Guild Battlegrounds Feedback

[FiveCentFather]

After reading through all the comments here it's clear that GvG players are playing a completely different type of game than most regular FOE players. They are a small, but vocal and excitable group (that's not an insult, just an observation).

In my previous comment I intimated just dropping GvG for the new system, but I think there's a more fundamental issue here. I think the REAL-TIME aspect of the current GvG system (the recalc) is the DRAW to FOE for these particular players. While FOE is NOT primarily a real-time strategy game, because of the way GvG was implemented, it has BECOME that for these players. Getting online all at the same time with chat programs and drawing plans and implementing them all coordinated in real-time is an exciting way to play a game, and I get that (not my cup of tea, but I understand the draw). But, honestly, that's not FOE. AFAIK, it was never meant to be a real-time strategy game. And GvG is the ONLY part of the game that demands that kind of real-time coordination to play effectively.

So for the GvG real-time strategist, GE IS boring and pedantic. But for those of us who like a slower-paced game that we don't HAVE to be on at some particular time of day in order to participate and contribute to the success of our guild, the current GvG system is uninteresting or out of reach, and while GE is good, it's not ultimately satisfying. So, a new GvG system that rewards us "slower" players sounds like a great idea. That doesn't make US right and them wrong, or vis versa. It's just a differing of play styles.

Inno has to decide if FOE is going to be a real-time strategy game or a more leisurely-paced game in the GvG area. This new system sounds like they are trying to create a GvG system that will appeal to players who don't like or can't commit to a real-time strategy experience. That's why they are talking about keeping the current GvG. They WANT to appeal to EVERYBODY'S play style. But I don't know if that's really feasible. There will always be players that HATE the new system, but love the old one, and vis versa, because they are fundamentally different in how they approach gaming.

Glad I'M not a developer right now.

 

[DeletedUser25828]

Good Morning. Here is my feedback. I am a long time 5+ Year player of FOE. Active in Multiple Worlds. I used to absolutely love the aspect of GvG. I now have absolutely n use for it. It is dominated by 2 Factors in my opinion. The introduction of the Auto Battle feature has taken its toll on GvG. 80 units sector disappear in less than 5 minutes by the Higher aged Fighters, who Totally dominate the GvG landscape. There is no Defending sectors in this aspect of the game. I remember when GvG had to be fought by multiple players, coordinated by all being online together to either attack or defend. There is no defense now. The Guild Defense Bonuses mean nothing at this point. I would vote to get rid of the "Auto battle" Function in GvG and bring back the days when NPC took a tick every night at re-calc. That would force Guilds to have to re-stock defending armies, and force Guilds to have to truly defend their sectors. As for now, I don't if hardly ever care about the GvG component. It is just a playground for the top 100 players on each server to flex their muscles. It caters to those players who will spend money on the game to advance enough to become true Bully's in the game. Just my 2 Cents worth

 

[DeletedUser40350]

Inno has to decide if FOE is going to be a real-time strategy game or a more leisurely-paced game in the GvG area. This new system sounds like they are trying to create a GvG system that will appeal to players who don't like or can't commit to a real-time strategy experience. That's why they are talking about keeping the current GvG. They WANT to appeal to EVERYBODY'S play style. But I don't know if that's really feasible. There will always be players that HATE the new system, but love the old one, and vis versa, because they are fundamentally different in how they approach gaming.

Glad I'M not a developer right now.

Why do they need to decide on one versus the other? Choosing one while eliminating the other, would cause a lot of people to quit the game versus draw more interest to it. Keeping current content, and adding another feature gives a different flavor to the game for various people to enjoy. While some may like or dislike battlegrounds, they can continue to have fun whatever way they currently have been either way.

 

[Resipsa2]

Please leave your feedback here in this thread and we'll look into your ideas and opinions. We'll collect feedback for the next two weeks (until 3rd June 2019), integrate feedback into the concept and share an update within 3 weeks (by 10th June 2019). We will also hold a live Q&A on Facebook & Instagram on the 22nd May 2019 at 17:00 CEST (15:00 UTC). We hope you understand the reasons for this step and look forward to your feedback. Forge of Empires is played by millions of amazing players and together, we will make it even better!

