-
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:
Game design flaw, need correction asap
- Thread starter *Arturis*
- Start date
- Status
DeletedUser26120
Already been proposed so many times that this type of change to gvg is on the "Do not suggest list."
The only advice we can give to serious gvg players that want their arc goods to count: Don't advance past Future Era, or you will sacrifice your arc goods to do so.
The reason for this is that the original developer of FoE had big plans (including for gvg and pvp) that were derailed when he died. The new development team has shown very little interest in updating gvg in any way or form - perhaps because they have so much else to do already.
The only advice we can give to serious gvg players that want their arc goods to count: Don't advance past Future Era, or you will sacrifice your arc goods to do so.
The reason for this is that the original developer of FoE had big plans (including for gvg and pvp) that were derailed when he died. The new development team has shown very little interest in updating gvg in any way or form - perhaps because they have so much else to do already.
Salsuero
Well-Known Member
This might be the most insightful behind the scenes answer to "what happened to GvG and why do the guild treasury goods for AF/OF/+ mean mostly nothing" I've yet to read.
DeletedUser
Not really behind the scenes. The info has been there more than once for regular Forum members to see.
lemur
Well-Known Member
I played this game for about six months before Anwar Dalati died. I think most of the current problems can be traced to his absence. For example, my first serious problems with logging into the game were in August of that year. The development team that replaced him did not seem to understand the foundational value of making the game easy and free across all browsers. If you watch old videos of Anwar, you will see that he was proud of the "free to play" foundation. I think his vision was a game in which the social aspect was so strong that players would be motivated to voluntarily pay for extras. That would explain why he had big plans for GvG — which requires more cooperation than the Guild Expedition (essentially its replacement). Furthermore, I suspect that if Anwar had remained alive, then the shift away from Flash would have happened much sooner. There also would have been better overall judgment about maintaining the integrity of the game, rather than using it as more of a cash cow to be milked until exhaustion. I wonder what Anwar would have thought of the fanciful ages tacked on since he left.
I would be very interested to learn why he died.
.
DeletedUser
So you can turn it into a conspiracy theory? In answer to your question, I found an old Tweet that said he died from a heart attack.
lemur
Well-Known Member
What conspiracy? What are you talking about?
OK ... thanks. Do you have a screenshot or a URL to share?
.
DeletedUser
It's just strange to me that you would be "very interested" in how he died.
Um...no. Believe me or don't, I couldn't care less. Google his name and do your own searching if you doubt it.
Salsuero
Well-Known Member
I've been reading the forums for about a year... just never had a reason to register for an account. Always tried very hard not to so I could avoid getting sucked into it like I have now. LOL I just couldn't let what they did to the Oracle of Delphi go and support literally told me to post a proposal, so I finally did. But all I meant was that... I had never really read where someone said it was literally Anwar's death that was the proverbial fork in the road where the devs took a turn for the... let's not say worse... let's just say not as great. So, "it was an interesting explanation" was more what I meant.
LOL -- it kinda did sound a bit conspiracy theory-ish the way you asked.
*Arturis*
Well-Known Member
yeah, it had been mentioned here
https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com...from-24hrs-to-1-hour.20285/page-2#post-166970
https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com...from-24hrs-to-1-hour.20285/page-2#post-166970
Salsuero
Well-Known Member
Thank you for the thread link. While I've been reading for a very long time, I also don't read every thread... and that's one I wouldn't have been interested in reading. But I appreciate you making the connection for me. (not sarcasm)
lemur
Well-Known Member
DeletedUser26532
I'm curious if that means Anwar never wrote down his plans for GvG and PvP.
I would assume there was at least some outline or drafts that he worked on that would have suggested what was planed.
Part of me wonder if those things may not be implemented now simply because there is the shift away Flash coming. Perhaps we'll start seeing ajor revamp of the system that way once its migrated away, rather than being coded for Flash which already has server issues with lag in GvG.
The one thing that bugs me the most about FOE is that the developers themselves never say anything directly about what the plans are. I don't expect a daily rundown of things, but it would be pretty cool if they did a major announcement once a year about "these are the parts of the game that we're looking to change and update over the next year" .
I would assume there was at least some outline or drafts that he worked on that would have suggested what was planed.
Part of me wonder if those things may not be implemented now simply because there is the shift away Flash coming. Perhaps we'll start seeing ajor revamp of the system that way once its migrated away, rather than being coded for Flash which already has server issues with lag in GvG.
The one thing that bugs me the most about FOE is that the developers themselves never say anything directly about what the plans are. I don't expect a daily rundown of things, but it would be pretty cool if they did a major announcement once a year about "these are the parts of the game that we're looking to change and update over the next year" .
DeletedUser26120
DeletedUser27889
This is very true and also shows yet another nail in the coffin of GvG. That if you want to be successful at the game you need to essentially stop playing the game.
