• 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 Vs. Guild Improvements

  • Thread starter Retired Community Manager
  • Start date
Dudettas

Dudettas

Emperor
InnoGames
Thank you both for the clarification. We have passed on the feedback for this, but as you require confirmation that you are spending from the Guild Treasury when doing so, this needs to be taken into consideration.
 

lorenzo75

Merchant
Dudettas said:
Thank you both for the clarification. We have passed on the feedback for this, but as you require confirmation that you are spending from the Guild Treasury when doing so, this needs to be taken into consideration.
Click to expand...

I understood this problem. The important thing is that the number of clicks is the same for both actions.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
What @lorenzo75 said. Let's say there is an "even fight" between two guilds, 10v10 players. If 4 people are trying to siege and 4 people are trying to place def the defending guild has the upper hand anyways, because there are several slots for defending while there is only one slot to siege. With your change defending is even easier, because it is quicker.
So the guild that sieges either
a) gives up in frustration :(
b) needs more goods (and luck) to get the sector, because.. well.., sieging costs goods, you have to confirm that* :confused:
c) has to wait until the other guild tries to attack so they can defend successfully, because... it's easier :D

Sorry, this is not good. Please revert the change.

*) By the way: when trying to siege quickly, I don't even look at the costs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lorenzo75

Merchant
outoftheline said:
What @lorenzo75 said. Let's say there is an "even fight" between two guilds, 10v10 players. If 4 people are trying to siege and 4 people are trying to place def the defending army has the upper hand anyways, because there are several slots for defending while there is only one slot to siege. With your change defending is even easier, because it is quicker.
So the guild that sieges either
a) gives up in frustration :(
b) needs more goods (and luck) to get the sector, because.. well.., sieging costs goods, you have to confirm that* :confused:
c) has to wait until the other guild tries to attack so they can defend successfully, because... it's easier :D

Sorry, this is not good. Please revert the change.

*) By the way: when trying to siege quickly, I don't even look at the costs.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the translation. Unfortunately I don't write very well in English. ;)
 

DeletedUser10112

Guest
.Capo said:
I'm just now on how damn unfair that is! If the defender fails once to secure the sectors and the attacker comes through he can build a front of always protected sectors thanks to these two facts. The defender will lose sectors after each calculation, because the attacker can pull the HQ again after each calculation on a protected sector at the front to conquer the up to next 3 sectors. So it is now possible to create a trail of destruction and if you can always move only with its protected sectors. In contrast, the defender can no longer defend himself and must inevitably give up his territory.
This definitely has nothing to do with balancing
Click to expand...
just look at the AA map in beta. it looks more fun. the future map last night had 48 guild with HQ.
we all want an active game, and it looks more active now.

Dudettas said:
There was an issue that has been corrected. A previously released sector can be attacked after calculation.
Click to expand...
there you go. you can still go with the old tactics of release and conquer. but now you have to do it 3 times a day. the odds of faiiling one reset are higher also the costs. altough i prefered a reset cooldown it seems fair to who defends.

stop the tests

put the changes on live servers ASAP.
 

1BFA

Viceroy
estapor do velho said:
just look at the AA map in beta. it looks more fun. the future map last night had 48 guild with HQ.
we all want an active game, and it looks more active now.


there you go. you can still go with the old tactics of release and conquer. but now you have to do it 3 times a day. the odds of faiiling one reset are higher also the costs. altough i prefered a reset cooldown it seems fair to who defends.

stop the tests

put the changes on live servers ASAP.
Click to expand...

I count as two..but you can say 3.

7:79:57: drop
8:00:01 bubble the tile
4:00 recalc..bubble still on
11:59:57: drop
12:00:01 bubble the tile
Repeat..
 

qaccy

Emperor
outoftheline said:
What @lorenzo75 said. Let's say there is an "even fight" between two guilds, 10v10 players. If 4 people are trying to siege and 4 people are trying to place def the defending guild has the upper hand anyways, because there are several slots for defending while there is only one slot to siege. With your change defending is even easier, because it is quicker.
So the guild that sieges either
a) gives up in frustration :(
b) needs more goods (and luck) to get the sector, because.. well.., sieging costs goods, you have to confirm that* :confused:
c) has to wait until the other guild tries to attack so they can defend successfully, because... it's easier :D

Sorry, this is not good. Please revert the change.

*) By the way: when trying to siege quickly, I don't even look at the costs.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't personally see a problem here. Of a guild is actively defending a sector, it's kind of the point that it will be more difficult to acquire, if not impossible. Defending is more about actually fighting off attackers than it is stuffing armies into the defense slots.
 

DeletedUser4421

Guest
I do not understand why the dev's can not limit guilds to one siege, per map, per sector, per day. No replacing the siege army should be allowed, if a defending guild catches them in the act and defeats the siege, the sector should be instantly protected. Its a simple way to stop those using macros and 'bot software, if it doesn't stop them, it will surely slow those players down!
 
MonkeyDMonkey

MonkeyDMonkey

Baronet
Dudettas said:
Thank you both for the clarification. We have passed on the feedback for this, but as you require confirmation that you are spending from the Guild Treasury when doing so, this needs to be taken into consideration.
Click to expand...
Rights can be assigned to members of a guild. With the right 'trusted' it is only possible to place sieges. The same right is not needed to make defense armies. So you do not need an additional confirmation, because this right must first be assigned by a leader.

And who looks at the cost when you make a siege? You want to have the damn sector.....
 

DeletedUser

Guest
qaccy said:
Sorry, I don't personally see a problem here. Of a guild is actively defending a sector, it's kind of the point that it will be more difficult to acquire, if not impossible. Defending is more about actually fighting off attackers than it is stuffing armies into the defense slots.
Click to expand...
When you are in a state of war with another guild you have to attack (and defend) right away, that is why I made an example of a normal gvg scenario that happens at recalc.
Yes, attacking is harder most of the times, but if you are persistant you can get the sector, when there are the same amount of clicks to do.

Please think of every aspect of gvg, not only the AA map and its problems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dan 77

Squire
.Capo said:
Rights can be assigned to members of a guild. With the right 'trusted' it is only possible to place sieges. The same right is not needed to make defense armies.
Click to expand...
No. If slots aren't unlocked, no.
.Capo said:
So you do not need an additional confirmation, because this right must first be assigned by a leader.
Click to expand...
I don't understand, did you contradict yourself?
 

1BFA

Viceroy
So it is not like inno had to invent new code to make it NOT possible to bubble a tile after recalc.... right now all it takes is 2 mins of GVG to block /bubble a tile..

Question is WHY IS inno letting thing go on....they already have a solution....that is in beta...which now they are calling it as bug...

Please Inno think from your head little bit...and dont allow the same pattern to continue wherin a guild a drop a tile few secs before recalc and claim it back after recalc...and add to insult now that bubble is good for not just 1 calc it is good for 2 recalcs.....
 

qaccy

Emperor
outoftheline said:
When you are in a state of war with another guild you have to attack (and defend) right away, that is why I made an example of a normal gvg scenario that happens at recalc.
Yes, attacking is harder most of the times, but if you are persistant you can get the sector, when there are the same amount of clicks to do.

Please think of every aspect of gvg, not only the AA map and its problems.
Click to expand...

Where did my post mention anything having to do with AA? I was talking about GvG in general. Unless attacking and defending is different depending on the map you're in? I wasn't aware that was the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top