• 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 vs Guild Improvements Feedback

  • Thread starter DeletedUser4770
  • Start date

DeletedUser7398

a matter of scaling up the siege costs
. Increase the cost per siege by a factor of 4
Yes scale up, but you cannot simply multiply by a factor of 4 ..in fact a guild with 20-30s sector should pay about the same as they do now, but the first sieges(sectors) 1-10 are way under priced, when gvg began the treasury was as well & giving goods to the guild was a brand new idea, there were so many less opportunities for getting goods throughout the game & no arcs. The scale does need to be revamped but simply multiplying by 4 would kill the real guilds trying to fight to hold land and turn gvg into candyland because on top of 6 recalcs a day and increase in cost of that magnitude would bankrupt them all..and soon Battlegrounds will also cost goods
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser14157

What a fantastic idea, go ahead Inno and make the changes I will be looking forward to them all.
 

-Athena-

Active Member
Not particularly. Just means you need to be willing to work the lower era maps. I was trained on the LMA and Indy maps. I've trained many on the Iron Age map. All because at the time we were doing the training, the highest era player we had in guild was PME, and they were not a GvGer. So training can be done elsewhere. Plus, since those in higher eras can work in lower eras, no reason why you can't get the teamwork going by working lower era maps. AA might be where the best points are, but likewise since it's so cheap to siege with medals thanks to Arc, we don't need it to also be super easy because people can just generate spears like they're going out of style. Iron Age won't add that much more complexity to it, but it will force a bit more planning-ahead.

I've never understood why people stop playing lower maps just because they age up. You will often see a bunch of us throw down 10 + low age barracks just to fight/focus lower age. Kind of a guideline for us is to have 100 unattached units per era in our troop storage. I'm in Space Age and I'd rather go play in Modern or Iron a lot of the time harassing our enemies. Fights are fights. :)
 

-Athena-

Active Member
One final word on your so called "fix" for point farming and this ridiculous proposal.
Let me tell you exactly what the big guilds in AA that are currently doing this will do.
They will simply have a few member from one of their sister guilds or "ghost" guilds mosey their way to the very back coast of their protected lands and set up shop as a champ farmers. They will technically be a totally separate guild, but serve the exact same purpose. One guild will load with champs and simply let he other guild take the tile and vice versa and go back and forth. This is a completely simple work around to your so called fix and will be happening within a week of your so called "fix" . AGAIN for the LAST and FINAL time! You have to make the cost to point farm these tile unfeasible for them. If their actions in point farming risk bankrupting the guild of medals and losing all their land ... they will not be doing it. SIMPLE . KEEP IT SIMPLE.

Unfortunately I have seen this guilds sieging each other for champs points happening more and more. And I totally agree this would be their way around the random troops idea. You have to NERF champ points. Plain and Simple.
As far as medals costs you and I both know there are players out there with more medals than they will ever use and a bunch of those people are in the same guild. They will never go bankrupt.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
I've never understood why people stop playing lower maps just because they age up. You will often see a bunch of us throw down 10 + low age barracks just to fight/focus lower age. Kind of a guideline for us is to have 100 unattached units per era in our troop storage. I'm in Space Age and I'd rather go play in Modern or Iron a lot of the time harassing our enemies. Fights are fights. :)
If you want just fights, then totally agree! If you want crowns and points then higher the age the better
 

DeletedUser25199

it's great adjusting the recalculation timer, that was a big issue for a lot of players.
though replacing the units in the freed sectors with random higher age units is really a bad idea.
also restricting spears is a totally bad idea, coz guilds use spears for the farming guys who only attack to farm points so we use spears so to eliminate their attacks with giving them no points. plz reconsider.
 

DeletedUser22236

Thank you for trying something to try and fix this mess. We'll not all agree they are correct but I bet most will agree it's currently broken. A couple of minor changes that should have been done, the flag for age of troops to select from needs to have same attributes as the attached, unattached, all? flag it matters in AA only of course. The field to donate medals to guild treasury is a joke (99999) we have guild members with over a 100 million medals donations to the treasury is a pain. That need to be expanded to 9999999. Maybe a minute of programing time.
There needs to be a cost to owning land, years ago the armies in the sectors were weakened over time requiring guilds to replace armies, I'm sure they bitched about that so you all deleted the feature, something like that needs to be brought back. We own a lot of land, much of it in "safe" areas so there is little or no cost to keeping it.
This mining for points needs to be stopped. Just change the rule if you release a beach sector it can not be retaken for 48 hrs, non beach longer like a week or so, that'll be the end of that crap.
 

