• 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.

DeletedUser30312

So, you are recommending FOE socialism? Players worked hard for those Attack boosts. Others could too, if they wanted high boosts. But, instead of the weaker players putting in the same effort, the proposal is to nullify the effort the strong ones worked for? Gotcha.

Read that Q&A from the EN forum again. The attrition feature is supposed to take longer to affect people with higher attack bonuses. So their work will still pay off here. I don't see the socialism.

You create new maps of course. A new one for AF, one for Ocean and one for Virtual Future. It's no different than what already exists for the other eras.

Why have GvG players asked for this? Maybe because it's relatively simple to add new maps. The underlying code already exists. Changing a few coordinates in code to change the shape of the land mass is not that complex a deal.

And how do you know it's simple? Do you work on the game? Inno claims the code base is anything but simple. Disliking their statement has no bearing on whether it's true or not. If it really were as simple as you assume, then why wouldn't they have added maps already? No, I think I'll listen @MikeJ916 who's backing his statements up with actual experience rather than continuing to trumpet the same things over and over until people agree with him or shut up.

This nightly damage to defensive armies against rocks and water is what used to happen. They removed it when they were trying to fix some of the horrible bugs that used to exist. However removing it didn't resolve anything.

These bugs may be part of the coding problems mentioned in the initial post then. I mean if there are serious bugs in the underlying code that couldn't be fixed for years now, there's always the possibility that adding even more code on top of things might break even more of it. Especially if say, I don't know, Anwar did a good chunk of the coding, couldn't fix it before he died, or maybe other people worked on the initial GvG code and left Inno to work somewhere else, and no one else knows exactly where the problems are in maybe thousands of lines of code. But hey, let's add maps and port to mobile! Easy-peasy.

I don't know which server you play on, but GvG on Rugnir is hopping nightly.

I play on Jaims, and it's probably the same situation that's on Rugnir. Things are hopping for an hour or so after recalc and then mostly quiet again until the next recalc.

I'll wait to see, but right now it looks like they are designing it for the lowest common denominator; putting chains on those who have gone to the effort and time to build their strength, so that casual players can get an A too. woo hoo! :rolleyes:

Or more like work on a feature that those mobile-using proles can actually use and have a reason to stick around with the game rather than appease a part of the player base that will inevitably shrink even more due to the natural attrition that affects all online games with time. Change is a part of life.
 

Liberty

Active Member
And how do you know it's simple? Do you work on the game? Inno claims the code base is anything but simple. Disliking their statement has no bearing on whether it's true or not. If it really were as simple as you assume, then why wouldn't they have added maps already? No, I think I'll listen @MikeJ916 who's backing his statements up with actual experience rather than continuing to trumpet the same things over and over until people agree with him or shut up.
Perhaps because my entire career has been in IT. I started out as a programmer.

These bugs may be part of the coding problems mentioned in the initial post then. I mean if there are serious bugs in the underlying code that couldn't be fixed for years now, there's always the possibility that adding even more code on top of things might break even more of it. Especially if say, I don't know, Anwar did a good chunk of the coding, couldn't fix it before he died, or maybe other people worked on the initial GvG code and left Inno to work somewhere else, and no one else knows exactly where the problems are in maybe thousands of lines of code. But hey, let's add maps and port to mobile! Easy-peasy.
It's possible that they are. Don't know. But, I do remember when they were pulling things off one-by-one, trying to fix the problems. Pulling that one off did nothing from the end user position. The problems that existed before, still existed afterwards. But, you could be right. It was just a suggestion of something that they already had the code for, that would improve GvG.

I play on Jaims, and it's probably the same situation that's on Rugnir. Things are hopping for an hour or so after recalc and then mostly quiet again until the next recalc.
And that too caused by changes that Inno made. The inability now to drop headquarters is one of the causal factors for this situation.

Or more like work on a feature that those mobile-using proles can actually use and have a reason to stick around with the game rather than appease a part of the player base that will inevitably shrink even more due to the natural attrition that affects all online games with time. Change is a part of life.
Or, they could attempt to keep both groups of customers happy. But, like you said, things change and games die.

