Alliance Divisions

Dave Hooper (US1) · 10.06.2018

This is not a new idea by any stretch of the imagination and from what I have noticed in recent months,

many of the larger alliances and powerful players are incorporating some of these aspects into their style of play.

The necessary changes to the programming are not all that complex. If we were given choices whether or not to participate

both actively and passively in certain situations rather than just going into protect mode, fewer long time players would leave this game.

***************************************************************************************************************

Similar in concept to having different leagues or divisions in professional

and amateur sports.

Division A : Top 50 alliances
Division B : Next 100
Division C : Next 500
Division D : Next 1000
Division E : Next 2000 - 3000
Division F : All the rest.

Only Alliances within the same Divisions would be able to attack other

Alliances both during the Tournament and at other times.

Players themselves would need to be within something like 30 % of one

another's might points, higher and lower in order to initiate an attack,

capture or even a sabotage.

The Alliances themselves would have to be within 5 levels

for the attacks to be valid.

During times of War of course, all restrictions would be removed.

War Declarations would fall within these parameters.

This would even the playing field, reduce the need for massive hits from

players 10 to 30 times more powerful, would still allow for resource

gathering, would cut down on the scramble for food resulting from large

troop rewards from events due to losses during attacks,

alleviate much of the tension in the game, the confusion would be reduced

and make our jobs as leaders much easier and less time consuming.

***************************************************************************************************************

Would simplify the actual playing time for many of us allowing us to progress as we choose more readily so that

when we are ready to participate more actively, it would be much more engaging on a friendlier basis.

Kind of a throw back from what I understand as to how GGE first was developed.

Lots of differing opinions for this one no doubt. Let's hear some.

Dave

varg vikernes (US1) · 10.06.2018

dumb idea

Lady Nym (US1) · 10.06.2018

Oh god no.

UltimateJhon (GB1) · 10.06.2018

You overestimate the amount of alliances, by a lot

Dave Hooper (US1) · 14.06.2018

Don't see any real arguments as to why the three of you oppose the concept.

If you find any flaws in the logic, I would love to hear them.

The actual numbers of alliances themselves vary according to the server.

Instead of raw numbers, it could be based upon percentages.

VenomЖ (US1) · 14.06.2018

Dave Hooper (US1) said:

Don't see any real arguments as to why the three of you oppose the concept.
If you find any flaws in the logic, I would love to hear them.
The actual numbers of alliances themselves vary according to the server.
Instead of raw numbers, it could be based upon percentages.

Because this game isn't based around entertaining others, it's about raw winning. The idea of pools in sports to avoid boring events of domination, plus betting would be pretty sht too, some events would be 100000000:1 (Barcelona verse any Australian team).

With this game it's about being able to crush anyone and everyone, that is a bit scary though so not many people do it. Unlike KoN.

Percentages wouldn't work either because have you seen China? you'll have 1st and 2nd if it grows any larger lmao.

Dave Hooper (US1) · 15.06.2018

This game has so many more aspects than as you put it Raw Winning.

It takes a level of wisdom in chronological years to understand that.

Your arguments are flimsy. The betting aspect is not even addressed as part of the explanation.

Considering I have approached many long time players, Alliance Leaders etc and found the

number of those opposed versus those who are either for or at least see some merit in investigating

part if not all of this idea is virtually 50 - 50.

Give it a couple of years and see how you feel waking up to major fires in your castles

for no real reason.

Lady Nym (US1) · 15.06.2018

Maybe the reason you get hit is because you make yourself an easy target by having terrible setup and casts. At your level you really should have better cast at least in your main.

And the main reason why people get hit is that it is a war game and war is never fair.

VenomЖ (US1) · 15.06.2018

Dave Hooper (US1) said:

This game has so many more aspects than as you put it Raw Winning.
It takes a level of wisdom in chronological years to understand that.
Your arguments are flimsy. The betting aspect is not even addressed as part of the explanation.
Considering I have approached many long time players, Alliance Leaders etc and found the
number of those opposed versus those who are either for or at least see some merit in investigating
part if not all of this idea is virtually 50 - 50.
Give it a couple of years and see how you feel waking up to major fires in your castles
for no real reason.

talk to me once you don't have stone OPs or have had over 10mil loot in a day.

Frozenvirus (IN1) · 15.06.2018

I think you are mad@ Dave Hooper (US1)

hge (US1) · 15.06.2018

Who wants to level the playing field?? This is a war game for crying out loud.

Dave Hooper (US1) · 18.06.2018

At least we are getting some responses here. So I will attempt to respond to you one at a time.

Lady Nym : Not all of us out here are a typical "A" type personality. We have differing reasons for playing this game.

I have a question for you : Did you build your own Alliance from scratch for over 4 years without resorting to jumping in and out of Alliances to gain better equipment ? Also, did you hear me complaining about being hit randomly ?

