Liberty
Active Member
Oh yes you do. Get real. You have done nothing in this thread besides whine and insult GvG players. Get over yourself.
Inno asked for our input about both GvG and GBG. The fact that you do not like it, really is not germane.
-
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:
- Status
Inno asked for our input about both GvG and GBG. The fact that you do not like it, really is not germane.
DeletedUser3882
Reposting from way back on page 8 @RazorbackPirate as I feel I brought up a valid point irt all the GvG hubbub you’ve been battling. Regardless of your, my, or anyone else’s viewpoints, until they address how this feature affects RANKINGS and/or LEVEL of a guild, everything else is moot anyway? If Battlegrounds counts for *anything* like GE, it will be a poor man’s second fiddle to GvG. They could *ADD* bugs to it and players would still play GvG currently.
Yes, you can level a guild, and thereby increase guild rank via GE, but seriously?!? Sloooooooooooooowly at best. And veritable zero chance of climbing to a respectable ranking. It’s simply no comparison to jumping a few sectors and holding them for any amount of time. If Battlegrounds doesn’t address this, there will be a large faction of players that prefer playing “chess.”
If it end up worksing anything like GE concerning points gained, one could be the most active guild in the world as we know it, win everything, every week, take GbG and GE winnings combined and still pale in comparison to a few sectors here and there held for a week in GvG.
Like GvG or don’t. Like GE or don’t. Like Battlegrounds or don’t. Doesn’t really matter unless Guild rankings calculations are revamped once again to allow for a more level playing field. Otherwise GvG will reign supreme as it has for the past 5 years.
*Without* reevaluating and changing the ranking/leveling system, I would regretfully prefer removing GvG altogether as it’s currently so far heavily weighed.
Yes, you can level a guild, and thereby increase guild rank via GE, but seriously?!? Sloooooooooooooowly at best. And veritable zero chance of climbing to a respectable ranking. It’s simply no comparison to jumping a few sectors and holding them for any amount of time. If Battlegrounds doesn’t address this, there will be a large faction of players that prefer playing “chess.”
If it end up worksing anything like GE concerning points gained, one could be the most active guild in the world as we know it, win everything, every week, take GbG and GE winnings combined and still pale in comparison to a few sectors here and there held for a week in GvG.
Like GvG or don’t. Like GE or don’t. Like Battlegrounds or don’t. Doesn’t really matter unless Guild rankings calculations are revamped once again to allow for a more level playing field. Otherwise GvG will reign supreme as it has for the past 5 years.
*Without* reevaluating and changing the ranking/leveling system, I would regretfully prefer removing GvG altogether as it’s currently so far heavily weighed.
RazorbackPirate
Well-Known Member
No, but what is germane is my ability to read. From the actual announcement itself.
No where is it asking for thoughts and opinions about GvG. It's asking to have a discussion about the new concept and asking for input about the new concept. The fact that you don't like what they're asking for is irrelevant.
Do you have any thoughts about the new concept?
saknika
Active Member
Not 100% true from what i have seen. GvG definitely gives guilds a decisive edge to rankings, but there are a couple guilds on T server who climbed the ranks into the top 10, and fast, by HOFs and GE alone. However, I think the caveat was that they were guilds full of elite FE-VF players, so the HOFs and GE battles were worth a heck of a lot more. So really awesome guild rank can happen without GvG, but it is very difficult. It does give me hope though that, done well, GBG could shake things up a lot in that regard.
Liberty
Active Member
Apparently not.
You respond how you want to and the rest of us will respond how we want to.
qaccy
Well-Known Member
@heybo It depends a lot on the guild, but GE is capable of putting up comparable guild power gains to GvG such that either one on its own is sufficient for achieving a respectable guild level. However, it's still usually going to add up to more if both features are utilized together, and adding in this third one will be more still! Considering how well GE and GvG are balanced in terms of guild power gains, I imagine GBGs will appear similar.
One other thing I'm pondering is how much work Inno will put into attemtping to balance fighting vs. negotiating. Fighting can be anything from quick and painless using rogues against the 'dumb' AI, to moderately challenging and/or painful against the smarter continent map AI. Likewise, negotiations are something between quick and tedious, along with cheap or costly. One point does ring true regardless though - while battles can often be won without loss of units, a negotiation always consumes some amount of resources and I'm hoping the progress provided by negotiating at least reflects that if no other considerations are made. Anything else will depend largely on whether negotiations are handled like GE or like the continent map.
One other thing I'm pondering is how much work Inno will put into attemtping to balance fighting vs. negotiating. Fighting can be anything from quick and painless using rogues against the 'dumb' AI, to moderately challenging and/or painful against the smarter continent map AI. Likewise, negotiations are something between quick and tedious, along with cheap or costly. One point does ring true regardless though - while battles can often be won without loss of units, a negotiation always consumes some amount of resources and I'm hoping the progress provided by negotiating at least reflects that if no other considerations are made. Anything else will depend largely on whether negotiations are handled like GE or like the continent map.
