• 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.
  • Halloween Event 2021


    Read all about the Halloween Event 2021 here!
  • Castle System

    The Castle System is a brand new feature in Forge of Empires which aims to reward players that are playing Forge of Empires actively. Come check it out in your city!
    Do you want to know more about this new feature? Then click here!
  • Cultural Settlement - Mughal Empire

    We are proud to present you our brand new Cultural Settlement: The Mughal Empire!
    This is the fifth of our Cultural Settlements, and your job is to help expand the Mughal Embassy.
    Read all about it here!

Discussion Why FoE did'nt deleted GvG and . . . ?

Dessire

Baronet
Why FoE did'nt deleted GvG and instead of release GBGrounds, make a combination of both ideas?

Why we must depend of siege camps and only few players (the most powerful ones in a guild) while the rest of members can't even do 1/4 of the battles done by those powerful members of their wild to win in GBGrounds instead of delet all GBG buildings and make each member of a guild relevant to increase the total attack and defense of a territory to make more difficult for an enemy to take those sectors?

Why FoE can't understand that defense for defensive army for our city doesn't worth anymore because most part of the players in FoE do not attack neighbors and the best defense is collect on time and why based on that FoE can't change GBuildings like deal castle and st. basil bonuses to increase the total attack and defense of the units defending a territory in GBG, so If a player with st basil and deal at level 100 decides to leave a guild, that becomes a huge lose and a painful hit for that guild to it's probabilities to win in GBG?

Why The most powerful guilds win in GBG not by their power but by stupid and abussive alliances between 2 to 3 guilds? allowing other powerful guilds lose due to those alliances and allowing certain weak guilds which do not deserve be part of diamond league be part of diamond league?

FoE, please, delete GvG, delete GBG and make a fusion of both and delete buildings of GBG and change the system in a way that the real power of a guild depends of the number of players in the guild + the desision of each member to level up certain GBuildings like observatory, atomium, arc, st.basil and deal castle (changing the bonus of the last 2 buildings so their bonuses affects the attack and defense of the units in already conquered sectors) and by doing so, penalizing very hard the total power of a guild if a player with a high level in those GBuildings leaves the guild.
 

drakenridder

Baronet
I personally disagree with changing the fundamental mechanics of GbG. Except for
the removal of siege camps or at least capping the maximum chance not to increase defensive
bonuses. For GbG I agree with Innos choose to force offensive measures for ensuring progress
in GbG instead of exhausting sieging guilds. Removing GbG builds wouldn't be needed if
siege camps are removed or maximum stacked bonus given a hard limit or not stacking.
That been said, the lack of use for the defensive GBs and bonuses are in general
disappointing. Also the support pool from guild levels lacking use outside of GvG and even
there the hard defensive bonus cap of 75% per sector is laughable. As most have far greater
bonuses. This leaves support bonus and the two dedicated defence GBs with even less
value. If there was no limit or a higher limit of how high defensive bonuses can get, like in
GbG, than support bonus and those GBs could become slightly more relevant. In particular
Deal castle needs to be buffed. Since that GB is taking a large amount of space. AO is equally
large but at least got far more better benefits. In any case I agree with you that something
must be done to making defensive bonuses relevant again and that the exploration of
siege camps should be looked into.
 

Heath00INT

Farmer
GBG , I think there should be a percentage used for the amount of players in a guild
as well as the era's they are in .
At this moment in time GBG is very unfair on guilds with a low amount of players in it
compared to a large guild .
Another problem is that rich players just use diamonds now , well this is in favour of Inno
so unfair play is in action even if we like it or not .
Inno promotes purchasing of diamonds , so I leave the rest to all of you to know whats happening
 

Owl II

Viceroy
Good question. I thought they would. But no. GBG it is farmland now. Guild ranking are still based on the GVG, no matter how it is obsolete, unstable, or limited. As long as the guild ranking is based on the GVG, we can not take into account the GBG. Or take it as an unlimited source of FP and other resources for players. You just need to learn how to extract them correctly.
 
