Lenzabi's views and news

coolman1012 · 07.09.2014

Lenzabi wrote: »

True as e have discussed the mechanics of the game leave something to be desired

Balance is pretty much not there

Too many "Oooh! Shiny!" events to distract the younglings.

Too many ways to spend rubies to the point where the gape between the major ruby buyers and those with fixed, limited, or no income cannot compete for long if at all (See Balance).

And sometimes they overload us with multiple "events" etc, but hardly the ones that actually help, architect is less rare than the researcher.

The new events are garbage. The equipment is junk, too much effort and troops that could be used for glory, and a shit ton of coins wasted in transport costs, in troops and resources. Only even I remotely like is the nomads, sure ggs will screw that up, oh wait they already did!

clintrich (US1) · 08.09.2014

The game is dead...get over it... GGE murdered it with bad updates and side shows that would make the carneys of old jealous .. oh and the murder weapon used was the dull blade of greed.

Dun Gon (INT2) · 08.09.2014

aidan952 wrote: »

Personally, my interest in this game is practically nil. It gets harder and harder to play the game as a bit of entertainment for a couple hours, which was what it was like when I joined. Now, it's almost a chore; recruiting and collecting taxes, attacking towers, making tools, it all used to be a fun aspect of the game, I used to enjoy it along with everything, but now. . . . .

I dunno, with the Invasion update and all, it's seeming like I am forced to spend more time playing if I want to survive as a non ruby buyer, which is difficult anyway because of real life issues and weird schedules.

I've been seriously considering quitting for the past few months, I would have done it already if it weren't for the relationships that have been forged. GGS really disappointed me, this game used to be enjoyable, exciting, and rubies where a thing one could buy for a small boost, but the proverbial chasm has widened, and GGS had better show some extreme necromancy skills before long, or everything's going to go terribly for this game.

When I joined the game, the level cap was just expanded to 60 I believe. Kingdoms were not yet out. Ruby players could actually struggle fighting Non-Ruby players. Now..

Urúvion (US1) · 10.09.2014

Dun Gon wrote: »

When I joined the game, the level cap was just expanded to 60 I believe. Kingdoms were not yet out. Ruby players could actually struggle fighting Non-Ruby players. Now..

Agreed, the games nothing like it used to be. I think I joined when they brought out the Blade Coast, it was much better back then.

TannerM. (US1) · 10.09.2014

aidan952 wrote: »

Agreed, the games nothing like it used to be. I think I joined when they brought out the Blade Coast, it was much better back then.

No, you've been here longer than that, the blades coast still isn't that old.

Urúvion (US1) · 10.09.2014

TannerM. wrote: »

No, you've been here longer than that, the blades coast still isn't that old.

Perhaps, is the date below my avatar reliable? Do you know?

deathsweeper (US1) · 10.09.2014

TannerM. wrote: »

No, you've been here longer than that, the blades coast still isn't that old.

I remember joining when they first brought out the colosus. Back then they had no smithy but sword brothers, no villages in kingdoms, and a lot of other stuff. But at least then there was no auto war and nobility contest just for wheel of fortune.

TannerM. (US1) · 10.09.2014

deathsweeper wrote: »

I remember joining when they first brought out the colosus. Back then they had no smithy but sword brothers, no villages in kingdoms, and a lot of other stuff. But at least then there was no auto war and nobility contest just for wheel of fortune.

I remember the sword brothers, it was odd when they switched over to equipment for a bit because I didn't understand it for the first few days. I always thought they don't use the look feature to its full potential which is upsetting. Despite not having as much content and such, the game was a lot more fun before all of the ruby BS that we have now but then again, I think that's the point of the thread anyway so it goes without saying.

I also checked the date and I guess its older than I thought, it came out 3 / 12 / 2013 if I was on the right thread.

Lenzabi (US1) · 11.09.2014

On another issue, when I took a break back in 2013 and quit the game, I came back to discover a new thing....
When I left, the RV agreement between alliances was already well set by many alliances, but war could make them up for grabs, I understood that.

