• 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 . . . ?

drakenridder

Baronet
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?
My suggestions were not LP based but VP based for 1 completed season and only for
top 1-3 in that match for that season which
guild has obtained most VP in that season.
In their own match. Not a global thing. More like GE matches in which top 3 gets extra
rewards as a guild.
Good points for the match making. There were good solutions from other players before. E.G.
introducing an higher league above diamond in which #1 receives 0 LP and lower loses LP.
Causing continuous new matchups. Another potential solution could be an special league
in which the very top guilds of diamond are promoted and facing each other.
As for the beach parties I've suggested increased difficulty to gain control over more
provincies when the guild controls 3-4+ provinces and each new one increasing the
difficulty. Making it harder to achieve beach party. I'm unsure what system could be used
to devalue beach party VP / LP earnings without harming every matchup.
 

Owl II

Viceroy
My suggestions were not LP based but VP based for 1 completed season and only for
top 1-3 in that match for that season which
guild has obtained most VP in that season.
In their own match. Not a global thing. More like GE matches in which top 3 gets extra
rewards as a guild.
Ok. You will have 5 groups. And 5 first places. and 5 second. And 5 third. So which of them is the first?
 

drakenridder

Baronet
Ok. You will have 5 groups. And 5 first places. and 5 second. And 5 third. So which of them is the first?
In every match of GbG you have 1 #1, 1 #2, 1 #3, 1 #4, etc. Exceptions are ties in an match.
If you mean globally, there can be indeed multiple separated victors in their top 3 in their
own match. Just like GE. Also in GE top 3 in
their match gains some bonuses. Also in those
top 3's their final reward inc. boost depends on the results of that GE. It's the exact same thing
with GbG. I dunno about what 5 #1, 5 #2, etc. victorious groups your refering to?
As far I've seen in the results of GbG seasons my guilds have participated there were only
1 #1, 1 #2, 1 #3, etc. Also in GvG there's only 1 #1 guild, 1 #2 guild, etc. in each part of GvG.
 

drakenridder

Baronet
I will remind you idea is not to kill time. And in order to rank the guilds with their real power
The suggestions are just proves of concepts for finding an viable way to implement a fair
prestige earning system in GbG. Similar to GvG. As this would be more fair for all guilds.
In particular those with active mobile only players. And sure enough also in GbG risk for
agreements between guilds are but looking into GvG... there's its even more easy to achieve.
Making an system in GbG rewarding selfishness between guilds would reduce the
interest of keeping loyal to agreements.

And indeed it isn't meant to altare time needed and I've made some side notes to other
suggestions for diamond league dilemma. As it was brought up down the road.
 

Owl II

Viceroy
In every match of GbG you have 1 #1, 1 #2, 1 #3, 1 #4, etc. Exceptions are ties in an match.
If you mean globally, there can be indeed multiple separated victors in their top 3 in their
own match. Just like GE. Also in GE top 3 in
their match gains some bonuses. Also in those
top 3's their final reward inc. boost depends on the results of that GE. It's the exact same thing
with GbG. I dunno about what 5 #1, 5 #2, etc. victorious groups your refering to?
As far I've seen in the results of GbG seasons my guilds have participated there were only
1 #1, 1 #2, 1 #3, etc. Also in GvG there's only 1 #1 guild, 1 #2 guild, etc. in each part of GvG.
Yes. This is excellent. It remains to determine who is 1#1, who is 1#2, and so on
 

drakenridder

Baronet
@Owl II now I understand. For that was a completely different suggestion from someone.
Can't find the original post but an league above diamond in which #1 doesn't lose nor gain LP
but #2 and lower loses LP. I can imagine such champion league to have the best of the best
cycling through each other and perhaps like the global #1 days perhaps number of times #1
and thus winning the champion league. I've called it champion league for lack of better
words. As in this league the very best face
each other or perhaps only diamond #1 prev. season gets selected and the previous
champion of the league can staid until they're beaten. Maybe this was more something your refering to / looking for?
 

