-
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.
Feedback Guild Expedition Update
- Thread starter Juber
- Start date
nice2haveu
Baronet
@Juber, On Level 5 while doing negotiation or defend, respective fortification buildings (according to their specification) listed means very much helpful to build on each encounter. It is already random and limited choices to select and negotiation doesn't need defense army related fortification building and defend option doesn't need negotiation supported fortification building. Please request dev's to do some fair approach on listing the fortification buildings based on user action selected. Currently building the fortification given as separate choice before picking defend or negotiation, please make them associate within defend and negotiation action like below image to solve that approach and adjusting the list makes much more sense.
Mailia
Merchant
Do you know what the first encounter takes?
-Alin-
Emperor
iron
32% first level 5 encounter, 1021% last encounter
sajm
449% first level 5 encounter, 2569% last encounter
SirAlucard
Steward
Scaling is still too high, IMO. Realistically nobody will be able to reach that high amount of ATT and DEF for the city def anytime soon, considering the fact that it would require to rebuild the whole city and the lack of buildings that provide both ATT and DEF for the city def. Most times it's just DEF.
Sinitar
Regent
32 goods each for iron players
96 goods each for AF players
Wasn’t that also the case with GE4? I’m working on a new city and it also didn’t manage magically GE4 in its 1st month.
As for feedback. It seems that I’ve guessed correct with the fortifications based off their colours. A few bullet points of feedback based off the announcement:
Serpent
Most worthy replacement of the winter train. Hopefully the
Lost temple
The best possible final grand GE reward devs could’ve come up with. It’s powerful, semi mysterious and perfect in theme. Though maybe the long forgotten 2nd GE GB could’ve been a better grand reward. For example that the temple would produce random bp’s of that GB.
One could even come up with quasi lore, around the GE and the temple. That the guild has organised a large scale expedition to find the lost temple(s). Thought to be lost, recovered once more. Due to the lack of ancient knowledge, the need to recover a new lost temple every so now and than cause the old one degraded.
Fortifications
After seeing the footage and the numbers… the fortifications are underwhelming. If buffs range from 1k-2,5k% than fortifications should offer at least 250%-800% buffs. Not just 50%.
In conclusion the entire GE5 is badly balanced. They could’ve just smacking such insane buffs on hostile forces, while buffing our armies with our attacking armies’ buffs. Even than the 2,5k% cap would’ve been high but at least okay-ish. If they badly want to keep defending buffs, hard cap it at 1.000% for hostile armies. Ranging between 100% Iron Age, up to 1.000% in SAJM.
Astrid
Baronet
Boosts are just too high. And I don't like the idea of having to replace a building each month after it expires. Make it like Yggdrasil and other settlements, not able to have more than 1 in the city, but not to expire in 28 days...
The serpent is good.
Also, no other rewards ? No diamonds, it's kind of lacklustre honestly, feels... I don't know, empty...
The serpent is good.
Also, no other rewards ? No diamonds, it's kind of lacklustre honestly, feels... I don't know, empty...
Hawkery
Farmer
Last encounter of Iron Age, the Enemy has 1021% a/d bonus.
Even if you make your city 100% city defense, the amount of space won't let you get close to 1021%.
Even if you make it 521% a/d bonus, this will be a massive challenge.
Same goes for every other age: the a/d bonus of the enemy is beyond ridiculously high.
I love a challenge, heck i even completed GE64 in AF with only 400/300 (no higher age troops), but a challenge should be doable, this is not...
Even if you make your city 100% city defense, the amount of space won't let you get close to 1021%.
Even if you make it 521% a/d bonus, this will be a massive challenge.
Same goes for every other age: the a/d bonus of the enemy is beyond ridiculously high.
I love a challenge, heck i even completed GE64 in AF with only 400/300 (no higher age troops), but a challenge should be doable, this is not...
my thoughts so far (not all propositions necessarily work in unison):
- reduce the opponents bonus to a more reasonable level
- make the bonus of the forgotten templel age dependent and give ~50% of what the opponents in GE5 have max --> that way even if you need to negotiate 4 weeks in a row the complete stage, you can in the next 4 weeks get a good chunk done of GE 5 by fighting
[Afterthought: make the temple give a portion of the player's offense stats as defensive stats]
the bonuses of fortifications are by far inadequate to make this a valid point:
--> give more slots for fortifications
--> the fortifications could give defense boost in proportion to the players attack boost - e.g. player has 1000/500% attack -> a "20% conversion fort" will give 200/100% defense
--> simply give more bonus per fort
PS: I do not mind it being difficult, I only do not want it to be impossible:
- I doubt anyone on the live servers has enough defense% to tackle the last encounter
- I doubt even 1% of the players on the live servers could do the last encounter even with their attack army
- 10k goods for negotiating a single week is a ludicrous amount - even Endgamer cities in SAJM will struggle with that amount, if it is demanded on a weekly bases - not even to speak of Iron age cities
- reduce the opponents bonus to a more reasonable level
- make the bonus of the forgotten templel age dependent and give ~50% of what the opponents in GE5 have max --> that way even if you need to negotiate 4 weeks in a row the complete stage, you can in the next 4 weeks get a good chunk done of GE 5 by fighting
[Afterthought: make the temple give a portion of the player's offense stats as defensive stats]
the bonuses of fortifications are by far inadequate to make this a valid point:
--> make the fortifications permanent for the stage (a fort build in the first encounter affects all encounters, not only the current one. Exception: "reduce options when negotiating" and "infiltration")
--> give more slots for fortifications
--> the fortifications could give defense boost in proportion to the players attack boost - e.g. player has 1000/500% attack -> a "20% conversion fort" will give 200/100% defense
--> simply give more bonus per fort
PS: I do not mind it being difficult, I only do not want it to be impossible:
- I doubt anyone on the live servers has enough defense% to tackle the last encounter
- I doubt even 1% of the players on the live servers could do the last encounter even with their attack army
- 10k goods for negotiating a single week is a ludicrous amount - even Endgamer cities in SAJM will struggle with that amount, if it is demanded on a weekly bases - not even to speak of Iron age cities
Last edited:
Flo0Fil2L0
Merchant
They created level 5 of GE so that we don't participate 
nice2haveu
Baronet
Awesome comment, laughed like anything!! Got tears for laughing and I am still laughing!! I am done for the day with a happy feelThey created level 5 of GE so that we don't participate
!!Mabusian der Graue
Marquis
After all I've read about it this looks like it is the start of a strategy change. I expect even better event buildings in the future and the need to decide for most players if they want to optimize their cities for GEx or GBG. While this will make some players leave, others will see this as a chance. I bet in six months lots of top players will be able to clear GE5 regularly.