Last edited:

Heath00INT

Farmer
mmmm , GvG is popular with the older players , newer players want a shoot them up scenery .
FOE is a long term strategy game , well it meant to be .

How does Inno want the future of FOE ?
I tell you how , get these players to buy diamonds and more diamonds

What is the future of FOE ??
 

drakenridder

Baronet
I'm also perplexed as to why no steps were made to phase out GVG, gbg is perfect replacement but the guild ranking mechanic is missing. They could do simply guild level as a ranking measurement or they could convert victory points into prestige. That might actually affect gbg farming.
That's honestly one of the best enhancing ideas I've seen in an long time. Would make
a lot of sense and giving better motivation for not playing ping pong in GbG between guilds.
As this would indeed reward expansion and as long as possible dominance in GbG for as
long as possible. It would also be more fair for
guilds with mobile base only members. Since
they're effectively blocked out of GbG.

Really hope the dev. team either notice this idea or getting notified and picking it up for a
future update.:)
 

NinjAlin

Baronet
Inno needs to rethink again GvG regarding the costs, addition of few new eras maps and do something against people which are using clickers/macros to place sieges in a mater of microseconds and leave no chance for others to place a siege and fight back.
Solutions are existing, monitoring macros/clickers movements which are not normal for a normal human hand and just put a BIG STOP MESSAGE starting with 5 minutes then 30 minutes if that player using again macros 1hr and so one untill it reaches days of not being able to fight in GvG or weeks.

Related to GbG, its good the way its it now, BUT, yes, there is a big BUT, they need to make a limit here too regarding prizes and spamming(bigger guilds swapping sectors and leaving other guilds with nothing to do on map), this isnt anymore the way it was intented at the beggining, „the player with the higher attack boost” it doesnt really matter now as long as we have tons of goods and we can build thousands of camps to reduce the atrition took by fighting and even a player from PE or lower can do thousands of fights looking for lower atrition sectors every 4-5 hours(help of ping-pong between bigger guilds).
 
Because lots of people love GvG the way it is, and lots of people love CBG the way it is. If you can have both, why just have one?
Well... they keep saying they try to consolidate PC and mobile version... there is a whole lot of people playing on mobile only (I am not one of them, I am 99% PC player) that cant access GvG... they removed guild forums because of it... so why is this an exception? My guess would be that they have no idea how to change guild ranking and that is all.
 

Voyager81

Squire
GVG takes Strategy, Planning and Teamwork. of course it has flaws, every system does, i.e. November 2nd. Sure GVG only takes 5 mins every day, but it was fun, fast, frustrating, fantastic and fun. (points for dodgeball reference?) GBG is mindless, thoughtless gimme gimme the personal goods , GBG isn't even right acronym and name for that system. It should be called PBR ...no no no...not Pabst Blue Ribbon .... Player Battleground Rewards. The only "Guild" thing about GBG is two or three guilds teaming up to run the season. Ok in fairness GBG uses guild goods to build Seiges from the guild bank, you got me there.... so there is one Guild thing about GBG. Any guild that goes hard in GBG is doing it for one thing, the personal players rewards, that guild does not care about the Season prizes, now that most players have planted as many SoH as their empires can handle.

So yes I guess back to the OP.... I would love one system, mate the 2 systems and spit our 1 grand system, that gives Guild rewards, about half player rewards that GBG does, it makes Guild Ranking real again. Cause right now, if you run a good AA, FE, and TE in GVG, your guild is in the Top 5 ranking. The one new system would also have to include all Era's above FE with their own maps as well, it weird after all these years GVG goes from FE to AA. Put in some effort geez, make all the Era's matter.

