• 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

Algona

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

I'm seeing two types of GvGcentric folk posting.

Some are embracing change and making suggestions that will enhance the upcoming changes. They are confident in their abilities to adapt and succeed no matter the challenges. Inspiring. Your Guilds must be proud of you.

Some are terrified at the prospect of any change that isn't exactly what they want, railing against INNO and dismissing anyone who dares disagree with their desires. This strikes me as odd, they've managed to successfully play through changes over the years and yet when faced with new changes are predicting (again) the end of GvG, lashing out in desperation, and even threatening to quit. They won't. They'll prolly figure out how to still be top Guilds post changes. Or take their lumps for a while, then copy what the other Guilds figure out and be back on top again.

Or fold because their good GvG players join other Guilds. If I saw my Guild Leadership out here in the forums falling to pieces over changes in GvG, I'd be mighty tempted to start looking for a Guild with plans for the future, not desperately clinging to the past.

Think of it as evolution in action.
 

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
4 hours is plenty of time to place DAs for most GvG guilds

Is it though? Or does this favor only the top-most guilds? Some guilds actually use most if not all of that 24 hours to fill those defenses... especially if a guild takes multiple tiles in a fighting campaign.

it will make it harder to easily hold on to large numbers of sectors

It will actually make it easier for the top guilds to wipe off enemies that can't participate at all the different recalc times. But hey... activity is activity, right? I'm thinking there will be lots of ghost guilds created to manage things for top guilds and the small guilds will maybe get on the map for 4 hours... probably not last long enough to gain anything for the loss of resources and troops... and get discouraged because no one wants to have to police the GvG maps all day every day. But that's just one player's thoughts.

Do we really want GvG fixed

Well, one man's fix is another man's break. I see some of these suggestions as fixes... and others as simple changes that fix one thing by breaking another. I think we should be concerned with the latter.
 
Something not mentioned yet, but worthy of attention (I think) is guild points. We've been as high as #2 on our world for short periods and brought in 10k in guild power for all that effort. My city makes 21,660 in guild power daily. GvG to increase a guild's level doesn't work.
 

DeletedUser6497

The biggest problem GvG has you are not fixing....it's not the lag at reset. It's not the "candy" fighting. It's not the strategic use of SPEARS in AA.

The GvG software DOES NOT WORK. The GRAPHICS ERRORS have made fighting on the maps a guessing game at best.

Increasing the reset timers only makes INNO's life easier. A huge amount of effort is put into "Reset". Strategy before, fighting at, and celebrating or crying after. Do you think we're going to do that every 4 hours? This idea was thought of by someone who does not love GvG like I do.
 

floating spirit

New Member
Something not mentioned yet, but worthy of attention (I think) is guild points. We've been as high as #2 on our world for short periods and brought in 10k in guild power for all that effort. My city makes 21,660 in guild power daily. GvG to increase a guild's level doesn't work.
every sector has a power value of so many crowns which at recal are added to your guild so GVG does help your guild level -for the sectors your guild controls
 

DeletedUser16059

After having thought about it, I think something of a solution like what EvE oniline has for GvG would be a good solution here. I think the idea of 4 hour calcs is bad but if you were to add another way to spend goods to increase the amount of calcs the sector is protected for would be great. Make it like 4-20 hours so we dont have the problem of people being able to come on and do things at the same time all the time. It is also another good sink for goods. IMO people attacking would be able to see how long it is protected and go from there.
 

DeletedUser40780

One consideration also worth noting is the maturity of servers with respect to their ability to handle these changes. Worlds that are 6-7 years old have had time to accumulate goods, units, etc and will be more able to accommodate the resource demands needed for 6 resets per day. Newer worlds will have player development severely hindered if they don't agree to tons of NAPs and essentially not fight.

Changes that might be perfectly fine in some worlds might be completely unplayable in others. It's important to consider how these changes will affect all worlds, not just the most developed ones.
 

DeletedUser9681

This will stop the little guys from having candy stores, but the biggest will continue. They just put, let's say 4 sectors, 2 owned by one guild and two owned by their allies, next to each other. Now you fill yours with troops for me and I will fill the other with troops for you. This will have to be far from the lzs, so the sectors are safe. Now thanks to Inno, that candy store can be taken every 4 hours. No one ever has to drop a sector!!