Una Queen
Squire
I doubt it, I dont think any top player will redesign their city so it has 3k+ city def and very little att boost just to do 16 encounters.
another thought:
the defense GB should definitely get a buff by now...
serpent spikes are way OP in comparison:
Deal Castle: 49sqaures ~ 12 spikes give 180% - deal castle only reaches that at about level 300???
saint Basil: 25squares ~ 6 spikes give 90% - saint basil reaches that at about level 130
the defense GB should definitely get a buff by now...
serpent spikes are way OP in comparison:
Deal Castle: 49sqaures ~ 12 spikes give 180% - deal castle only reaches that at about level 300???
saint Basil: 25squares ~ 6 spikes give 90% - saint basil reaches that at about level 130
CrashBoom
Legend
how many top players could now beat 2569% (last encounter SAJM) if they would use attack boost ?
so no chance that players will gain enough defense to beat that (without an insane amount of defender boost from inventory)
.Chris
Baronet
Haven't played it yet myself (and not sure if I will be able to do so in the foreseeable future but how about we stop with the "It's not possbile/I won't play it" and go back to constructive criticism like @beelzebob666 did so we give them a chance to improve it?
We are on BETA after all
In that spirit:
I dislike the idea of having to replace a building every 28odd days, it just seems like an unnecessary hassle. How about since it sounds like its more of Forge of fragments make it a rechargeable building that you can reactivate once you have enough fragments?
We are on BETA after all
In that spirit:
I dislike the idea of having to replace a building every 28odd days, it just seems like an unnecessary hassle. How about since it sounds like its more of Forge of fragments make it a rechargeable building that you can reactivate once you have enough fragments?
Publius Cornelius Scipio
Marquis
Aside from the psychosis of some new challenge that confronts a community, which at least at first does not allow to see the parameters clearly, I think we can draw first conclusions.
- The cost of opening a level five is much higher than opening a level four, and that is a blow to the Treasury. Not to mention that many small guilds won't be able to afford it.
- So far, for years, the strategic line of play has predetermined the creation of a strong attacking army, and quite naturally most have focused their efforts there. Now, in practice, a radically different strategy is required, which in turn leads to the destruction of what has been achieved in order to create a defensive army. Except that this is infinitely illogical and pointless given that everything should be done to overcome one level of GE. I.e., spending and destroying something built over years is untenable.
- The rewards being offered in the form of frags are ridiculous to say the least. 5-10 frags at a required 200? And how many expeditions do you have to play to build one of those buildings whose bonuses are questionable to say the least? And what will the buildings in question actually serve in general? They're only tailored for the fifth level of the Expedition and possibly as a bonus for the GVG.
Ergo, the costs and bonuses, as well as basically destroying what you've built for years, are by no means justified. Everything has to be turned upside down....to get through one level of Expedition.
My personal opinion is that INNO are testing the ground to see if it will pass.
Just FYI, what they did to us with GBG and crippling not something working hasn't been implemented in the other servers yet.
It's true that we are here to test new things in the game, but it's also true that many of us are actually investing money, and I would say not small money at all, and treating us like lab mice is unfair, and at times demeaning.
In conclusion, I think at the moment it is wiser not to play, but these are personal decisions.
- The cost of opening a level five is much higher than opening a level four, and that is a blow to the Treasury. Not to mention that many small guilds won't be able to afford it.
- So far, for years, the strategic line of play has predetermined the creation of a strong attacking army, and quite naturally most have focused their efforts there. Now, in practice, a radically different strategy is required, which in turn leads to the destruction of what has been achieved in order to create a defensive army. Except that this is infinitely illogical and pointless given that everything should be done to overcome one level of GE. I.e., spending and destroying something built over years is untenable.
- The rewards being offered in the form of frags are ridiculous to say the least. 5-10 frags at a required 200? And how many expeditions do you have to play to build one of those buildings whose bonuses are questionable to say the least? And what will the buildings in question actually serve in general? They're only tailored for the fifth level of the Expedition and possibly as a bonus for the GVG.
Ergo, the costs and bonuses, as well as basically destroying what you've built for years, are by no means justified. Everything has to be turned upside down....to get through one level of Expedition.
My personal opinion is that INNO are testing the ground to see if it will pass.
Just FYI, what they did to us with GBG and crippling not something working hasn't been implemented in the other servers yet.
It's true that we are here to test new things in the game, but it's also true that many of us are actually investing money, and I would say not small money at all, and treating us like lab mice is unfair, and at times demeaning.
In conclusion, I think at the moment it is wiser not to play, but these are personal decisions.