• 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 vs Guild Improvements Feedback

  • Thread starter DeletedUser4770
  • Start date

DeletedUser35715

So if I understand correctly, the main reasoning behind the 4hr recalc timer is to try and improve the server lag more so that increase GvG participation, yeah?? I'm not really up to reading thru 13 pages of posts on all this, so excuse me if anyone has already said this, but I just wanted to make sure at least someone says it...
An easy way to help provide a more accessible platform for EVERYONE on EVERY SCHEDULE to show up and fight, that would also help alleviate server lag at recalc, would be to change it so it happens in some odd hour duration, like every 13hrs, or 15hrs or 17hrs or even every 21-23hrs... That way it's always constantly changing what time recalc occurs (as well as adds the extra element of paying attention to it and the group coordinating meeting up) and gives everyone an equal chance to be on at recalc while not making it so they can be on, but with a completely different map each time they show up... Then if you were to stagger the recalc on each world so that only 2-3 worlds were to perform recalc at any given hour (and design it so that they would also rotate which worlds are mated each week), it would allow people on different worlds to be able to hit recalc's on more than one while also load balancing the server-side workload...
Like I said, I apologize if it's already been brought up, just wanted to make sure it was out here...
BTW, I absolutely love the idea of converting archers into space age troops to keep all the little guilds off the AA map...
 

DeletedUser35715

It would also be nice if you would fix the bug/exploit in the 24hr HQ relocation timer where a guild can attack sectors, move the HQ, attack more sectors, then get released from the map, reland (oftentimes on multiple sectors) and get a free HQ placement to fight out from again and then another HQ move after that... Not to count the whole HQ bumping, which can be daisy-chained into countless HQ moves if done correctly... 1 HQ relocation per 24hr period should be just that, only 1...
 

DeletedUser10324

Ive been playing FOE for 5 years, so I have plenty of experience in GvG. I too wish to respond to the upcoming changes.

Additional Recalculation Timers

change daily calculation to 4-hourly calculation. Within this the Guild Power, Guild Ranking, GvG Support Pool bonus and sector protection will be recalculated. However, Guild Level, HQ relocation and GvG Sector freedom grants will remain on a 24-hour timer.
I have no issue with calcululations on the above on a 4hr timer, I have a HUGE problem with: EXCEPT SECTOR PROTECTION WILL BE RECALCULATED. With it taking over 2hrs to train a troop...how is the little guy supposed to fill defense in 4 hrs. As a guild we work togther to fill those defense slots. Even with high level traz, it will be impossible to fill them. We wont have time to make new troops. So there is basically no way to protect a territory anymore. So at 4AM any guild can wipe out up to 8 sectors. Thats a LOT of goods lost. Im guessing that there will be a lot of territory lost over this, so its a shame for the little guy who can hold territory anymore and they have no way of gaining crowns off the map. I see all the changes against a guild holding territory....but i dont see any changes to help them. What about HQ moves? so i can only move it once in 24 hrs? so that would stop a guild from attack me every 24 hrs, but it will then create a LOT of tiny guilds, 1 man guilds to keep attacking over and over. They could have a guild take them off the map and strike in a different spot and take out another 8 sectors.?

Removal of Bronze Age Units -no longer allow usage of bronze age units on All Age Map
I have to say this is not a deal breaker, but it will also add to the problem of lack of troops we will be able to load in defense.
As it takes 1hr 20 min or longer to train 1 Iron troop.

Reduce Point Farming Profitability
To combat farming with Champs... once a sector is freed, all units...placed there will be replaced with random, NPC units of sector's age. In AA, ...units..replaced with units from..highest age.
This is a good idea in lower ages maybe, but There is NO WAY that is WILL PREVENT FARMING in AA...THIS WILL ONLY MAKE FARMING WORSE. Guilds will load up those sectors with iron troops and release and POOF they turn into SAM troops. Those in SAM are going to have a snack on all those sectors and rack up huge amount of points. I thought this was ALL ages...now its gonna be SAM age only. What about ROGUES...if you fill a sector with rogues what will happen?

Confirmation checkboxes - Yes Sounds like a good improvement
Camera Focus - Yes!!! love this change
Bug Fixes - ok

Additional questions:
What about ROGUES...if you fill a sector with rogues what will happen?
will we only get 4 drops per 24hrs per person?
What about a guild that can do mulitple landings on the beach....if they have 20 fighters, they could take out 28 sectors?
What about HQ moves? only 1 in 24 hrs...how will that work?
will there be a time limit upon when a guild can re-enter a map?

