DeletedUser12240
Rainbow Dash is best pony. that is all I have to say.
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
DeletedUser25625
The problem isn't getting them to COMPLETE the expedition - though that would be helpful. The problem is getting them to even START the expedition. The first 3 negotiations are so simple it's not even funny. Yet, at least 30% don't even do that.
If you have to negotiate - good luck [consistently] getting past encounters #25+ w/o spending diamonds.
If you have a a Traz, a rogue hideout, and a [net] 30%+ attack boost - you should be able to clear level 3 just fighting w/o spending diamonds.
That is the difference between fighting and negotiation. It's possible to boost yourself up to fight through. Not so much for negotiation.
Algona
Well-Known Member
Woohhoo! We have a Godwin award winner! Congratulations!
Well, no. Of your four points I'd say three are unsupported assumptions.
1) Supposedly GvG has slowed to a crawl. What happened to diamonds spent there? Most of the players in my guild who go 48 finish without spending diamonds. I hope INNO is making money, bur I've gotten a lot of diamonds from GE and used none for GE.
2) Parasite nailed this.
3) Sure. just like guilds kick crappy traders, inactives, non-aiders, non-gvgers, and anything else they don't want.
4) Wrong, wrong, wrong. If there is a schism between those who buy diamonds and the rest of us, it's been in place since moments after the game started.
'REAL money'. Is there another kind?
Diamonds = 'REAL money'? Between WWs, Quests, Chateau, GE, multiple worlds one diamond pool I think this is suspect as well as the rest of your post. The only people w/o diamonds in this game are those aren't trying.
Last edited:
DeletedUser14816
All of the recent changes are getting old for the players like me.
Costing troops to siege.
Recent rogue rail gun change that results in the rail gun getting damaged every time.
Excluding folks like me for this this change.
GVG is just flat out boring now - nothing happens.
Its like you are just trying to make the game more tedious for the very active players.
I have payed money to play.
Not another dime when all new changes are targeted to make the game worse for me.
How about some positive changes - like being able to choose what the traz produces so you do not end up with a ton of useless troops.
How about letting the goods from GB's go into local treasury instead of guild. Got 5 thousand arctic goods in treasury that are useless.
How about making the surrender button always available instead of waiting until all the troops move when in battle.
How about sorting the unattached and attached troops together.
Lets make it politically correct and not keep score so that everyone wins.
Costing troops to siege.
Recent rogue rail gun change that results in the rail gun getting damaged every time.
Excluding folks like me for this this change.
GVG is just flat out boring now - nothing happens.
Its like you are just trying to make the game more tedious for the very active players.
I have payed money to play.
Not another dime when all new changes are targeted to make the game worse for me.
How about some positive changes - like being able to choose what the traz produces so you do not end up with a ton of useless troops.
How about letting the goods from GB's go into local treasury instead of guild. Got 5 thousand arctic goods in treasury that are useless.
How about making the surrender button always available instead of waiting until all the troops move when in battle.
How about sorting the unattached and attached troops together.
Lets make it politically correct and not keep score so that everyone wins.
wolfhoundtoo
Well-Known Member
A few thoughts on some of your requests/ideas
Your proposed change to let the traz have a selection process for which troops it produces would make it much too strong of a GB (and the traz is a pretty powerful one already).
The production of goods by the GBs that field the guild treasury would have to be adjusted if you were going to allow those goods to be produced and given to players directly instead of making them be utilized for GVG purposes.
I actually like the idea of being able to hit surrender whenever you want but it would of course still inflict the same damage to your units if that was implemented.
I'm not sure what you mean by the sorting the unattached and attached troops together?
On a final note please be aware that changes to the game are made by the developers as they think the game needs adjusting or improving. Since GE was primarily meant to give the mobile players a 'guild oriented' activity it would seem to be a valuable addition to the game. This let's inno have a much larger market for players.......if GVG has died down that's on the players not the game.
Your proposed change to let the traz have a selection process for which troops it produces would make it much too strong of a GB (and the traz is a pretty powerful one already).
The production of goods by the GBs that field the guild treasury would have to be adjusted if you were going to allow those goods to be produced and given to players directly instead of making them be utilized for GVG purposes.
I actually like the idea of being able to hit surrender whenever you want but it would of course still inflict the same damage to your units if that was implemented.
I'm not sure what you mean by the sorting the unattached and attached troops together?
On a final note please be aware that changes to the game are made by the developers as they think the game needs adjusting or improving. Since GE was primarily meant to give the mobile players a 'guild oriented' activity it would seem to be a valuable addition to the game. This let's inno have a much larger market for players.......if GVG has died down that's on the players not the game.
