-
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.
DeletedUser10256
Guest
I haven't been active in GvG on beta but wondering how this HQ move stuff is working out so far. It seems to me this is a big benefit to ghosts who only want to blast thru and destroy. Since shields still last 16hr they can always have a shielded tile base to move their HQ to at each recalc, and no one will be able to stop them.
I agree with those who complain this will be a recipe for ghost guilds to drain big guilds treasuries very easily. There will be no ability to hold many tiles or replace DAs when tiles are retaken.
My other question relates to the guild rankings - since GvG tile points have dropped, have the guild ranking pts associated with GE also dropped or is GE now more influential on guild ranking (which it probably should be)?
I agree with those who complain this will be a recipe for ghost guilds to drain big guilds treasuries very easily. There will be no ability to hold many tiles or replace DAs when tiles are retaken.
My other question relates to the guild rankings - since GvG tile points have dropped, have the guild ranking pts associated with GE also dropped or is GE now more influential on guild ranking (which it probably should be)?
DeletedUser10047
Guest
While GvG power values are now 1/3 of their previous values, the calculations are now done three times a day. The result is that GvG still provides the same overall contribution to guild rankings as it used to.
DeletedUser4421
Guest
2 things...
1) The shield timer needs to be added
2) The HQ can be bumped by a ghost guild attacking the original HQ - forcing the HQ to a bordering sector that the originating guild took. From there, the original guild seems to be able to take another sector deeper into the map and then, since they have not actually relocated the HQ, they can move it AGAIN and dive deeper ibto the map = this needs to be fixed!
1) The shield timer needs to be added
2) The HQ can be bumped by a ghost guild attacking the original HQ - forcing the HQ to a bordering sector that the originating guild took. From there, the original guild seems to be able to take another sector deeper into the map and then, since they have not actually relocated the HQ, they can move it AGAIN and dive deeper ibto the map = this needs to be fixed!
DeletedUser10097
Guest
From what is being circulated in the forum, the developers try to find a way of eradicating the use of “champion” units in the battles between guilds. I believe that this effort will further complicate things than solve the problem.
Let me elaborate on this… let’s assume that II fill a sector with “champions” and rogues“”. When I set this sector free, these defence units change into new random ones, isn’t it? This is a loophole that several guilds, which do not actually participate in the “wars”, but rather act as buffer zones, will take advantage of in order to create a “wall” manned with strong defences.
On the other hand, the players who tend to do “fake battles” against sectors full of champions – clearly in the context of the individual progress – will find new ways to continue doing so.
1) For example, someone may proceed to an arrangement with a friendly guild and lay siege to a/some sector(s) manned with champions all day long.
2) Moreover, my guild can fill a line of bordering sectors with champions and another friendly siege can make 79 battles without conquering the sector though. Then my guild can refill the defences, start again and so forth.
With the above points in respect, it appears that the only way to eradicate the “tactic” of fake battles is to ban champion units altogether from all defence and sieging positions.
Let me elaborate on this… let’s assume that II fill a sector with “champions” and rogues“”. When I set this sector free, these defence units change into new random ones, isn’t it? This is a loophole that several guilds, which do not actually participate in the “wars”, but rather act as buffer zones, will take advantage of in order to create a “wall” manned with strong defences.
On the other hand, the players who tend to do “fake battles” against sectors full of champions – clearly in the context of the individual progress – will find new ways to continue doing so.
1) For example, someone may proceed to an arrangement with a friendly guild and lay siege to a/some sector(s) manned with champions all day long.
2) Moreover, my guild can fill a line of bordering sectors with champions and another friendly siege can make 79 battles without conquering the sector though. Then my guild can refill the defences, start again and so forth.
With the above points in respect, it appears that the only way to eradicate the “tactic” of fake battles is to ban champion units altogether from all defence and sieging positions.