*** PLEASE LET US KNOW WHEN THIS WILL GO INTO EFFECT AND GIVE US MORE 24 NOTICE!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser7406

In AA Map, replacing the units with "highest age" for freed sectors, is not Any Age - this makes it only possible for the highest age players to participate. If you are going to do this, then don't call it Any Age, as it is not for "any" only the highest. If you want an open battleground for all players than you should not do this.

Yes, this is definitely tilted toward players with high attack %. (The ones that don't need the extra advantage)
It will only cause further separation from the highest ranked players and others.
Killing Spears is one thing, but replacing with random units is not great.
There are other reasons for releasing sectors that have nothing to do with farming.
If it replaces AA sectors with SAM units, does that mean you can save your high age units and simply place garbage, such as drummers, etc?
 

DeletedUser7406

I think INNO should start with 8 hr re-calc first and see how that works out.
I think INNO has it backwards on AA units. Attackers should be required to start a siege without spears.
The defender should be able to put anything they want.
If you defend a sector with all spears, it makes it less attractive to point farmers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Algona

Well-Known Member
how is the little guy supposed to fill defense in 4 hrs.

Plan ahead? Don't overextend? Build and lvl Traz? Get Guildies to help? Build mroe Barracks?

Or simply realize that the 'little guy' is going to have a 'little role' in GvG. because the serious players are planning ahead, not overextending, have built and lvled traz, get their Guildies to help, and build more Barracks. But you already knew that.

Instead of worrying about the little guy's tole in a big player game, why not teach the little guy how to grow?

Oh, and just curious. Why is a player in a lvl 62 Guild with 18K Prestige worried about the little guy?
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser40780

This is a fairly frequent observation. It's accurate, INNO doesn't listen to the players often.

For good reason. So much of the feedback and so many ideas folk have are awful with no thought for the effects on the game, just how it makes the game easier or better for that player.

Just as bad, anytime a thread reaches more then a few dozen posts, the opinions and ideas are contradictory. This and the first GBG thread are filled with splendid examples of lots of people wanting lots of thigns that conflict with the wants and ideas of lots of other people.

INNO does listen, but what message is being sent?
----------
The following was a response to a question about INNO listening a few weeks back:
----------
That'd be me. If you don't pay attention to the forums, if you don't engage in conversations, if you don;t follow topics and discussions for months and years, then you really have no clue what's happened in the past or how we got to where we are today.

I'm in a much better position to discount or dismiss your opinions of what the player base thinks on any topic and understand what INNO is doing then you are to discount my opinions. I haven't and won't do so, I'd appreciate you extending the same courtesy and stop doing so.

Appreciate the civil response. :)

I'm a big fan of history and completely agree that finding the right direction moving forward is much easier when you know where things came from. I'm relatively new to the game (not quite 2 years yet), and I'll often ask older players about how things used to be both in FOE and on my specific server. (i can't tell you how many times I've heard stories about mountain men. #norespect)

The forums are a small segment of the players. The vast majority of players do not utilize forums. I don't think the forums as a whole are any better of a representation of what the player base thinks than a regular discussion with players from a variety of guilds and server. Someone could argue that talking to players on global is a better source because those are players that actually play the game and don't just live on the forum. I'm not saying that. Both are valuable.

Your list of changes inno has made does show they've listened to feedback. There should be a list of changes like that. How many times did those come up? How long did those take to implement after being brought forward? Where is our timer on mobile that shows when GB's collect? :)

If any of the suggestions that have been put forward in this thread conflict with past policies/decisions inno has made, it would actually be helpful for discussion for someone with that prior knowledge to kindly chime in. That [your] experience is highly valuable. It doesn't do anyone good to keep posting ideas that have long been shot down.

Your point about conflicting suggestions is certainly valid. Players have competing interests, due to play style and general game position, and it makes sense that the devs would rather not change anything regarding highly conflicted topics. That's why the nerf on TVP is so surprising and frustrating. The conflicted part was what they changed (pvp use). The fact that it's not a very good building and needed improvement was highly agreed on, but no change was made to make it better or to compensate for the loss of pvp use.

