-
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:
DeletedUser4844
Yeah, I knew Zues was being nerfed with no compensation because it doesn't have any secondary effects (which is because it takes up so little space, so that's ok). Del Monte not getting any compensation is a bit of a surprise. Let's hope they don't go with the beta on that one.
DeletedUser
Not Well Thought Out Changes
First of all, I'm playing GvG over in Beta and have been for several months. Let me say, as someone that is actually playing GvG, these GB changes are, to put it bluntly, dumb. Here is what I posted over in the Beta forum:
Really? I'm playing on Beta now, and in Iron Age, almost ALL HQs are 75 attack and defense. How can a guild possibly take a sector like that with the depleted attack values from our GBs now. And, almost all the adjoining sectors are 50 attack and defense...again, no shot unless you're in a huge guild that can have 40 people attacking simultaneously.
What you're essentially creating is a big rush the first day of GvG on the main servers to take land. Once this land is taken from the NPCs, only the largest most powerful guilds will be able to unseat people. Smaller guilds will have no place in the GvG you've created with your less than desirable changes.
Further, you've really damaged PvP. There are people that have tons of Watchfires, which were not affected by this change. Again, with the depleted ability of the GBs, there will now be many cities that there is no point in attacking. Was this your goal?
And, on the story maps, there are some sectors that have over 100% attack and defense bonus...are these going to be changed? If not, there is no way to beat these sectors except by buying them with goods. If I wanted to buy things with goods, I'd play a game where I farm things and have cute little animals.
Bottom line, the battles in GvG were already quite tedious....with most sectors having 75 or 50 attack/defense, you've succeeded in making the battles even more monotonous.
The only thing I see this change benefiting is the increase in the spending of diamonds to take sectors as you try to heal troops in the new un-balanced battles you've created. If this was designed as a money grab or a way to force people to buy diamonds...you have succeeded there!
First of all, I'm playing GvG over in Beta and have been for several months. Let me say, as someone that is actually playing GvG, these GB changes are, to put it bluntly, dumb. Here is what I posted over in the Beta forum:
Really? I'm playing on Beta now, and in Iron Age, almost ALL HQs are 75 attack and defense. How can a guild possibly take a sector like that with the depleted attack values from our GBs now. And, almost all the adjoining sectors are 50 attack and defense...again, no shot unless you're in a huge guild that can have 40 people attacking simultaneously.
What you're essentially creating is a big rush the first day of GvG on the main servers to take land. Once this land is taken from the NPCs, only the largest most powerful guilds will be able to unseat people. Smaller guilds will have no place in the GvG you've created with your less than desirable changes.
Further, you've really damaged PvP. There are people that have tons of Watchfires, which were not affected by this change. Again, with the depleted ability of the GBs, there will now be many cities that there is no point in attacking. Was this your goal?
And, on the story maps, there are some sectors that have over 100% attack and defense bonus...are these going to be changed? If not, there is no way to beat these sectors except by buying them with goods. If I wanted to buy things with goods, I'd play a game where I farm things and have cute little animals.
Bottom line, the battles in GvG were already quite tedious....with most sectors having 75 or 50 attack/defense, you've succeeded in making the battles even more monotonous.
The only thing I see this change benefiting is the increase in the spending of diamonds to take sectors as you try to heal troops in the new un-balanced battles you've created. If this was designed as a money grab or a way to force people to buy diamonds...you have succeeded there!
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser3974
What I'm facing goes beyond "tough." What I'm facing now is impossible unless I simply abandon the bonus sectors on the Industrial Age map until I'm most of the way through the Progressive Age. Or else negotiate all the remaining sectors, which is what I'll ultimately be doing. I understand you want to make the game challenging, but I don't understanding making it a pain in the butt.
DeletedUser2344
Well, I've been trying things out on beta. Not really a big deal except ... No one has significant watchtowers there.
However: Here is a big caveat. The GvG battles are now counting toward PvP and overall score. Points are going to skyrocket. Everyone who wants points will play GvG.
However: Here is a big caveat. The GvG battles are now counting toward PvP and overall score. Points are going to skyrocket. Everyone who wants points will play GvG.
DeletedUser3792
well so far I am confused are we getting a boost or are we getting downgraded going from 10% boost on a deal castle to 3% is quite a change and so far I have not seen an answer to all the questions being posted here, because the way it was posted I was led to believe we were actually getting a boost when it might be a big decrease instead. What is the point of having this if they are not giving us the answer.
DeletedUser
In absolute numbers, defensive GBs are nerfed unless you have over +73% defense from monastery/WF (it's monastery + 14 WF). If you have enough WFs, your defense will increase in absolute numbers.
However, taken into account substantial decrease in attacking GBs stats, defense gets major relative boost regardless of presence of WFs.
