Home Ideas, Suggestions & Feedback

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

Make PvP Great Again (Limit the alliance support)

2

Comments

  • flug (NL1)flug (NL1) NL1 Posts: 966
    :):):):):):):):)   please DO  also limit the attacks :):):)  with for eaxample 10 %
    flug @ nl 1
  • David Noble (US1)David Noble (US1) Posts: 2,552
    edited 06.08.2018

    I have a number of problems with this. First of all while it may be a good idea to limit support only 10% is too small. If you send only 2k for support for example that means only 200 will be able to support out of the 2k. If the support was only 1k only 100 would be able to support and so on if this 10% were to apply to every player regardless of how much support they send. Also, as other players have pointed out earlier you also have to consider the large vs. small alliances as well when it comes to supporting.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          To be more realistic I think that 50% support for each player might work better for supporting than only 10%. Thirdly, I want to mention the Kahn's Revenge. Kahn's Revenge can be a very costly invasion and may require requesting support even before taunting. I would recommend their not being a limit in defense for this invasion. The only thing that may require a limit in supporting at least in my opinion is pvp.


    David Noble @ usa 1
  • kookiekooks (US1)kookiekooks (US1) US1 Posts: 260
    edited 06.08.2018
    You would need to address the problem of legend level 800's attacking legend level 1 players.  You are essentially eliminating support, so the level 1 has no chance because he(she) can not support a decent size defensive force, thus have no chance against a 6 wave attack.

    So while you may increase attacks against legend level 800's you will a substantial increase against the mid-tier alliances with your proposal
    kookiekooks @ usa 1
  • Philt123 (GB1)Philt123 (GB1) GB1 Posts: 1,842
    I agree that something needs to be done, part of the problem is that attacks are now 300% bigger then when the fight / recruitment mechanics were made, so each fight takes out roughly 300% more defensive troops.  yet you can only recruit troops at a very similar speed yes i realise you can speed up with construction items but not 300% faster.

    I see where you are coming from on this one, and the idea certainly has merit for discussion, and to be honest it was always going to happen when you get to a point where players can hold 15-18000 defensive troops in every castle without any negative food burn, and this figure will probably be 20k+ eventually. its going to make PVP very difficult.

    But hitting 100k worth of troops is only half the story.

    Players who do not have that luxury of expecting 100k every time they defend face losing 5-8k defenders every time they defend.  that takes a long time to replace, especially when they are likley to be hit by a number of alliances, it gets to the point where it simply isnt worth defending any more.  As the sheer time it takes to replace defensive troops becomes prohibitive.  And you get in a cycle of simply recruiting defenders day after day after day.  and they get destroyed faster than you can replace them.

    The game gives out very strong attacking troops for fun, but defensive troops come along much less frequently.  I still believe there needs to be an incentive for alliances / players to defend, and there needs to be more parity in how defensive troops can be gained.  

    Just throwing ideas around rather than limiting the defensive figure to set figure why not limit support to a multiple of the number of def troops the player holds in his own castles.


    Philt123 @ en 1
  • king24 (IN1)king24 (IN1) IN1 Posts: 168
    Better no need to implement this itself because it will make the game seem even more confusing and frustrating...
    Live and enjoy your life to the fullest. 

    Proud member of  Godz of War (GOW) 3  -IN 1

    It doesn't get any more closer than this :P 
    http://prntscr.com/hda8dz

  • BM QueenBBM QueenB Posts: 200
    edited 06.08.2018
    really I don't know how gge comes with this ideas , if there is problem in the system , they need to fix the problem , not relocate that .
     if there is a problem in defense system , we all agree with it , I am 100% against this  

    "Proposal is simple: For all alliance support sent, only 10% will actually fight (and bear losses, so if you send 10k and 30% troops are lost in the fight, you'll lose 300 of the 1000 that actually fought). All troops moved around by the defender in question obviously all fight."

    this is nonsense !!! 
  • Herveus (AU1)Herveus (AU1) AU1 Posts: 11,021
    interesting idea but im not sure how the community will react to it if it gets added in

    maybe cap the units to a set number like 5k - 7.5k it would be better i think
    you cannot win against master summoer with that