It's cases when there is little or no conflict that I'd (we'd?) expect to see changes. Here's a couple of examples
1. TVP/SG needed buffs to be worth building.
2. Request for 1down kit or retro kit to downgrade buildings.
(This is particularly notable given how the auto-battle from the overview map has changed fighting completely. In an age like CE, AAVs were king when everyone had to enter into the battle map, skip a turn, then auto-battle. Now, to be competitive, you must auto-battle from the map, so CE champs are the best unit by far. When upgrading past CE before, it didn't matter, but now we can't go back.)
3. Mobile GvG - I realize this is a huge can of worms from a development standpoint. It's also the biggest barrier for most players that want to gvg and can't. Availability/Recalc time is much less of a hindrance. I understand that user experience is a factor as the maps are large and complicated, and yet, there are plenty of players that play on puffin which literally has no mobile accommodations. Bottom line: Players DO want mobile GvG and are willing to make sacrifices to make it work. (heck, inno might even be able to crowdsource some great ideas on how to make it more user-friendly).
4. GvG maps for AF/OF/VF (loved the idea of replacing a few of the early age maps with advanced maps. Right now, Af-VF are no-man's land for GvG. it's like a 6 month gvg black hole. Arc goods are not helpful for the guild, and units aren't competitive against SAM. yes, i know AA was supposed to be the end, and inno has alrady said they aren't doing this. Doesn't change that many players want it.)

Obviously, adding mobile players to gvg can/would add more lag issues, so perhaps that's yet another reason it's being avoided. I will say that as we're developed our guild, we've had players that didn't gvg and barely played. Once they started GvGing, they started playing more and spending $$$. GvGers are easily the most engaged players in the game from a time standpoint.

So back on topic with the thread:
It seems highly agreed upon that 4-hr recalcs is going to be a resources nightmare for most players/guilds that wish to hold land. If everyone has the same resources per 24hr (units/goods), but have 6x as many recalcs to fight, how will that be sustainable?
And filling AA NPCs with SAM units is not going to work for stopping farmers. We all agree on that too.

There's no ballpark indication of how soon these changes are coming (1 week? 1 month? 6 months? mid 2020?). We don't know if they are going to be tested on beta before going on live servers. I know a lot of guilds would manage resources differently if they knew how soon to expect these changes.
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
The vast majority of players do not utilize forums. I don't think the forums as a whole are any better of a representation of what the player base thinks than a regular discussion with players from a variety of guilds and server.

Right. You can get wonderfully different views in game. See my thread Algona, the Peddler down in the MK subforum. I agree that the viewpoint of the forums is not representative of the majority of folk in game. There;s a reaosn for that.

The forums have qualitative and quantitative differences from anything a player can find in game.

A record of what's occurred. Cross wolrd communications. Scores of different folk commenting and discussing and arguing and disagreeing on topics Moderation to keep discussions from getting to heated or off topic. Ability to collaborate, to have folk help refine ideas such as IBER's CS Guide and Cosmic Raven;s HQS.

Why are the forums not representative? There's a very small qualification to join the forums, folk have to register to comment. And just that one little difference, that a person has to have enough desire to say something to take a minute to register makes a huge difference.

Once that person does register, they reach potentially thousands of people on every world.

Including the devs.

I susect if you talk to any long term frequent poster, you'll find that most of us are active in game and do take advantage of all the avenues for in game communication. We just also happen to have the forums for a slightly different viewpoint.

The forums are not representative and maybe not the best place to learn about the game, but do have advantages.

----------

Your 1 and 2 are disputed. (but then again, anything is disouted on the forums!) Go look at past proposals re 1 downs, there's a therad in Guild Hall regarding Virgo. You might want to review those and argue about them there. To keep this thread on topic...

There's no ballpark indication of how soon these changes are coming (1 week? 1 month? 6 months? mid 2020?). We don't know if they are going to be tested on beta before going on live servers. I know a lot of guilds would manage resources differently if they knew how soon to expect these changes.

Agreed, some kind of timeline would be great.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser40780

Your 1 and 2 are disputed. (but then again, anything is disputed on the forums!) Go look at past proposals re 1 downs, there's a therad in Guild Hall regarding Virgo. You might want to review those and argue about them there. To keep this thread on topic...

It's fair to say that none of these topics are unanimous. Some people will argue just to argue even if they agree with the idea! Even ones that have a lot of support might not get support if the full opportunity cost was clear. (i.e. it's nice to have a GB delete confirmation, but what other features/improvements did we not get because devs were working on delete confirmation? I like the delete confirmation btw. Deleted multiple RHs over the last 2 years.)

