Home General Discussion

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

Alliance Tournament : Put up a yellow flag

[I know there are other threads on this. I didn't want my post to get lost in them.]

The Alliance Tournament is over now and many small and mid-sized alliances that are breathing a sigh of relief and trying to repair and rebuild troops.

I am well aware that many players of this game love the Alliance Tournament. I don’t.

I accept that PvP is part of this game. I‘ve been playing about 4 years now and sometimes other players attack me....

However the sheer misery of the 4 days of the tournament, the unremitting attacks was not enjoyable for me. Each player who attacked a target in our alliance no doubt thought that s/he was the only player doing a hit on that player; sadly they often were not.

So, since I’m fairly sure GGS won’t stop the alliance tournament, (and if players want it, why would they), can some modifications be made so that many players don’t have to endure this again?  (Please don’t tell me: “It’s only a few flames, put them out” or “So you lose a few troops; recruit more”; "It's a War Game.")

Here’s one idea: You have to ENTER the Berimond Event, for example. Could it not be made that you have to ENTER the Alliance Tournament? That you pay resources, coins, or rubies to enter either an Alliance Tournament or Single Player version? This would show a map with only the castles of WILLING participants.

The word WILLING is key to this for me. I’m UNWILLING to take part.

Since I don’t think the modifications I’ve suggested will ever be taken up by GGS, here’s another suggestion. Those of us who are UNWILLING, who want no part in the Tournament put up YELLOW FLAGS during it [or even right now - show ggs what you think!]. We also put in our Alliance descriptions:

“This Alliance is UNWILLING to take part in the Alliance Tournament. Please respect this and find a target which enters into the tournament willingly.”


kajacro @ en 1
«1

Comments

  • Techie5879 (ASIA1)Techie5879 (ASIA1) ASIA1 Posts: 81
    I have to say this. This is a War game. If you dont like getting attacked, try Goodgame Farm
    "What doesn't kill me, just makes me stronger"

    "A hero can go anywhere, challenge anyone, as long as he has the nerve to do so"
    ~Chiron

    Royal Guardian Techie5879 the Remorseless
    Level 70 | Legendary Level: 59 | 565k PP 
    Proud General of Drunken Fist
    @ASIA1
    Yeah, we won Royal Capital two times from the day we started in Asia

    Previously,
    UltimateAlex @ IN1
    Yeah, we won the Royal capital the first two times when it was held
    Also, storm winner @ IN1 with 1.3M cargo :)

    Something for you all......

    That about sums it up :)
  • kajacro (GB1)kajacro (GB1) GB1 Posts: 211
    edited 28.11.2016
    I think I've already said, getting attacked is part of the game. It's the repeated attacks, resulting in several of a player's castles getting hit, which is dispiriting for many players; the inability to support team mates, because your defenders have been decimated... it's just miserable.
    We don't want to leave the game.
    kajacro @ en 1
  • Firecast and bird troops. No one will hit you then....
    Revolc @ USA 1
  • For crying out loud.... I can understand why you don't like being attacked repeatedly, but this non-sense about quitting the game because of the ally tournament is completely ridiculous.

    For one the ally tournament is only 4 days every few months, and then it's back to the mind-numbingly boring cycle of PvE events.

    Secondly IT IS JUST FIRES!! Just put them out afterwards. We have events almost all the time, so it's easy to get ressources and we have timeskips to make the process of putting out fires that much faster. When I started this game, getting attacked meant it took a week to put out fires. It's not like that today.

    Thirdly, why care about lost troops? We will soon get the auto-recruit update, so that means we will be able to train troops at an unprecedented scale! It will no longer take a week to get back lost troops, it will be much faster.

    And the opt-in idea is stupid. The entire game is build around PvP. There is no opt-in or opt-out, this is a WAR GAME. What needs to be done instead is that PvP has to be adjusted. Goodgame has already stated that they are looking into it.
    MrKennyKRH lvl 800 @ skn 1
  • kajacro (GB1)kajacro (GB1) GB1 Posts: 211
    Again I've already anticipated your points in my post. Why do I care about flames and lost troops? Well, why don't you care?  I'm asking for players who wish to to make their opinion known that's all.
    I think a tournament is a competition you enter., is it not? 
    kajacro @ en 1
  • Mikeshot2 (GB1)Mikeshot2 (GB1) GB1 Posts: 301

    [I know there are other threads on this. I didn't want my post to get lost in them.]

