GB balancing changes - discussion thread

[DeletedUser]

Thanks for answering some of the questions.

I think you missed this one:

"I trust then that their will be something to compensate those players who have spent a lot of time and effort getting their attack great builsings to maximum level as this seems to penalize those players more than any other player group."

Anyways, as no. 1 in my hood I'm off now to attack and plunder everyone in the hood, particularly the junior ones. Following it up with a message that unless they donate 10 FPs a day to my GBs I will make the game miserable for them and they can expect the same every day. Those lucky lucky Forgers.

Rob

 

[DeletedUser15986]

thats up to you. However if they are worthless then so are all other bonus's. so then feel free to go gb less in all aspects.

Please don't take this the wrong way, it is meant neither as an insult, nor a snide remark or crack at Inno, it is just an observation to give you an understanding of how this type of reply is looked at by players.

Remarks like that perfectly sum up the mindset that is being presented by Inno - whether on purpose, or by accident - that the players are very much secondary in any considerations, and as such do not help calm the waters... To be told to just go GB-less makes it appear that Inno have no care at all about the effort/time/money/dedication involved, the long-term strategy decisions that needed to be made, or the affect such changes will necessitate. Suggestions like that in fact make Inno to appear completely dismissive of the amount of time and effort that has been put into acquiring and leveling GBs (not just the OGBs, any GB) and make the players feel like they (and their efforts) have no importance.

Just wanted to make that point, because you are one of the few people who's actually taken time to reply in depth and just that one sentence significantly reduced the impact of the rest of your reply in my eyes.

You can ban me now if you like.

 

[Rosletyne]

Good grief, twelve pages in three hours. Whatever, I'll go ahead and post my thoughts anyway.

Based on a quick skim, it seems many players are upset at the thought of having their hard earned military bonus nerfed. It is understandable. But, the statement someone made that the top players are the ones losing most does not make sense to me. Consider what the change actually does, it makes attacking armies weaker and defending armies stronger. It means people will be able to fight fewer battles before having to stop to let their army recover. In fact I think the top players will be the ones least affected, even with nerfed bonuses they will still be stronger than everyone else, and with a horde of unattached units from Alcatraz they can keep fighting as many battles as before.

The part that really worries me here is what this change would do to Guild vs Guild, the very feature it is made for. I think this update would kill Guild vs Guild before it has even started.

The exact mechanics of Guild vs Guild are explained elsewhere, so I will skip to the basic problem. As things are, in order to conquer a sector owned by another guild, the typical case is that your guild has to win 80 battles against defenders with 50% attack and defense bonus, and you have to do it before the defending guild wins 10 battles against your siege army, which has no bonuses whatsoever. This is difficult, but doable, and requires the cooperation of several guild members.

The real problem is that 50% bonus the defenders have. It is the same across all ages, from Iron to Modern. Advanced players with a high military bonus from several buildings will be able to win battles, but players in the lower ages are struggling even now. On the Beta server, the Iron Age Guild vs Guild map is practically dead, since hardly anyone in Iron Age has a sufficiently high level Zeus to win any battles. My guild on Beta recommends having at least 35% attack bonus before even trying.

So what would happen if this change was implemented in Guild vs Guild? It would be the players in early ages who would be hurt most. At present, a player with a fully upgraded Zeus might be able to win 10 battles before having to let his army rest. After the change, due to increased losses, he might manage only 5 and take longer to recover. Another player whose Zeus was not at max level - most players in early ages don't have max level great buildings - might have been able to win 5 battles with the current bonus, but after being nerfed he might not be able to win at all. The result would be that the only ones actually able to conquer any sectors in the early ages would be much more advanced players, and the vast majority of players would be excluded from Guild vs Guild completely.

If you need any evidence of this, you need only look at the Iron Age Guild vs Guild map on the Beta server. There are a couple sectors held by guilds with only one member. Much larger guilds have tried to take them, and failed, since winning battles without a high military bonus is just too hard. If the bonus would be nerfed like this, it would become practically impossible. Guild vs Guild would be reduced to a mere land grab, where the first Guild that takes control of a sector is likely to keep it forever.