DeletedUser
If you're strictly talking about guild rankings, then you're right. However, only the GvG guilds care about the rankings for this very reason. In fact, most of the players I know in-game don't care about either the guild or personal ranking points. Neither is an indicator of how good or bad a player is. Most of us care about how enjoyable the game is, which is really the reason GvG participation is so low. The only real GvG activity is a frenzy of auto-battle clicking at 8 PM EST, followed by 23 hours 45 minutes of waiting for the next day's frenzy. The best thing I see about this new feature is that we won't be tied to a single daily time of activity, which will also mean that the lag and freezing that GvGers are always complaining about won't be an issue with GBG.
This is probably true, but GvG provides additional Prestige that GE doesn't, which is why GvG guilds dominate the rankings.
DeletedUser6574
Panacea said it in the announcement
DeletedUser26263
We have guilds in our family that do GvG and many that do not. I know a lot of people who get as much pleasure out of trading, socializing and building better cities as I do those who like to fight. One big advantage I see in this new feature is the addition of non-fighting options (negotiation) so that a broader base of players can participate in Guild enhancement. I applaud that.
The devil is gong to be in the details. Again, my one concern is the amount of new administration that may be placed in the hands of Guild Founders and Leaders. Another major game feature will add to the workload. I would like to see that mitigated a bit. FOE asks a lot of its guild managers already (intra-guild diplomacy, trade monitoring, GvG, polishing & motivating, Tavern Visiting, Expeditions, thread monitoring, watching for cheating and bad behavior ... I can go on and on). Anything that adds to that workload makes it harder for us to find people who will give up so much of their own time to do it. I hope the game does not become so complicated that no one wants to volunteer to do the guild work needed. I am serious about this issue -- I am hearing concerns rising and have been for some time now from Leaders all over FOE in many guilds (not just our own).
Again - the jury is out. But I remain open minded and optimistic.
DeletedUser29563
As petty as it may sound. If GvG is finally phased out(I pray it's not, but I'm a realist), I hope the new feature will require enough UA units to keep my Traz relevant. My guess is, it will depend on the attrition scale/ battle cap.
GE literally gives a player the units needed to complete it, and then some.. So depending on how this new feature plays out, the units won in GE may also be enough for it also.
So many questions man, so many questions.
GE literally gives a player the units needed to complete it, and then some.. So depending on how this new feature plays out, the units won in GE may also be enough for it also.
So many questions man, so many questions.
saknika
Active Member
Personally, I need Traz for GE. I'm a chronic auto-battler though which may make a difference. So Traz means I can throw away troops in GE as I please, no worries. Just putting it out there.
If GBG hopes to compete with GvG, it's going to need to require the units and such. That's always been part of the struggle, and the sparkle, of GvG: troop management.
BruteForceAttack
Well-Known Member
From FB Q/A couple of things.
They are most likely not going to make GBG cross world.
They may add attrition to negotiations as well
They may also make it so that attrition goes down...not sure about that
There will also be a break from GBG for few days, so it will be a bi weekly kinda thing
They cannot talk about numbers yet, fps, rewards, ranking points etc
Still in concept stage/drawing board.......gonna be a while before it even hits beta
They are most likely not going to make GBG cross world.
They may add attrition to negotiations as well
They may also make it so that attrition goes down...not sure about that
There will also be a break from GBG for few days, so it will be a bi weekly kinda thing
They cannot talk about numbers yet, fps, rewards, ranking points etc
Still in concept stage/drawing board.......gonna be a while before it even hits beta
DeletedUser13698
I've been playing for nearly 6 years I believe. I've been in GVG guilds, and Non GVG guilds. There are times of the year where I am able to be online more, and times when not so much. I've fought battles to take sectors, only to see them released at the next Reset. I've spent real world cash to advance in the game, and GVG is not a big part of my playing time. One of the main reasons is the "Landing Zones" the strongest guilds secure the landing zones, and then their players farm them. You have a small minority that take the largest share of the GVG maps, making it impossible for single players, or guilds that are more city building oriented, to even step foot on a map. You want to make GVG interesting again? Release all sectors in a 24 hour period at random times. Some guilds have held sway over the maps for so long, that nothing changes. Why shouldn't a smaller guild be able to gain sectors and not get crushed? Why can't the single players get their battles in on the maps? It's an antiquated system. Why should the #1 guild on the map be able to hold a sector for 24 hours, only to release it at the time of their choosing? It sucks for those of us trying to advance, but aren't part of GVG guilds. We also see a lot of new players coming in, but not too many sticking around. INNO was supposed to purge inactive cities and accounts, but thus far that hasn't happened. I wonder if that's to keep numbers up, or because it was "Just too difficult." Y'all have a lot of work to do if you want to recharge the player base. Some others have mentioned doing away with GVG, or downsizing it. I think if you don't make wholesale changes, you need to add some more features for the folks who don't play GVG. It's beginning to get a little boring doing the same thing over and over and over and over...... Just my .02
Emberguard
Well-Known Member
Now there's an idea..... though it doesn't have to be random times necessarily. Maybe after 30 days of a guild being on the map it resets any tiles owned by the guild and refunds them equal to whatever those tiles would have cost to set up
DeletedUser30312
Some good information there.
