Balance to game? it died long ago

the desroyer (GB1) · 09.01.2015

I agree with you but it is pointless to argue with GGS about rubies as it is what funds the making of the game

Lenzabi (US1) · 09.01.2015

the desroyer2 wrote: »

I agree with you but it is pointless to argue with GGS about rubies as it is what funds the making of the game

An obviously defeatist statement, if you argue that money will cease flowing, that is when they listen. they lose revenue from players who quit, or cease buying rubies and ignore their ruby deals.

Of course some are so desperate to win an ongoing, never ending game, that they pour their bank accounts into it, but that will only offset the ruby flow so long.

Also pay attention, I was also posting that while rubies are a portion of the problem, it is actual balance that has been kicked to death the most.

jamestheawesome2 · 10.01.2015

This is so true its unbearable i'm lvl 28 non - ruby player and my alliance is robbed of nothing but food why because a heavy ruby alliance can't afford to feed the damn armies they make so they rob us.

Lenzabi (US1) · 10.01.2015

jamestheawesome2 wrote: »

This is so true its unbearable i'm lvl 28 non - ruby player and my alliance is robbed of nothing but food why because a heavy ruby alliance can't afford to feed the damn armies they make so they rob us.

Yep, so as most peeps can't sit and grind their stuff to get equipment and gems 24/7, free players are basically food stock for the Ruby players who just view you as a feeding place as well as cheap and easy glory/honor [points.

Your choices as the game sits now, continue playing for free and be farmed

Buy rubies and get improved. (Now you are shelling out cash for Bakeries, watchtowers, and improving gear.

Do what I am doing and:
Cybermen-Delete-Doctor-Who-Poster_25849-l.jpg?v=25849

Cybermen-Delete-Doctor-Who-Poster_25849-l.jpg?v=25849

Kyle Ludwig Wu · 10.01.2015

This is the only profitable game in GGS, if they dont fix the balancing problem, their company is at risk.

Lenzabi (US1) · 10.01.2015

Kyle Ludwig Wu wrote: »

This is the only profitable game in GGS, if they dont fix the balancing problem, their company is at risk.

They will only listen once a large enough amount leaving are NOT replaced by new ruby suckers. I am leading the way by doing this:

Follow me brothers and sisters tired of these bad practices which will only grow worse each new "update"

doom72 · 11.01.2015

longshanks wrote: »

Get more comfortable with losing. Get better at winning. So what if someone kills 2,000 of your soldiers. Or 5,000. Fires can be fixed and soldiers can be recruited again. Learn from your mistakes and avoid repeating them. You will be feared when you can set a defense in 30 seconds without even looking at the attack

winning
isnt that what everyone wants?...
but when you win at what cost? the cost of your alliances troops. it so happens that the next day they get hit and your alliance has virtually no troops than the blame game comes in. people get upset and leave etc. another point you lose 5k against their 1k?... is that even worth defending anymore?... does that fit into the easy glory category?.... the price of winning is too high for most res players to pay nowadays and even they have to be online for so long a day that it may start affecting their lives. im not saying that it happens to everyone but im saying that when should we stop defending, how much are we willing to pay to win?....
just something to think about when someone hits you with massive amounts of troops, armourer tools etc...

geniusguy (US1) · 11.01.2015

The worst thing that happened to the game was the ability to buy 4 or 5 super commanders and 2 or 3 super casties.

Lenzabi (US1) · 11.01.2015

The only option left for the sake of one's health and sanity

hassaan786 · 20.01.2015

HERE IS A BALLANCE. HOW TO DEFEND AGAINST SUCH KIND OF BULLY S... EATER
-80% enemy moat protection
+45% glory points
+80 travel speed
+70% longer to detect army
-120% enemy wall protection
+ 90% melee soldiers' combat strenght
+ 90% ranged soldiers' combat strenght
+12% soldier limit on the flanks
increases the troop limit on the flanks by 76%

FCK .. GSS you destroy game totaly giving unbeliveable strenght to bullies ...