EnamIccug
Farmer
The easier way to eradicate it would be for Inno to announce that players would gain no ranking points from any battles fought in GvG, with GvG being intended for the advancement of the guild and not the individual.
lorenzo75
Merchant
this has always been possible is an accepted tactic.
Hq can be moved either by friends or by enemies with advantages or disadvantages.
1BFA
Viceroy
Then you ok if Inno removes all rewards from GE as well? Because GE is supposed to be only for Guild Expedition and not individual expedition.
EnamIccug
Farmer
Sure, why not? That’s actually a pretty solid idea from a balancing perspective.
DeletedUser6997
Guest
Well I sure hope Inno doesn't cave to the whiners who have not played GvG as much as some of us have and want it changed to their benefit. The fact is, GvG has been a very fun part of the game for many years. Just the way it is. The issues have been that it's not on mobile, so we've had to help users find it when they start as mobile only. And the servers haven't gotten the TLC they should have received over the years which has caused massive lagging and glitches. Now, the servers got some TLC and reset is running fast & smooth. The glitches still occur but fewer and farther between.
One of the original posts mentioned only 5% playing GvG.
Tell me Inno, why would you not make a qualified survey to the 5% that DO play GvG and have them submit their responses, then take that data which would be much further on topic and geared to those that actually do play GvG. You obviously have the mechanism to tell us that 5% play GvG which means you can tell who uses it, which also means you could get a survey out to those specific people.
One of the goals was to create a less complicated experience but now you're going to create far more confusion by adding in 2 extra resets, protection for 16 hours not 24 hours but in some cases 8 hours, troops that can change when a sector is dropped, etc etc etc... so all of us who have played for years will be confused and any that are just coming on will be even more confused. How is this making it Less complicated? We're going to have a harder time teaching new people how things work. And the glitches will be worse due to all the new changes. So we also have to teach through that.
The help information in GvG is terrible and barely even scratches the surface of how things work. I'm not saying you should give people a playbook, but there should be better information for new people to be able to click the ? and find actual information about how they can view a sector, place sieges, grant freedom - and what that does, etc.
Don't add a lot of extra complications to what has been fun for us for years, just fix the things we've asked to get fixed. And talk to the people who actually use it.
One of the original posts mentioned only 5% playing GvG.
Tell me Inno, why would you not make a qualified survey to the 5% that DO play GvG and have them submit their responses, then take that data which would be much further on topic and geared to those that actually do play GvG. You obviously have the mechanism to tell us that 5% play GvG which means you can tell who uses it, which also means you could get a survey out to those specific people.
One of the goals was to create a less complicated experience but now you're going to create far more confusion by adding in 2 extra resets, protection for 16 hours not 24 hours but in some cases 8 hours, troops that can change when a sector is dropped, etc etc etc... so all of us who have played for years will be confused and any that are just coming on will be even more confused. How is this making it Less complicated? We're going to have a harder time teaching new people how things work. And the glitches will be worse due to all the new changes. So we also have to teach through that.
The help information in GvG is terrible and barely even scratches the surface of how things work. I'm not saying you should give people a playbook, but there should be better information for new people to be able to click the ? and find actual information about how they can view a sector, place sieges, grant freedom - and what that does, etc.
Don't add a lot of extra complications to what has been fun for us for years, just fix the things we've asked to get fixed. And talk to the people who actually use it.
DeletedUser6015
Guest
iPenguinPat
Squire
Or you could just make Champs useful for something other than farming. For example, you could make them universal like rogues to match the age they are used in. That'll at least give players a reason to use their champs for actual combat (looking at early ages up through TE). You could cut champs points given to be in line with other units, but players will undoubtedly farm other units (i.e. artillery is easy to farm, or even just heavy + rogues etc.)
This would effectively kill GvG and cause a very loud uprising. Inno might want to let gvg die off, but they'd never make it so obvious.
1) completely agree about talking to people that actually gvg instead of listening to goobers that don't.
2) Fixing the lag and bugs would take a lot of reprogramming. Upgrading servers isn't going to fix the issues or they would have already done it.
