• 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

Dear Virtual Future Players

DeletedUser26120

How is the era? Are you enjoying it? Do you find that your goods are in high demand from fps buyers?

Any other positives about it? GBs make FE goods right? How's that?

How is trading around/trading down?

Any thoughts? Much appreciated, thank you. :)
 

*Arturis*

Well-Known Member
Bored again, at the end of the technology tree.
Oh, just wondering how many years and parts VF will be, any guess? Probably good till 2020.
 
Last edited:

Agent327

Well-Known Member
Again it sucks that the era comes in parts. It's like playing an incomplete game. Units are apart from the Ronin totally useless. The ninja, hides but does not strike back. The samurai has Contact, but a reach of 1, so doesn't do a thing, which means most of the fighting is still done with Hovers.

GB's making FE goods is nice, cause it opens the possibillity to start selling Arc packages again.

Positive is the new GB, the Terracotta Army. Problem is that everyone wants one. Good packages for it go for 1200 fp.

At the start there wasn't much trading, but it picks up now. Trading down isn't done. Trading up you can forget cause of the value of TA packages.

Any thoughts? Yes, stop bringing out the era's in parts. It sucks.
 

DeletedUser10720

I'm enjoying this one so far. While it's only the first of what will no doubt be many more chapters, as the introduction chapter, it's not bad.

The TA has helped battling quite a bit. I haven't been trading goods for it or chasing high levels, so I can't comment on the demands for FP goods trading.

The ronins are the only really useful unit for the player so far. Though I will say the ninjas have made using CRAB mechs somewhat viable. As they can see through the stealth and have a good chance at being in range for the first shot.

After earning a handful of contestants estate from soccer, TA and now a pirate ship, my battling GE has gotten significantly more efficient. So I am definitely liking the trend of including battle boosts as an effect of special buildings more often.

I thought fighting the map was interesting, seeing units from so far back with such high boosts seemed like an odd decision, but it actually made the playing through battles more interesting as I was up against units and boost combinations i had not seen before.

I am curious if there will be a new harbor goods production in play. As chapter 1 for AF/OF both gave us the *under construction* versions and VF doesn't seem to have one yet. If it will be under construction for chapter 2 and opened in 3, or just put aside as a mechanic. I would like to see one, as much as I think that system needs some refining, I think it worked for what it was meant to do.

FE goods from GBs is pretty great. But also nothing 'new' as it was the next expected shift in the course of goods producers. And still doesn't change the minimal useability of AF-VF goods in guild treasury from those donating GBs.

Something often suggested in proposals is a shift in the donating GBs at AF. Rather than suggest the common idea of age selection for the donation. I would like to float the idea of shifting to crowns production. (I'll be putting that idea into a formal proposal soon, once I crunch some numbers and figure out what payouts I believe would be fair.) Crowns, also being a collection option I think has been overlooked as a possible for many of the newer GBs in favor of just more coin / supply / goods / medals. Feel free to keep using FP as a collection option though. I'm fine with that.

I do want fewer chapters in the ages, and I doubt that's a thing that is slowing down any time soon. So I want the chapters to have value. VF1 added some new stuff that didn't disappoint me. So long as the chapters ahead bring in new, useable and valuable things. I won't be too bothered by them.

My biggest complaint isn't directly about the age itself, but about the timing of the release of the age and the summer event. That issue being, why would you give me a ship, days after allowing me to LEAVE the oceanic future? It would make all the sense to have the ship in OF. It would fit so perfectly and be awesome... But no. We can't have nice things like that. We get the ship. Which is admittedly awesome. I got 3. But now, they just float around my virtual world and that is just... so mean.

All in all. I give it 6.5/10 so far. Id have made it a round 7. But an age can't be completely judged by the chapter 1. And I'm docking a half point for the virtual ship debacle.
 

DeletedUser3882

Agree with all of the above, however, as has been stated on the various servers’ feedback threads, recurring quests are much harder to accomplish. It’s not that the CF was nerfed, but the requirements are much higher, and the rewards are much lower.

With that said, compared to other ages, Goods are relatively hard to come by. Trading for VF goods (and TA packages) are slim to none because the value for those goods are extremely high.
 

DeletedUser26120

Very interesting information, thank you all. :) If anyone has more insights I'm sure there are many players who would like to hear them.
 

DeletedUser26965

Other than for GE, the rest is rusting, need to figure out some way to use them
http://prntscr.com/kkjq2u
So you're in a guild with players in VF with high level Arc's, not sure why something must be done with the tons of goods those high level Arc produce or what it has to do with VF as it's been that way since AF. Let's say you're in a guild that has a bunch of IA campers with high level Arcs and currently at 500,000 each IA good in the treasury, clearly more than they'll ever use in IA GvG, so should they make something else that uses those goods?

