Inno's money grubbing ruining the game

[Wwwoodchuck]

Ahh Whistlepig, the cost to rush (siege camp vs FGCP) remained the same (in terms of attrition relief). Period. You are saying that, in the new GBG, the buildings provide two benefits. One, protection from attrition. Two, a boost to VP. You are indeed correct BUT the second benefit only applies to guilds that are chasing VPs. Not all guilds are AND the guilds that are are not always chasing them - it depends on the seasonal ranking. Below is the current GBG standing in my main world. My guild is in the #1 spot. Ask yourself, we have a 275K lead over the #2 guild, how many extra buildings do you think we are rushing with so little time remaining? (the "1M" is really 1,097,844). The answer is "none".

Instead of blindly dropping diamonds on buildings you should verify that the overbuilding, for VPs, is really necessary. Just sayin'

Btw, resorting to ad hominem attacks is a sign of a weakness. Whether, or not, I spend diamonds to rush buildings is irrelevant to this conversation.

View attachment 21230

It is just difficult for you to understand concepts. Bless your heart.

Ahh Whistlepig,

Btw, resorting to ad hominem attacks is a sign of a weakness.

Bless your heart again.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

It is just difficult for you to understand concepts. Bless your heart.

As I said earlier, when you have no sensible counter-argument you resort to ad hominem responses.

 

[WillyTwoShoes]

The increased diamond cost to rush is matched by the increased power of the commonly used building. For example, in the old GBG, the Siege Camp gave 24% chance of no attrition and cost 50 diamonds to rush. In the new GBG, the Fortified Guild Command Post is the most common building we use, 60% chance of no attrition and costs 125 diamonds to rush. The SC cost 2.08 diamonds per 1% chance, the FGCP costs 2.08 as well.

To reach the 80% max, four Siege Camps would have been needed. Rushing them would have cost 200 diamonds. Now, the 80% can be reached using one FGCP and one Improvised Guild Command Post. Rushing them would only cost 175 diamonds

Lemme point out that you neglected to mention that in the previous itineration of GBG it was possible to gain a 100% attrition cap. Parse it any way you want if it makes you feel better but your still paying more and getting less. Here I would be remiss if I didn't say, once again, the increased diamond cost of GBG support buildings was something everyone wanted right? Could anyone point out where players said they wanted to pay more in diamonds for extra Victory Points and less attrition support?

 

[WillyTwoShoes]

You are saying that, in the new GBG, the buildings provide two benefits. One, protection from attrition. Two, a boost to VP. You are indeed correct BUT the second benefit only applies to guilds that are chasing VPs. Not all guilds are AND the guilds that are are not always chasing them - it depends on the seasonal ranking.

A correction here, there are 3 benefits from the Command Post series of builds. Attrition relief, Increased advances to conquer, and VP bonus.

Of course none of it matters while Inno struggles to find a solution to their bot/scripting problem.

edit/added:
I feel like I have to add that I don't think Inno/foe is being up front on the attrition either. I don't have the time or inclination to set out to prove it but my play suggests to me that I'm getting far to much attrition even at a maxed 80% cap.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

I feel like I have to add that I don't think Inno/foe is being up front on the attrition either. I don't have the time or inclination to set out to prove it but my play suggests to me that I'm getting far to much attrition even at a maxed 80% cap.

Your play "suggests" to you that the attrition calculation is wrong but you don't have the "time or inclination" to confirm your feeling. It must not matter that much to you. On a daily basis, it doesn't take much time to compare the number of battles and compare it to the attrition - maybe 5 seconds. Every time that I do it I come up with an attrition range between 18% and 22% based on anywhere from 250-600 battles. Here's one from this morning.

 

[Wwwoodchuck]

As I said earlier, when you have no sensible counter-argument you resort to ad hominem responses.

No, not an attack, that was stating a fact.

 

[Wwwoodchuck]

Your play "suggests" to you that the attrition calculation is wrong but you don't have the "time or inclination" to confirm your feeling. It must not matter that much to you. On a daily basis, it doesn't take much time to compare the number of battles and compare it to the attrition - maybe 5 seconds. Every time that I do it I come up with an attrition range between 18% and 22% based on anywhere from 250-600 battles. Here's one from this morning.

View attachment 21234

is that the same photo shop from earlier?

 

[Pericles the Lion]

is that the same photo shop from earlier?

It is the same screenshot and it was not altered in any way.

 

[Wwwoodchuck]

It is the same screenshot and it was not altered in any way.

Of course not, Dear. Bless your heart.

 

[jaymoney23456]

The increased diamond cost to rush is matched by the increased power of the commonly used building. For example, in the old GBG, the Siege Camp gave 24% chance of no attrition and cost 50 diamonds to rush. In the new GBG, the Fortified Guild Command Post is the most common building we use, 60% chance of no attrition and costs 125 diamonds to rush. The SC cost 2.08 diamonds per 1% chance, the FGCP costs 2.08 as well.

