My Arc suddenly dropped from level 52 to 28???

[Meat Butcher]

Two free levels on my Kraken and FP's returned to my inventory makes Meat a happy camper.

My only regret is that it did not happen to my Arc instead. lol

 

[qaccy]

I beg to differ. If you use Forge-db as a reference, go look at the top 30 GBs for the US.

If you actually read my post, I said 'GBs at level 80+', not highest GBs overall. Go count those and tell me what you see. The Arc has a significant dropoff in effect after 80, making other GBs more viable to level beyond that point, but that's far too late for the Arc itself to prevent it from doing what it's done to the game.

EDIT:
@Salsuero
You didn't really make any good arguments for keeping things as they are, or demonstrating how the Arc isn't completely broken compared to all other GBs. As a finisher to your post, you once again seemed to not notice that I've already mentioned that I have an Arc myself, so I'm not 'missing anything' and it's not something I need to work on trying to get. I already have one. But anyway, the only educated players who aren't levelling an Arc to absurd levels before any other GBs are primarily exclusively self-levellers who wouldn't benefit from the contribution bonus, which in itself is a pretty inefficient choice.

 

[Salsuero]

As a finisher to your post, you once again seemed to not notice that I've already mentioned that I have an Arc myself, so I'm not 'missing anything' and it's not something I need to work on trying to get.

What makes you think I failed to notice that you have one? It only takes a little research to know that you do. I was speaking more in general terms about complaining and not specifically about you not having an Arc at level 80+, though I will concede that I wasn't entirely clear to that point. Regardless, it didn't matter to my position from my perspective, nor did it alter my opinion about anything that has been said against the Arc. I don't care if it's "overpowered" which in and of itself is simply an opinion. It may in fact be the consensus that it is overpowered. Or maybe it isn't. What I do care about is that it not be tinkered with now so long after the fact because in my opinion, that would harm the game more than leaving it in the game at this point as-is.

 

[DeletedUser31392]

I would have to agree with @Salsuero to a degree. After so long of such an “imbalance” it would be detrimental to those that have not reaped its benefits, while allowing those that have a huge advantage (stockpiles of fps from Arc Bonuses).

I do see what you are saying @qaccy but I think the damage has been done and it would only hurt the playerbase as a whole if this was altered now. Can you imagine the uproar and mass exodus is players because of such an extreme change 2 years after its release? (I checked the logs, FE and it’s GBs we’re release on Nov 2, 2015)


I honestly think changing it now would do more harm than good. The damage has been done. All we can do now is ask that such a powerful feature be examined more thoroughly in the future so as not to make such drastic impacts on the overall game.

I’ll say it again, it is possible this is what the devs wanted, to see a massive shift in how the game is played so that it is easier for players to take their GBs to astronomical levels. The “end game” seems stale without something more to focus on, and having the Arc has allowed more players to advance their GBs well beyond anywhere they could have dreamed of in the time allotted. I understand this game is not a race and is meant to play over a long period of time, but without the Arc wouldn’t the “end game” get boring fast? I could imagine more players leaving the game with not much else to do besides gathering FPs from leveling GBs using the Arc boost to further boost their own GBs well beyond where they could have before, and using other players with Arcs to assist in the leveling process.


If there ever was to be a “nerf” to Arc, I think anything more than a 15% drop at level 80 would do more harm than good. This would still allow players to monetize the boost, but not be extremely overpowered as qaccy has so eloquently described it.

To better outline what I’m suggesting would be the following:
Levels 1-10 — Remain unchanged
Levels 11-39 — Keep the 1% increase each level gain
Levels 40-58 — Change progression to 0.5%
Levels 59-180 — Change progression to 0.25%

With this it would mean:
Level 39 — 60%
Level 40 — 60.5% (Currently 61%)

Level 58 — 69.5% (Currently 79%)
Level 59 — 69.75%
Level 60 — 70% (Currently 80%

Level 80 — 75% (Currently 90%)

Level 140 — 90% (Currently 96%)
Level 180 — 100%
Level 181 — 100.1%

(Assuming the gains to the current Arc never changes again after the change from .5% to .1%, Level 180 would be where the current form and my proposed change would meet. I feel like the rewards to cost ratio beyond level 140 are already extremely unproportional so would stand to reason that a .25% progression would be fine until the current model and proposed model would meet, and then change over to the .1% progression rate from then on)


I would say this to be a fair proposal to a massive shift in the Arcs dynamics. It would still allow for gains and profits on the 30-70 range on most GBs, but the owners would have to offer up more of their own FPs to allow for such a profit to occur. If players wished to have the old Bonus they would be forced to advance their Current Arcs to a point where they still find it profitable.


