Feedback Guild Expedition Update

[mcbluefire]

what if a player has an high Arc (and other guild goods buildings) and filled the treasury for years

doesn't he deserve to play level 5 ?

even nobody else plays it ?

Long term it will not work as their long ago contributed goods are likely spent for other players sitting in the earlier ages so the guild can open GE and more-over GbG. I'm talking about it makes no sense to open the highest level for a few players to play it. While it isn't as drastic as GbG season after season (heck, that can be 80K+ goods a DAY). My point shouldn't be lost on folks that if only a minority of the guild participates the majority of the guild shouldn't have to support it.

For a guild with big treasury contributions, the cost is no big deal. So it doesn't matter if they're on the hook. Much of treasury contributions are just your fee to be in the guild. i.e. The people at the bottom of the GBG standings in your guild that aren't getting the free fights are still helping pay for them with their Arc. If the guild decides to open GE5 and they don't do that, it'll be no big deal.

Yes, I didn't claim it was a huge drain, but it does drain 4x more than GE4 which some guilds to this day do not unlock due to mis-managed treasuries. That does not defeat the point that it's worth considering that players who want to play GE5 should have the option to open it for themselves paying their share of goods only for access to it. But, yes, I do suppose we should argue about an idea and immediately point out how it doesn't flow with the rest of GE levels when GE5 ITSELF does not flow with the rest of GE levels. Thanks,I've been shown!

For a guild with smaller treasury contributions (i.e. not all Arc-80+), a decision will have to be made if it's worth it - and yea that falls on leaders. If they don't open it, they may lose some of the stronger members. If they have to ask for extra beyond GBs from their smaller members, they may have to lose or cut many more smaller members.

It'll be a point of contention in some guilds yes. But those guilds always have points of contention Most of which will be in the first category, where it really shouldn't be. While the second category where it's a honest issue will probably make a decision, members make a decision, and everyone moves on

Yep, but we should gloss over that feedback here?

GE5 is ridiculous where it stands today. Yes, I can negotiate every week as soon as it opens and still have left over goods. That doesn't mean I support it as I'd like to see it be something the MAJORITY of players can complete, even if they have to put a bit of effort (read as <6 months) into it first.

For folks so focused on ROI one would think that GE5 would be an immediate and sustained thumbs down since the rewards are not worth any part of the challenge.

 

[Hiep Lin]

I feel they missed the mark on the numbers for GE5 - particularly the defending boost in space ages - but in concept it seems fine.

the concept is nonsense.
It's just an easy way to make the level difficult, even for the strongest attackers.

But a function with 5 levels must have a difficulty that progresses between each level.
This is not the case, players who chose to put in big defensive bonuses may find level 5 easier than the 3 they weren't playing.
It is therefore likely that the very few players with the means to go far in level 5 will not even try to access it because their profile is not to be a fighter.

If the objective is to reactivate the defense then you have to be consistent, go to the end of the process and recast the first levels, for example as I have already mentioned, considering that the first wave is our attack (therefore played with our offensive bonuses) and the second wave is the opponent's counterattack (thus played with our defensive bonuses).
The impact on level 1 would be nil because the second waves are very weak there, limited on levels 2 and 3 if the opposing bonuses remain moderate, and motivating on levels 4 and 5.

The old ones might have cried (as is the case) but we would have for the new cities a sensible and understandable concept with a real progression of the difficulty between each level.
It would also be more incentive to adapt our cities because the adaptations would be necessary for the first levels but gradually achievable (currently the need is brutal, it's nothing at level 4 and big changes for level 5)

 

[Hiep Lin]

Now GE is getting overhauled it's maybe a good timing to address a community wish. The GbF prestige is capped and the tie breaker for guild ranking is GvG. How about making GE trophies giving prestige. For example:
45 prestige * number of golden trophies
30 prestige * number of silver trophies
15 prestige * number of bronze trophies
Than the sum of those trophies. This way GE becomes relevant for guild ranking and it is cross platform compatible. Should be the most fair and easy to implement tie breaker.

Put prestige yes but not calculated according to the trophies.
prestige depends on current activity: 0 points during an expedition = 0 prestige
(like 0 points in Gb = 0 prestige and 0 sector in GvG = 0 prestige.

The prestige should be calculated, either according to the points of powers gained, or according to the points of contribution.

 

[xivarmy]

For folks so focused on ROI one would think that GE5 would be an immediate and sustained thumbs down since the rewards are not worth any part of the challenge.