Well, negotiations always consume goods. With fighting, strong enough bonuses minimizes losses. So attrition might be there to help mitigate fighters who can stomp all over other armies while their units barely take a scratch.
I'm guessing these buildings are intended to address the problem of huge amounts of AF+ goods piling up in the treasury from Arcs. GvG doesn't spend the goods at all, and the GE costs are trivial.
I've used Puffin a handful of times to access the game and it's clumsy at best. The browser interface isn't ideal on a small screen and I was using a 7' tablet. On a smaller phone screen, it'd probably be even worse. That's why FoE has a simplified interface for mobile, and some of the problems with no mobile GvG might be an inability to design a proper mobile interface that runs smoothly. I really don't know. Anyway, Puffin is not a good way to access GvG, especially when recalc is a large burst of activity and fumbling around on a small screen doesn't make it enjoyable.
They made it pretty clear that new maps are not on the table and likely won't increase participation anyway. Why does everyone keep repeating this? New maps means designing the maps to begin with. So to they add on to the existing contenent, do the desgin a second continent for new ages, or a set of islands? Then there's the coding work involved, how much code is needed for each new sector? Maybe it's much more than people assume.
That might help the stagnation problem, I don't know. That was a change to GvG before I started using the feature, so I don't have any experience with how it worked, nor do i know why it was changed. It's possible it wouldn't matter because of shifts in the game meta though.
Six months? I'd say more often than that. I would help keep things fresh and more active than it is now most likely.
I suppose that depends on how well GBG turns out and if it can be a viable replacement for GvG. Support Pool after all only affects GvG defense, and it's meaningless to a guild that doesn't defend sectors. But it plays a part in guild rankings, and three GBs. Remove GvG and there are empty guild levels, and the Obs takes a pretty big hit to usefulness, with smaller hits to the Deal and SBC in order.
Liberty
Active Member
So, you are recommending FOE socialism? Players worked hard for those Attack boosts. Others could too, if they wanted high boosts. But, instead of the weaker players putting in the same effort, the proposal is to nullify the effort the strong ones worked for? Gotcha.
You create new maps of course. A new one for AF, one for Ocean and one for Virtual Future. It's no different than what already exists for the other eras.
Why have GvG players asked for this? Maybe because it's relatively simple to add new maps. The underlying code already exists. Changing a few coordinates in code to change the shape of the land mass is not that complex a deal.
But, of course, that is assuming Inno values those customers that play this game BECAUSE of GvG.
This nightly damage to defensive armies against rocks and water is what used to happen. They removed it when they were trying to fix some of the horrible bugs that used to exist. However removing it didn't resolve anything. I asked for it to be put back, because it is a penalty against a guild for holding a bunch of sectors. Because any that they held against most rocks and water, would be dinged at each calc. So, that guild would have to have plenty of troops available to replace he defensive armies if they got down too low, or they would end up losing the sector altogether. It was a good idea and should be added back, if possible.
I don't know which server you play on, but GvG on Rugnir is hopping nightly.
I'll wait to see, but right now it looks like they are designing it for the lowest common denominator; putting chains on those who have gone to the effort and time to build their strength, so that casual players can get an A too. woo hoo!
DeletedUser
I am quite surprised to learn from so many players who are mobile that they have resented the PC players. This idea is extremely popular. GVG is not the main part of this game that many of us , including myself, thought.
DeletedUser24719
It seems to me this new GBG concept is nothing but an admission that the GvG concept hasnot attracted enought players for INNO to profit By their own admission there are technical problems with GvG they are chosing to not deal with. How they are going to attract more players is a fantasy. There are only so many players on each server who enjoy the battle concept of this game, which by the way was originally touted as a city building game and has become anything but! Add to that the additional drain on guild goods to support this new concept and you have another recipe for failure. Sorry INNO how about improving the ease of game play before introducing more nonsense!!
RazorbackPirate
Well-Known Member
GBG is the replacement for GvG, with no further development going toward GvG and all future development going to GBG. Regardless of GvG players opinions of viability, GBG will be viable for Inno. It will drive diamond sales and profits to the bottom line. GBG will be a viable replacement for GvG, simply because it is THE replacement for GvG.
Leaving GvG intact, rolling out GBG alongside GvG, I think is acknowledgement they expect GBG to be largely rejected (as it is now) by GvG players, simply because it's not GvG and won't be structured the same way as GvG.
When Inno finally launches GBG, they'll be tapping into a huge pent up market, the majority of the user base. I can't see how GBG can't be viable for Inno. So, I would hope they can find a way to utilize Support Pool. Alternatively, they could add new boosts to the GBs making them desirable outside of GvG participation. They all could use a rebalance anyway, maybe that's their plan?
- Status