    The Alliance Tournament is over now and many small and mid-sized alliances that are breathing a sigh of relief and trying to repair and rebuild troops.

    I am well aware that many players of this game love the Alliance Tournament. I don’t.

    I accept that PvP is part of this game. I‘ve been playing about 4 years now and sometimes other players attack me....

    However the sheer misery of the 4 days of the tournament, the unremitting attacks was not enjoyable for me. Each player who attacked a target in our alliance no doubt thought that s/he was the only player doing a hit on that player; sadly they often were not.

    So, since I’m fairly sure GGS won’t stop the alliance tournament, (and if players want it, why would they), can some modifications be made so that many players don’t have to endure this again?  (Please don’t tell me: “It’s only a few flames, put them out” or “So you lose a few troops; recruit more”; "It's a War Game.")

    Here’s one idea: You have to ENTER the Berimond Event, for example. Could it not be made that you have to ENTER the Alliance Tournament? That you pay resources, coins, or rubies to enter either an Alliance Tournament or Single Player version? This would show a map with only the castles of WILLING participants.

    The word WILLING is key to this for me. I’m UNWILLING to take part.

    Since I don’t think the modifications I’ve suggested will ever be taken up by GGS, here’s another suggestion. Those of us who are UNWILLING, who want no part in the Tournament put up YELLOW FLAGS during it [or even right now - show ggs what you think!]. We also put in our Alliance descriptions:

    “This Alliance is UNWILLING to take part in the Alliance Tournament. Please respect this and find a target which enters into the tournament willingly.”



    It is encouraging to see creative ideas on protecting the interests of fellow players, there is a very good community spirit in the game shown `in many ways. Fair Play proposals from diplomats and Leaders have taken steps to limit player and alliance hits to a maximum of 3 a day, there could be a possibility to add for example an alliance "running total" of hits landed, when looking for targets, something GGE could possibly add - where for example a small alliance can opt for auto protection after xx hits - based on rankings. Having seen discussion's on the Flag idea and over 800 messages later it was considered open for abuse - for example send hits out - raise the yellow flag - white flag - or whatever. Maybe the tournament simply needs to run for 24 hours, slightly more frequently then alliance supports are likely to repel more hits, for sure after 4 days most mid level alliances are on their knees to defend and this makes little sense. We should also note there are very few players who opt for defence improvements - but are only too willing to push for the 5th and 6th attack wave, these are choices players make over the ability to shore up defences - why is it losing an army on an attack acceptable, and losing an army defending an issue? Is it the fires - the time taken to replace defenders? - when you can, if a ruby player instant buy another attack force, perhaps an instant buy a new defence ( after a hit ) with coins or rubies an option we would like? I do believe the tools are there to defend, the issue is many simply do not, they like to hit but don't like to be a target, why else are they playing?  Let's not destroy the principles of the game, it is player v player and alliance v alliance we aim to grow and improve. Strategic efforts in events improve the team with good rewards - use them. In the case of alliance tournaments - I would vote for a 24 hour bash with fair play conditions more frequently than a 4 day slog that hurts the pride and efforts of less established alliances.
  • Batten (GB1)Batten (GB1) GB1 Posts: 1,104
    Good idea my flag is yellow.  

    I'd say the principles of the game where destroyed by players who:

    a.  Multi-accounted
    b.  Password shared
    c.  Rent accounts
    d.  Use shell accounts
    e.  Use bots
    f.  Exploit resource glitches to grow their accounts faster than should be possible 

    The idea that any tournament is fair when it's a single player versus player 1 plus player 1's second, third, fourth and fifth account seems a bit of a fallacy or a single alliance v alliance 1 plus alliance 1's shell alliances 1,2,3,4.  There is no parity there.  A yellow flag shows clear opposition to these practices, shows frustration that the system allows this and communicates clearly to players involved that they not GGE are standing in the way of true PVP.  
    Batten @ en 1
  • marc58 (GB1)marc58 (GB1) GB1 Posts: 836
    edited 28.11.2016
    This game has change so much over the years with events now taking over, many of the low lvl players no nothing else but events.

    When I started playing levelling  up quickly was a real no-no ( still should be the same) but players do and reach lvl 70 long before they are ready tbh.

