Will Virgo Lose Her Virginity?

Agent327

FOE Team
Forum Moderator
This is incorrect. That's GE, but not what they've stated they're planning for attrition. From the developers,

That sounds nothing like what you're talking about and nothing like the way GE works.
You are right. I missed that it starts at 0%.

I disagree on the even playing field it will give.

They also stated something else on that

In Forge of Empires, we have vastly different players with varying levels of army boosts. Our goal was to reward heavily invested fighters, but to also limit everyone's amount of daily fights.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Their use of the phrase, 'even the playing field,' is confusing at best. The more appropriate description of their intent is to 'ultimately make sure that the contributions of low players stay relevant!' this makes it consistent with your quote,
In Forge of Empires, we have vastly different players with varying levels of army boosts. Our goal was to reward heavily invested fighters, but to also limit everyone's amount of daily fights.
As we can clearly see from all the descriptions it has never been Inno's intent to ding advanced fighters. Advanced fighters will continue to be advanced fighters and junior fighters will still have incentive to build and raise the fight GBs to become advanced fighters whatever age they're in.

It seems the only thing Inno's trying to do is remove the ability of advanced fighters to have unlimited fights with unlimited troops and to reintroduce a challenge to actual fighting.
 

Agent327

FOE Team
Forum Moderator
Their use of the phrase, 'even the playing field,' is confusing at best. The more appropriate description of their intent is to 'ultimately make sure that the contributions of low players stay relevant!' this makes it consistent with your quote
They have a real strange way of showing that. In GE contibutions of every player are equally relevant except it is the top players that are shown with the highest contributions.

It seems the only thing Inno's trying to do is remove the ability of advanced fighters to have unlimited fights with unlimited troops and to reintroduce a challenge to actual fighting.
In that case they fail. They might be limited in BG's, but nowhere else.
 

Stephen Longshanks

Well-Known Member
In GE contibutions of every player are equally relevant except it is the top players that are shown with the highest contributions.
Well, yes and no. For the guild championship each player's contribution is equally relevant. One encounter cleared in Iron Age ups the guild's % by the same amount as one encounter cleared in SAM. For accumulating Expedition Points (and thus Guild Power Points), though, the higher the player's era the more Expedition Points they earn per encounter.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Well, yes and no. For the guild championship each player's contribution is equally relevant. One encounter cleared in Iron Age ups the guild's % by the same amount as one encounter cleared in SAM. For accumulating Expedition Points (and thus Guild Power Points), though, the higher the player's era the more Expedition Points they earn per encounter.
I also think that in BG, the most relevant contribution seems to be number of battles / negotiations cleared. I know those award points towards the acquisition of the provinces, but whether those points are also weighted by age, I don't know.

If points were weighted, it would seem to run counter to the spirit of attrition's goal of making the contributions of lower age players equally relevant. In a tight race, it would be nice to know the couple of extra battles / negotiations an HMA guild member stretched themselves to complete every day are equally as valuable as the SAM player stretching to complete the same extra number.
 

Stephen Longshanks

Well-Known Member
I also think that in BG, the most relevant contribution seems to be number of battles / negotiations cleared. I know those award points towards the acquisition of the provinces, but whether those points are also weighted by age, I don't know.

If points were weighted, it would seem to run counter to the spirit of attrition's goal of making the contributions of lower age players equally relevant. In a tight race, it would be nice to know the couple of extra battles / negotiations an HMA guild member stretched themselves to complete every day are equally as valuable as the SAM player stretching to complete the same extra number.
I don't know either, and I agree with your assessment.
 

Frdk the Great

New Member
Don't know what the missile is made of, but once the next patch hits, VP will no longer activate for PvP (hood) fights.
Inno should’ve modified the attack rather than bending to the will of players who don’t understand FOE is a fighting game. Removing the Virgo attack from PvP is terrible. My guild does not do GvG so that leaves it only for GE and quest battles. Such a waste of goods and FP’s. I would never have built it. To the players that rush the ages without learning to defend their city and fight, stay put and learn the game. Stop whining.
 

Graviton

Well-Known Member
Inno should’ve modified the attack rather than bending to the will of players who don’t understand FOE is a fighting game. Removing the Virgo attack from PvP is terrible. My guild does not do GvG so that leaves it only for GE and quest battles. Such a waste of goods and FP’s. I would never have built it. To the players that rush the ages without learning to defend their city and fight, stay put and learn the game. Stop whining.
What does learning to defend one's city have to do with the power to summarily wipe out the defending army? Defense is already practically worthless; if they hadn't adjusted Virgo it would've been literally worthless.