Home English (UK) News from the world of Empire

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

Event Teaser: Attack of the shapeshifter

11426

Comments

  • @BM ang1243
    Part 1:
    To make sure I am reading the Shapeshifter info correctly, the worse the defense the more rewards the attacker gets?
    Is the ideal attack then having minimum troops (32 troops for level 70)  hitting a castle with no losses?

    Part 2:
    Please tell GGE this is not even a good try for getting out of actually giving something to the defender.

    Part 3:
    When foreign lords first started, it was said that these were REAL players on other servers and actual attacks. I sent some attacks with burn commanders and destroy commanders in the beginning. Then I noticed the repetition of troop setups and defense amountsof troops  from supposedly "real" players. I do not trust GGE to have actually made an event that will use real players. I will be watching for evidence of the attacks/defense being computer generated and NOT real players. Putting an anonymous face on it will not hide the evidence of non players programing computer attacks/defense.
    Stumpyalaskan @ usa 1
  • David Noble (US1)David Noble (US1) Posts: 2,552
    edited 01.12.2017
    @BM ang1243
    Part 1:
    To make sure I am reading the Shapeshifter info correctly, the worse the defense the more rewards the attacker gets?
    Is the ideal attack then having minimum troops (32 troops for level 70)  hitting a castle with no losses?

    Part 2:
    Please tell GGE this is not even a good try for getting out of actually giving something to the defender.

    Part 3:
    When foreign lords first started, it was said that these were REAL players on other servers and actual attacks. I sent some attacks with burn commanders and destroy commanders in the beginning. Then I noticed the repetition of troop setups and defense amountsof troops  from supposedly "real" players. I do not trust GGE to have actually made an event that will use real players. I will be watching for evidence of the attacks/defense being computer generated and NOT real players. Putting an anonymous face on it will not hide the evidence of non players programing computer attacks/defense.
    Shapeshifters are supposed to be smarter than Foreign and Bloodcrow castles though. Also, their is a consistency with Foreigners and Bloodcrows making their defenses predictable at least for the most part unlike human players who are more likely to change defenses and especially if they are online.
    David Noble @ usa 1
  • detedudu (INT2)detedudu (INT2) Posts: 352
    edited 01.12.2017
    When foreign lords first started, it was said that these were REAL players on other servers 


    Where did you get that information? Please link your sources to avoid spreading false information. 
    They said that the foreign lords were simulations of real players on other servers. Never that they were actually real. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation



    Sources:

    https://community.goodgamestudios.com/empire/en/discussion/108562/pre-announcement-invasion-of-the-foreign-empire#latest
  • Nebulous (US1)Nebulous (US1) US1 Posts: 916
    Two serious questions for the update;

    1) What Are The Equipment Stats?

    2) What Is GGE Taking Away From Players This Time?
    I'm here to make pretty castles and recruit defense.
  • Two serious questions for the update;

    1) What Are The Equipment Stats?

    2) What Is GGE Taking Away From Players This Time?


    1. Don't expect them to announce that until 1-2 weeks before the update lands. We're still 1-2 months away from a possible launch. There is always a chance for the event to get postponed. 

    2. What do you mean by "taking away"?  May you please further develop that? The event is not there to replace something else, it's there to help educate people on how to play pvp. Because today, a lot of people are afraid of pvp. 
  • Lady Nym (US1)Lady Nym (US1) US1 Posts: 398
    Two serious questions for the update;

    1) What Are The Equipment Stats?

    2) What Is GGE Taking Away From Players This Time?


    1. Don't expect them to announce that until 1-2 weeks before the update lands. We're still 1-2 months away from a possible launch. There is always a chance for the event to get postponed. 

    2. What do you mean by "taking away"?  May you please further develop that? The event is not there to replace something else, it's there to help educate people on how to play pvp. Because today, a lot of people are afraid of pvp. 
    I think it is more in the way of taking away 5 and 24 hour skips, reducing rubies from towers, etc. I think it is pretty sure to expect them to take something away this time too.
  • Batten (GB1)Batten (GB1) GB1 Posts: 1,104
    Two serious questions for the update;

    1) What Are The Equipment Stats?

    2) What Is GGE Taking Away From Players This Time?


    1. Don't expect them to announce that until 1-2 weeks before the update lands. We're still 1-2 months away from a possible launch. There is always a chance for the event to get postponed. 