The Forgotten Temple with a 20% FP boost is worth a *lot* - probably 100 FP in any advanced development city - maybe 200+ FP a day in an optimized-for-it city. The Serpent Head is a permanent building amongst the best in the game efficiency-wise as well for both FP and attack army bonuses. You'd think someone focused on making more FP no matter the cost would be excited by it

As for ROI, We are not directly spending FP to acquire these items. So if one has excess goods and would like the new buildings, it's an obvious gain. If one has to invest FP to get the capabilities to do it and only it, then you have a point (i.e. is it worth levelling a St Basil's if that'd enable you to now complete it weekly, quite possibly not - even as I *am* doing so on beta but that's connected to just wanting to do it moreso than it fitting into any longterm plan - I also built 3 bear mountains from this event for testing purposes this week - I don't expect I'd do any of this on live as it's currently balanced, but my beta city's already weird )

The biggest reason though to like it is it's a new hill to climb. i.e. i'm not doing GE5 just to profit off it - though I do hope to do so to some extent - i'm doing it to say I can.

 

[Dave1186]

That it is absurdly difficult I see it very well. Implementing a new level and making it easy to complete from day one would not be logical. The problem of many people is that they don't want to leave their "comfort zone" and want to receive prizes just by clicking the mouse. In this way, they force you to strengthen the defense, which is almost obsolete, to produce more goods and to have more movement in the market.

 

[Kranyar the Mysterious]

When it comes to the value of the 20% Forgotten Temple, is it worth in generated fp what you could sell your goods for on the market? How many fp could you sell 40k+ SAJM goods for? Or even 40k FE goods? I haven't seen anyone address this point yet.

 

[xivarmy]

When it comes to the value of the 20% Forgotten Temple, is it worth in generated fp what you could sell your goods for on the market? How many fp could you sell 40k+ SAJM goods for? Or even 40k FE goods? I haven't seen anyone address this point yet.

You have to find the buyers. And almost everyone in an established server gets their GB goods for free these days I think apart from the first month of a new era when you don't have the goods to spare necessarily to do either anyways as you're trying to get through the tree that costs 60k+ goods

But at 5250 goods per SAJM GB set for *maybe* 1000 FP, you'd look at about 8k FP for 40k goods. Compare to 28 days and it'd need to be worth ~300 FP/day. Which I think is possible (would mean ~1500 FP in non-GB collection so a quite FP focused city when it comes to your event buildings). But you also don't have to find buyers.

On a new world if you were the first SAJM player you could probably set a much higher price and get it if the demand is really there for AI core. Those who rush FE certainly set a higher price for the first Arc sales (often around 900 FP for 1875 goods - say 20k FP for 40k Goods).

 

[Kronan]

I've drafted a POLL on the GE records (current scores we've achieved, and new scores we will achieve).

( Poll on how to deal with GE achievement records, new and old )

 

[Hiep Lin]

I don't remember if it was written:
the 30% tavern defense bonus lasts for 72 hours, it's perfect for defending the city, it's very bad for GE5. It doesn't take 72 hours.
we lose the possibility of taking another bonus when GE5 is finished!

 

[softly explorer]

I don't remember if it was written:
the 30% tavern defense bonus lasts for 72 hours, it's perfect for defending the city, it's very bad for GE5. It doesn't take 72 hours.
we lose the possibility of taking another bonus when GE5 is finished!

Yes, that part of the Taverrn boost need to change and an idea : that they also create an attack boost for defending army

 

[mcbluefire]

The Forgotten Temple with a 20% FP boost is worth a *lot* - probably 100 FP in any advanced development city - maybe 200+ FP a day in an optimized-for-it city. The Serpent Head is a permanent building amongst the best in the game efficiency-wise as well for both FP and attack army bonuses. You'd think someone focused on making more FP no matter the cost would be excited by it

As for ROI, We are not directly spending FP to acquire these items. So if one has excess goods and would like the new buildings, it's an obvious gain. If one has to invest FP to get the capabilities to do it and only it, then you have a point (i.e. is it worth levelling a St Basil's if that'd enable you to now complete it weekly, quite possibly not - even as I *am* doing so on beta but that's connected to just wanting to do it moreso than it fitting into any longterm plan - I also built 3 bear mountains from this event for testing purposes this week - I don't expect I'd do any of this on live as it's currently balanced, but my beta city's already weird )

The biggest reason though to like it is it's a new hill to climb. i.e. i'm not doing GE5 just to profit off it - though I do hope to do so to some extent - i'm doing it to say I can.

/facepalm

ROI is not limited to $ for $ or FP for FP. But if you find 10K+ Goods a week a good trade for 700-1400 FP a week, I certainly wouldn't want to stand in your way! Stop attempting to tell me what I think or am focused on, thanks.