DeletedUser2145
Rebalance means both increase and decrease, just change in general. Defensive GBs have their bonus changed, instead of providing +10% defense bonus per level they will now provide +3% defense and attack. So at most they will provide +60% attack and defense when defending from others. Their secondary bonus will be slightly increased.
Offensive GBs have their first bonus decreased, instead of giving +5% attack and defense per level they will now provide +3% defense and attack per level. So at most they will provide +90% attack and defense when attacking others. Their secondary bonuses will also be increased.
What questions are not answered here? What is your question?
Offensive GBs have their first bonus decreased, instead of giving +5% attack and defense per level they will now provide +3% defense and attack per level. So at most they will provide +90% attack and defense when attacking others. Their secondary bonuses will also be increased.
What questions are not answered here? What is your question?
*Arturis*
Well-Known Member
We have been driving a 500k car for a year now, we have to trade in for a 50k car with 20k in cash for compensation, that is what is going on here. That is how I feel. I would rather have keep attack GBs unchanged and have defend GB tweeted for some offend while defending 7%defend and 3% offend each level.
Another solution for all this changes would be a bit easier to swallow if we would have another GB offering another 30% to make attacking army have a total of 120% attack/defend while attacking which would make more sense.
Another solution for all this changes would be a bit easier to swallow if we would have another GB offering another 30% to make attacking army have a total of 120% attack/defend while attacking which would make more sense.
Last edited:
DeletedUser
Yeah, EXCEPT the developers are NOT re-balancing the campaign maps NOR are they re-balancing Watchfires and most of all they are NOT re-balancing sectors in GvG (I'm playing on Beta). So this is not a re-balance, it's a decrease and a step backwards for many aspects of the game, with a token compensation in gold/medal production that amounts to a slap in the face.
DeletedUser
So, in case anyone missed it, under the last change for GVG over in Beta, the developers, in their infinite "wisdom", decided to change the rules yet again. They decided that when a guild's sector is under siege by another guild, you can no longer attack the sector. Hmmmmm.....didn't take long for people to figure out that if a guild is friendly to their guild and that friendly guild places a siege on their sector (and that friendly guild does not attack them, at all), the sector is in effect immune to attacks. Yep, that tactic has already started in Beta.....hopefully they fix this blunder before they launch GvG on the live servers.
DeletedUser
While I appreciate and encourage the feedback, this is a discussion on the GB's not guild wars. guild wars has not yet come to the US servers. you could certainly start a thread in beta spoilers for that.
I also think we can have a clear and direct conversation without the bitterness, or at least a little less.
Now, back to the matter at hand.
GB's
I understand the thoughts of the players that have posted so far, and have conveyed these thoughts to the developers, as have the CM's of other markets. This thread is about feedback after all.
I would like to hear from some of the many players who started the numerous threads asking for a change to make defence stiffer. There have been many threads prior to this announcement complaining that it was impossible to defend a city. Perhaps some feedback from that perspective would shed another light on this coming change.
I also think we can have a clear and direct conversation without the bitterness, or at least a little less.
Now, back to the matter at hand.
GB's
I understand the thoughts of the players that have posted so far, and have conveyed these thoughts to the developers, as have the CM's of other markets. This thread is about feedback after all.
I would like to hear from some of the many players who started the numerous threads asking for a change to make defence stiffer. There have been many threads prior to this announcement complaining that it was impossible to defend a city. Perhaps some feedback from that perspective would shed another light on this coming change.
DeletedUser
The cry to change defense has been going on for a long time now; it's just that the devs chose to ignore it. And when they finally decided to fix things, they ended up making matters worse. Honestly, whoever came up with the idea of nerfing offensive gbs to 3% per level should be fired immediately. BTW I'm not bitter at all; I only have 100% boost right now, so the change would take me back to 60%. That's a tough pill to swallow I admit, but I haven't pvp for a while now so it doesn't really matter that much.
Back to the matters at hand; I think the consensus around here is that the 3% nerf absolutely sucks. The devs really need to reconsider this change before live GVG hit the servers. Or else I predict GVG will be a massive failure
Back to the matters at hand; I think the consensus around here is that the 3% nerf absolutely sucks. The devs really need to reconsider this change before live GVG hit the servers. Or else I predict GVG will be a massive failure
DeletedUser6021
I agree with you. This def is NOT an upgrade to military GB. Especially Zeus that doesn't even have a secondary bonus to increase. Essentially Zeus, Aachen, and del Monte will lose 2% attack and defense (while attacking)per level. And St Basil's and Deal Castle will lose 7% defense only gaining 3% attack (while defending).