What was not so sacred when I left were Outposts, if a castle owner felt the opponent for glory was too strong at the main, they would go for the OP instead for glory/honor. Of course the war gear was not yet so popular, and it was still just a commander to lead the army and he needed numbers of troops and tools to prevail. OPs were usually not well set to defend as a main was, but I and my old alliance worked on making our OPs hard nuts to crack so they were as strong as many other players' main castles. Most of the bigger alliance players I saw also had such impregnable looking OPs that made lower level player mains look shabby.

I come back and so many players and alliances threaten war if one simply attacks an OP. Just an attack, not an attempt to capture or steal the bloody things!

So, what happened to make OPs as sacred as RVs? What did I miss in the summer months of 2013 as I was away.

TannerM. (US1) · 11.09.2014

Lenzabi wrote: »

On another issue, when I took a break back in 2013 and quit the game, I came back to discover a new thing....
When I left, the RV agreement between alliances was already well set by many alliances, but war could make them up for grabs, I understood that.

What was not so sacred when I left were Outposts, if a castle owner felt the opponent for glory was too strong at the main, they would go for the OP instead for glory/honor. Of course the war gear was not yet so popular, and it was still just a commander to lead the army and he needed numbers of troops and tools to prevail. OPs were usually not well set to defend as a main was, but I and my old alliance worked on making our OPs hard nuts to crack so they were as strong as many other players' main castles. Most of the bigger alliance players I saw also had such impregnable looking OPs that made lower level player mains look shabby.

I come back and so many players and alliances threaten war if one simply attacks an OP. Just an attack, not an attempt to capture or steal the bloody things!

So, what happened to make OPs as sacred as RVs? What did I miss in the summer months of 2013 as I was away.

Well, I know what you're saying, everything by the rules of GGE is open game but there are a few reasons. For one, many people will stock one op full of attackers and if you hit that one, you essentially steal honor, get a lot of glory while they get very little, and you wipe out their attack force in one hit. Especially when they have a fully stocked main you could've hit. Most players take it as a personal attack which also pisses them off because they can't retaliate then do to the loss of troops unless they hardcore ruby buy and re-recruit that whole army. Its also because you have the ability to hit their main, while being the smarter option, its more cowardly to hit an op because you don't think you can win at main. Kind of like, if you don't have the balls to take someone on at the main, don't attack. Also, these are just opinions, while I'm not in favor of hitting ops outside of war, I'm not saying your side or my side are right. Just different viewpoints to be considered. Besides my one op holding attackers, I also set my ops up to be as defensive as I can make them so I agree they should still be set.

Hobee · 12.09.2014

Lenzabi wrote: »

So, what happened to make OPs as sacred as RVs? What did I miss in the summer months of 2013 as I was away.

TannerM.'s answer, just above my post here, provides the basic reasons.

In addition to those basics, I once proposed this to you...

Hobee wrote: »

Similarly, the more excuses we make to attack one another, the less entitled we are to complain when Goodgame Studios acts further upon its belief that it can drastically manipulate us to battle each other even more (and grab more money) by offering us silly rewards--like glory titles, weekly honor rewards, and even sillier baubles that have come along with updates lately.

If we show less interest in battle rewards and loot, and we use these forums to communicate our interest in other, possibly new activities, then Goodgame Studios will eventually reconfigure its revenue stream to capture some of that value, instead of doing what it's doing now.

...i.e. I think what has changed, since 2013, is that much of the fighting became "meta." What I mean is that the primary challenge of the game is no longer to pit skills against other players (since there's very little strategy to it, unless you classify ruby-exclusive actions and items as strategies). Now, in 2014, the primary challenge is to pit skills against Goodgame Studios itself. To some players, making outposts sacred--akin to resource villages--could be an element of this new 2014 "meta" skill set.

Well, at least, that's why I personally never attack outposts; in addition to the basic reasons that TannerM. described.

For normal gameplay, Goodgame Studios has made intelligence and strategy almost totally irrelevant. I don't like that. My response is to cut down on normal gameplay, and instead begin to define "fun" on my own terms. Not the developers' terms.

