Home English (UK) 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

Permanent Outposts in Empire: Yes or No.

Permanent Op's:--------------1 OP----------------2 OP's-------------------3 OP's--------------

Should this suggestion be taken seriously now by the game developers.

Obviously I think it should be, and the only question would then be, should it be 1 op, 2 op's, 3 op's. I think by an open discussion on which choice would allow for all, players to have am opinion on the choice and how many. For the old school they will say 3 0p's, for Multi's and shell's, (well I think we know that), but why should it be 3.

I would prefer all 3 to be permanent, as this would stop Multi-Accounts, and shells, in their tracks. There would be no reason for these ghosts and shells, not that would justify as many creations anyway, and not without passing the full cost of upgrading them onto the creators anyway. Yes!, there are still ways around it like accounts being passed on, but it stops the use of Op's as collateral, and the more devious purposes that they have been used for.

Why should players put the revenue and time into updates and upgrades into these Op's, to see them taken away from them, unscrupulous players who say they are playing the game, but aren't. Many of us have had run-in's with these people, and know the type and reasons its done. For those that say why should Op's die when accounts die, why not!. That Op is someone elses hard work, time and money, so why should't it go. Better still why shouldn't GGe/Stillfront keep those Op's with the main castles. It wouldn't be hard. They already hang onto 4 castles, in case a player restarts, so why not a few more. Surely that would be a plus should a player come back after a rest, and if the cost is that the player buys some rubies at some time so be it, as long as GGE didn't try to make money on it and stop it happening.

I have never understood GGE's logic on it, as to allow Op's to pass on, or be capped, is to reduce the revenue available on when new one's are built, and takes away from new players learning the game, which happens a lot now. I really think this suggestion has some uses in keeping the game alive, protecting players assets long term, and allow protected spending by players in long term use of the game.
«1

Comments

  • sudu (IN1)sudu (IN1) IN1 Posts: 174
    Permanent Op's:--------------1 OP----------------2 OP's-------------------3 OP's--------------

    Should this suggestion be taken seriously now by the game developers.

    Obviously I think it should be, and the only question would then be, should it be 1 op, 2 op's, 3 op's. I think by an open discussion on which choice would allow for all, players to have am opinion on the choice and how many. For the old school they will say 3 0p's, for Multi's and shell's, (well I think we know that), but why should it be 3.

    I would prefer all 3 to be permanent, as this would stop Multi-Accounts, and shells, in their tracks. There would be no reason for these ghosts and shells, not that would justify as many creations anyway, and not without passing the full cost of upgrading them onto the creators anyway. Yes!, there are still ways around it like accounts being passed on, but it stops the use of Op's as collateral, and the more devious purposes that they have been used for.

    Why should players put the revenue and time into updates and upgrades into these Op's, to see them taken away from them, unscrupulous players who say they are playing the game, but aren't. Many of us have had run-in's with these people, and know the type and reasons its done. For those that say why should Op's die when accounts die, why not!. That Op is someone elses hard work, time and money, so why should't it go. Better still why shouldn't GGe/Stillfront keep those Op's with the main castles. It wouldn't be hard. They already hang onto 4 castles, in case a player restarts, so why not a few more. Surely that would be a plus should a player come back after a rest, and if the cost is that the player buys some rubies at some time so be it, as long as GGE didn't try to make money on it and stop it happening.

    I have never understood GGE's logic on it, as to allow Op's to pass on, or be capped, is to reduce the revenue available on when new one's are built, and takes away from new players learning the game, which happens a lot now. I really think this suggestion has some uses in keeping the game alive, protecting players assets long term, and allow protected spending by players in long term use of the game.
    just like pvt Rvs.. yes.. that'd be great and give perfect solution to many major issues players having...
    sudu @ in 1
  • Tony C (INT1)Tony C (INT1) INT1 Posts: 75
    edited 06.07.2021
    I agree. Especially now that there are so many upgrades you can in OPs that need scarce resources, such as construction tokens. It's a big commitment to commit those, plus the time to upgrade. It does not seem right to me that literally years worth of work could be so easily taken away with a OP capture especially if a big alliance decides to pick on a smaller one. I would be very happy if they were made permanent and could not be captured. I would also like to see removal of building destruction too. I think having 100% fire damage hurts a player enough, for the same reason.
    Edit - they should also let you move OP's, in case you decide to move your MC and need OPs closer. But with some limitations, so you can only move your OP within a certain number of distance from your main.
    Tony C @ WWW 1
  • This would stop (genuinely) new players obtaining outposts from players that are confirmed to be leaving. Therefore, they have to build each outpost from scratch which means starting an account will take much longer than it already currently does. I would know, as one of my outposts was from scratch, and ruby costs are tough for F2P.

    This change may only work if outposts were somewhat pre-built, like castles in outer realms or storm, but ruby building would still not exist. Personally the change is too big for GGS to implement, and perhaps shell accounts are better countered in a different way, without harming new, non-ruby players.
  • One of the main reasons that ghost/shell accounts exist are to steal players Ops, if you play regulary on Gb server you should know that. Multi's make it easier for control of accounts, then shells etc, anything that stops that should be at the top of any To Do list.

