Guild Battlegrounds Feedback

[DeletedUser40362]

GvG should be limited to players of the same age. Having a guild full of virtual futures players constantly killing all low level players with their 500% attack bonus is the reason no one plays it. It's boring getting wiped off the map unless you join one of about 15 guilds. Also, you should limit players to only being able to take over one sector per day. That way there are long drawn out battles, instead of one virtual age player with hundreds of iron age fighters wiping out half the map in 2 hours.

 

[DeletedUser23634]

then build up you attack and def better yourself and go kick some ass lol

im in guild with 2 people fighting and we can destroy most guilds on gvg

 

[DeletedUser]

One of the main reasons more people don't fight in GvG is they don't understand what move to make and why.

Not even close. Two main reasons more people don't fight in GvG are:
1. Mobile players can't.
2. Maps are dominated by large established guilds to the virtual exclusion of newer or smaller guilds.
Has nothing to do with understanding the "mysteries" of GvG.

That’s fine because the approximately 128 players on the main world I play on who actually spend diamonds are paying for the game.

Unless you work in Inno's HQ you have no way of knowing whether this is true or not. It is not helpful to any discussion to spout off fantasy numbers of how you think things are.

 

[mstorm]

Adding some new features to GvG for a reward based features would help out. Like in Guild Expeditions. You want to improve GvG?

Start by opening the entire map up to ALL landing zones. So guilds can attack any hexes on the map. You made it almost impossible to fight guilds that are off in a corner 30 hexes away from a landing zone. Guild have to spend days trying to reach these far off hexes only to get wiped off the map by other guilds surrounding the guild hiding in the corner posting fake sieges filled with Champion troops, to bloat fake rank points. Little guilds DO NOT stand a chance in GvG because they are always limited to having to attack landing zones. Just to get wiped out the next day because they are stuck and limited to where they can attack.
Opening the entire GvG map up would take alot of this fake farming hexes for fake ranking points.

Take away the points Champions give. There should be NO reason Champions are worth so many points when beating them fighting. They are WEAK and usually die in 1 or 2 hits. Make Champions the same rank points as Drummers Color Guards, and rouges. Keep their points the same as the other special units. Champions ARE NOT WORTH the points they give per fight.

If a guild releases a hex in GvG. Do not allow them to retake the hex at clock gvg reset. If a Guild releases a Hex in GvG then they should NOT be able to retake that hex for 1 week. Just the same as if a Guild member leaves a guild they can NOT rejoin for a week. This same rule should apply in GvG if you release a hex. If another guild takes a hex you release then you can retake it. But ONLY if another guild takes what you have released.

How about some new added features. Like Missile attacking Hexes in GvG being able to launch an air strike on Hexes in GvG would be a pretty cool feature. Just like in World War 2 Allies would weaken the enemies defense before sending in the attack. May be make some sort of similar feature for GvG.

Allow Paratroopers in GvG Meaning IF YOU DO NOT OPEN ALL HEXES TO LANDING ZONES. Then give us an option to paratroop to hexes behind enemy lines that are hidden off in a corner, That would nromally take days to reach fighting across the map. If you allow paratroop drops a limited amount per day. It would give littler guilds a chance to establish them selves places on the map. And also would kinda slow down the guilds using GvG to post fake sieges to fight for fake rank points.

Another option for GvG would be to take ALL PERSONAL ranking points away from GvG since Moble players can not use this feature. Not a fair playing ground allowing PC users to fight fake sieges for fake points in GvG an option Moble players do not have. Make GvG a GUILD Reward over all. Anyone fighting in GvG instead of ranking points for personal gain. If you fight in GvG it goes guild bonus to help your guild reach the next level for guild rewards.
GVG was meant to be a guild participation NOT a personal gain rewards. If you fight in GVG all points earned should go towards guild RANK and GUILD LEVELS. NOT PERSONAL GAINS.

Make GvG reward based as well. each month reset GvG maps and make people fight monthly for rewards like in Guild Expeditions. At the end of each month who ever attacks the most hexes takes the most land the top 10 guilds for that month recieve a guild reward. Be it forge points, diamonds, special buildings. You can do rewards based like Guild Expeditions.

These are some ideas I have on HOW TO MAKE GVG BETTER AND FAIR FOR ALL

 

[DeletedUser40350]

If the new feature can be controlled by gangs of large guilds and small guilds have no opportunity to play and enjoy some level of success, it will fail and will remain at 10%.

