• 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

Guild Battlegrounds Feedback

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser28037

Meeting every night with our fighting crew, formulating battle plans for gvg and voice chatting is the only part of the game that interests me. So for me the death of gvg signals the end of the game. If the head to head fighting element is removed and replaced with a continent map and GE combined then I don't think this will hold my interest. The reset function of gvg naturally forces people to congregate at the same time to take advantage of shielding sectors, this element of the game boosts player interaction and supports community building. Without a universal reset time, head to head fighting, the need to congregate and voice chat will be removed from the game. Just like space, the future is cold, dark and lonely with reduced live player interaction.
 

DeletedUser11427

Myself and several others play FOE purely for the GvG experience and have for several years. This sounds like you are taking a highly enjoyable element of the game and making it into a puffed up version of GE. I assume this means you will be replacing the current GvG with this new system? If that is incorrect then that's good but if it's accurate then the awesome GvG element will sadly be lost. This new system removes all strategic elements that we've all enjoyed for several years. Not impressed with this so-called month's long study where you seem to have not talked to people who actually play GvG. Sure there are no in-game tutorials but that doesn't stop us from training new people to play GvG. To simply say that it won't be taken to mobile because you feel it won't be played is a slap in the face to all of us
Right now, many in my guild are very upset. We are a strong GvG guild, and many of us find GE to be boring. Our whole reason for playing this game is getting together in a group effort in GvG with planned tactics for beating our long time enemies. I personally have invested 4 years into this game, and I feel like this will kill it. Am I understanding correctly that this will be replacing the current GvG we already play? Some of my fighters are already threatening to quit playing if GvG is removed or replaced. We don't want another masked over version of GE. GE takes no tactics, planning, or on the minute group coordination. This may sound like good news to those who don't care about GvG, but to those of us who are highly invested in it, it's rather devastating. I read that those who want to participate in this will be grouped against other guilds for 10 days. So, my guild may be grouped against long time trusted allies ruining friendships? Or not able to fight against our arch enemies that we've had for years? I can go on forever counting all the cons to this. Will the GvG that the faithful fighters have been dedicated to be taken away?
1. Add a tutorial. 2. Add Arctic, Oceanic, Virtual maps and phase out stupid all ages map 3. Even the GvG playing field, by bringing back no troop cost initial sieges
 

DeletedUser27322

im excited for this new concept that will allow strictly mobile players to take a more active role in the growth of their guilds. however im disappointed to read that youve apparently given up on making gvg accessible to mobile players
 

DeletedUser27322

its also going to be very interesting to see how currentl gvg alliances in various worlds play out when they encounter each other in this new feature.

for example two guilds are strong allies in G and they face off in this new feature. maybe they have a common enemy, maybe they dont? certainly going to test some friendships!
 

DeletedUser11427

This "attrition" debuff is dumb! Forge of Empires is about developing your city to suit your play style. Those who invest heavily in attack bonus shouldn't be penalized because others don't have it. Find some other way to limit the number of battles. Here's a thought: limit the number of battles per person!
This could be an interesting way to even the GvG playing field. GvG is my favorite battle option in the game, but it's easily dominated by few players and guilds. Make those top guilds as well as top fighters "FIGHT" for that spot. They don't really have to do much now.All any player has to do is gravitate to a top GvG guild. BIGGIE to even the playing field ---You could also bring back the ZERO troop cost initial siege.
 

DeletedUser11427

The current version is available to east coast users only. Have a 23 or 25 hour clock that rotates through each time zone giving everyone a chance.
The same reset time each day for certain players will do nothing to see others play. And it's all about internet speed, how fast can you seige?
Take this whole GvG feature out of the game so "battle points" are not a joke.
I've always thought it's silly for so many battles to take place around reset. If that specific time is difficult for you and others in your guild, plan battles at a different time. your enemy guild may not be there to defend.
 

DeletedUser11427

First, no immediate drastic changes.
Second, try making GVG available MOBILE.
Third, Make ALL sectors landing zones
Fourth, Recal four times a day.
THEN re evaluate.
If anything, make the cost to hold a sector (Goods/Supply/Coin) increase over time. If you want to keep it, pay for it.
Everything except for the bringing GvG to mobile is a good idea. Making all our more hexes landing zones would make it much harder for any guild to dominate an age.
 

DeletedUser39158

I believe it will be popular.My guild will love it because we don't hold on to GvG sectors too long, and we try to win GE every week. Seems like a good combination and I for one would like to do this.
 

