Ian Santa Claus
Marquis
When I started playing this game all platforms could participate in all aspects equally
-
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.
When I started playing this game all platforms could participate in all aspects equally
andrian empire
Steward
USELESS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Reduce Point Farming Profitability
To combat farming ranking points with Champions, once a sector is freed, all units that were placed there will be replaced with random, NPC units of the sector's age. In the All Age Map, the units will be replaced with units from the highest age.
Too bad for the Point Farming, but quite nice that we can just fill it up with Rogues and get highest age units. Even Iron Age players can put Mars units on a sector for instance. Makes it easier for recruiting one type of unit and harder for other Guilds to attack a sector. Interesting
If you apply a solution like this then guess what will happen. Players will prefer to place siege on other sectors than fill up a sector and do not know what they will find in it. Placing sieges to other sectors is unlimited while grand freedom is limited. Also from cost pov placing sieges is cheaper than fill up a sector.
If you like my opinion you will only make it worst, so better leave as is.
Wanheda Stella
Marquis
Reduce Point Farming Profitability
To combat farming ranking points with Champions, once a sector is freed, all units that were placed there will be replaced with random, NPC units of the sector's age. In the All Age Map, the units will be replaced with units from the highest age.
This is horrible!! All age map is not a Space Age Mars map! Instead of turning all age map into space age mars, maybe you should instead have addressed the request of adding NEW era maps to GvG! Why is it horrible? Because there are smaller guilds or guilds that don't have many active GvG players in the highest era, so they will be unable to enter all age map through NPC sectors! MAYBE they will be able to besiege sectors owned by other guilds, but that might often NOT be their wish, especially when it comes to smaller, more peaceful guilds. So basically you gonna lock them out of all age map!
To combat farming ranking points with Champions, once a sector is freed, all units that were placed there will be replaced with random, NPC units of the sector's age. In the All Age Map, the units will be replaced with units from the highest age.
This is horrible!! All age map is not a Space Age Mars map! Instead of turning all age map into space age mars, maybe you should instead have addressed the request of adding NEW era maps to GvG! Why is it horrible? Because there are smaller guilds or guilds that don't have many active GvG players in the highest era, so they will be unable to enter all age map through NPC sectors! MAYBE they will be able to besiege sectors owned by other guilds, but that might often NOT be their wish, especially when it comes to smaller, more peaceful guilds. So basically you gonna lock them out of all age map!
moideux
Merchant
- """"Removal of Bronze Age Units from the All Age map
No feedback? You have been getting a lot of feedback. Methinks that you just choosing to ignore it.
moideux
Merchant
Actually, I just got back from
a 3 week holiday where I used it exclusively, my game never suffered at all...
DeletedUser
Guest
read again: no significant criticisms.
i read your criticism regarding the removal of bronze age units and i don't think it is significant
you started with saying that inno has destroyed gvg by just removing bronze age units. did you know there are other maps in gvg? you can recruit new players for gvg on other maps. i used to do it like that before the all ages map was released, don't think there's an issue.
also, there are more effective ways to gather guild power than gvg plus prestige is only important for the really, really outdated guild ranking.
justMDZ
Farmer
When a decisive intervention, against the abuse of software that invalidates the game. Algortions exist to see if there is human or machine interaction. Inno buy them applications and you will have solved most of the problems you are trying to solve with new rules that in the short-medium term will be overcome by discreet nerds
andrian empire
Steward
So for once again we are talking for improvemets on GvG.
I have lost counting of how many times we have done it in the past.
Do you really belive you can improve now something which was so badly designed?
Will you find a magic solution to gain back interest of players after so many years?
How? Are you going to give back to guilds millions of lost resourses?
Have you ever really wondered what forced many players to drop GvG?
Nobody is willing to spend something for loosing it shortly later.Now you want to imporve it by having shields on a 4 hour base?
So you are planning increase the participation on GvG by asking from the players to increase their loses?
SMART !!!!!!!!!!
"We have a great idea. You lost x now please lost 6x" wow, why nobody thought it earlier?