There is 484 troops on each flank in just 4 waves and with 5 ...

heehee3 · 20.01.2015

hassaan786 wrote: »

HERE IS A BALLANCE. HOW TO DEFEND AGAINST SUCH KIND OF BULLY S... EATER
-80% enemy moat protection
+45% glory points
+80 travel speed
+70% longer to detect army
-120% enemy wall protection
+ 90% melee soldiers' combat strenght
+ 90% ranged soldiers' combat strenght
+12% soldier limit on the flanks
increases the troop limit on the flanks by 76%

FCK .. GSS you destroy game totaly giving unbeliveable strenght to bullies ...

There is 484 troops on each flank in just 4 waves and with 5 ...

That should be more like +40% flanks and +60% court
And 5 waves
Don't forget it is all cave troops

triangle · 29.01.2015

@Longshanks
Question: when was the last time you where part of an alliance with no large ruby buyers? Because quite frankly, your post shows a level of ignorance of the issue, people's feelings and how these issues reenforce each other, that I am not used to anymore from your posts.
Where to begin?
Right, let me put it this way: Your post entails a fundamental misunderstandings about how it is to be a none or low ruby buyer. That is, you fail to understand that these issues do not exist in isolation, but rather reinforce each other in a "negative feedback loop", as it where.
To give an example, a none ruby buyer usually doesn't have as many bonuses from research when compared to someone who can buy these bonuses instantly. This leads to their attacks being somewhat weaker, and them losing on average (if we assume that skill is randomly distributed). But troops also take longer to recruit, meaning firstly that loses are more meaningful, and that none ruby buyers can't participate in events or attack RBCs as much, and therefore can't build themselves up as fast. This makes them targets for resource and easy glory hits (often from other none ruby players), reducing the number of troops even further and creating fires which reduce food, resource and troop production, and require time and resources to put out. This means that a none ruby player must spend time putting these out, during which he can't build up his OPs, meaning that he again has less troops. To escape this, good players often give in and buy rubies, and then join larger and more established alliances in an attempt to gain any advantage possible, meaning that new low-ruby players lack guidance and help, leading to bad decisions being made, furthering the cycle.
In this way, small differences like OPs taking longer to build up can spiral into bigger problems, with things like a lack of stone being big issues, and creating more problems that themselves spiral onwards.
I'm trying to remain calm here, but you telling people like me and many of my friends to effectively "man up", take the loss! Build up your strength and fight back, or leave the game! Is sort of like the buff school bully* telling his victim to either man up and fight back, or leave the school, ignoring the fact that me recruiting more troops would simply make me a bigger target for glory hits.
Yea, no. F*ck you.

*Oh, and don't even try to tell me you never attacked a low ruby player. You're most certainly part of the group, and people always say that bystanders are the most responsible.

doom72 · 01.02.2015

triangle wrote: »

@Longshanks
Question: when was the last time you where part of an alliance with no large ruby buyers? Because quite frankly, your post shows a level of ignorance of the issue, people's feelings and how these issues reenforce each other, that I am not used to anymore from your posts.
Where to begin?
Right, let me put it this way: Your post entails a fundamental misunderstandings about how it is to be a none or low ruby buyer. That is, you fail to understand that these issues do not exist in isolation, but rather reinforce each other in a "negative feedback loop", as it where.
To give an example, a none ruby buyer usually doesn't have as many bonuses from research when compared to someone who can buy these bonuses instantly. This leads to their attacks being somewhat weaker, and them losing on average (if we assume that skill is randomly distributed). But troops also take longer to recruit, meaning firstly that loses are more meaningful, and that none ruby buyers can't participate in events or attack RBCs as much, and therefore can't build themselves up as fast. This makes them targets for resource and easy glory hits (often from other none ruby players), reducing the number of troops even further and creating fires which reduce food, resource and troop production, and require time and resources to put out. This means that a none ruby player must spend time putting these out, during which he can't build up his OPs, meaning that he again has less troops. To escape this, good players often give in and buy rubies, and then join larger and more established alliances in an attempt to gain any advantage possible, meaning that new low-ruby players lack guidance and help, leading to bad decisions being made, furthering the cycle.
In this way, small differences like OPs taking longer to build up can spiral into bigger problems, with things like a lack of stone being big issues, and creating more problems that themselves spiral onwards.
I'm trying to remain calm here, but you telling people like me and many of my friends to effectively "man up", take the loss! Build up your strength and fight back, or leave the game! Is sort of like the buff school bully* telling his victim to either man up and fight back, or leave the school, ignoring the fact that me recruiting more troops would simply make me a bigger target for ruby hits.
Yea, no. F*ck you.