    You need or want help to become a better player shoot me a message in the forums or here I'll gladly help you out for free

    In h
    ibernation nov2019-now
  • msantos29 (GB1)msantos29 (GB1) GB1 Posts: 81
    edited 06.08.2018
    BM QueenB said:
    really I don't know how gge comes with this ideas , if there is problem in the system , they need to fix the problem , not relocate that .
     if there is a problem in defense system , we all agree with it , I am 100% against this  

    "Proposal is simple: For all alliance support sent, only 10% will actually fight (and bear losses, so if you send 10k and 30% troops are lost in the fight, you'll lose 300 of the 1000 that actually fought). All troops moved around by the defender in question obviously all fight."

    this is nonsense !!! 

    Bit harsh on Fuji lol. i think he was just wanting to get a brainstorm going on this subject         ahahahah  and not a lot of constructive feedback in this reply, for a BM   :P  :P   ahahah
  • Nebulous (US1)Nebulous (US1) US1 Posts: 912
    edited 06.08.2018
    I truly like this idea and I believe it to take place for PVP to survive.

    PVP died because of several reasons, such as;
    1. They eat less and therefore are easy to stack
    2. You can't get a 1:1 k/d ratio against 40k def 

    To people who don't like this idea consider this; before build items each outposts could hold maybe 4k troops if you were active, but now people can conformably hold over 10k troops. The volume of an attack hasn't changed as drastically as the volume of possible defenders in the courtyard.

    The one thing I would recommend is the defender having a static number of possible defense and not a percentage.  I'd say about 10k to 12k.  Thats about the 50% mark where the killed/died ratio can go in either the attackers or defenders favor.




    I'm here to make pretty castles and recruit defense.
  • EdMohrmann (US1)EdMohrmann (US1) US1 Posts: 126


        Why is defense the problem ?   Sure, there are some HUGE alliances and HUGE players

         with HUGE resource/asset bases who seemingly cannot attack each other because their

        defensive skill, assets and resources cannot be overcome by peers.

        It seems to me that to 'make PVP great again' (not that it ever has been and also look at

        all the cheats developed to enhance the chances to succeed in PVP) the game needs to

        stratify the ability to attack beyond those limits already in place.

       Hence, breaking down the 70 levels into different strata and making it impossible for

       70's to attack 69's and lower would be one way to enable lower levels to survive in the

       game and stop what seems to be a hemorrhaging of players from the game.

       Similarly, 'step stratifying'  70's at 100 level increments might encourage players to

       go back to PVP because they'd no longer have to concern themselves with that 70/800

       whacking them at oh-dark-thirty and maybe they'd develop refined attack skills/defense

       skills further than what they have.

       Limiting support has implications for Khan's Revenge, Blood Crow and Foreign

       Invasion events, in addition to being a smack in the face for smaller alliances and

       lower level players.


      

    EdMohrmann @ usa 1
  • BM QueenBBM QueenB Posts: 200
    BM QueenB said:
    really I don't know how gge comes with this ideas , if there is problem in the system , they need to fix the problem , not relocate that .
     if there is a problem in defense system , we all agree with it , I am 100% against this  

    "Proposal is simple: For all alliance support sent, only 10% will actually fight (and bear losses, so if you send 10k and 30% troops are lost in the fight, you'll lose 300 of the 1000 that actually fought). All troops moved around by the defender in question obviously all fight."

    this is nonsense !!! 

    Bit harsh on Fuji lol. i think he was just wanting to get a brainstorm going on this subject         ahahahah  and not a lot of constructive feedback in this reply, for a BM   :P  :P   ahahah


    Dear @msantos29 (GB1)  this is not personal.
    everyone know that since GGE change the Defense mechanism , PVP is not interesting anymore. so instead of making this issue more complex , we need to ask GGE to rework the defense system , not make it complex. btw , I am CM to defense everyone interest , just imagine after this , no one will defend , every one will open gate or fire cast .
     this is really what we need to make pvp alive ?
     regards


  • Osiris (GB1)Osiris (GB1) GB1 Posts: 289
    NO just NO! Problem is the ruby whales in the game using super commanders that are next to impossible to defend against without a sh**ton of support.
    I would wager a lot of money that you don't know how to defend.