Since all of these new requirements can directly affect GbG, I suppose reduced GbG involvement is worth it as part of the investment to eventually be able to "defend" through GE5? I see the "new hill" as ridiculous. I mean who would want to earn 1K+ FP/day in GbG when they can get that a week from a temporary building in GE5?

 

[xivarmy]

Stop attempting to tell me what I think or am focused on, thanks.

back at ya

Since all of these new requirement can directly affect GbG, I suppose reduced GbG involvement is worth it as part of the investment to eventually be able to "defend" through GE5? I see the "new hill" I see it as ridiculous. I mean who would want to earn 1K+ FP/day in GbG when they can get that a week from a temporary building in GE5?

That would be part of an individual player's decision making process on what changes they're willing to make. Personally I've greatly reduced my GBG efforts without any incentive to do so beyond I am so sick of clicking autobattle in uninteresting rounds! How much am I willing to reduce my attrition ceiling for days when I do fight is something I'll have to figure out - and won't really start to figure out before it goes live because I still expect the numbers to come down (and if they don't the world I most want to GE5 on will simply negotiate rather than give up anything of value to me (it'll have the goods without much change)).

I do not consider it a bad thing that some players may make the decision that neither route for GE5 is something of value to them. The game needs more things that are debatable with multiple right answers. It's what makes a strategy game interesting.

 

[softly explorer]

I couldn't quote his message, so I did copy paste it :
Dear Kings and Queens,

Following the release on Beta of Guild Expeditions 5th level, we have seen a lot of questions and concerns about its difficulty. We would like to take a moment to clarify the design intentions behind this new level.

One of the main objectives of this new level is to add content to the game, able to provide a real challenge. This is why we shaped it around defense bonuses and why it is meant to be very difficult to complete right now.
>>> Agree, a nice challenge is really cool idea. Well, if it's supposed that we can't complete it right now, how can we get enough fragments for the Forgotten Temple in about 4 weeks ? In this case, I like to see happen that as long as lesser than 50% of all players is aible to complete GE5, the cost to unlock this level will be reduced drastically, for example just 1/4 of current cost or at least 1/2.

With the inclusion of upcoming new sources and the strategic use of those, you will be able to gradually improve your defense bonuses over the course of the coming months. It is meant to be a marathon and not a sprint.
>>> This whole game is a marathon and not a sprint and that is for many players crystal clear (I strongly believe), especially the players who already play for many years. I play since july 2016, that's almost 7 years...I'm still only in Space Age Mars, so I take my time. After almost 7 years I've build up a nice boost for my attacking army...Could this mean I need another 5 or 6 years to build up my boost for defending army? Even with my current boost for attacking arrmy I will not aible to end GE5 at all...Please "think" about that...it will be a very long marathon, but one that isn't even possible to survive.
Maybe you've to motivate players that they start to attack their neighborhood constantly and do plunder also ...that way we all feel the need to increase our boost for defending army and then Inno can come with GE5 with boost for defending army .
We really want to provide you more memorable experiences in Forge of Empires and this is one step in that direction.
>>> Sorry to say...if Inno wants to give it's players such memorable experiences ... please re-think hard, because with the best will of the world, GE5 is for me now a source of frustration.

Thank you for the early feedback you have shared on this feature so far, we hope you can understand this new approach. Keep sharing your feedback here!
>>> I shall not stop sharing feedback / suggestions / ideas ... Thank you for reading.
Your Forge of Empires Team

 

[Demeter7]

@Juber, regarding the announcement above.... the main problem is not the difficulty. The issue is that there is no room in our cities to add the amount of defense that is required without sacrificing attack. And few are going to sacrifice attack for the meager rewards in GE5.

 

[mcbluefire]

back at ya

Apologies, I did not write that well and certainly wasn't intending to tell you what you were thinking or how you are focusing on things in the game.

For folks so focused on ROI one would think that GE5 would be an immediate and sustained thumbs down since the rewards are not worth any part of the challenge.

I was genuinely confused how temporary break-even timed ROI for one type of building could be a major concern while a long term loss in GbG (city offense and goods) could be viewed as fine for the rewards in GE5. Wasn't attempting to call out anyone specifically, but rather generally wondering how that works in one situation but then (at least at first glance) not in another.

Yeah, some of us can afford the goods in GE5, but keep in mind that instead of trading them down or putting them in the guild treasury like we used to do these are now being sunk out of the game.

 

[xivarmy]

Yeah, some of us can afford the goods in GE5, but keep in mind that instead of trading them down or putting them in the guild treasury like we used to do these are now being sunk out of the game.

The treasury is a sink as well (either you're donating them because your guild legitimately burns the treasury and then they're gone, or you're donating them to no meaningful end).