At this point I think it would be better to just kill GvG off. I can see no way of them fixing the situation and I believe they realized this already. GvG has become a guild VS player and the game situation. The game wants you to progress, GvG is a big reason why one would not do so.
GvG is not available to mobile players leaving guilds to consider not allowing mobile players. With all the various maps GvG will never be what it was. Fewer and fewer players use it spread amongst more maps which turns a siege into a 3 hour ordeal of a handful of players and bugs. In order for a guild to be successful at GvG they must only admit players that play on browser, stopped all game progress at the determined era and be wiling to devote hours at a time to it.
All ages map seemed to me like a clear indication they have zero plans for GvG and are more than happy to let it die off. I don't think the die off is quick enough. With the small amount of players still participating there becomes a huge divide between them and everyone else. As a guild you have to decide if you want all your players games to be about the guild IE gvg, or if you'd rather have people playing the actual game they signed up for.
The first thing they need to fix is the ranking issue. A guild that does not or is comprised of mobile players cannot, compete with GvG guilds by no fault of their own. GE should count much much more than GvG because GE is available to all. GvG is like a festering corpse making everything else around it sick because inno doesn't want to be honest about it being dead and throw it out the door.
A 5th round of GE could takes it's place. It could be a sudden death round for players in the same world to go at each others to take the place of GvG.
As is, letting GvG slowly die is creating more and more problems between those that play and those that can't/don't. They need to just rip the bandaid off or come out and flatly say once they port to HTML5 GvG will not be coming with them. This limbo of two versions of the game, completely buggy and broken section of the game and platform and guild divisiveness isn't doing them any favors.
qaccy
Well-Known Member
Inno essentially has already said they're done with GvG, in their announcement of the All Ages map. It basically self-updates with each new age, with no input from the developers needed (unless, I assume, something stops working in an actual game-breaking way). To me, they made it pretty clear with that announcement that they said everything you think they're avoiding saying. Differing perspectives though, I suppose.
For the last bit I quoted, I'm actually betting in the opposite direction that GvG will receive a long-awaited overhaul around the time the HTML5 version of the game is released. I base this on my opinion that, for all of its flaws, removing GvG from the game completely would be a worse move than keeping it, even if no changes were ever made to it again.
However, because of the browser/mobile divide it's likely that it's only a very small portion of players who use it or even know that it exists. I still see people in the Future Era or beyond 'discovering' GvG for the first time on a weekly basis, despite the fact that it's available beginning in the Iron Age. If usage statistics play a part in deciding GvG's fate, it's certainly possible for it to be cut just because it does take a lot of server resources to maintain.
*Arturis*
Well-Known Member
It is just sad, I missed the rush for land grab when the new Ages came out. Well, nothing we can do about it, feel bad for those people in OF/AF donate to their guild treasury with their GB for nothing. Best they could do is creating GE level 5 and making it AF/AO goods cost to unlock, some shinkhole for those goods.
DeletedUser
Unfortunately, that would create a 3 tiered player pool instead of the 2 tiered one we have now. Guilds with no AF/AO players that don't do GvG would be at an even worse disadvantage.
DeletedUser27889
Anything is possible. However I look to the Treasure Hunt, which hasn't been removed from live yet but has not be restored on beta. They cited limited use and non mobile compatibility as reasons of removing it. Some of the same issues with GvG. I highly doubt TH required anything close to the amount of server load that GvG does. GvG is also rife with complaints, typically every single changelog is met with 'fix GvG' posts and complaints. Most importantly TH while it could be argued was unfair to mobile players who did not have access to it it also didn't make the game more difficult for those who didn't use it or couldn't have it. It only aided your personal game, not your guild or guild ranking.
I'm sure there would be tons of complaints and people quitting the game if they removed GvG, which is my guess as to why they're letting it cling on. When Anwar was here and he would post on EN he would often talk about the direction he wanted the game to go in or things to expect far down the line. Now I think were all just left wondering and speculating because there really isn't that grand vision being shown to us. I do think they will be using the port from flash as a large opportunity to change things. It can also be scary as a player because if the same people who could not figure out how to get treasure hunt to work on mobile are going to be recoding the entire game we could only imagine what well end up with. If I'm being super paranoid I'd say I wonder if they are even going to keep the browser version and instead just decide to be another mobile gaming company. (<- 100% pure tinfoil speculation)
Unfortunately with the way they have gone about some of their changes, saying 'this is going to happen' then not only does it not happen but 'this' disappears. That lack of trust in the grand vision of the game is gone. Certainly it is their right to not tell their players anything or listen to feedback requesting more transparency. If that is the road they chose however, they should understand that it's hard to break out your wallet and pay for something when you don't know if what you just paid for will be there much longer.
DeletedUser
That would be hard to imagine. Given that GvG is still a big part of a lot of players' games, there are obviously still a lot of players on PC and not mobile. How many of them would stick around if both GvG and the browser version itself were to disappear? I know I would be very quickly searching for another way to spend my free time...and money.
- Status