gbg

[NWWAkamai]

I would love to see a nuclear option given to any guild with less than 3 provinces. Give them a nuke option once a day allowing them to nuke the #1 guild from battling for 3 hours. (Every day if they want!) Then the small guilds could band together as a force to be negotiated with...not going to happen.
But as far as these changes go, I love anything that gets more players involved and reduces ridiculous advantages by a group of players that have banded together to crush any competition or ability of others to enjoy getting a few battles in and receiving some of the rewards the battles give. I only hope that all these players that are threatening to quit if this goes live, will honor their words....play ball....

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

Nuclear option would have to have a payback. Something to make it cost a lot to use. Otherwise everyone would be blowing up the entire GBG all day long. Even the top Guilds would cut down to two provinces to blast back the others who attacked them.then get right back to full map the moment the block ended. . I could see pairs of top Guilds alternating to do exactly that. The Guilds on top would still be on top because they have a positive attitude and a Can Do attitude. Not ooh someone beat us up so we have to go cry and whine so they feel bad.LOL
As for the ""ridiculous advantages by a group of players that have banded together to crush any competition or ability of others to enjoy getting a few battles in and receiving some of the reward "" I have to say those players work for many years to get those advantages. THer would not be any point to long term play if beginners can do just as well.
Like most of the complaints. One more form of "make it easy (since I'm to lazy or weak or unable to see any future where I am on top) .and the big kids are all bullies. whine whine whine"
For myself I recently got on top.. I spent a long time in the middle, the time i was at the bottom lost in the fog of distant memory. But I can say I never whined about how unfair it was... I knew the top players worked very hard to get there. and i would have to work very hard to get where they are.. And so now i am. Whoo Hoo! So i say to whiners. get a grip ,grow up, and do some work. Rewards in Foe take a long time to mature. Expecting to be handed trophies for showing up is not how playing Forge of Empires works

 

[Pericles the Lion]

As for the ""ridiculous advantages by a group of players that have banded together to crush any competition or ability of others to enjoy getting a few battles in and receiving some of the reward "" I have to say those players work for many years to get those advantages. THer would not be any point to long term play if beginners can do just as well.
Like most of the complaints. One more form of "make it easy (since I'm to lazy or weak or unable to see any future where I am on top) .and the big kids are all bullies. whine whine whine"

But zero attrition makes it possible for newer (as few as 6 months of play) to fight in GBG well beyond what their experience should enable. It does not take many years to get to where massive rewards can be earned by farming. All it takes is a 200/100 A/D%, a L10 Traz, and membership in a good guild. It does not take long to get to this.

 

[Bozon]

I see so much discussion here and most people are not really honest as all they want is free fights and don't care about sub-diamond leagues at all
I have over 700k fights and been playing this for a long time but i think this has stopped being a game ever since gbg has arrived, at least it stopped being a strategie game and became a WHO HAS MORE FREE TIME fight game !
If i wanted a fight game instead of a strategie one i would join one, didn't leave yet as i expet Inno changes this soon, if not i will leave soon for sure
So, does anyone know if this going to be implemented any time soon or not ?

 

[Vincenzo5000]

Hello, been playing for a year and a few months. I love GBG and the strategy it can offer. After reading up on the SC tests in beta and the problem many feel exists with top guilds co-op farming for rewards, I see the beta tests as a bit extreme. However, by them testing, I think it shows they acknowledge the farming as a problem. Right now my guild in Angkor, dips (read: forced) into PL when we draw a map with more than two top ten guilds. In PL, we have to play nice with the other guilds to get a good amount of hits, as we are strong enough to simply lock out the map. To accomplish sector swaps, we end up supplying the majority of the SC's as they expire because many guilds in PL don't have sufficient treasuries to keep up through a full season. This is the back half of the problem some guilds like ours face.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in DL, the large top guilds seem to be consistently well stocked in treasury goods. They are adept at taking the sectors that offer good point value and/or SC placements. Due to their guilds size and composition, they always seem be on top of these sectors as they open. Sometimes, we see a top guild back off in the later stage of a season to conserve its treasury goods. This is great when it happens, because the other lower level guilds can then compete for a few sectors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
And this leads me to a potential suggestion I want to make on the beta forum. I plan to submit that SC's cost does not remain constant over a season, but rather increments up in stages. Say the first 15-20 SC's come at the cost based on guild players and ages. The next group of SC's would then cost 110% of the first group and increment higher with each group of purchases. The only game mechanic that would have to change would involve the purchase cost of SC's. Each season the cost would reset. The effect during a season would be that farming by the top guilds would still occur, but there would be more occasions where top guilds would need to or have to back off, thus creating opportunities for lesser guilds.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BL - I don't think farming should go away, and its great to co-op when you can, but there is a wide gap in hit distribution in DL that is holding many guilds back. Please lmk what you think, constructively. Numbers are just guesses...

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

BL - I don't think farming should go away,

I would agree with this to some extent. It shouldn't go away completely, but it should be nerfed in GBG just like it was nerfed in RQs. I don't really care about the guild aspect of this possible change, but I believe that from an individual player standpoint it should cut way down on the huge amounts of resources that can be farmed. It doesn't do the total game any good to have one feature/aspect that can be focused on to the exclusion of the rest of the game. That's why I agreed with the limit on RQ aborts and why I agree with the concept of doing away with no-attrition GBG.