To bring the current discussion and the discussion of previously proposed changes.

https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/one-down-kit.20341/ 85% support for a 1 down kit
https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/select-an-age-age-down-kit.21496/
https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com...vent-buildings-down-an-age.23879/#post-216627
https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/one-down-kit.20029/#post-163333

Of those 4 threads, i'd say the 85% was fairly representative if those in favor. The potential abuse is being able to save population. But upgrading buildings that provide population offers the same net benefit: more available population. There's literally dozens of different ways to increase available population, and the vast majority of advanced players (those likely to "abuse" downgrading TF's for population benefit) have plenty of population. In the big picture, the amount of exploitability isn't all that high AND if a player is willing to pay the cost of 1 downs, then good for them. (the case against a retro kit that skips ages down would be more exploitable.. why not start with 1 down, then see if retro would be an issue?)

The other argument against is "it's been proposed before and the answer was no." - generally "because i said so" doesn't work well with adults :)

If we have 85% of players saying 6 recalcs per day is too many, lets try 12 hour, or 8 hour, or 6 hour. or random, or rolling, etc... and innos says "well 15% of people like 4-hr, so we're doing it because i said so" .... that's not going to turn out well :(
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
To bring the current discussion and the discussion of previously proposed changes.

As i said, those are off toic for this thread. Happy to discuss them at length, just not here. Feel free to bump one or better start a discussion thread in Guild Hall.

If we have 85% of players saying 6 recalcs per day is too many, lets try 12 hour, or 8 hour, or 6 hour. or random, or rolling, etc... and innos says "well 15% of people like 4-hr, so we're doing it because i said so" .... that's not going to turn out well :(

I have no problem with not doing 4 Hour, instead trying something else.

Personally, I wanna see the chaos that ensues with 4 hour, I wanna see how other Guilds react. I suspect that after a lot of complaints some Guilds will settle down into new strategies and do well, others may want to go back to 24 hours and others will be trying to get it changed to alternate times.

I'm fine with whatever comes down the pipe as long as it's a change form the staus quo. As I noted upthread, the important thing here is INNO develop the capability of multiple recalcs, then they and we can experiment with different recalcl periods.
 

ShadowWarlord

Active Member
Additional recalc time will increase the number of fights, I think that is the goal. If the guilds don't play smart they will soon exhaust their guild resources and that will be helpful for new guilds to rise
 

BruteForceAttack

Well-Known Member
It's fair to say that none of these topics are unanimous. Some people will argue just to argue even if they agree with the idea! Even ones that have a lot of support might not get support if the full opportunity cost was clear. (i.e. it's nice to have a GB delete confirmation, but what other features/improvements did we not get because devs were working on delete confirmation? I like the delete confirmation btw. Deleted multiple RHs over the last 2 years.)

To bring the current discussion and the discussion of previously proposed changes.

https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/one-down-kit.20341/ 85% support for a 1 down kit
https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/select-an-age-age-down-kit.21496/
https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com...vent-buildings-down-an-age.23879/#post-216627
https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/one-down-kit.20029/#post-163333

Of those 4 threads, i'd say the 85% was fairly representative if those in favor. The potential abuse is being able to save population. But upgrading buildings that provide population offers the same net benefit: more available population. There's literally dozens of different ways to increase available population, and the vast majority of advanced players (those likely to "abuse" downgrading TF's for population benefit) have plenty of population. In the big picture, the amount of exploitability isn't all that high AND if a player is willing to pay the cost of 1 downs, then good for them. (the case against a retro kit that skips ages down would be more exploitable.. why not start with 1 down, then see if retro would be an issue?)

The other argument against is "it's been proposed before and the answer was no." - generally "because i said so" doesn't work well with adults :)

If we have 85% of players saying 6 recalcs per day is too many, lets try 12 hour, or 8 hour, or 6 hour. or random, or rolling, etc... and innos says "well 15% of people like 4-hr, so we're doing it because i said so" .... that's not going to turn out well :(


Inno Designers said no to 1 down kit in FB live Q & A, check their response 25th min.

Reply from inno designers: www.facebook.com/ForgeofEmpires/videos/334121120813998/
 

DeletedUser40780

Inno Designers said no to 1 down kit in FB live Q & A, check their response 25th min.

Reply from inno designers: www.facebook.com/ForgeofEmpires/videos/334121120813998/

Inno has made it clear that this is not going to happen, just as they've made it clear that there will be no new GvG era maps.

The 4 examples were not to re-introduce those topics as proposals. I apologize if it seemed that way. Those examples were to highlight topics that have high amounts of agreement among the player base, yet Inno has said "no." It was a rebuttal to "Inno does listen."

