Algona
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Is that a bad thing? If it is there are still a couple constraints. Other Guilds will be doing the same thing or reacting. The cost of Goods for non-AA Era Maps.
-
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:
Agreed. Is that a bad thing? If it is there are still a couple constraints. Other Guilds will be doing the same thing or reacting. The cost of Goods for non-AA Era Maps.
DeletedUser30519
Great no teamwork no strategy single person point farming at all hours
RazorbackPirate
Well-Known Member
Where do I sign up? Sounds fun.
SIR PATRICK THE ONE
New Member
By Doing away with spearmen, you make Point farming easier and more profitable. If I hit a sector with all spearmen, and I mean it has been totally trooped up...full DA's but all Spearmen...I can score a million or so points using Mars Troops, but if I hit the same sector with all Mars Troops, I will make 15-20 million points. My point is that if I am farming, I want to hit a fully trooped up Sect or with High end troops, not waste my time on Rogues or Spearmen. That is another thing, Players should not be allowed to set a siege with all Rogues. Just a thought guys. Also, I get having early eras for newbies to train on, but I also think that maybe Inno should do away with the Iron Age Map...Take that and turn it into a combo for AF & OF fighting, and take AA and turn it into a land for VF & Mars units. The people above are correct about the unbalance of VF and Mars troops. Those troops are much stronger than previous Eras...They really seemed to have jumped up much higher than previous Eras. With this in mind, it is nearly impossible for FE, AF troops to take down VF troops, never mind Mars troops. So, How about that...Do away with Iron Age GvG Map, and make it into an AF/OF map...Then take the All Ages Map, and make it into a VF/MARS Map
DeletedUser2393
Multiple reset's need to be rethought if they are to be implemented worldwide, Inno is essentially asking us to do 3 times the work per day at multiple times, with the same amount of goods, troops, time and at the same time hindering our abilities to defend by nerfing releases and things like that... ohhh not to mention 3x increase in crowns for doing so! I personally believe the entire point of these changes in Gvg is to push people to battlegrounds which gvg'ers dont want to begin with, IE lets mess up gvg so everyone goes to battlegrounds.
Siege cost being so expensive for landing holding guilds, and very cheap for bully guilds to repeatedly attack... The siege cost of land holding guilds need's to be reduced when reclaiming tiles... Some potential solutions...
A. Track the tiles owned and reduce cost when reclaiming tiles owned for X amount of time within X amount of time of losing them.
B. In the real world I believe it costs more for a country to deploy military away from home then it is to refortify an already existing infrastructure. Maybe just make the siege costs match the same amount the guild who is holding it current will lose if the sieging guild takes it, with some type of maximum cap
An additional thought on this is if a player participates in gvg in some type of way reward them with a chance to win goods for each reset participated in.
Defensive tile release protection is going to be harder for guilds with lower participating members to protect their lands. Guilds like mine where you're not sure who is going to make it at 4am, noon and 8pm its going to be even more difficult to plan releases and reacquiring the tiles for protection against aggressive guilds to allow focus on other era's for that reset. Guild founders need a solution the point of having a 4 per day restriction per player was to prevent abuse vs the guild. Guild founders need access to more releases per reset than leaders and trusted players to handle this, else it makes it more difficult for non 100% gvg focused guilds to participate. I suggest 6-10 releases per reset for the founder especially if its the only founder.
Troop cost for stocking tiles, sieging tiles is going to go up having 3 resets per day, this needs to be solved by lowering the of troops needed to fill a DA or a siege, or by increasing the amount of troops available per day, maybe make attached unit buildings build units every 1 hour instead of 4hr or whatever it is. or possibly by creating a new troop gb similar to the traz for the specific players or for that gb to donate the collected troops to the gvg troop pool in the guild's treasury so those units can be deployed by the people who run gvg. An additional thought on this is if a player participates in gvg in some type of way reward them with a chance to win troops for each reset participated in.