    2. What do you mean by "taking away"?  May you please further develop that? The event is not there to replace something else, it's there to help educate people on how to play pvp. Because today, a lot of people are afraid of pvp. 
    I don't think people are afraid of PVP I think's it's more that:

    1.  PVP isn't cost effective for a lot of players
    2.  Players can grow their accounts more effectively through events
    3.  PVP is a high risk strategy compared to playing in events which is pretty much a no risk strategy
    4.  Multi-accounting and password sharing meaning the risk versus the reward balance is weighted to the risk being significantly greater than the reward.  If you can't be sure whether you are hitting one account or twenty or that if you are sending an attack on an inexperienced only to find it defended by a veteran or a whole alliance it's common sense not fear that acts as the inhibitor.  Why lose an attack when you can be guaranteed a win elsewhere.  
    5.   The gap between players and alliances and between levels of spend and development of account again mean the chances of success are limited and majority of players will not risk their accounts of those of their alliance colleagues on a long shot when there are a lot of alternative safe bets available.  Farm alliances were the ultimate expression of this.  

    In Berimond when we hit each other and had a roughly equal playing field you could hit freely without huge volumes of support and you found talented players from small alliances were more than capable of holding their own against "top" players a lot of the top players wouldn't enter towards the end because they lost to much glory or honour from the consistent losses.  To be fair that was in part because they used to creep in late for the win and get lit up by more developed players.  The Wanderers for example were probably one of the best Berimond teams player for player.  If it is like that and we get a fair shot at top players then it being Christmas and imagine one or two accounts and one or two alliances will be lit up like Christmas trees.  If we can hit without risk as we could in Berimond will be dusting off our full strength not the mockery of it we normally show and we'll be coming for them in full force.  Without support in Berimond we found in the past a lot of players were pretty exposed and performed not that well.  


    Batten @ en 1
  • Batten (GB1)Batten (GB1) GB1 Posts: 1,104
    One thing I did wonder is what happens if some players never get attacked as presumably they can't then generate points from defence so would be at a disadvantage presumably?  Could we have more detail on how the scoring system works so players can contribute to helping identify any potential exploits or imbalances.  
    Batten @ en 1
  • ang1243 (GB1)ang1243 (GB1) GB1 Posts: 3,834
    One thing I did wonder is what happens if some players never get attacked as presumably they can't then generate points from defence so would be at a disadvantage presumably?  Could we have more detail on how the scoring system works so players can contribute to helping identify any potential exploits or imbalances.  
    @Batten (GB1)
    RE: Protection mode issue mentioned in a previous comment by you - people don't lose anything if they lose a defense battle, so nothing is damaged if someone is attacked by a shapeshifter while in protection mode. - I haven't confirmed that you can attack/be attacked in protection mode btw.

    In regards to this comment - Players don't get points from defending - so it's not a problem.
    Support | Community Guidelines | Short Questions | Bugwatch Thread | WebsitePrivate Message

    Check out my website with loads of cool tips about GGE: http://www.ultimategge.co.uk
     




  • Batten (GB1)Batten (GB1) GB1 Posts: 1,104
    Thanks Ang. 

    Why don't you get points from defending?  What would be the incentive to defend?  Is the idea that defending is used as a way of reducing the score incrementally.  The choice to defend in PVP particularly in a war is generally a quick calculation of the chance of a. winning b. level of losses c. impact of those losses on subsequent defences d. the ability to reduce the attacker future capacity to attack so if it is genuine PVP as maintained there should be points for defence to make it viable.  A point system that just rewards attacking simply promotes attacking which further reduces the viability of PVP surely and is counter productive if what you are seeking to achieve is to encourage defending.  Given that significant numbers of alliances just build attackers and solely focus on attacking - which is looting rather than PVP driven - then it doesn't seem to make much sense particularly if there are more points given for attacks with limited losses for the attacker which encourages players to hit inactive accounts rather than live accounts.  Surely if the drive is to increase PVP you - not you personally but designers - would want to encourage a.  hits on active players b. attacks which allow players a chance to defend (an opportunity to learn to defend) c. incentivise defence avoiding open gates and inactive castles.  The risk is you just end up with players hitting empty castles or people ignoring the event after the first couple of goes round because they can't actually compete and the event delivers less for them than other existing events.  It sounds to me that the scoring system needs to be reviewed and reworked to achieve the desired result balancing defence and attack as otherwise what your saying to new players is forget about defense.  In top alliances that would be okay as you rarely get attacked in developing alliances where you take more hits being able to defend is more important so making the game just about attacking actually slows their development.  The quality of defensive play by new players is shockingly bad in some cases so improving it would strengthen the game and drive innovation. 