Any objections? I think both @qaccy and @Salsuero could both agree this change would offer a balance and agreement on both sides of the table.

 

[Salsuero]

Any objections? I think both @qaccy and @Salsuero could both agree this change would offer a balance and agreement on both sides of the table.

I truly applaud and appreciate what you said in your post. And while it is certainly "less" of a nerf. It's still a nerf and I am not in favor of it. I want to be able to achieve the same level of profitability that older players earned long ago through my hard work, the same amount of work they had to put in... not a partial reward for the same work. Imagine you get a job and you are told you will get paid the same as the guy who's been doing his job for 3 years already, as long as you put in the same amount of effort in studying to pass the same exams as he did. Then halfway through your studies and exams, the job tells you that you can keep finishing the same amount of studying and exams, but only for 2/3 pay. The other guy gets a 2/3 pay cut too... but he's already been getting paid the full amount for so long, he has a giant savings and can afford to make less. It might not be the perfect analogy, but it's pretty close to the way I feel about my Arc efforts and what I expect to get for that effort. And one significant objection is that I feel like the extra profits that the existing owners have been able to pocket put them at a significant advantage in getting up to those now much higher levels that most of us might have to give up on with it being so much further to get to and so much more expensive.

 

[DeletedUser31392]

I truly applaud and appreciate what you said in your post. And while it is certainly "less" of a nerf. It's still a nerf and I am not in favor of it. I want to be able to achieve the same level of profitability that older players earned long ago through my hard work, the same amount of work they had to put in... not a partial reward for the same work. Imagine you get a job and you are told you will get paid the same as the guy who's been doing his job for 3 years already, as long as you put in the same amount of effort in studying to pass the same exams as he did. Then halfway through your studies and exams, the job tells you that you can keep finishing the same amount of studying and exams, but only for 2/3 pay. The other guy gets a 2/3 pay cut too... but he's already been getting paid the full amount for so long, he has a giant savings and can afford to make less. It might not be the perfect analogy, but it's pretty close to the way I feel about my Arc efforts and what I expect to get for that effort. And one significant objection is that I feel like the extra profits that the existing owners have been able to pocket put them at a significant advantage in getting up to those now much higher levels that most of us might have to give up on with it being so much further to get to and so much more expensive.

That’s a great analogy, but this isn’t real life. It’s a game and should be treated as such. Games change development and evolve all the time.

I too personally would like to see the Arc boost remain as it is, but if there ever was a time to change it now would be that time, and to use the progression model I have laid out. As was stated before nearly all OP GBs have been reworked at some point, and now with the massive oops! with the Arc/Oracle Debacle, it makes it extremely clear just how OP the Arc truly is, and may be time to have it reeled in a bit.


I would be sad that it would happen before I might get to use it like prior players before me, but at the same time I could see a better balance with the playerbase moving forward.

 

[Salsuero]

As was stated before nearly all OP GBs have been reworked at some point, and now with the massive oops! with the Arc/Oracle Debacle, it makes it extremely clear just how OP the Arc truly is, and may be time to have it reeled in a bit.

No... what is apparent is that Inno did a very poor job factoring the Arc into a broken reward system. The Oracle wasn't broken, the rewards were too high for the cost to level. The Arc simply exacerbated this issue to the point of absurdity, which some may take as a way to illustrate just how overpowered the Arc is... but without this "mistake" on Inno's part, this conversation isn't happening. People probably still think it's overpowered to an extent without this issue having happened, but the Oracle did not reveal anything that didn't already exist. It simply introduced a NEW way for the Arc to be troublesome... one that the devs did NOT intend (which cannot necessarily be said about the Arc independent of this issue).

 

[DeletedUser27184]

I think the Arc is exactly in the right spot Inno wanted.

This game is played for years. You need to be able to advance for years. So Inno wants you to level the GB a lot. And it takes time. A lot of time for a lot of levels.
It can take a year till your city is with all the GB's up to around 8-10.
Then you need to level the Arc (and get enough BP's for that. Which for me, is what currently holding me at level 56). From level 10-25 takes time. Then the rush times flow, and the Arc start to rise faster then a cup cake in an oven. Still, level 60-80 are slow go as well.
Then you can start to power each GB.
Each GB again have to reach the sweet spot around 30 level. For each GB you need tons of BP's (70 level of them). This takes time for each GB even with a lot of work.
All in all, it takes years. A few of them, before you can achieve all that. I think Inno wants that exactly. They dont want you having all your GB up to level 20 by year 4. By year 4, you should have your important GB's up to level 80. And it is impossible without a very strong Arc pushing behind it.