But don't forget technically there are 3 fighting systems now, Arena.... ;)
 

Owl II

Viceroy
I'm also perplexed as to why no steps were made to phase out GVG, gbg is perfect replacement but the guild ranking mechanic is missing. They could do simply guild level as a ranking measurement or they could convert victory points into prestige. That might actually affect gbg farming.
That would be wrong. The map is the same in the Copper league and in the Diamond league. The total amount of potential VP is the same on any map(or approximately the same). Give a guild in the Copper league the same prestige points as a guild in the Diamond league? Give a guild has been fighting a real rival all season less prestige points than a guild from another group that has no opponent? If they captured the entire map and are resting on it all season?
 
That would be wrong. The map is the same in the Copper league and in the Diamond league. The total amount of potential VP is the same on any map(or approximately the same). Give a guild in the Copper league the same prestige points as a guild in the Diamond league? Give a guild has been fighting a real rival all season less prestige points than a guild from another group that has no opponent? If they captured the entire map and are resting on it all season?
I've been in the same leauge for so long in all of my worlds I don't know whats going on other than that there are too many leauges and not enough diversity in leauge placements. Same guilds been in our leauge for months and it's real tiring to fight the same snakes, some top ranking guilds are even trying to get a new placement by dropping down a leauge and rejoining.

Adds another layer of challenge to GBG, two guilds cant sit swapping and get the same prestige as completely dominating the map. Isn't a guild who dominates the map make sense as a top ranked guild? Maybe the VP is earned with each sector conquered rather than how many you own at the top of the hour, so you do have to retake them to get the points but that also rewards swapping.

Ultimately, something has to be done to give GBG guild ranking. I personally would like more elements that make GBG more difficult.
 

Owl II

Viceroy
Adds another layer of challenge to GBG, two guilds cant sit swapping and get the same prestige as completely dominating the map. Isn't a guild who dominates the map make sense as a top ranked guild? Maybe the VP is earned with each sector conquered rather than how many you own at the top of the hour, so you do have to retake them to get the points but that also rewards swapping.
In fact, GB has now turned into a GE in terms of matchmaking, as far as I can tell. 1-2 live guilds and everything else is just the background. Placeholders. It is... maybe it's not good. But everyone is used to it at least. GB is not suitable for attaching prestige to it for the same reason that GE is not suitable for this. There is no end-to-end competition. everyone cooks in their own partial little pots
Ultimately, something has to be done to give GBG guild ranking. I personally would like more elements that make GBG more difficult.
I agree. But it would require a complete overhaul of the entire system. I don't think they will do it
 

drakenridder

Baronet
That would be wrong. The map is the same in the Copper league and in the Diamond league. The total amount of potential VP is the same on any map(or approximately the same). Give a guild in the Copper league the same prestige points as a guild in the Diamond league? Give a guild has been fighting a real rival all season less prestige points than a guild from another group that has no opponent? If they captured the entire map and are resting on it all season?
Simple solution: make every league up higher stakes with more potential VP, or just putting
converting more VP in guild power for every league up. E.G. bronze 10% VP converted in
power, Silver 15% VP converted to power. Giving #1, #2 and #3 bonus percentages or
the only positions rewarded with some VP converted into power.
For fighting actively with different guilds over provinces can be taken into account. For
example once the province is lost but regained in 10h (6h after you can strike again due to 4h
immunity) the VP in that province is slightly increased. Thus rewarding not to play ping
pong. Alternatively a slight drop as punishment for potential ping pong behaviour could be
implemented. For example decreased VP
production in an province with hostile
advances greater than 50% and for each %
higher an increased penalty. This seriously
hurts the ping pong strategy of not further advancing than 90-99% and than quickly
taking it and locking it for 4h for everyone. If those advances would be punished it would
hurt the potential power the guild could harvest otherwise.