napodavout

Merchant
HELLO
I am for reducing points in GVG, and increasing them in GBG, individual or guild.
the idea of a different card in GBG depending on the trophies is interesting.
For the GVG as seen by participants all over the world, a reduction in points would be a good thing.
Best regards
**********************
BONJOUR
Je suis pour diminuer les points en GVG ,et les augmenter en GBG , individuel ou guilde.
l idée de carte différante en GBG suivant suivant les trophées est intérréssant .
Pour la GVG vue le peut de participants part monde ,une diminution des points serais une bonne chose .
bien cordialement




















https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...hUKEwjtha3h8qjwAhWjxYUKHdLjBJcQ1QIwDXoECAsQAQ
 
As a participant from somewhere in the world: I disagree.
Perfectly fine to disagree. ((Edit: Surely most of my guildmates at The Matrix agree with you)).

The guild in my main world (Slayers EN4 Dinegu) has quit GvG long ago, and we are now mainly focused in GE (more Gold Trophies than all others)) and GBG (Diamond League). My guild in my second most active world (The Matrix EN8 Houndsmoor) is a main competitor in GvG holding top positions at several maps, also do GBG and GE. Participation of my guilds at GvG in my other worlds is very rare, the large majority have shifted to GBG. Me, personally, since mainly using my mobile device for several years now, dont do any GVG even when playing at EN8 Houndsmoor. My experience says people are leaving GvG behind. Many other forum members have/can said something similar. But not counting just on my experience, Inno surely has the updated statistics on how many guilds/players invest time/efforts in GvG. Inno surely have the statistics of how many players play FOE using PCs vs Mobile devices. It seems than Mobile players are now more than PC players (can someone confirm? Or just Inno can confirm?).

On top of that Inno have announced more than one time their decision to not invest more resources to fix the multiple problems we have pointed out about GvG. Even added items to the Do Not Suggest List to stop more ideas aimed to fix GVG, or to add GvG to Mobile version:
  • Bringing GvG to mobile. The developers have stated this will not happen.
  • Changes/Additions to GvG.
(This can indirectly confirm my inferences in a previous paragraph.)

Therefore, if GvG have declined to be a main activity for players/guilds within FOE, and not a top priority for Inno, and this level of activity continue to be decreasing month after month (Inno to confirm with their stats) then the question of the influence of GvG on the Ranking Points formula should be evaluated.
  • If GBG is by large (again Inno to confirm) more relevant to guilds/players than GvG, is it not fair then that GBG be more influent in Ranking Points than GvG?
  • If guilds doing GvG are a minority, should they receive a big push in the ranking for that participation over guilds that have abandoned GvG?
  • How large is that influence now? How large it should be?
 
Last edited:

drakenridder

Baronet
Perfectly fine to disagree. ((Edit: Surely most of my guildmates at The Matrix agree with you)).

The guild in my main world (Slayers EN4 Dinegu) has quit GvG long ago, and we are now mainly focused in GE (more Gold Trophies than all others)) and GBG (Diamond League). My guild in my second most active world (The Matrix EN8 Houndsmoor) is a main competitor in GvG holding top positions at several maps, also do GBG and GE. Participation of my guilds at GvG in my other worlds is very rare, the large majority have shifted to GBG. Me, personally, since mainly using my mobile device for several years now, dont do any GVG even when playing at EN8 Houndsmoor. My experience says people are leaving GvG behind. Many other forum members have/can said something similar. But not counting just on my experience, Inno surely has the updated statistics on how many guilds/players invest time/efforts in GvG. Inno surely have the statistics of how many players play FOE using PCs vs Mobile devices. It seems than Mobile players are now more than PC players (can someone confirm? Or just Inno can confirm?).