DeletedUser14816
GVG has died down because no one has enough troops to make any significant sieges and only on one ERA. I can not possible have 2 troops producers for each ERA and that is only good for one siege.
Surrender - Care less about damage - tired of waiting.
Adjust GB so you get what you need - not wasted.
You are targeting rails first now. I see you did not respond to that.
When you are looking at strike teams - the attached and unattached are mixed together. sort the attached first - then unattached.
What about the fact that you are excluding me from this update.
wolfhoundtoo
Well-Known Member
I think you are confusing me with a developer from Inno.
However since you want responses:
In actuality there has been no change to the AI that targets railguns. The order of rogues has changed slightly that is true and there has been some change in the result of battle damage. However you can do the same thing that I and many other players have done in regards to this: Adapt your strategy/tactics to deal with it.
You can actually set the screen in the battle system to show only attached or unattached.
As for not being able to have enough troops for multiple ERAS I 'd have to disagree. I have plenty of troops and can participate in GVG in half a dozen eras. What is no longer possible is to do so alone or with only 1 or 2 people to support you. If you plan it properly and work with your guild you should be able to fight in multiple eras without too much trouble. What I presume you really mean is you can't do the unending fights you used to do when sieging didn't cost troops. Not quite the same thing.
As for the "excluding you from this update" I presume that sentence means something to you but I'm afraid I'm unclear on what you are trying to communicate with this sentence.
@Algona
Not much I admit so you are correct that this should probably be in forge hall under a different thread I suppose.
However since you want responses:
In actuality there has been no change to the AI that targets railguns. The order of rogues has changed slightly that is true and there has been some change in the result of battle damage. However you can do the same thing that I and many other players have done in regards to this: Adapt your strategy/tactics to deal with it.
You can actually set the screen in the battle system to show only attached or unattached.
As for not being able to have enough troops for multiple ERAS I 'd have to disagree. I have plenty of troops and can participate in GVG in half a dozen eras. What is no longer possible is to do so alone or with only 1 or 2 people to support you. If you plan it properly and work with your guild you should be able to fight in multiple eras without too much trouble. What I presume you really mean is you can't do the unending fights you used to do when sieging didn't cost troops. Not quite the same thing.
As for the "excluding you from this update" I presume that sentence means something to you but I'm afraid I'm unclear on what you are trying to communicate with this sentence.
@Algona
Not much I admit so you are correct that this should probably be in forge hall under a different thread I suppose.
DeletedUser25273
My opinion is that the Guid Expedition seems to be designed to force guilds to decide what sort of guild they want to be. With GvG a guild could have (and in some ways needed to have) different types of players, some focusing on building troops to fight, some building goods to allow them to fight, and could tolerate 'slackers' who maybe didn't pull their weight, but unless the guild was full didn't really hurt the guild.
With GE, slackers have a direct cost to the guild if it wants to do level 2 or 3 of expeditions. This puts a lot more pressure on the guild to kick them out. With GE, the leaders have to make a decision for the whole guild of how far to let people work on it. Level 1 is free, so available to all, and can be enough for a guild that doesn't want to push fighting on its players. To a player who wants to do more, if that is all that is regularly opened they may feel the need to push for more to be opened or move to a different guild that does more.
If a guild regularly opens the upper levels of GE, then those that don't want to do the upper levels may complain about the 'taxes' needed to be imposed to pay for it, which they aren't getting the direct benefit (of all the personal rewards of GE) or those who need to pay extra to cover the slackers may complain that others aren't paying their share. If the guild thinks of opening level 3, this pressure gets even stronger as the cost for level 3 is twice that of level 2, and generally there are fewer who actually will use level 3 than level 2.
This causes a lot of pressure for guilds to need to decide what level of GE they will aim to do, and make people want to move to a guild that matches their own desires. The new Championship is going to push this even more, as 'Level 3' guilds are going to want to have as many Level 3 players as possible to maximize there chances of getting the bonus rewards, which slackers, or even just level 1 or 2 players will hurt.
It will be interesting to see how the pairing algorithm will be working, will level 3 guilds be paired with other level 3 guilds, and level 2 with level 2 giving close competition up and down the pairings, or are we going to get pairings like some of the neighborhoods where some guilds just get dominated.
With GE, slackers have a direct cost to the guild if it wants to do level 2 or 3 of expeditions. This puts a lot more pressure on the guild to kick them out. With GE, the leaders have to make a decision for the whole guild of how far to let people work on it. Level 1 is free, so available to all, and can be enough for a guild that doesn't want to push fighting on its players. To a player who wants to do more, if that is all that is regularly opened they may feel the need to push for more to be opened or move to a different guild that does more.