 

[Darkbox]

I would have to agree with @Salsuero to a degree. After so long of such an “imbalance” it would be detrimental to those that have not reaped its benefits, while allowing those that have a huge advantage (stockpiles of fps from Arc Bonuses).....

You made some good points but I disagree with the "nerfing" or "balancing" of any GB that has been out for more than a month.

At this pace, one day we will have a level 300 CdM and people will find that it gives "unfair" (whatever that means) advantage to fighters and start whining about it and talk about "balancing" it. Today it's Arc, then what? Chateau? Alcatraz? Rain Forest?

Every time they "nerf" something, they harm players and push them away a little bit more.

I've personally been through a couple of those and trust me, they are loosing faithful players and supporters. Myself and a couple of people I know in real life have stopped spending real money on the game because of a deep feeling of disrespect (exacerbated by the poor communication). Even though we enjoyed some benefits from spending diamonds, we were mainly spending to support the game and the developers (some of us are).

No matter how much you appreciate a game/product and want to see it thrive, there is absolutely no point, in my books, in supporting a product/action/company if you feel disrespected and everything you invest can be thrown away anytime without warning. For now, they are surfing on the mobile wave, but the same frustrations will soon pop up there.

 

[qaccy]

@Mek2
I think you're on the right track, and as I said I'm merely offering a suggestion for a hypothetical nerf that's most likely not going to happen anyway, because yeah, it is pretty likely that the developers intended for the Arc to allow it to be easier for GBs to be levelled up. However, despite their attempts at balancing it before release, I simply think they didn't do enough and it's possible that, given that it's hard to have foresight THAT accurate, they might be thinking they didn't do enough either and are hesitant to change it for reasons related to what's been mentioned here. I don't personally think 15% less by level 80 is enough of a drop, but that's a debate that could go back and forth forever.

Besides the 'they've had it for a while and I want to be able to have it too' argument, I just don't really see eye-to-eye with anyone who thinks the Arc isn't overpowered. Even with that argument, if an Arc nerf did come, all that extra FP would eventually trickle out of the game anyway as owners now aren't able to accrue large stockpiles as easily (and, most importantly, would not really be able to lock a spot on a freshly-levelled GB without spending more than they get back or leaving themselves open to being sniped) and are having to invest more FP into their own GBs when they're looking to level something up. It would certainly create a larger gap between those who have high level GBs now and those who don't before this theoretical nerf happened, but that's not really much different from someone coming into the game today compared to someone who's been playing for years. By the time that new player gets to where the advanced player was when they joined, where's the advanced player going to be and what's the game going to look like?

But to reiterate, for evidence that the Arc is overpowered you simply have to look at how many of the total GBs at level 80 or above are Arcs, or personally compare the Arc to any other single GB and tell me, honestly, that any of those effects are more powerful than the Arc's at an equal level. The consensus is indeed that the Arc is, at the very least, simply more powerful than other GBs because so many people choose to level that one first. However, I see that as evidence that it's not simply better than other GBs, but that it's overpowered. It's not really much different than the comparison of Rogues to the rest of the military side of the game. They completely break the combat system in most cases by making it extremely easy to win most battles compared to not using them, and the consensus there is 'get as many rogues as you can' and indeed, pretty much everyone who battles with any frequency strives to do just that. It isn't until Oceanic Future, when Turturrets enter the fray, that Rogues really start to see a dip in utility. When a significant portion of the playerbase trends towards a single thing in a system where there are multiple options available, it stops being so much just 'opinion' that something is overpowered and starts being backed up by hard evidence that that's the case, because we as humans are attracted to anything that makes our lives easier, even when it comes to 'meaningless' things like video games.

Essentially, @Salsuero, you're not really providing any arguments that the Arc isn't overpowered. You're basically just arguing to keep it as it is because you want to be able to benefit from its current form. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it's overpowered. In fact, if it's such a clear choice to level the Arc up before anything else that just lends more evidence that the Arc's not balanced properly compared to other GBs. To put it more simply, a pair of questions: Why did you decide to level up the Arc first, and all the way up to level 80+, before deciding to increase any other GB to half or even a quarter of that level? The effect is so powerful that it's desirable to push through all of those levels and FP donations anyway, right?