As you put it bluntly :"At my level .... ". Well, let me think now. Since I am all of 62 years of age, perhaps I see things a little bit differently than those of you in your 20's, 30's and 40's from an overall human perspective.

Who is to say what is right or what is wrong for an individuals own level ?

Venom : What makes you think I want to loot 10 million per day ? I don't have that kind of time available to me on a regular basis out here. Most of us do not.

hge : So what you are saying is that you have no problem with the fact that the developers of this game did not have the foresight to put limitations on how powerful Legendary players could become and still allow them to pummel virtually any level 70 player of their choosing without penalties built into the game ?

Like the quotation from Lord of the Rings by the way. I have the full set. Read both the Hobbit and the Trilogy twice.

Frozenvirus : Not a very large attack, but I see where you could be going here.

General Questions : If this is a War Game and War is never fair, then why do we bother having Diplomacy ?

What era throughout history was it considered acceptable to crush everyone ?

Before I end this discussion, I would like to thank you all for your feedback. Even though we may not agree, it is still more than appreciated that at least a few of you took the time to not only read the post, but also comment as you did. Most of what has been discussed here is subjective. Each and every one of you have valid arguments for your opinions.

I wish you all continued success and enjoyment out here in GGE land among all the bugs, interruptions, pop-ups and programming flaws. No one said this game is perfect.

Remember, it may be a War Game, but it is still a form of Entertainment.

I leave you all with two links for your perusal : Simple Fun Web Page : http://hooperdave1.wix.com/simplefun

The Seven Knightly Virtues : https://chivalrytoday.com/knightly-virtues/

God Bless each and every one you hold dear to you.

Dave Hooper - Simple Fun - Toronto, Ontario Canada

Lady Twilight (US1) · 18.06.2018

Oh HELL no!! Sick of the constant hits from the big ones as it is...

Friedrich IV (US1) · 18.06.2018

Restricting gameplay isn't a good business strategy.

A.J.S (INT3) · 18.06.2018

Dave Hooper (US1) said:

This is not a new idea by any stretch of the imagination and from what I have noticed in recent months,
many of the larger alliances and powerful players are incorporating some of these aspects into their style of play.

The necessary changes to the programming are not all that complex. If we were given choices whether or not to participate
both actively and passively in certain situations rather than just going into protect mode, fewer long time players would leave this game.

***************************************************************************************************************
Similar in concept to having different leagues or divisions in professional
and amateur sports.

Division A : Top 50 alliances
Division B : Next 100
Division C : Next 500
Division D : Next 1000
Division E : Next 2000 - 3000
Division F : All the rest.

Only Alliances within the same Divisions would be able to attack other
Alliances both during the Tournament and at other times.

Players themselves would need to be within something like 30 % of one
another's might points, higher and lower in order to initiate an attack,
capture or even a sabotage.

The Alliances themselves would have to be within 5 levels
for the attacks to be valid.

During times of War of course, all restrictions would be removed.
War Declarations would fall within these parameters.

This would even the playing field, reduce the need for massive hits from
players 10 to 30 times more powerful, would still allow for resource
gathering, would cut down on the scramble for food resulting from large
troop rewards from events due to losses during attacks,
alleviate much of the tension in the game, the confusion would be reduced
and make our jobs as leaders much easier and less time consuming.

***************************************************************************************************************

Would simplify the actual playing time for many of us allowing us to progress as we choose more readily so that
when we are ready to participate more actively, it would be much more engaging on a friendlier basis.

Kind of a throw back from what I understand as to how GGE first was developed.

Lots of differing opinions for this one no doubt. Let's hear some.

Dave

jesus no
i loose half the guys i can bully and farm

Dave Hooper (US1) · 24.06.2018

I just cannot resist replying one last time before I request that all of my posts be permanently deleted.

Lady Twilight : The entire precept to this is to cut down on the number of over zealous random hits from

mega-players, not to encourage more. Something may be lost in translation here between us.

BM_Friedrich : Not sure if you are a Moderator or not since Moderator is next to your name.

Not good business strategy ???? In what sense I curiously inquire ?

Let me think for a minute here .... Chess is played by 600 million people worldwide

every single day. But that would mean there are restrictions built in somehow. Hmm....

Logically you are correct. Ethically, that is up for debate.

Rebel : Bully and Farm. Two key words you mention. Bullying does not exactly have a high approval rating

these days in what could be loosely called "Modern Society".

To each ones own.

SuperApps (US1) · 24.06.2018

Personally, I don't see why everyone is so against this. It sounds like a pretty good idea, but there are still a bit of details needed to be specified e.g. How exactly would you sort divisions? If you used raw numbers, you would need a huge number of divisions or else the gap between the biggest and smallest in the division. The same goes for using percentages. Also how would you measure alliance strength?
Thirdly, some people would have to travel large distances to attack an alliance of their division. (The last one might be solved if divisions could be set up as sub-severs beneath the country servers.)

