• 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

Great Building changes for 1.20

DeletedUser2355

I have read these threads and know many of those who have commented. Although, I understand the moderator has a tough job and is not responsible for these changes directly, I fail to see how the comments here can be characterized as "bitter". We are players and "supporters" of this game. We want those responsible for these decisions to know we are not happy. After almost 2 years of playing, all my hard work being slashed by almost half on my GB's is definitely going to make me upset. Even if there are future plans, this move is still a downgrade period. If the developers can make this radical changes to the game. What's next. Let's show some respect for the players.
 

DeletedUser3556

GB level up will be dragging out over time. When Alcatraz first came out, if you are willing to buy all the goods and BP to have it built, you can get it maxed up to level 10 in a week. I agree that those unattached unit will be used up pretty quickly if you don't build the barrack in your city to resupply it.

Having not participated in the GvG in beta, since people keep mentioning that unattached units will be used up, does that mean that defending units are able to be destroyed in GvG in contrast to PvP where they regenerate?

edit. Also is there something preventing unattached units from simply being swapped out with healthy new ones if damage does stay on the units until they regenerate the normal "time wait" way?
 

DeletedUser

Once a unit is donated, it no longer belongs to you, so it is "used up". Yes, defending armies are destroyed. (just not in one attack)
you can delete a defending army, but not simply swap it. Those units will never come back to you.
 

DeletedUser2145

In other words can the displayed offense/defense values be less than the actual values used for calculating damage, or does the effect of great buildings only kick in for values x.5 and above with rounding?

The effect only kicks in for values x.5+ with rounding. Basically, the attack you see with a boost is the applied effect, anything in decimals that is not displayed is not applied. So there is a rounding down for below x.5 and rounding up for x.5 and above.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

The effect only kicks in for values x.5+ with rounding. Basically, the attack you see with a boost is the applied effect, anything in decimals that is not displayed is not applied. So there is a rounding down for below x.5 and rounding up for above x.5.
x.5 rounds to x or (x+1)?
 

DeletedUser3556

x.5 rounds to x or (x+1)?

x + 1

In my original question I was using bronze age horseman 8 attack as the example.

So with lv 1 Zues at 3%, it would have an attack of 8 * 1.03 = 8.24, which is rounded down to 8.
and at lv 3 Zues it would have an attack of 8 * 1.09 = 8.72, rounded up to 9.
At Zues lv 10 it would have an attack of 8 * 1.30 = 10.4, rounded down to 10.
 

DeletedUser

x + 1

In my original question I was using bronze age horseman 8 attack as the example.

So with lv 1 Zeus at 3%, it would have an attack of 8 * 1.03 = 8.24, which is rounded down to 8.
and at lv 3 Zeus it would have an attack of 8 * 1.09 = 8.72, rounded up to 9.
At Zeus lv 10 it would have an attack of 8 * 1.30 = 10.4, rounded down to 10.
I recently informed other members of my guild about this discussion.

As did others who have commented in this thread, many in my guild found the announcement confusing and did not realize that the GB bonus changes would affect anything except GvG.

So far, I have not heard from anyone in my guild who wants these changes; some have said that they will leave the game when they go into effect.

People feel wronged when something they worked to obtain is devalued. As a player in the Industrial Age, I felt that I had accomplished something when I finally built Zeus, Aachen and Monte. Now, I feel that I have been made a fool of.

If these changes were to be made, the lead time should have been much longer, and the announcement should have been much clearer. Players who already built the buildings should have their current levels "grandfathered". If that is unacceptable, then, after a clear announcement, defense bonuses should be reduced gradually by 1% per month, and offense bonuses should be reduced gradually by 1% every two months until the new levels are reached. That way, people will know now what they are buying when they are buying it; and those who bought before will at least get some of the utility they had reasonable expectations of getting when they made their purchase. (Starting GvG with 3% in GvG is fine as everyone knew GvG was still Beta testing; if someone bought GBs based on assumptions they made about the outcomes of Beta testing, that is their unfortunate misadventure.)

