• 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

GVG is crap

The Lady Redneck

Well-Known Member
I love GvG because it is the only real fighting in the game. GBG on the other hand encourages greed and self interest. To me it is just one long boring session of swapping tiles to do pretend fights. to get some goodies. OK they are nice to get, but personally the jury is out as to whether the rewards are worth the tedium.

As to eliminating LZ tiles. in GvG. How would you propose enabling guilds that were beaten and lost all their tiles to get back into a continent to fight again, If you did that? Having them scattered round a continent allows guild to do mass landings. Yes they will be attacked. Some will be lost but some will not. So that guild once again can try to win a place in that map. But to succeed you need to be able to see what is in front of you. It takes tactics, strength and real knowledge of what your troops can do. It also requires camaraderie and diplomacy. And of course the love of battle for its own sake.
 

wolfhoundtoo

Well-Known Member
I presume the 'eliminate' landing zones means that the whole map would be open to be attacked by anyone not already on the map. It would pretty much eliminate positioning on the maps.
 

The Lady Redneck

Well-Known Member
It would pretty much eliminate positioning on the maps.
I see that as leading to a few bully boy guilds (or even a few allied smaller ones with experienced GVG leaders), working to take tiles in a way that blanks out the beaches so that no-one can land. Then they would sit and farm each others tiles to gain even more battle points.
 

wolfhoundtoo

Well-Known Member
If you do away with landing zones that means you can land anywhere. Landing zones is what allows people to be locked out and to keep lines of sectors between unowned sectors (to keep goods down and for being able to lock down a line when someone breaks through). I truly doubt the player who said do away with landing zones meant once you are out of GVG then you are out forever. That would be called locking GVG down until someone owned a map and then killing it.

That would mean that there would be no way to lock out someone from the map. It would also mean that attackers would have a significant advantage that would be way too overpowered given the amount of goods it takes to siege once you own a lot of sectors. Of course, I haven't really done an analysis of good production capability these days so it is possible that guilds can produce what they need easily (although GBG burns quite a lot of goods).
 

Flavius Belisarius

Active Member
Ummm. No, it doesn't. Many, many guilds do no GvG at all. Check the global guild list and then count the number of guilds holding tiles in GvG and you'll see that.

Well, we know neither of these are going to happen. And you didn't think the second one through. With no LZs, only guilds already holding tiles could participate in GvG. That's assuming you are using "LZ" as short for landing zone.
Yes, wishful thinking. NO LZs I meant every sector was an LZ.
 

Yugi the Tempest

Active Member
GvG is the only way to Build Guild Doinance AND it it engages ALL Guilds.
ALL guilds have PC players that can be available at a certain time daily? If you want to argue that GvG is good for the game, at least bring up a salient point.

If Inno wants to cling to GvG the same way Boomers cling to flip phones, fine. But giving GvG any weight to guild rankings is mind blowing stupidity. How can there be any fairness in a ranking system which a significant percentage is derived from requiring players to have certain equipment and specific daily availability? Imagine a mobile based game that only worked on Android phones at 11pm EST and made that an integral part of team ranking, and you have basically the same scenario as what we have in GvG.

Having said that, I only play on PC. I've tried GvG and frankly find watching grass grow to be more exciting. So yeah, I'm not a fan on any level.
 
Last edited:

iPenguinPat

Well-Known Member
Devalue it's ranking contribution. GE and GBG both require a lot more time, troops and strategy than 5 minutes around 5pm PST. A lot of people are not pleased that gvg, something that cant even be accessed by mobile players or people who have jobs, is the sole contributor to the ranking page. Yanno, you can say just do what you want in the game, but the guild ranking is how people find guilds to join so it's pretty important to have a good system in place here. Very active guilds tend to float towards the top, just sayin.

It'd be cool if there was a country ranking for top guilds with the most GE gold medals across the world servers. I wonder if there are any with all GE weeks gold ?

I wouldn't mind a ranking simply based on guild level if nothing else makes sense or its too difficult to recalculate. Have GBG contribute to the level, give a load of crowns at platinum top instead of just the building fragments. There's not really too much desire to get #1 versus #2 or #3 besides pride, you'll still stay in plat. Also need more guild levels...lot are at level 100 cap.

Re GE - you mean like this?
2022-01-09_16-47-14.jpg

The only guild i know with more golds without a loss is 龙 Đ Ɍ Ⱥ Ǥ Ø N S 龍 on EN6 - they are 100% undefeated as fast as i know.


