• 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:
    Apply

Guild Battlegrounds Feedback

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser29730

I have no idea whether I'm anything like your typical Forger or not, but I can say that the largest percentage of my guild would have a difficult time being online at the same time to coordinate battles, which is a big part of why none of us play GvG today. The other part of that is none of us have spent any time trying to figure it out. It seems like the best way to do that would be for each of us to venture off and join another guild that could train us on the current features and strategies, something few of us are interested in doing at this point. We are too busy with life, and building ourselves up. So, given all of that, it seems to me that any new design would need to include some way to stage, or queue a battle each day, or maybe several a day if that is more desirable, to get any of us interested in it. It would need to allow for a certain level of planning and preparation. Guilds would need to be measured for ability and power, and would only be allowed to fight against lower guilds by way of a handicap system, calculated to even the playing field. There are many other things I could go on about, but I'd probably just be rambling about things that already exist in the current GvG, but don't know about, or, would be givens in a new Guild Battlegrounds. Not sure at this point how much more I'd play until I see something, anything as far as concept goes. Just hope you do it well.
 

DeletedUser40355

I've always thought it's silly for so many battles to take place around reset. If that specific time is difficult for you and others in your guild, plan battles at a different time. your enemy guild may not be there to defend.

You can’t do that...by then the enemy who was on at recalc has already taken the sectors around you and you won’t be able to fight them for 24 hrs. In a couple of days you’re gone from the map.
 

DeletedUser35429

GvG takes far to many fighting units than what most folks can afford to loose. Even though there's various AGES/ERA's there are no levels within. The more powerful GUilds control the game board. The smaller Guilds don't have a change, they get wiped out fast. Take GE, there's a small but somewhat equal grouping of Guilds battling for the top three slots. Most Guilds understand there's a lot of value to having each GUild member take on GE. Not all Guilds, but I'm question upwards of 80% of the all Guilds on all servers play GE. In GvG unlike GE, area held continues week after week. Where's the realistic battle view of fighting and blowing things up like other gaming experience have?
Oh, GvG is like going into a real battle with very limit vision.
I vote, junk it.
 

DeletedUser40356

I think you should create a feature list of potential features for GvG alllow the community to vote on it with the guidance of which features would allow your guild to collectively contribute to GvG more. when you have that list allow folks to have 3 votes 1 2 3 The easiest feature with the most votes should be done.

1 feature that would greatly improve the guild play experience is defense army donations. If you could add a feature that allows mobile users to donate armies to the treasury that can then be used by folks playing GvG to place in tiles that would be great.

A second thing i have no idea how you have architected GVG but your assignment of which defense army to attack needs to be improved. If you have allow a tile attack to be orchestrated over multiple servers maybe a single JMS Queue or other Queue tech based on your language would alleviate the collisions we see. If a tile attack happens locally on a single server then prevent the DA from being attacked until an open session relinquishes a lock. I suppose you would then have to institute a two minute timer for any battle to account for zombied battles. I know your code base is probably all hacked up at this point so maybe only a complete rewrite would work.
 

Dax65

New Member
Will GvG be removed, or just this added?

Seems unimaginative and plodding to me, but it's hard to say before the implementation, so I could be wrong. It certainly doesn't seem like a wonderful new idea, but more one repackaged from existing ideas.
My thoughts exactly!
 

DeletedUser25252

Myself and several others play FOE purely for the GvG experience and have for several years. This sounds like you are taking a highly enjoyable element of the game and making it into a puffed up version of GE. I assume this means you will be replacing the current GvG with this new system? If that is incorrect then that's good but if it's accurate then the awesome GvG element will sadly be lost. This new system removes all strategic elements that we've all enjoyed for several years. Not impressed with this so-called month's long study where you seem to have not talked to people who actually play GvG. Sure there are no in-game tutorials but that doesn't stop us from training new people to play GvG. To simply say that it won't be taken to mobile because you feel it won't be played is a slap in the face to all of us who do play it and use alternative browsers to enable mobile users to play it. Coming out with new maps to use with advanced troops would make it relevant and enjoyable but instead, you just say 'it's complicated'.