The suggestion to keep the 5%/10% bonuses for first level and gradually reduce the amount of bonus increase for each higher level would encourage newer players that they are coming up in the world when they build a building. it is hard to feel much accomplishment for building a building just to get a 3% bonus. All of those supplies would have bought a lot of negotiated territories. And what will 3% really do for you? As with the example of the horseman above, nothing or next to nothing.
 

DeletedUser3329

Good job devs, I put a great amount of time effort and unfortunately money into this game to reach the point I have only to have you people screw it all up.... I have put up with all the farts and crashes starting in the beta days with little complaint but this idiotic move takes the cake. A refund is certainly in order for those that have spent real money and do not choose to play a game controlled by dictators and tyrants!!!
 

DeletedUser

The Market Has Spoken!

Having read this entire thread, I have seen it suggested that the developers want to do at least three things. They want to adjust the GBs for GvG, they want to protect frustrated players from super looters and they want to make some of the content more challenging.

First, the bonuses for GvG can be adjusted without changing the regular bonuses.

Second, to slow down the super looters, let the player select a pool of defenders. Then, let the AI pick from the defense pool the set of defenders best suited to defend against the attack that is made. And, give defenders a frustration bonus like the chivalry and last stand bonuses; if you have been looted once in the past 24 hours, all defense bonuses go up 10%; if looted twice in 24 hours, all defense bonuses go up 50%; three times, 100%; four times, 1,000 percent. And, give double that bonuses to revenge attacks against looters when the attack is launched from the history menu.

Third, unless the owners of the company are indifferent to making money and fund this just so that developers can pursue their personal ideals of content difficulty, listen to the market. In this thread and the Beta thread, some players have spoken of how they use their tactical prowess to capture territories with extreme bonuses. Others have spoken of how the wait until they can use forces from a later age. Others have spoken of how they work to get great buildings built to facilitate their attacks. Others just buy their way along. The way it is now, players gravitate to that style which they personally find most satisfying and affordable. Why take that away because a developer thinks that a particular bit of content should be more of a challenge? If this is just art for art's sake, then, by all means, let the developers follow their muse. If this is meant to appeal to massive numbers of players, then let players chose their own course without developers imposing constricting limitations that lessen the enjoyment of game play for many customers.
 

DeletedUser2145

Just to clear things up, the change is not done for GvG. It is done due to the addition of GvG. Not because those bonuses should apply just for GvG, but so that they can be applied in GvG, PvP, and PvE, to bring a balance across all three. Yes the high offensive bonuses made GvG too easy (it was too easy, I know because I played it in the beginning, it is hard there now because the activity died and the only 2-3 very active guilds acquired everything, so it's hard to make a stand when you get to go against this super alliance), but the bonuses needed to be changed outside GvG as well both because together with GvG there would have been too big of a potential for earning battle points, and because no reasonable defensive bonus made any difference for the defender whatsoever.

I can also understand how it is easy to think "oh well there must have been a better way" but honestly there are not that many good ways to do it if you think about it. For example, toopanca, your proposed idea has a huge hole --- what if a player is attacked by 30 players in the morning, and the first time he is looted is in the afternoon? All those players who attacked prior to the looting can still loot at any latter point, so the player is not protected from those loots. Let alone the fact that players who attack latter in the day would be facing a disadvantage because they will be attacking a boosted defense.

Let us take another idea that has been mentioned more frequently --- defensive GBs provide +3% attack and defense per level, but offensive GBs keep their +5% attack and defense per level. This does not solve anything, because although the defender now has an added attack bonus, the defender's bonus is limited to +60% attack and defense while the attacker's bonus is limited to 150%, which is x2.5 more. That is still unfairly imbalanced in favor of the attacker, at least in my opinion. It is easy to say something sucks and there must be a better way, but actually finding that better way is not so easy.

Finally, of course the thread will have more players to whom the changes do not appeal. If I was playing, and a change that I like was introduced, I would just keep playing, I would not have the need to go say how good it is. When something doesn't please me, I would argue against it, because I don't want it to happen.
 