 

[DevaCat]

@Johnny B. Goode isn't jumping to anything. Here is the relevant paragraph from Inno's announcement:

"You may ask why we made this change. Quite simply, we believe this re-balance is necessary for the long-term sustainability and viability of the feature. We always envisioned attrition to be an important factor. Previously, these province buildings could be stacked to the extent — that when an adjacent province is conquered — guilds could effectively completely nullify the chance of receiving attrition. Stacking Siege Camps and Watchtowers, therefore, became too powerful and caused significant balancing issues between different guilds and players."

INNO was pretty clear about their intent. No more opportunity for zero attrition. While you may "not give a damn about game balance", INNO surely does (and many other players I suspect).

Once again, quote me fairly. I said I did not care about balance between GUILDS. I consider “balance” between guilds to be a matter best left up to individual guild effort and not to Inno putting a thumb on the scale to benefit those guilds who are complaining about “fairness.” I think it’s a mistake for Inno to try to do this. I have repeatedly tried to make my position on this clear.

I am completely aware of that announcement and have already commented/responded to it. I do care about GAME balance and have repeatedly said so, saying that I wanted to see what the changes will do when they go live. I have not stated that that any adjustment of the attrition modifiers should not be done.

What I have done is to suggest that there well be negative knock-on effects in the different leagues. That’s my opinion, my “speculation” as it were - and that of course can and will differ from the opinions of others.

What I object to is the parsing of my statements by those who then respond with a mis-quote or other distortion of what I’ve written, taken out of its context, in order then to present their own talking points. I don’t consider this to be “honest” dialogue, but then we’re in a game forum aren’t we?

I won’t be responding much past this point. People are repeating themselves and the entire thread is rather pointless anyway - Inno will do what they do.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Once again, quote me fairly. I said I did not care about balance between GUILDS. I consider “balance” between guilds to be a matter best left up to individual guild effort and not to Inno putting a thumb on the scale to benefit those guilds who are complaining about “fairness.” I think it’s a mistake for Inno to try to do this. I have repeatedly tried to make my position on this clear.

I am completely aware of that announcement and have already commented/responded to it. I do care about GAME balance and have repeatedly said so, saying that I wanted to see what the changes will do when they go live. I have not stated that that any adjustment of the attrition modifiers should not be done.

What I have done is to suggest that there well be negative knock-on effects in the different leagues. That’s my opinion, my “speculation” as it were - and that of course can and will differ from the opinions of others.

What I object to is the parsing of my statements by those who then respond with a mis-quote or other distortion of what I’ve written, taken out of its context, in order then to present their own talking points. I don’t consider this to be “honest” dialogue, but then we’re in a game forum aren’t we?

I won’t be responding much past this point. People are repeating themselves and the entire thread is rather pointless anyway - Inno will do what they do.

I did not quote you at all.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

What I object to is the parsing of my statements by those who then respond with a mis-quote or other distortion of what I’ve written,

I never misquoted you, nor did I distort what you'd written. I responded directly to what you had said. You then started accusing me of these things to avoid responding to the points I brought up. I expected better of you.

 

[Lord Pest]

We are in DL. We have 70 players in our guild. On average at the end of a GBG season we have 25 players with more than 1000 fights. We do the entire map and every map we set up the same pattern to checkerboard. The nerf with give us all less fights but we will still finish 1st or second each season. The nerf will hurt all guilds equally. It won’t stop the farming. instead of swapping every 4.5 to 5 hours around the clock we take longer to do it.

maybe a way to stop farming. You can only see the tiles you own. all other tiles are grey. You can see Them but you have no clue who owns them as the rest of the maps tiles are the same color. You csnt see the names of the other guilds on the map. You don’t know which tiles they own. You don’t know which tiles they are attacking or which ones they own.
you can see:
your own tiles
tiles that no one owns
tiles that the other 7 guilds own are grey and you have no clue which guild owns what or how many.

 

[Indopucho the Bat]

If you are referring to the 66.6% camp effect attrition cap, I read they begin testing this function in Beta this Thursday.
I'm sure if this goes through many people will simply find a new game.

I 100% agree. The best aspect of this game is being cut away from, this is a horrible decision on Inno’s part. I heard we can vote and weigh in, where do we do that?

 

[Indopucho the Bat]

If they nerf GbG then they will lose thousands of players en masse myself included. I don’t even think I would stick around to complain if they implement garbage like that.

I’m with you. I can’t see how I would keep up my interest if they cap out GBG support. This is a miserable idea.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

The best aspect of this game is being cut away from, this is a horrible decision on Inno’s part.

In your opinion. There are those who think GvG is the best aspect of the game. There are those who think being in a very social guild is the best aspect of the game. And so on and so on.

I heard we can vote and weigh in, where do we do that?

You can voice your opinion here on the Forum, but you can't vote on it, so you heard wrong. It is Inno's decision on whether to bring this to the live servers in some form.