Taggart (US1) · 24.06.2018

One of the most important points of the game is to compete with other alliances, rise up to the top and reign. This idea that you're suggesting would destroy that - and besides, GGS wouldn't do anything for "alliance equality" because there's no such thing, this is a war game.

Dave Hooper (US1) · 24.06.2018

Finally !!!! Two responses that are actually well thought out.

I'll start with you Lord Taggart :

It is not that I am against as you say rising to the top and then reigning. That makes perfect sense in its purest form - logically. It is the seemingly somewhat oppressive nature of some of the larger alliances that has occurred in the past that is making it more and more difficult for even the more established players to keep up with feeding their troops, building in a reasonable and sound pattern,or either developing or even maintaining current relationships within their respective alliances.

Many players have expressed just how much of a strain on ones personal life this game has become to them and in some cases members of their families as well. Some major forces we'll call them have definitely slowed down and have in essence already adopted some aspects of this concept through their own analysis and by setting minimum standards each alliance has in allowing their members to attack other players. I can think of more than one example if you would like me to elaborate.

GGS is VERY good at protecting their players from certain forms of fraud, emotional abuse, bullying and potential cyber crimes from a legal point of view, so why not have some limitations added so that we do not have let's say a player who would be on the German National Soccer team going up against another player who is playing at a secondary school level.

We see this idea on slightly different levels here. Since the advent of Legendary levels, there is absolutely no way to disallow random hits of a larger nature without resorting to Diplomatic measures. Which as most of us know only works so well. There are always miscues regardless of what has been developed and agreed upon.

Destroy rising to the top and reigning ? Absolutely not. How is it that someone like 'Roger Federer "rose to the top" and is still playing at the highest level in tennis ? Does he still play in tournaments against rank amateurs ?

Pitting more evenly matched Alliances and players against each other - which by the way is how many of the larger alliances started growing in the first place way back when by having Mock Wars against one another has possibilities if one not only sees the end result for oneself, but also GGS would have to slow down the troop rewards we receive since we all only have 24 hours in a day and cannot possibly devote as much time to this game as the programming would allow. At least not forever. One could say there was a MUCH friendlier atmosphere in the earlier days of GGE with the objective being that alliances helped one another grow allowing for a top tier or level of alliances to flourish which in essence does even things out somewhat and still allows for competition among friends who are more evenly matched in the first place.

All a question of perspective in how one sees things. Both points of view being valid here.

SuperApps : There are DOZENS of details that would need to be analyzed, tested, reworked, implemented, scrapped, modified or added before something of this nature would even begin to be conceivable. For this to be introduced on a large scale here in GGE is most likely no longer feasible since the game design and programming is already SOOOOOOO complex more than likely this particular concept would be better off being implemented in a totally new game that still has a basis in creating an Empire as well as being a War Game. GGS developers are years ahead in their thinking and have most probably already thought things through and are already devising something that incorporates certain facets that are at the very least outlined here. There are many possibilities that could work. Raw numbers may not be the answer. %'s might work better. Distances are not really much of a factor considering all the feathers we receive. Depends on how many attacks one initiates I guess would be one way of looking at things. Divisions could be sorted by overall Might Points. As we rise and fall, then obviously we would move into a different Division. The actual breakdown would need quite a bit of analysis.

One thing that could easily be changed in the programming which could help ease players into at least some of this idea would be to have the option of participating in the Alliance Tournament. Since there are only rewards built into the Tournament for the top 20 or whatever alliances, then why should the rest suffer if the Alliance Leader could easily just click on a button which would disallow any attacks both from and against active players and those currently in alliances. This way all participants would see IF their numbers in reality suffer during the Tournament. The overall answer to that would most assuredly be "No, we are not hurting at all and in reality, our time out here is less demanding and probably less stressful confusing at the same time."

Something for others to consider without feeling threatened in any way. I am only looking for positive changes here in exploring possibilities that could benefit not only the players but in reality would ease the burden on GGS itself in their marketing and continual "In our Faces" ruby purchase pop-ups since there would be MANY fewer level 70's quitting the game out of frustration. Could this not possibly be seen as a more congenial way of play in some respects so that those who are non ruby buyers or occasional buyers like myself would not object to supporting GGS through ruby purchases since there would be less pressure to "Perform" and put out unnecessary fires.

A slightly different philosophy here. And in todays society, this philosophy is taking hold in the business world. People no longer wish to be sold. We want to be helped.

Thank you all once again for your time. Something good for all of you will result somewhere in your lives.

PHIXONIC GAMER (IN1) · 30.06.2018

Not at all
Anyway, there are only around 500 alliances in IN1 and to get in to the top 40, you only need 1M might points
All this despite having 1.3B people

Alliance Divisions

Comments

Leave a Comment