Once again palyers interest will not increase in this way.
Players may be interest to participate again only if what they will spend will give something back to their guild.
For once again I suggest you remove the GvG from multiguild mode and apply it on single guild level.
Leave AA era for those who would like to keep fighting on GvG as is now.
Grand freedom ability has to be removed & players ability to place sieges has to be limited.
All rest era should be accesible only at guild level and progress of each guild will be recorded at a new ranking board.
Guilds will have to start from the scratch by Iron era province and move up from era to era by conquering the whole provicne.
Costs will have to be adjusted and NPCs have to be filled up with 8 defences (80 battles).
No grand freedom ability, no ranking points farming.
I have lost counting of how many times we have done it in the past.
Do you really belive you can improve now something which was so badly designed?
Will you find a magic solution to gain back interest of players after so many years?
How? Are you going to give back to guilds millions of lost resourses?
Have you ever really wondered what forced many players to drop GvG?
Nobody is willing to spend something for loosing it shortly later.Now you want to imporve it by having shields on a 4 hour base?
So you are planning increase the participation on GvG by asking from the players to increase their loses?
SMART !!!!!!!!!!
"We have a great idea. You lost x now please lost 6x" wow, why nobody thought it earlier?
Once again palyers interest will not increase in this way.
Players may be interest to participate again only if what they will spend will give something back to their guild.
For once again I suggest you remove the GvG from multiguild mode and apply it on single guild level.
Leave AA era for those who would like to keep fighting on GvG as is now.
Grand freedom ability has to be removed & players ability to place sieges has to be limited.
All rest era should be accesible only at guild level and progress of each guild will be recorded at a new ranking board.
Guilds will have to start from the scratch by Iron era province and move up from era to era by conquering the whole provicne.
Costs will have to be adjusted and NPCs have to be filled up with 8 defences (80 battles).
No grand freedom ability, no ranking points farming.
DeletedUser6610
Guest
GvG as it currently exists allows all members of our small guild to participate in battles. We have over half our guild that regularly participates in GvG. Our players in ironage, EMA etc can all participate as we use spear fighters for defensive armies. This helps keep players in our guild and allows them at almost any age to be an integral part of acquiring and defending our GvG AA sectors.
With the proposed changes, only the large guilds and higher level players will be able to participate due to troops in the defensive armies and the amount of resources required to acquire and re-acquire or defend sectors. It also minimized the importance of the newer players in a guild.
I can not say I like GvG as it currently exists but in my opinion your changes are in the wrong direction.
With the proposed changes, only the large guilds and higher level players will be able to participate due to troops in the defensive armies and the amount of resources required to acquire and re-acquire or defend sectors. It also minimized the importance of the newer players in a guild.
I can not say I like GvG as it currently exists but in my opinion your changes are in the wrong direction.
Hiep Lin
Viceroy
It's really exciting to recruit dozens of spear fighters, much more than fighting in IA ...
I want to ask a question
to Inno and to other players
accept their experiences and from the live servers
there is a sector in Continent Map or the Guild Expedition or in Daily Challenge
general battles with army from the system
which has only Rogue -Drummers - Champions ?
I play over 5 years
I have not met such an army
maybe someone other player has seen?
to Inno and to other players
accept their experiences and from the live servers
there is a sector in Continent Map or the Guild Expedition or in Daily Challenge
general battles with army from the system
which has only Rogue -Drummers - Champions ?
I play over 5 years
I have not met such an army
maybe someone other player has seen?
LastWarrior
Regent
Just bin GvG you will never fix it, GbG needs to be really sorted on here though, before release.
Nessie
Baronet
Meanwhile I've read the original announcement about the third time and most of the comments. I agree with many players that the so-called improvements will not work - on the contrary it will cost guilds and guild members much more effort like time, goods, units a.s.o. I don't care a bit about "farming", in fact I don't care much about how many points someone has. Points are good for nothing. InnoGames should rather find a way to clear the existing GvG of bots, macros - and alt accounts. These are the problems that honestly playing guilds have to deal with - since years!!!