Crown rewards need to be increased if we are to participate 3x per day, else what is our reward for doing this three times per day!?! An additional thought on this is if a player participates in gvg in some type of way reward them with a chance to win additional crowns for each reset participated in.
Disable GVG for holidays, days like Christmas for land holding guilds for a 3 resets perday scenario is going to be a absolute nightmare. And the fact that if there are only 2 releases per reset you cant dump your land before. A potential solution for multi culture is to allow up to X many days per year that all the guilds sectors are protected for 24hours per the dates specified in the guilds public profile. And that solution also should work for the guilds who want to attack other guilds who are participating on days like Christmas.
Also another thought that I have is inno needs to either stagger the reset calculation or require ALL reset calculations to be complete across the servers before gvg is opened for fighting I'm thinking inno has multiple "worlds" on the same hardware servers that is adding to the lag of handing gvg at reset, so if World A completed calculation and fighting is allowed, if worlds B-Z are still calculating on the same hardware it adds to the incredible amount of lag for world A to fight in... or make the highest fighting servers calculate LAST
Siege cost being so expensive for landing holding guilds, and very cheap for bully guilds to repeatedly attack... The siege cost of land holding guilds need's to be reduced when reclaiming tiles... Some potential solutions...
A. Track the tiles owned and reduce cost when reclaiming tiles owned for X amount of time within X amount of time of losing them.
B. In the real world I believe it costs more for a country to deploy military away from home then it is to refortify an already existing infrastructure. Maybe just make the siege costs match the same amount the guild who is holding it current will lose if the sieging guild takes it, with some type of maximum cap
An additional thought on this is if a player participates in gvg in some type of way reward them with a chance to win goods for each reset participated in.
Defensive tile release protection is going to be harder for guilds with lower participating members to protect their lands. Guilds like mine where you're not sure who is going to make it at 4am, noon and 8pm its going to be even more difficult to plan releases and reacquiring the tiles for protection against aggressive guilds to allow focus on other era's for that reset. Guild founders need a solution the point of having a 4 per day restriction per player was to prevent abuse vs the guild. Guild founders need access to more releases per reset than leaders and trusted players to handle this, else it makes it more difficult for non 100% gvg focused guilds to participate. I suggest 6-10 releases per reset for the founder especially if its the only founder.
Troop cost for stocking tiles, sieging tiles is going to go up having 3 resets per day, this needs to be solved by lowering the of troops needed to fill a DA or a siege, or by increasing the amount of troops available per day, maybe make attached unit buildings build units every 1 hour instead of 4hr or whatever it is. or possibly by creating a new troop gb similar to the traz for the specific players or for that gb to donate the collected troops to the gvg troop pool in the guild's treasury so those units can be deployed by the people who run gvg. An additional thought on this is if a player participates in gvg in some type of way reward them with a chance to win troops for each reset participated in.
Crown rewards need to be increased if we are to participate 3x per day, else what is our reward for doing this three times per day!?! An additional thought on this is if a player participates in gvg in some type of way reward them with a chance to win additional crowns for each reset participated in.
Disable GVG for holidays, days like Christmas for land holding guilds for a 3 resets perday scenario is going to be a absolute nightmare. And the fact that if there are only 2 releases per reset you cant dump your land before. A potential solution for multi culture is to allow up to X many days per year that all the guilds sectors are protected for 24hours per the dates specified in the guilds public profile. And that solution also should work for the guilds who want to attack other guilds who are participating on days like Christmas.
Also another thought that I have is inno needs to either stagger the reset calculation or require ALL reset calculations to be complete across the servers before gvg is opened for fighting I'm thinking inno has multiple "worlds" on the same hardware servers that is adding to the lag of handing gvg at reset, so if World A completed calculation and fighting is allowed, if worlds B-Z are still calculating on the same hardware it adds to the incredible amount of lag for world A to fight in... or make the highest fighting servers calculate LAST
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser32924
So far I'm liking what I am reading.