Read that Q&A from the EN forum again. The attrition feature is supposed to take longer to affect people with higher attack bonuses. So their work will still pay off here. I don't see the socialism.
Ok. Fair enough. I missed that.
 

Douglas 221

Active Member
GvG has always invoked passion in its players and fans and I am not surprised at the occasional vitriol coming at us in this forum. It makes me sad to see many folks feel the need to be negative about this when clearly there is not enough information yet to make a firm judgement on its outcome. Puting all that simply -- why get angry at something that does not yet exist?


Let's all give this a fair chance. Let's also be here for the live discussion if possible (I may not be available but will make sure someone from the MSG Guilds is). The vitriol is unnecessary and I suggest we move on from that. I do not work for Innogames nor do I own stock or have any fiduciary connection to them -- I am only one person with a lot of guilds in my name all over this game. I am here for fun and because I love the people I meet and befriend here. My intent is only to bring a reality check to some of these issues. I hope some of what I have suggested has done so.

I could not agree more with your statement here. They asked for players suggestions for the NEW feature (only pointing it out as many others seem to forget it) so we could help create it and make it workable and fun for as many as possible. I see your point about the 5% but we have to look at it from the stand point of all the mobile players who are here to play too. (not the dead accounts) They have noted that for many reasons (too long to list even for them) GvG as it stands can not be rebuilt in its format and while they try to adjust some of the things they can fix, Maps and mobile are not possible. This is something they spelled out which to me was quite clear. So lets not dwell on it. Lets give some positive feed back (if one wants for GvG to help it) like stability and maybe asking for more map resets a little more frequently. But lets also FOCUS on the new Battlegrounds concept and let us make sure they know the things we WANT out of it.

I have gone back to read it a couple times to make sure I didnt miss things. And from what I am reading it sounds quite interesting. Now what can we suggest to make it even more fun for mobile or computer... fighter or farmer... buyer or occasional player. They have made it clear they will not get rid of GvG. So all GvG players can go back to a GvG thread and offer suggestions and give complaints there. We need to stay focused on the new Battleground. (when I say we I mean anyone in the thread not just you since I quoted you.)
 
Why do they need to decide on one versus the other? Choosing one while eliminating the other, would cause a lot of people to quit the game versus draw more interest to it. Keeping current content, and adding another feature gives a different flavor to the game for various people to enjoy. While some may like or dislike battlegrounds, they can continue to have fun whatever way they currently have been either way.

I hear you, Dave. I understand the desire to appeal to everyone. But it might produce some confusion for new players for there to be TWO flavors of GvG. I suppose it was marketed and explained well, it could work. But I take your point and probably should have said "Inno MIGHT have to decide...". We'll see how it plays out.
 

Douglas 221

Active Member
So, you are recommending FOE socialism? Players worked hard for those Attack boosts. Others could too, if they wanted high boosts. But, instead of the weaker players putting in the same effort, the proposal is to nullify the effort the strong ones worked for? Gotcha.

I'll wait to see, but right now it looks like they are designing it for the lowest common denominator; putting chains on those who have gone to the effort and time to build their strength, so that casual players can get an A too. woo hoo! :rolleyes:

First off, With the number of vocal GvG players do you really think they will do away with GvG? So players who worked hard for those attack boosts will enjoy them in GvG which is why the worked so hard for them.

Second, While you are saying casual players can get an A too... why should they penalize casual players? There are casual players who do dump some money into the game. The biggest factor I have seen is the desire to bring the Mobile players into the fold. They have stated adding GvG on mobile for numerous reasons mentioned and not mentioned would make it impossible. So why keep beating that dead horse? Why are you assuming that Battlegrounds will simply be for the lowest common denominator and not any challenge for experienced diehard players?

You have the attack boosts so you should have no issue going all the way thru GE with only fighting. So why is that not a challenge for you?

