• 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 1.79 Feedback

DeletedUser8561

I think it's funny watching some folks complain about not being able to attack the big guilds without free sieges. You really make me laugh when you start commenting about how unfair this is........If you don't give me free troops to siege with it is just so unfair. LoL.
Some folks should pick their fights more wisely.
Returning troop cost to sieges, as it originally was.......A+++++++
96 hour guild change timer....... Okay
Ability to reshield removed.....Don't much care for this one but understand it is the way INNO has chosen to put an end to most point sieges.
 

DeletedUser26406

I think it's funny watching some folks complain about not being able to attack the big guilds without free sieges. You really make me laugh when you start commenting about how unfair this is........If you don't give me free troops to siege with it is just so unfair. LoL.
Some folks should pick their fights more wisely.
Returning troop cost to sieges, as it originally was.......A+++++++
96 hour guild change timer....... Okay
Ability to reshield removed.....Don't much care for this one but understand it is the way INNO has chosen to put an end to most point sieges.
Its not the free sieges why i liked it. I liked it cause it was a great tool to teach GvG to new players. New players could learn alot and feel like they were contributing to battle as siege setters.
I think its funny how arrogant all you people are that were for the changes. You people are not my kinda people and make leaving this game that much easier. As of these changes i not playing the game much at all, im in the forum now more than im playing. Im glad you Richards got your way, Have fun=) My time and money is going elsewhere.
 

DeletedUser8902

Anyone can submit a proposal. If I see something in the game I think should (and could) change, I will make a proposal for it. You are welcome to do the same.
We proposed a simple pop up change(when you hover over a tile and see a terrible menu during a fight. Nothing, after 5 years. Since beta. Yet, what has been happening are changes to a game that was once really fun. there will always be people looking for a cheat. I no longer will buy diamonds until they return the release/retake. This affects guilds during a fight. We have been fighting valkery for years now. now we arew killing them, because they have nowhere to run. so you aren't helping guilds one of the best thorns i Spartan's arse is now withering because their perfect tactic or releasing and nailing for the next day is gone. so, you actually ARE helping us bigger guilds. AS for smaller guilds, Now in F world I can pound the larger guilds from the beach and they can only defend. once in deep, i can drop the tiles and create mayham between them the next day, so you made them more vulnerable. I agree with most people here. You catered to forum whiners. This is why I stopped coming here years ago. You fix what is not broken, and refuse to budge on what WE deem broken, A simple rquest, remove the menus from the battle field with a toggle, but NOOOOO you rather make it hard on smart players who used a change from the original GvG, in where NPC's made sure you didn't sit on your laurels.
 

DeletedUser8561

Its not the free sieges why i liked it. I liked it cause it was a great tool to teach GvG to new players. New players could learn alot and feel like they were contributing to battle as siege setters.
I think its funny how arrogant all you people are that were for the changes. You people are not my kinda people and make leaving this game that much easier. As of these changes i not playing the game much at all, im in the forum now more than im playing. Im glad you Richards got your way, Have fun=) My time and money is going elsewhere.

I know there are a million and one ways of looking at things and you know what everyone says about opinions. :)) But.....
If I was a leader in a Guild and wanted to teach the youngsters how to get things done in GvG.....I would troop down to an age that all the youngsters could compete in and they would be given the chance to learn GvG by doing GvG. They would learn the right way. By fighting, placing defenses and sieges. By winning some and losing some.
 

DeletedUser

Sorry, still love the changes, couple of loudmouth bully guilds getting theirs in D world because they cant rely on shields instead of fighting. Its hitting big guilds as well as small. The sky isnt falling, people will adapt and go on
 

lemonwedgie

Well-Known Member
Its not the free sieges why i liked it. I liked it cause it was a great tool to teach GvG to new players. New players could learn alot and feel like they were contributing to battle as siege setters.
I think its funny how arrogant all you people are that were for the changes. You people are not my kinda people and make leaving this game that much easier. As of these changes i not playing the game much at all, im in the forum now more than im playing. Im glad you Richards got your way, Have fun=) My time and money is going elsewhere.

Umm ... I was for the changes .... I thought it was a dumb move in the first place when they changed it to not needing actual troops for a siege army .... and no arrogance here. I rather think you're the arrogant one with all your 'I spend money, I'm not happy, change or I go'

jeez.
 

DeletedUser26406

Umm ... I was for the changes .... I thought it was a dumb move in the first place when they changed it to not needing actual troops for a siege army .... and no arrogance here. I rather think you're the arrogant one with all your 'I spend money, I'm not happy, change or I go'

jeez.
I mention it because i was happy to spend money on the product that the developers of FoE were giving us before the changes. Im not happy that i invested my time and money into that product that is now changed. I do not like the changes and will not spend my money on this new product. I want the Devs to know why im not spending money on their product anymore. All of you people that like the changes think us stating on this thread is stupid and you think were complainers but that is why this thread is here correct? for you to say you like the changes and for me to say they SUCK and are a terrible for GvG.
 

lemonwedgie

Well-Known Member
I mention it because i was happy to spend money on the product that the developers of FoE were giving us before the changes. Im not happy that i invested my time and money into that product that is now changed. I do not like the changes and will not spend my money on this new product. I want the Devs to know why im not spending money on their product anymore. All of you people that like the changes think us stating on this thread is stupid and you think were complainers but that is why this thread is here correct? for you to say you like the changes and for me to say they SUCK and are a terrible for GvG.

I didn't like the original changes and I have stated my dislike of them for 2 years politely without calling the "opposition" (i.e. you) names ....