DeletedUser11427

For players like me, GvG is the best part of FoE because it combines planning, coordination and organized action--leadership and teamwork. And the pace is often exhilarating. The shared effort and excitement generate unmatched camaraderie. GE by contrast is a tedious, soul-sucking, solitary bore--same old battles/encounters week after week, all the action performed individually. The same could be said of the unceasing parade of Events and Historicals, Settlements and now, perhaps, Battlegrounds.

Yes, GvG needs improvements: raise the costs of holding large numbers of sectors so that 2 or 3 guilds cannot dominate entire maps; reduce drastically or eliminate(!) the contributions of high-level Arcs to Guild Treasuries; consider staggering recalc times for different Ages so that most of a day's action does take place between 8:00 and 8:10 Eastern; etc.

It seems that the direction of FoE's development in the past 4 years has been to pile on feature after feature, add more and more bells and whistles to divert players' attention and effort away from gvg, the engine of FoE's early success. Time to return emphasis to what makes FoE so special.
YES === Inno created the issues, and now wants to add something to fix what they broke
 

DeletedUser26184

It doesnt help you with your problem..,says even more that your mobile players are second rate and only will add to guild requirements...fail...it sounds interesting though and progresses the game but still no love for mobile
 

DeletedUser40351

I will be very happy if this feature will level the playing field when it comes to players' time zones.
GvG reset once per day at a pre-defined time makes it difficult to be there sometimes, even for players in the same country, e.g. US.
 
OK, feedback.

Firstly, yes, I'm excited by ANY potential new feature, so yeah... bring it on.

Secondly, I'm not a GvG player. Not because it's "too complicated", but because it's just not my style of play to be aggressive and attack people. I like the more peaceable aspects of this game. It's a relaxing way of spending my time and feeling like I'm accomplishing something. So, weigh my comments based on the fact that no matter HOW good this new feature may be, I still may not participate. But I know my fellow guildies do wish for more conquest related content that isn't the current GvG.

My two thoughts are as follows:

First, why keep the current GvG and add this ALONGSIDE it? If only 5% of the community play GvG anyway, I think it would make the game simpler to just let that whole thing go the way of all things (ie. into the trash hopper). It was tried and found wanting. Let it go, rather than spending the effort trying to bolster it. I simply don't think it's worth the time and resources. When this new feature rolls out to the community, let it completely replace the current GvG system.

Secondly, while I appreciate you trying to integrate more peaceable players into this feature via adding Negotiations to the "conquest" system, it simply doesn't make much logical sense. If you could allow us folks who focus on goods collection/trading to contribute in some other more logical fashion, I'd be all for that, but negotiation just doesn't seem to me to be it. It feels like a "we want more people to play this feature" bandaid, rather than a real story-driven solution.

In actual combat situations, it's critical that troops are supplied to keep their strength up. If there was a way to make goods contributions directly affect the attack and defense boosts of guild armies, that might make us "farmers" more interested in playing by supporting, rather than adding to, their guild's armies. Right now I collect goods simply for "fun" (I have 1500+ of every good through my current age right now), but really don't have much REASON to do so beyond my own OCD issues (LOL). Adding goods contributions to this feature would give me an in-game reason for goods collection. Now just how that would look or play like, I have no clue. But give it a think and maybe something will come to you.

Looking forward to seeing how the community helps shape this new feature.
 

DeletedUser29726

It may have potential...

On 10 day resets:
- seems reasonable. GvG can get stale on some worlds and then people stop paying attention. are the guilds you get matched with every 10 days only going to be from your world or spread across all worlds in the region? If it was local guilds only it'd help keep the feeling of rivalry (where the guilds you see in GE championship people normally have no feelings toward)

On treasury/goods costs:
- hope the maximum that can be spent is *high* such as to make goods somewhat scarce once more

On attrition:
- it'd be great if attrition accumulation was affected to some extent by how well you fight and not just how much (i.e. reward strategic victories taking little damage over autoing thus allowing you to get more fights in)

On timing issues:
- needing to gather people at a time is both bad for participation rate and positive for socialization. Hopefully there is a motivation to get people fighting at the same time, but not such a strong motivation that you can't do anything if that's not possible for your guild.
 

DeletedUser40350

Overall, it sounds like a souped up version of the current GE idea, but placed onto maps. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as GE isn't overly interesting to many people as is. A few things I'd like to chime in about, in my opinions.

