[Question] GvG

[Taeshire]

You know it can be done

View attachment 18710

Of course it can be done, my point was that there isn't a single formulaic tactic for success (as there is with 2+ guilds in GBG).

 

[Agent327]

No, it doesn't qualify - it's not controlling a map, it's merely babysitting a small part that no-one else wants.

What on earth makes you think no one else wants it? Ask any guild if they would like a few sectors there and I seriously doubt there is a guild that will say no. They have deliberately made part of the map unplayable to secure their position. Nobody can take those sectors, cause nobody can get to them. How is that not controlling the map?

If GvG is such a great game experience, why preventing other guilds from experiencing it?

 

[Algona]

Actually I'm glad you contributed, you've made an interesting contribution.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

As I understand it the lag was generally caused by the antiquated code used - that can be fixed, so fix it!

Therein lies a tale.

Anwar was the lead dev for the game early on. Shortly after their death, INNO stopped major work on GvG.

Some folk think Anwar's death is the main reason, INNO stopped working on GvG. I don't believe so, there seems to be a lot of factors that contributed to INNO's decision.

RP covers it well here:

https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/gvg.41600/page-2#post-35486I

As noted GvG as it is now can't support more users. That's not just a code flaw, it's a design flaw.

GvG was written using browser specific software that can't run on mobile without an emulator. INNO isn't in the emulator business, they write games. Depending on a third part emulator would be a pretty big vulnerability.

GvG would have to be rewritten from scratch to bring it to mobile.

The additional load from additional users would require fundamental design changes to current GvG functionality.

The changes to the game and players require further design changes to GvG.

Given that INNO clearly stated in 2019 there would be no further work on GvG that seems an uphill battle.

----------

A lot of folks note INNO does everything for profit. That seems reasonable to me, that's how they stay in business and allow me to play for free.

As I noted upthread, INNO is really good at financial decisions. They keep proving they know their customers better then we know ourselves. They know exactly what we spend and what we do in game.

I'm personally convinced that the reason INNO doesn't rewrite GvG is that the expense to do so is more then the increase in profit they would get from rewriting GvG.

No other explanation for the current state of GvG makes financial sense.

The corollary is inevitable. INNO will keep GvG in the game as long as the players playing GvG are spending more money on any part of the game then it costs to run GvG.

----------

I understand wanting a better GvG.

I don't want to trust INNO to give us their vision for a better GvG, last time we got GBG.

Through 2019 this forum was littered with scores of threads and thousands of posts about improving GvG. There has never been anything close to concensus on what a better GvG is between GvG fans.

There's a ray of hope there though. Possibly someone with a good platform (IpenguinPat comes to mind, are there others doing the same sort of work?) could actively work towards finding a concensus of what would make for a better GvG.

If that vision could be refined and presented to INNO with strong indications that it could be profitable, then maybe some day we night see a better GvG.

Until then, I'm a lot happier with the GvG we have then anything that I can see on the horizon.

 

[Taeshire]

What on earth makes you think no one else wants it? Ask any guild if they would like a few sectors there and I seriously doubt there is a guild that will say no. They have deliberately made part of the map unplayable to secure their position. Nobody can take those sectors, cause nobody can get to them. How is that not controlling the map?

If GvG is such a great game experience, why preventing other guilds from experiencing it?

Nobody can take those sectors today........... that's not even close to being the same thing as nobody can take those sectors!

 

[Taeshire]

Thank you, I appreciate that.



Therein lies a tale.

Anwar was the lead dev for the game early on. Shortly after their death, INNO stopped major work on GvG.

Thank you Algona for such a well thought out and compelling post. You may have restored my faith in forum contributors!

I'd heard and read about Anwar, seemed like such a sad loss to the game, not just for his work on GvG. (I have spent time reading the forums in the past, but like global have tended to avoid taking part)

You raise a lot of good points around reaching consensus on GvG, and I hope and pray someone takes note of them and indeed reaches out to people like FOElite (Penguin Pat) and many others to help them move GvG forward. Make it something anyone who wishes to can take part in, even on mobile (which does seem to be a significant blocker for many).

I also hope they reach out to improve GbG, make less easy for 2 or 3 guilds to control a map and block the other 5-6 guilds out for 11 days and make it less about greed. And yes I say that as a member of a guild who can and do control the map on each occasion we chose to.

 

[r21r]

You know it can be done

wait - i know it can be done partly, not on every single LZ of a map ? (un-balanced if it can be done)

No, it doesn't qualify - it's not controlling a map, it's merely babysitting a small part that no-one else wants.

well yes, but whats technical possible is different for if its moral, thats why i involved here.