Inno have made a lot of changes to GvG since it started. The DUMBEST changes they ever made was eliminating the need for actual troops in a siege army and eliminating NPC hits at recal ... GvG started out as something that required strategy, organisation and absolute team-work within a guild that included farming for goods, fighting, regular map checks etc etc .... with each change it spiralled into 15mins of flipping sectors and attacking only (as defense was rendered redundant due to no-siege army) at recal and 23hrs and 45mins of watching a bad colour of paint dry ....
 

DeletedUser26406

I didn't like the original changes and I have stated my dislike of them for 2 years politely without calling the "opposition" (i.e. you) names ....

Inno have made a lot of changes to GvG since it started. The DUMBEST changes they ever made was eliminating the need for actual troops in a siege army and eliminating NPC hits at recal ... GvG started out as something that required strategy, organisation and absolute team-work within a guild that included farming for goods, fighting, regular map checks etc etc .... with each change it spiralled into 15mins of flipping sectors and attacking only (as defense was rendered redundant due to no-siege army) at recal and 23hrs and 45mins of watching a bad colour of paint dry ....
I have such different experiances as you playing the same game. That was why FoE was so cool. I play multiple worlds and use different styles on worlds. I play traditional GvG on 1 of my worlds. Im a longtime member of the guild that has held the top spot on that world for the last 100 days. Only 3 guilds have been #1 in over 2 years on that world. Its so boring. The top 3 guilds on that world have NAPs so we never mix it up with them and basically we wait for new maps to open and rush onto them. We love it when sombody attacks us, We all rally to that map and crush whomever is trying to take a foothold. Sometimes it takes a week to crush them so we have some fun but after that we wait around for another month...It is so boring.
Im apart of 'Ghost style " guilds on 2 worlds. We dont care about holding sectors but recapping sectors was crucial to that game play style. The new changes have basically forced everyone into 1 game play style. In my opinion the most boring GvG style.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lemonwedgie

Well-Known Member
I have such different experiances as you playing the same game. That was why FoE was so cool. I play multiple worlds and use different styles on worlds. I play traditional GvG on 1 of my worlds. Im a longtime member of the guild that has held the top spot on that world for the last 100 days. Only 3 guilds have been #1 in over 2 years on that world. Its so boring. The top 3 guilds on that world have NAPs so we never mix it up with them and basically we wait for new maps to open and rush onto them. We love it when sombody attacks us, We all rally to that map and crush whomever is trying to take a foothold. Sometimes it takes a week to crush them so we have some fun but after that we wait around for another month...It is so boring.
Im apart of 'Ghost style " guilds on 2 worlds. We dont care about holding sectors but recapping sectors was crucial to that game play style. The new changes have basically forced everyone into 1 game play style. In my opinion the most boring GvG style.

Before the changes it was one playing style also - be here at 8pmEst or don't play GvG. Inno forced us to play on their time when a game should be about playing in your leisure time. 8pmEst (5pm west coast, 6pm central) is real life time for the majority. It became a game of the fastest clicker, not a game of strategy and organisation. I've been playing GvG since it launched ... and the guild I am in has been at war since that day lol and we have never been short of action, whatever the playing style.
 

DeletedUser23098

I submitted a proposal to keep GvG and PvP point separated but that was rejected, so I started GvG and point farmed to win PvP tournaments to get medals to obtain expansions. With the new GvG changes point farming is not worth it for me plus I have seen a big drop in the number sieges over all. I am out of GvG now except for doing the Guild Expedition. Thanks to FOE Soccer Cup I was able to get the last 3 medal expansions and now I don’t need to win PvP tournaments to get medals.

8 pages of pros and cons on the GvG changes and the one change that stands out is having to use 8 units to start a siege to stop point farming. Keeping GvG and PvP points separated would have been a better fix.
 

DeletedUser10076

well 2 some odd weeks and no proposal to change back...

Its good to see that common sense and reason pretty much won out...
 

Darkbox

Active Member
No proposals because many chose to leave the game and go inactive while lurking in the forum to see if the changes will be reverted... in 2 years.

Not enough energy to put out a proposition and start fighting against "sarcastic-know-it-all super-fighters and managers-emperors of super-powerful-forever-great guilds" that support these changes :D:D:p:p
 

Raslo81

New Member
Ah here's a trophy for you lemon ;)

trophy-for-bowling.jpg
Wow, eighth place. If you can't be first, strive to be the worst. Way to go!
 

qaccy

Well-Known Member
No proposals because many chose to leave the game and go inactive while lurking in the forum to see if the changes will be reverted... in 2 years.

Not enough energy to put out a proposition and start fighting against "sarcastic-know-it-all super-fighters and managers-emperors of super-powerful-forever-great guilds" that support these changes :D:D:p:p

Someone sounds bitter. GvG is closer to being balanced the way it's supposed to be with the changes. I can't really come up with a good analogy due to a lack of knowledge on the subject, but I'm pretty sure similar things happen IRL all the time. Big guy beats little guy.
 

DeletedUser8152

S I can't really come up with a good analogy due to a lack of knowledge on the subject, but I'm pretty sure similar things happen IRL all the time. Big guy beats little guy.
Goliath gets a sling too? ;)
 

Raslo81

New Member
I don't like the 96 hour rule. I think it is excessive and won't fix anything. It eliminates, or puts a serious restriction on the mercenary, who can be very important the the smaller guilds or ones that don't have active active fighters. Armies have been purchased for battle by many kingdoms over the ages. It has been a part of history and should be a part of this game.
 
Top