I'm genuinely curious about this aspect because I've yet to come across a reasonable explanation for why when someone looks at what is essentially the GvG treasury something must be done to suck those goods away. It's the players choice to level their Arcs in the first place which created the goods, why should Inno do anything with them? The same could be said for population or coins or attack bonus, if a player has more than they ever need of any of those things should there be something added to the game that uses them?

It seems to me this issue really only comes down to only a rather small percentage of players, those who have an excess of everything beyond the current game progression. Perhaps a GE5 that doesn't use treasury goods to unlock but each players own goods and costs 10,000,000 coins and supplies to unlock each encounter, where the a/d bonus is 1000% will do lol.
 

DeletedUser29726

So you're in a guild with players in VF with high level Arc's, not sure why something must be done with the tons of goods those high level Arc produce or what it has to do with VF as it's been that way since AF. Let's say you're in a guild that has a bunch of IA campers with high level Arcs and currently at 500,000 each IA good in the treasury, clearly more than they'll ever use in IA GvG, so should they make something else that uses those goods?

I'm genuinely curious about this aspect because I've yet to come across a reasonable explanation for why when someone looks at what is essentially the GvG treasury something must be done to suck those goods away. It's the players choice to level their Arcs in the first place which created the goods, why should Inno do anything with them? The same could be said for population or coins or attack bonus, if a player has more than they ever need of any of those things should there be something added to the game that uses them?

It seems to me this issue really only comes down to only a rather small percentage of players, those who have an excess of everything beyond the current game progression. Perhaps a GE5 that doesn't use treasury goods to unlock but each players own goods and costs 10,000,000 coins and supplies to unlock each encounter, where the a/d bonus is 1000% will do lol.

The biggest issue is it creates a wall for some people at the FE/AF break where they have a choice. Don't age up and contribute thousands of useful goods to treasury every day. Or age up and contribute thousands of useless goods to treasury every day. That the goods remain useless in OF and VF is mostly incidental because they're no more useless than AF goods in treasury. Some people with this reasoning like the move to OF because it removes their cost of FE goods from treasury weekly for GE. It is why I have no intention of going beyond FE in Yorkton - even though i hate FE I'll probably move there eventually, but not leave it unless I relegate the world to a diamond mine. It is a design problem of the game that that barrier exists - I don't have a good solution for it.
 

DeletedUser26965

The biggest issue is it creates a wall for some people at the FE/AF break where they have a choice. Don't age up and contribute thousands of useful goods to treasury every day. Or age up and contribute thousands of useless goods to treasury every day. That the goods remain useless in OF and VF is mostly incidental because they're no more useless than AF goods in treasury. Some people with this reasoning like the move to OF because it removes their cost of FE goods from treasury weekly for GE. It is why I have no intention of going beyond FE in Yorkton - even though i hate FE I'll probably move there eventually, but not leave it unless I relegate the world to a diamond mine. It is a design problem of the game that that barrier exists - I don't have a good solution for it.
Yes, I've been down this road before and understand. However that's a choice really no different than any other age. If CA goods are important to a guilds GvG then those players in that age with high level Arcs are faced with the same choice, age up to Indy or stay in CA to fill the treasury. If that guid doesn't have, can't or want any Indy GvG and if they age up anyway then they'll be filling their treasury with useless Indy goods.

I see this issue more as a player choice thing than a game design thing, players chose to do GvG, they chose to get and level their Arcs to astronomical levels. The GvG game simply changed with AF just like it changed with the introduction of GE, the removal of the GB cap, the addition of The Arc, if and how players choose to do those parts of the game is up to them.
 

DeletedUser29726

Except it's not no different than any other age because AF goods are NEVER of value to a guild. The colonial player that moves to industrial is filling the treasury with goods that for a GvG guild will certainly still be valuable (just perhaps not the most valuable at that precise instant). The absence of AF and later maps makes that particular treasury situation unique in FE where it's your last chance to produce useful treasury goods.
 

DeletedUser10720

So you're in a guild with players in VF with high level Arc's, not sure why something must be done with the tons of goods those high level Arc produce or what it has to do with VF as it's been that way since AF. Let's say you're in a guild that has a bunch of IA campers with high level Arcs and currently at 500,000 each IA good in the treasury, clearly more than they'll ever use in IA GvG, so should they make something else that uses those goods?

I'm genuinely curious about this aspect because I've yet to come across a reasonable explanation for why when someone looks at what is essentially the GvG treasury something must be done to suck those goods away. It's the players choice to level their Arcs in the first place which created the goods, why should Inno do anything with them? The same could be said for population or coins or attack bonus, if a player has more than they ever need of any of those things should there be something added to the game that uses them?