Please think this over. Try as I might, I cannot see this change having any positive results.

If I can make a recommendation, you could probably balance Guild vs Guild much better by making the defense bonus scale with age. In Iron Age, it might be as low as 20%, since players can't be expected to have any military great buildings besides Zeus, and probably not at a high level. Also, to make the playing field even, simply don't apply the bonus from higher age buildings. So, advanced players could still fight in early ages if they want, but they can't get the bonuses from buildings that players in those early ages don't have access to.

 

[DeletedUser]

It does appear that the motivation behind this change is to steer players who are active in PvP to instead spend their time fighting in GvG as the priority (watchtowers and monestery non transferable bonuses are the giveaway), but after expending much energy arguing against the goods producing GB shenanigans, I found that I only reacted to todays announcement with a resigned raised eyebrow and muttered... C'est la vie

 

[DeletedUser276]

I think we're wasting our time trying to get this decision changed. They've never reconsidered anything before. It will be interesting to see if this spills out into the general gaming forums. I saw a few very negative comments when the ME goods GBs were nerfed, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more bad publicity over this. Such a shame.

lol this isnt a discussion thread on if we should have it. More of a chance for us to explain why and to disuade players from causing strife for misconceptions.

People are complaining for more than a year about distinguishing more easily unattached from attached units but nothing is done about it... seems to me this game is becoming more a farmville type of game. You benefit the ones who give you less internet traffic since they attack less or not at all.

hasnt been a year as far as I know. but thats organization and aesthetics. That makes it a low priority in comparison to more game content being released. Just because you want it doesnt mean it will happen tomorrow. Getting more of the game out is ALWAYS a higher priority unless there is a bug which stops or interferes with game play access.

I repeat my old question: does this game have its days counted?

people say that whenever we add content or change something. I will give you the answer I usually give for someone who makes a mountain out of a mole hill... if its that bad that you think the game will stop running then save yourself some time and find another game to play. Personally I am tired of players saying on EVERY change.... oh the game is going down.

Thanks for answering some of the questions.

I think you missed this one:

"I trust then that their will be something to compensate those players who have spent a lot of time and effort getting their attack great builsings to maximum level as this seems to penalize those players more than any other player group."

no as the game is still developing as I have always stated there will be continuous changes over time to find a continued balance as more things are released. To compensate to a "group" is too hard as I would have to go through every account and do something if I find they boosted something. But then again that might open the doors for those players that cheated to get up to the level of gb they currently have.

Anyways, as no. 1 in my hood I'm off now to attack and plunder everyone in the hood, particularly the junior ones. Following it up with a message that unless they donate 10 FPs a day to my GBs I will make the game miserable for them and they can expect the same every day. Those lucky lucky Forgers.

And thanks for proving my point on mature posts and people being smart arsed. One thing I dont think players consider is staff remember players who are acting out and are less inclined to keep kosher in their dealings with them in the future.

Remarks like that perfectly sum up the mindset that is being presented by Inno - whether on purpose, or by accident - that the players are very much secondary in any considerations, and as such do not help calm the waters...

i will try to explain things from my angle and maybe it will help players understand how I see things. I will be a tad blunt in this one though....

every update where we change something existing or add a new feature to the game that changes certain players views on how the game is supposed to be played these replies come up where players slam diamond buying points or how the game is going to fail or how we dont listen to players.

basically a river of negativity EVERY time. Really it gets tiring and taxes even the best of patiences. I know whats coming in a generality and I know there are things coming that will help balance things out. Its easier to prepare for these things than get them out there and suddenly you have tons of stuff you need to do and it comes as a massive shock to the players and threads get worse than this. The problem is the problem starters for these threads are ALWAYS the same couple of players who start blowing things out of proportion and dig a bit then try to sit back and laugh at the players who eventually get banned for things getting out of control.