If a guild regularly opens the upper levels of GE, then those that don't want to do the upper levels may complain about the 'taxes' needed to be imposed to pay for it, which they aren't getting the direct benefit (of all the personal rewards of GE) or those who need to pay extra to cover the slackers may complain that others aren't paying their share. If the guild thinks of opening level 3, this pressure gets even stronger as the cost for level 3 is twice that of level 2, and generally there are fewer who actually will use level 3 than level 2.
This causes a lot of pressure for guilds to need to decide what level of GE they will aim to do, and make people want to move to a guild that matches their own desires. The new Championship is going to push this even more, as 'Level 3' guilds are going to want to have as many Level 3 players as possible to maximize there chances of getting the bonus rewards, which slackers, or even just level 1 or 2 players will hurt.
It will be interesting to see how the pairing algorithm will be working, will level 3 guilds be paired with other level 3 guilds, and level 2 with level 2 giving close competition up and down the pairings, or are we going to get pairings like some of the neighborhoods where some guilds just get dominated.
lemonwedgie
Well-Known Member
Umm yeah, tell me how we are put up against *similar* guilds .... only thing similar is the amount of members ...
DeletedUser13838
How is this different than gvg? Farmers who don't want to fight can pay goods to the guild Treasury and get the benefit of increased guild levels.
DeletedUser18851
Grouping guilds by similar member size is pretty dumb. It should be based more on guild level, as that is much more indicator of similarly matched guilds.
Case in point, in the first week, here's one of the matchups:
Level 35 -- Rank 6 -- 65 members
vs.
Level 6 -- Rank 157 -- 75 members
Yeah, that's real fair. Inno must have used the same sheer brilliance they use for neighborhood mergers to design this new competition.
Case in point, in the first week, here's one of the matchups:
Level 35 -- Rank 6 -- 65 members
vs.
Level 6 -- Rank 157 -- 75 members
Yeah, that's real fair. Inno must have used the same sheer brilliance they use for neighborhood mergers to design this new competition.
DeletedUser8152
It isn't obviously unfair, since a guild with low age members but good participation will defeat a high-age guild with low participation.
If your goal is to match similarly competitive guilds, then I guess the obvious thing would be to group guilds based on how they did the previous week. But I don't know if that is fair either, since it means lots of low participation guilds will win and lots of high participation guilds will lose.
If your goal is to match similarly competitive guilds, then I guess the obvious thing would be to group guilds based on how they did the previous week. But I don't know if that is fair either, since it means lots of low participation guilds will win and lots of high participation guilds will lose.
iamtheemperor
Active Member
Not sure why you think this is dumb or unfair. Championship ranking is based on participation, not points.
From the announcement:
No mention of points, ages, ranks, etc.
BruteForceAttack
Well-Known Member
Group A: 3 Members, all have level 10 traz, zeus, cdm, coa
Group B: 3 Members No GBs
Group A will most likely win because they will be able to solve more encounters.
Group B: 3 Members No GBs
Group A will most likely win because they will be able to solve more encounters.
DeletedUser13838
Group C: 3 members with a billion goods and medals
DeletedUser8152
Not necessarily true if Group B is iron age (where GE armies have no boosts) and Group A is AF where the boosts get pretty big. Even trazs aren't determinative like they are in GvG because you can earn enough troops in GE to make up a lot of your losses.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser14197
This is exactly what I noticed. The number of members is close, but the rank is totally different in some of my guilds. Seems like having similar ranks might be important, but maybe I am wrong.
At any rate, I think that if your guild wants to participate in the championship, it may be true that it doesn't cost them extra to have people who don't do it in the hood, but it certainly will make it harder for them to place. Therefore, it seems to me they will want to get rid of non players. I am in 6 cities. My guess is that in 3 of them, no one will care as we don't even open level 2 in 2 of them and I have never seen anyone ask anyone to. However, I kind of think one of the cities will try as they are big in gvg, but I only do level 1 in this city. Also, in another city, I don't know if they will compete. However in my main city, I try to do all 3 levels, and they have not even opened them all up in the past though they will if asked and the goods are there. Not many of us do level 3. I think we have already lost a player because of this and I would not be a bit surprised if we lose another player or 2 as they might want to participate int eh championship and only about half of my guild even fights one battle. I may even want to change guilds and I don't even really want to change guilds. I like the one I am in. It has already been frustrating not knowing if theya re going to open level 3 and now it just adds one more negative. To me GE adds an important issue to consider when joining a guild.
lemonwedgie
Well-Known Member
Oh .. so it is only measured on number of members? I don't know where I read that is was guilds of similar level ... but thats what I thought :-/