It seems to me this issue really only comes down to only a rather small percentage of players, those who have an excess of everything beyond the current game progression. Perhaps a GE5 that doesn't use treasury goods to unlock but each players own goods and costs 10,000,000 coins and supplies to unlock each encounter, where the a/d bonus is 1000% will do lol.

It's not just about arcs, it also has observatory and atomium GBs that donate, in the pre-AF ages, wether or not the guild in question had a use for them, there was a use for the goods being donated. It was up to them to find a use.

Pre-arc, observatory was pretty much considered mandatory for any player that wanted to get into a guild, this is what I actually think the major flaw in the arc is, it should give something like supply drops, significantly less valuable that guild treasury donations, as it completely obliterated the use of the obs.

AF and beyond, any donated goods strictly rely on use for GE and that is a fixed amount per week max. (By player). And not a potential constant demand like sieges and defending armys in GvG. It's not a question of why should inno give us a use for these goods, but why did they take away the use of them?

Other than arc, the GBs were built by players so they could help their guild, they were leveled and suddenly their entire purpose is cut to being near-useless. All the other goods bases GBs switch to unrefined goods, so the concept of a GB that changes it's production based on age is already an established function. Why can't something similar be done to the few that donate?
 

DeletedUser29726

AF and beyond, any donated goods strictly rely on use for GE and that is a fixed amount per week max. (By player). And not a potential constant demand like sieges and defending armys in GvG. It's not a question of why should inno give us a use for these goods, but why did they take away the use of them?

Well we know the answer to that is that they wanted to be done with GvG development and damn the consequences ;) At that time they said a new use would come for them.

Then they changed difficulty 3 to require current age goods and added difficulty 4. And we know that for a long while they clung to the answer that GE was 'enough use' for them because 'look at all these early age guilds that say the cost is too high!'.

Honestly I figure this was a case where they just sorta hope the issue will be forgotten - and mostly it has apart from new worlds where players once again get to face the question of whether they want lots of goods to GvG with or access to AF+ goods for GBs and the second time around tend to be a lot more hesitant to just go forward anyways.

On the US forum Panacea hinted a month or so back that GvG changes were finally in the works - maybe the issue will be addressed at that point. There has been no hints yet as to what the nature of those changes might be though.
 

wolfhoundtoo

Well-Known Member
It's not just about arcs, it also has observatory and atomium GBs that donate, in the pre-AF ages, wether or not the guild in question had a use for them, there was a use for the goods being donated. It was up to them to find a use.

Pre-arc, observatory was pretty much considered mandatory for any player that wanted to get into a guild, this is what I actually think the major flaw in the arc is, it should give something like supply drops, significantly less valuable that guild treasury donations, as it completely obliterated the use of the obs.

AF and beyond, any donated goods strictly rely on use for GE and that is a fixed amount per week max. (By player). And not a potential constant demand like sieges and defending armys in GvG. It's not a question of why should inno give us a use for these goods, but why did they take away the use of them?

Other than arc, the GBs were built by players so they could help their guild, they were leveled and suddenly their entire purpose is cut to being near-useless. All the other goods bases GBs switch to unrefined goods, so the concept of a GB that changes it's production based on age is already an established function. Why can't something similar be done to the few that donate?


Because of the sheer amount of goods that these GBs will generate for the treasury. Look above at the amount of Virtual Future goods that are already in one poster's treasury and VF hasn't been around for very long. Changing the way these GBs work impact how goods are generated for the various ages....and at least the current mechanism doesn't allow the current high Arcs (and if you allow the change for the Observatory and the Atom then the argument for changing the Arc goods becomes stronger) to mass produce lower age goods. You need to have players of that age or trade for those goods which puts somewhat of a limit on it. If you allow these GBs to produce lower age GBs it skews the whole point of the jump in goods that is required to take additional sectors.
 

DeletedUser26965

It's not just about arcs, it also has observatory and atomium GBs that donate, in the pre-AF ages, wether or not the guild in question had a use for them, there was a use for the goods being donated. It was up to them to find a use.

Pre-arc, observatory was pretty much considered mandatory for any player that wanted to get into a guild, this is what I actually think the major flaw in the arc is, it should give something like supply drops, significantly less valuable that guild treasury donations, as it completely obliterated the use of the obs.

AF and beyond, any donated goods strictly rely on use for GE and that is a fixed amount per week max. (By player). And not a potential constant demand like sieges and defending armys in GvG. It's not a question of why should inno give us a use for these goods, but why did they take away the use of them?

Other than arc, the GBs were built by players so they could help their guild, they were leveled and suddenly their entire purpose is cut to being near-useless. All the other goods bases GBs switch to unrefined goods, so the concept of a GB that changes it's production based on age is already an established function. Why can't something similar be done to the few that donate?
Whenever this topic gets brought up it always tends to go in a bunch of directions that drive further away from the original thought, that being something must be done with this overabundance of goods in the treasury, that is what I'm asking about here.

