'd have a cascading effect, and it's already hard enough to find good targets, sometimes.

As far as the Honor number, who cares? Many active players have to dump Honor all the time, so as to be better able to profitably attack a larger group of players. Glory is valuable to most, and there are already some server calculations that reduce the amount of Glory and Honor that a given account may gain from hitting a smaller one

luchien (US1) · 25.07.2014

Porky,

Thank you for your insight and analysis, more importantly thank you for taking my questions seriously. I will be reading your post again more carefully. I am not interested in playing a game that is rigged (either by the company that is designing and promoting the game or by a group of players). Obviously, I am attempting to make that determination about GGE. I appreciate and enjoy the diversity of players and expect to run across the occasional bully in the game, that happens in life. I don't know if GGS will take my concerns or suggestions seriously but my true interest is to improve gameplay for all (knowing one may not please everyone).

Wolf145 · 25.07.2014

Apart from being destroyed of course. And what can a level 50 do against a level 70 who has commanders with 90% everything that give you 6 minutes and 45 seconds to see and respond to their 3 simultaneous attacks with over 3000 troops?
No I won't be shedding any tears for high level players who delight in repeatedly smashing easy targets simply to feed their enormous armies.

luchien (US1) · 25.07.2014

Wolf,

I am sorry to hear what happened to your account. In this thread I am looking for any suggestions about how GGS may make changes in the game that would permit the Super Alliance that has been formed to be challenged. The problem players (challenging) those 4 alliances (KoN, DT, GK, Misc) have is the CoP's. When GGS put in the Kings Towers the purpose was to assist alliances defend their CoP. I don't believe it was anticipated the CoP holding alliances would join together as virtual single alliance. One suggestion that has been made is that gaining control of the Kings Tower would be part of an event allowing all alliances on the server to compete for the control of a tower based on lvl and ranking. This may create enough of a shit to encourage a challenge to those alliances holding the CoP's. It has been suggested this will be stressful for the CoP alliances because they would then have to actually defend themselves.

Sock_Guy101 · 25.07.2014

i don't know a single person who is not ready for an epic war, as wrong as that sounds.

luchien (US1) · 25.07.2014

I think there are plenty of alliances and players that would challenge the Super Alliance. As long as those four continue to work together the risk appears to be great. GGS put the Kings Towers in to strengthen the holders of the CoP's I don't believe they anticipated those alliances to sit back and farm the server because to engage each other would be too stressfull.

coolman1012 · 25.07.2014

luchien wrote: »

It seems (especially to those not in an alliance holding a capital, etc.) GGS has allowed an unfair balance of power on the server. I am curious as to why? Is it as some suggest GGS makes more money from the big ruby buying players in alliances like KoN, DT, GK, The Misc. Is there a possibility by keeping those alliances in power attacking others on the server at will promotes the purchase of rubies to just survive in the game? Is it possible for GGS to set penalties for a high LVL alliance with huge membership and resources that attacks smaller low lvl alliances as it does on the player lvl by taking honor/glory from the high lvl alliance attacking low lvl alliances.

People like you disgust me. "Oh no, high level players too good, I can't stand up to them". Yeah, we were all low levels once smart guy. I had to play this game for over a year and a half, before getting research done, castle mostly upgraded, rvs, equipment, etc etc. No sh*t high level player are better than low level players, because we either worked for it, or paid $$$ for it. It's not fair that some lazy player like you gets an advantage over us, when frankly you don't deserve sh*t in this game without putting in the effort, and time, or paying the $$$ to get there instead, and you have no right to be good yet.

Andrew Milner (US1) · 25.07.2014

coolman1012 wrote: »

People like you disgust me. "Oh no, high level players too good, I can't stand up to them". Yeah, we were all low levels once smart guy. I had to play this game for over a year and a half, before getting research done, castle mostly upgraded, rvs, equipment, etc etc. No sh*t high level player are better than low level players, because we either worked for it, or paid $$$ for it. It's not fair that some lazy player like you gets an advantage over us, when frankly you don't deserve sh*t in this game without putting in the effort, and time, or paying the $$$ to get there instead, and you have no right to be good yet.

Can I get a hell ya?

luchien (US1) · 25.07.2014

Andrew Milner wrote: »

Can I get a hell ya?

LMAO. How are things at the country club. Isn't it a shame how some of "those people" are allowed to join. GGS really needs to do something about that don't you think? By the way I am a ruby player, a high level player and until the Super Alliance used it's considerable fire power gotten from holding the CoP's and Kings Towers (which apparently from what you are saying above was purchased) to attack my account for 2 half days straight and has continued attacking since, I was a fairly high ranked player. What does your personal (albeit unfounded) accusations about me have to do with the premise of this thread? Nothing.

Can I get a hell ya?

Unfair Advantage

Comments

Leave a Comment