There is also a need not to make FOE all about battles. What makes it more interesting than the "war-like games" is it's complexity, balance and nuance.

They mentioned in the original posting, that as you win or lose, your guild will be adjusted in league ranks, and pitted against other guilds week to week around your current guild capability. So because of this, you should have a relatively fair matchup every week in battlegrounds. They also said you don't need to battle...you can negotiate in battlegrounds.

 

[DeletedUser]

GVG what was this game was about when you first started it. that is waht made it different from a builder game.

Wrong. GvG was not in the game at the start, it was added later.

I stated it in my own post, but the only thing I don't like about this statistic is we don't know the source data, the sampling. Is it ALL of FoE, including the inactive players and mobile players who cannot access GvG? Or is is just the active, PC players who can access GvG?

It is 5% of active players.

 

[Flavius Belisarius]

Ok I see that GVG WILL NOT BE REMOVED and that GVG will not be available on Mobile. Ok. I can give the new feature a chance BUT
GvG needs at least three improvements to make it viable: (I realize code is complicated)
1. RECAL for GVG more than once a day. Four would be optimal (every six hours) Two at a minimum. Once a day is too hard to manage for almost all guilds.
2. Make all sectors landing zones.
3. Assign a maintenance cost (use initial siege cost) paid each RECAL for each sector held. Penalty: lose one Defense Army in sectors not paid for.

These additions will remove the time zone constraint around RECAL, while preserving the Defense Shield. Having all sectors be Landing Zones would require Guilds to consider defensive strategies. The Maintenance would require Guilds to pay to keep their holdings or consider releasing sectors. Guilds won't be able to just sit on sectors without a cost.

 

[DeletedUser40350]

This battlegrounds thing is weird with NEGOTIATION. If they are negotiating, will they be using the guild treasury goods? Otherwise lower age treasury still has almost no use.

As much as i would love to be able to have a use for AF, OF, VF goods in treasury for this kind of situation...if negotiating drew goods out of treasury, that would include FE and below (whatever your current era is, player to player), which might anger GvG players that use goods for that. This should be a leader/founder decision to deplete goods this way, not for all members to draw from on their own. For this reason, i would say you should be using your own goods to negotiate just like GE. I did however list productive suggestions on post #94 (might change due to some posts being removed above) on ideas on how to bolster treasury if it is indeed used for this, as well as finding appropriate uses for low era goods and low era players

 

[Flavius Belisarius]

Since this is your 3rd time posting the exact same thing, no, you're not sorry to spam, you're simply just spamming. We read you the first time.

OK. They deleted the extra posts. I did post a new statement explain how to improve GvG

 

[DeletedUser29726]

My aching back is right. Just because a game offers a variety of activities to engage in, do you somehow think it is necessary to do ALL of them? Use a bit of discernment and decide which features you enjoy and do those - leave the rest for other players.

Well I mean there's an aspect of being left behind if you don't do them. And most of them aren't really 'activities' so much as 'click sinks'. There's zero thinking to aiding all your friends, sitting in taverns, building and selling runestones, autoing battles - and these are the things that burn people out on 'too much to do'.

Some of these sorts of features need to either
- be made more enriching (i.e. requiring more mental involvement than clicking hundreds of times to buy and sell runestones - say by making diplomacy something you want at all times and not just the instant you're going to unlock the next tech you actually intend to use)
- be simplified (i.e. Aid All) to reduce the wear and tear and self loathing for still playing this game of mindless clicking
- be removed (i.e. Bye Bye Tavern, almost no-one will miss you apart from the 4th turn of negotiation which should be replaced by being available from a more interesting system than a second click for every friend each day)

 

[DeletedUser37581]

Well I mean there's an aspect of being left behind if you don't do them.

What do you mean about being "left behind"? How does your progress in any way affect my progress?

In almost any game, the more active players can get more accomplished in a (day, week, month, year) than a less active player gets accomplished. There are many features of FoE that I do not participate in, or participate at only a low level. That's a choice I make based on real-life time commitments. The addition of a new feature may mean that I put some effort into it and reduce participation in a different area as a consequence.

I agree that some of the mindless clicking could be reduced.

 

[Liberty]

Inno, you already have a builders game... Elvenar. And that was a bust. FOE was a war game. Why do you want to turn it into a bust too?

 

[DeletedUser37581]

Inno, you already have a builders game... Elvenar. And that was a bust. FOE was a war game. Why do you want to turn it into a bust too?