Yes, the changes to GvG in AF brought about other consequences but that is not generally what always is the main concern. The main concern I always see brought up is these goods in the treasury as if something must be done to do away with them. I don't get that aspect, at all. I'm sure there are lots of GE only guilds and lots of guilds who don't do either GE or GvG that also have tons of useless treasury goods, they are not demanding something be done with them.

Look, the only reason why the treasury was made was to make it easier for guilds to pay for GvG, that was its purpose, it doesn't matter how many goods a guild has, as long as its function remains the same then all is working as intended e.g. there is no problem here. Now, you could say, well we would rather have new GvG maps where we pay corresponding age goods but that's entirely a different thing than saying look there's these goods in this here treasury and they must be spent and because they're not being spent at a rate our guild can produce then the game design is flawed.
 

DeletedUser29726

Look, the only reason why the treasury was made was to make it easier for guilds to pay for GvG, that was its purpose, it doesn't matter how many goods a guild has, as long as its function remains the same then all is working as intended e.g. there is no problem here. Now, you could say, well we would rather have new GvG maps where we pay corresponding age goods but that's entirely a different thing than saying look there's these goods in this here treasury and they must be spent and because they're not being spent at a rate our guild can produce then the game design is flawed.

1) The large numbers of goods evoke emotional responses from guilds who would love to have those goods in any age for which there is a GvG map. This has dulled over time as it's become normal.

2) A divide where FE and earlier, up to 3 GBs you worked hard on are producing lots of things you value and after they are not produces a very real disincentive to leave FE. This is a design problem in a game where inno would like you to keep moving forward (eventually at least) so that you stay interested longer and may spend more money. The only way to fix this is to provide a way to spend those goods on *something* so that there's a need for more.

3) The difference between the scenarios you create to 'reproduce' the problem in an earlier age is in earlier ages it's entirely player choice creating the circumstances (you could fight the next age up more if you wanted to!) - where in AF it's a problem inno created (there is no AF map TO fight, and the only other use for these goods is so limited that in one day's collection you can pay for weeks of GE)

4) Yes, you're right for many guilds and cities this doesn't matter at all. All ages are overproduced in arc-laden non-GvG guilds and in guilds lacking arcs GE can pose enough of a treasury challenge at times. This probably makes up the majority of the playerbase. However using the amount of people it affects to justify it could also be used to just say delete GvG from the game entirely. Sure there'd be some noisy objections, but most people won't notice so it's fine right?
 

DeletedUser

The guy who created GvG passed away, so does GvG.
That's what I keep saying, but nobody listens. Incidentally, to the point of all the "useless" Treasury goods, it is a direct result of the hyper-leveling craze. Take away the overpowered, hyper-leveled Arcs and this problem doesn't exist.
 

qaccy

Well-Known Member
Inno put the genie back in the bottle on treasury GBs by releasing the AA province as the capstone to the GvG map. They could have gone the other route and simply nerfed the bonus, but it's clear to me at least that they didn't like just how many goods these GBs (especially the Arc) ended up producing and so they effectively removed the bonus for high-age players.

Anyway, that's a bit off-topic. Regarding VF, it's as good as could be for the first part of what's going to probably be another 5 or 6-part age. The aesthetics are decent; the campaign map is interesting (though you don't really have to be in VF to see that); the quests are generally annoying; the goods are certainly more valuable than OF was when that age initially released; and of the three military units, Ronins are the best but Ninjas have their uses as well. The Samurai is the hardest to use and the worst of the bunch.
 

DeletedUser26965

1) The large numbers of goods evoke emotional responses from guilds who would love to have those goods in any age for which there is a GvG map. This has dulled over time as it's become normal.
I agree this is an emotional problem lol. I don't know if it's dulled over time, not sure what that means really, I think that it's been brought up so much that people have less and less interest in the topic so it doesn't get brought up as much now.

Inno put the genie back in the bottle on treasury GBs by releasing the AA province as the capstone to the GvG map. They could have gone the other route and simply nerfed the bonus, but it's clear to me at least that they didn't like just how many goods these GBs (especially the Arc) ended up producing and so they effectively removed the bonus for high-age players.
That could be, of course it's merely speculation though, my speculation has alway been since Mobile became their main driving force and market they didn't see any need to further develop GvG since they can't get it to that platform, or won't, so they thought of a "brilliant" way to keep it to keep their Browser base at least somewhat happy while not spending any more on development. As we know though the official reason given was because they said "...we observed that the main GvG activity always shifts to the latest era over time..," which I guess meant to them there should not be any more maps and that earlier age maps have no use for guilds? Yeah, their reasoning sometimes, lol.
 
Top