GVG is far more time and resource intensive than GE on active GVG servers. Only about 25% of servers have really active GVG. 40% Decently active GVG. 35% are completely dead. (roughly) If you've never seen recalc on a high competition server, you've really missed out on the potentential of GVG and why people that are obsessed with it love it so much.
 

iPenguinPat

Well-Known Member
I presume the 'eliminate' landing zones means that the whole map would be open to be attacked by anyone not already on the map. It would pretty much eliminate positioning on the maps.

Making all sectors landing zone and eliminating positions is a poorly thought-out idea. At that point, it would simply become a game of burning up everyone's resources and making holding completely unsustainable.

Guilds should be rewarded for securing premium positions on maps, just like any other combat game. Changing up the landing zone so that certain areas of the map cannot be blocked off (AA in particular) would be a huge benefit to the game.

Something more dynamic like a moving landing spot would be more balanced while still rewarding guilds for securing premium strategic real estate.. Sort of like a "Drop zone" type of deal where somewhere that's not normally a landing zone would open up to be landed for several hours during a random time of day.
1) it would give off-hours players something meaningful to do since the current state of GVG is 95% around recalc.
2) it would create a way for small guilds or less dominant guilds to break into dominant guild's holdings (while)
3) Still rewarding and incentivizing guilds to have optimal positioning/real estate.
4) it would make using alts/ghost guilds to block access points significantly less effective.
5) it would force guilds to secure/fill inland sectors that are usually just left empty since they aren't likely to be attacked.

It's really a "minor" change that would completely tweak the entire balance/strategy/dynamics of gvg.


ALL guilds have PC players that can be available at a certain time daily? If you want to argue that GvG is good for the game, at least bring up a salient point.

If Inno wants to cling to GvG the same way Boomers cling to flip phones, fine. But giving GvG any weight to guild rankings is mind blowing stupidity. How can there be any fairness in a ranking system which a significant percentage is derived from requiring players to have certain equipment and specific daily availability? Imagine a mobile based game that only worked on Android phones at 11pm EST and made that an integral part of team ranking, and you have basically the same scenario as what we have in GvG.

Having said that, I only play on PC. I've tried GvG and frankly find watching grass grow to be more exciting. So yeah, I'm not a fan on any level.

You play on US14. That is one of the the most dead GVG servers in the entire US region. US26 is a bit better, but still not even in the top half of GVG servers. Your experience with GVG has been understandably boring.

There are plenty of games where hardware is a limiting factor to competitive ranking.. Imagine trying to do any competitive gaming like FPS or Real time strategy type games on 200+ms ping. Or only getting 10 frames per second. All Esport games have hardware entry point where you cannot be competitive unless you're at least at a certain level.

And tournaments are scheduled at a specific time of day. GBG is 24/7. Imagine a game where you can lose ranking because you weren't awake at 4AM to play. That seems equally if not more unreasonable to me.

Simple enough to pick up a cheap chrome book and play on wifi or a mobile hotspot. $100 isn't expensive for hardware, that's plenty for gvg. For guilds/players that care about being #1 - they'll do it. Forge does not offer reward incentives for being #1, so that limits the the number and type of players interested in fighting for #1.
 
Last edited:

Sharmon the Impaler

Well-Known Member
GvG is here until it is not and will have no changes done to it (main developer no longer around). Any discussion about changes to it will fall on deaf ears because while its not good for the new mobile folks it keeps the ones that are on PC only coming back.
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
If you've never seen recalc on a high competition server, you've really missed out on the potentential of GVG and why people that are obsessed with it love it so much.
That's the thing with me. I have seen recalc on a high competition server. Still don't like it. I understand that if you are in a large guild with many fighters it might be fun for a while, but only if you're available at 7 PM Central time, which I am usually not. Also, from what I've seen in Forum posts, it seems that a lot of the top guilds concentrate on the AA map, which is only really playable if you're in the top era. So if you're not in SAV, and the guild isn't active in the era you're currently in, then you have to produce lower era troops to participate, assuming they are active in a lower age. Or resign yourself to be a supporting player providing goods, and maybe DAs for any maps at or below your era. And what fun is that? None, and I speak from experience. Even if you're able to be a fighter, it becomes boring really quick, at least it did for me. Too much work for literally no rewards. And if you haven't noticed, a lot of players really care about tangible rewards. A lot.
Making all sectors landing zone and eliminating positions is a poorly thought-out idea. At that point, it would simply become a game of burning up everyone's resources and making holding completely unsustainable.
I actually agree with you on this. If it were up to me, I would just remove the ability to block off landing zones. If a sector is a landing zone, it should always be open to attack. The fact that they can be blocked off is one of the most unrealistic aspects of the fighting in this game. (Not that I'm claiming there is a lot of realism, you can revive dead soldiers after all, but still.)
 