    I think it's correctable but if it isn't adjusted Shapeshifters really doesn't offer great incentives and would be a missed opportunity.   
    Batten @ en 1
  • Batten (GB1)Batten (GB1) GB1 Posts: 1,104
    @Ang I also wanted to ask you about the decision to restrict access to Elementalist and Son of Eagle equipment sets and what steps were being taken to address the fact that some players will have bought mutliple sets of these and be able to use them whilst other developing players won't have access to the same numbers to offset the advantage existing players with mutliple sets would have?  Potentially with 21 commanders if player a. has say 7 sets but player b. can only purchase 1 then that seems an imbalance.  The cost clearly is an inhibitor for a lot of players but for big spenders was there no limit in place previously and can you confirm what the maximum numbers of sets of those a player could now purchase theoretical is?  
    Batten @ en 1
  • STEVIEBEANZ (GB1)STEVIEBEANZ (GB1) GB1 Posts: 204
    A few questions/comments based on a quick browse of here and the new update



    -I know you said it's not finalised but those numbers for hardcore mode are ridiculous. Maybe they arent final but 10% increase in points for reducing melee and ranged by 45%? Ill assume it'll be more like 100%

    -I think it's a great idea that your final ranking is based on your best single day. Gives part timers a chance to win

    -If defenders really dont get any points and you want to win the event or finish high up compared to others, surely it is in your best interest to evacuate and (possibly) tool clean every incoming hit? If you put in the effort to defend properly dont you risk helping a competitor get points? If you frustrate them, it might put them off the event and improve your chances. Or maybe I have the wrong end of the stick and if you evacuate and have zero troops, the attacker gets maximum points?
    STEVIEBEANZ @ en 1
  • ang1243 (GB1)ang1243 (GB1) GB1 Posts: 3,834
    Thanks Ang. 

    Why don't you get points from defending?  What would be the incentive to defend?  Is the idea that defending is used as a way of reducing the score incrementally.  The choice to defend in PVP particularly in a war is generally a quick calculation of the chance of a. winning b. level of losses c. impact of those losses on subsequent defences d. the ability to reduce the attacker future capacity to attack so if it is genuine PVP as maintained there should be points for defence to make it viable.  A point system that just rewards attacking simply promotes attacking which further reduces the viability of PVP surely and is counter productive if what you are seeking to achieve is to encourage defending.  Given that significant numbers of alliances just build attackers and solely focus on attacking - which is looting rather than PVP driven - then it doesn't seem to make much sense particularly if there are more points given for attacks with limited losses for the attacker which encourages players to hit inactive accounts rather than live accounts.  Surely if the drive is to increase PVP you - not you personally but designers - would want to encourage a.  hits on active players b. attacks which allow players a chance to defend (an opportunity to learn to defend) c. incentivise defence avoiding open gates and inactive castles.  The risk is you just end up with players hitting empty castles or people ignoring the event after the first couple of goes round because they can't actually compete and the event delivers less for them than other existing events.  It sounds to me that the scoring system needs to be reviewed and reworked to achieve the desired result balancing defence and attack as otherwise what your saying to new players is forget about defense.  In top alliances that would be okay as you rarely get attacked in developing alliances where you take more hits being able to defend is more important so making the game just about attacking actually slows their development.  The quality of defensive play by new players is shockingly bad in some cases so improving it would strengthen the game and drive innovation. 

    I think it's correctable but if it isn't adjusted Shapeshifters really doesn't offer great incentives and would be a missed opportunity.   
    Hey @Batten (GB1)

    The way you can affect the rankings from defending is by defending successfully and stopping your attacker from scoring so many blood points (or whatever they're called in the end) - people you are matched with are likely to be close to you in the rankings - and so it is worthwhile you making sure they don't score so many points so that you can move up the rankings more easily.

    The key to your second point is that the matchmaking should be accurate enough to match you with people who are similar to you on the server - effectively, if you're actively competing in the event, you are likely to have defenders and attackers, and so will be good at destroying targets and defending attacks.

    The bottom line is, if people defend they give themselves a better chance of finishing higher up in the rankings each day - therefore earning more tokens, etc.

    The shapeshifter is just the first big step to increase PvP and lower the reliance of typical Events atm.

    @Ang I also wanted to ask you about the decision to restrict access to Elementalist and Son of Eagle equipment sets and what steps were being taken to address the fact that some players will have bought mutliple sets of these and be able to use them whilst other developing players won't have access to the same numbers to offset the advantage existing players with mutliple sets would have?  Potentially with 21 commanders if player a. has say 7 sets but player b. can only purchase 1 then that seems an imbalance.  The cost clearly is an inhibitor for a lot of players but for big spenders was there no limit in place previously and can you confirm what the maximum numbers of sets of those a player could now purchase theoretical is?  