This doesn't sound like a upgrade to me. But instead, a serious down grade. If a player like me that doesn't spend money on the game isn't liking this, what about those that spend RL money on it? Guess the developers don't care much about them....
So because of guild wars everyone will get screwed for the rest of game play?!
This doesn't sound like a upgrade to me. But instead, a serious down grade. If a player like me that doesn't spend money on the game isn't liking this, what about those that spend RL money on it? Guess the developers don't care much about them....
So because of guild wars everyone will get screwed for the rest of game play?!
DeletedUser
and all the rest of the quotes thart say essentially the same thing. If the developers did not care, this thread would not exist.
Because trust me, it is not fun reading all of these posts. We are letting the developers know about community feedback and they are listening.
We, as players, only view the game as it pertains to us specifically. The devs have to view the entire game, both current and future, the player base as a whole, support tools, programming, and I can only guess how difficult a job that is. I credit them for giving us the heads up to discuss this change before it came to the servers rather than only a day or so notice. In my mind, this is proof that they are asking for input, not that they "don't care", but rather that they do.
DeletedUser
DeM2 I can appreciate the fact that it is not fun for you and the developers to read these threads. I get it. BUT, wouldn't the fact that people are very passionately, or bitterly as you put it ;-), against these changes convey the message that maybe this fix isn't the right way to go? People don't mind and do enjoy a challenge moving forward in a game. BUT, for many of us, this fix is making us go backwards in the game and lose ground...I think that's what irks most. It takes something away that many of us spent time and tons of forge points to get without compensation for the Monte and Zeus, at all, and minimal compensation for the other buildings.
Perhaps there is another way to go about this?
Perhaps there is another way to go about this?
DeletedUser
I understand the need to try and re-balance the PvP: it is too easy for those with attacking GBs to crush any defense, even those buffed with high defensive GBs. This has to do with defensive units not getting buffed on attack, only on defense. Assuming maxed GBs, 150%attack/150%defense will always defeat 0%attack/200%defense with equal age/era units. When introducing GvG, this would exacerbate the imbalance, and it would be impossible to defend and hold a territory.
I think everybody is getting hung up on the decrease in %. It's just a re-balance to make defensive units more capable. Nothing is being "taken" from you. As a possible solution, maybe the developers should leave the attacking GBs as is (5%attack/5%defense per level), and change defensive Gbs to have 4% attack buff and 10% defense buff per level? You'd end up with 150%attack/150%defense vs 80%attack/200%defense, assuming maxed GBs, and a much more interesting/challenging fight. If 4% is too much, 3% could work; it would have to be tested.
The only problem I can foresee is the introduction of the watchfires. By allowing people in the past to purchase watchfires with diamonds, some have created impenetrable defenses (some over 900%). I'm not sure how you can change that, unless the developers are planning to introduce an attacking version of the watchfire...
I welcome any change to help re-balance the fighting portion of this game. Since I have moved into a neighborhood with everyone between 3,000,000 and 300,000 points, many with maxed GBs, battles are pretty boring. I just set it on auto and breeze through everyone when I'm looking for medals.
I think everybody is getting hung up on the decrease in %. It's just a re-balance to make defensive units more capable. Nothing is being "taken" from you. As a possible solution, maybe the developers should leave the attacking GBs as is (5%attack/5%defense per level), and change defensive Gbs to have 4% attack buff and 10% defense buff per level? You'd end up with 150%attack/150%defense vs 80%attack/200%defense, assuming maxed GBs, and a much more interesting/challenging fight. If 4% is too much, 3% could work; it would have to be tested.
The only problem I can foresee is the introduction of the watchfires. By allowing people in the past to purchase watchfires with diamonds, some have created impenetrable defenses (some over 900%). I'm not sure how you can change that, unless the developers are planning to introduce an attacking version of the watchfire...
I welcome any change to help re-balance the fighting portion of this game. Since I have moved into a neighborhood with everyone between 3,000,000 and 300,000 points, many with maxed GBs, battles are pretty boring. I just set it on auto and breeze through everyone when I'm looking for medals.
DeletedUser
@batwact. You are only looking at this through the prism of PvP, there is much more to the game. When it comes to the campaign map, the developers are not changing anything. So when fighting on the campaign map, my units will be less effective than they are now when the GBs are nerfed. There is no re-balance there, thus, something is being taken away from the players in that respect.
shamtara
New Member
I am disappointed at this direction. I have made significant contributions to improve my offensive focused GBs and in an arbitrary decision all this effort is for naught. I will wait patiently, for a time, for the details to be made clear, but I will make no further purchases of diamonds until this is sorted out. Frankly this new rule causes my enthusiasm for the game wane.
DeletedUser
Try fighting for InA bonus provs with 140% boosted AI and you'll see that this upcoming nerf absolutely blows