This video actually does a great job of making my point.

I completely agree that any benefit a player could get by downgrading other special buildings (i.e. TFs, event pieces, etc) can be accomplished in other ways like trading, leveling GBs, adding housing, etc. They did not address the Champion aspect which shows they've missed one of the most crucial reasons players want a downgrade option. It is an issue that is specific to GvG.

Champ farming is an issue that needs to be improved. Once a player gets champs in AF or higher, they are weaker than other units available. (i.e. BForts, Ronin, Crabs, and SW are generally better than champs of their age). Once champ retreats are moved past the most useful ages (i.e. CE and TE for attacking. FE, they are really great DA against rails) that leaves no other use than to farm them for points.

Champs are the only units that you cannot go back and get more of in a previous age. Other special units are not tied to a specific age, and you can obviously build normal unit barracks anytime. One option would be to make champs "any age," and they automatically match up to the age they are used in, similar to rogues (but cannot be used at an age higher than the player's age - that should be a simple check to program). In AA, champs would match the age of the player using them. - This doesn't directly prevent champ farming, but it does give champs use other than farming points. It could also help liven up early age maps that don't see much action because advanced players don't have/build units to fight those ages.

People that aren't playing GvG at the highest level are making decisions without fully understanding how they are going to affect everyone. That's apparent given how current idea to prevent point farming will actually make it worse. The UX/UI Improvements are solid, and Inno has done a good job of listening about those, so kudos there.

Guys like Septimious Severus, Johntisdale, bruteforce, Dave the Narcissist, ptmo, (i'm sure i've left out a bunch here, sorry if i missed you) etc that are in/lead guilds that have been or currently top-ranked on their servers are going to have a different understanding of GvG than more casual GvGers. Also, because they understand GvG better, they can propose ideas that would be closer to balanced and/or actually solve the issues at hand.
 

DeletedUser

People that aren't playing GvG at the highest level are making decisions without fully understanding how they are going to affect everyone. That's apparent given how current idea to prevent point farming will actually make it worse. The UX/UI Improvements are solid, and Inno has done a good job of listening about those, so kudos there.

Guys like Septimious Severus, Johntisdale, bruteforce, Dave the Narcissist, ptmo, (i'm sure i've left out a bunch here, sorry if i missed you) etc that are in/lead guilds that have been or currently top-ranked on their servers are going to have a different understanding of GvG than more casual GvGers. Also, because they understand GvG better, they can propose ideas that would be closer to balanced and/or actually solve the issues at hand.
The trouble with this viewpoint is that their ideas/input will mostly (not all, but mostly) be based on large, well established GvG focused guilds, and that is a tiny percentage of the player base. If more participation is what Inno is after, and it seems that they are, then that is exactly the kind of perspective on proposed changes that will not really be useful. Making it more palatable to everyone is the aim, not just making it more fun for those that already play it.
 

DeletedUser40780

Edit: I changed my opinion. Looking forward to changes. I hope they keep the AA NPCs = SAM units too. Can't wait :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BruteForceAttack

Well-Known Member
point farming would still be possible but only for mars players or players that can fight mars troops. i could drop commandos in or something small and poof it would turn to SAM units. nice points jump there. top players can attack anywhere at odd hours. and "ghost" for points. you are making it easier to farm points off of guilds that hold a postion in earnest. i think a siege timer would be beneficial. you have 2 ways to siege. either they see it coming (like a normal army would be seen by the enemy) where you siege and it shows for say 20 mins. and you can get people to defend or you have a stealth siege which you can siege and attack right away. however stealth sieges should cost substantially more goods and/or diminish your attack capabilities. the trouble is no one wants to sit and stare at maps especially when half the time you watch the maps get sieged and never even see it pop up because the screen doesnt show it. maybe a beacon in guild chat the each guild has announcing a siege has been set. and lastly when someone sieges an LZ it shows an "unknown guild" did the sieging. i personally would like to know who is attacking me. if it was a true city that was being sieged you would know who was attacking right? why would you not tell us who is attacking. and i know there is a guild named "Uknown guild" but i can tell when its them by the lettering.

Took this from the GVG update feedback thread.

Good post, I'm hoping Inno is going to look at this comment.

TD&LR
If Inno reduces the reset time to 4 hour (or 8 or 12) with shield going down and even without HQ move. A guild can potentially take lot of sectors in one day.

Restricting the HQ move has no impact because after 4 (8, 12) hours, a guild can push forward from the newly acquired sectors.
 
Top