-
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:
Guild versus Guild
- Thread starter Talon Underhill
- Start date
DeletedUser26965
I don't see where the challenge is. You're asking people to either give up what they worked for or drastically alter the make-up of their guilds and force guildmates to stay locked in certain ages if they want to keep those corresponding sectors. A rather drastic move in the name of "leveling the playing field".
DeletedUser25054
I see this problem with limiting players to only battle in a limited age span based on tech age: the problem is that guild vs guild was designed to be a team effort. In a well balanced you have players of all ages. If you limit the ages that one can play you take away the ability of a more advanced player to help the lower age player. That would change guild versus guild to more of a player versus player or a player versus server game.
DeletedUser25054
The challenge in guild versus guild is to motivate the more advanced players to help the newer players. Most are faced with space problems and maintaining the iron age military posts in a modern age world becomes a drag on advancement. And who wants to fight for 100 medals in the iron age when the same effort will give them 1100 medals in the Modern Age.
Unfortunately, as a guild leader I see this problem but do not yet have a proposal to fix it. So for now it is just a thought. Don't limit players from participating in all of the guild activities, but find ways to encourage more participation.
Unfortunately, as a guild leader I see this problem but do not yet have a proposal to fix it. So for now it is just a thought. Don't limit players from participating in all of the guild activities, but find ways to encourage more participation.
DeletedUser26660
Quite agree.
Talon Underhill
Member
Because they want new players to join the game.
blessed4, thank you for your thoughts. I see your point about cooperation and helping the younger players in a guild. Regrettably, we have high level players in my world who deny young players access to their guild (which is their right), who drop 30 barracks for a low age, and who dominate the gvg map. I know my suggestion isn't perfect, but the current situation isn't either.
DeletedUser25273
I think one issue is that GvG really isn't a place for utterly new players. There is a need for the guild to be able to typically defeat 80 defending armies to capture a sector, and those armies will all be full strength, and same age units. You also need to do it under a time pressure, as if your attack is detected, the other guild only needs to kill your army 10 times.
As I said before, I don't think the answer is to limit where someone is allowed to fight, but to adjust things so that guilds are more encouraged to focus where they will make their efforts, to leave room for more guilds to act. My guess is that a lot of GvG was balanced when the game was younger and the world was less full. (Maybe one option is to make things get more expensive as the world fills up).
As I said before, I don't think the answer is to limit where someone is allowed to fight, but to adjust things so that guilds are more encouraged to focus where they will make their efforts, to leave room for more guilds to act. My guess is that a lot of GvG was balanced when the game was younger and the world was less full. (Maybe one option is to make things get more expensive as the world fills up).
Algona
Well-Known Member
You're pulling my leg, right? I mean, you can't really believe there is a significant portion of prospective players who dig deep enough to find out about the problems you think GvG has and use that as the deciding factor to not join the game?
Lessee, should I play FoE? City Building? Check! Tech tree? Check! Trading, Guilds, Friends, Neigbors? Check, check, check,check. I can fight or not? Check. Mobile or PC? Check. New players can't have an immediate impact on GvG? Screw it, I'm outta here.
You want INNO to hose their best players for that person?
I'd appreciate a serious answer to my previous question, thanks.
Last edited:
Talon Underhill
Member
Algona, I thought I had already answered your question before you asked. It is my opinion (and I acknowledge it is just an opinion) that high level players should not be allowed to play on the low level GvG maps because they have an unfair advantage there. I liken it to allowing high school basketball players to take over the court at an elementary school recess. It has been pointed out that allowing the high level players in provides them an opportunity to teach the younger players. I love that idea! Sadly, my experience is that the high level players choose to bully ("to use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants") more often than to help.
I acknowledge that this is a game of war and that fights and taking things from others is a part of the game. Just as with the old abuses of power from inbalanced neighborhoods in which players 2 ages above you could hit you every day and take your productions despite your best efforts to defend, there is an insurmountable imbalance of power in the current GvG system.
I don't think placing limits on the ages of GvG in which a player can participate is the best answer. It's just the best answer I've thought of so far and I'm exploring the idea here to get feedback from other players with different perspectives. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I acknowledge that this is a game of war and that fights and taking things from others is a part of the game. Just as with the old abuses of power from inbalanced neighborhoods in which players 2 ages above you could hit you every day and take your productions despite your best efforts to defend, there is an insurmountable imbalance of power in the current GvG system.