Third, If everyone wants a challenge with their high attack boosts and defense... why does GvG end up being a fast auto battle? There is no challenge with super strength using auto battle. It seems the people wanting the easy A, are those who have paid to become lazy. And that is fine if that is what you want. A race to the very top with everything super high and you are now bored with the game. I dont understand why you find that satisfying but that is the great thing about the game Inno has done work to make it fun for anyone willing to play. The casual player who just wants to build a city. The fighter who wants to use strategy. The fighter who wants to buy their way to the top and sit on top. The farmer who just liked to collect, trade, and donate goods. Or the social person who just liked to have a place to have a conversation with strangers they meet online.

I just do not understand why you want to degrade anyone who is not a die hard GvG player. I have read your posts and it seems like you want to point out anytime someone does not praise GvG and expect everyone to be mad because the game developers wont do the monumental tasks you want for GvG. I am sure you will want to rant and bash everything I have said but please just get real with this true goal of this thread.... Make suggestions for the new Battlegrounds component. You have made it clear you want something for the players who have worked/paid to get all of their attack bonuses. Isnt that what attrition will do, give the game some challenge for the strong player? It wont make it impossible for the casual player like some seem to want to happen. Why should it? Let all people enjoy the game which does not mean Socialism for FoE. It does not mean giving everyone an A. There are plenty of casual players who can not fight past the first level of GE or even solve all the way to the fourth level. They do not get an A just for showing up.

Enjoy GvG. Let people who are creative and want to help mold this new feature get their suggestions out.
 

DeletedUser

I am quite surprised to learn from so many players who are mobile that they have resented the PC players. This idea is extremely popular. GVG is not the main part of this game that many of us , including myself, thought.
Then you'll be even more surprised to learn that a lot of us PC players also resent some GvG players who think that GvG is the entirety of the FoE universe and anyone who doesn't play it isn't really playing the game. I've played the game for over 4 years, founded and led guilds, and had cities on every world at one time or another. But because I rarely bother with GvG, most GvGers who post here don't think I, or anyone else who isn't hardcore GvG, deserve to have an opinion. It's that arrogance that turns most of us off.
 

ShadowWarlord

Active Member
To be honest, the Game Developers were clear that nothing else will be done for GvG but if players want to take their time and effort to provide additional insight, let them as this will be one of the last times GvG is addressed.
If developers/project managers don't want to do anything about GvG then they should remove it. Why keep an un-managed part? If they fear it will piss-off many players who like to play GvG, then they should reduce its importance in such a way that guilds will no longer find it interesting or useful.
 
I don't understand how Guild Battlegrounds will entice newer / mobile players to learn to fight or support their guild more. Those who are not aware of the communication involved in global or guild chat probably won't want the increased need to communicate more after GBG starts. It sounds like an attempt to bring mobile players more into the larger guild-oriented aspects of this game. Mobile only players only see their own cities and threads unless they delve into the mysterious bottom pull-out menus. Dare I say most don't even aid or visit taverns. Getting the mobile players to open GE (in my combined mobile and computer player guilds) is difficult, making them do a minimum level to achieve is difficult to communicate because - again - most don't open the communication features on the mobile platform. If you want to make this game more friendly for mobile only players then consider something for individuals to do for themselves - like more freaking events and settlements. They don't need a guild for those things. Those who learned about the cooperative aspects of the game and are in active guilds that communicate regularly are more oriented to something like GBG type activities. They need even more participation than the current GE, more timely participation and more monitoring than I can foresee any mobile only players will ever do.
SO I foresee that GBG will again polarize those who are on computers and those who are on mobile devices only.
This is just my analysis based on previous experience with mobile only players.
 

DeletedUser26263

Then you'll be even more surprised to learn that a lot of us PC players also resent some GvG players who think that GvG is the entirety of the FoE universe and anyone who doesn't play it isn't really playing the game. I've played the game for over 4 years, founded and led guilds, and had cities on every world at one time or another. But because I rarely bother with GvG, most GvGers who post here don't think I, or anyone else who isn't hardcore GvG, deserve to have an opinion. It's that arrogance that turns most of us off.