Of course it can be done, my point was that there isn't a single formulaic tactic for success (as there is with 2+ guilds in GBG).

nah, there actually is

pretty much like GBG, locking outside keeping sieges inside on 99/100, and if enemy lands by beating both guilds, they lock the 2nd inside sector.
if they don't push them out the next day, they have the 3rd inside ready on 99/100 etc

with only difference that here, you have to fight against both 2 enemy guild fighters instead of racing just 1 of those on GBG.

99/100 meaning with 1 army left to capture

 

[Agent327]

Nobody can take those sectors today........... that's not even close to being the same thing as nobody can take those sectors!

Nobody can take them today, nobody can take them tomorrow. The guild blocking them can block them as long as they want. Again, if GvG is such a great game experience, why preventing other guilds from experiencing it?

 

[InsaneYogi35606]

Nobody can take them today, nobody can take them tomorrow. The guild blocking them can block them as long as they want. Again, if GvG is such a great game experience, why preventing other guilds from experiencing it?

I'm going to guess you either don't GVG, or are in a guild that isn't able to break through a closed beach. We don't GVG to be friends. You want it? Come take it. And people try all the time - that's how we got it.

 

[Emberguard]

can this be done with every LZ in a map ?

if yes, shouldn't this be changed .. ?

Almost. Only the starting landingzones cannot have this done. Oh, and any damaged defending armies remain lit up

 

[InsaneYogi35606]

Not really. GvG is only played by ~5% of all players in part because it's not available on mobile, but mostly because players on other platforms aren't playing it either. According to Inno ~33% of all FoE players play on a platform other than mobile, and yet only a small percentage of them do GvG. That has nothing to do with the app store. So the 5% argument is perfectly valid: it tells us that the vast majority of players who can play GvG, don't.

There are multiple things to address here:
1. Going with this stat, at most, 33% then have access to GvG.
2. 5% of people participate in GvG, so only 28% of people that have access, don't participate. ***
3. By comparison - 100% of people have access to GBG.
4. Only 40% of people participate, so 60% of people with access don't utilize the feature even with access.
5. While some people definitely love GBG, but, there are many that participate to a small level because they have to or because "why leave the attrition on the table at the end of the night" (even if they couldn't care less about GBG as a whole). Those that GVG tend to do it because they love GVGing.

***2. 5% of people participate in GvG, so only 28% of people don't participate.
*EDIT* Original wording was off (and has been left in it's original phrasing). As stated a few minutes later, and should be clear by the 2 numbers being compared, 28% is the intended statistic, converting of the remainder of the nonparticipant browser segment, would make the statistic incompatible with the GBG statistic.



Something to keep in mind, is that while the numbers are certainly larger for GBG, they have obviously hit a threshold there.

Not necessarily directed at you in particular...
For people to come on here asking for Inno to remove a game feature that a segment of users love so much, is selfish. It doesn't hurt you for the feature to be there - and Inno hasn't talked about removing it - so why keep trolling everyone?

You can see those figures for this time last year. From MTG's (majority owner of Innogames) quarterly report, you'll see a huge explosion in MAU for Q1/Q2 2020 (in line with when Covid-related lockdowns came into effect and were sustained into the early summer). You'll then see MAU plummet in Q3/Q4 2020 (when lockdowns began to relax and things went more "back to normal"), all the way back down to (and in the case of Q3 2020, even below) Q4 2019 numbers.

Super cool data set Enam, Thanks. The biggest take away for me here... is that Inno can't afford to lose a bunch of daily players. They have a way higher stake with each and every daily player vs. how the parent/portfolio company is set up.

... Which brings me to this...

Do you imagine that Inno doesn't know any of that? While it may lack some context, it's not all that vague: five percent of players is five percent of players. If they included inactive players then it wouldn't be five percent of players, it would be five percent of accounts. Five percent of anything is a tiny minority of that thing. If that entire five percent quit, I doubt Inno would notice. Apparently Inno ain't worried about it, as they've actually done the research and analysis by looking at every player, not just those on the forum and not just those who answer video surveys.

Actually - very few companies would willingly give up 5% of their business. That is HUGE. While you may think it's small - many operate at 5-10% profit margins. In gaming, it's more like 15-25%. That's anywhere from twenty percent to a third of their margin! For those that don't operate a business - they only see the revenue without seeing the whole picture. Realistically - there are companies that would go bankrupt if they lost 5% of their business.