HEXylresorcinol

Active Member
Also, from what I've seen in Forum posts, it seems that a lot of the top guilds concentrate on the AA map, which is only really playable if you're in the top era. So if you're not in SAV, and the guild isn't active in the era you're currently in, then you have to produce lower era troops to participate, assuming they are active in a lower age.

Not really true at all. SAM and SAAB players can fight and break sieges in AA, while anybody Iron Age and above can refill DAs in-between enemy sieges. My guild who is #1 on the AA map has a couple of Iron Age and EMA campers who assist us in AA action over there. Being in the higher eras just gives you more flexibility in what GvG roles you can partake. A little bit of out-of-the-box thinking in GvG leadership will make your low-era players useful.
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
SAM and SAAB players can fight and break sieges in AA,
Okay, so the top 3 eras can fight. Whoopee! That only leaves 15 eras out of the fun.
while anybody Iron Age and above can refill DAs in-between enemy sieges.
In AA? Really? That would be the very definition of cannon fodder. Of course, with the defense army boosts being so low in GvG I guess it doesn't really matter what age the DAs are, they're going down quickly. Which means it comes down to whether the defending guild can kill the siege and refill in that split second before the siege is renewed. Sounds like a real fun time. Not. Ever heard of Sisyphus? Google it. That's what GvG seems like to me. From what I've read about the endless swapping of tiles in GBG, it sounds the same...except in GBG at least you get rewards for every stone you roll up the hill. ;)
 

Agent327

Well-Known Member
In AA? Really? That would be the very definition of cannon fodder. Of course, with the defense army boosts being so low in GvG I guess it doesn't really matter what age the DAs are, they're going down quickly. Which means it comes down to whether the defending guild can kill the siege and refill in that split second before the siege is renewed. Sounds like a real fun time. Not. Ever heard of Sisyphus? Google it. That's what GvG seems like to me. From what I've read about the endless swapping of tiles in GBG, it sounds the same...except in GBG at least you get rewards for every stone you roll up the hill. ;)

You fill the DA's cause they need to be filled. Not cause they are actually useful in defending. That's why they used to be filled with spears. Most of the imes those have been replaced by rogues now.
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
You fill the DA's cause they need to be filled. Not cause they are actually useful in defending. That's why they used to be filled with spears. Most of the imes those have been replaced by rogues now.
Which confirms my supposition that GvG is all about timing of clicks and has zero to do with actual fighting. Yeah, sounds like a real hoot. :rolleyes:
I think I'll stick to manually fighting GE/PVP Arena in my lower era cities. Although maybe I'll dabble a bit in AA GvG in my higher era cities every once in a while, just to mess with people. LOL
 

HEXylresorcinol

Active Member
If people are using everything inbetween IrA-Space for defending armies.... wouldn't that mean anyone can fight too?
Sorry, I should have clarified. SAAB and SAM players can reliably fast fight against any DA. Other eras can fight too depending on what the DAs are.
 
Sorry, I should have clarified. SAAB and SAM players can reliably fast fight against any DA. Other eras can fight too depending on what the DAs are.
When I was still doing GvG, I could auto fight most SAV armies with hovers and combat drones, depending on the DAs. If your attack/def on attack is high enough, an FE fighter can do some damage in AA.
 

iPenguinPat

Well-Known Member
You fill the DA's cause they need to be filled. Not cause they are actually useful in defending. That's why they used to be filled with spears. Most of the imes those have been replaced by rogues now.

I miss the days of spears. It was really great for being able to train new players how GVG worked and helped let them get their feet wet without having to murder their unit count (potentially hurting their growth).

If people are using everything inbetween IrA-Space for defending armies.... wouldn't that mean anyone can fight too?

Of course. It was great when spears were still an option because early age players were able to participate in fighting a lot more. Smart guilds would mix in hard DA's as basically an "age check" to prevent early age players from helping fight too much.

There's a lot of strategy that goes into a good DA mix if you're fighting for realz. Players underestimate how much extra time you can buy by using good DA mixes vs junk unit DAs.

In general, players underestimate how effective hard DAs can be because attack stats are so high. Yes, a player with 1600 attack 1100 defense is going to win their first full health fight. The question is, how often can you make them lose or swap units for fights 2-80? If you're using all junk units, a player might be able to do dozens, if not unlimited fights without swapping units.

If your mix is good, they'll have to swap units every 3-4 fights. That extra time (and unit loss) adds up quickly when doing 100s of fights. That could be the difference of slipping a DA or losing the sector etc.

In my opinion, Inno keeps getting surprised by the way players seem to find a way to abuse a new feature.

Couldn't agree more. inno is not very good at predicting how players will abuse mechanics (siege camp farming in gbg, fighting RQs, perpetual CF, and champ farming are the first several that come to mind).
 
Top