And scarcity is a good thing to ensure they maintain some sort of value - i.e. I have a couple hundred thousand spare goods of a few ages I've passed through long ago. Other players have even more - I could have more if I had reason to care.

When a friend comes to me and asks for great building goods on those worlds I don't even really think about charging them - if they ask to pay I come up with a nominal price because it makes them feel better about it.

It used to be a thriving business model to have goods for sale. These days you're at a lack of customers unless it's a relatively new world I find or are willing to sell in the first week of a newly released era.

 

[mcbluefire]

Guild treasury isn't a sink when it is being used elsewhere: GvG, GbG, GE. A sink means removed from the game. Guild goods sit in treasury until used.

I can get the argument it is a sink for goods that were donated into Iron Age and then all members moved up a couple ages - yeah, those are sunk...at least until a new Iron Age member is admitted. Also can see it from the view point of the individual player as a sink from their city....but it isn't a traditional sink.

There is already scarcity of lower age goods. On established servers I wish you luck finding HMA or below goods in bulk (1k) from goods traders. This pushed established/aggressive guilds to put in a minimum age entrance requirement.

By having a massive sink that gets utilized by many players we could find the same issue for higher ages and much sooner. While I know folks can find a goods trader to provide VF goods, I personally have been out of goods in that age for a couple months now (I'm in SAJM).

 

[xivarmy]

Guild treasury isn't a sink when it is being used elsewhere: GvG, GbG, GE. A sink means removed from the game. Guild goods sit in treasury until used.

I can get the argument it is a sink for goods that were donated into Iron Age and then all members moved up a couple ages - yeah, those are sunk...at least until a new Iron Age member is admitted. Also can see it from the view point of the individual player as a sink from their city....but it isn't a traditional sink.

There is already scarcity of lower age goods. On established servers I wish you luck finding HMA or below goods in bulk (1k) from goods traders. This pushed established/aggressive guilds to put in a minimum age entrance requirement.

By having a massive sink that gets utilized by many players we could find the same issue for higher ages and much sooner. While I know folks can find a goods trader to provide VF goods, I personally have been out of goods in that age for a couple months now (I'm in SAJM).

Of lower age goods, yes, kinda - there's more of them out there probably than anyone realizes - but they're not "available" to be obtained because the players with them aren't actively looking to get rid of them. They're just floating there idle

But higher ages there is a distinct lack of scarcity.

And whether you view treasury as the sink or using the treasury as the sink, it's still ultimately a sink - either your guild is using them and they are being sunk somewhere, or they're not using them and they were sunk just by being donated They can't be repurposed into anything other than treasury goods and treasury goods are generally much easier to obtain than "loose" goods (get someone in the age, level their treasury GBs).

The age limitations some guilds added were not just a reflection of market availability, but also that their best-developed-treasury-contributors were not in those ages. If you had someone with level 100+ arc, observatory, ai core, and atomium, you'd probably be fine with having them camped in some low age with it - even considering them an asset allowing you to recruit other players in that age, and run GvG campaigns in that age.

 

[mcbluefire]

I didn't realize there were so many varying degrees of game resource sinks. I'll stick to the actual definition of sink which is "out of view" and typically in gaming that means removed completely.

What's funny, though, is I clarified my use of the term, "sunk out of the game", and you generalized the term definition anyway. not sure why that was necessary.

I'll give another example of a sink. There was a game where you could get the title "billionaire". In order to obtain it one had to give 1 billion of the game's currency to an NPC which resulted in the game currency being destroyed and the title granted. Now that currency was out of the game and could no longer be traded by the players of the world. The treasury is not out of the game but rather reduced in scope of what the goods can be spent on.

My point was it could affect the guild's ability to be competitive in GbG if member's stopped donating goods to instead focus on GE5.

 

[drakenridder]

Put prestige yes but not calculated according to the trophies.
prestige depends on current activity: 0 points during an expedition = 0 prestige
(like 0 points in Gb = 0 prestige and 0 sector in GvG = 0 prestige.

The prestige should be calculated, either according to the points of powers gained, or according to the points of contribution.

No activity in GE = no trophy = 0 prestige

Competing and winning from other guilds in GE = trophy = should be prestige

Guilds should get rewarded for their efforts in GE accordingly. Similar to how guilds getting recognition and rewarded for their GbF league and accomplishments. Currently only GvG is the tie breaker, which is unavailable to mobile only. Thus unsuitable for this. GE is accessible to everyone and trophies are hard earned. Thus they should give prestige accordingly. Besides 15-45 prestige is peanuts compared to other prestige sources. They're hard earned and only meant to be a tie breaker. As wished by community.