    But surely this is a consideration too - there are some very good defenders around, some who rely on the sheer strength of numbers, and some who are just canny defenders.  But by and large there are many many many many players who are not proficient at defending, analysing incomings and setting up accordingly.  PvP isn't exclusively for the very strong and the very rich, so it's in the interests of the game for participants to be able to increase their knowledge and skills.

    Mid to low level alliances, and even many members of higher level alliances are often afraid to retaliate (or even instigate an attack) because quite aside from the backlash there often is by the "big boys" who don't actually like having their defences challenged, those players know they will hit a solid wall of defences and lose their army. These are often the players who do not win a shedload of horrors, or whip out the credit card without a second thought.  These are often people whose hard won horrors are precious to them and they can't afford for them to be single-use only, or else they have had to recruit their armies which of course they can't do if they are constantly recruiting defenders to replace the ones wiped out by the big incomings.

    Once upon a time when someone was attacked by somebody in a bigger/stronger alliance, PMs were exchanged afterwards and the attacker often gave tips as to how the defender might have fared better. And that in turn taught those being hit how to defend better, and they didn't get so dispirited.

    So really one of the big problems is teaching people to defend better, surely? Fuji has often been seen to comment that even offline he has won an attack - because he is very skilled and knowledgeable about the game mechanics; Friedrich has bet his wallet on a lack of know-how when it comes to defending.  Maybe this is an area for more discussion over and above everything else
    Osiris @ en 1
  • Friedrich IV (US1)Friedrich IV (US1) Posts: 1,505
    edited 07.08.2018
    The amount of skill disparity in this game is absolutely abysmal. I can't speak to GB1, but anyone outside of the top 5-7 alliances on US1 is unlikely to have much of a clue what they're doing.

    This is an extremely hard issue to fix, because of the lack of pvp that happens. When it does happen, people don't put in effort to learn how to defend, or to attack in most cases, everyone just gets salty about it.

    I'm firsthand witness to people repeatedly launching attacks, getting demolished and chalking it up to "the defender's just too good, there's nothing I can do to fix that", when their attacks were toolless and all defenders. I'm literally not kidding. This actually happened. I've also been a firsthand witness to people, about once a month like clockwork, getting completely wiped, because they were 3 flanking with a few thousand d and a few thousand o, who chalked it up to "the attacker's just too good, there's nothing I can do to fix that", when they're on 3 flanks with no tools despite being repeatedly told to fix this about once a week for the prior six months and them refusing to do it.

    A large part of the problem is people are simply unwilling to learn or unable to conceive that the reason they lost lies with their lack of skill, and not with the attacker's over-abundance. There are YouTube guides out there that go over some basics, and they can ask other players for tips (I don't think I know many in top alliances who would say no if they were asked for defense tips, but I suggest finding a way to get to know them first so you aren't just randomly asking the question). I just see lots of crying for little effort.

    All this being said, I've seen a select few players in over a dozen smaller alliances have a very good idea what they're doing, and knock attackers on their ass with 10k-15k defenders. I've seen this happen even more commonly during wars between larger alliances, where there's a degree of skill involved (at least on behalf of someone feeding instructions, if not the defender themself), and a player being massed opts to self-support.

    Skill is very far and inbetween and isn't very consolidated, even among top alliances. It's hard to find people who have a really good idea what they're doing. But in my experience, defense expertise comes with practice, and if these smaller players are being attacked a lot, surely they can figure out better ways to hold their walls (assuming they're active enough to have a cast capable of this, if they're running a firecast or a 5m/7r/2cy cast, there's not much helping that). Personally, I see a lot more medium-high tier players being attacked in their rank 50-15 alliances than I see low to medium tier players being attacked. There's not enough glory in attacking small players, and attacking big players is mostly useless, so going for the medium-high tier guys capable of holding 5-7k d at main with a decent but not godcast provides a lot more benefit than farming little guys. Maybe that's just because I'm in a top alliance that actually likes pvp, but that's been my experience.

