Reduce the shield protection from 24hrs to 1 hour.

[qaccy]

Before reading, keep in mind that this is all speculation on my part.

Inno considers GvG a 'failure' on their end. This is why the All Ages map was added as a way for them to avoid continued updates to the system. For some reason or another, they were unable to get it to 'work' the way they wanted which is why it's been swept under the rug and a big part of why we received GE. If Inno could do it all again, I'm willing to bet that these two systems wouldn't co-exist - we'd just only have GE. It's been available on mobile since the outset and has received several significant updates and bug fixes since release while GvG has had only small (and very infrequent) bug fixes in the same time period. GE even has achievements now, and GvG has none despite being a part of the game for much longer and could surely have achievements related to it. I know that achievements are not a significant part of the game for most players, but virtually everything you do in-game has an achievement related to it and GvG is completely absent from this system. All of these things combine to tell me that any sort of GvG update is very far down the road, if we ever reach it at all. It's only being left in the game because at this point it'd be a worse move by Inno to remove it than to just leave it as-is.

Again, all speculation on my part!

 

[DeletedUser12620]

Before reading, keep in mind that this is all speculation on my part.

Inno considers GvG a 'failure' on their end. This is why the All Ages map was added as a way for them to avoid continued updates to the system. For some reason or another, they were unable to get it to 'work' the way they wanted which is why it's been swept under the rug and a big part of why we received GE. If Inno could do it all again, I'm willing to bet that these two systems wouldn't co-exist - we'd just only have GE. It's been available on mobile since the outset and has received several significant updates and bug fixes since release while GvG has had only small (and very infrequent) bug fixes in the same time period. GE even has achievements now, and GvG has none despite being a part of the game for much longer and could surely have achievements related to it. I know that achievements are not a significant part of the game for most players, but virtually everything you do in-game has an achievement related to it and GvG is completely absent from this system. All of these things combine to tell me that any sort of GvG update is very far down the road, if we ever reach it at all. It's only being left in the game because at this point it'd be a worse move by Inno to remove it than to just leave it as-is.

Again, all speculation on my part!

Well said

 

[DeletedUser26965]

keep in mind that this is all speculation on my part.

Inno considers GvG a 'failure' on their end

I don't know, I mean I think it was more of a matter in just the way things developed over time by not having long term goals developed prior to implementation that caused them to now probably want GvG gone. GvG was supposed to be in the game from the beginning but in Inno style might as well release stuff then think later how they'll add stuff, like the new message attachment feature is only partially developed. Then they introduced a truncated mobile version of the game, later saw they can't get GvG to function on it and decided to try to introduce GE as the alternative but realize many like GvG so can't really get rid of it so now what, pfft, who knows, I don't think they think that far ahead. So I don't think they consider GvG a failure rather more of a failure to implement "the" game as "a" game in one singular type package and are now trying to force it all to make sense.

 

[*Arturis*]

Hi LacLongQuan,

Is your guild a top level guild with a huge body of fighters to fight in GVG and is highly ranked on certain maps? Not to be rude or anything but I think you are here to represent only high-level guilds not completely understanding how tiresome and difficult it could be for small guilds.

I understand it's an Idea but this would only benefit high-level guilds with goods, fighters, and nothing but time.

To me, GvG is not for small guilds, if small guilds want to participate, they need to have at least 20 active fighters to attack and defend the hexes and also have the resources to sustain a long fight. GvG should be for the fittest/strongest to be in the map in the first place. I don't know what it is about the mentality of protecting small guilds. GvG is guild war, you don't jump in with a ragtag army and expect to survive and grab some land, you will get crushed. For a guild to participate in GvG, you need to build yourself up with high level Alcatraz, have a long term plan of building goods/medals to the treasury and increase your guild member's unattached inventory for a long fight. Participation is also the key to GvG. Just my opion.

 

[DeletedUser15539]

I would like to see changes that would liven the game up. Reducing the GvG bubble protection to one hour would certainly do that, for guilds with a small footprint on an age map. Guilds with big map footprints are restrained more by the goods cost to set sieges than by the bubble protection.

 

[DeletedUser26532]

I'm not against some kind of shift to bubble protection, but an hour is a bit short. Sometimes if you are a smaller guild it takes time to stock up your sectors or get donations to fund stocking.

Yes, I know those in top 10 60+ player guilds will say "this isn't designed for small guilds", and of course they have an advantage over them, but smaller guilds should still have the ability to participate in some way.