I can’t see how I would keep up my interest if they cap out GBG support.

Maybe by playing the entire game and not just one part of it.

 

[Angry.Blanket]

^ This is where I get lost, what is the goal of FOE if we don't have GbG, GvG, it would be just building a city for no reason.
It become more of a hobby/pass time than a game?

 

[Jennie2019]

I’ve been following the Beta thread closely since it was announced. I play in a highly competitive guild in one world and a guild that’s very competitive in platinum in another world. And I was playing before GBG. No matter how many fights I get a season, I still believe that GBG needs to be changed. I’ve always thought that. Inno has ignored any and all changes that have been suggested. Now, they are enforcing a change that is too long in coming and will not fix all the problems. It’s a fast, cheap (programming) attempt to stem the loss of bored players. Why didn’t they listen before? Here’s my suggestion I posted almost 2 years ago. That was the time to make a change.

• Dec 2, 2020

The idea of GBG was great but the execution was flawed. I don’t know if Inno expected that guilds would take a “battle” game and just turn it into a way to get rewards without trying. I’m in a high level guild that’s considering reducing our GBG focus because it’s boring to farm. Here’s what I think could be done to improve it:
1. Change the number of building slots. Put 2 in every beach province. This will allow even the wimpiest guild to get off the beach. Take all slots out of the center and reduce the #2 ring to 1 slot. Force the larger/farming guilds to take attrition.
2. Open the competition to cross worlds. It works for GE - it will work here. We actually had a GBG recently that 2 associated guilds were in the same map. Not fun. One of my guilds can actually guess at least 1/2 of the guilds they will face each season. Even France and England got bored with attacking each other after a few centuries.
3. Don’t allow provinces that are not connected to the home province. If you lose your connection then you lose all the disconnected provinces. Colonizing stifles competition. If a smaller guild can break the connection, they have a chance to gain some territory. Also, it will change the strategy of just rushing to the center without building a strong corridor.
4. Have a maximum number of battles/negotiations that any one player may have per day or season. That would really help competition. Of course, Inno can sell battle packs for diamonds.

Any or all of these would help make a more exciting, competitive environment.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

I’ve been following the Beta thread closely since it was announced. I play in a highly competitive guild in one world and a guild that’s very competitive in platinum in another world. And I was playing before GBG. No matter how many fights I get a season, I still believe that GBG needs to be changed. I’ve always thought that. Inno has ignored any and all changes that have been suggested. Now, they are enforcing a change that is too long in coming and will not fix all the problems. It’s a fast, cheap (programming) attempt to stem the loss of bored players. Why didn’t they listen before? Here’s my suggestion I posted almost 2 years ago. That was the time to make a change.

• Dec 2, 2020

3. Don’t allow provinces that are not connected to the home province. If you lose your connection then you lose all the disconnected provinces. Colonizing stifles competition. If a smaller guild can break the connection, they have a chance to gain some territory. Also, it will change the strategy of just rushing to the center without building a strong corridor.
4. Have a maximum number of battles/negotiations that any one player may have per day or season. That would really help competition. Of course, Inno can sell battle packs for diamonds.

Any or all of these would help make a more exciting, competitive environment.

#3 won't work attacking the 4 provinces in front of the guild will wipe the guild off the whole map ?
#4 won't work , An entire guild sitting doing nothing while the timer runs out ? A great way to build resentment and boredom over the product.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

It become more of a hobby/pass time than a game?

You do know that a game is a "hobby/pastime", right?

This is where I get lost, what is the goal of FOE if we don't have GbG, GvG, it would be just building a city for no reason.

You have things backwards here. This is a city building game, and GvG, GBG, GE and the rest of the non-main city features are only a means to that end. The city is the goal of FoE, not the side features, no matter how much you like them.

 

[Angry.Blanket]

You do know that a game is a "hobby/pastime", right?

You have things backwards here. This is a city building game, and GvG, GBG, GE and the rest of the non-main city features are only a means to that end. The city is the goal of FoE, not the side features, no matter how much you like them.

What is the goal ? Just to have a city ? What do you do with it ?

No, there is a difference between a hobby and a game. collecting stamps is a hobby, monopoly is a game.

 

[The Lady Redneck]

No, there is a difference between a hobby and a game. collecting stamps is a hobby, monopoly is a game.

Hobby's are interests and pastimes that often have you spending both time and money at regular intervals on them. Traditional board games such as monopoly require no spending except for the initial purchase price and do not command enough attention to warrant playing them every day for years. So I would class computer games like FoE more as hobby's than a traditional game like Monopoly. In the case of FoE that may be changing.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

What is the goal ? Just to have a city ? What do you do with it ?

You build and develop it. What's the point of GvG? Nothing but meaningless ranking points. What's the point of GBG? Right now it's amassing an ungodly amount of resources from farming it. But what do you do with them? (Hint: The answer involves developing your city.)

No, there is a difference between a hobby and a game. collecting stamps is a hobby, monopoly is a game.

Well, if you want to get technical with the semantics, then a hobby and a pastime are not the same thing. And FoE would definitely qualify as a pastime. So your original point is moot.