• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can
    REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • Halloween Event 2021


    Read all about the Halloween Event 2021 here!
  • Castle System

    The Castle System is a brand new feature in Forge of Empires which aims to reward players that are playing Forge of Empires actively. Come check it out in your city!
    Do you want to know more about this new feature? Then click here!
  • Cultural Settlement - Mughal Empire

    We are proud to present you our brand new Cultural Settlement: The Mughal Empire!
    This is the fifth of our Cultural Settlements, and your job is to help expand the Mughal Embassy.
    Read all about it here!

Forwarded Description in Guild Battleground

Do you think this modification would be good?

  • yes

    Votes: 26 74.3%
  • no

    Votes: 9 25.7%

  • Total voters
    35

Axter1x

Farmer
The idea would be for the Nick of the player who conquers a sector to appear on the Guild Battleground. Right now only the guild appears. However, when a building is constructed or destroyed in a sector, it does appear who did it.
 
Reason
When you're on a tight Guild Battleground, where the guild leaves sectors ready to close at a certain time and coordinate attacks, it's frustrating when someone closes them. If it happens once, it does not matter, when they are 3 or 4 you start to get angry and you consider acting ... But there is no way of knowing who is dedicated to closing those sectors. In this way, whoever has closed a sector would be registered.
Details
It would only be about changing a data and when a sector is conquered, instead of putting the name of the guild from which the sector was conquered, the Nickname of the partner who conquered that sector appears.
Balance
No impact on other game features
Abuse Prevention
Not
Summary
It is an idea to avoid discussions in the operation of the guild that would be achieved with a small change in the description of the conquest of a sector in the Guild Battleground.
Have you looked to see if this has already been suggested?
Yes, but I didn't find anything
Visual Aids
Attached an example of how it could be

Attachments

BENITO71

Farmer
Estoy de acuerdo, sería algo de mucha utilidad cuando te estropean repetidamente las estrategias en el CdB y un gran complemento a la señalización de los sectores
 
Estoy de acuerdo, sería algo de mucha utilidad cuando te estropean repetidamente las estrategias en el CdB y un gran complemento a la señalización de los sectores
Translation (My own, Spanish is my first language):
I agree, it would be of great help when strategies in GBG are ruined over and over and a great addition to the identification of the sectors.
 
Last edited:

Axter1x

Farmer
Why not just tag the sector(s) to be ignored? That capability already exists.
Already partner. But if, despite being marked sectors to be ignored, they continue to attack and close, without knowing who it is ...
How do you find out in a guild of 80 people?
 
Why not just tag the sector(s) to be ignored? That capability already exists.
Current capability is not enough to solve current problem. Tag a sector as to be ignored does not block guildmembers to continue attacks and finish/close the sector. If sectors cant be blocked for further attacks, then the proposed idea would reveal who didnt followed the guild order/strategy to ignore it.
 
And in many cases that will punish people for not seeing a change in status, a lag issue (quite common), or even negotiators who finally complete their negotiation at the end when there were many attacks left when they started. This only shows the last person to finish a battle/negotiation, not the other people who put it 1 from finishing. That is why I am against this type of reporting.
 
And in many cases that will punish people for not seeing a change in status, a lag issue (quite common), or even negotiators who finally complete their negotiation at the end when there were many attacks left when they started. This only shows the last person to finish a battle/negotiation, not the other people who put it 1 from finishing. That is why I am against this type of reporting.
I see your point, guild leaders flag a sector to be ignored with 10 or 5 fights/negotiations still pending to finish it. Flag is on the map to be seen, and a message is at the GBG Strategy thread to leave that sector ignored for now and to concentrate attacks on other sectors (also flagged for attack). More than one player did not paid enough attention to status and perform the 10 attacks or negotiations, concurrently, and get the sector finished messing with the strategy plans.

Currently: We don't know Who (one guildmember or more) didn't paid attention and performed the 10 attacks / negotiations.
Proposed Idea: We will know just one of the responsible, the last one, (either the only responsible, or one of a group) who didn't paid attention...

What is better? Being able to identify one responsible, or none?

if a gang robs a bank, and the police is chasing them.. what are the instructions? Catch them all, if not let all go free? Arresting just one is not good?
 
What is better? Being able to identify one responsible, or none?

if a gang robs a bank, and the police is chasing them.. what are the instructions? Catch them all, if not let all go free? Arresting just one is not good?
Since no crime was committed, I'd say none would be the better choice, and I say this as a founder of a guild where this happens more often than I'd prefer.

There have been times when I've been using up my SC negotiations and well more than 50 battles were completed in the time it took me to complete that one 6 choice negotiation, and I'm usually a reasonably quick negotiator. In those cases it wouldn't have mattered if it was announced to hold prior to unlocking if someone else took it to 158 while I was in the process of my negotation. There are other ways to weed out a non-compliant culprit if it happens too often. Takes a bit of work, but is very possible to find someone doing it on purpose or simply not caring vs someone doing it accidentally.