This will be run as well as GVG, rather than as a replacement for GVG
 

DeletedUser29589

You say that the guilds will be matchmade. How exactly? By the same system as GE? By prestige, level, member count, active fighters, bank account spendage? Many small guilds I know are ranked up among much higher guilds because of the prestige they produce. Some big guilds I know spend real money like water. Some guilds are not as active as others. Some are heavy into fighting. The way you match could be a big help or hindrance. Just my opinion.
 

DeletedUser39351

Sometimes, Less is More. I know that it's all about selling Diamonds, that's how you make your money. However, pilling more and more "flash" onto this already resource taxed, sluggishly responding application with user burdening excessive features and far to many Event Distractions has superseded the term, "Overkill". Add new ages, reduce the frequency of events, and leave the rest alone.
 

DeletedUser29730

This new Guild Battleground revision.. will not be enough.. it would be better to get rid of it and create a newer version based on all platforms. GVG, is one sided in how it is played.. only the higher end guilds can play in it effectively.. Military combos are Stuipid
and does not always work. Get rid of GvG and replace it with something else..
Not sure I would agree with you on getting rid of GvG, there are many who love it as it is and have spent many years getting really good at it. They may choose to continue playing it for quite a while. Besides, there is no harm in leaving it in place and allowing those who appreciate it to continue. I would say that INNO should monitor it's use over time and eventually phase it out via attrition if current Forgers move to the new Guild Battlegrounds and spend far less time on GvG.
 

saknika

Active Member
I've taken the time to read all the posts in here (#203 is the last one as of my time of starting to write), and I think there are a lot of concerns on both sides of the playing field.

I, personally, love GvG. I think the fact that is is an activity that brings some real-time aspect to the game is attractive, and I really enjoy the strategy behind selecting sectors to hit, how to move about the map, etc. It fosters a lot more teamwork than GE, and gives a bit of an adrenaline boost when your siege is spotted and it becomes a fight. Right now my guild doesn't do a lot of GvG, and we mainly hit off-calc, but we still have fun and there is still the team aspect going on when we do hit. Plus, it's not just about fighting, it's about coordinating guild efforts to make it work (fighting, farming, and defending; so something for all play styles).

It's understandable that losing the person who designed GvG was a setback for Inno. However, I think it's nonsense that in all this time you haven't found someone or several someones that could understand the coding going on. Not the vision, just the coding, enough to fix the bugs and close the back-end that allows for players to use macros to cheat.

I also think it's unfair to say it only attracts 5% of players when:
1. Mobile players cannot access it from the mobile app. If they want to play, they need to do so in a browser on their phone, which will be a trying experience at best (I know, I've done it in a pinch). You have a HUGE mobile player base that has never had the opportunity to try GvG for what it really is, but many of whom might like that opportunity. Just like the old treasure hunt guy that PC players enjoyed (I personally still miss him), mobile players didn't get that enjoyment (and he was ultimately canned).
2. You don't tell us what the source data is for coming up with that number. Statistics are fickle. If you don't provide your sample size and demographic, you can really twist things to seem worse than they are. For example, are you comparing this number against ALL accounts, both active and inactive? Are you including mobile-only players who have NO access to GvG? What comprises 5% against ALL the accounts on the server might actually be 25% if you took out all inactive accounts, for example. We don't know. You didn't tell us what your sampling was.

Furthermore, it seems unfair to say that you don't think bringing GvG to mobile would do anything to improve participation, when it seems like you never asked and it has never been tried? Assumptions usually don't end well. I know my guild has many mobile-only players that would love to participate more in GvG if they were able.

I'm happy to hear you're not removing GvG and will work to improve the stability... but we've definitely been told that before. I'm understandably skeptical when I hear it again; and also concerned that it will eventually be removed, just like the treasure hunt guy, because it's not a mobile feature. I see many who say those of us with this concern are being irrational (effectively), but we've seen this pattern in other places in the game. I think we're rightly concerned that, eventually, Inno is trying to replace GvG without offering us a suitable solution.

