• 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

Changelog 1.167 feedback

  • Thread starter DeletedUser25252
  • Start date

DeletedUser25252

Thank you for playing Forge of Empires!

If you wish to leave any feedback about this version, please leave your comments here! :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
The Guild Battlegrounds' attrition behavior has been re-balanced to improve the overall experience.
This. I have been monitoring the changes on Beta and think, despite the complaints, this is a net improvement. Despite having the A/D boost to fight through all of GE and the goods to negotiate all of GE as well, I've been exclusively negotiating in GBG.

With negotiating worth 2 advancements and attrition affecting negotiations so slowly compared to fighting, fighting, even at the beginning, just didn't make sense. This re-balance now seems to favor fighting in the early stages, then negotiating to go further. Despite having one member of our guild with the Attach boost to fight indefinitely, and the advantage that gives us as a guild, I agree that attrition should force everyone to eventually tap out.

We'll see how it works in reality, but thanks for having the boldness to change this so quickly after introduction.
 

DeletedUser41583

This. I have been monitoring the changes on Beta and think, despite the complaints, this is a net improvement. Despite having the A/D boost to fight through all of GE and the goods to negotiate all of GE as well, I've been exclusively negotiating in GBG.
...
We'll see how it works in reality, but thanks for having the boldness to change this so quickly after introduction.
I agree it's a bold change in the right direction. GBG favors farmer too much, and I was one of the few who mentioned it. However, consider how many think GBG is perfect balance-wise, we can expect a new round of whining from the fanboys this time lol. I don't know how often it happens, but it's certainly refreshing to me to see Inno not giving way to fanboiz~
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
I agree it's a bold change in the right direction. GBG favors farmer too much, and I was one of the few who mentioned it. However, consider how many think GBG is perfect balance-wise, we can expect a new round of whining from the fanboys this time lol. I don't know how often it happens, but it's certainly refreshing to me to see Inno not giving way to fanboiz~
Agreed. As I said, I've been monitoring this change on Beta and the complaints we hear are all the same old, same old. I also agree it will be fun to watch the newest round of whining.
 

Kranyar the Mysterious

Well-Known Member
I too think that the balance is probably needed, but I don't think it was done properly for the first few levels of attrition.

GBG is now going to be even less newer player friendly with attrition rising quicker early on, where I felt the first couple of attrition levels should have risen slower to let players get a few more battles or negotiations in during this period, then rise up.

I see the rebalance making it even harder for guilds to get players that haven't been participating to do so.

I final thing I'm worried about is whether this rebalance is going to drive a lot of long time high level players out of the game as they see the effort that they have put into increasing their combat over the past few months in anticipation of GBG get flushed down the drain. I think having something for them to shoot for has helped the game, I know that I have been able to donate to a lot of high level buildings that they have been working. Now with this update I think it will take away the incentive to level combat buildings way up, because there really isn't much to gain past a certain point. I'm just not sure how this is going to play out.
 

DeletedUser37581

GBG is now going to be even less newer player friendly with attrition rising quicker early on, where I felt the first couple of attrition levels should have risen slower to let players get a few more battles or negotiations in during this period, then rise up.
As a player with an underdeveloped city on beta, I can say that this change balances out negotiation/fighting at the low end. Previously, I automatically did negotiations even though I have few goods because I was getting 2 advances each. Now it is almost a toss-up as to whether to fight or negotiate at the low end because fighting got easier while negotiating got more expensive.
 

Kranyar the Mysterious

Well-Known Member
As a player with an underdeveloped city on beta, I can say that this change balances out negotiation/fighting at the low end. Previously, I automatically did negotiations even though I have few goods because I was getting 2 advances each. Now it is almost a toss-up as to whether to fight or negotiate at the low end because fighting got easier while negotiating got more expensive.
Ya, the balance part of battles vs negotiation is fine. What I'd like to see is for it to be possible to do more battles and negotiations at 0 to 2 attrition to entice newer/weaker players in the guild into playing more. In my guilds the participation is very stratosphered, with less lower ability players participating than in GE. When asked, I overwhelmingly hear it is because GBG is too hard and over way too quick. Everyone would benefit by getting to do a few more encounters overall which would even out across the board, but at the low end players wouldn't feel like they are out of the ability to participate within just a couple of encounters. Likewise, while I like the idea of infinitely increasing attrition at the top end, I feel it increases way too quickly making upgrading your city not feel like a good ROI for those in the end game stage. There is no reason that this feature can't cater to both types of players.

Maybe rewards should be tied to your attrition level some way?

Maybe this game just needs a flat out single player king of the hill slugfest feature added for fighting. Maybe similar to GBG, but with no or very slowly increasing attrition, and more players and sectors per map.
 

DeletedUser30312

Hmm, if the attrition changes make it harder at the beginning, particularly for newer players, I have to agree that's not really a good thing. It's like I've been saying over in the GBG thread, one of the problems with GvG is that it isn't friendly to newbies. If it's too hard for the new players to make any sort of meaningful contribution to the game, then we run the risk of them not bothering with the feature. It's not good if GBG ends up getting like GvG where only a tiny number of die hards bother with it.

