Home English (UK) Update Questions & 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

Discussion: New Gem Changes + More Veterans

1410

Comments

  • edited 23.08.2014
    triangle wrote: »
    Unfortunately, I personally do not consider battles being decided by whoever is the most "lucky" to be very good battles. This must be a difference in opinion, but I prefer chess matches over dice rolling.
    If an opponent is stronger than you, shouldn't he win? If an opponent is stronger than you, but he loses due to a random luck generator, would't that be pretty unfair? I certainly think it is.
    But in the current system, wouldn't the "stronger player" with better equipment and therefore better gems, have a better chance of getting those additional KG? A 10% chance for 100 additional troops, will end up working out as an average of 10 additional troops per battle. On average therefore, the current system simply allows the stronger player to win by even more.

    Thanks triangle for the explanations. You are right that the battles should be mainly about strategy, but i believe that a little dose of luck is important too. Just think how many battles in history were gained by simple luck. Also, in my opinion the battles are more interesting with this factor. Of course the value of the gems/possibility of activation must be quite balance in order not to overwhelming the skills of a player.

    The last one of my concerns are that the gems are now becoming exactly like the equipment. In my opinion it is totally wrong as it should have a different game function.
    iwannagail @ WWW 1
  • marste3marste3 Posts: 20
    edited 23.08.2014
    triangle wrote: »
    Alright, let's take a hypothetical. Let us say that they introduce an update that decreases the strength of gems, and said that all old gems would be converted into the new one. Would you be happy then? No, you would say that you attacked the RBCs with the express expectation of gaining this particular type of gem, and that GGS was breaking an implicit understanding between the studio and the players, that when we attain an item or bonus, the value of that item remains the same.
    You attacked those RBCs knowing that these where the gems you would be getting. You weighed the benefits of sending that attack, including all resources, coins and gems, and found that the cost was less. Now saying that this decision resulted as a loss for you is silly, because by that decision you proved beyond doubt that you found the benefits to be greater than the costs.
    I believe that the fact that GGS is taking care to make sure that the value of the products of decisions we agreed to remains the same, is a very good step forward. If the value of items or bonuses is regularly changed with such updates, then it may be that the balance between cost and benefit in decisions we have already made is shifted. That is what I believe to be unfair, as it impacts decisions that we no longer have any influence over. And I consider it unfair, wether we gain from this change, or not.

    I don't mean to be rude but I wasn't asking for another hypothetical scenario. All I'm trying to say is that I'm disappointed by the original gem introduction and the fact it's been such a failure. I'm fully aware of all the other things I've gained from hitting towers i.e. coins, food etc. I have not actually used or tried to use one of these 'old gems' as I thought the whole concept is pointless.

    Perhaps a better consultation process with it's players could have prevented this original addition to the game or delayed the original addition. If it was a good addition then they wouldn't be making these changes. I can't help but feel I could have gained something more worthwhile since this addition though. That's just my opinion. I should have been more clear in my original post but I was in a rush and just posted it.

    Personally, I think GGS should be more pro-active and less re-active, but I know if that happened they would never implement new updates as most people will reject most of them because of the amount of ruby additions, and GGS sole purpose is to make money. Maybe they should aspire to be like some other gaming companies that focus on making a really awesome game and watch the money roll in after, but some of the companies I'm thinking of now don't run a live game 24/7 and I've never played a game like this before. I like the game but it's not targeted at the masses despite the TV adverts. This game is too demanding for most people and is probably funded by some very wealthy players. So I think this game is more of a niche, and very successful niche companies listen to their customers. Did GGS actually listen to us first? Probably not. They've analysed the update and realised that it's not been very popular with the masses. So what have they done, took on board some of the players suggestions at last. Nothing lasts forever and everything has a life cycle, the best companies can extend the life cycle of their products for a long time by keeping their customers happy. I can't help but think this game has slipped into decline, or it will one day soon if GGS keep throwing in these updates at us without taking on board the feedback. Another problem is that these updates are never fully explained to us before they are implemented so how can we properly judge them? Again, this is all my opinion. I could be making some very good points or some very bad points.
    marste @ en 1
  • German Empire4German Empire4 Posts: 5
    edited 23.08.2014
    Overall, it looks like a nice update but the gem update doesn't really make a difference to many players, except if there new & don't understand the concept & didn't know about the new update. Another thing GGS you should listen to people's opinions more & change those things that people really want. Another when will you update the Capital, Metro's, etc., even though my alliance doesn't have one, still they haven't been updated in quite a long time for alliances that do have one & want an update.
    German Empire4 @ usa1 [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    "Enthusiasm for a cause sometimes warps judgment"-William Howard Taft.
  • Obelix.Obelix. Posts: 31
    edited 23.08.2014
    they are so bad at explaining their update!

    they never write what it will mean 100%
    ...
  • edited 23.08.2014
    Gems gems gems gems again,

    I WANT EQUIP !!!!