 

[DeletedUser12620]

I'm not against some kind of shift to bubble protection, but an hour is a bit short. Sometimes if you are a smaller guild it takes time to stock up your sectors or get donations to fund stocking.

Yes, I know those in top 10 60+ player guilds will say "this isn't designed for small guilds", and of course they have an advantage over them, but smaller guilds should still have the ability to participate in some way.

I would cut the 24 hours into 12 hours.

 

[DeletedUser26120]

Again, all speculation on my part!

Don't forget that the original programmer for FoE died, and that changed the direction of the game considerably.

 

[*Arturis*]

Don't forget that the original programmer for FoE died, and that changed the direction of the game considerably.

Just like Steve Jobs passed way, we have a bigger Iphone, how ironic. Also Apple spent billions to make the phone thinner and lighter, people buy it and put the case on to make it thicker and heavier. Funniest thing is when the game done with part 4 AF and ask me in the survey if I like it, I said no in that survey, and they ended making part 5 for OF lol, unbelievable!

 

[DeletedUser11463]

I guess it depends how your guild plays. I've been in small guilds (3-5) that are more "barbarian" or "viking" in nature where they go in and take some terrs and don't care if they keep them. When you have 4-5 guilds owning 90% of the map, of course it gets boring. But as previously stated, it is very difficult for even large guilds to get more and more territory because the goods cost per terr gets very high. So a small guild can gather a few hundred goods (obs, Arc, atom) and under the new system would be able to strategically take 8-10 sectors fairly quickly. Again, they may not be able to hold them but the big boys have a tougher time retaking them when they already own 25-30 sectors.

 

[DeletedUser26154]

we have a bigger Iphone, how ironic.

I just got mine upgraded, too.

 

[qaccy]

Don't forget that the original programmer for FoE died, and that changed the direction of the game considerably.

Hm...are those things actually related though, in this instance? I mean to say, GvG was already in the game by that point, and if it was indeed too difficult to keep up with as I personally assume I don't feel like one developer's presence would have an impact on that. GvG must be a real mess under the hood for the developers to basically abandon it in favor of bringing out something completely separate and different. It's also worth pointing out that game development teams are rarely, VERY rarely, creatively driven by just one person. Even if GvG was Anwar's idea, it's very unlikely that he was the only reason the rest of the developers worked on it and that with his unfortunate passing they told themselves 'time to work on something else'.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hm...are those things actually related though, in this instance? I mean to say, GvG was already in the game by that point, and if it was indeed too difficult to keep up with as I personally assume I don't feel like one developer's presence would have an impact on that. GvG must be a real mess under the hood for the developers to basically abandon it in favor of bringing out something completely separate and different. It's also worth pointing out that game development teams are rarely, VERY rarely, creatively driven by just one person. Even if GvG was Anwar's idea, it's very unlikely that he was the only reason the rest of the developers worked on it and that with his unfortunate passing they told themselves 'time to work on something else'.

It was stated somewhere by someone from Inno, I think in reference to direct player/player battles, that such a thing was in the plans, but that Anwar was the driving force behind it and when he passed away they went a different direction. So, yes the death of one person can have that much impact when that one person is the one with the original vision.

 

[Lucifer1904]

While I could see the benefit of breaking away from the reset time issues there is a flip side to this that would be detrimental. Larger guilds with massive GVG participation will love it. Small guilds with limited personnel will hate it. In theory a large guild could start a march across a map and never slow down, no HQ move required as you can launch attacks from secured (no shield) sectors. Large numbers of participants with massive armies or plastic supplement for the same would win the day. Where little guilds who use shield wall defense tactics will be at a huge disadvantage as they lack the resources and endurance to fight for hours on end.
I would have to say no to this on that basis.

I would have to agree with Sgt. Bothari on this one, this would cause GvG to become unfair and uneven beyond the scale.

 

[qaccy]

It was stated somewhere by someone from Inno, I think in reference to direct player/player battles, that such a thing was in the plans, but that Anwar was the driving force behind it and when he passed away they went a different direction. So, yes the death of one person can have that much impact when that one person is the one with the original vision.

