GE level 5

[LawrenceOfArabia]

I'm sure the FOE people would have some stats to look at, to see how many people complete GE level 4 each week,

 

[DeletedUser103370]

not necessarily true, sometimes the ability to complete higher levels depends more on your age than your bonus, a CE player with 90% bonus (all 3 attack gbs at level 10) will get further than an OF player with the same bonus


last i read on the repeating levels idea was to limit the number of encounters to 64, so some1 who finishes level 4 would still have nothing to do

It doesn't matter what it depends on or not, you still don't get it guys. Some people can reach only level 1, some level 2... I don't know how many times do I need to repeat this, point is, once you've reached the maximum you can (let that be 1, 2, 3, or 4, and won't matter if the reason is that you're not strong enough, don't have the troops, or don't have the goods to negotiate), GE is FINISHED for you for that week.

Exactly because of that reason @TheKnightsTemplar proposed to make a level 5, and exactly for that reason I've proposed repeating.

And @joesoap, just because you read a lot of brainstorming below a proposed idea how it coud be implemented, it doesn't mean it'd get implemented that way. If you read that 64 limit proposal, then I'm sure you read my other 30 ideas what I said could be used too...

And lastly, a little bit of math (for reference let's say it takes a day to complete 1 level)

People who complete:

LEVEL 1 - takes 1 day / must wait 6 days to play again
LEVEL 2 - takes 2 days / must wait 5 days to play again
LEVEL 3 - takes 3 days / must wait 4 days to play again
LEVEL 4 - takes 4 days / must wait 3 days to play again

It's logical that people who can do the least, must wait the longest to be able to participate again.

On the other hand who can ONLY complete level 5? People who already got through level 4 right? So level 5 would mean nothing to people who can only complete level 1/2/3!
In other words, repeating would come handy for "1/2/3-ers", while level 5 would come handy to "level 4-ers".
In fact the two proposals would balance each other nicely.

And my problem is that even though I never complete level 4 (only doing level 1 because it's a must in my guild) I'd gladly support even more levels (5/6/7 it doesn't matter), but you guys won't support helping out the ones who are below you, because it's not in your interest.
If you don't believe me, there are 6 guys who explicitly voted against repeat, now go and ask them how many levels they complete, and you'll see that all of them are level 4s...

 

[joesoap]

If you don't believe me, there are 6 guys who explicitly voted against repeat, now go and ask them how many levels they complete, and you'll see that all of them are level 4s...

again this isnt true....i voted against it, i play 7 worlds, in 3 of them i only complete level 1, in 2 of them i complete level 2, in another i complete level 4 (if its open) & in the last 1 i do as many levels as we need to for the championship but normally level 1 is enough

 

[LawrenceOfArabia]

It doesn't matter what it depends on or not, you still don't get it guys. Some people can reach only level 1.

Produce more goods,
plunder more goods
build more barracks

it's not really very difficult, most peoples cities are full of non useful event items, focus your city on farming or fighting,

 

[DeletedUser103370]

Produce more goods,
plunder more goods
build more barracks

it's not really very difficult, most peoples cities are full of non useful event items, focus your city on farming or fighting,

-1
I see. Then I say no GE level 5 is needed, go make your city less productive, so you can enjoy 4 levels longer...

 

[DeletedUser103370]

again this isnt true....i voted against it, i play 7 worlds, in 3 of them i only complete level 1, in 2 of them i complete level 2, in another i complete level 4 (if its open) & in the last 1 i do as many levels as we need to for the championship but normally level 1 is enough

So you complete level 4 in your main acc. Same thing put into different context...
Also only hardcore players play many worlds, a casual player only does one.

 

[LawrenceOfArabia]

-1
I see. Then I say no GE level 5 is needed, go make your city less productive, so you can enjoy 4 levels longer...

what a ridiculous thing to say

 

[joesoap]

So you complete level 4 in your main acc. Same thing put into different context...
Also only hardcore players play many worlds, a casual player only does one.

i complete level 4 in my 4th world, it is in the lower ages that GE is easiest where you arent facing armies with huge bonuses

 

[LawrenceOfArabia]

i complete level 4 in my 4th world, it is in the lower ages that GE is easiest where you arent facing armies with huge bonuses

that's relative though, higher level players will also have the attack GBs and the various other buildings in their city to also give high attack bonuses, if they are attack focused,

 

[DeletedUser103370]

what a ridiculous thing to say

It's only as ridiculous as your's:

"Produce more goods,
plunder more goods
build more barracks

it's not really very difficult, most peoples cities are full of non useful event items, focus your city on farming or fighting"

If your solution for weaker players is to tell them to be better to be able to play GE more, then I say you can simply take GE slower, then you won't have to wait as much...

It's sad to see that any time a proposal is made to support newbies or weaker ones, the big players in the end always say this:
"go and be better"
That's ridiculous...