Sincerely yours,

Your Forge of Empires Team

Considering that Innogames and MTG has chosen this path then i would hope they reconsider how to do Guild Rankings and perhaps even player rankings. Although i am a top 20 player, the Arc donations to the treasury with unusable high age goods has created an unfair means of ranking. Nevertheless, as one of the 5%ers who play the game in great part due to GVG, it seems that by FoE continuing to create new worlds they limit the new blood into old worlds. Two things that could keep those players who have been with you for years (because many of us - who also purchase diamonds several times a year - will quit before starting a new world; that is after 2,000 hours into a world and this addiction which is both enjoyable, sociable but real time costing): 1. as you once committed to doing - CLEAR inactive players that have not logged in in past 6 months to a year. Give legal notices, etc... but clear them to see who actually plays in the world and to allow easier use of scrolling threw hundreds of pages to find and recruit players and merge guilds which provides some live to GVG. 2. Limit the tile holding on GVG maps to perhaps 30 or 40 tiles on the All Age map and perhaps 20 to 25 on the others. This will both allow more guilds on the maps and more motivation; as well as make rankings more meaningful and competitive and achievable. The fact the one single guild can have a top ranking 1,000 days more than ALL the rest shows that both the ranking and the system of ranking is unjust and broken - leaving frustration and lack of motivation for many who believe that Innogames and MTG has given up on GVG altogether.

 

[OmegaLee wants GVG]

I'm one of players who GVG is the biggie keeping FoE interesting. I've spent a ton of resources on Zeus / Aachen / Monte / Traz / Terra. I've even spent times to get extra event buildings to help with fighting in GVG. I'm more worried that Space Age Mars will break GVG. Right now FE to VF can all fight all ages. If SAM troops are as powerful as they sound, then only SAM will be useful on AA. I agree with several people that we need current GVG to have AF, OF and VF maps.
I realize this won't hurt the current GVG yet. I just hope the long-term plans aren't to downplay current GVG.

Getting something to mobile with guilds fighting will be nice. At this point, I'm pretty neutral on what was talked about. Not enough details.

I'm typical of many the long-time GVG that have passed FE. My level 100 Arc dumps a ton of useless goods for the guild.
My concern is that it new feature is designed for an infinite number of ages. Making AF+ goods have a use would be a major plus. This would fix the joke in the current treasuries. Guilds going nuts to replenish many ages while millions of AF+ goods rot away.

 

[DeletedUser40143]

Good on you Inno for giving it a shot! GvG certainly has become stale.

Question - will we be matched across servers or only within server? Cross-server is very nice feature of GE.

Please give special thought to the guild ranking points obtained for this compared to GvG and GE. Things must be balanced. Right now I think GE gets the short end of the stick. Same goes with player ranking points.. battles continue to give an imbalanced number of ranking points compared to donations or buildings.

 

[IngeJones]

Or, why not make Arcs produce random goods from FE downwards rather than from player's era

 

[DeletedUser29623]

i Wish i Knew what a Guild Battlegrounds is ALL About? Will Somebody Post a Video About it Please ???

Granted, it’s not the biggest deal in the world, but the chronic inability of this OP to post a link to the announcement she’s requesting feedback on *when she is requesting feedback on it* is super irritating. You have to go to another thread and find the announcement, because apparently part of the historical ambiance of the game is to take us back to 1999, before anyone had adopted the elementary best practices of forum moderation that even a 19-year-old intern would know to do today.

 

[DeletedUser23828]

I don't see this as a way to increase participation because its to similar to GE. On the other hand requireing another goods demanding feature will turn off players who are already stretched thin participating in GE every week. Not to mention the incrediably high goods demand the is present in SAM release. I think the game would be better off trying to make some tweaks to GVG before putting in place an entirely new system that wipes out a players development from years of playing within the current system. I am guessing participation will DROP with this new implementation not increase as desired.

 

[DeletedUser23482]

GE is good for the guild and the individual player. Because of this it has a high draw of players and guilds in general have made it a part of being allowed to stay in that guild. Playable by mobile users and PC users.

GvG is also good for the guild and helps the individuals who take the time to play. However as this feature is designed to have multiple persons participating at the same time it harder to do. Also guilds cannot require a player to participate in GvG like they can with GE because mobile players cannot play in it. Plus it has had very little of Inno's attention put into it. Multiple problems with it and has been for years without Inno even attempting to fix them.