Also, now the little guilds cannot do this, they will not hold land, inland where it is safe to do this, only the biggest and strongest will benefit. Once again, Inno is helping the biggest guild and hurting the smaller. Can you please come up with a solution that applies to all?? If I was able to come up with this work around to your "fix" in a couple of minutes, imagine what everyone will come up with in time. Please do not make a change that only helps the biggest and strongest, stay the biggest and strongest.
 

DeletedUser24058

Filling released AA sectors with random SAM troops effectively turns the AA map into the SAM map so the name should be changed. No reason to call it All Ages if it's going to be All SAM. Since AF, OF and VF don't have maps there will be no longer be any point in a GvG player being in those 3 ages. The tech trees are long though, so they will be stuck with no GvG option while in them. That's a very long time to have useless troops in the tray, but it's a great way to get some players to spend money on diamonds to advance quickly. Nicely done there Inno! Although it would have been better to just announce that the AA map would be changed to the SAM map and that AF, OF, and VF players are screwed for GvG.

As for abuse, there will still be many options for top players or guilds to take advantage of. So really, it's not fixing the abuse, it's just opening up new ways to do it. lol My favorite is to simply release the outer edge of your territory which will then be filled with SAM troops, and you will have PLENTY of time to kill off sieges before they come through. No need to farm units since Inno will be filling with the best of the best for free! 80 free SAM troops protecting and just 10 whatevers sieging? Delicious! And since only players with SAM troops will be able to fight, there will be far less guilds invading to worry about. No need to re-bubble anymore. Seems that this is counter-productive as a "fix". But thanks. No, really. Re-bubbling was so tedious, but now I can just release and Inno will do the rest for me.

As for the 5 recalcs and 1 global reset time? Genius! Big guilds won't have any problem keeping their territory watched and little guilds will easily get mapped, and stay mapped. If the purpose of this change is to make it impossible for small guilds to hold land then... bravo! Job well done! It'll make it easier to keep track of the maps since there won't be many guilds on them, so thanks for that too Inno. hehehe

Some will quit, some will spend diamonds to advance, but most will adjust and find the chinks in the chain to fight their way through. These changes will soon become normal, and then Inno can start working on the next "improvement" that will bring GvG closer to its' end...... Perfect!
 

DreadfulCadillac

Well-Known Member
I just find that the more champ farming and beach bubbling going on right at calc seems to make the maps more laggy. I see several guilds drop like 6 or 7 tiles to re-bubble at calc coupled with one of the largest guilds champ farming several tiles like starved salivating dogs being thrown red meat...you should see those swords fly. :rolleyes:
on jaims, we guilds bubble at least 100+ tiles every night at calc..
 

DeletedUser31502

Why does everybody just complain over every change here lest be honest gvg was dying fast how many people have quit the game due to gvg lag at calc i know we have lost many good players and friends.Something had to be done this is a step in the right direction like anything it just needs tweaking.GVG has become impossible at calc either too many servers maybe hacks cheats i dont know but when its taking 50 seconds per battle at calc something isnt right.This also makes gvg open to daytime players rather than just calc players 10 mins after calc all fighting is mainly done im sure this will encourage more to fight.Having played FOE for many years GVG changes have been badly needed to bring GVG back to life i think this is a huge step in the right direction.The cream will always rise to the top.Gonna be fun using and learning new strategies and not being tied down to calc everynight how many people cant play at calc this should be a feature everybody can use not just calc players
 

DeletedUser28124

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 :)
I agree with what you are saying about at least they are doing something vs. nothing, but nothing they have suggested for changes is going to fix GVG. It's a bad, poorly designed product that quite frankly, I just am not going to worry about ever again. If I can make someone cry over it draining them of goods, fine, that's the only fun things about GVG anyway.
 

DreadfulCadillac

Well-Known Member
and after reading this multiple times and the announcement multiple times, DC Inc. has confirmed that these changes were created to kil GvG
 

DeletedUser31502

I agree with what you are saying about at least they are doing something vs. nothing, but nothing they have suggested for changes is going to fix GVG. It's a bad, poorly designed product that quite frankly, I just am not going to worry about ever again. If I can make someone cry over it draining them of goods, fine, that's the only fun things about GVG anyway.

But at least it is something rather than scrapping GVG at least they are starting to look at it surely thats a step in the right direction
 

DeletedUser30312

Additional recalc times: I like the idea on the surface, but I agree with having 6 or 8 hour periods instead of 4. That would be 3 or 4 recalcs a day instead of 6 which should be sufficient to break up the recalc lag and keep things fluid and competitive. A 12 hour period would be just 2 a day, and I don't think that's enough.