DeletedUser28124

How about this ... Make ALL AGES map zero points for combat across the board.
Unfortunately I have seen this guilds sieging each other for champs points happening more and more. And I totally agree this would be their way around the random troops idea. You have to NERF champ points. Plain and Simple.
As far as medals costs you and I both know there are players out there with more medals than they will ever use and a bunch of those people are in the same guild. They will never go bankrupt.
Yes they will if the cost is higher, it's simple math. If the cost of placing one siege after holding 40 tiles on the AA were 5 million medals, I don't care how big your guild is you are going to go broke trying to shield your LZ's every night and releasing tiles to point farm for multiple players every day. No question about it, your statement doesn't even make sense, the reason they HAVE so many medals is because they have nothing to spend them on. Raising the cost actually accomplishes a great deal. A. It will make the guilds that are abusing this flaw in siege costing think twice about their practices and it will also in turn prevent all these smaller guilds from placinng 100 sieges a day on LZ's in the name of "training" people. It makes complete, sense and IS the fix. Nerfing Champ points is totally pointless, sure you can do that, but all they have to do is place a different MARS troop, The tiles need to revert to low era troops when released. Period.
 

DeletedUser18332

As always, we'd love to hear your feedback, so please leave any comments or concerns in this thread. We're hoping with your help, we can shape these improvements to achieve an overall better experience for all who participate in GvG.

Many thanks,

Your Forge of Empires Team

Announcement: https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/guild-vs-guild-improvements.26594/

The change to unit placement by no means cuts back point farming on any map. For that matter it actually benefits the higher level player and guilds by replacing junk (especially Rogues) with better point units on all maps with the biggest point gain available on the AA map. Check your logs I doubt you find a preponderance of sectors on the AA Map (if any) fully loaded with Martian Era units. If the intent is to slow down or eliminate point farming change the ability to re-siege a released sector. When a sector is released by a Guild make it impossible for the Guild to re-siege it until another Guild captures it. Problem solved.

As far as the AA map goes just change it from All Ages Map to Arctic Future and Beyond Map. It will become impossible for lower Era Players to participate there anyway and will also stop the loading of sectors with junk then retaking them with maximum point rewards for the Guild doing so. Then when it is repopulated with units mix AF, VF and Martian units keeping each of the Armies placed Era specific ( ie. if 3 slots were open and are being replaced 1 complete Marian Army, 1 Complete Virtual Future Army and 1 complete Arctic Future would be placed in the NPC). In this manner player from AF up will at least have an opportunity to participate.
 

DeletedUser24719

Replacing released sectors with the highest level troops on the AA map will effectively eliminate many players and in some cases guilds from participating on the AA map. This was one of the few ways guilds could expect to gather crowns to advance in rankings. Its just a bad idea and in effect will reduce participation in GvG in my opinion. Not the stated intention. Rethink this one!!!
 

DeletedUser

After reading all the comments about point farming, I think a little tweak to the proposed fix would make it much more effective. For the age-related maps, Iron through Future, I think the proposed fix would be fine. For the All Ages map, however, I think filling released sectors with a random assortment of troops from random ages would work much better. It would reduce the points, which is the main reason for the change, but it wouldn't shut out everyone below Space Age Mars from participating. Besides, how weird (and by that I mean awesome) would it be to face an army that could potentially have Archers alongside Howitzers alongside Hover Tanks alongside Space Marines?
 

saknika

Active Member
After reading all the comments about point farming, I think a little tweak to the proposed fix would make it much more effective. For the age-related maps, Iron through Future, I think the proposed fix would be fine. For the All Ages map, however, I think filling released sectors with a random assortment of troops from random ages would work much better. It would reduce the points, which is the main reason for the change, but it wouldn't shut out everyone below Space Age Mars from participating. Besides, how weird (and by that I mean awesome) would it be to face an army that could potentially have Archers alongside Howitzers alongside Hover Tanks alongside Space Marines?
Honestly? Not good if you've managed to make your way inland, and another guild cuts off your escape route. So suddenly, those SAM troops might mean you cannot get out, and cannot get off the map. So effectively, you're 100% stuck. Blocking someone in by constantly shielding around their sectors is a thing, but at least there you have a chance to break out if you're fast enough. Being blocked in because your troops can't go up against SAM troops on the other hand... Because ultimately, you can release all tiles except where your HQ sits. So unless someone pops you off the map... there you sit. And if your HQ gets trapped inland, no one can just pop you off easily.