DeletedUser3329

Perhaps there should have been a disclaimer, "we reserve the right to screw up the game at any time as well as the right to provide lame excuses as to why we did so"
If I wanted to be ripped off I would look up my ex-wife, the game is out of beta so stop screwing with the points!!!!!
 

ITown

Well-Known Member
Let us take another idea that has been mentioned more frequently --- defensive GBs provide +3% attack and defense per level, but offensive GBs keep their +5% attack and defense per level. This does not solve anything, because although the defender now has an added attack bonus, the defender's bonus is limited to +60% attack and defense while the attacker's bonus is limited to 150%, which is x2.5 more. That is still unfairly imbalanced in favor of the attacker, at least in my opinion. It is easy to say something sucks and there must be a better way, but actually finding that better way is not so easy.

Question: Do you think players should have the ability to beat all of their neighbors each day?

I have an account on en2 and it's no longer possible, even with all 3 attack GBs maxed. People are losing 1-4 units EVERY FIGHT. In the average case scenario (2 units lost, from my experience), players would lose 150 units per day. That means you would need to have roughly 40 military buildings running in order to sustain daily attacks on your neighbors now. Is this the goal?
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser4844

Question: Do you think players should have the ability to beat all of their neighbors each day?

I have an account on en2 and it's no longer possible, even with all 3 attack GBs maxed. People are losing 1-4 units EVERY FIGHT. In the average case scenario (2 units lost, from my experience), players would lose 150 units per day. That means you would need to have roughly 40 military buildings running in order to sustain daily attacks on your neighbors now. Is this the goal?

Maybe part of the goal is that nobody can afford to attack every single neighbor every single day (well, unless they spend large amounts of diamonds). That does not strike me as unreasonable. Maybe there is also a secondary goal that those who attack a lot might want to not use the auto-attack feature so they can end up attacking more people (that doesn't work if, with auto-attack, they can already attack everyone every day). That also strikes me as reasonable. Maybe, by having the more successful players (higher ranking on the PvP towers) be forced to attack manually they are trying to guarantee that those people actually have some modicum of skill at attacking as well. Also reasonable.

Of course, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm just going by the responses I'm seeing in these forums about what people claim about how easy it is to run through the neighborhood with maxed attack GBs. I have no personal experience of such as my attack GBs are not maxed yet. Not even very close. I'm sure others will correct me if I am wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

*Arturis*

Well-Known Member
Perhaps there should have been a disclaimer, "we reserve the right to screw up the game at any time as well as the right to provide lame excuses as to why we did so"
If I wanted to be ripped off I would look up my ex-wife, the game is out of beta so stop screwing with the points!!!!!
If you like your GB, you can keep it *period*
 

DeletedUser2145

Question: Do you think players should have the ability to beat all of their neighbors each day?

I cannot speak for the goal of the developers, I can only give my own opinion based on my experience and logic. My answer would be, no, a player should not be able to go through his neighbors each day.
 

DeletedUser3877

The revenge of the devs... (they hate us)

So from what i have been reading about this is, its pretty much a big slap in the face to your loyal and money paying players!!! This is a horrible idea , I know for a fact that if my GB that i have paid for and worked hard to level, all get knocked down to 3% per level outside of GvG , i will be quiting and taking as many people with as i can. Good way to show appreciation to youR customers THANKS GUYS!!!!
Preach it bro!

I am disappointed at this direction. I have made significant contributions to improve my offensive focused GBs and in an arbitrary decision all this effort is for naught. I will wait patiently, for a time, for the details to be made clear, but I will make no further purchases of diamonds until this is sorted out. Frankly this new rule causes my enthusiasm for the game wane.
Same here...
Their are a number of players who have not invested, donated to obtain GB, or invested time in protecting their city. Most players refuse to buy diamonds "Stating diamonds are for fools". On the other hand, their are players who have invested many hours and money to defend their city playing by the rules. Now you want to rebalance the GB for players who have not invested time or money.
However, I going to wait and see what happens, but with all the chatter it has taken away my enthusiasm about the game and its integrity. I hope most of the top players/Guilds do not participate in GVG.