3) Ignoring the development aspect... simply adding mobile would add more users and that would add more lag. Inno doesn't want more complains about lag.
I've come to the realization that inno simply wants to do just enough with GvG to look like they are keeping it alive. I'm certain they would have already dropped it completely if those 5% weren't their most active players. That said, I think they are willing to risk the slow trickle of that 5% quitting, as long as it doesn't happen all at once. Which is what we're seeing now.
It seems like the business plan is to get GBG's up and running to slowly divert attention and focus from GvG, so they can let GVG die "nautrally." They need something that's daily/constant combat to keep people logging in. GE is over too quick for that. Once GBG is going, they'll have the hook, and GvG will no longer be necessary. Those gvg users can quit the game because GBG will be new daily combat activity that keeps people hooked.
Hope they prove me wrong, but I also won't be sad if they disappoint and prove me right. I've already uninstalled FoE from my phone and cut my FoE gameplay down to just once or twice a day. The hardest part is the friendships built from GvG teamwork etc, so once that's gone, players like me (who spend money and have advocated for the game for 2+ years) will fade out.
They should actually bump it back up a little. it's a lot more work to keep a tile for 24 hours now. The cost of a back and forth war is much higher. It would make more sense for the power to be 1/2. The logic there is simple - You'd get power based on how long the tile is "protected" with respect to recalcs. It would give extra rewards to the guilds that do a better job of holding without penalizing guilds that are unable to hold tiles for 24 hours like they are currently able to.
1BFA
Viceroy
Two main changes.
1. Three reclacs instead of one (8pm, 4am, 12pm)
2. Once you take a tile the bubble will last for 2 recalcs. So if you take a tile at 8.01 pm, that tile is shielded till 12pm.
There are few others which doesn't matter much.
Last edited:
jovada
Regent
Again innogames is mute no communication at all the last few days, can you explain why when the clock is finished you can place sieges but not on sectors released before the clock , there you have to wait 1 minute longer before you can place siege.
Is this something intended by inno or is this another glitch ???
Is this something intended by inno or is this another glitch ???
Mithrandir
Merchant
How long have I been saying this, just leave it as it is and fix the yrs old bugs
The statistics player participation on the map GvG
the last days are .. ok?
Players longer tired
they saw the first announcement
but they saw that from the 4 important
applied only one important changes you announced
(and some even without great value)
the other important changes it was about our ... ''dreams''
for this they stopped again
to they play on the map GvG
the last days are .. ok?
Players longer tired
they saw the first announcement
but they saw that from the 4 important
applied only one important changes you announced
(and some even without great value)
the other important changes it was about our ... ''dreams''
for this they stopped again
to they play on the map GvG
DeletedUser5135
Guest
I support that. But I don 't think polls are necessary. People who are actively playing are easy to see by registration date. It is these 5% who understand GvG, have long played and are already leading guilds or a team.
Let 's have a flashmob here. Just bet plus (+) if you 're against GvG changes.
Or copy to your post: + I am against changes GvG
Nessie
Baronet
I agree with everything you say, Ipenguinpat
1BFA
Viceroy
Is there any reconsideration on the following?
1. Undo 1click DA
or Introduce 1 click siege (you can force and show the popup if the player doesn't have enough goods)
2. Add 1 click delete siege?
3. If a tile is dropped it cant be taken in the upcoming recalc. Please ask any gvg player, probably the #1 complain of gvg after lag/bugs is guilds blocking landing zones. i.e. drop a tile 2-3 secs before reclac and take it right after recalc. Multiple recalcs will NOT make this issue go away because the shield lasts for 2 recals, it is not that hard to shield the tiles twice (8pm and then noon next day)
1. Undo 1click DA
or Introduce 1 click siege (you can force and show the popup if the player doesn't have enough goods)