    Back in the day ( sounding old) PVP hits were a daily events so you learnt quickly how to defend and when to defend, there weren't many fairplays rules as they are called now...burning castle didn't get hit but a lvl 50 was fair game to any lvl 70, I'm sure that's not the norm now.
    As for the Yellow Flag showing, cant see it doing much, at the end of the day GGE want PvP hits as its there war game.
    The Alliance   Tourny has to stay its one of the best events in the game and I cant see GGE ever changing the way it is. I do agree with Mikeshot2 that a 24hrs tourney maybe a better way forward with some better rules added by the top alliances to help those that feel they are just cannon fodder.



  • if a ruby player instant buy another attack force, perhaps an instant buy a new defence ( after a hit ) with coins or rubies an option we would like?

    currently 15gbp for 250 horrors (on my offer),
    coupled with all the free offensive tools available 

    how much could 250 defenders be - and would 250 be enough ?
    wouldn't this start to make it a pay to play game ?

    and what if the defender won, how many defenders lost to be replaced,

    yes, the stuff is there to have a very decent defence, but its a lot easier to get offensive items,
    storm is one place,
    the armourer is another, double the cost for defensive items,

    i believe to bring stability back then make defending a bit easier as well as sort the current issue going around
    MightyHawklord @ en 1
    leader of the mighty dragon legion
    non-ruby buying alliance


     be afraid,be very afraid
    registered Linux user 476319
    registered machine 408663

    https://community.goodgamestudios.com/empire/en/discussion/334430/unfair-practice-from-ggs-support
  • kajacro (GB1)kajacro (GB1) GB1 Posts: 211

    [I know there are other threads on this. I didn't want my post to get lost in them.]

    The Alliance Tournament is over now and many small and mid-sized alliances that are breathing a sigh of relief and trying to repair and rebuild troops.

    I am well aware that many players of this game love the Alliance Tournament. I don’t.

    I accept that PvP is part of this game. I‘ve been playing about 4 years now and sometimes other players attack me....

    However the sheer misery of the 4 days of the tournament, the unremitting attacks was not enjoyable for me. Each player who attacked a target in our alliance no doubt thought that s/he was the only player doing a hit on that player; sadly they often were not.

    So, since I’m fairly sure GGS won’t stop the alliance tournament, (and if players want it, why would they), can some modifications be made so that many players don’t have to endure this again?  (Please don’t tell me: “It’s only a few flames, put them out” or “So you lose a few troops; recruit more”; "It's a War Game.")

    Here’s one idea: You have to ENTER the Berimond Event, for example. Could it not be made that you have to ENTER the Alliance Tournament? That you pay resources, coins, or rubies to enter either an Alliance Tournament or Single Player version? This would show a map with only the castles of WILLING participants.

    The word WILLING is key to this for me. I’m UNWILLING to take part.

    Since I don’t think the modifications I’ve suggested will ever be taken up by GGS, here’s another suggestion. Those of us who are UNWILLING, who want no part in the Tournament put up YELLOW FLAGS during it [or even right now - show ggs what you think!]. We also put in our Alliance descriptions:

    “This Alliance is UNWILLING to take part in the Alliance Tournament. Please respect this and find a target which enters into the tournament willingly.”