I have read these threads and know many of those who have commented. Although, I understand the moderator has a tough job and is not responsible for these changes directly, I fail to see how the comments here can be characterized as "bitter". We are players and "supporters" of this game. We want those responsible for these decisions to know we are not happy. After almost 2 years of playing, all my hard work being slashed by almost half on my GB's is definitely going to make me upset. Even if there are future plans, this move is still a downgrade period. If the developers can make this radical changes to the game. What's next. Let's show some respect for the players.

I'll tell you what's next... They will make normal expansions 2x2 because it's "not fair" for the advanced players to have such big citys... They will compensate by making diamond expansions 6x6, but they are 3x more expensive... lol just joking! but I would not put it past the diamond hungry devs!

Good job devs, I put a great amount of time effort and unfortunately money into this game to reach the point I have only to have you people screw it all up.... I have put up with all the farts and crashes starting in the beta days with little complaint but this idiotic move takes the cake. A refund is certainly in order for those that have spent real money and do not choose to play a game controlled by dictators and tyrants!!!


I think these opinions sum up my thoughts good... I am not a new player. I have been playing FoE since 2012. I feel riped off!! I have tried to get my offensive GBs leveled up on beta so I can play in GvG & when I finally have enough power to play... THEY DOWNGRADE MY GBS!!! Now I need to wait a looooooong time again for them to be at a point where I can GvG...

This is my main server & I have 120% attack/def that will be reduced to 72%!!! Am I the only one who thinks this is a bit of a hard pill to swallow?? I have not had that wimpy amount for over half a year!! I have bought diamonds & used them to buy bps for some of these GBs... I am talking about REAL MONEY!!! I PAID REAL MONEY FOR SOME OF THE BPS!!! And now the guys I paid my REAL money to are going to take away some of the boosts of my GBS with hardly any compensation!!! Can I get a refund??!!! I HAD been thinking of buying more diamonds for expansions, but I don't think that would be a wise investment. If I am going to get ripped off I only want to have it done once!! I hope the devs will figure out that PEOPLE ARE NOT HAPPY!!!!!! :death: If I am not compensated in some way (like a new offensive GB or "offensive watchfires") My intrest in the game will quickly fade & I will take my [FONT=&amp]business & MONEY[/FONT] to another game. I hope this is the feeling of most the [FONT=&amp]original [/FONT]players... the ones who have been around for 2 years & live for battles... I mean seriously! You can only collect stuff so much... I will be sticking around for a little bit after the GB downgrade to see of inno can redeem itself, but without the offensive boost for PvP OR GvG all the fun of the game will be gone...

If the devs can't think right they should be FIRED!!! If this downgrade is here to stay I hope there is some way for mad players to sue!! Not me :) But someone who knows how!! If you guys think you can charge REAL MONEY for stuff & then devalue it you need to go back to school!!! I am NOT HAPPY!!!!!!!! IN CASE YOU COULD NOT TELL!! This will be my last post because there is not really anything that can stop this madness.. I am still hoping that somehow all this negative feedback will get through the thick skulls of the devs & they will fix it, but it's a small hope...

Sorry if I offended anyone, but I wanted to speak my mind.
Please don't ruin this game... I love it & don't want to quit, but if you take away my ability to GvG or PvP there is only farming left... And you can only enjoy that for so long...
 

DeletedUser3687

This is not an even result if the watchfires are not devalued. I have spent a lot of time and real $$ on building up my GB defenses and offenses. If the rules had been known from the beginning that these would be downgraded, but not watchfires, I would have bought a lot more watchfires for defense. If you look at the cost of a watchfire for 2% vs. a GB level for3% there is no comparison. This change affects strategic decisions made long ago, after beta, and are patently unfair.

If this change is initiated, so long.

*Edited: It is pointed out below that watchfires are 4%, and just for defense. That makes it even tougher. Why build the two defensive GB's and spend the goods, time ad FP's and the FPs of guild mates and friends for what you could have won in a quest? It s very difficult to beat a defensive boost of 250%-360% based on watchfires.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top