On top of that Inno have announced more than one time their decision to not invest more resources to fix the multiple problems we have pointed out about GvG. Even added items to the Do Not Suggest List to stop more ideas aimed to fix GVG, or to add GvG to Mobile version:
  • Bringing GvG to mobile. The developers have stated this will not happen.
  • Changes/Additions to GvG.
(This can indirectly confirm my inferences in a previous paragraph.)

Therefore, if GvG have declined to be a main activity for players/guilds within FOE, and not a top priority for Inno, and this level of activity continue to be decreasing month after month (Inno to confirm with their stats) then the question of the influence of GvG on the Ranking Points formula should be evaluated.
  • If GBG is by large (again Inno to confirm) more relevant to guilds/players than GvG, is it not fair then that GBG be more influent in Ranking Points than GvG?
  • If guilds doing GvG are a minority, should they receive a big push in the ranking for that participation over guilds that have abandoned GvG?
  • How large is that influence now? How large it should be?
Great analyse, this is precisely why in my opinion the suggestion of @planetofthehumans2 is
such a great idea. The idea to convert a certain amount of VP into prestige for the guild
ranking.
I feel like the intensions with GvG where good but how it turned out is inferior compared to
GbG. Yet I think GbG could be improved a bit. Better match making it actually is randomised
and not based of guild ID number, guild names hidden until the end of the season. Guilds in
the active season can be named after the colour of their provinces. This makes it significant
harder to make ping-pong deals. As it should make communication practical impossible to
arrange deals. So, I feel like this GbG enhancements would be great additions:

> X% VP converted into prestige, suggestion from planetofthehumans2
> Guildnames hidden until season has been completed (name of colour of guild's provinces are listed in active season)
> Reduced effectiveness of siege camps (EG cap of maximum chance or multiple adjacent siege camps don't stack)
> Additional champion league for top guilds with negative LP, #1 keeps LP for that victorious season, IDK who suggested this first
> Actual random matchmaking instead of matchmaking based off guild ID or bug fix for this

Source for the not really random match making system of GbG:

Personally I feel like GbG is the only true cross platform multi player feature of FoE currently.
Where GE is rather like a checklist of up to 64 fights / neg. on an weekly base. It's not bad
though. I feel like GE, GbG and cultural settlements are the best features outside of the main
game to focus on. While camping or forced to when hitting the last released age or being
stuck in the TT.
GvG was kinda fun but the way it rolls ain't. It could still become a good feature tho. The strengths
from GbG could be easily implemented into GvG to safe it. Like hourly or every 4h calculating and
rewarding control over sectors. Protection for sectors making time limited, preventing ping-pong
strategy to securing sectors with invincible protection. Much higher cap for sector defence bonuses
or no cap at all. This would improve value for defensive GbG's and would making guilds less feeling
forced to rely on their ping-pong strategy to securing sectors. Rather to designing good matchups
for defending armies. Maybe a quarterly season of GvG. Giving new guilds the opportunity to rise
and shine in an fresh and new playfield of GvG every quarter. Alternately annual seasons could be
more exciting and Inno could promote on their fora an annual recap of the past annual GvG season,
with honourable mentions and a special list of fame for top performing guilds in various rankings.
Like greatest GvG warriors (most fights won), most conquering minded guilds, etc. This would
Drastically making players more interested in GbG and perhaps in defensive GBs. This in game news
letter idea originates from Grepolis.
Such things could be implemented into GvG or even an remastered version could be made. Enabling
cross platform Browser / app. All of this could provide an decant GbG alternative with the advantage
of more continuous gameplay and more strategy and upgrading value for defensive GBs. Really big
bummer Inno doesn't seems to see how great 2 major multi-player features could be for the player
base... but maybe somewhere in the future or in an alternative universe their working on something
like it or an FoE remaster one can always dream for better days :)
 

napodavout

Merchant
Preview
HELLO
Just create an extra level with an MMR of 1800, reserve a max of 12 guilds (6x2).
With just points for the first two, only 4 guilds would stay at those levels, the other 8 would change each time.
This will make the competition more interesting for the stronger, and more fun for the weaker.
*****************************************
BONJOUR
Juste créer un niveau supplémentaire avec un MMR de 1800 ,réserver a 12 guildes max (6x2) .
Avec juste des points pour les deux premier ,sois seul 4 guildes resterais a ceux niveaux ,les 8 autres changer a chaque fois .
Cela rendrai la compétition plus intéressante pour les plus fort , et plus amusant pour les les plus faible .
 