Another suggestion would be to ensure Landing Zones cannot be greyed out. This will prevent guilds from "shutting down" certain maps, and using ghost guilds to ensure those maps stay closed.
Another suggestion would be to ensure Landing Zones cannot be greyed out. This will prevent guilds from "shutting down" certain maps, and using ghost guilds to ensure those maps stay closed.
Salsuero
Well-Known Member
I'm not in favor of this. I vote no. -1
DeletedUser32924
I expect there would be some resistance, especially from people who this would directly hurt. But the logic is sound. A landing zone is just what it says: a spot where guilds can land on the map. Disabling those defeats the purpose. And when you see on most servers these super guilds with most of the top players all in one guild, and them also resorting to using ghost guilds to help protect them, it tips the scales too much and the game is no longer fun.
No problems with these super guilds, but get rid of these map shutdowns and make them work to keep their holdings, instead of only having to defend 2-3 chokepoints.
Salsuero
Well-Known Member
I would not be one of those people. Our guild is small and does not employ this tactic.
To you. I disagree with your logic because it's not logic... it's opinion.
They don't always start that way. I see no reason why they should all "become" that way. In the real world (yes, I know this isn't the real world), just because an island is surrounded by beaches doesn't mean you can get to every beach equally as easy. Sometimes it's possible to fortify and area and block a beach landing without actually occupying the beach specifically. I feel like that works in this game too.
Your purpose.
I don't have an issue with it. We aren't the top guild... so we don't have the ability to lock down lots of territory. But that doesn't mean we don't have fun in GvG. There are still plenty of opportunities to make war. The way you beat a superpower isn't by changing the rules... it's by out superpowering them.
You clearly do have a problem with them. In fact, they have to defend quite vigorously... it ain't easy to hold that much territory. They spend TONS of resources on gaining it, make TONS of enemies, and have to play constant defense to remain in control of it. I'm fine with that.
Flavius Belisarius
Active Member
Make all sectors LZs unless you occupy a sector.
I vote yes.
I vote yes.
Flavius Belisarius
Active Member
Allow release of your single sector/HQ so guilds can't trap you forever.
Emberguard
Well-Known Member
Once you have a siege you can also simultaneously attack as many other landing zones as you want up until you successfully land.... and then continue to conquer in any sector you had started a siege in prior to landing
Like sure go for every place being a landing zone if you want, but just so you're aware that'd allow a guild to attack everywhere without hindrance or the need to move HQs. If everywhere's a landing zone you could literally have a guild attack every sector on the entire map (excluding shielded sectors) and wipe out everyone if they had the resources to do so at an hr where there's not many people awake
Last edited:
Salsuero
Well-Known Member
It didn't sound like what he wants to me. I interpreted his comment to mean making every NPC tile a landing zone, but removing that case once occupied by a guild. However, if my interpretation were to be put into play, once all tiles are occupied, how would anyone else ever get on a map if no guild granted any tiles freedom? Your interpretation would be silly for the reason you already stated. So in either case... -1.
DeletedUser25274
Given that the perceived problem is a low level of participation, and since including mobile players is not an option, the object is to increase participation among PC players. Breaking up the practical necessity of being able to play at one certain time of day seems the obvious answer. This will shake up game play routines and tactics with some players and guilds benefiting and some not. I doubt Inno sees that as a problem.
Salsuero
Well-Known Member
That is likely a fallacy from what we can see of the devs' standpoint given that they have no plans for GvG other than to stabilize its performance and are now working on a "replacement" for it. If all players gave up GvG, but still played the game in other areas, I'm guessing Inno would actually be quite pleased with that. It seems to me that GvG has been a thorn in Inno's side almost from the start that they couldn't really figure out how to get rid of... and now they have a "replacement" that they're probably hoping will lead players away from GvG. Just my guess, though.
I doubt Inno sees it at all... they're likely just tired of the complaints about performance issues... and decided to toss in a few easy tweaks to make it a little bit less rough around the edges.