Battlegrounds sounds like it has the ability to be interesting, and I'm trying to keep an open mind on this because I recognize that flexibility and adaptation to change is as much a part of the strategy of this game as anything else. However, what I've read so far isn't terribly enticing.

I like the idea that it will reset several times a day, which will open things up to more time zones. I cannot argue the point that recalc in GvG is rough. I think recalc was meant to match up with a server country's time zone (so EN is UK 8pm, FR is France's 8pm, etc), but the US spans several time zones, and we're not the only one (and this isn't even going into when someone in the UK plays on the US server, etc). Makes it difficult. Good in concept, not in practice necessarily. However, I also realize this is the time when ALL guild power is calculated and factored into guild level, so HOFs, GE, GvG, and any other GP productions from misc buildings. It's not just the players being on all at once that creates the lag I suspect, it's this mass calculation, too. Especially since you say only 5% participate in GvG? :) Perhaps an update so factoring in the GP happens at the time of GP collection, instead of all at once at one point of the day would be helpful? Let recalc be JUST for GvG? And then make a running log like you do for the Guild Treasury to see contributions, but also give a daily report on a total (so it just sums itself up like an Excel sheet) so a guild can see where it's coming from and an overall total. Something like this will help all players see the value of what they're doing, and maybe help them be more involved. I'm getting sidetracked though... rabbit holes.

I'm intrigued by the use of negotiations, but I feel like it kind of defeats the point of it being Guild BATTLEGROUND, you know... a place of fighting? GvG has a lovely way of balance between farmers bringing in goods, and fighters using those goods to wage war. It allows many play styles to come together and work together, because you cannot effectively have one without the other.

Speaking of the battles, attrition sounds like you want it to be a good idea, but the reality is as a player who is working hard on my attack boost, it seems like a punishment. However, it remains to be seen how this will actually be implemented. It might not be as it sounds. I already know in GE it gets harder and harder to remain on the attack without boost because the attack boost of the AI gets worse and worse... which seems like a punishment to players who rushed the eras because they didn't know, and now are hitting walls and not enjoying things as much. Balance, you need balance. :)

I agree with everyone who has said 10 days is an odd amount of time. I too think some of the beauty in this game, since there is such a finesse to playing it well, comes from the predictability of recurring items. So making this happen on the same day every week or two weeks makes a lot more sense than having to keep track of how many days it has been. I think that floating kind of thing will make this a lot more difficult than it has to be. I'd even say make it start on a Friday, so that it changes things up. A lot have finished their GE by the time the weekend comes and have nothing to do, might as well give them something else, right?

It is my hope that the rewards you speak of are only for those that are actively helping. No one will enjoy reaping rewards for those who have joined a top-notch guild just to bottom feed. We all know these players. Like others have said, I'd also like to see the Defense Pool that Obs, Deal, and Basil's create be able to be used here somehow. Bring back some of that usefulness. Same with the higher-era goods that a treasury doesn't really need.

Speaking of the treasury, I agree that sometimes it can be harder to get lower-era goods in. This specifically applies to guilds where all the members have really moved to advanced ages, since they won't have the same opportunities in their neighborhoods. They either have to dedicate valuable space on their FL to many lower-age players who may or may not be active in the market (or doing public marketplace stuff), and then phase them out when they're not useful anymore (because they age-up), or they have to dedicate valuable space to old goods buildings to make what they need. We don't have this issue in my guild personally, but I can see where it can happen. So we either need some sort of more global marketplace for goods trading, or a way for the treasury itself to trade/move goods around.

If this does become like GE, where it's just a rinse-and-repeat of the same battles over and over and over again though it will very quickly lose interest for me. That's some of the fun of GvG, you don't know what the other guild stuck in the defense slots. Are you going to fight a really nasty army? Or did they have to do a last-ditch effort and put in some drummers and rogues? It's part of the excitement. If you could find a way to work something like that into battlegrounds I think it would help. Basically, don't make it so predictable on fights that it's boring.