Let me tell you what makes this a positive in my book. MSG has guilds in 20 worlds -- we have 27 total in our family network. Some of them are GvG players, some are trade focused, some more social, some focused on Guild Expeditions. What excites me about the new model is that many of those in the non-GvG guilds will be able now to fight and compete in an arena they felt was unreachable (Mobile players, Farmers and Traders, those who are turned off by GvG for various reasons, etc). This adds an element of competition that is a level up from the weekly Expeditions "6 guild hit list". I am very confident it will expand the options for people and therefore the base. The issue as always is execution -- how do they do this?

There are always loudmouths in any circle. GvG is for the warriors. Their job is to kill virtual stuff and pump up others who will do the same on their team of choice. So my suggestion is that we all take the arrogance with a big grain of salt. It has its purpose and can sometimes even be useful if you are a GvG competitor. So let them blow air if they choose to do so. Ignore it. It comes with the territory.

I am happy though that Innogames is planning to keep the GvG folks engaged as well. Killing GvG entirely would be a bad mistake. I am glad that is not in the cards (so far).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser37653

PLEASE NOTE: We want to hear your feedback regarding GvG and the new Guild Battlegrounds. However, I must ask that we remain civil. No bashing of others, no attacking. Any off topic posts may be removed. You are the best players of the best game around. Let's please act like it.

Thank you for clarifying on what sort of feedback you'd like to have. It's disappointing to read no real further development will be done for GvG, but I guess that is the way of things sometimes. For when the developers do add a bit of polish to the GvG maps one last time, I would be really happy to see:

a) Allow guilds to use colours to differentiate between allies and enemies. We can keep red for guilds we select as enemies, and a light or baby blue for allies. Our own land would still be green. And then everyone else can be set to a dark amber colour (by default or what have you).

b) Allow guilds to make use of AF and higher era goods. I know you will not create more maps, but perhaps enable guilds to trade AF and higher era goods down to any era we choose, at like a 10:1 Ratio. There's already at least some precedence for this in the marketplace, where we can trade goods at 10:1. Friends tavern boost would not apply to treasury. So just like... an example would be we trade 10 Virtual Future goods for 1 Contemporary or whatever era good; bypassing single era variance hops. This would help players whose cities produce higher era goods feel like their contributions are meaningful.

----

As for battlegrounds, I guess it's too early to tell. I look forward to more information. Seems like it will be fine. =)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser15969

I tried to read through 27 pages :) -- but I gave up at page 3

Let me say it is a very interesting and exciting concept. I am also happy that it is not replacement for GVG that many enjoy. I know it is a minority of players but my guild was always build as a well rounded guild participating in all aspects of the game. I found it a bit judgmental (actually bordering offense) calling those who GvG arrogant! We just play every aspect of the game. My guild, which is level 75 btw. always accommodated all sort of gameplay -- and some of our best players play on mobile. So please just because you do not understand or enjoy a feature do not call others arrogant.

That said I agree with the developers assessment about the current state of the GvG. Introduction of FoE to mobile really hurt GvG. I can see that it would not work on mobile for multiple reasons. It should be added that one of the biggest deterrent of GvG is the demand on time, more specifically most action is around recalculation, something that not everybody can do.

Allowing mobile players to have meaningful contribution to guild is a great concept. I already liked that the level of a players doesn't really effects the GE competition and that actually every player counts equally. If you can make it as you say so it might be a great feature that will give a new guild wide action.

I see it was mentioned that guild level caps will increase which is great! I also would suggest to change the guild ranking system as it is now it is based on the GvG and basically on the feature that only 5% of players plays! Would be nice to have rankings for GE also somewhere included and maybe even have a global GE ranking.

One important feature is missing from mobile and that is guild chat. Many mobile players miss out of the guild chat. The messaging system doesn't replaces it. I just wonder if this feature will require a more direct chat like communication.

