Suggestions for AA's 2 major problems

[Resipsa2]

A look at AA GVG in E-N World and it reveals at least 2 serious problems. Problems which cause players to stop playing GVG. I still hope for an AA GVG map as other ages and a use for our Treasury's million AA goods. The TWO PROBLEMS (major ones) with AA are: Lag time and Low Medal siege cost. FIRST, lag time is very obvious to those that use unattached units; perhaps this could be reduced by only putting the players units for their top 3 ages with rogues in the unattached pop up - with the current manual option to see any age. SECOND, is medal cost; top 50 players and certainly top 10 guilds have little problem with putting up a few million medals. Anwar, a creator of Inno's FOE GVG (who the Speaker's Corner is built in memory of), did a video in 2014 that spoke of the reason for increasing high siege cost in GVG. He wanted to limit a single guild from having more than about twenty or so tiles. But now in AA a top 5 guild can take over half the map over 60 or 70 tiles - as seen in E-N. Perhaps after 20 tiles start seriously increasing the medal cost and maybe AA GVG will not die - look at logs for EN almost no daily action.

 

[DeletedUser8152]

While no one will argue against fixing the lag, I'm not sure it is obvious that increasing siege costs would promote more activity. Although it does make it easier for one guild to control a lot of territory, it also makes it easier for your guild to attack them.

 

[DeletedUser20367]

If the army selection screen would just remember the Age you last used then the huge loading time could be greatly reduced.

 

[DeletedUser8152]

If the army selection screen would just remember the Age you last used then the huge loading time could be greatly reduced.

This would make me happy. I believe we already submitted a proposal on it though.

 

[DeletedUser26120]

While no one will argue against fixing the lag, I'm not sure it is obvious that increasing siege costs would promote more activity. Although it does make it easier for one guild to control a lot of territory, it also makes it easier for your guild to attack them.

This. So many people have suggested 'proposals' because their guild lacks the ability to beat another guild for tiles in gvg.

Don't try to change the game because someone else is better and/or more active than you are.

 

[DeletedUser20367]

This would make me happy. I believe we already submitted a proposal on it though.

I seem to recall seeing that. Now it's just a matter of waiting to see if they decide to make the change.

 

[Resipsa2]

This. So many people have suggested 'proposals' because their guild lacks the ability to beat another guild for tiles in gvg.

Don't try to change the game because someone else is better and/or more active than you are.

First, i am in the top 11 players in our world and our guild has no problem fighting in any age but AA - because fighters refuse to deal with the lag. Second, you assume i have selfish motives. Third, i said that the creator of GVG himself set it up that way; then he died before AA age, thus, with no input to how to insure the philosophy to allow more guilds on a map - which is missed in AA.

 

[DeletedUser26120]

Still not hearing a good reason for this proposal beyond making it easier to beat other guilds/harder to be beaten.

 

[Resipsa2]

According to that reasoning if the siege cost where similar on all other maps, you would not care if 2 guilds took all of FE, TE, etc. - which we could and btw took 10 in the last 2 days on AA from the guild that had 65 tiles - it is not about us; it is about what Anwar kept in mind from the beginning - if you limit map present per guild then you allow more guilds on a map and thus have a more active game and not a dying server. But of course, game age, lag time, GE and other factors contribute to low GVG activity.