I don't think placing limits on the ages of GvG in which a player can participate is the best answer. It's just the best answer I've thought of so far and I'm exploring the idea here to get feedback from other players with different perspectives. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
DeletedUser26965
You seem to be ignoring the fact that theses "high schoolers" started out pretty much the same as everyone else did at the time the world opened. You have to think of the GvG map as sort of like one big race that started when the world opened, think of it as the Land Rush from Far and Away youtube.com/watch?v=yxaJY8UZxn4
Yes there most certainly is when you're talking about worlds that have been open for years, new players really shouldn't have any expectations about challenging people who have been playing that long. I highly suggest if new players want a chance at GvG they get on Xyr now. For better or worse this is the GvG system inno has had going for nearly three years.
In the end I agree with you in that I think GvG should be something where all players have a chance to also accrue guild power from GvG and I wouldn't even mind completely scraping the current GvG system for a new one that achieves that, I just don't think your solution is a proper one to that end.
Revamp GvG
DeletedUser9433
As pointed out the low level players have the same opportunity to begin a world at the same time as everyone else yet you wish to punish the players who devote more time and or money to play the game. While in your mind you are trying to make something fair any solution you may conjur up to your imaginary problem will only make it unfair to the harder working players. No gold stars for everyone nor participation trophies for all.
Algona
Well-Known Member
lilithtalon, I appreciate your answer. At first blush I don't agree with much if any part of that answer. So I'm gonna wander off and ponder it a while and see what I'm missing.
Would you mind sharing with me your in game experience re GvG?
I think I did previously, but didn't go into detail. Skip to the bottom to see my conclusions if you want to avoid boredom.
----------
I started playing 2 tears ago I'm a one worlder, I've been in one Guild that formed shortly before I started. If I had to characterize my Guild, I'd say we're laissez-faire. We have a few rules, like play regularly, Aid regularly, and don't rip off guildies in trade. Otherwise no serious direction from on high. Build how you want, play how you want...
Some of my Guildies like to fight in GvG. It is the ultimate in teamwork this game has to offer. We first tried GvG 4 months after I joined up, our highest Era player was Colonial, most of us were EMA or lower. We decided to try out EMA GvG, I built a few barracks and a half dozen of us went out there and fought. How experienced were we? Not at all, I was the Guild's expert on GvG, based solely on the fact that I read the forums and had a basic understanding of the rules of GvG. No tactical knowledge, no actual play experience, mind you.
We went into the fight and won. The main reason being our founder and our highest age player spent mass diamonds to heal troops during the fight. We won one more when another player tried some awesome tech and procured a Traz. HMA player with Traz? Must be nice. We won a couple more sectors over a few weeks, and had a nice little 4 sector holding in EMA. Then we got blown off the board.
Over the next couple months we did much the same. Take a few EMA sectors. get wiped after a dew weeks. I'm a slow thinker, finally realized that our Guild didn't have the tools (ie the Troops) for sustained efforts. So I spent a year in Prog and equipped my Guild with 25 or so Traz. Meanwhile the players were progressing, building up their attack GBs. We made a drive for Observatories and HoFs, we were slowly increasing in Guild Power. We started diplomatic efforts to find allies and non-aggression pacts. Surely we would be unbeatable! And we were. We'd waltz into a province HMA, LMA even Clolonial and grab a dozen sectors!
And eventually lose them. Sigh. What were we doing wrong?
For me and my Guild, it's not about attack levels, or Traz on every corner, or resources, we got that. So what were we lacking that the dominant Guilds had?
-----------
Conclusion: Ooganization and commitment. That laissez-faire attitude.bites my Guild in the ass when it comes to GvG. I'm not big on analogies, but I liken my Guild to the Vikings. Sit around swilling mead until we decide to go have some fun. Go raid some more civilized part of the world. The problem for us is there are Guilds that are a lot more like Rome.
I don't begrudge a Guild that is better organized, better prepared, more committed, and uses any in game advantage. They deserve what they have fought for and won. Until someone bigger, tougher, better prepared takes it from them.
Any Guild with a half dozen players who wants to play in GvG and has developed just a little bit can take sectors in Iron and EMA. They just ain't gonna hold 'em.
And i think that's the way it should be. I see GvG as the ultimate team activity in FoE, the game aspect that is most difficult to master, and the only place for a Guild to display unbridled aggression and greed. GvG is not the place for the faint of heart, dilettante players, or n00bs.
I suspect that colors my opinion regarding your proposal, so now I'll go ponder your viewpoint for a while.
Would you mind sharing with me your in game experience re GvG?
I think I did previously, but didn't go into detail. Skip to the bottom to see my conclusions if you want to avoid boredom.
----------
I started playing 2 tears ago I'm a one worlder, I've been in one Guild that formed shortly before I started. If I had to characterize my Guild, I'd say we're laissez-faire. We have a few rules, like play regularly, Aid regularly, and don't rip off guildies in trade. Otherwise no serious direction from on high. Build how you want, play how you want...