Again, though, GvG is something that's already in the game. It's one thing to scrap an idea that's only in the planning stages, and another thing entirely to just abandon a feature that's already implemented. My belief is that Anwar's passing had little if anything to do with the abandonment of GvG. This is going to come off as insensitive, but do you think he would have been in the office, cracking a whip over a bunch of beleaguered developers to keep working on GvG in spite of all the problems it was causing them? That's what I was referring to by one person not having that much control over development. And since he seems to be pretty fondly remembered by Inno's staff (enough to create a tribute event in his honor), I doubt he was that kind of person to run his team in a way where only his ideas were worked on and the guy had to die to 'free them' to go in different directions.

 

[DeletedUser]

Again, though, GvG is something that's already in the game. It's one thing to scrap an idea that's only in the planning stages, and another thing entirely to just abandon a feature that's already implemented. My belief is that Anwar's passing had little if anything to do with the abandonment of GvG. This is going to come off as insensitive, but do you think he would have been in the office, cracking a whip over a bunch of beleaguered developers to keep working on GvG in spite of all the problems it was causing them? That's what I was referring to by one person not having that much control over development. And since he seems to be pretty fondly remembered by Inno's staff (enough to create a tribute event in his honor), I doubt he was that kind of person to run his team in a way where only his ideas were worked on and the guy had to die to 'free them' to go in different directions.

I don't envision him "cracking the whip" at all. As you said, he seems to be fondly remembered. Maybe his death had nothing to do with GvG being put on the back burner, maybe it did. I wouldn't just pass it off as an unlikely contributing cause, though. Rarely are things the result of one single factor, there are usually a variety of dynamics at work.

I will add that it's not like they completely blew up the game after he passed, I just look at it as a moderate change in direction. I know that players heavily into GvG don't look at it that way, but there are many of us that realize that GvG is only a small part of this game. We don't look at GE as a "substitute" for continued GvG development. There is still GvG, no worse from a development perspective than it's ever been. If anything, it's the way the play of it has evolved that presents the most problems with it. No rule says everybody has to fight right after recalc, yet most do. Everybody fighting at once, across 23 worlds and 12 maps per world, and people wonder why there's lag? Player after player complaining that GvG needs to be revived, yet no one ever does anything differently there. New/small guilds that look like they might make inroads are slapped down by established guilds, who band together if necessary to maintain the status quo, then come here to complain that the status quo sucks. Seriously! The only time there's a major change in any GvG map is when some established guild implodes or splits, which doesn't happen often enough to keep things interesting, obviously. I don't know what the solution to GvG stasis is, but then again I don't care that much about it because I learned a while ago that GvG doesn't appeal to me as it is, and I'm content with the rest of the game so making it more appealing is way down on the priority list as far as I'm concerned.

 

[DeletedUser28077]

Ok, I understand the premise of GvG as a means to compete for territory. What if you just want to fight? Catch and release is a great concept. Lots of fights...lots of fun. I am a big gun and can take sectors autonomously, who says I have to keep the territory? Catch and release increases the opportunity to fight, the cost in goods can come out of my coffers. I don't care if my guild is number 1 in the world. If I can have fun without the hassle, why not? There are guilds of one who compete in GvG and if they lose a sector, so what? It is only one.

 

[DeletedUser26965]

who says I have to keep the territory?

Inno does, you can't release your last and only sector unless you abandon your guild or another guild takes you off the map. If you abandon your guild and start another you can't GvG for 96 hours.

 

[Flavius Belisarius]

I would like to see changes that would liven the game up. Reducing the GvG bubble protection to one hour would certainly do that, for guilds with a small footprint on an age map. Guilds with big map footprints are restrained more by the goods cost to set sieges than by the bubble protection.

The defense shield is based on the recal time. I think INNO tried twice daily recal times a couple of years back. Maybe its time to relook that issue-- 8AM & 8PM.
Another thought would be to have a maintenance tax on your sectors.
Cost based on distance from your HQ. If not paid by next recal all your units in your DAs lose one step. This continues each recal until you make a payment. No partial payments for a sector. You can't pay back taxes to regain steps. Tax for each sector should include Coins, Supplies and goods.
Example for a simple 7 sector holding:
XXX AGE HQ 1 Coin & 1 Supply per DA and 1 of each era good (total five). Adding one to tax for each hex distance from HQ would generate a total tax for 7 sectors of 65 goods, 130 Coins & 130 Supplies.
Big Guilds should have to pay to keep what they conquered.

 

[DeletedUser]

The defense shield is based on the recal time. I think INNO tried twice daily recal times a couple of years back. Maybe its time to relook that issue-- 8AM & 8PM.

If I recall correctly, what they did was change the time from 8 PM to 8 AM. Created quite the uproar, I seem to remember.