Battle Grounds is unknown because Inno's post does not have enough data to judge it. But it really sounds to me like GE put on a map.

GvG is the only one that requires interaction of guild members. So why have guilds?

 

[OmegaLee wants GVG]

My one concern with this is time commitment. Over the years more and more features have sucked up more and more time. I use to play on multiple worlds actively. Adding time sucks like tavern, GE, etc have caused me to drop to a single world. People have a limit how much time they can give.
Those 4 worlds were demoted to diamond mining worlds. Now I can't even find the time to hit them regularly. I'm often behind on the continent map again to due limited time.
Make sure this new feature doesn't require a lot of time.

 

[DeletedUser40350]

My one concern with this is time commitment. Over the years more and more features have sucked up more and more time. I use to play on multiple worlds actively. Adding time sucks like tavern, GE, etc have caused me to drop to a single world. People have a limit how much time they can give.
Those 4 worlds were demoted to diamond mining worlds. Now I can't even find the time to hit them regularly. I'm often behind on the continent map again to due limited time.
Make sure this new feature doesn't require a lot of time.

Many of us prefer to have plenty of stuff to do, on 1 world. And may of previously created multiple worlds, because of a lack of stuff to do on 1 world to pass the time. Adding more content is always a good thing, imo

 

[DeletedUser]

Well this is exciting! I have tried the GVG feature and find it too limiting to the player base, very complicated and way too time-consuming so I have chosen not to participate in the GVG feature at all, that said I love that y'all are thinking and planning another new Guild focused platform. What I have read so far sounds very interesting and I am sure when it goes live you will get the best feedback. Just at first glance, I see that you will need to do something to allow for greater goods production to aid members in participating in this new addition to the game, as it is most players struggle to maintain enough goods to play in GE and many lower age players choose the option of negotiation to advance because strengthening our troops is a more time-consuming task. I look forward to seeing how you address the goods needed to play in both this new platform and GE and the new feature as well. Thanks for all you do for us.

 

[DeletedUser7124]

For those of us who play pretty much every day and do GvG, the Battlegrounds seem like more work in addition to what we already do. It seems like you're undermining GvG by running this new feature "alongside" it. I suspect the attrition will be in the GvG portion of the game. There's only so much time we can spend on FoE. You may see differentiation, with some guilds doing only GvG and others doing only Battlegrounds. But the fighters will always want to fight and expand, so there will be pressure on them to do both. We'll have to see how it will play out.

 

[DreadfulCadillac]

the main problem is even when i have tried advances in Iron age gvg, i can clear enough space in my city to just roll the troops out, thats not the problem!the problem is the goods that is costs to set segies, !!!

 

[DeletedUser11323]

I'm not a GvG player, but as I read here comments from GvG participants, one thing stands out for me - GvG players gather online at the same time, usually close to the end of daily countdown, and then fight in GvG. This is one of the reasons (not single reason, but one of many reasons) why GvG is unactractive for many players, because that time (the end of daily countdown) may not be suitable for many players.
This is because "At the end of every day (when the countdown timer ends), guilds' experience are calculated according to the territory they own". This means that calculations are made considering only the number of owned territories. If developers would change that and calculations would be made considering the duration the territory was owned, then players would be induced to fight at different times, to hold on to the territories as long as possible. Fighting at different times means that some players would find it attractive to participate in GvG, because they could be online at the desired time of the day.
This is just my observation, how GvG could be improved. Don't know how complex it would be to make such change programatically, developers should know this better.

 

[DeletedUser32211]

1. Does this concept excite you? Do you think it's a worthwhile addition to the game? My Answer: It doesn't excite me. Fighting is part of the game but it doesn't interest me. It's unlikely that the changes will change how I play very much.

As far as being a worthwhile addition to the game: It depends on how many people would use it. You say that about 5% of players are doing GVG. Did your analysis look at why that is? Are only 5% playing GVG because it is too complex? Or, are only 5% playing GVG because the vast majority of your players don't want to make fighting a major part of their game play?

GVG is a huge part of leveling up guilds. If only 5% of players are playing GVG, that puts 95% of your players at a real disadvantage. How many of the 5% playing GVG are doing it only because of the huge advantage it gives in leveling up their guild?