Some of my Guildies like to fight in GvG. It is the ultimate in teamwork this game has to offer. We first tried GvG 4 months after I joined up, our highest Era player was Colonial, most of us were EMA or lower. We decided to try out EMA GvG, I built a few barracks and a half dozen of us went out there and fought. How experienced were we? Not at all, I was the Guild's expert on GvG, based solely on the fact that I read the forums and had a basic understanding of the rules of GvG. No tactical knowledge, no actual play experience, mind you.
We went into the fight and won. The main reason being our founder and our highest age player spent mass diamonds to heal troops during the fight. We won one more when another player tried some awesome tech and procured a Traz. HMA player with Traz? Must be nice. We won a couple more sectors over a few weeks, and had a nice little 4 sector holding in EMA. Then we got blown off the board.
Over the next couple months we did much the same. Take a few EMA sectors. get wiped after a dew weeks. I'm a slow thinker, finally realized that our Guild didn't have the tools (ie the Troops) for sustained efforts. So I spent a year in Prog and equipped my Guild with 25 or so Traz. Meanwhile the players were progressing, building up their attack GBs. We made a drive for Observatories and HoFs, we were slowly increasing in Guild Power. We started diplomatic efforts to find allies and non-aggression pacts. Surely we would be unbeatable! And we were. We'd waltz into a province HMA, LMA even Clolonial and grab a dozen sectors!
And eventually lose them. Sigh. What were we doing wrong?
For me and my Guild, it's not about attack levels, or Traz on every corner, or resources, we got that. So what were we lacking that the dominant Guilds had?
-----------
Conclusion: Ooganization and commitment. That laissez-faire attitude.bites my Guild in the ass when it comes to GvG. I'm not big on analogies, but I liken my Guild to the Vikings. Sit around swilling mead until we decide to go have some fun. Go raid some more civilized part of the world. The problem for us is there are Guilds that are a lot more like Rome.
I don't begrudge a Guild that is better organized, better prepared, more committed, and uses any in game advantage. They deserve what they have fought for and won. Until someone bigger, tougher, better prepared takes it from them.
Any Guild with a half dozen players who wants to play in GvG and has developed just a little bit can take sectors in Iron and EMA. They just ain't gonna hold 'em.
And i think that's the way it should be. I see GvG as the ultimate team activity in FoE, the game aspect that is most difficult to master, and the only place for a Guild to display unbridled aggression and greed. GvG is not the place for the faint of heart, dilettante players, or n00bs.
I suspect that colors my opinion regarding your proposal, so now I'll go ponder your viewpoint for a while.
Last edited:
DeletedUser25273
'Vikings' can play GvG, and the 'Romans' don't like it. They do need to play it differently, and shouldn't be expecting to hold a lot of land. Holding land in GvG requires a fair degree of organization and determination, and pays of in some decent rewards in guild power.
A Viking guild, which doesn't own land in a Provence, can sweep into any beach sector and beat it up and quite possibly take it, and from there harass the surrounding territories. This sort of attack is very cheap, and can earn a reasonable number of tower points for the players. If the attack is detected and the siege defeated, they move on to elsewhere down a few troops and some small change in goods. If it was a large guild you hit, then they are going to have to spend a LOT more goods to counter attack after recalc to take the sector back. If you can get a group on at recalc, when the counter attack is likely, then you can perhaps make it even more expensive by attacking and defeating the siege, forcing them to pay again to re-set it. If they don't counter attack right away, you can make another cheap assault further into the territory.
One key is that since you aren't really expecting to hold the territory long, you DON'T fully fill the defenses, as that gets expensive, just put enough so they need to put some effort in, and you have a chance to attack their siege.
That is 'Viking' GvG
A Viking guild, which doesn't own land in a Provence, can sweep into any beach sector and beat it up and quite possibly take it, and from there harass the surrounding territories. This sort of attack is very cheap, and can earn a reasonable number of tower points for the players. If the attack is detected and the siege defeated, they move on to elsewhere down a few troops and some small change in goods. If it was a large guild you hit, then they are going to have to spend a LOT more goods to counter attack after recalc to take the sector back. If you can get a group on at recalc, when the counter attack is likely, then you can perhaps make it even more expensive by attacking and defeating the siege, forcing them to pay again to re-set it. If they don't counter attack right away, you can make another cheap assault further into the territory.
One key is that since you aren't really expecting to hold the territory long, you DON'T fully fill the defenses, as that gets expensive, just put enough so they need to put some effort in, and you have a chance to attack their siege.
That is 'Viking' GvG
Talon Underhill
Member
Thank you all for sharing your viewpoints. They have been enlightening. Thank you especially to Algona for taking the time to better explain his(?) point of view. What you say makes sense and I am content. I can see that while the current system doesn't meet everyone's desires, it does offer fun for many different styles of play. Happy gaming to you all!
You're welcome.