Another question I have -- will be this feature amongst all guilds ? -- meaning no matter which world they are on (like in GE) or it will be local world based like the GvG?
 

DeletedUser26120

To start off, we would like to get your feedback on:
1. Does this concept excite you? Do you think it's a worthwhile addition to the game?
2. What can be improved upon? And how?
Yes.

Main problem with gvg (in my opinion) is the inflexibility on times. If you're not on nightly at 8pm game time, you're not able to remain competitive.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
If developers/project managers don't want to do anything about GvG then they should remove it. Why keep an un-managed part? If they fear it will piss-off many players who like to play GvG, then they should reduce its importance in such a way that guilds will no longer find it interesting or useful.
To keep it GvG doesn't need to be perfect it just needs to be "good enough". It still works within reasonable useability though it obviously has its' problems given the amount of complaints regarding lag and landing zones
 

DeletedUser38934

1. Make map smaller so that mobile users can play easily.

2. Have a solo entry system so that players can que to fight others for standing points. possibility different brackets, 1v1 2v2 4v4 8v8

3. Make city bonuses applicable, and the reward system worthwhile.

4. Award system must have player fighting bonuses that can be used in the city itself. Higher ranked players at the end of a cycle will get more reward points twords those bonuses.

5. Balance is key.
 

Brutusone

Member
GvG has too few starting points. A few large guild conquer isolated sections and then do nothing but collect points. Trying to hold section is almost impossible against high ranked guilds. It becomes a field back loop of the strong getting stronger and the rest have no way to catch up. Needs to be some way to level the playing field so everyone can enjoy this part of the game. Most feel locked out and can't play because of the built in advantage to older (higher ranked) players. Maybe restricting guilds to play in only two or three eras, letting younger guilds pick and choose their battles and having some chance of winning.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
GvG has too few starting points. A few large guild conquer isolated sections and then do nothing but collect points. Trying to hold section is almost impossible against high ranked guilds. It becomes a field back loop of the strong getting stronger and the rest have no way to catch up. Needs to be some way to level the playing field so everyone can enjoy this part of the game. Most feel locked out and can't play because of the built in advantage to older (higher ranked) players. Maybe restricting guilds to play in only two or three eras, letting younger guilds pick and choose their battles and having some chance of winning.
That is the beauty of Battlegrounds. It solves all of these issues by avoiding all of these issues. Every guild who wants to battle will have a guaranteed spot on a map, always be matched with other guilds from their League, and every 10 days it all resets and everyone gets matched with new guilds. GvG will stay as is, as will all the issues. Battlegrounds is a whole new thing.
 

barra370804

Well-Known Member
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 who do play it and use alternative browsers to enable mobile users to play it. Coming out with new maps to use with advanced troops would make it relevant and enjoyable but instead, you just say 'it's complicated'.
It was made clear that Inno will NOT be taking out GvG.
 

DeletedUser17397

if the fun gvg wasn't expensive enough, now we'll have to fiddle in the new one as well... given time they'll make up statistics or calculations and phase out the original, (inno does what it wants, when it wants... ) and new players like ge type garbage mixed with endless events.
 

DeletedUser27999

Suggestions:
1) Have the attrition reset based on the player's activity, not a set 'global time'.
2) Have any daily reset/start time vary. 5PM one day 6pm the next. As a west coast player making recalc (5pm) on GvG is tough for me due to work schedule. By cycling through various times you allow other regions to have resets be prime for them for a period.
3) Maybe have attrition slowly disappear (akin to troop heal). So you could resume a fight with a slightly rested army.
4) If someone is heavily negotiating, will their negotiating become more expensive so it is similar to the attrition for fighters?
5) It seems that only populous guilds will be able to rise to the highest league. So it does seem to fall to a populous guild. GE at least levels this by tracking completion based on number of members.
6) An efficient guild should be able to be in an elite league instead of a populous one that is less efficient.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top