    In answer to your first response, I disagree, and my whole post explains why. That once a player creates an account, and produces Op's, then those ops/op would belong to that main account. If a player returns then his account and Op's should still be active. Even if it was only 1 op, it would help players, by allowing them to use whatever resources they wanted to in whatever Op was permanent. As for costs, every serious player knows about building Op's, how long, upgrades etc, and starting off doesn't need rubies, thats the plus factor, just learning.

    The reason that many players in game do not understand the fundamentals is because they don't start from scratch, so do not know the history or basics of the game. The other thing I think it would also re-introduce into the game is longevity, something to draw in and keep players long term within the game, and of course allow for these really silly long term upgrades they keep bringing in. Players would feel more protected knowing that their investment. their asset in the game is protected and not going to be stolen away, and passed onto another multi or shell, that then holds that Op in the game as a trophy against the player that built it and spent on it.

    The stealing part of Op's has know become a dark part of this game, and is used by people I wouldn't even call players, as tools to blackmail, harass, and bully actual players into submission, or drive from the game. GGE / Stillfront should have realised by now that this practice is simply driving their potential player base and customers away. Really silly!
    It wouldn't help low level players, as the outposts would be poorly developed... plus, these players would never be at risk of having their outposts taken, so the resources in their ops are never at risk.
    "starting off doesn't need rubies", well having an already developed outpost sure as well helps LOL, and eventually you have to work to get stables, bakery and watchtower... low level players do not have access to desert and fire fortresses, and struggle with setups, and beating other players to them, even when they do have access.

    Building in the game is single-handedly one of the most tedious tasks, and I know it puts off new players (I have tried recruiting many over the years). Longevity is not what new players need, they'll forever be in the shadow of Level 70's.

    Whilst I sympathise with the last statement, there are better ways around it. GGS could implement a method of protection, perhaps within VIP time or like the 'feasts', which allows temporary protection for active players. This still gives lower levels the opportunity to capture pre-built ops from inactive players who do not have this activated.
  • On a less serious note,
    For someone with no outposts, you seem to like the process of building up outposts (from scratch) far too much.
  • fierdragon (GB1)fierdragon (GB1) GB1 Posts: 204
    Perhaps the answer  is to make all OPs Permanent fixtures aslong as the  main castle they are attached to is still ACTIVE. 

    ONCE the main castle is in ruins  the OPs are then free to capture by anyone.

    Giving OPs to low lvl  or new players is somthing we do if we have them and it gives them a helping start to there game
  • Poseidon X AngelPoseidon X Angel Moderator Posts: 1,361
    I don't know if permanent ops are a good idea. If that means players their outposts can't be capture or attacked it will change pvp a lot. It means you can station the troops from your outpost at your friend his main castle and he then does the same for you. So now your main castle has over 2 million defenders.


  • fierdragon (GB1)fierdragon (GB1) GB1 Posts: 204
    I don't know if permanent ops are a good idea. If that means players their outposts can't be capture or attacked it will change pvp a lot. It means you can station the troops from your outpost at your friend his main castle and he then does the same for you. So now your main castle has over 2 million defenders.


    I think Attacks would still be allowed  only the Capture of the Op is in question

  • The thread is about capturing Op's, not mentioned non attacking as far as I'm aware.

    Op's would be attackable, any everything as is now, just account owner wouldn't lose the asset, as per main castle!
    Alright, but just wondering, why are people so upset about losing outposts?
    because they either don't want to rebuild OP that people already spent their time skips on it 
    or they are lazy to rebuild it especially after MB overprice they can't even afford time skips (expect if they were saving 2k tools per week)
  • I can see that in fact yo u know very little of game, and even less what happens on your own server. I also think that in fact you are not a true f2p either, from a couple of recent deductions.
    I see that you also not a follower of complete threads, but only things of interest to you, and you have not read up on other similar threads from concerned players.

    For your main critism about my lack of Ops, you may like to read the relevant thread regarding why my castle is still burning, and the bully threats made about my Ops being stolen from me by a lvl 800 questionable. My Ops were my own and built by me, and i decidedmy time was nigh on the game, and not wanting someone like yourself ending up with them, i abandoned them. exactly why the thread was started.

    I do notice from game stats, and lack of some voices from the forum now, and posts, that probably ideas are too late anyway, and the damage is done. That will prob suit players like yourself as you will have a lovely new selection of Ops to choose from, as other players hard work and money.
    Yeah sure, because my argument is sound you decide just to make bold and blatantly wrong claims against me. No wonder you're burning and have no outposts, you're evidently a dislikable player. Your alliance description supports that.
    I did read similar threads, but your suggestion here isn't the way about it, as I have said...

     I can guarantee I know more about the game than you, but you can deny that just like any argument made against you. 
  • Imagine creating a thread where you just spread abuse against those that disagree with you...
  • Poseidon X AngelPoseidon X Angel Moderator Posts: 1,361
    These days if someone captures your outpost you barely lose anything. I have had to "fight" to not lose my outpost for over a year, maybe even 2. I had low-level accounts move to my outpost as well as povos and regular main castles. It's expensive to keep your outposts if someone decides to make it their duty to take them over and trying to reclaim the outpost is simply not worth it.

