We are once again looking for some awesome new moderators to help us out with keeping
the forum running and playing a crucial part in our Empire community! If
this is something you think might be of interest to you, HERE
the forum running and playing a crucial part in our Empire community! If
this is something you think might be of interest to you, HERE
Discussion Thread: Private Resource Villages
BM Fujiwara
Posts: 575
Hey everyone,
So, in an effort to address the fact that so many people have no resource villages (particularly in sand and fire) as they all tend to be collected in the big alliances, there is a proposed solution to make things fairer for all. Private resource villages will soon be a thing, giving everyone a chance to have a full stack of food villages in each kingdom. The top levels for a village are very slightly better than a standard village, which means that the bigger players will slowly start replacing theirs, meaning the standard ones get distributed towards those otherwise less fortunate -- and of course you can choose to pick up your own villages instead of waiting as well. #shrinkTheRubyGap
All thoughts and feedback appreciated as always
Cheers,
Your Empire community team!
So, in an effort to address the fact that so many people have no resource villages (particularly in sand and fire) as they all tend to be collected in the big alliances, there is a proposed solution to make things fairer for all. Private resource villages will soon be a thing, giving everyone a chance to have a full stack of food villages in each kingdom. The top levels for a village are very slightly better than a standard village, which means that the bigger players will slowly start replacing theirs, meaning the standard ones get distributed towards those otherwise less fortunate -- and of course you can choose to pick up your own villages instead of waiting as well. #shrinkTheRubyGap
All thoughts and feedback appreciated as always
Cheers,
Your Empire community team!
fujiwara @ en-1
fujiwara @ us-1
fujiwara @ us-1
7
Sign In to comment.
Comments
I was going to suggest a food surplus , which could be bought for rubies / coins and could be kept in all castles, so if you cannot log on for any reason , it would use if use if your main food runs out..
So private rv sounds good
This was first marketed as a weaker villages which helped players without RV's to bridge towards being strong enough to access RV's. One player queries the length of development time for this feature and suddenly we have marketed and rushed out a ruby option to buy - I'll repeat that in case you missed it buy instantly for rubies villages - and if if course you can't do that you can pay to compete in nomads and samurai to gain tokens to pay for something that you previously had to graft, practice and compete through conflict to game. I can see why people feel it is no longer a war game and US server might actually have a point they may actually be the only server left playing the game as originally conceived in the true spirit.
It fails to recognise the work stronger players put in to work out strategies for taking RV's and that many of us for years have shared our full compliments of RV's with developing players as an alliance resource to help them develop.
The basic problem is that RV's are held by retired accounts, multiple accounts and shared accounts owned or run by top alliances and had that problem been addressed this whole doubtless expensive development would be unnecessary. Lets be clear there are less individual active accounts than there are resource villages at this point and if you removed inactive or illegal - under GGE rules - this simply would not be an issue.
This development disrespects the efforts of players to gain RV's - yes we actually gained them back in the day - through actual gameplay. I've never been the strongest player on my server or played in the strongest alliances I've lost my RV's twice and fought to regain them I wasn't given them but that is the game there has to be some risk for their to be reward. RV's in Outer Realm provided the chance to dust off the RV strategies and relive one of the most frustrating and exciting aspects of the game. This is just a gutless cop out that in classic GGE style as it swerve's actually dealing with rule breaches but instead yet again rewards it. What it does is remove one of the few advantages older players outside of top alliances actually had allowing Ruby players to instantly outstrip us. What will happen is they will buy immediately Villages which gives an advantage whilst less developed players work over a much longer period of time to obtain them. GGE will then as they always do up the level of the villages and the percentage bonuses for production which again are immediately bought by ruby players and slowly earnt by resource players. So the gap will actually be wider for longer than it currently is. Unless there is some evidence from test server to disprove this of course. Villages have moved from being a strategic asset to a commodity and the game is poorer for it.