Overall though (since this is getting quite long lol) I think it's an interesting concept, but it's hard to form a solid opinion without seeing it in action to get a feel for the nuances it's going to bring forth. I also think it raises a lot of concerns with certain aspects of the game as they are now that need to be addressed (like the guild treasury and mobile-vs-PC play). More than that though, I will absolutely say that at least stabilizing GvG like has been promised for a very long time now needs to come first. If you don't fix the bugs that already exist, adding in more code first and then trying to backtrack is not going to make it any easier (or make those of us who have been waiting for these fixes for years now feel any less skeptical that they're going to happen.)
 

DeletedUser37581

You say that the guilds will be matchmade. How exactly? By the same system as GE? By prestige, level, member count, active fighters, bank account spendage? Many small guilds I know are ranked up among much higher guilds because of the prestige they produce. Some big guilds I know spend real money like water. Some guilds are not as active as others. Some are heavy into fighting. The way you match could be a big help or hindrance. Just my opinion.
As stated in the announcement, guild performance in GBG will determine which league the guild is in. The higher the league, the greater the rewards.

That means that guilds that go all out will be in the top league and will fight against other guilds who also go all out.

It won't matter about the size of the guild.
 

DeletedUser39612

As someone that is new to the game and has been playing on mobile until just yesterday when I wanted to log on using my laptop to check out the GvG, this is great news, and I think I have some good feedback to offer from a "fresh meat" perspective. First, overall:
Pros:
- I like the style of GvG being divided out on a map of Ages to help keep an organization and balance
- I like the "complexity" of having to "buy" into an area with goods, or into an army slot, whichever is the correct way to say that
- I like the complexity of having multiple defending armies, laying siege first, a support pool (I wondered what that was from the beginning until I finally read about it on the Wiki) and the points gained adding to the power and ranking of the Guild, and ultimately the benefits that bestows on us players

Cons:
- the unclarity. That's the simple version. I couldn't tell if the goods it wanted me to pay to unlock a position for me to add troops was being deducted from my stores or my Guild's
- I haven't fought a battle yet, so forgive me if this is a dumb question, but do our individual ATK/DEF boosts play a role? On one hand, it seems like they should if we are conducting mini-battles against individualy placed armies, but if that's the case, are we playing against a player's army, or against a Guild's army (support pool...)?
- If our individual attributes are being used to fight the mini sector battles, wouldn't that just result in the strongest player, the one with the highest ATK/DEF bonuses) in each age being the only ones to fight GvG?

So, with my 36 hours of exposure to GvG, what I'd like to vote for is a Guild battleground where we can all participate with Guild armies. The players still have to contribute resources, armies and time, but the battlegrounds are somehow leveled to make it just as effective for a new player with small ATK/DEF bonuses to participate as well as one that's been playing for a few years in the same age with 10x the ATK/DEF. Or we'll end up with just a designated person for each Age to keep those troops built up to be that Age's Gladiator, and the rest of us will have to support them with troops and resources.
 

DreadfulCadillac

Well-Known Member
As someone that is new to the game and has been playing on mobile until just yesterday when I wanted to log on using my laptop to check out the GvG, this is great news, and I think I have some good feedback to offer from a "fresh meat" perspective. First, overall:
Pros:
- I like the style of GvG being divided out on a map of Ages to help keep an organization and balance
- I like the "complexity" of having to "buy" into an area with goods, or into an army slot, whichever is the correct way to say that
- I like the complexity of having multiple defending armies, laying siege first, a support pool (I wondered what that was from the beginning until I finally read about it on the Wiki) and the points gained adding to the power and ranking of the Guild, and ultimately the benefits that bestows on us players

Cons:
- the unclarity. That's the simple version. I couldn't tell if the goods it wanted me to pay to unlock a position for me to add troops was being deducted from my stores or my Guild's
- I haven't fought a battle yet, so forgive me if this is a dumb question, but do our individual ATK/DEF boosts play a role? On one hand, it seems like they should if we are conducting mini-battles against individualy placed armies, but if that's the case, are we playing against a player's army, or against a Guild's army (support pool...)?
- If our individual attributes are being used to fight the mini sector battles, wouldn't that just result in the strongest player, the one with the highest ATK/DEF bonuses) in each age being the only ones to fight GvG?