Part of the reason why there are way more people that play GE, versus GvG is a lack of accessibility. There are a ton of mobile players that play this game (likely a lot more than PC players), and they have no access to GvG to know what they are missing. There is also no incentive prizes to fight for in GvG versus GE, which surely influences activity. And out of the amount of PC players, many aren't high enough in era to participate in their guilds desired maps they want to participate in. Many guilds don't want to waste time on lower era maps that you mentioned are rarely used, because the prestige value is so low per tile it's not worth building up troops and burning on maps like that. You could consider a different approach to fixing this, by making the value per tile the same in every era across the board. If you did that, I will guarantee a lot of maps like Iron age, EMA, HMA etc will increase in activity exponentially. The reason why GvG fans want you to open up AF, OF, and VF maps is so we have something to spend those goods in our guild treasury on. If you opened up these extra maps, along with equaling the value on each map across the board, and integrate GvG into mobile app players, you will see the interest level of GvG rise a lot more than you think it will. Having a global/guild chat added to mobile so that mobile players can actually talk to their guild while doing GvG would also be a good idea so they are on the same page as the PC players on what they are supposed to be doing. Another problem of why lower maps aren't being used, is many don't hang around low maps forever because they want to advance in this game, and the low era goods don't accumulate as much in the treasury. This can also be addressed, if you integrate the ability to allow guild founders to convert guild treasury goods down eras at a 1:1 ratio (like 50 VF goods traded down to 50 EMA goods), to convert treasury to our needs. This would also eliminate guilds trying to convince players to hold back on advancing eras, just for treasury needs when they want to move up. This would also increase the amount of advancement on Arcs, Observatory, and Atomium (yes, in case people forgot about that one) levels from people above FE, because their goods will all of a sudden become useful again for treasury converting versus the now useless goods we are getting as is. Most don't bother even building an Atomium because they know it will be worthless after FE for goods into treasury, on current game functions. GvG experience can also be improved by making the popup screen when entering a tile to fight be randomized on popping up slightly left, or up, down etc to prevent several players of using methods of quick re-sieging/filling in 0.25 seconds as many have seen over the years on buttons they know will be in exact places every time (I know i'm not the only one that has seen this kind of thing with certain players that doesn't seem remotely possible for a human being to do consistently). I hope the improvements that you have in the works for GvG, will reduce the lag at recalc to run smoother versus 5-10 second delays in between attacks like we have seen recently...especially considering that only our low "5%" play GvG and all (just sayin). I do hope you reconsider the mobile GvG idea being shot down, because i personally think GvG is one of the most unique, strategic, and teamwork features you have in this game, that everyone should be able to enjoy. While I can understand coding is a "complicated" thing, the amount of revenue you make from your players I would hope you have a strong enough coding group that can figure it out.
The new battlegrounds does sound like an innovative idea that everyone can get involved in. It isn't a replacement of GvG as some are concerned about, although it does seem to be something new to try and draw people away from GvG, as it seemed GvG was being deemed somewhat obsolete on the original posting based on quoting current participation. I do agree with what one person said, that it may be a good idea to tie GvG, Battlegrounds, and GE together when it comes to guild ranking points displayed on your world. It would require participation on all features of the game to be considered the top guild on your world. It would show how complete of a guild you are, to be the best listed. Not just good in one aspect of the game which is currently just GvG, when it comes to prestige rankings. That would be up to game developers to find a balance of how to calculate all of these things into a reasonable comparison, to make such calculations. There is also the fact that maps reset and recalculate daily, while GE is weekly, and battlegrounds is 10 days...which would make a daily prestige calculation an interesting puzzle to figure out, if all 3 were linked together into it.
 

AyeMatey

Active Member
Until the game devs can figure out how to get rid of the multiple accounts that control the GvG maps, all the new features you plan on adding will not convince us players that GvG is worth playing. A lot of us have become so frustrated trying to get a little piece of land on the GvG maps. Guilds will not give up a few sectors to allow others to land. It's too easy right now to set up multiple accounts and take as much land in GvG as you like.
 

DreadfulCadillac

Well-Known Member
OK, feedback.

Firstly, yes, I'm excited by ANY potential new feature, so yeah... bring it on.

Secondly, I'm not a GvG player. Not because it's "too complicated", but because it's just not my style of play to be aggressive and attack people. I like the more peaceable aspects of this game. It's a relaxing way of spending my time and feeling like I'm accomplishing something. So, weigh my comments based on the fact that no matter HOW good this new feature may be, I still may not participate. But I know my fellow guildies do wish for more conquest related content that isn't the current GvG.