Personally, (this is what I think has happened) I don't think Inno will get rid of GvG because it's essentially a free revenue stream for now. They aren't having to maintain it - the worst I expect its doing is causing server load spikes at recalc. They've worked the numbers and it makes sense for them to do.

So.. what we should be asking you is "Do you imagine Inno doesn't know any of this?" While you guys sit here and try to convince us that GVG isn't worth anything to them and that we aren't worth anything to Inno, they've continued to keep it around. Hmm.

oh and...

So you make videos, who cares?

Considering none of you have stopped talking about him... and Agent complained about him being an influencer.... apparently everyone cares *shrug*.

*40% stat was obtained through Inno material released in 2020.

 

[r21r]

Almost. Only the starting landingzones cannot have this done. Oh, and any damaged defending armies remain lit up

may i ask which are the starting ?
sorry never had the chance to start on a new world yet

 

[Taeshire]

If there was only one LZ on a map, or LZ's were restricted to a small sector that might be a valid tactic, but given that's not the case.........

There are a number of videos on the tube that explain GvG, have a look, have a go at GVG in your guild with some experienced players you'll understand why that doesn't happen and wouldn't work.

 

[InsaneYogi35606]

can this be done with every LZ in a map ?

if yes, shouldn't this be changed .. ?

Almost. Only the starting landingzones cannot have this done. Oh, and any damaged defending armies remain lit up

Any landing zone areas that are 3 deep can not be "shut down" or grayed out. (that might be what you are referring to as starting landing zones though)

 

[r21r]

Any landing zone areas that are 3 deep can not be "shut down" or grayed out. (that might be what you are referring to as starting landing zones though)

then balanced.
thanks

 

[Algona]

4. Only 40% of people participate, so 60% of people with access don't utilize the feature even with access.

Please note,I am not disputing this.

Can you provide a link it it's from INNO or say who the original source is if not?

I've been curious about that number since GBG started.

 

[Emberguard]

may i ask which are the starting ?
sorry never had the chance to start on a new world yet

you can ask, but I haven’t been documenting it so I’ve forgotten which ones for most of the maps xD think Iron Age it’s the section down the bottom. High middle ages is the section to the left

Any landing zone areas that are 3 deep can not be "shut down" or grayed out. (that might be what you are referring to as starting landing zones though)

It might be, and sounds about right.

 

[Taeshire]

Nobody can take them today, nobody can take them tomorrow. The guild blocking them can block them as long as they want. Again, if GvG is such a great game experience, why preventing other guilds from experiencing it?

I honestly fail to see why you think that's an unassailable position, I've seen our guild multiland on 5+ LZ sectors just to annoy multiple GvG enemies, I've seen us traverse half the map to get amongst a GvG enemy.

We do have between 15 and 25+ GVG fighters on in any one night, I suppose that makes a significant difference in the art of the possible

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

2. 5% of people participate in GvG, so only 28% of people that have access, don't participate.

You're a little off with your math skills here. I'll break it down for you. Let's go with 100 players. 33 of them have access to GvG. Only 5 of them participate in GvG. That leaves 28 of the 33 that have access that don't participate. 28 of 33 players is 85%. (Actually 84.848484...%, but I rounded it.) So 85% of the players with access to GvG don't participate. That means that only 15% of players with access to GvG participate in it.

 

[Agent327]

I'm going to guess you either don't GVG, or are in a guild that isn't able to break through a closed beach. We don't GVG to be friends. You want it? Come take it. And people try all the time - that's how we got it.

Fine by me, but do not claim GvG is the best part of the game. It is only the best part for you cause you can control it. There is no difference with Guilds controlling GBG.

I honestly fail to see why you think that's an unassailable position, I've seen our guild multiland on 5+ LZ sectors just to annoy multiple GvG enemies, I've seen us traverse half the map to get amongst a GvG enemy.

We do have between 15 and 25+ GVG fighters on in any one night, I suppose that makes a significant difference in the art of the possible

Do you, or do you not prevent others to play what you think is the best part of the game, only for your own benefit? Wouldn't it be much more exciting to have more fights in the best part of the game if you did not block those sectors?

 

[InsaneYogi35606]

You're a little off with your math skills here. I'll break it down for you. Let's go with 100 players. 33 of them have access to GvG. Only 5 of them participate in GvG. That leaves 28 of the 33 that have access that don't participate. 28 of 33 players is 85%. (Actually 84.848484...%, but I rounded it.) So 85% of the players with access to GvG don't participate. That means that only 15% of players with access to GvG participate in it.

28% of Forgers don't participate. My math was correct.
100% of Forge. 33% have access. 5% participate. 28% Don't.

You can nitpick - But I said something specific.