-- Hobee

BobLead · 12.09.2014

We can't attack ops? Y no one tell me dis... gonna go ahead and recall some attacks I guess..

Lord Porky · 14.09.2014

TannerM. wrote: »

For one, many people will stock one op full of attackers and if you hit that one, you essentially steal honor.

FFS.... It's a wargame. Why would you be giving them an "immune" castle where they won't be attacked? Lunacy.....

Jman1234 (US1) · 14.09.2014

Luc9986 wrote: »

Nice thread you got here Lenzabi, I enjoyed reading it.

My personal opinion is that the game is definitely money-based to an extreme extent. The foreigners are ridiculous to any non-ruby buyer. I consider myself a light buyer, I'll drop a hundred every now and again if I see a good sale/deal. I feel like GGS is adding a TON of imbalance to the game with the ability to get Horror troops for buying rubies. That puts some of, if not THE best troops in the game, in the hands of only the ruby players.

I love the idea of battle animations of some sort, I came to Empire off of a similar game run by Jagex, I really liked the system they used. Combat would start, and you would have different sets of units and different types and numbers of troops. There were 6-7 (if memory serves) slots that you could load with a single type and, to my knowledge, any number of troops. You could switch out which troops are fighting, but that wastes a turn of combat and the enemy gets to attack you with whatever he has out. It adds a lot more strategy to the game, and makes it significantly harder to imbalance it with monetary options.

To toss in my responses to what TannerM said, I agree that way too much time is needed to play this game. If GGS was smart, and wanted rubies to be spent, reduce troop recruitment time. People will build more troops a lot faster, use them in battles, and odds are the number of ruby tools used per day are going to be multiplied by 10 to the nth.

I don't think GGS even TAKES our criticisms, they seem to just ignore it, unless it gets out of hand, then they remove the forum posts and/or lock em up. A successful game needs to do what its players want, not what lines their pockets. There's a happy medium, and it won't destroy the game and make it suck for anyone that doesn't have unlimited resources on their hands.

The alliance systems do get tedious at times, but as a member of Free Kingdoms I find that finding targets isn't too terribly difficult.. I fought a couple battles a few days ago that were less than 100 away from me in-game. Though there are times where I wish a target would actually retaliate.

I've been playing this game for roughly two years now, I've watched a lot of updates happen, they seem to be getting progressively worse.

I doubt our thoughts will make any difference, but hey its worth a shot

What was this game called because I would like to play it

TannerM. (US1) · 14.09.2014

Lord Porky wrote: »

FFS.... It's a wargame. Why would you be giving them an "immune" castle where they won't be attacked? Lunacy.....

Well, to begin my reply, I didn't state any of this as fact or tell anyone that this is how they should play or run things. I didn't say this in an attempt to start a debate, just answering a question. Simply put, its a matter of perspective and personal opinion. We could go back and forth about it for days and neither of us will be right or wrong. If you wish to continue discussing it, message me.

steve5482 · 14.09.2014

William Rufus wrote: »

The best way to improve this game, imho, would be to offer a flat rate variant for players once they have achieved a certain level.

If players paid a flat rate, say $5 a week, were given rubies for their five bucks and had no other way to buy rubies, the game would improve dramatically.

Imagine a game focused on skill and not credit cards. (Yeah, and before y'all protest that rubies are not important, picture how a week of war would take its toll without rubies for putting out fires and recruiting instant armies once the original ones are trashed).

Also imagine a game without all the small time annoyances designed to sell more rubies. Give everyone three construction slots, 5 recruting slots, etc, and have them focus their moderate amount of rubies on stables, bakeries, and fast attacks. No point in trying to extort ruby buys when no one can buy extra rubies. A lot of game mechanics could be streamlined if 'ruby pushing' were removed.

Lastly, while all this could be easily done, I am not holding my breath. A stable but moderate income stream does not appear to be of interest to ggs.