My two thoughts are as follows:

First, why keep the current GvG and add this ALONGSIDE it? If only 5% of the community play GvG anyway, I think it would make the game simpler to just let that whole thing go the way of all things (ie. into the trash hopper). It was tried and found wanting. Let it go, rather than spending the effort trying to bolster it. I simply don't think it's worth the time and resources. When this new feature rolls out to the community, let it completely replace the current GvG system.

Secondly, while I appreciate you trying to integrate more peaceable players into this feature via adding Negotiations to the "conquest" system, it simply doesn't make much logical sense. If you could allow us folks who focus on goods collection/trading to contribute in some other more logical fashion, I'd be all for that, but negotiation just doesn't seem to me to be it. It feels like a "we want more people to play this feature" bandaid, rather than a real story-driven solution.

In actual combat situations, it's critical that troops are supplied to keep their strength up. If there was a way to make goods contributions directly affect the attack and defense boosts of guild armies, that might make us "farmers" more interested in playing by supporting, rather than adding to, their guild's armies. Right now I collect goods simply for "fun" (I have 1500+ of every good through my current age right now), but really don't have much REASON to do so beyond my own OCD issues (LOL). Adding goods contributions to this feature would give me an in-game reason for goods collection. Now just how that would look or play like, I have no clue. But give it a think and maybe something will come to you.

Looking forward to seeing how the community helps shape this new feature.
I like the new feature, but not if it replaces gvg.i may never be able to hold land in gvg, but that doesnt mean a CHERISH GVG!
 

Agent327

Well-Known Member
Inno is contradicting itself

Scalability - When we designed and implemented GvG five years ago, it was not planned for Forge of Empires as a game to have ages past the Future Era. Therefore, when Arctic Future was implemented, the All Age map was added to try and get around the issue of an ever-growing game.

With this possible new feature you will create a growing game. Maybe not ever growing, but definately growing, so you need to make up your mind. Drop GVG and replace it with Battlegrounds, or fix GvG for once and for all. Not still try to fix GVG and add Battlegrounds.

With Batlegrounds also giving prestige it will influence the guild ranking. The number of prestige given will influence a Guilds decission on what will benefit them more. GvG or Battlegrounds.
 

IngeJones

Active Member
There is another reason not yet itemised that only a few people play GvG. That is that usually the core members of a guild have a preferred era map to play in, and members of other eras don't find battles are being set up to include them - or if they do, then they feel like a nuisance to the leaders. And they can't just go and start their own battles in other eras because then you have the "oh you just attacked so and so and we've just made friends with them" so you've got it wrong again. Or "oh no you've laid seige in such and such an era and we're short of goods in that era". In the end most of us just stay out of it for fear of doing something that's politically wrong for our guild and just a few core members do it.
 

Tommyboy460

New Member
Please leave your feedback here in this thread and we'll look into your ideas and opinions. We'll collect feedback for the next two weeks (until 3rd June 2019), integrate feedback into the concept and share an update within 3 weeks (by 10th June 2019). We will also hold a live Q&A on Facebook & Instagram on the 22nd May 2019 at 17:00 CEST (15:00 UTC). We hope you understand the reasons for this step and look forward to your feedback. Forge of Empires is played by millions of amazing players and together, we will make it even better!

Sincerely yours,

Your Forge of Empires Team
I would like to see All fighting improved, even the GE is becoming boring, better graphics and some new ideas, perhaps a percentaged head shot that would take out an opponent in one shot?
 

DeletedUser40350

There is another reason not yet itemised that only a few people play GvG. That is that usually the core members of a guild have a preferred era map to play in, and members of other eras don't find battles are being set up to include them - or if they do, then they feel like a nuisance to the leaders. And they can't just go and start their own battles in other eras because then you have the "oh you just attacked so and so and we've just made friends with them" so you've got it wrong again. Or "oh no you've laid seige in such and such an era and we're short of goods in that era". In the end most of us just stay out of it for fear of doing something that's politically wrong for our guild and just a few core members do it.

I actually did touch bases a little on this on my suggestions on post #94. Adjusting tile values on tiles to be equal across all eras, would influence more interest in all maps, not just the higher eras. As well as an idea of converting high era goods to low era goods in treasury to help fund lower maps for players in lower eras to GvG on. Any player in any era should be able to have fun in GvG, and this would help make that happen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top