    It is encouraging to see creative ideas on protecting the interests of fellow players, there is a very good community spirit in the game shown `in many ways. Fair Play proposals from diplomats and Leaders have taken steps to limit player and alliance hits to a maximum of 3 a day, there could be a possibility to add for example an alliance "running total" of hits landed, when looking for targets, something GGE could possibly add - where for example a small alliance can opt for auto protection after xx hits - based on rankings. Having seen discussion's on the Flag idea and over 800 messages later it was considered open for abuse - for example send hits out - raise the yellow flag - white flag - or whatever. Maybe the tournament simply needs to run for 24 hours, slightly more frequently then alliance supports are likely to repel more hits, for sure after 4 days most mid level alliances are on their knees to defend and this makes little sense. We should also note there are very few players who opt for defence improvements - but are only too willing to push for the 5th and 6th attack wave, these are choices players make over the ability to shore up defences - why is it losing an army on an attack acceptable, and losing an army defending an issue? Is it the fires - the time taken to replace defenders? - when you can, if a ruby player instant buy another attack force, perhaps an instant buy a new defence ( after a hit ) with coins or rubies an option we would like? I do believe the tools are there to defend, the issue is many simply do not, they like to hit but don't like to be a target, why else are they playing?  Let's not destroy the principles of the game, it is player v player and alliance v alliance we aim to grow and improve. Strategic efforts in events improve the team with good rewards - use them. In the case of alliance tournaments - I would vote for a 24 hour bash with fair play conditions more frequently than a 4 day slog that hurts the pride and efforts of less established alliances.
    Thank you for acknowledging that I am attempting here to find a solution to what is a very big problem for small and mid-size alliances. 
    1. Flag abuse. I can see that in some cases there would be some who would abuse it. But I think you decide AS AN ALLIANCE to raise that flag, and if it is abused, then any player who did so in my alliance would be thrown to the wolves! Unfortunately it's life. There will always be devious, selfish players about and I'm not going to dismiss all that would work about the idea because of that.
    2. Defence. My alliance members work hard at defence... some more than others obviously... but we do. And we CAN defend. When it's your 6th attack in 3 days, as it was for one of our number - who works tremendously hard to improve, incidentally - and your alliance mates can't help you because all their defenders are gone too, where's the fun? It's all very well people saying alliances limit attacks to a certain number... but other alliances are making that number of attacks on you too in the tournament! We're not talking players who like to go out and hit but cry when they are hit themselves. When we say unwilling, we are unwilling to take part in it in any way.
    3. PvP. Not against that. Just the tournament, certainly as it is right now. 
    kajacro @ en 1
  • kajacro (GB1)kajacro (GB1) GB1 Posts: 211
    @Philt123 (GB1)'
    Sad but true. A very thorough and informed summary of the game as it stands.
    kajacro @ en 1
  • @Philt123 perfectly explained
    MightyHawklord @ en 1
    leader of the mighty dragon legion
    non-ruby buying alliance


     be afraid,be very afraid
    registered Linux user 476319
    registered machine 408663

    https://community.goodgamestudios.com/empire/en/discussion/334430/unfair-practice-from-ggs-support
  • I have to say this. This is a War game. If you dont like getting attacked, try Goodgame Farm
    Says you lol
    Happy n Proud Member of Blood Oath :)
  • [I know there are other threads on this. I didn't want my post to get lost in them.]

    The Alliance Tournament is over now and many small and mid-sized alliances that are breathing a sigh of relief and trying to repair and rebuild troops.

    I am well aware that many players of this game love the Alliance Tournament. I don’t.

    I accept that PvP is part of this game. I‘ve been playing about 4 years now and sometimes other players attack me....

    However the sheer misery of the 4 days of the tournament, the unremitting attacks was not enjoyable for me. Each player who attacked a target in our alliance no doubt thought that s/he was the only player doing a hit on that player; sadly they often were not.

    So, since I’m fairly sure GGS won’t stop the alliance tournament, (and if players want it, why would they), can some modifications be made so that many players don’t have to endure this again?  (Please don’t tell me: “It’s only a few flames, put them out” or “So you lose a few troops; recruit more”; "It's a War Game.")

    Here’s one idea: You have to ENTER the Berimond Event, for example. Could it not be made that you have to ENTER the Alliance Tournament? That you pay resources, coins, or rubies to enter either an Alliance Tournament or Single Player version? This would show a map with only the castles of WILLING participants.

    The word WILLING is key to this for me. I’m UNWILLING to take part.

    Since I don’t think the modifications I’ve suggested will ever be taken up by GGS, here’s another suggestion. Those of us who are UNWILLING, who want no part in the Tournament put up YELLOW FLAGS during it [or even right now - show ggs what you think!]. We also put in our Alliance descriptions:

    “This Alliance is UNWILLING to take part in the Alliance Tournament. Please respect this and find a target which enters into the tournament willingly.”


    To this post I do agree.
    In life we all have choices, or we should have. If I say NO I mean NO. If you do not understand me, than ask me to explain. I will gladly give you my reasons, if you wish to hear them. I want to play GG, I like GG, I play it differently, we all play it differently, I have respect for all players so all I ask is some in return..  MY ALLIANCE IS UNWILLING TO TAKE PART IN   " THE ALLIANCE TOURNAMENT "
  • Mikeshot2 (GB1)Mikeshot2 (GB1) GB1 Posts: 301


      I would vote for a 24 hour bash with fair play conditions more frequently than a 4 day slog that hurts the pride and efforts of less established alliances.
    Only viable solution to satisfy all. - Less time on the event.

