DeletedUser10302
Guest
Dear FOE animators.
We are a number of dedicated and loyal players of this great game and we wonder about our desire to continue our adventures with you.
But why, are you probably asking? You do however the maximum to enrich, to evolve the game, to make it more pleasant and more stimulating, the innovations are regular and ingenious often.
But, there is a mainspring essential to the game that no technical improvement or innovation can replace!
And I explain, for each player, the main engine is to win a day, to have a chance to win even temporarily victory.
And I come to the facts!
The GcG is today (in any case on Rugnir in the french worlds), dominated by the same guild for more than two years. There is no doubt that this guild includes good players, who have been able to optimize rules and flaws of the game, with the effect of locking all opportunities and envy for other guilds. Congratulations to them, but the characteristic of a championship or a competition whatever it is is to renew itself, to start again regularly, in fact, an eternal questioning
How to change and put back a little competition in the game?
We have different proposals:
1) The calculation of the resource cost of a seat or of the possession of a sector could be calculated not according to the sectors owned on the map of the age, but according to all the sectors at any age .
This will make the guilds hog the cards more expensive and give other guilds the means to pay (relatively) less for their implantation on an era.
This would enhance the role of the "farmers" and make their participation and strategy more essential to achieve the goal of winning guilds.
This modification could be (in a logic of test) put in place first in TA which is the "zone" of meeting all the guilds and whose resource is abundant (medals).
In a second, the extension of this practice may be extended to other ages.
2) The current rules allow guilds to forbid areas to other guilds (shields) and at the same time to reserve others (NPCs inland).
This has the effect of reducing the size of the card for all players and thus "spoil / spoiler the game The spirit seems to us contrary to the game, as a kind of practice of the" scorched earth ".
We propose that these sectors become landed for all guilds after a certain delay (1 day / 1 week to be defined). This could be reserved for ages in which military units are airborne (eg from the Modern). There would be both a coherence with the technologies, the strategies of these ages and the way to differentiate them from other ages.
3) We believe that alliances in the game must be valued and not be the result of secret dealings between guilds.
Declaring an ally for two guilds could result in benefits: like pooling the fighting, reducing the cost of resource exchanges or sharing victory points, but also disadvantages such as the impossibility of attacking to protect sectors and share loss of victory points (to be seen and defined) in order to thwart the exchanges of sectors between friendly guilds to protect themselves, and also the farming of champions or advanced troops (the two cancers of the game).
4) The strength of FOE is the interaction between players and between guilds.
We propose to set up a guild council by world (a bit like a UN council) in which a representative guild player would be mandated to discuss "the order of the world".
Guilds can be present according to the seniority criteria or the number of players who compose it, we could even give access to this organization through the guild level for example at the 30th release of the feature (UN)
We move from a logic purely "law of the jungle", ie war as the sole means of exchange between guild to a diplomatic logic.
This will not prevent a guild from preferring the war to the diplomatic path and so it would keep the aspect "playful fight" for those who prefer it. We are convinced that this will bring the game a unique dimension in the world of online social games.
5) We think that it is necessary to make the GcG a real confrontation of Guilds. That is to say, to avoid that fake guilds who are "kids" of the main guilds intervene in the game.
We therefore propose that the threshold of three members to intervene in the GcG game be restored. This would allow a real strategy of guile and not an optimization contrary to the spirit of the game.
All these proposals are first tracks but they must be discussed and modified before the game loses its interest definitely and for many of us.
Thank you for your feedback.
Nichoko from Nikailai Guild Bios
We are a number of dedicated and loyal players of this great game and we wonder about our desire to continue our adventures with you.
But why, are you probably asking? You do however the maximum to enrich, to evolve the game, to make it more pleasant and more stimulating, the innovations are regular and ingenious often.
But, there is a mainspring essential to the game that no technical improvement or innovation can replace!
And I explain, for each player, the main engine is to win a day, to have a chance to win even temporarily victory.
And I come to the facts!
The GcG is today (in any case on Rugnir in the french worlds), dominated by the same guild for more than two years. There is no doubt that this guild includes good players, who have been able to optimize rules and flaws of the game, with the effect of locking all opportunities and envy for other guilds. Congratulations to them, but the characteristic of a championship or a competition whatever it is is to renew itself, to start again regularly, in fact, an eternal questioning
How to change and put back a little competition in the game?
We have different proposals:
1) The calculation of the resource cost of a seat or of the possession of a sector could be calculated not according to the sectors owned on the map of the age, but according to all the sectors at any age .
This will make the guilds hog the cards more expensive and give other guilds the means to pay (relatively) less for their implantation on an era.
This would enhance the role of the "farmers" and make their participation and strategy more essential to achieve the goal of winning guilds.
This modification could be (in a logic of test) put in place first in TA which is the "zone" of meeting all the guilds and whose resource is abundant (medals).
In a second, the extension of this practice may be extended to other ages.
2) The current rules allow guilds to forbid areas to other guilds (shields) and at the same time to reserve others (NPCs inland).
This has the effect of reducing the size of the card for all players and thus "spoil / spoiler the game The spirit seems to us contrary to the game, as a kind of practice of the" scorched earth ".
We propose that these sectors become landed for all guilds after a certain delay (1 day / 1 week to be defined). This could be reserved for ages in which military units are airborne (eg from the Modern). There would be both a coherence with the technologies, the strategies of these ages and the way to differentiate them from other ages.
3) We believe that alliances in the game must be valued and not be the result of secret dealings between guilds.
Declaring an ally for two guilds could result in benefits: like pooling the fighting, reducing the cost of resource exchanges or sharing victory points, but also disadvantages such as the impossibility of attacking to protect sectors and share loss of victory points (to be seen and defined) in order to thwart the exchanges of sectors between friendly guilds to protect themselves, and also the farming of champions or advanced troops (the two cancers of the game).
4) The strength of FOE is the interaction between players and between guilds.
We propose to set up a guild council by world (a bit like a UN council) in which a representative guild player would be mandated to discuss "the order of the world".
Guilds can be present according to the seniority criteria or the number of players who compose it, we could even give access to this organization through the guild level for example at the 30th release of the feature (UN)
We move from a logic purely "law of the jungle", ie war as the sole means of exchange between guild to a diplomatic logic.
This will not prevent a guild from preferring the war to the diplomatic path and so it would keep the aspect "playful fight" for those who prefer it. We are convinced that this will bring the game a unique dimension in the world of online social games.
5) We think that it is necessary to make the GcG a real confrontation of Guilds. That is to say, to avoid that fake guilds who are "kids" of the main guilds intervene in the game.
We therefore propose that the threshold of three members to intervene in the GcG game be restored. This would allow a real strategy of guile and not an optimization contrary to the spirit of the game.
All these proposals are first tracks but they must be discussed and modified before the game loses its interest definitely and for many of us.
Thank you for your feedback.
Nichoko from Nikailai Guild Bios