    The argument that newer players have less of a chance to get so many things I feel simply isn't relevant in topics like this - if a change has to be made for balancing reasons - in this case it seems like it is to push people to work for equipment - not just buy it straight off - then it is going to be made sooner or later - the longer you wait to make the change - the bigger the impact on new players.
    Support | Community Guidelines | Short Questions | Bugwatch Thread | WebsitePrivate Message

    Check out my website with loads of cool tips about GGE: http://www.ultimategge.co.uk
     




  • Batten (GB1)Batten (GB1) GB1 Posts: 1,104
    A few questions/comments based on a quick browse of here and the new update



    -I know you said it's not finalised but those numbers for hardcore mode are ridiculous. Maybe they arent final but 10% increase in points for reducing melee and ranged by 45%? Ill assume it'll be more like 100%

    -I think it's a great idea that your final ranking is based on your best single day. Gives part timers a chance to win

    -If defenders really dont get any points and you want to win the event or finish high up compared to others, surely it is in your best interest to evacuate and (possibly) tool clean every incoming hit? If you put in the effort to defend properly dont you risk helping a competitor get points? If you frustrate them, it might put them off the event and improve your chances. Or maybe I have the wrong end of the stick and if you evacuate and have zero troops, the attacker gets maximum points?
    I'm with Stevie on this I think players would just evacuate or ignore attacks unless they lose points for not defending though the problem is if you aren't on you can't defend so not entirely sure how you'd get round that.  The danger is you end up with Player versus open gate, player versus evacuated castle, player versus inactive account, player versus account that alliances have agreed should not be defended.  I can see that matchmaking active players does to a degree off set this but wouldn't some players who are inclined to be flexible with the T and C's just set up a low level multiple account to enable them to hit more inactive accounts at a lower level?  Those accounts less likely to be defended but would presumably score more points so actually - and ironically I'm looking out for top alliances here - they could play flat out spend a fortune win every battle against defending players and still lose to a guy who has fast built a level 54 account to hit weak castles?  A lot does rest on the scoring system and the strength of the matchmaking.  We all know people will look for exploits it would be great to identify those upfront and deal with them before they enter the game with the update.  
    Batten @ en 1
  • LOVELY EVENTT!! THANKS GGE!
  • Domlin (US1)Domlin (US1) US1 Posts: 148
    This seems really complicated. If you want to restore PVP the first thing you should do is buff the capitols and nerf the KT's. I seriously doubt I will participate in this event at all.
    Domlin @ usa 1
  • SteelSlayer (US1)SteelSlayer (US1) US1 Posts: 494
    So... No tool losses... And no troop losses....


    What's stopping me from sending high courtyard coms filled with troops and no tools?
  • happlo (NL1)happlo (NL1) NL1 Posts: 43
    One thing I did wonder is what happens if some players never get attacked as presumably they can't then generate points from defence so would be at a disadvantage presumably?  Could we have more detail on how the scoring system works so players can contribute to helping identify any potential exploits or imbalances.  
    @Batten (GB1)
    RE: Protection mode issue mentioned in a previous comment by you - people don't lose anything if they lose a defense battle, so nothing is damaged if someone is attacked by a shapeshifter while in protection mode. - I haven't confirmed that you can attack/be attacked in protection mode btw.

    In regards to this comment - Players don't get points from defending - so it's not a problem.
    ang1243 please tell my why i should deffend? if i dont get points i wont deffend because than the other players (my rival) gets points to win event. So not deffending is way better. 
    And if the argument that you can learn from deffending is still bad because you can just put 300-900 soldiers on the wall and nothing on cy. So this event will be totally worthless for higher players. 

    I can already say that i will only put soldiers on the wall. But more likely is that i wont put any soldiers at all on wall. 
    This event is maybe good for the lower lvl players but not for high players.

    and a other problem is wasting of tools. You said that you wont lose soldiers but you do lose tools. So what do you think i will do...  deffend and give enemy points

    or let him waste his tools give him very little points and i wont burn :(



  • David Noble (US1)David Noble (US1) Posts: 2,552
    edited 02.12.2017
    Some people may have misunderstood the event. Players will not lose any defenders. You have nothing to lose in defending against Shapeshifters that means even in defeat you will not lose any defenders from a shapeshifter attack. Even with no points gained for defending you also have no losses as a defender unlike the attackers who may use up some tools. Why waste rubies for example on opening gates if you will not lose any defenders or defensive tools against Shapeshifters? Also, no resources will be lost or buildings burned as explained earlier by our mod. Now one could argue what if the gates were already opened before an attack was launched? That could be a problem, but otherwise there is no good of a reason to open gates because of a shapeshifter attack. Also unclear as well if you can earn points anyway as an attacker from opened gates. However, even if opened gates prevents a player from making points it may not necessarily discourage people from attacking in the event which is supposed to be a fun and enjoyable event and not meant to be something for people to hide behind protection mode or open gates.The player who is attacking is also unanimous. If you do not know who is attacking you why open gates? Another reason to not open gates because of a shapeshifter attack. 

    Also, why waste using firecast or moving out troops with no risk for the defender? Again it is the same deal. In real pvp their is risk for the defender as well and not just for the attacker only, but this is not the case here for the Shapeshifter event. 
    Post edited by David Noble (US1) on
    David Noble @ usa 1
Sign In to comment.