Thankfully all but 2 of them have been banned so far and the 2 I think realized I am not playing around this time. if you give me a bit I can explain why the changes have come and maybe that might get things a bit clearer. I wont though be able to talk about future things coming that will swing a balance in the other direction.

To be told to just go GB-less makes it appear that Inno have no care at all about the effort/time/money/dedication involved

and yet we have players that dont appreciate the effort and work the admins and devs put in. as I stated though my reply was more frustration on players over reactions

So after 3.5 months of testing on BETA gvg is only 10% done? So by my math at this rate it will be a little over 2.5 more years. Can you wait until then to implement these changes to GB's (being done for reasons to do with gvg) until that time?

Probably another year and a half tbh personally I would want things to be balanced more for gvg at the start than later when things get planted in and players get too used to the MASSIVE bonus and cake walk through battles rather than use actual strategy.

I certainly have no interest in taking any part in gvg if it's introduced on these servers to be a continued moving target for changes we aren't going to be told about, or part of, or anywhere near the way it has been handled on BETA.

thats your choice of course. however I dont know how things have been handled on beta as this is NOT beta. Any grievances please take it up over there as talking about other servers is against our forum rules.

 

[Praeceptor]

It does appear that the motivation behind this change is to steer players who are active in PvP to instead spend their time fighting in GvG as the priority (watchtowers and monestery non transferable bonuses are the giveaway), but after expending much energy arguing against the goods producing GB shenanigans, I found that I only reacted to todays announcement with a resigned raised eyebrow and muttered... C'est la vie

I think they will steer us away from the whole game eventually. Sad.

 

[DeletedUser3157]

for me it makes no difference as i manual battle daily anyway

That's great, but for most people 1.5 scale fights are so slow it's pretty untolerable doing couple of them manually, not to mention whole hood

 

[Praeceptor]

...Thankfully all but 2 of them have been banned so far and the 2 I think realized I am not playing around this time.

I hope I'm not one of the two. Although I have been vocal, I have been more than fair with my comments. You're right about the negativity, and it must be hard to deal with. Many times I have been on the side of change, but this issue has obviously really upset a lot of people - look how quickly this thread has grown!

If you think my reaction warrants a ban, then go ahead. I don't feel listened to anyway.

 

[DeletedUser5180]

firstly i'm going to thank remorce for his many replies here today, it is good for a member of the inno team to actually take the time to get involved in discussions with us players.....even if we don't fully agree with what he is saying it is far better than the usual wall of silence so thanks remorce.

now to the announcement.....i think something needed to be done to balance things up re pvp as the defence coupled with the AI was a joke. BUT its been done the wrong way IMO. Rather than nerf the current GBs which was obviously going to go down like a lead balloon with most players, why did the dev's not use the Space Needle and Atonium GB's to balance things.? The space needle is a waste of a great opportunity to do something positive to the current pvp unbalance and now the current 5 military GB's have been nerfed that suggests to me that the Atonium GB, when released, will not have any kind of military boost either.

to sum up..........a great opportunity to address the unbalanced PvP WITHOUT UPSETTING MANY PLAYERS has been lost

 

[DeletedUser276]

That's great, but for most people 1.5 scale fights are so slow it's pretty untolerable doing couple of them manually, not to mention whole hood

game favors the active. if people are too lazy to battle through on manual then they take their chances

 

[DeletedUser]

GvG (from what i've seen on beta) = HARD drain on goods and troops for questionable rewards
Pardon me, but i can't understand how a secondary feature to the game, which is even not introduced yet, should demand rebalancing of the game itself
to me - this rebalancing will be harmful
thank you

 

[DeletedUser3157]

hasnt been a year as far as I know. but thats organization and aesthetics. That makes it a low priority in comparison to more game content being released. Just because you want it doesnt mean it will happen tomorrow. Getting more of the game out is ALWAYS a higher priority unless there is a bug which stops or interferes with game play access.