    When I lose my outposts I will just take new ones outside of the edges of the map. Because remember, you don't need to make it impossible to get your outposts stolen, you just need to make it harder to steal yours compared to someone else's.
    Keep in mind this doesn't work if you manage to upset the wrong people. This is why I suggest you don't interact with certain people.
  • Poseidon X AngelPoseidon X Angel Moderator Posts: 1,361
    This argument does back a long way, and involves all sorts of players, even parents of some younger players, that had Op's stolen, after which obviously parents had obviously funded for updates etc. While GGE have rules on ages, they never seem to impliment them, and so parents originally unaware of the status of a war game, their kids were playing were upset when their asset, pocket money whatever went into someone elses pocket.
    I will break it down bit by bit.
    So enforcing minimum age restrictions isn't as easy as it seems. We all know that from the "I am 18 or older" messages.
    Alternatively, take a look at Twitter, I was forced to create a new account because my previous one got blocked because they claim I was under the age of 13. The only way to truly enforce these rules is by verifying your identity with your passport. Now that wouldn't be too great of a way to sign up for a free browser game.

    I understand how people might get upset over losing their assets in this game, there was a time where I would be upset too.
    I am not saying people should drop this mindset. But I do believe these sorts of players are fairly safe from outpost captures. By these sorts of players, I am talking about people who just stay in the background and play the game casually.
    If you don't stick your head out you will probably never have to deal with losing your outpost. It's those who either make a big deal of it or who engage in a war, who ultimately end up losing them.
    This game has moved on from its origination , as I presume you would accept, and in doing so has way exceeded any inflation revenue wise into the game from when it began, and indeed as these latest upgrades show it is n longer a cheap game, and many will argue no longer a true F2P, but that I know you will argue.
    Ask yourself a question, for a true answer! if building and creating these Op's were as expensive, in time and revenue originally as now, would we have seen more of this argument then, and possibly fewer players as well.
    I certainly believe the value of outposts has dropped significantly over the past years, mainly due to changes like getting your decorative items back after losing the outpost. In regards to the latest update, I just posted a longer message in a different thread, feel free to look at that.
    If we take a trip through memory lane it also tells us that outpost captures weren't that big of a thing a few years ago. The game has changed in multiple ways, one being war tactics. However, as I said, outposts aren't worth as much as I used to.
    Because of all this, I don't think it's worth our time to discuss what the game would look like today if outpost captures happened in a time where the outposts were worth a lot more.

    You are a ruby player, not only through being a mod, but you have said yourself you spend. You are also in a large and powerfull alliance, so unless you were in a really big server war, (unlikely), then this option regarding stolen Op's isn't likely to affect you. If you honestly cannot see the argument against Op's being stolen, then you shouldn't be a Mod, and if you really do agree, that the system should be allowed, then as a mod you should't really be making your opinion known, but rather be neutral, and your opinion should be, through your player status only.
    I mostly disagree with what you say here, apart from the obvious, I am a moderator, I spend my own money and we get a so-called token of appreciation at the end of each month. But I did take part in a war where outposts were stolen constantly. Luckily I was on the winning side and was mainly focused on taking the outposts but there was a time where mine were at a real risk of being stolen.

    This was the case for a very long period of time and it certainly wasn't fun, but it did change my perspective. I had realized I started to care about my outpost a little too much. If they were going to get stolen there was very little I could do to prevent it. That and the fact that rebuilding outposts are cheap as dirt nowadays made me see things differently.
    I changed my playstyle a little and ultimately never lost my outposts, but I am still playing the game so who knows, it might happen tonight...

    I really understand how many people would rather not lose them, like I said, I was one of those people. I don't expect people to change how they feel at all. I don't like the mechanic and I especially don't like how much exploiting is involved in taking outposts from another player, but I do think it's a somewhat vital part of the game now.

    Now as for my opinions, I can state mine on here all I want. If I want to engage in a dialogue with players on the forum I have to express my feelings and opinions, otherwise, I am arguing on behalf of the masses. I also don't see the issue with my opinion differing a little or a lot from some of yours. If you and many others believe outpost captures are wrong and should be dealt with by the studio, I will let them know. I am neutral in the way I forward feedback, but not in the way I express my opinion. If you see something wrong with that, please let me know.

    And then at last, sometimes we are asked for what our communities believe, in that case, we obviously side with the majority. But there are also cases where we are asked for our personal opinions. Given my knowledge of the game, I am confident I can make an educated suggestion that will benefit the majority of the player base. Keep in mind we are mainly suggesting Quality of Life feature here, something we suggested recently was an option to use all your 1-hour skips to instantly skip 3600 hours of research. This hasn't been requested on the forum a bunch but we know it's something that would be appreciated.

    Something I personally suggested was adding an alliance leaderboard that shows the total resources looted for every alliance. It's nothing major but we simply can't suggest major game changes, these are made by the design and balancing teams respectively. However, when they bring out an update like the most recent one we are quick to yell at everyone because we believe the number of sceats needed is simply too high.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file