And again, since this is still being mentioned, nobody would have been able to make huge amounts of FP from the Oracle exploit, as broken as it was, without the Arc. An Arc bonus is mandatory to be able to walk away from taking a GB donation with more FP than you spent, and that in itself breaks a fundamental aspect of GB levelling, in my opinion. Perhaps instead of an Arc nerf, GB levelup rewards should be rebalanced instead (along with 'fixing' the cost to level PME, CE, TE, and FE GBs) to follow a similar progression to levelup costs - A 2.5% increase in the top reward for every level past 10, rounded to the nearest 5. Rewards 2-5 are derived from the top reward, so there's no need to adjust any of those. I'm not really much good with math, but I believe that if both the cost to level and the reward are increasing by the same amount each level, then the 'profitability' should more or less stay the same no matter what level a GB is, and should always be below the point where it's possible for someone with an Arc to donate half the level cost on a GB and walk away with more FP than they put into it.

 

[DeletedUser27184]

But to reiterate, for evidence that the Arc is overpowered you simply have to look at how many of the total GBs at level 80 or above are Arcs, or personally compare the Arc to any other single GB and tell me, honestly, that any of those effects are more powerful than the Arc's at an equal level. The consensus is indeed that the Arc is, at the very least, simply more powerful than other GBs because so many people choose to level that one first. However, I see that as evidence that it's not simply better than other GBs, but that it's overpowered.

The Arc is just a stepping stone in the city development.

You start by getting all the GB's.
Then you level them to 10. (more or less).
Then you level Arc to 80.
They you level your next GB the 80. And the next. And the next.
All the above takes years and is fine.

Yes, it gives the long timer player a substantial advantage over the new comer. But that's what happen with a long term game.

Just because the Arc is the first building to build to 80, does not mean that its the overpowered. It just mean that you have to build your city in a certain order to be efficient.

In travian you could hold only one GB (and the rest of the guild helped you there). If in FoE you could have got *only one* GB above level 10, I am not sure that everyone will go for an Arc. There is a fair chance they would go for an attack GB.

As it is currently, it still takes a player years to reach the Multi-GB-High-Level. If you tune down the Arc, it will take decades. And nothing will change, the Arc will still be the first step stone. So the whole city growth will be the same, but longer.

As it is, its one of the longest games to play around. Make it even longer? I don't think it's a good idea.

 

[BruteForceAttack]

Are rouges are overpowered ? They transform to another unit, no other unit in foe does that.

 

[DeletedUser27184]

Are rouges are overpowered ? They transform to another unit, no other unit in foe does that.

Ya, there are many facets in FoE that people say are overpowered or bad. And I think that's the main point, players think they are over powered.

I played dozens of Empires and CIty building games over the years. Each have its own rules and system. Very few of them are as good (by my taste) as the FoE. The developers (by insight or mistake) hit the right spot with FoE. Yes, some rules look overpowered, but you have to look at the broader view. Its a good game WITH the Arc. Much better then most of the games out there.

From a certain point of view you can say that the Arc is over powered. But if you look at the game as a whole, its in a fine state where you can play for years and enjoy your self. That to me, indicate that its not over powered. Its just right.

 

[Algona]

If I don't fight Traz + Rogues is useless. If I don't farm RQs Chateau is pretty meh. Most GBs are not really necessary to some game strategy or another.

Is there a viable strategy in this game that Arc does not warp and is not a must have?

Sure it's great for the Arc holder, but is this good for the game?

----------

Arc improves dramatically the acquisition of the two most valuable resources in the game, Expansions and FPs.

Sure it's great for the Arc holder, but is this good for the game?

----------

Every time they "nerf" something, they harm players and push them away a little bit more.

Yep. But the long term health of the game improves.

Ever play the majikal cards? Over 20 years old and my neighbor 10 miles to the north is still making an occasional mistake. Cards get banned in different formats. I played through Necro Summer, Conbo Winter, Affinity, Caw Blade and so many others.... Pisses off players no end. And every time they ban a card some folk say they are quitting the game. It's happened dozens of times in that game. And more people play now then ever before.

Nerfing, even banning may not be such a bad thing. Ban Arc? Hmmm. We may have to think about the unthinkable.

Or...

Instead of giving away Oeavle to t3h scrubbish n00bs, have the questline give a powered Arc?

 

[DeletedUser27184]

If I don't fight Traz + Rogues is useless. If I don't farm RQs Chateau is pretty meh. Most GBs are not really necessary to some game strategy or another.

Is there a viable strategy in this game that Arc does not warp and is not a must have?

I know a lot of players who play once or twice a day. They come and collect thier FP/goods, put their FP into their own GB's. Allowing other players to snipe the rewards. They don't try to snipe other GB's. They don't care. They play their city, slowly, and with small investment of their time.
Those players don't have Arcs or their Arc's is level 5 a lot of times, because the Arc don't help them. They don't level it.

Yape, like the traz and CF you have to use the Arc in order for it to be useful.