    Perhaps not 24 hours but something like 48 hours to give everyone a fair chance to recruit a few troops, send hits etc ..

    Removing the event all together just results in this game speeding up on its path to the graveyard ..

    48 hours is pretty fair - yellow flags are for those playing the wrong game - at the wrong time. Players can choose to leave the game - or stay and fight for it's survival - we all have a choice.
  • a few weeks ago everybody wanted the alliance tournament back, now loads of people hate it.
    brag


  •   I would vote for a 24 hour bash with fair play conditions more frequently than a 4 day slog that hurts the pride and efforts of less established alliances.
    Only viable solution to satisfy all. - Less time on the event.

    Perhaps not 24 hours but something like 48 hours to give everyone a fair chance to recruit a few troops, send hits etc ..

    Removing the event all together just results in this game speeding up on its path to the graveyard ..

    48 hours is pretty fair - yellow flags are for those playing the wrong game - at the wrong time. Players can choose to leave the game - or stay and fight for it's survival - we all have a choice.
    I don't really see how that would help to prevent the cheats from winning the tournament. The point is that the alliance tournament is pointless as a contest since no-one can compete.

    By 'wrong game', do you mean a game that does not fall under the auspices of the Terms and Conditions as laid out by GGS?

    What is the 'it' you seek to save? It is clear that this game provides a vehicle for crime, it is clear that this game is being used as a vehicle for crime, it is clear that GGS don't care about the quality of the game or the game experience of their customers and it is clear that the T&Cs are simply not being sufficiently applied by GGS - Is that the 'it' you want to save?

    It seems to me that the 'it' you seek to save is precisely the same as the 'it' against which most decent people ought to be opposed.


    I don`t buy rubies i prefer diamonds.
    xx Princess xx
  • marc58 (GB1)marc58 (GB1) GB1 Posts: 836


      I would vote for a 24 hour bash with fair play conditions more frequently than a 4 day slog that hurts the pride and efforts of less established alliances.
    Only viable solution to satisfy all. - Less time on the event.

    Perhaps not 24 hours but something like 48 hours to give everyone a fair chance to recruit a few troops, send hits etc ..

    Removing the event all together just results in this game speeding up on its path to the graveyard ..

    48 hours is pretty fair - yellow flags are for those playing the wrong game - at the wrong time. Players can choose to leave the game - or stay and fight for it's survival - we all have a choice.
    I don't really see how that would help to prevent the cheats from winning the tournament. The point is that the alliance tournament is pointless as a contest since no-one can compete.

    By 'wrong game', do you mean a game that does not fall under the auspices of the Terms and Conditions as laid out by GGS?

    What is the 'it' you seek to save? It is clear that this game provides a vehicle for crime, it is clear that this game is being used as a vehicle for crime, it is clear that GGS don't care about the quality of the game or the game experience of their customers and it is clear that the T&Cs are simply not being sufficiently applied by GGS - Is that the 'it' you want to save?

    It seems to me that the 'it' you seek to save is precisely the same as the 'it' against which most decent people ought to be opposed.



    Not sure what this post has to do with the price of chicken ? or wtf they are going on about.


    Alliance Tourny is the best event in the game it, all of a sudden the alliance wakes up...no longer is chat full of "that's the school run done" "AFK" "BIAB" "morning" "Nite all" its about the game, hits, defence, "incoming"  help and support, Team Work.
    Agree maybe changes need to be made for the lower lvl guys and there allainces but saying that players still have so much choice when they have an incoming...Defend it, move your troops, add fire cast, open gates.

    It seems to me everyone just wants an easy life in what is supposed to be a strategy war game....lets hit towers, tents, Fi/crow castles and do some farming.....I would say more players have left because of this ( boredom) than the alliance tourney, so many of you have been spoilt with these events you have forgot what the game is all about.

    This Brings me on to Beri, The old beri should be brought back....what an event that was.... Team work, Strategy, Friendship it had it all....now we just bash towers for coins and rewards......pointless tbh.....oh well back to the nomads lets smash umm ;-(
        
Sign In to comment.