So, with my 36 hours of exposure to GvG, what I'd like to vote for is a Guild battleground where we can all participate with Guild armies. The players still have to contribute resources, armies and time, but the battlegrounds are somehow leveled to make it just as effective for a new player with small ATK/DEF bonuses to participate as well as one that's been playing for a few years in the same age with 10x the ATK/DEF. Or we'll end up with just a designated person for each Age to keep those troops built up to be that Age's Gladiator, and the rest of us will have to support them with troops and resources.
the goods cost to place a da come from teh guilds stock.
and of course u a/d mean somthin duh
 

IngeJones

Active Member
Yes, definitely a way to contribute units to the guild for attacking with would have been good. Sort of like NATO
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
First, why keep the current GvG and add this ALONGSIDE it? If only 5% of the community play GvG anyway, I think it would make the game simpler to just let that whole thing go the way of all things (ie. into the trash hopper). It was tried and found wanting. Let it go, rather than spending the effort trying to bolster it. I simply don't think it's worth the time and resources. When this new feature rolls out to the community, let it completely replace the current GvG system.
I agree. Out with the old, in with the new. However, knowing the dedication of existing GvG players, I think it is smart to add it alongside. One last major fix, then let it wither on the vine. Attrition takes care of the rest. Once Battlefields takes off, GvG self destructs. Players move to GBg, quit FoE, or play the fast dying GvG to the end.
Secondly, while I appreciate you trying to integrate more peaceable players into this feature via adding Negotiations to the "conquest" system, it simply doesn't make much logical sense. If you could allow us folks who focus on goods collection/trading to contribute in some other more logical fashion, I'd be all for that, but negotiation just doesn't seem to me to be it. It feels like a "we want more people to play this feature" bandaid, rather than a real story-driven solution.
I disagree. In RL, when negotiations fail, the shooting starts. Negotiations save lives, meaning your guildmates' units. Units you save from fighting today, live to fight another day. In fact become a goods production powerhouse and you can have as much effect on units with savings as Traz has with contributions. Think about it.
Until the game devs can figure out how to get rid of the multiple accounts that control the GvG maps, all the new features you plan on adding will not convince us players that GvG is worth playing. A lot of us have become so frustrated trying to get a little piece of land on the GvG maps. Guilds will not give up a few sectors to allow others to land. It's too easy right now to set up multiple accounts and take as much land in GvG as you like.
Aye, but you see Matey, with this solution they don't have to. You'll also no longer have to worry about trying to get a foothold on an obsolete map from an obsolete system. You'll be playing on the Battlegrounds along with the 95% of the player base who doesn't GvG for all the reasons you list and more. Let the cheaters, cheat and let the 5% have their GvG. #WalkAwayFromGvG #GBGForAll
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.
With GvG going no where for the foreseeable future, all of this stays intact. No way around it, GvG has evolved into a small number of guilds with a small number of players fighting over a small number of tiles. All the same guilds, all the same players, all the same tiles. The same alliances against the same enemies. Those same guilds can continue fighting among themselves on the same maps they all locked long ago.

Meanwhile, the rest of the players who've been locked out of GvG because of this or they play on Mobile, are off in a whole new world.
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.
Like it or not, they are deciding. They've decided all new features will be accessible to 100% of their players. They understand that further investments into a broken system used by 5% of the players no longer makes sense. They understand the difference between 5%, 95%, and 100% and the potential those differences can have on the bottom line. Like it or not, here's the writing on the wall.

Inno hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.
Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.
Thy kingdom is ended, given to the Mobile Players.
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.

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.
It sounds like your GB investments will be quite valuable in the new system. While there's not enough detail, the all ages working together aspect does lean towards the idea of goods from all ages being needed to advance in GBG.
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.
I believe this is part of the 'design intent' of all the new features. Add more features to focus your activity on fewer and fewer worlds. They know everyone's play time is limited, but they also know that X hours of play time spread across Y number of worlds = X hours of play time spread across Z number of worlds = X hours of play time regardless of the number of worlds. Play time is what drives diamond sales not the number of worlds they're spent in.

Less active worlds per player, also means less server space to add new customers. While the clock can tick away on multiple worlds simultaneously, you cannot click away in multiple worlds simultaneously. Focusing your clicks on a decreasing number of worlds doesn't much matter when total click time remains the same.
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.
Agreed.
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.
@Lady Caprica 9190, you're working from the wrong premise. It's not Inno's responsibility to solve a player's and guild's goods problems, it's up the the players and the guild's to solve it. Inno has provided all of the tools needed.

I suspect there is a lot of guild leadership that now has much to learn. Gone are the days of, "build Zues, CoA, CdM, and Traz early, fight and you won't need goods." I wonder how many top GvG guilds will be able to learn the new skills needed to remain top guilds.
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).
They've said GvG is going no where. They'll fix a couple things and GvG will remain 'as is' for a long as the 5% want to play. If the ever shrinking 5% decide to take their diamonds and go home, the ever increasing 95% with a new feature will more than make up the difference.
#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?
#1 - Such is the beauty of Attrition. All boosts stay the same for each player, but battle after battle your opponent gets stronger. Gone are the days of building up boosts up to the point of simply making your opponents irrelevant. At some point every day, your opponent will not only become relevant, but eventually overwhelming. No one will ever be strong enough, ever again. Let the diamond sales begin.

I hear the distant sound of cash registers approaching.

#2 - Such is the beauty of the 10 day reset and the new Guild Leagues. In GvG, the same 20-50 players per server can continue to do what they do. In GBG, your opponents change every 10 days and maps start from zero, every 10 days. I see no reason why 10 day alliances couldn't be part of the strategy, suss out other dominant guilds, create an alliance to push weaker guilds from the map and split the spoils.

However, with no defense, you better hope your alliance partner sticks to the agreement and doesn't steal your holdings the moment you let your guard down. Treachery, intrigue, I like it.
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.

I realize this game was a huge cash cow for Inno.. "was",
I don't know where you're getting you're information, but FoE continues to grow YoY and Inno continues to post record profits QoQ driven by the US market, then international. Agree or not, FoE is the Inno cash cow. With this new feature, plenty of growth ahead.
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.
@Maestro, I'm sorry to hear about the problems you have playing for free. I'm a free player and I don't have your problems. I don't say that to gloat, but to tell you that each of your issues can be solved without spending diamonds. Hang around the forum, read the many well written guides to master and integrate various aspects of the game into a custom playstyle that lets you succeed. Ask for help as needed. Master the game and starve the beast.;)
I play FoE because it is a strategy game and pay almost no attention to GvG. GvG in this game involves no strategy other than accumulating enough people at the right time (usually reset), having enough goods, taking or releasing the best sector, and having high enough bonuses to use auto battle as fast as you can. It is really mind numbingly boring and takes slightly above 0 skill to battle non player controlled targets. I would not miss it at all if it were gone. It additionally messes up the points system, we all know the highest ranked players just sit around "batteling" computer controlled fights all day long.

Since this game is not a fighting game and any competition will never be live to show true skill, I think you should focus on something completely different than what you have now because it is just a waste of computing energy and space. I think you may have answered your own question in the 10x the users in GE statement. Drop cross world battle because it does not really do anything and make it same world with more levels and ranking based on direct guild vs guild competition, not who has two or three guys who do nothing else.
@AtomMaster, go back and read the announcement all the way through. This is not GvG and will require a whole new level of strategy and skill across the entire guild. With negotiations, it's not all about fighting and good producers/market traders can finally be valued members and not just silent partners feeding the guild treasury to feed their GvG play. With GBG, you can contribute being a digital bad ass, you can contribute being a market marvel, and you can contribute being a superpower, that's good at both.
Problem: GvG will still be broken, and the problem is still not solved. We end on a problem, not a solution.
A sad ending for GvG indeed. Like most things. In with a bang, out with a whimper, and a great run while it lasted. Kodak, anyone?