Removal of BA units on AA: It's about time. Sorry, but guilds cranking out Spearfighters to siege maps is just so stupidly cheap, especially when BA was never a part of GvG to begin with. Let's get real, a high level guild can have its members plunk down a bunch of Spearfighter barracks and fill each of them up fast and cheap. Sure, they can just switch to Archers or some other IA unit, but those will take 90 minutes each to produce rather than the 15 seconds it takes for the Spearfighters, assuming at least a 25% recruitment bonus.

I like the idea of reducing point farming, since that lessens tower points earned in other types of fighting. I think Champions need to be worth fewer points than they are since they're not all that tough and the AI uses them suicidally. Or at least have a better AI or stats that are actually worthy of the term "Champion".

I like the suggestions some have make about random FE+ units on released AA sectors rather than just the highest age which would be SAM. Or at the very least, have NPCs use AF on the LZs, and have the defaults get tougher as a guild moves inward on the map. And possibly base the costs on the NPC units set on the map rather than medals, to address the whole guild goods issue.

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. :)

Well, you also need the space to build the barracks to fill up that Traz. I've done it and it's not necessarily a big deal, but I don't just play GvG, and I'd have to cut back on other types of production to squeeze in more barracks. Depends on the age though, I still have a nice big pile of CA units while in MA, so I like to take a look at that map, since I can still fight pretty effectively there. Sometimes Indy too. I don't go below LMA because my guild isn't a GvG guild, it's just basically 3 of us sniping on whatever maps we feel like, and the points on IA and EMA just aren't worth the space to me right now. Maybe with a bigger Traz.

And in addition to the last few comments that @Stephen Longshanks and @Algona have made, how many guild don't want to change because they're benefiting from exploiting the problems that plague GvG now?
 

DeletedUser

Is it though? Or does this favor only the top-most guilds? Some guilds actually use most if not all of that 24 hours to fill those defenses... especially if a guild takes multiple tiles in a fighting campaign.
A guild that can't fill DAs in 4 hours hasn't planned very well. And from all the talk from GvGers on the various threads, that's the main thing a lot of the leader types like...the planning. So plan to have enough troops to fill the DAs. With a few high level Traz that should be child's play for a guild with good leadership. Especially nowadays when you can get unattached troops by the dozen without even trying.
 

lemonwedgie

Well-Known Member
I'm seeing two types of GvGcentric folk posting.

Some are embracing change and making suggestions that will enhance the upcoming changes. They are confident in their abilities to adapt and succeed no matter the challenges. Inspiring. Your Guilds must be proud of you.

Some are terrified at the prospect of any change that isn't exactly what they want, railing against INNO and dismissing anyone who dares disagree with their desires. This strikes me as odd, they've managed to successfully play through changes over the years and yet when faced with new changes are predicting (again) the end of GvG, lashing out in desperation, and even threatening to quit. They won't. They'll prolly figure out how to still be top Guilds post changes. Or take their lumps for a while, then copy what the other Guilds figure out and be back on top again.

Or fold because their good GvG players join other Guilds. If I saw my Guild Leadership out here in the forums falling to pieces over changes in GvG, I'd be mighty tempted to start looking for a Guild with plans for the future, not desperately clinging to the past.

Think of it as evolution in action.

Great post. Thank you.
 

LB2021

New Member
I applaud all of the proposed changes, but do have some questions and comments, and would like to see some additional changes as well. So here goes:

1. I agree with many of the sentiments on here about point farming. If dropped sectors revert to all SAM troops, that makes point farming easier. I think random from any age does make sense and keeps the AA map more accessible to weaker guilds. Some of the point farming that occurs is in breaking sieges and not just sieging sectors, so this rule doesn't address that, either.

2. Why 6 resets per/day? I agree that more than 1 is definitely needed, but I think 3 to 5 would be better. Maybe have a reset every 5 or 7 hours? I would like to see it as something that is not divisible by 24 hours... so resets are not always at the same time everyday. If you do one reset every 5 hours... that comes out to just under 5 per/day, but also naturally changes the time that reset falls at from day to day (making it harder for certain guilds to take advantage of players that are online at specific times of the day). I've long said (and I think a few others here have also echo'd the same thought) that there really is no need to have reset at all (except for point collection, and things like resetting HQ moves and sector drops). Just have each sector have its own reset timer - 24 hours from when it's taken. Although I think reducing that to 8 or 12 hours like somebody else suggested would be even better, but reset timer per/sector might be better than multiple resets per/day. But multiple resets per/day would be better than what we have now.

