• 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!

Feedback GBG Improvements Part 2

DeletedUser8707

Setting focus "do not attack" or " attack" is just great improvement, helps guild and members.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Every leader I've spoken to in numerous guilds wants this.
A detailed log of what? Of all 100k or more fights? do you want 2 megabyte of traffic every time you open the guild battlegrounds?

Nobody needs a combat log, it's 100% pointless. the only thing people want is seeing who is attacking some1 they are not supposed to. you don't need a combat log for that.

the easy fix that comes to mind is a settings menu for privileged guild members to formally add NAPs which prevents players from attacking. That in turn would reveal that NAPs undermine the whole concept of battlegrounds.
 

DeletedUser8743

No need for a combat log or NAP functionality. Now that there is a Do Not Attack marker simply put a message to the existing log whenever someone successfully attacks a province marked Do Not Attack. To cut back on the number of messages, I'd check the last logged message to see if it matches the new message. If it does, discard the new message.
 

aragon82

Merchant
Are there some changes you should have told us with the match-making in GBG?
Looks like the last two rounds were very different in terms of which guild get paired together. Also chances to get the only 7-guild-diamond league two times in a row are low...
I really hope "the best with the best" is not correct anymore...at least "the best" is now 1000 to 980(or something) LP
 
Last edited:

beelzebob666

Emperor
Are there some changes you should have told us with the match-making in GBG?
Looks like the last two rounds were very different in terms of which guild get paired together. Also chances to get the only 7-guild-diamond league two times in a row are low...
I really hope "the best with the best" is not correct anymore...at least "the best" is now 1000 to 980(or something) LP
not quite sure what you mean - if you are referring to the diamond battlegrounds often only having 7 members, that was most likely related to the low member count in the diamond league. Now that the league is getting filled up more and more, having 7 guild only should get the exception and not the norm.
 

aragon82

Merchant
we had many 8-guild-rounds in diamond so far, now 2x7 in a row and both were "filled up" with guilds below the maximum
thats new, the last 10/12/15 rounds there was close to no one below 1000 LP with us
 

beelzebob666

Emperor
we had many 8-guild-rounds in diamond so far, now 2x7 in a row and both were "filled up" with guilds below the maximum
thats new, the last 10/12/15 rounds there was close to no one below 1000 LP with us
Would say that it is coincidence - how many guilds are there in diamond league total?
 

aragon82

Merchant
havent counted them so far(45-50 is my best guess), this time(at least with the information we got) other guild also have this scenario 5x1000 LP, 2x with fewer
thats not what the match-making has been since the start
 

Devilsangel

Squire
I have noticed that behavior a long time ago on our server. In platinum and diamond league guilds were divided not by closest lps but rather in a semi random way equally spreading between groups. For example in diamond league guild with points below 950: from 901 to 950 were in same leagues and guilds with points from 951 to 1000 were also in same leagues spread more or less equally among each other. Same with platinum leagues while gold, I think, was always grouped with just closest points.
 

Gab in Beta

Merchant
how many guilds will be in an island :
If there are 40 guilds in diamond league, there would be 5 diamond islands with 8 guilds each.
if there are 39 guilds in the league, there would be 4 islands with 8 guilds and one with 7. The 7 guilds island will include the 7 guilds with the lowest LPS closer to 901.
if there are 41 guilds in the league, there will be 5 islands with 7 guilds and one with 6. the 6 guilds island will include the 6 guilds with the lowest LPS etc . .
On live servers, islands with guilds with 1000 LPS are based on the prestige of guilds and going down, in the beta there is something else dividing islands in the 1000 LPS guild . .still trying to find out what this is, if anyone knows, it will be helpful:)
 

Umbrathor

Baronet
Just noticed that a number oif people are clamoring for ways to force players to not attack certain sectors. I vote against changing the current situation. Players need to be free to attack which ever sector they want. It is enough that the GB general can indicate which sector they would like to be or not be attacked.

Does that mean that players can sabotage? Yes. Does that happen often: not actual sabotage I suppose, but there are other reasons to pick sectors, mostly based on which fights or negotiations are being called for.

Should an option be added to be able to see who has attacked 'out of order'. There are indicators, especially when using Foe helper. It would certainly be handy to know for frustrated GB generals. With the amount of attacks happening, I'm not sure I would advocate for detailed battle logs. It would required the game servers to store a lot of data that is mostly irrelevant.