This are just improvised suggestions to demonstrate that solutions for your concerns
are possible. Including solutions that motivate guilds to quit certain strategies and opting for
more aggression. Although I must admit that
I'm unsure what potential solutions could be
used against cooperating guilds to dominate the GbG or in particular if one guild achieves
full dominance but perhaps some increased attrition base or increased risk based off the
number of provinces owned by a guild. For example kicking in with owning 4 provinces?
 

drakenridder

Baronet
Simple solution: make every league up higher stakes with more potential VP, or just putting
converting more VP in guild power for every league up. E.G. bronze 10% VP converted in
power, Silver 15% VP converted to power. Giving #1, #2 and #3 bonus percentages or
the only positions rewarded with some VP converted into power.
For fighting actively with different guilds over provinces can be taken into account. For
example once the province is lost but regained in 10h (6h after you can strike again due to 4h
immunity) the VP in that province is slightly increased. Thus rewarding not to play ping
pong. Alternatively a slight drop as punishment for potential ping pong behaviour could be
implemented. For example decreased VP
production in an province with hostile
advances greater than 50% and for each %
higher an increased penalty. This seriously
hurts the ping pong strategy of not further advancing than 90-99% and than quickly
taking it and locking it for 4h for everyone. If those advances would be punished it would
hurt the potential power the guild could harvest otherwise.

This are just improvised suggestions to demonstrate that solutions for your concerns
are possible. Including solutions that motivate guilds to quit certain strategies and opting for
more aggression. Although I must admit that
I'm unsure what potential solutions could be
used against cooperating guilds to dominate the GbG or in particular if one guild achieves
full dominance but perhaps some increased attrition base or increased risk based off the
number of provinces owned by a guild. For example kicking in with owning 4 provinces?
I meant prestige instead of power, we receive as guild power from GbG
 

Owl II

Viceroy
Simple solution: make every league up higher stakes with more potential VP, or just putting
converting more VP in guild power for every league up. E.G. bronze 10% VP converted in
power, Silver 15% VP converted to power. Giving #1, #2 and #3 bonus percentages or
the only positions rewarded with some VP converted into power.
For fighting actively with different guilds over provinces can be taken into account. For
example once the province is lost but regained in 10h (6h after you can strike again due to 4h
immunity) the VP in that province is slightly increased. Thus rewarding not to play ping
pong. Alternatively a slight drop as punishment for potential ping pong behaviour could be
implemented. For example decreased VP
production in an province with hostile
advances greater than 50% and for each %
higher an increased penalty. This seriously
hurts the ping pong strategy of not further advancing than 90-99% and than quickly
taking it and locking it for 4h for everyone. If those advances would be punished it would
hurt the potential power the guild could harvest otherwise.

This are just improvised suggestions to demonstrate that solutions for your concerns
are possible. Including solutions that motivate guilds to quit certain strategies and opting for
more aggression. Although I must admit that
I'm unsure what potential solutions could be
used against cooperating guilds to dominate the GbG or in particular if one guild achieves
full dominance but perhaps some increased attrition base or increased risk based off the
number of provinces owned by a guild. For example kicking in with owning 4 provinces?
Ok. You have delineated the prestige for different leagues. What will you do with the prestige within the league when 10 or more groups competing there? 95 guilds are located in the Diamond League in my world at the moment. Half of them have 1000 LP. Your idea will bring us 5 first guilds at least. How will they divide the first place among themselves? Let's say they scored a different amount of VP at the end of the season. But the really top guild fought with an equal opponent and won in a tough competition. And the guild wo winning in the fifth group got the lead at the beach party. Is this relevant, in your opinion?
 

DEADP00L

Baronet
Let's talk about football to make the comparison.
A League 2 club that enters the Premier League the following year usually does not perform well, its main objective is to simply stay in League 1 for the first year.
Here, the GBGs do not bring together the best among themselves as one would have expected from the announcement of this championship but confront guilds with different capacities.
Now the right question is what do we want?
Either balanced GbG but this will imply that at the top of the championship the guilds will often be opposed to the same opponents. (solution 1)
Or GbG as providers of FP where big guilds are bored with weak opponents, while the weak can do absolutely nothing? (solution 2)

The large guilds would vote for solution 2 while the majority of players (because not present in these larger guilds) would vote for solution 1.

In short, no solution would benefit everyone, it's just a question of positioning.