Inno already has a war game - Grepolis. As a war game, it is much more engaging than FoE.

 

[Algona]

What do you mean about being "left behind"? How does your progress in any way affect my progress?

One of the fundamental questions of the game and so few ask it. Good for you.

GvG is the best example. The others off the top of my head are sniping GBs, PvP / plundering, and GE Championships. Basically any time you can directly compete with another player. This game does not have a lot of that.

If those are not important to a player then other player's relative strengths are unimportant.

 

[Liberty]

Wrong. GvG was not in the game at the start, it was added later.

Yes and Great Buildings didn't exist, either. They were added because people who got done with the research tree were bored and were leaving the game in droves. Adding GBs gave them something to do and a place for their forge points.

There was a great deal of excitement when GvG was added. There was a learning curve, yes. And those not willing to learn, find themselves at a disadvantage. That's true with about everything in life, no? These are typically players who spend very little time on this game anyway. Which is the case with a large number of mobile players. It would be interesting to see a graph of who spends the money on this game, which pays the salaries of the employees of Inno, related to whether they play primarily with a PC or mobile.

It is 5% of active players.

Yes, and many of that 5% do a lot to teach other newer members of this game who are interested in learning. It's nice to know that we are disposable to Inno. In trying to find the bright side, I'm sure my bank account will appreciate it.

 

[DeletedUser23634]

im reading all these coments lol im in a guild with 2 people and we do gvg we spent years building our citys attack and def we have the best internet conections we can get. we can do gvg just fine its about how you play the game i might be your so called 5 percent but we are who pays for this game we dont cheat in gvg we are fast because we learened how to do it if your to lazzy to learn dont complain ive spent my time and money in this game to get were i am this is a war game fix the maps add more for all the ages most new players are on the phone you wont to learn buy a pc lol if not farmville is over there stop trying to destroy what alot of us have spent years mastering if you think gvg is dead go look at the maps on rugnar

 

[DeletedUser22214]

GvG has a few structural issues that would need to be addressed if they were going to try to go the fix GvG route, rather than try a new system. First problem is that it is not available on mobile. I'm not sure how feasible it would be considering they haven't figured out how to get it active yet. Second problem is that a few big guilds control the maps which locks many players out. Third is a problem that they introduced. GvG is right now just a click fest. Once you pick a tile and siege it every player just clicks as fast as they can. That gets boring. Even the necessity to enter a battle and auto it from there actually required more skill bc you got to see the enemy army before autoing or retreating. There is skill in choosing which tiles to try to take and negotiations with other guilds but the actual battles are just a matter of clicking auto and replacing troops as fast as you can. Fourth problem is the AA map. There is no use for goods after FE.

To me it makes more sense to leave this in place for people who like it but add a new feature rather than doing any serious revamps to it, any of which would likely lead to people being upset. Starting fresh removes the ideological entrenchment that people have on any fixes to GvG. Further from what we know about this system it appears like it will resolve all of the structural problems that I laid out from GvG. So, let's see what it will be. If done right, I think it will be a fun addition to the game.

 

[DeletedUser37581]

These are typically players who spend very little time on this game anyway. Which is the case with a large number of mobile players. It would be interesting to see a graph of who spends the money on this game, which pays the salaries of the employees of Inno, related to whether they play primarily with a PC or mobile.

According to industry sources, InnoGames revenue from the mobile sector increased 37% last year. In the US market, mobile accounts for 50% of earnings.

 

[Liberty]

This new Guild Battleground revision.. will not be enough.. it would be better to get rid of it and create a newer version based on all platforms. GVG, is one sided in how it is played.. only the higher end guilds can play in it effectively.. Military combos are Stuipid
and does not always work. Get rid of GvG and replace it with something else..

Why? Do you even know how to play GvG? I play in a 2 person guild. It wasn't easy, but we just kicked a 65 member guild off of the map and sit where they used to sit.

It seems to me that the people who are so eager to dump GvG one, never played, are not interested in spending the time to learn how to play it effectively, are not willing to spend the time/effort to build up their cities and hone their fighting skills and then are those who sucked at it, and just want it to go away, because well, they sucked at it.

 

[Liberty]

According to industry sources, InnoGames revenue from the mobile sector increased 37% last year. In the US market, mobile accounts for 50% of earnings.

Which means the NON-MOBILE accounts for the other 50% of earnings.