 

[DeletedUser110195]

that's relative though, higher level players will also have the attack GBs and the various other buildings in their city to also give high attack bonuses, if they are attack focused,

Like I said, I am attack oriented on my main world, and my attack bonuses aren't enough to fight through level 3 at PE, the defending armies bonuses are outpacing me...and I'm taking my time. Perhaps not as much as some, but I am.

 

[joesoap]

that's relative though, higher level players will also have the attack GBs and the various other buildings in their city to also give high attack bonuses, if they are attack focused,

there hasnt been a new attack GB since LMA & the highest bonus from them comes within in the 1st 10 levels, low age players have as much access to these buildings as high players, they also have access to all the other event buildings that provide attack bonuses
if a low age player had exactly the same buildings as a high age player the same bonus would be more beneficial to the low age player in GE

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

I'll judge the idea on its own merit, not on unconnected discussions from the poster. I write as a relative newbie who has completed level 2 quite often but never played le el 3.

I think the idea has merit. While I get peed off at the way the game sometimes is so slanted to the few big players at the disadvantage of the many smaller players, I don't see this proposal affecting them. As an app player, I may be missing something about guild power but the proposal doesn't even say that gobs of guild power are to be granted: level 5 could just be a level to play that is darned expensive for a guild but allows a challenge, giving only level 4 advantages to a guild.

But really, why stop at 5? Just as the developers managed to compute every GB level over 10, so they could compute every level over 4 on an exponential scale, making the difficulties and costs increasingly difficult with no theortical limit.

So,
+ 1
but why stop at 5.

EDIT:

That said, I have just posted this thought as a version of the repeating levels Idea:

...My thinking is that for intensive farmers, coming up with the goods for negotiation is simple, while for intensive fighters with high attack boosts, flattening the enemy is simple.

So, how about allowing a repeat level but each stage of a repeat must be either fought if negotiated at the last time through that stage, or negotiated if fought.

This would also mean that the need for extra stages (as proposed in another Idea thread) is unlikely, since it will be very hard to both fight AND negotiate through level 4.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

but why stop at 5.

Because you further disadvantage whole less advanced guilds. The primary point of guild expedition is that you get guild power, which pushes your guild's level. The more encounters you do, the more power you earn for your guild, but more than that is winning the championship, taking 1st multiplies what your guild earned by 25%, 2nd by 15% and 3rd by 10%. Adding more levels will put those out of reach of guilds already struggling to take 3rd, by guilds who can open and complete them.

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

Because you further disadvantage whole less advanced guilds. The primary point of guild expedition is that you get guild power, which pushes your guild's level. The more encounters you do, the more power you earn for your guild, but more than that is winning the championship, taking 1st multiplies what your guild earned by 25%, 2nd by 15% and 3rd by 10%. Adding more levels will put those out of reach of guilds already struggling to take 3rd, by guilds who can open and complete them.

How does another guild being better make things any worse for me or my guild? I don't understand how it disadvantages a guild just because another guild is more advanced.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

Because if they can access levels you cannot, your chances of winning the championship die. The more levels that are added, the less chance guilds under the top 10-20 have of competing.

 

[DeletedUser103370]

Yeah, that's my concern too. If everyone could complete all levels, and it would only depend on determination, then it wouldn't matter how many levels we introduce. But that's simply not the case. So every extra level only plays on the hands of the strongest (or richest if you buy diamonds) players. I'd like to see GE as a competition of determination, not the before mentioned. Otherwise what's the point of even competing for small level players/guilds?

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

Because if they can access levels you cannot, your chances of winning the championship die. The more levels that are added, the less chance guilds under the top 10-20 have of competing.

But surely, the guilds that compete in a championship are selected - across worlds - by a measure that means you are competing against guilds of similar power/strength/ability? Even if the guilds are picked entirely at random, the chance of one of the hundreds of lower guilds being matched with one of the few higher ones is unlikely.

 

[LawrenceOfArabia]

But surely, the guilds that compete in a championship are selected - across worlds - by a measure that means you are competing against guilds of similar power/strength/ability? Even if the guilds are picked entirely at random, the chance of one of the hundreds of lower guilds being matched with one of the few higher ones is unlikely.

yeah
guilds already compete against similar sized guilds, small guilds compete for the GE rankings already like this so do the larger guilds.

 

[LawrenceOfArabia]

It's only as ridiculous as your's:

"Produce more goods,
plunder more goods
build more barracks

That's called.....playing the game, that's what you are supposed to do in the game...not just for GE but to advance yourself through the quests, ages, pvp sectors,

It's sad to see that any time a proposal is made to support newbies or weaker ones, the big players in the end always say this:
"go and be better"
That's ridiculous...

No, what I am pointing out is that people say "we can't do level 2" we can't even complete level 1"

the reason for that is that people ether don't have the barracks, troops or producing the goods needed, it's really as simple as that.