The development does absolutely nothing to address the food gap / army size gap when top players can simply buy enough troops through offers to make conflicts pretty much redundant. A troop limit in wars is a far more effective step to make the game fairer. One guy have 500,000 troops hitting a player with 50,000 is never a contest. GGE have allowed a situation to arise where you have one or two alliances that wins everything so consequently have a massive PO advantage individually and collectively that can't be bridged as even if you can beat them occasionally in the long term they have maybe five times the level of troops of talented players outside of their alliances. The gap is bigger than it's every been. Implying it's closing whilst deliberately widening it is disingenuous.
From a war marshalls perspective RV's were initially a vulnerability to be exploited to reduce food production. Taking them was a strategic advantage. Attacking from them allowed positional disadvantages to be addressed. Defending them allowed armies to be reduced. Troops could be stored in them could be kept safe. The update doesn't tell us if we can store troops in them attack from them but my feeling is neither will be possible encouraging the keeping of troops at labs, monuments and the castle of players in "protection" that every alliance now seems to have as standard. Development made a key game resource and source of conflict irrelevant.
If you want to address the gap close inactive accounts, punish players who break the rules in a meaningful way, uphold your own rules and stop punishing long term loyal customers for being long term loyal customers.
At this point the game which used to be like playing chess against better players is more like playing a move against an empty chair. If you hit an active player it's pure chance. #Solitaire is the only game in town.
Seriously we aren't mugs show us more respect!!!
Why fight for normal villages when you can get private villages that are more powerful?
I think private villages are good in a sense that it allows players who are having issues obtaining real villages to actually gain some of these production bonuses. But why does these villages have to be more powerful? It doesn't make any sense.
This is also just going to further discourage players from participating in pvp situations.
Why pvp or war for villages when you can get private ones? What's worse is that you level up these villages by doing.. guess what? Events! Yes! events!
The pvp element of this game is already suffering greatly.
This update is only going to become another nail in the coffin judging the direction these developers are moving towards.
No, i don't play on GB1.
Am still playing 6 years on ! - hi lvl 800 on new yrs eve (2017/18) !
Leading the Targaryens - PS interested in joining - PM any officer in Game :-)
PS in top200 on uk 1 never botted or used a VPN - that's why it took 5 yrs to get to leg 800
The villages of private resruse gather with the public or each type of village belongs to his column? So I have: 1) You can hold maximum 5 private villages on the Kingdom of Ice, 10 on the Kingdom of Sand and 10 on the Kingdom of fire and 5 public villages on the Kingdom of Ice, 10 on the Kingdom of Sand and 10 on the Kingdom of Fire
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
45 village tokens per nomads / samurai for 10500 tablets / tokens
that is something even complete non-ruby players can do
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
Things like:
1)Is 45 the total limit of tokens one can buy from sams/nomad, or is it 45 for nomads and 45 for sams, or is it 45 per sam/nomad event?
2)Can you have more than 45 village tokens at any given time?
3)What's the base cost of a village in Ice, Sand and Fire.
3)What's the boost value of a base village? The example seems to indicate a base village boost is the same as a lvl10 village.
4)Upgrade costs of the Sand and Fire villages.
GGE must have a new person doing the translations into english as the grammar and idea transmission has gotten worse in the various announcements of late. Not that it was that good before.
Diplomat for Drunken Fist.
I know I'm a noob, no need to tell me again.
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
Private RVs are simply another version of inflation that is increasingly (ho, ho) affecting all aspects of the game. It takes away all challenge and gets closer to Space Invaders every day. When you had to figure out strategies to deal with paucity of resources, such as a total lack of RVs, you did and it paid off. Same for decos, kit and pretty much everything.
The challenge is going, simply because GGE will not put their back into sorting the underlying problem and instead think the cries of 'not fair' aimed at differences in resource available to different active need to be heeded, because otherwise people will leave the game. No, people leave the game because there is no challenge. The only thing that is not fair is multi accounting and using multis to hoard RVs and 8 food outposts.
It would lhave been simpler to simply put RVs out to grass once every month or so, forcing players to recap.
To bore everyone to death, I can remember back in the day, when in a small alliance, I finally held a flank and we won a defence against a big player - through gradually testing tactics and figuring out what worked best. Sure we had plenty of fire pixels and lost 1000s of defenders in the process, but we solved a problem together and that made us play on. Take that away and Sim City (a great game, I played the original by Maxis in b/w) is more interesting.