How many reports Support got meanwhile concerning this matter? Ought to be more than thousand, partly with clear proof (video) - not that the defs are not able to find out themselves - but is there really any interest to do something about it?
In fact I doubt that very much. If there would be any interest to prevent foul play, InnoGames had taken measures years ago.
In my eyes the so-called GvG-improvements are a snow-job and distraction from the real problems.
How many reports Support got meanwhile concerning this matter? Ought to be more than thousand, partly with clear proof (video) - not that the defs are not able to find out themselves - but is there really any interest to do something about it?
In fact I doubt that very much. If there would be any interest to prevent foul play, InnoGames had taken measures years ago.
In my eyes the so-called GvG-improvements are a snow-job and distraction from the real problems.
DeletedUser8857
Guest
I totally agree, those Guilds that use Bots and Alternate accounts, control the entire GvG map and as much as I would like to play in it, there is no point.
Unless INNO starts to threaten these Cheaters and I am sure INNO knows who they are! What more proof do you need? Let us help you clean up this mess.
qaccy
Emperor
Honestly, Bronze Age (which in reality is just Spearfighters) should never have been allowed in GvG to begin with. I always thought 'All Ages' would make more sense in the context of the GvG map, that being only Iron Age and above as Bronze Age does not have its own GvG map. You can't access GvG until you're in Iron Age in the first place and Bronze Age goods cannot be donated to the treasury so it always seemed odd to me that suddenly Bronze Age units are allowed in a province when no other area of GvG supports this age in any way. To me this removal is long-overdue for correcting what seems like a lazy oversight.
Miepie
Baronet
The All Ages map was nothing but a shortcut to be able to ignore GvG for as long as they could. The idea was flawed from the beginning. The gab between future era and all ages is growing with each new era introduced. We in my guild always include at least one high age army to discourage fighters from lower ages to bother our spearfilled landingzones. Cutting away the ability to fill the rest of those sectors with spearfighters, will dramatically increase our unit costs, spearfighters take only a few seconds to train and still buy enough time to be able to defend if you spot a siege. Ofcourse, fully defended sectors take more time to conquer due to changing units along the way. For the demolition guilds on the other hand, it also means lots and lots of points when dthey decide to go for a nightly attack. And those poor souls who can no longer pointfarm the way they were used to, well, there will be a whole coastline filled with delicious points waiting for them every 4 hours (although I doubt many guilds will keep bothering with placing defence at all)
The point with these proposed changes seems to be to make it harder to control an area. But it doesn't adress the other side of the equation. Right now for instance it is possible for a guild to 1. move HQ, 2. have another guild take them from the map 3. land again. 4. move HQ again, even though you're only supposed to be able to move HQ once. Or another one, 1. you can siege all landing zones, fight them down to only one army (yess, that is best done at 4 am or something like that), 2. pick the best one to land an land there. 3. then take all others. 4. go inland, increasing the damage you can do exponantially.
These disbalances could easily be solved. 1. Once a guild is removed from a map, introduce a cooldown of 24 hours. If they cannot immediately land again, they can't move HQ twice either.
2. Once you've landed, automatically remove all outstanding sieges, so you'll always start with one secor on a map.
Those are the kind of changes we need.
The point with these proposed changes seems to be to make it harder to control an area. But it doesn't adress the other side of the equation. Right now for instance it is possible for a guild to 1. move HQ, 2. have another guild take them from the map 3. land again. 4. move HQ again, even though you're only supposed to be able to move HQ once. Or another one, 1. you can siege all landing zones, fight them down to only one army (yess, that is best done at 4 am or something like that), 2. pick the best one to land an land there. 3. then take all others. 4. go inland, increasing the damage you can do exponantially.
These disbalances could easily be solved. 1. Once a guild is removed from a map, introduce a cooldown of 24 hours. If they cannot immediately land again, they can't move HQ twice either.
2. Once you've landed, automatically remove all outstanding sieges, so you'll always start with one secor on a map.
Those are the kind of changes we need.
Last edited: