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.