    STOP IT !!
  • dragons sword 3dragons sword 3 Posts: 72
    edited 23.08.2014
    well , I think the gems arent so bad and they are cool . they have good effects.
    so got disagree with you.
    they are a part of this game and you have to accept this fact.
    dragons sword 3 @ WWW 2
  • WYZ (GB1)WYZ (GB1) Posts: 56
    edited 23.08.2014
    tactital game not a online casino :(, i just hate them coz i need more time for archivments and gem dont have any, everytime the techy is here i sell all most likely 20 fields of them ,, its hard already to acquire legs n epics now.
    gems all the time errrr!! and the efects are a crap by my view lol
    WYZ @ en 1
  • cur (skn1)cur (skn1) Posts: 126
    edited 23.08.2014
    well , I think the gems arent so bad and they are cool . they have good effects.
    so got disagree with you.
    they are a part of this game and you have to accept this fact.

    ^^ you might have ALL your castellan and commanders super good and dont need the equipment much anymore, but those who have horible castellan / commanders need the equipment more than the Gems... so saying its cool that they cant get there equipment is abit selfish :p

    there has been 100 of posts with complains that we dont get the equipment as we used to, now they bring a "Gem update" with a comment that they thanks for our feedback ... I find it a little ironic that they forgot to listen to our feedback, and I feel sorry for those who really work hard getting good castellan/commanders but has to deal with GGS updates.... getting alot of Gems and not the equipment they need so badly.

    if I started playing the game now, HOW ON EARTH should I get my 90/90 cast etc.... they dont make any updates for new players / lower level players, all updates are based on high level, heavy ruby users, with gems that only strong players need and vets that only lvl 70 can make and sooooo on.....

    without new players the game will slowly go down hill...
    cur, Nordic 1
  • kalokkalok Posts: 1
    edited 23.08.2014
    I think u guys r never satisfy. It is very good update and u r talking about the difference between lvl69 & 70, i think the difference is what that differ them from each other. Their must be a difference b/w them to encourage lvl69 to reach them at lvl70 as soon as possible.
    kalok @ in 1
  • dragons sword 3dragons sword 3 Posts: 72
    edited 23.08.2014
    hi cur2

    first of all ,I do have a lot of awesome equipment but I am not selfish ! so please ,lets be polite . I know you didn't mean something bad but remenber its every ones own idea.
    now , I know tat its getting harder to get god equipment but you should now forget if you have a good commander with "treasure hunter equipment " like me + the new type of gems ( +x% increases the chance of finding good equipment and gems ) you will find good equipment easy ! now , for example , I am a level 28 player and I have 2 legendary equipment and almost 10 epics using my commander ! I even got a lot of help from my gems !
    so , you should not expect a epic or legendary in each attack to barons and barbarian and... .

    so , I know it is hard but you should work hard for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    dragons sword 3 @ WWW 2
  • triangletriangle Posts: 425
    edited 23.08.2014
    iwannagail wrote: »
    Also, in my opinion the battles are more interesting with this factor. Of course the value of the gems/possibility of activation must be quite balance in order not to overwhelming the skills of a player.
    A matter of opinion then. Ah well, not much more to be said then
    iwannagail wrote: »
    The last one of my concerns are that the gems are now becoming exactly like the equipment. In my opinion it is totally wrong as it should have a different game function.
    Yes, this was my initial objection when the gems where first introduced. Although I had a slightly faulty impression of what the gems would end up being, the general point still stands. While the gems are unique in some regards, such as the ability to tie them with equipment, and the "X additional troop slots", it is debatable if this really is enough to make them worth adding to the game. And, even if they where worthy of being added, why, then, armored underpants (which would be a far cooler equipment type), aren't.
    marste3 wrote: »
    Perhaps a better consultation process with it's players could have prevented this original addition to the game or delayed the original addition.
    Look in my signature. There's a link to a thread I wrote that deals directly with this issue.
    marste3 wrote: »
    If it was a good addition then they wouldn't be making these changes. I can't help but feel I could have gained something more worthwhile since this addition though. That's just my opinion. I should have been more clear in my original post but I was in a rush and just posted it.
    Your feeling of dissatisfaction is fully understandable, but I would argue that it is not very justifiable. The reason why I gave that hypothetical is that it is one that I have seen many times. In several updates being discussed on these forums, it has happened that a particular feature became less effective, and all existing examples of this feature would be changed to be their newer, less effective versions. This has, in past examples, made many people unhappy, as they felt that GGS was retroactively changing the costs and benefits of decisions they had agreed to in the past (such as, attacking another RBC), and could therefore no longer influence. Now in this update, where a feature (gems) is being made stronger, I see people arguing that their old gems should be changed to be the new version.
    Now, you are, of course, not the same person as the people who argued against the changing into the new feature in the first example, but the general notion that people want whatever will benefit themselves most, rather than what is the most fair, is still very striking. At least from my perspective.