    I don't attack people much anymore, but I'm very inclined to share tips when people ask. It doesn't happen often, but when it does I happily give them an idea of how they could/should have defended my attack. And usually, the next time I attack them, they have the same setup as the first time.

    EDIT: Also might as well throw in that I've seen many people launch attacks full of demons and armor tools, who weren't buyers, knowing full well they were going to lose it all simply to make a point.

    TL;DR as was the point of my last post in accordance with the original post, the stats of equipment really aren't the problem, it's the power creep of alliance, (many of which are able to easily stack 40-50k d given the right amount of horn time) and in addition to this, the lack of skill among the masses.
    Friedrich IV US1
    The Prodigal Scrub Returns
  • kookiekooks (US1)kookiekooks (US1) US1 Posts: 260
    edited 07.08.2018
    While I agree with Friedrich to an extent.  The problem includes many members of the top alliances also.  Unfortunately GGE decided to make it way to get to top using rubies and many players in all alliances never learned how to play the game, instead relying on brute force.  Very few players at any level or alliance have learned how to truly attack or defend.

    I also agree that most players are approachable.  If attacked do not whine or cry but maybe congratulate the attacker and then I do have a question your set-up on the left flank or whatever seem unusual can you tell why you had xxx there?  Usually you will get a response, maybe not what you were expecting but a response and the real good players comfortable in their abilities will spend the time to give pointers and those are the ones you want to cultivate as friends and comrades.  Of course in the middle of wars is not the best to ask.  

    The other thing is very few players ever really look at the BR they glance at the cover page but not the details.  Doing that alone will teach a lot. 

    The last item, is yes when defending and you have 40K in support or whatever, is an opportunity to experiment a little.  With 40K in defenders there is little chance of losing, so maybe see if changing some tools to range versus melee or whatever has any affect, do it then.  Or does defending the center even if you know you will lose eventually on a 6th wave attack better than taking out flank of an attack.  Is it worth the extra tools to defend 2 flanks (and win) versus the center.  These are thing you need to consider.  Unless you really blow things, the cost to your supporters will not be great, most of troops on the wall are yours because you probably have Flamebeares and Compound bowmen there,
    kookiekooks @ usa 1
  • While I agree with Friedrich to an extent.  The problem includes many members of the top alliances also.  Unfortunately GGE decided to make it way to get to top using rubies and many players in all alliances never learned how to play the game, instead relying on brute force.  Very few players at any level or alliance have learned how to truly attack or defend.
    This was true during the war, but now that it's been over for awhile, the top 5-7 alliances generally know what they're doing, with some notable exceptions depending upon the day and power fluctuations.

    The amount of times the rank 1 Fluffy Unicorns sent autofilled or otherwise terrible hits at me is genuinely depressing. I lost a couple up front.. didn't lose any after.

    The ability to buy skips that other people can't get in such large quantities to speed up building is rather broken in my opinion. They slowed down progress for everyone except buyers with that.

    There's a big whining problem, this I would say is the primary reason most people end up getting farmed. Get hit a couple times, start crying to everyone, start getting torched by everyone. But on the flip side of this, there's people in most tiers of alliances that almost exclusively send quick hits at undefended outposts to kill off attack troops. While I've done this myself and think it's a genuine part of the game, I don't do this to new/weak players, I aim for high legend/might players that have undefended attackers in their outposts that I can hit without it getting alliance support. It's less for my benefit and more to teach them a lesson. I guess you can learn the lesson early, but I personally don't see the need to go out of my way to snipe smaller people.
    Friedrich IV US1
    The Prodigal Scrub Returns
  • zeus1998 (GB1)zeus1998 (GB1) GB1 Posts: 356
    too many players, even at lvl 70 can't defend or don't know the mechanics.

    I returned to the game back last year and spent time in alliances ranked 20-30 whilst I rebuilt.

    They didn't know crap all on a whole, that's why it doesn't work for those lower down the ranks. They are too stupid or too ignorant to learn.



    RECORD NOMADS = 134,291, TOP 40
    RECORD SAMS = 254,189. 4TH PLACE 
    I've been here for around 7 years now, can't wait to celebrate my decade of destruction. 