3. Also, if we have 6 resets per/day, does this mean GvG will generate 6 times as many points per/day as it does now? I.E. will each reset produce the total points a sector is worth, or only 1/6 of them? I think GvG needs to generate more points, but 6x might be too much. If we adopted the reset per/sector option I talked about above, and maybe do 2 or 3 collections per/day (just for the points - so GvG generates 2x or 3x the points as it does now per/day) that might be the perfect solution.

4. However, I think we also need more Guild levels (and I haven't seen any talk about that) - most top guilds are at (or very close to L75). Will we also be seeing new Guild levels with this update? I sure hope so. And rather than just more of the same awards, why not introduce some new things? One thought I had was additional support for sectors available as awards for Guild levels beyond L75. Maybe in increments of 5%. So your HQ can go to 80% (instead of 75%) and your other sectors to 55% (instead of 50%) - still coming from the same support pool. And then it keeps going up from there to maybe double what it is now (150% for HQ and 100% for non-HQ, obviously some of the lower ages will be even lower). One of the major problems with GvG that was created naturally over time is the fact that most players have an extremely strong attack, but the GvG support bonuses are so low. Even GE is much higher than GvG - and this needs to be changed for GvG to really improve. And why not allow guilds to be able to fill in more than 8 DAs per/sector, too? Maybe 10 or 12 (at higher costs)... would make it more challenging - and more about strategy and resource allocation than just hack and whack.

5. I think the siege cost on the AA map needs to be addressed and probably the medal cost to unlock DAs there, too. It needs to go up to make it so one guild cannot hold 90 to 100 sectors at a time.

6. I think the removal of BA troops is awesome and I would not change this. It's irrelevant that it's called the AA map. As some have said, there is no BA map in GvG. The really issue is sticks can be produced in 20 seconds (less if you have a Traz) whereas troops of any other age take considerably longer to make. That is what makes them overpowered more than anything.

7. Lastly, I think ghosting is a problem that should be addressed. I applaud the 96 hour timer, it was a great change, but that doesn't solve all of the problems. One simple solution would be to only allow a Level 0 guild (i.e. a new one) to enter GvG on the Iron map. Until they move up to L3, for example, they don't gain access to the EMA map. L6 for HMA, and so on. A guild would need to reach L36 before they can enter the AA map. This would stop strong players from going out and creating a 1-man (or 2 or 3 player) ghost guild - with the purpose of entering the higher level maps (AA, FE, TE, etc.), where the points are highest, with the sole purpose of hurting other guilds. GvG should be about large guilds working together towards a common goal - not about people using gimmicks & tricks and taking advantage of the extremely low siege cost - just to wreck havoc and use GvG for personal beefs or grievances. You could then lower the 96 hour timer to 24 or 48 hours even... to allow people to visit friendly guilds and not sit on the sideline for so long. The rule needs to stay, but if level limits are placed on GvG maps - it eliminates the need to have it be so long.

Well, these are my thoughts, for what they are worth and I welcome anyone's feedback on them!
 

lemonwedgie

Well-Known Member
A guild that can't fill DAs in 4 hours hasn't planned very well. And from all the talk from GvGers on the various threads, that's the main thing a lot of the leader types like...the planning. So plan to have enough troops to fill the DAs. With a few high level Traz that should be child's play for a guild with good leadership. Especially nowadays when you can get unattached troops by the dozen without even trying.

Filling is going to be a hard task .... if you take 5+ sectors on one map that 320+ troops needed, no easy feat. But you are right, we will have to plan differently. This may not be the changes that GvGers wanted but this is what we got so I am ready to tackle it, and start fighting and planning in a different way.

When BG hits thats going to be the decider in my opinion. I think some guilds will have to decide between one or the other ... both will be a huge drain on the guild.
 

BruteForceAttack

Well-Known Member
Name aside why was AA map created? Because Inno decided that there will be no new map after FE.

Inno lets do that, make AA map only AF+, i.e only AF+ players can access it and only AF+ units (+rouges, cg and drummers)can be used. This may make folks who are camped in FE think about aging up. If someone wants to fight with their age units let them do it in that specific age map.

All other changes seems okay and folks will come up with new ways to handle it.

Good with 4hr change, this means guild level will slow down a tad on newly acquired sectors as holding a tile for 24 hours will be challenging. This will also solve drop cap tiles to block landing zone. However it may lead to more ghost guilds.

Not allowing BA troops good change, should have been that way from day one.
 
Top