    You may feel that you should have gotten more out of those old gems, but if you accept that GGS is allowed to retroactively change the features of items you already attained to make them more powerful, then you must also accept that GGS is allowed to retroactively change the features of items you already attained to make them weaker. And that is something that many people, in past forum discussions, have declared to be unacceptable.
    My Thoughts:
    Two years of Playing GGE: Independent Alliance and None Ruby Players
    How GGS handles our Feedback

    Why I decided to Leave
    Thoughts on the Legendary Update

    Achieved title of "the terrible", on the 8th of August 2014, without buying rubies, and while playing in an independent alliance.
  • D1237 (US1)D1237 (US1) Posts: 193
    edited 24.08.2014
    We still need more information. I figure we will get some on Monday.
    D1237 @ usa 1

    aHat4DbkRrlHa.gif
  • DawnlandKingDawnlandKing Posts: 4
    edited 24.08.2014
    I think that the update will be a very good one, especially for the gems, but I think that you should make another update where you make the kingsguard soldiers stronger. That way this new update with the new vets will not make Capitals things of the past and will give players a chance to defend from players with Kingsguard soldiers.
    DawnlandKing @ WWW 2
  • contrilioncontrilion Posts: 328
    edited 24.08.2014
    great update love the new vets ill be saving up my dollars
    contrilion @ WWW 1
    level 70 legend
    HADES DAWN!
    HELL BOYS!!!

    18-hades.jpg
  • ScotslordScotslord Posts: 56
    edited 24.08.2014
    Love all the "this is a great update" comments, all i can say is on past history, no matter how "good" the updates looked on announcements, when implemented they have turned out to have major flaws in one way or another. I also wonder if these "great updates" are to take our minds off all the crappy updates, auto-war, 100% espionage reports that are not 100%, foreign bot invasion, not to mention all the bugs and glitches that never get fixed. I would much prefer if GGE dev team concentrated in fixing the bugs that have been in this game for an excessively long period of time, and stopped bringing out more and more updates that introduce even more bugs to this already baddly bugged game.
    All in all, with past history if udates, ill reserve any judgements about any announced update untill such times as it is implemented and tested, since GGE dont actually test anything before release.
    Scotslord @ en 1
  • dragons sword 3dragons sword 3 Posts: 72
    edited 24.08.2014
    hi scotslord
    I agree that SOME updates were bad and useless , for example as you said the auto war was a total disaster but some weren't so bad . for example the foreign invasion was not so bad though the most players hated it I and my alliance and friends love it ! it is fun. for example thanks to it I raised in 2 glory titles and so did my alliance leader and our alliance leveled up ! and most the people n liking it weren't a to get the op rewards and the solders the wanted . I my self was top 20/50 every single time exept in the second invasion ! I know there are better guys out there though.
    so any ways I know that there were some bad updates but there were some good ones too .and I agree that there are a lot of bugs for example the newest bug is the achivments of the new event .

    I agree , GGE should fix bugs too but lets be happy that this update wasn't good for the ruby wales , atleast for now
    dragons sword 3 @ WWW 2
  • ScotslordScotslord Posts: 56
    edited 24.08.2014
    Double post, first one ever, lol
    Scotslord @ en 1
  • ScotslordScotslord Posts: 56
    edited 24.08.2014
    hi scotslord
    I agree that SOME updates were bad and useless , for example as you said the auto war was a total disaster but some weren't so bad . for example the foreign invasion was not so bad though the most players hated it I and my alliance and friends love it ! it is fun. for example thanks to it I raised in 2 glory titles and so did my alliance leader and our alliance leveled up ! and most the people n liking it weren't a to get the op rewards and the solders the wanted . I my self was top 20/50 every single time exept in the second invasion ! I know there are better guys out there though.
    so any ways I know that there were some bad updates but there were some good ones too .and I agree that there are a lot of bugs for example the newest bug is the achivments of the new event .

    I agree , GGE should fix bugs too but lets be happy that this update wasn't good for the ruby wales , atleast for now

    I am glad you like the foreign invasion, personally i hate it, regardless of the easy glory, which in my mind deminishes the value of the glory titles, but mainly because its GGE bots that we are fighting, costing us coins troops tools etc, even if they are res tools, they still take time to make, and use up resources, while the bot can use troops and tools with no cost to anyone, just seems totally unbalanced to me, and normal game play grinds to a halt while we have to fend of GGE bot attacks, as mentioned before in previous posts, if i wanted to play bots i would be playing my Xbox or PS3, this is/was supposed to be a tactical or strategy MMO game, not some beat the bot game :(
    Scotslord @ en 1
  • dragons sword 3dragons sword 3 Posts: 72
    edited 24.08.2014
    well , we aren't fighting there bot's exaclly though .
    well , rubies are supposed t have advantages but they have more than that, so we are fighting with rubies !
    dragons sword 3 @ WWW 2
  • longshankslongshanks Posts: 934
    edited 24.08.2014
    Is there a purpose to adding MORE veteran research?

    Why not just change the values on the current veterans? The current veterans will become obsolete and a waste of space.

    Players don't need to wait longer to get these troops. Make a research tower level 3 and add new functionality, but don't ask players to research a new soldier for +10 added attack power.
    4/23/2014: GGS realizes that this player and customer won't drink the kool-aid.

    **the rule of 3** GGS usually gets it right on the 3rd try. Be patient.

    Be careful if you speak the truth, your post might get deleted by a moderator.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Sign In to comment.