2. Add 1 click delete siege?
3. If a tile is dropped it cant be taken in the upcoming recalc. Please ask any gvg player, probably the #1 complain of gvg after lag/bugs is guilds blocking landing zones. i.e. drop a tile 2-3 secs before reclac and take it right after recalc. Multiple recalcs will NOT make this issue go away because the shield lasts for 2 recals, it is not that hard to shield the tiles twice (8pm and then noon next day)
DeletedUser8858
Guest
I'm failing to see how these changes are that much of an improvement, sure more activity but it will just become a grief fest. Ghosts and 1 man wrecking crews are bad enough already and these changes seem to play right into making it easier for them. Just get a bubble and move HQ if its not bumped since it will be bubbled for two resets and just work on getting another bubble, rinse repeat. Ghosts and one man wrecking crews could care less to hold tiles, so lets also give them drops each reset as well.
I am fully aware the changes go both ways however, the primary point is one can now simply just get a bubble and move HQ since it will constantly be protected and with high attack/defense values as they are its only a couple mins to take down a full tile even with max tile defense for *one* person. Who likes watching maps 24/7? Changes were made over time to reduce defenses, reduce siege costs etc. specifically to make it easier for smaller guilds however, with player attack/defense values as high as they are now it has just become a joke for one person to take down a full tile on their own with minimal effort, i.e. 1 man wrecking crews. Many larger guilds are just recruiting those smaller ones/1 man's, or sending players to small guilds just to grief drain treasuries/troops of their enemies so they can just sit back and stockpile goods/troops while re-shielding minimally.
I also don't see any changes on siege costs or improvements to troops since those costs will be increasing with these changes alone then add on top battlegrounds to come. Oh yes that's not a benefit like guild points, so that wont be factored in, just ignored as usual.
Many players/guilds have mentioned walking away from trying to hold tiles when these changes go forward, they will instead ghost/grief so they can keep their treasuries/troops for Battlegrounds.
The whole randomized armies on drop is imo a good idea but don;t kid yourself it will not stop farming champs in any way since that can as noted easily be worked around. Perhaps point values should be looked at instead where it is factored in such a way as to how easy the fight(s) can be done without taking any damage or minimal damage.
Seems to me the entire point of these changes is to just degrade the experience since the changes no longer align with the vision that was stated to begin with which primarily was 1 HQ move per 24 hours along with drops, instead those will be every reset but two reset protection.
Many of the changes do not make any sense.
I am fully aware the changes go both ways however, the primary point is one can now simply just get a bubble and move HQ since it will constantly be protected and with high attack/defense values as they are its only a couple mins to take down a full tile even with max tile defense for *one* person. Who likes watching maps 24/7? Changes were made over time to reduce defenses, reduce siege costs etc. specifically to make it easier for smaller guilds however, with player attack/defense values as high as they are now it has just become a joke for one person to take down a full tile on their own with minimal effort, i.e. 1 man wrecking crews. Many larger guilds are just recruiting those smaller ones/1 man's, or sending players to small guilds just to grief drain treasuries/troops of their enemies so they can just sit back and stockpile goods/troops while re-shielding minimally.
I also don't see any changes on siege costs or improvements to troops since those costs will be increasing with these changes alone then add on top battlegrounds to come. Oh yes that's not a benefit like guild points, so that wont be factored in, just ignored as usual.
Many players/guilds have mentioned walking away from trying to hold tiles when these changes go forward, they will instead ghost/grief so they can keep their treasuries/troops for Battlegrounds.
The whole randomized armies on drop is imo a good idea but don;t kid yourself it will not stop farming champs in any way since that can as noted easily be worked around. Perhaps point values should be looked at instead where it is factored in such a way as to how easy the fight(s) can be done without taking any damage or minimal damage.
Seems to me the entire point of these changes is to just degrade the experience since the changes no longer align with the vision that was stated to begin with which primarily was 1 HQ move per 24 hours along with drops, instead those will be every reset but two reset protection.
Many of the changes do not make any sense.