The fact that THE most wanted customer request over last 5 months from your core player-base is deemed "low-priority" is pretty bad. And when you realize it is not something major like GvG or a new age, but one of the easiest to make and least man-hours needing feature you could think of, it becomes just mind-boggling.

Seeing how wanted this feature has been and how relatively easy job it would be, it really tells me is 2 things:

1) Developers are completely detached from their playbase. They are simply unaware what are the needs and wants of their core player base, not playing on slightly more competative levels themselves nor communicating with players as such, making them hard to see issues as outsider.
2) Neither do they read feedback on forums like this one, given from players who do play like that and report them such issues.

This, or they just don't care, hard time getting any more logic here.

game favors the active. if people are too lazy to battle through on manual then they take their chances

I had no problems fighting normal 1:1 scale fights manual all the time. Sometimes when I kill 2 spear armies with lower ages units, I get just shocked at how fast fighting in this game could work in theory. And from what I've heard, I'm not alone here either, but more like the majority

 

[. ICE .]

game favors the active. if people are too lazy to battle through on manual then they take their chances

Been reading all this with mixed feelings ... pros and cons aplenty .
But ... suggesting players who already spend hours PvP "lazy" ...is not constructive.

As stated before .... PVP on 1.5 scale maps , makes manual battling many fights un-doable for most....purely on time, not because they are lazy in any way.
PvP activity ..will drop for certain if this goes ahead..
and as a consequence ...where will we find the extra spare time for GvG ..?
Surely... less will play that also ..when/if it arrives.

 

[DeletedUser96867]

@ hint

You hit the nail on the head.

@ akbhoy67

I have issues with using the reply with quote button. Whenever I do, when i try to submit i find it's logged me out of the forum. I have to click the reply with quote button, cutting the quote, reload the page, re-log in, press reply, paste the cut quote, and then type my reply. Having said that i'm amazed that i can post in the forum as it's the first time in 6 months i haven't had error messages every time i've tried to post.

 

[DeletedUser276]

I'm not sure how calling people with lower powered PCs 'lazy' is moving the debate forward in any useful way?

can you please point out where I stated specifically that people with lower powered pcs are lazy? dont twist my words please.

The fact that THE most wanted customer request over last 5 months from your core player-base is deemed "low-priority" is pretty bad. And when you realize it is not something major like GvG or a new age, but one of the easiest to make and least man-hours needing feature you could think of, it becomes just mind-boggling.

Lower priority doesnt mean it wont come. But you have no idea what else is coming and are clutching at straws and reasonings. This isnt about organization of units so please stay on topic.

Seeing how wanted this feature has been and how relatively easy job it would be, it really tells me is 2 things:

1) Developers are completely detached from their playbase. They are simply unaware what are the needs and wants of their core player base, not playing on slightly more competative levels themselves nor communicating with players as such, making them hard to see issues as outsider.

The majority of player wants are fickle as they change daily on whims and whomever points them in certain directions. it sounds callous to say that but its the truth. There are threads where players complain the game is too war concentrated.... then ones where its too sim city style. There are threads stating to nerf attack and def bonus's and ones where players say to get more. There is a priority system for a reason so no they are not detached.

2) Neither do they read feedback on forums like this one, given from players who do play like that and report them such issues.

actually they do read these forums. In fact Anwar was posting tons of info till players started digging at him too much. exactly whats happening on a general scale whenever a new feature or a change is implemented.

I had no problems fighting normal 1:1 scale fights manual all the time. Sometimes when I kill 2 spear armies with lower ages units, I get just shocked at how fast fighting in this game could work in theory. And from what I've heard, I'm not alone here either, but more like the majority

You hit the nail on the head right there. Players were attacking others and cleaning def troops with little to no damage. I fight players with 200% def bonus above my attack and can still beat them. The % are being concentrated on too hard. They make a difference sure. but you have to start using unit weakness troops to defeat certain units. Players were NOT doing that really before on a large scale. Players were just throwing up troops and swamping the defense.