iPenguinPat

Steward
Gvg is more dynamic than gbg. More maps. They're all asymmetrical, and sectors are open to everyone (I.e. You can steal sector in ways that aren't an option in gbg). The combat is more direct where teamwork can beat out brute force. But it's not accessible and there are no rewards for players motivated by them.

The participation rate of gbg is driven by rewards and accessibility. Players broke the system when they figured out checker board swaps and defensive sector flips.

Remove individual rewards for gbg and participation would tank. Make gvg mobile and add any rewards to the individual, and participation would spike.

These are simple ideas that are easy to prove.

Make some servers gvg only (or at least gvg + gbg) and some servers no gvg (gbg only). Allow players to transfer once. Stagger recalc across servers to help with load balancing.

There are lots of options. At the end of the day, the biggest issue for both gbg and gbg will always be when top guilds decide to work together to push everyone out instead of fighting each other. And there are no simple solutions to that problem.

Inno could get a focus group together and brainstorm ideas, and put in work to make the game truly amazing. Or they could just make the game forge of eventpire.

Bottom line -- changes aren't likely because inno doesn't want to rock the boat. Why remove a feature if they risk losing a small but vocal group of hardcore players?
 
Last edited:

napodavout

Merchant
Except that FOE has clearly indicated that there will be no improvement in GVG because only 5% of players participate.
Which is understandable.
Is who should invite FOE gave more points in GBG.
For the gdg what could bring a plus is that all sector released, should have a penalty of 48 hours before its recovery.
*******************
Sauf que FOE a bien indiqué qu il n y auras pas d amélioration en GVG car seulement 5% des joueurs y participent .
Ce qui est compréhensible .
Est qui devrais inviter FOE a donné plus de points en GBG.
Pour la GDG ce qui pourrais apporté un plus c est que tous secteur libéré ,devrais avoir une pénalité de 48h avant sa reprise .
 
Make some servers gvg only (or at least gvg + gbg) and some servers no gvg (gbg only).
A DNSL, FOE is against to create servers / worlds with special features like this GvG only or GBG only.

Editing the Ranking formulas is easier than create and maintain different versions of FOE (GVG only, GBG only, etc) at different servers. Formulas for Guilds and Players ranking have been edited before.
 

iPenguinPat

Steward
Except that FOE has clearly indicated that there will be no improvement in GVG because only 5% of players participate.
Which is understandable.
Is who should invite FOE gave more points in GBG.
For the gdg what could bring a plus is that all sector released, should have a penalty of 48 hours before its recovery.
*******************
Sauf que FOE a bien indiqué qu il n y auras pas d amélioration en GVG car seulement 5% des joueurs y participent .
Ce qui est compréhensible .
Est qui devrais inviter FOE a donné plus de points en GBG.
Pour la GDG ce qui pourrais apporté un plus c est que tous secteur libéré ,devrais avoir une pénalité de 48h avant sa reprise .
I can give an extensive rundown about why that 5% stat is a red herring argument. The short version is:
1) accessibility - adding mobile would make recalc accessible to far more players (i.e. logistic/timing aspect).
2) only pc can play - that cuts the base down to 33%. so it's really 15% participation rate for those that are able.
3) gvg gives no individual rewards - rewards are the top driving factor for participation in anything for the majority of players.
4) gvg does require significant development as a player. it is not all that accessible or fun for players that aren't well developed.