 

[Freshmeboy]

The Arc is an exponential GB unlike any other...just one Arc in a guild can increase that guild's overall strength in months without long tenured players..more new guilds that build strength quickly is good for the game...Putting more new blood in the top rankings keeps players interested and playing longer because they know they can compete and that the top guilds aren't invincible. INNO is designing new events that reward newer players with fp production buildings almost monthly to help bridge the gap between new and older players. They want new players to gain fps quickly and USE them. The Arc helps in this respect as well as increases GE play by guild members by providing the goods needed to open the levels and quicker leveling of military GBs. Goods created by the arc benefit farmers as well, as they don't need to use goods created in their cities for treasury donations leaving them free to negotiate...The question isn't what INNO should do with the Arc but what the gaming community would do WITHOUT it...?

 

[DeletedUser25166]

Hope you all are enjoying your free levels you cheaters.

 

[Salsuero]

Essentially, @Salsuero, you're not really providing any arguments that the Arc isn't overpowered.

That's not how the burden of proof works in proving a negative. I don't believe it is overpowered. That's your position. You must prove to me that it is. I don't have to prove why it isn't. It's almost impossible to prove a negative, even though it's not on me to prove anything.

You're basically just arguing to keep it as it is because you want to be able to benefit from its current form. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it's overpowered.

This is a correct statement because I personally disagree with your interpretation of the Arc as overpowered. I believe it is powered exactly as intended.

In fact, if it's such a clear choice to level the Arc up before anything else that just lends more evidence that the Arc's not balanced properly compared to other GBs.

Incorrect correlation. Just because it is obvious that one should do something to gain an advantage over those who have not, does not prove anything is overpowered or unbalanced.

To put it more simply, a pair of questions: Why did you decide to level up the Arc first, and all the way up to level 80+, before deciding to increase any other GB to half or even a quarter of that level? The effect is so powerful that it's desirable to push through all of those levels and FP donations anyway, right?

I am not at level 80 or even close to it. I haven't decided not to do anything with my other GBs either. I'm also steadily growing them as well. The reason my Arc rises faster is because of other people donating to it... and if they wanted to donate to my Cape or my Dynamic Tower... my Kraken or my Castel del Monte... whatever else... I wouldn't ask them to donate to my Arc instead. I'm not the one driving up their Arcs. And I don't only invest in the Arcs of others. I invest in multiple GBs. And I also didn't get to where I am in the game by using or investing only in Arcs. That's not to say that the Arc won't provide me with an advantage, but I haven't gained a significant one by having one at level 80... I'm not even at a point where I can break even on those "exploit" levels yet. Everything I do has a cost associated with it. Any advantages I've gotten so far have been "earned".

And again, since this is still being mentioned, nobody would have been able to make huge amounts of FP from the Oracle exploit, as broken as it was, without the Arc. An Arc bonus is mandatory to be able to walk away from taking a GB donation with more FP than you spent, and that in itself breaks a fundamental aspect of GB levelling, in my opinion. Perhaps instead of an Arc nerf, GB levelup rewards should be rebalanced instead (along with 'fixing' the cost to level PME, CE, TE, and FE GBs) to follow a similar progression to levelup costs - A 2.5% increase in the top reward for every level past 10, rounded to the nearest 5. Rewards 2-5 are derived from the top reward, so there's no need to adjust any of those. I'm not really much good with math, but I believe that if both the cost to level and the reward are increasing by the same amount each level, then the 'profitability' should more or less stay the same no matter what level a GB is, and should always be below the point where it's possible for someone with an Arc to donate half the level cost on a GB and walk away with more FP than they put into it.

Stop bringing up the Oracle of Delphi as it hasn't done anything on the US servers to warrant a conversation unless you are talking about a knee-jerk reaction by Inno to nerf people that had nothing to do with this potential risk that they had already removed BEFORE nerfing everyone. And I would have preferred a reward nerf on the Oracle to what they did, which rendered it a useless GB for me... something I worked hard to obtain and level half way to 10 before they did so. But that's not what Inno has chosen to do. By the way... it wasn't an exploit. It wasn't a bug. It worked exactly as designed. The problem was on Inno's end, not the players'.

 

[Salsuero]

Are rouges are overpowered ? They transform to another unit, no other unit in foe does that.

So funny you mention that since the other "discussion" I am currently in is exactly about that! Guess which side I'm on.

 

[*Arturis*]

At this pace, one day we will have a level 300 CdM and people will find that it gives "unfair" (whatever that means) advantage to fighters and start whining about it and talk about "balancing" it. Today it's Arc, then what? Chateau? Alcatraz? Rain Forest?

.

False statement, you obviously have no idea of what it will take to get a any GB up to level 150? let alone 300.