*Oh, and don't even try to tell me you never attacked a low ruby player. You're most certainly part of the group, and people always say that bystanders are the most responsible.

nicely put

Lenzabi (US1) · 02.02.2015

triangle wrote: »

@Longshanks
Question: when was the last time you where part of an alliance with no large ruby buyers? Because quite frankly, your post shows a level of ignorance of the issue, people's feelings and how these issues reenforce each other, that I am not used to anymore from your posts.
Where to begin?
Right, let me put it this way: Your post entails a fundamental misunderstandings about how it is to be a none or low ruby buyer. That is, you fail to understand that these issues do not exist in isolation, but rather reinforce each other in a "negative feedback loop", as it where.
To give an example, a none ruby buyer usually doesn't have as many bonuses from research when compared to someone who can buy these bonuses instantly. This leads to their attacks being somewhat weaker, and them losing on average (if we assume that skill is randomly distributed). But troops also take longer to recruit, meaning firstly that loses are more meaningful, and that none ruby buyers can't participate in events or attack RBCs as much, and therefore can't build themselves up as fast. This makes them targets for resource and easy glory hits (often from other none ruby players), reducing the number of troops even further and creating fires which reduce food, resource and troop production, and require time and resources to put out. This means that a none ruby player must spend time putting these out, during which he can't build up his OPs, meaning that he again has less troops. To escape this, good players often give in and buy rubies, and then join larger and more established alliances in an attempt to gain any advantage possible, meaning that new low-ruby players lack guidance and help, leading to bad decisions being made, furthering the cycle.
In this way, small differences like OPs taking longer to build up can spiral into bigger problems, with things like a lack of stone being big issues, and creating more problems that themselves spiral onwards.
I'm trying to remain calm here, but you telling people like me and many of my friends to effectively "man up", take the loss! Build up your strength and fight back, or leave the game! Is sort of like the buff school bully* telling his victim to either man up and fight back, or leave the school, ignoring the fact that me recruiting more troops would simply make me a bigger target for ruby hits.
Yea, no. F*ck you.

*Oh, and don't even try to tell me you never attacked a low ruby player. You're most certainly part of the group, and people always say that bystanders are the most responsible.

Helluva rebuttle! i think Longshanks is also worried that if people are discourage he will have less people to play with on this game. well, he willhave all the ruby whales, then this game of all rubywhales becomes GoodGame Stalemate for the only balance if any is in the corner of the ruby whales with the deep pockets.

triangle · 02.02.2015

Lenzabi wrote: »

Helluva rebuttle!

I should probably mention that there is quite some personal history behind that post. I know that ruby buyers are not actually as responsible as GGS itself for the current state of the game, after all, becoming as powerful as possible is sort of the point of it all. But I have had some pretty awful experiences with big ruby buyers, and to have someone come on and just dismiss my pain as insignificant whining, is rather sh*tty. Regardless of their intentions, ruby buyers are ultimately part of the food chain that is driving the game into a monoculture, and are also those most capable of potentially reversing that trend, as evidenced by the auto-war boycott.

cd33 · 05.02.2015

longshanks, you are spot on for this. i am a newbies and i understand i am at a financial disadvantage, but choose to play because i want to be able to think smart and prepare well. kudos on your position. :thumbup:

neil33 (GB1) · 05.02.2015

triangle wrote: »