Though an interesting idea I wonder if that really would work. Maybe if the game were since the beginning like that, but certainly not if they would switch over to that right now.

Where would you put the threshold level?
Would stockpiling ruby tools under that threshold be allowed?
I guess that transferring tools via RV/OP capture must be changed.

My guess is that many non-ruby players above that threshold would leave. Some of the heavy ruby buyers would probably leave too. Multi-accounters would have an advantage.

The more I think about it, the more problems pop up.

GGS probably does not have this choice anyway, except if they would reduce (or partly outsource?) their workforce.

I agree with you that "a game focused on skill and not credit cards" would be indeed interesting, but it seems too late for this game now.

TannerM. (US1) · 14.09.2014

steve5482 wrote: »

I agree with you that "a game focused on skill and not credit cards" would be indeed interesting, but it seems too late for this game now.

Well, how much would this game be focused on skill even if there weren't rubies. You have to consider, this isn't a game that requires anything other than free time and knowledge.

Lenzabi (US1) · 15.09.2014

Another item that has crossed my mind. Events

Let's see, Thorn King, rare these days, Blade coast, newly re done under ground event, nomads, Berrimond and storm islands, then the little events like architrect(always seems to show when resources are low) the shady and shadow camps, the plague docs, the merchants/armorers, etc pretty regular, nobilkity and glory tourney, as well as travelers and alchemist

But the new researcher is very rare
Nomads rare
Thorn King is rare
architect is irregular
Technicus is often
other camps are regular
foreign invasion, (yes I added this) as it is one that shows up a lot lately, we have as many as 6 of these events/mini events at the same time, hard to finish when so many things are going on at once, and they do not let us finish any single one unless we push ourselves to ignore the others, but the foreign one does demand attention does it not?

Not to mention the glory strikes we send at each other already or the alliances warring with each other, but then GGS sends their own war at us every 3 weeks, all of these updates and still they can't fix the alliance description or some of the other old bugs.

Luc9986 (US1) · 16.09.2014

The foreign invasions are just to waste our tools, that much is pretty obvious. It forces participation, when frankly they should have a participation button so you can opt out if, say, like myself, your attack army was wiped out defending an outpost recently, and you can't even attack the foreigners for glory.

RE the outpost subject, I started this game pretty long before the outpost rule came into play. My personal opinion is how it was when I started, ops should be fair game. They are a castle and should be defended as such. I'll be the first to admit I've made low blows on peoples' ops (usually during wars) by purposefully targeting someone's outpost with the least amount of upgraded towers, because when/if they defend it, you can slaughter them with a 30% courtyard bonus and get a load of glory. Though I should note I did that with resource tools, before I started stocking up on armorer offense tools. So it was way harder to get any decent amount of glory in the first place.

Wars should really be PvP only, its not GGE's right to literally wage wars on its players. While the event may test peoples' mettle in battle, and while it may be a good opportunity to farm some glory without starting another server war, it really shouldn't logically exist in any game of this genre.

The new researcher is rare but that is not a hindrance for someone who has played for like two years like I have, I have all of the non-researcher non-ruby researches done, except for the last of the new veteran researches which I am currently in progress of getting. I can just let resources build in my main and transport it around until he shows up, and knock out another research.

I don't know what changed in GGS to pull all these bad updates out, but it really needs to stop.. I'd have quit by now if I didn't already have a pretty significant investment (for a teenager with no job) in my outposts

As for the question about the name of that other game, I don't recall it, unfortunately.. and would probably be banned for even mentioning another game's name on these forums

Mr.assassin2 (US1) · 16.09.2014

Couldn't agree more on the fact that this game is repetitive beyond measure....far too many events to keep up with at once, unless you ruby your way through all of them.

I dont think GGS realizes that while doing well in GGE is an enjoyable prospect to entertain oneself with; it isnt in fact something that anyone would, or should, lose too much time and energy(and for some money?) over..as it is just a game(a game that may be failing at that).

Lenzabi's views and news

Comments

Founder of Camelot Beasts.

Leave a Comment