You should have learned your lesson from GE that you cannot appease the GvG base.
Seems they did. GE was a winner and they cannot appease the GvG base. They're creating something new to appeal to the 10x larger GE base, and the 95% untapped market, while leaving the 5% GvG base alone to continue to do their thing. They're letting GvG players decide what they want to do. Join the 95% of the players playing with the shiny new toy, or continue to play by yourselves with the rusty old one.

It will also be interesting to see how this will play out for GvG focused guilds. In both of my worlds, I'm in guilds dominant in both GE and on one, or more GvG maps. My Arc 80 dumps goods into the guild treasury whether I play GvG or not. I don't care how many goods are spent on GvG, as long as GE IV is opened each week, no further donations from me.

However, just like now with GE IV, if my goods are getting dumped into my guild's treasury and my guild can't advance in GBG, which I'll be playing, because they've spent them all on GvG, which I don't play, I will take my guild goods to a guild where I can use my guild goods to fund my play, not the isolated play of others. Interesting times ahead.
Many on my server organized a cease-fire for a week while we composed a letter to Inno regarding our concerns with GvG. We sent it in early March. It is probably the most thoughtful and well-composed feedback they have ever received about anything. It was supposedly forwarded to the developers and I personally delivered it to a game designer via Facebook message. You can read the letter here. Despite pestering Panacea repeatedly for a response, Inno never provided one. Not even an acknowledgement of receipt, let alone an acknowledgement of our concerns. Not a peep. Maybe they took it into consideration, maybe they didn't. How could we possibly know?
You can know, you do know. Inno has just given us the answer. They're moving in a new direction. It appears all the feedback from GvG players has been taken into consideration.

GBG solves the problems of GvG by avoiding the problems inherent to GvG. GBG is accessible to all, attractive to all, without the issues. They considered it all and created something brand new.
If the new feature can be controlled by gangs of large guilds and small guilds have no opportunity to play and enjoy some level of success, it will fail and will remain at 10%.

There is also a need not to make FOE all about battles. What makes it more interesting than the "war-like games" is it's complexity, balance and nuance.
Leagues @JudyL, and negotiations. clearly you have not read or understood the full announcement. It's not all about fighting anymore, and every guild now fights other guilds from their same weight class, and every 10 days, the map starts over with new guilds from your same weight class. This is very good.

Anyway, loving this thread. I look forward to GBG. Fun times ahead.

As for the rest of the comments, which are much the same as the previous ones,
De do do do, de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do, de da da da
It's meaningless and all that's true.:p
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser23828

The more I thought of it the more I think this is a terrible idea. Everyone I talk to that actually participates in gvg doesn't like it either and the people I know that actually buy diamonds regularly are all gvg'ers. INNO you are risking having a lot of people walk away from the game by doing this.

What you SHOULD have done is come to the gvg community and asked how can you improve what you have. Tweaking the existing system with the goal of increasing participation instead of doing it away from the game with a group who don't represent the gvg'ers and possible putting in a new system that negates years of effort by the most advanced players in a single blow. DO you honestly think they, we, will take it well?
 

floating spirit

New Member
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
everyone started in a cave and worked their way up to where are now building their city to fit play style-fighter,farmer -this is a war game not farmville or candy crush -how tough a guild is depends on its members style and dedication not everyone gets a trophy That has to be earned and takes time
 

DeletedUser25473

I really like the concept of GvG, and all the different ages. I have several barracks from different eras in order to be active in several to help out my Guild. I do agree with the above comments in that you wait for the reset and then push auto battle as quickly as possible each day. I brought up an idea for LOS rules, which didn't go over well which is fine, but was just trying to come up with a way to make it more strategy on the tactical level. Otherwise, I do like the strategic level planning a guild needs to participate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top