You can still get through the def you just need to plan better. From some of the arguments it just seems that players are too used to easy wins than actually having to fight through a defense. Hopefully I am mistaken.

I have issues with using the reply with quote button. Whenever I do, when i try to submit i find it's logged me out of the forum. I have to click the reply with quote button, cutting the quote, reload the page, re-log in, press reply, paste the cut quote, and then type my reply. Having said that i'm amazed that i can post in the forum as it's the first time in 6 months i haven't had error messages every time i've tried to post.

You need to click remember me when you log into the forums. That will stop you from having to log in again and again and get error messages.

 

[DeletedUser]

Am I missing something ...... the original Notice was ALL about GvG , there was zero mention of the changes to GBs affecting the normal run of the mill PvP in the Main Worlds..... is there another thread that details some OTHER changes ??

IF and I repeat IF these rebalanceing changes ONLY affect the GBs when the player is taking part in GvG and doesn't affect their operation in "normal PvP" then I dont see the problem

Regards

SHELOB

 

[DeletedUser14576]

3/3 everywhere.

This was in responce to the question: Will the change be only for GvG?

 

[DeletedUser5514]

I guess you have to stick with those who you work for... ive seen you inviting more players to stop playing FOE wich seems risky to do, since i already saw several top players quitting the game. And yes, im already playing other games...

 

[mrbeef]

3/3 everywhere.

According to that statement

 

[DeletedUser15986]

i will try to explain things from my angle and maybe it will help players understand how I see things. I will be a tad blunt in this one though....

every update where we change something existing or add a new feature to the game that changes certain players views on how the game is supposed to be played these replies come up where players slam diamond buying points or how the game is going to fail or how we dont listen to players.

and yet we have players that dont appreciate the effort and work the admins and devs put in. as I stated though my reply was more frustration on players over reactions

To be equally blunt; You feel it's not on for players to complain in a way that ignores the effort and work by Inno, yet feel that just because some players do this that it's fine for Inno to treat players so dismissively? I disagree. If someone provides you a long list of considered opinions then a reply shouldn't include such a dismissive stance as "go GB-less".

Also, having read the various threads over time about how diamond-players were getting an amazing deal, I could take or leave them for the most part. Diamond players are needed for Inno to develop the game and, as players such as Hint have shown, good Non-Diamond Players can do just as well (if not better, as Hint often does) than average Diamond Players. Those Diamond Players are paying to get ahead, and whilst the amount of boost they were/are getting was viewed by unfair by some at least those buildings they are buying eventually get surpassed by non-premium ones. (Might be 2 Ages ahead, but it happens.) To keep ahead they needed to keep spending, and that funded the game overall.

The only time I have seen what I consider to be unquestionably valid complaints have been the two recent changes that were announced for GBs, and that is because those changes were to components of the game that do *not* become obsolete - and whose mechanics have been a core component of the game for a long time. Supplies and Coin buildings eventually get replaced by something that does the same thing but better, GBs do not do this. A GB takes months (lots of them) to collect/build and then level to it's maximum potential, and to see a core element of gameplay *so massively nerfed* is the only thing I've seen that I couldn't ignore. Twice now.

It's not about the Diamonds here, in fact I would imagine that Diamonds actually make a small amount of the frustration - certainly in my case. Most of it is the sheer amount of time and effort that seems to be supremely unimportant to Inno, something that you have stated you haven't made (You have no OGBs according to a prior post), so I would imagine you just don't have a true understanding of just how much of an investment it is, and just why it is/was so important. Seeing such an "expensive"* building nerfed like that is never going to get praise - except from those whose position allows them to ignore or enjoy it. (However that is going to be a seriously small minority, as can be seen from the threads.)

* In Time/Money/Effort/Diamonds/etc - Take your pick.