Keep in mind that the participation rate of GBG is only 40%. and 48% of players would quit GBG if individual rewards were removed. Gets us down to about 20-22%. Then factor the accessibility of being 24/7 and on mobile and it's obvious why gbg has more participation.

GVG's participation level is what it is because it's not supported, it has nothing to do with how much players like it

GBG is a broken system. it's luck dependent on who you're matched with (if random) or we have the current matchmaking where you're stuck based on guild id. Either way, it's more flawed for ranking and abusable for farming than GVG is or ever was.

A DNSL, FOE is against to create servers / worlds with special features like this GvG only or GBG only.

Editing the Ranking formulas is easier than create and maintain different versions of FOE (GVG only, GBG only, etc) at different servers. Formulas for Guilds and Players ranking have been edited before.
DNSL is exactly my point regarding improvements to both. Also the reason a focus group would make sense. Players tend to have a poor idea of how things will balance when they make suggestions. For example, simply suggesting that we raise MMR for gbg doesn't fix the problem. it just spreads guilds back out for a few seasons until everything gets stagnate at the top again.

I suspect blocking off features per would is probably easier from a coding standpoint than you'd think. the bigger issue would be deciding which world is what, and how players can move to make sure the part of the game they enjoy is still available. Obviously, it won't happen. Too much risk. But it'd provide a huge change in dynamics and competition and probably keep the game healthier for longer.

I don't understand why players keep suggesting that inno get rid of GVG. They already said in bold red letters they DO NOT plan on removing GvG.
 

DEADP00L

Baronet
Because GvG is not fair since it is not accessible on mobile, it is unfortunate that the ranking is impacted by this aspect.
A good guild ranking makes it easier to recruit.
That Inno keeps the GvG but no longer has any impact on the ranking will not change the enjoyment of those who can participate.
 

napodavout

Merchant
I'm not talking about removing the gcg, but I totally agree with DEADPOOL.
It is completely unfair for all players playing on mobile (personal on pc).
This also penalizes the ranking of players and guilds.
********************************
Je ne parle pas de supprimer la gvg , mais je suis totalement d'accord avec DEADPOOL .
C'est complètement injuste pour tous les joueurs jouant sur mobile (perso sur pc ) .
Ce qui en plus pénalise le classement joueurs et guildes .
 

drakenridder

Baronet
For example, simply suggesting that we raise MMR for gbg doesn't fix the problem. it just spreads guilds back out for a few seasons until everything gets stagnate at the top again.
The best suggested solution I've ever seen for that is some type of champions league in which
MMR or currently known as LP will be reduced
once the season has been completed with the
exception fort the winning guild of that season in the champions league. As that guild won't
gain or lose LP. Making the absolute maximum LP required to enter that Champions league
making sure that only #1 in that league can remain for another season facing off fresh new
best of the best GbG guilds. While all "losing"
guilds of that league are kicked out every time
and having to earn their way back in. This would break the cycle and no new cap is
required to be implemented.
I'm curious how you'll feeling towards that suggestion to solve the top of the top GbG
dilemma.


For reference I've been calling that league a champions league for the lack of better words
since effectively it would be an champions league to determine which guild is really apex
in GbG. Some referred in the original suggestion to it as crystal league or some other
valuable material.
 

DEADP00L

Baronet
Is the fact that Innogames does not indicate anywhere on the sites or on the download platforms that GvG is only accessible from a computer legal?
In any case, it is not ethically healthy!
On one of my live worlds, my guild is made up of 22 members, 20 of whom do not have a computer.
It is therefore impossible to do GvG and therefore to rank better to attract new recruits.
I am not asking for the elimination of GvG, even if this only interests 5% of players, I am asking for fairness according to all media!
Innogames no longer wants any suggestions on GvG but maintains this resource-hungry nonsense for a handful of players at the expense of everyone else's comfort.
Make an effort, either by adapting this facet of the game for everyone, or by removing the advantages that GvG brings, and above all be honest by reporting it on your television ads and google play!