  • kookiekooks (US1)kookiekooks (US1) US1 Posts: 260
    Well I agree whining is a problem.  Complaining about a "random" glory attack is a good way to get people mad.  But at the same time, a player that gets hits multiple times in short period of time by players from the same alliance is enitled to be mad.  However if they glory attacks and the guy getting attack without bitching and complaining that he appreciates being attacked is part of the game, but after defending 5 attacks from your alliance in the past 2 days, I would appreciate if you could hold off for a few days and allow to rebuild my forces, then I will glad to try beat off your attack(s) again.  Will usually get a positive response and a reprieve,  But remember you cant go and complain.  

    Despite what people believe, The big alliances do not want to drive the smaller alliances or players out of existence.  They know they need them just as much as they are needed.  I happened to look at KON do not Hit List (probably out of date slightly - Late spring)  Out of the top 50 alliance only 15 are not on that list and none in the top 10.  (I assume it is the same for MISC) Do you really think KON and MISC want to destroy those 15 alliances so they have to fight themselves again to maintain there glory levels.

    kookiekooks @ usa 1
  • TannerM. (US1)TannerM. (US1) US1 Posts: 2,695
    Lets watch every war turn into who can mass each individual player faster.  

    Everyone is just gonna go full aggro because defense would be worthless, and then because you can't support, all your troops are gonna get starved out.  Once you're farmed, you won't be able to rebuild since you can't defend so you could only rebuild to as high as your castles allow for food production.  Not to mention destroy comms lowering that number when they start wrecking your granaries, and losing all your resources to rebuild grans if people are diligently farming you.  

    It's a nice sentiment, but the combat system itself needs re-balancing and fixing over just changing one aspect of it.  It's broken now due to them just power creeping and removing features instead of actually changing it.  As it stands, if you're in a large alliance that is willing to dump troops on you, short of a war, you are untouchable.  You can suggest 1v1s but who wants to deal with it when someone can just wait you out and hit you when you're off or you have accounts that pw share / get texted which would make them untouchable in an even 1v1.  Not to mention the "1v1s" are slanted heavily towards players that have spent the most money or time, not necessarily the most skilled.  Which is also a silly concept since "skill" in this game is just understanding the intricacies of the mechanics that GGE doesn't explain to the player along with account preparation.  There is no physical aspect like throwing a football, no reflexes or hand eye coordination like E-sports, and while there is a level of thought required, if you've bought 100K horrors and have all the best comms, you're probably alright as long as you can count tools out between 10 - 30.  All around, this is not a fair or skill based game, it's about who can best coordinate with their team.  Even then, that isn't always needed as people multi account heavily and with multiple high powered accounts, it works out (Insert joke about Morentz running every account in the MISC).  Anyone expecting more from GGE should play another game (hell, we should all honestly go play another game regardless).  

    My personal recommendation would be to create somewhat of a mini game for the attack mechanics in which two players must legitimately battle when you attack someone.  You attack, and wait for the player's response / defense to see the final outcome.  If they don't respond within 16 hours, it's your win.  Same penalties, similar system (unless a better concept is available).  I am not a game developer so obviously this is a very basic description not touching on all of the details and questions that would need to be answered with a system like this, but I think the idea within the right hands would be a good fix to the current combat system.  

    Unfortunately, I don't have too much confidence in the competency of GGS to successfully perform such a fix.  So we're just going to watch as they keep phasing out pvp more and more, until it's no longer a feature at which point everyone can safely farm their events without the threat of any big mean bully players coming in and attacking them.   




    nHIylr9gif = The battle plan

    The Ningdom now and forever - Serry 

    Hion has a small dink
  • neuterable (US1)neuterable (US1) US1 Posts: 756
    Stagnation is a natural consequence of the power up cycle. Continuing the cycle or nerfing will both fail to resolve it. A complete wash, as occurs in Islands, somewhat helps but only in its limited scope.

    Making the game, actually, work and stuff, might stop so many castles from becoming ghost towns.
    neuterable, shameless slaughterer of peasants, collector of princesses and fan of homestuck


    α ЯTFM ¿¿¿Want Free $tuff??? Then Go Write Santa a Letter ЯTFM Ω
Sign In to comment.