As for the AD, are those buildings right? I know I've seen the Carousel in there, and I'm pretty sure I've seen the Tholos. Trees of Love? Lol.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Ya, the balance part of battles vs negotiation is fine. What I'd like to see is for it to be possible to do more battles and negotiations at 0 to 2 attrition to entice newer/weaker players in the guild into playing more. In my guilds the participation is very stratosphered, with less lower ability players participating than in GE. When asked, I overwhelmingly hear it is because GBG is too hard and over way too quick. Everyone would benefit by getting to do a few more encounters overall which would even out across the board, but at the low end players wouldn't feel like they are out of the ability to participate within just a couple of encounters. Likewise, while I like the idea of infinitely increasing attrition at the top end, I feel it increases way too quickly making upgrading your city not feel like a good ROI for those in the end game stage. There is no reason that this feature can't cater to both types of players.
My question is what is their performance in GE? Are they hitting 8+ encounters a day? If not, is it reasonable to expect that they'll hit 10+ attrition per day? To many marginal players, GE is a stretch. No way these folks are going to put in the effort to either build their cities for GBG, or spend their resources in GBG.

Seems to me that making it easier on the low end for marginal players to participate really means an easier time for those already participating with very little change from those not participating now.

Most guilds have membership requirements around GE, do you have any around GBG yet? If not, why not? Just as guilds had to make decisions about GE achievement then create requirements around it, the same will be true with GBG. Just as some guilds still have no requirements in GE and have the results to show it, some guilds will have no requirements in GBG to show for it too.
Maybe rewards should be tied to your attrition level some way?
They are. The higher attrition you achieve each day, the more rewards you get. The real issue alluded to with this comment is being an over performing member of an under performing guild, being stuck in a lower league with commensurate rewards as a result. I feel you, but that's an issue of guild members not an issue of GBG.
Maybe this game just needs a flat out single player king of the hill slug fest feature added for fighting. Maybe similar to GBG, but with no or very slowly increasing attrition, and more players and sectors per map.
Other than to eliminate complaints from those who can't deal with limits, what's the point?
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Hmm, if the attrition changes make it harder at the beginning, particularly for newer players, I have to agree that's not really a good thing. It's like I've been saying over in the GBG thread, one of the problems with GvG is that it isn't friendly to newbies. If it's too hard for the new players to make any sort of meaningful contribution to the game, then we run the risk of them not bothering with the feature. It's not good if GBG ends up getting like GvG where only a tiny number of die hards bother with it.

As for the AD, are those buildings right? I know I've seen the Carousel in there, and I'm pretty sure I've seen the Tholos. Trees of Love? Lol.
But that's not what's happening. It slows attrition for earlier fights and accelerates attrition for early negotiations. At attrition 35, old and new negotiations are the same, at level 90 old and new fights are about the same. The adjustment is to make fighting as favorable as negotiations in the early stages of attrition.

As far as the AD, some of the items are moving from the shelf only to the shelf and auctions.
 

DeletedUser30312

But that's not what's happening. It slows attrition for earlier fights and accelerates attrition for early negotiations. At attrition 35, old and new negotiations are the same, at level 90 old and new fights are about the same. The adjustment is to make fighting as favorable as negotiations in the early stages of attrition.

As far as the AD, some of the items are moving from the shelf only to the shelf and auctions.


Ah okay, I didn't see any details as to exactly what was being changed, and I was responding to what people were saying. I have no problem with slower attrition for early fights, since I've been saying that would be better, and keeping things as they are around 35 should be fine.
 

DeletedUser31308

Where can I find the actual change to the attrition behavior? Hard to comment when there's no detail provided.
 

DeletedUser37581

Where can I find the actual change to the attrition behavior? Hard to comment when there's no detail provided.
Details are still being tracked down. But here is a table posted by andreab on the beta forum:
BeforeAfter
AttritionMilitaryNegotiationMilitaryNegotiation
510%112%2
930%227%3
1570%361%4
23200%4126%5
30340%6203%6
34420%7255%7
42580%8378%8
49720%10507%9
901540%181740%20
1001750%202275%22
1061750%202569%23
1131750%203056%24
 

Kranyar the Mysterious

Well-Known Member
And as you can see, In the first 5 attrition the battles and negotiations are all tougher. This is the point I was trying to get at. It is the beginning/low level player who is getting hurt and it makes it hard to rally the guild to do GBG. The people I'm noticing not participating in GBG include the group who usually finishes GE1 or close to it, but not much further. This will just make it worse.

I haven't set GBG requirements in my guild yet, because I wanted to see how things go first. We are a top 75 guild, so pretty typical of many of the guilds out there I would think. Active, but not super focused either. We almost always come in 1st to 3rd in GE, it's very rare we don't medal. I'm not sure what the outcome will be yet if I were to strictly enforce a GBG requirement, because the way it stands now, with any realistic requirement I would have to kick half the guild.

At the other end of the spectrum, look at how fast the attk/def % increases between 100 and 113 attrition. That is why I think the current rebalance is way to harsh.
 

Kranyar the Mysterious

Well-Known Member
So it's just attrition 4 and 5 that are tougher then? That's not as bad as it looked seeing the less granular numbers. I still wish it would go 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 or some variation of that to allow a few more early fights. I just want to get people more interested in doing a few on a regular basis. I know a lot would be out by 10% attk/def or earlier, which right now is only 5 fights max.
 
Top