 

[DeletedUser40352]

I enjoy all aspects of FOE but regardless of what you do with GvG, I am not interested in that aspect of the game. I use auto fighting exclusively, as I find taking the time to engage in battles to be both boring and taking up too much of my time. But, I thoroughly enjoy all other aspects of FOE.

 

[DeletedUser8861]

I am a long time player of the game have played on many worlds, on the US, EN and Beta Servers, active GVG, GE and can even remember the game before either of those features were added.

I would be interested to know the average age of the players of FOE. I currently play several worlds and rarely encounter players who are less than 40 years of age. Those who play and then stick with the game are not your traditional gamers. The game is far too slow moving, far too complex and while a great game doesn't seem to keep the attention of younger players.

I have played literally hundreds of on-line browser games, stand alone computer games, PS4 games and have found very few that are as detailed and well designed as FOE, the only other game that held my attention as long was probably the Age of Empires series. I invest far too many hours of my life in gaming, and have always enjoyed FOE.

They make a good point in the forum post, the game was never intended to go where it is today...most games would never see a 7 year life or beyond. Where FOE is today was just not anticipated when it was developed.

On a recent question and answer session the developers admitted that they don't truly understand GVG, that no one on the current team was around when it was created, and that some of the issues they have with GVG are issues as they can't figure out how things were designed. I know the creative mind behind the game has passed away, and that hurt the overall focus of the game and his knowledge of how things were built has hurt the game. But it still seems like GVG should be able to be fixed.

I think most players who play GVG would leave if they remove the feature (which as has been pointed out they haven't said they are doing). But I don't think most players would object to taking GVG down for a short period to work on fixing the issues...as long as they are guaranteed it would come back. Almost every game I play has periods where they will take down the entire game or sections of the game to work on issues.

Now regarding the Battlegrounds, I would be concerned about two things....
#1 - scaling battle boosts - while most players don't even pay attention to the battle boosts in GVG now (as their attack levels are high enough that it doesn't matter), I would fear that you would lose some of your "diamond" players who have paid huge money to build their city with these huge boost, should you reduce their overall boosts.
#2 - Most servers have lost enough players that there are really only 20-50 big fighters doing most of the fighting on GVG, and what is to stop most of them from joining together in one guild to again dominate the rankings in this new battlegrounds feature?

The bottom line is this game has changed drastically, I don't know how the game is doing in other countries, but on the United States version the game has slowly been dying due to players tiring of playing night after night many for 5-7 years. If you want to be a top guild on most servers, GVG is going to require a huge time commitment and most people can't commit to playing 7 days a week for hours a day.

I realize this game was a huge cash cow for Inno.. "was", the problem is it seems these days almost everything that gets added is more features that will almost force the player to pay to play. I know Inno says "the game is free to play" but I have tried that route and you will not get through GE, you will rarely complete even one special building from an event without paying. I am hoping that this is not another attempt by Inno and the FOE development team to draw more money from the player base...but I remain skeptical. I hope Inno realizes that when the player base diminishes (as it has) that you can't continue to draw the same revenue from a game that has a smaller player base. I personally am tapped out, I set a monthly budget for gaming and it seems INNO is driven to try and get more and more money from the same players.

Talk to any player that has left FOE, and you will hear the same reasons they have left over and over -
#1 - Server lag
#2 - Time (the game takes too much time to play)
#3 - Money - Inno has made it impossible to play and be competitive without spending tons of money.

 

[DreadfulCadillac]

I currently play several worlds and rarely encounter players who are less than 40 years of age.

i am less then 16 years old

I realize this game was a huge cash cow for Inno.. "was", the problem is it seems these days almost everything that gets added is more features that will almost force the player to pay to play. I know Inno says "the game is free to play" but I have tried that route and you will not get through GE, you will rarely complete even one special building from an event without paying. I am hoping that this is not another attempt by Inno and the FOE development team to draw more money from the player base...but I remain skeptical. I hope Inno realizes that when the player base diminishes (as it has) that you can't continue to draw the same revenue from a game that has a smaller player base. I personally am tapped out, I set a monthly budget for gaming and it seems INNO is driven to try and get more and more money from the same players.
#3 - Money - Inno has made it impossible to play and be competitive without spending tons of money.

Not true i can complete mostevents and get the fully upgraded event building no diamond spending..and i can complete lvl 4 ge whenever i want you need to reevaluate your playing style