It also doesn't fix the fact that I could go in and just use Iron Age troops to now get SAM troops. Or drummers, color guards, and rogues to get of-era troops in any era. :)
 

DeletedUser

Honestly? Not good if you've managed to make your way inland, and another guild cuts off your escape route. So suddenly, those SAM troops might mean you cannot get out, and cannot get off the map. So effectively, you're 100% stuck. Blocking someone in by constantly shielding around their sectors is a thing, but at least there you have a chance to break out if you're fast enough. Being blocked in because your troops can't go up against SAM troops on the other hand... Because ultimately, you can release all tiles except where your HQ sits. So unless someone pops you off the map... there you sit. And if your HQ gets trapped inland, no one can just pop you off easily.
With the proposed fix, you would definitely be up against SAM troops, but with my tweak the odds are you would never go up against an NPC with all SAM troops. Read my post again. I proposed changing the AA map to random troops from random ages when replacing DAs in released sectors. Maybe they would mostly be higher eras, but maybe they'd be mostly lower eras...or a mix of high/low eras.
It also doesn't fix the fact that I could go in and just use Iron Age troops to now get SAM troops. Or drummers, color guards, and rogues to get of-era troops in any era.
And how would you accomplish that? You don't get the troops you defeat. These random troops would only be placed in NPC sectors that have been released by a guild. You don't get them, you would have to fight them. And once you defeat them, they're gone. They're not somehow added to your army.
 

DeletedUser37440

Regarding the Removal of Bronze Age Units - I actually think you need to go FURTHER. Just change the name from ALL ages to ADVANCED ages and only allow AF+ units, (isn't that really what the map was intended for). Take away spearmen and they will just substitute archers.
 

DeletedUser35719

With recalc every 4 hours it gives an advantage to big guilds with lots of goods they could wipe out a smaller guild in a day even without moving the HQ I dont like it. Plus I always thought guild founders should be able to release as many sectors as they want
 

lemonwedgie

Well-Known Member
The only people looking forward to these changes are the point farmers! Too funny!

Not true. I have led a GvG guild since its launch, we fight hard, we fight daily, we fight multiple maps every reset. The last couple of years has been beyond frustrating due to Inno refusing to address the issues. As I said before, I could tear these changes apart but I am actually happy that Inno are finally looking at GvG rather than killing it off which has been the general thought of its future amongst GvGers, especially when BG was announced. So, I am prepared to see these changes put in place and then hope that they are tweaked where necessary ... interestingly, they ditched the two shield drops after a month so I raised an eyebrow when I read they are re-introducing it at a larger scale ... but we shall see :)
 

DeletedUser

In regards to recalc and sector protection: I believe the original intention of protecting a newly taken sector until the next recalc was to give the conquering guild a chance to place DAs. Especially in the early days this would have been necessary, as there was not the proliferation of high level Traz that there is now. I don't believe it was ever intended that recalc time would morph into the main (and almost sole) battle time. So this change would actually return recalc to its original purpose, because 4 hours is plenty of time to place DAs for most GvG guilds. And it should have the added benefit of returning GvG to more of a fluid and fun feature for more players/guilds. Yes, it will make it harder to easily hold on to large numbers of sectors, but there will not be the World War I feel to it anymore. Static lines of entrenched armies fighting daily over scraps of land, never really making any discernible difference. Now guilds will really have to have full participation if they want to hold those large chunks of map. And many more guilds will have the opportunity to participate and actually feel like they're not going to be squashed like a bug. I would think that this would be good for GvG and that long time GvGers would be open to a change that might increase the number of participants. More participants means more attention from Inno, don't you think? Quit clinging to the playing model that has led to both the performance issues and the relatively small number of players participating. So you'll have to find new strategies. Don't you like a challenge? Or do you just want to hold on to your old strategies and keep GvG to yourselves? Because that path is the path to GvG death.

So you have to ask yourselves: "Do we really want GvG fixed, or are we willing to let it go down the drain because we are too entrenched in our current mode to allow any real change?"
 
Top