To reach the 80% max, four Siege Camps would have been needed. Rushing them would have cost 200 diamonds. Now, the 80% can be reached using one FGCP and one Improvised Guild Command Post. Rushing them would only cost 175 diamonds

This is not even close to true. In the old GbG one could fight without limits. I could get 10k or more fights any GbG season I liked in the old format. Also, there was no need 95% of the time to rush any camp in the old GbG aside from GbG start. In this new GbG camps need to be rushed not only at GbG start but if you are needing vp for a win or to go for the championship then one needs to rush camps throughout the season. The top diamond guilds also rush every camp at GbG start and sicne there is more slots than in the old GbG it is more expensive for those that rush camps at GbG start than it used to be. Also, overall diamond winnings in GbG is down both on a per fight basis and overall since its not possible to get as many fights in the new gbg as it was in the old GbG.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

This is not even close to true. In the old GbG one could fight without limits. I could get 10k or more fights any GbG season I liked in the old format. Also, there was no need 95% of the time to rush any camp in the old GbG aside from GbG start. In this new GbG camps need to be rushed not only at GbG start but if you are needing vp for a win or to go for the championship then one needs to rush camps throughout the season. The top diamond guilds also rush every camp at GbG start and sicne there is more slots than in the old GbG it is more expensive for those that rush camps at GbG start than it used to be. Also, overall diamond winnings in GbG is down both on a per fight basis and overall since its not possible to get as many fights in the new gbg as it was in the old GbG.

You went off on a tangent again. Nice answer but irrelevant to what I said.

 

[jaymoney23456]

You went off on a tangent again. Nice answer but irrelevant to what I said.

How is it not relevant?

 

[UP ONLINE]

Dear Inno,

I love this game. I've been playing it for over 10 years and have enjoyed it immensely. However, it's been a feeling long coming, but a number of changes over the last year or two have made it obvious how money hungry Inno has gotten recently.

1. GBG - The fact that one GUILD can beat another guild by using diamonds (money) to complete buildings a disgusting display of greed. I do not mind if someone builds their own city up with money, but it just seems wrong for a whole guild to be penalized because another guild will spend money. This is also a boring aspect of the game where "he who has the most game time wins." Now I understand that that rule, is true with most things, but it's not even interesting to sit and click for 400+ battles to take a sector.

2. GvG - This has been my favorite feature of the game for years because it pits you in direct competition with another living being rather than computer generated opponent. You have to think fast and react to your human opponent strategy. And now you're planning on removing it from the game for a couple reasons: 1. It's tough to maintain; 2. There is some cheating; 3. you can't figure out how to support it on the mobile app; and, 4. You have been unable to figure out how to monetize it.

3. GE - The recent change with adding GE5 and removing a lot of the diamond rewards is another display of Inno's money grubbing.

4. Events - you are making it so that you can't compete with other players without spending money to get top prizes. Now, I don't expect anything for free, but to have to spend $500 and up to be in the top league is really obnoxious.

Thanks for the playing pleasure to date, I think a legal separation might be in order leading to a divorce
Big Snafu

That's a long time And still playing the same game lol unlike other ones out there
I still see lots of Diamonds in GE
I would be happy to spend some $$ on this game If I had ANY

 

[Oswyn the noble]

I just spent moola on some diamonds yesterday. I do have the resources to cover my foe expenses. But i try limit budget under 10.00. One day i would like to spend 100 dollars for a crapload of rocks so i can unlock traz for one of my cities. Spending that much is normal for me as i invest in other online platforms like ebay and amazon.

 

[WillyTwoShoes]

Your play "suggests" to you that the attrition calculation is wrong but you don't have the "time or inclination" to confirm your feeling. It must not matter that much to you. On a daily basis, it doesn't take much time to compare the number of battles and compare it to the attrition - maybe 5 seconds. Every time that I do it I come up with an attrition range between 18% and 22% based on anywhere from 250-600 battles. Here's one from this morning.

View attachment 21234

I see you use FoE Helper and have 291 fights on 11 Feb.
Curiosity leads me to ask what your screen shot is supposed to be showing me?

 

[Pericles the Lion]

I see you use FoE Helper and have 291 fights on 11 Feb.
Curiosity leads me to ask what your screen shot is supposed to be showing me?

291 fights with 61 attrition. 21% actual versus 20% predicted.

 

[WillyTwoShoes]

291 fights with 61 attrition. 21% actual versus 20% predicted.

Ahh yes. I overlooked your displayed attrition.
Thank you.

In that you displayed one morning of your GBG conduct you must know none of that means a thing because there is no way to verify the details. The amount of attrition support you had for each fight, traps/decoys in play, and my perceived view of your inherent bias for total support of anything Inno all lead me to say, 'it may be what you got was an outlier'. Although your claim differs from the experience of several players who posted on the subject, to be fair, you might be a better GBG player than them.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Ahh yes. I overlooked your displayed attrition.
Thank you.

In that you displayed one morning of your GBG conduct you must know none of that means a thing because there is no way to verify the details. The amount of attrition support you had for each fight, traps/decoys in play, and my perceived view of your inherent bias for total support of anything Inno all lead me to say, 'it may be what you got was an outlier'. Although your claim differs from the experience of several players who posted on the subject, to be fair, you might be a better GBG player than them.

Keep in mind that the best we can expect are sectors with 20% attrition - it only gets worse from there. This fact nullifies any concerns that you might have about the attrition support that I had for those battles (obviously every sector was 80% reduction). It also nullifies any question about traps/decoys for the same reason. If you want to consider my post an "outlier" be my guest, that's your choice. I could send you screenshots nearly every day with the same info.

For your information, I am not in total support of "anything INNO". I'm just not going to commiserate with players claiming that INNO is not behaving in accordance with their promises. Especially when these players habitually avoid sharing any data to support their claims.