@Longshanks
Question: when was the last time you where part of an alliance with no large ruby buyers? Because quite frankly, your post shows a level of ignorance of the issue, people's feelings and how these issues reenforce each other, that I am not used to anymore from your posts.
Where to begin?
Right, let me put it this way: Your post entails a fundamental misunderstandings about how it is to be a none or low ruby buyer. That is, you fail to understand that these issues do not exist in isolation, but rather reinforce each other in a "negative feedback loop", as it where.
To give an example, a none ruby buyer usually doesn't have as many bonuses from research when compared to someone who can buy these bonuses instantly. This leads to their attacks being somewhat weaker, and them losing on average (if we assume that skill is randomly distributed). But troops also take longer to recruit, meaning firstly that loses are more meaningful, and that none ruby buyers can't participate in events or attack RBCs as much, and therefore can't build themselves up as fast. This makes them targets for resource and easy glory hits (often from other none ruby players), reducing the number of troops even further and creating fires which reduce food, resource and troop production, and require time and resources to put out. This means that a none ruby player must spend time putting these out, during which he can't build up his OPs, meaning that he again has less troops. To escape this, good players often give in and buy rubies, and then join larger and more established alliances in an attempt to gain any advantage possible, meaning that new low-ruby players lack guidance and help, leading to bad decisions being made, furthering the cycle.
In this way, small differences like OPs taking longer to build up can spiral into bigger problems, with things like a lack of stone being big issues, and creating more problems that themselves spiral onwards.
I'm trying to remain calm here, but you telling people like me and many of my friends to effectively "man up", take the loss! Build up your strength and fight back, or leave the game! Is sort of like the buff school bully* telling his victim to either man up and fight back, or leave the school, ignoring the fact that me recruiting more troops would simply make me a bigger target for glory hits.
Yea, no. F*ck you.

*Oh, and don't even try to tell me you never attacked a low ruby player. You're most certainly part of the group, and people always say that bystanders are the most responsible.

Spot on.............

StrongBruno · 06.02.2015

GGE has become ruby obsessed and will probably ignore your suggestion because bringing balance to the game means being fair, being fair means rubies help but don't make you win immediately anymore, adn this means rubies are bought less havily then now. GGE made it on purpose to make events and updates that force people buying more and more ruby to keep up, just so GGE fills its pockets.

The way they manage the Berimong event is the most striking, I stayed up all night the first night building the camp because I was constantly Under attack. This morning, Wake up and BOOM 5 attacks on me with some exceeding 300-400 troops of bear units, how come? The player told me "oh because blue side was losing, the system gave a lot of unit to them". And there again, you play without rubies, I can hold 250 troops in my camp and I get defeated by someone who can hold 10 units in his camp. In other words, after this "help" from GGE so blue side can keep up, the only way for red to defend themselves after working hard to get the win is to spend rubies not to get hammered by blue... good job GEE. And don't worry, the "help" from the system didn't exist before, another sneaky update of GGE they implemented PURPOSELY to force people to buy rubies or get ripped. Even a "peaceful" event like blade coast, wait a little bit and some update will come that forces battle, although players go there and don't hit each other really, because fight = rubies so it will change soon.

I'm so disappointed by them, I remember why I left the game the first time and I'm just thinking of doing it again

heehee3 · 06.02.2015

StrongBruno wrote: »

GGE has become ruby obsessed and will probably ignore your suggestion because bringing balance to the game means being fair, being fair means rubies help but don't make you win immediately anymore, adn this means rubies are bought less havily then now. GGE made it on purpose to make events and updates that force people buying more and more ruby to keep up, just so GGE fills its pockets.

The way they manage the Berimong event is the most striking, I stayed up all night the first night building the camp because I was constantly Under attack. This morning, Wake up and BOOM 5 attacks on me with some exceeding 300-400 troops of bear units, how come? The player told me "oh because blue side was losing, the system gave a lot of unit to them". And there again, you play without rubies, I can hold 250 troops in my camp and I get defeated by someone who can hold 10 units in his camp. In other words, after this "help" from GGE so blue side can keep up, the only way for red to defend themselves after working hard to get the win is to spend rubies not to get hammered by blue... good job GEE. And don't worry, the "help" from the system didn't exist before, another sneaky update of GGE they implemented PURPOSELY to force people to buy rubies or get ripped. Even a "peaceful" event like blade coast, wait a little bit and some update will come that forces battle, although players go there and don't hit each other really, because fight = rubies so it will change soon.

I'm so disappointed by them, I remember why I left the game the first time and I'm just thinking of doing it again

Don't be silly, I don't use rubies and I burned your camp anyway

DaveHero0 (GB1) · 06.02.2015

Very well put Triangle

Balance to game? it died long ago

Comments

Leave a Comment