of course people spent money on diamonds before GBG but I still think it's been a cash cow for them, I am telling you I would have not spent money on the game without GBG being as it is currently and I'm sure I'm not alone, indeed everyone I know who has spent money has been to improve GBG performance so even if you just count me alone there is evidence.
This ^ applies to me as well. I doubt i would even be playing if in the beginning GBG was like GE where you dont need coordination with the guild to get on and just burn your daily allowed amount and log off.
No, it's not shrinking. Formally, we have from 54 (min) to 64 (max) slots in any season. And on any map, by the way. But we came such an arrangement in which every second tile on 4 lines was with slots. All 4 tiles in the center had only 2 slots. 5 of the 8 tiles of the second line were with 1 slot. It was on the volcano map. We are playing on the waterfall map on beta right now. And we got a terrible map. The whole fourth line is 1 or 0 slots. Only 2 tiles with 2 slots. 4 tiles on 3 lines contain 2 slots, the rest contain 1 slot. I have met (or heard about) such an extremely inconvenient slot arrangement only once in the entire history of GBG earlier. But I have met this several times in the last 2 months
InnoGames being InnoGames, what You really expected from them?
Off topic:announcement in german forum
a new world starts next Thursday
Problem with that assertion that you wouldn’t have spent it on something if it hadn’t existed, is this is all you’ve ever known. If it hadn’t existed, you wouldn’t have known any better.
GBG gave people a real reason to increase their att/def. Although some here will say otherwise many worlds have transitioned from 2 guilds stuffing the rest of the map. Time has given dozens of guilds the treasuries to compete. This means most worlds now have hundreds of players with level 130 arcs on dozens of guilds. My world has over 1000 arcs over 100. The thought it is totally broken is wrong. It did give players a reason to spend.
yes, it gave a reason to spend. Not debating that. The reason would have been the same if SCs had been reduced from the start. Also at the start Attrition only went up to 100, not the 150 we have now, and had a different curve on boost increases.
Yeah. The issues GBG has likely need either a lot more than any one change can accomplish, or a total overhaul.
When the CF came out it was considered a very poor GB. Players ran it to 10. BUT there was no Arcs yet. Until an overpowered insane Arc GB came out CF was not ran. I argue that your saying players would spend as much to do GBG if the nerf was what we got 2 1/2 years ago is flawed by this reality. Many complained on the Arc too. I can guess it will be the next nerf huh... GBG with the nerf only works if guilds are in leagues that they can grow from.
There were people who considered CF the top GB pre-arc... It was not a hugely popular opinion, but those holding it were usually amongst the top players - major influencers in the economy of the world. The concept of building the perpetual motion machine (or close to it) to make FP was huge at the time - because the best cities of the day were maybe getting 100-200 or so FP from collection, so the work to get a 5 FP pack 1 of every 14 quests completed seemed worth it. A functional indefinite quest loop could net you around 100 FP an hour along with many many goods to trade or supply GvG.
Attrition was and still is presumably infinite, I've gone over 250 and I've seen people much higher
Attrition caps at 12,000%, well before 250
Not saying that at all. I’m saying the order in which changes are made will impact the degree of future changes, or if they even happen
attrition attack penalty caps at 12k% . that is level 150
In 1 week, many players will surely get to the point where they have a suitable city for gbg...