DeletedUser
how are you getting the after category's math? The attack GBs did affect GvG at 150% and the defense GBs affected it before too (just never were clear on what the percentages were on that). There is a net loss there not an addition
-
Dear forum reader,
To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account, you need a forum account. You can REGISTER HERE!
Please ensure a translation into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
how are you getting the after category's math? The attack GBs did affect GvG at 150% and the defense GBs affected it before too (just never were clear on what the percentages were on that). There is a net loss there not an addition
DeletedUser96695
Noted ...it is used in GvG
So the change should limited to GvG only
The forthcoming revision..amend GvG
but it also affect our normal contential maps /hoods too..
it is whole game amendment ...so it is not fair
I have heard from other player ( as i am still in Colional Age, so i do not know exactly)
those sector in our normal contential map has attack and defense bonus in progressive age ..industrial age..etc
without our GB's help, we will have problem
The lowering attack and defense bonus from GB in whole game ...is actually cause a problem..it also drag those player who do not play guild war into hell
Those player who do not play GvG, they are now suffering a penalty from game developer
If it is just a facility ( lowering GB attack /defense bonus ) for GvG
my previous suggestion : raising basic defense bonus from 75% to ???, 50% to ??? in GvG sector...... will do the same goal for GvG war
(a) This help non-GvG player feel comfortable
(b) This will not affect our our attacking hoods /sector in normal contential map un-changed, less player affected
(c) This will encourage we need to upgrade our GBs ( which provide defense bonus ) in whole guild as I hear GvG sector's defense bonus come form whole guild, raising defense bonus of GvG sector will lower the amount of sector that a guild can hold unless they upgrade their GB ( with provide defense bonus)
I would like to suugest :
revison 1,20 is the next revision, it is too fast
It look to us, it is a information annocuement only
delay that GB re-balancing amendement
until game developer get all our feedback /discussion...
i urge all players providing their feed back to game developer in there asap
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser9300
Hands down the best part if this thread
DeletedUser
may be this GB power should depend on something else all along the years, moon perhap like ocean they depend on moon. and the cycle repeat all along the years. so everybody can take advange during the cycle. u cannot have a game with same "season" all the years, u need mr Mcmahon.
DeletedUser96867
unattached filters are a very valid topic if talking about gvg. As one of the key elements of a successful attack is doing as many attacks as fast as possible before the defending guild notices/takes out your siege armies. Time wasted sorting through attached unattached units could easily be the difference between a successful and unsuccessful attack. Up to now not having a filter has been a major annoyance but did not have a tactic impact. With gvg the lack of a filter or easier way to id unattached it will be a tactical factor.
DeletedUser7719
I'm comparing this to these server which do not incorporate guild wars. The other server still counts watchfires and monastries, defensive GBs are not fully working, and battle points are not installed for our battles yet
DeletedUser96867
1) Trust me it is any player who attempts to take part in gvg who will suffer the most.
2) Raising the sector defensive boosts for gvg is not the solution. One of the biggest problems on gvg is that it has become almost impossible to successfully attack a sector held by another guild, and the cost of attempting to do so is way to high. Increasing the sector defense boosts will just make the situation even worse, just as the reduction of the attack GB's this discussion is about will make the gvg situation worse. There is no logic to it, based on the limited amount of information which has been provided to us.
DeletedUser4879
As I'm reading thru this thread, why all this hype?
If all GB's are adjusted any which way the result is the same for
every player! As I was playing the Beta, I've come to the conclusion
that I do not like GvG and most probably will not take part in it?
Hope it all sorts itself as it has (mostly) so far!!
If all GB's are adjusted any which way the result is the same for
every player! As I was playing the Beta, I've come to the conclusion
that I do not like GvG and most probably will not take part in it?
Hope it all sorts itself as it has (mostly) so far!!
DeletedUser14576
I give BIG kudos to those who do the math. I read and try to understand it. Some I do and some is beyond me.
What I AM saying is; these changes are being made to fit GvG. A secondary aspect to the game. Why wasn't GvG made to fit the game as a whole? You are proposing to kill the sacred cow that is GBs with no assurance that it will balance out. And you wonder why people are freaking out? CAs are one thing, believe me....but this is crazy. Tells us how it's going to work!
A Manager said that it's more important to get content out then to fix the small stuff like Army Management. That being the case.....I can only assume that they don't care about FoE and just want to get you onto their other titles.
So please take your commercials off my TV for something that is going to be a thing of the past shortly. I have had hood mates scrub it and go today.
You cannot or will not implement a simple change to Army Management......Attached/Unattached filter. If Inno cannot spend the money to have someone take one hour and rewrite the code for that, then that says something about where Inno is at....and it is not here.
K
DeletedUser96695
Thanks , i understand that
Please aware their logic of this amendment ( GB balancing ) is for GvG
There are many ways to do it
(1) Their current suggestion, lower GB attack/defense bonus , which affect GvG and non-GvG player
(2) My suggestion : raise sector defense (50% -- >??) , it is ??, it can be 51%, it is a value that make GvG harder , which only affect GvG player
(3) They can even adjust soldier attack and defense power...
there are tons of way
However, their annoucement
revision is 1.20 ............ that is super fast, next amendment
reduction from +5 to +3 , that is 40% reduction....that is a major amendment
even it is just for non-GvG, a major amendment 40% army strenght is altered like that as immediately effect in next amendment
this new amendment push out without discussion is a major issue ( It do not respect player and those who spend $$$ )
I think it is totally un-acceptable
Being as a beta-world player
i do feel there should have some alternation in GvG
may be Head sector increase higher defense bonus to guild can hold their HQ easily
Goods to hold amount of sectors may need to be increased..etc such that there is a limit of sectors that a guild can hold
GvG will be more interested when u capture a sector from a guild with super few goods, but victim-guild need "more than 300 goods to re-calim that sector back from u"
basically, i do not feel there is a need to reduce GB attack/defense bonus like their announcement
As this is a game forum, so i do not want to address too much about GvG in there
I repeat my self
delay that GB re-balancing amendement
I do not see any reasons that they push out that major amendment with supersonic speed
There are many way to make GvG more interesting without any alternation in GB's attack/defense bonus
please spare non-GvG player
DeletedUser96695
Yes, it is apply to all player
however, this is a major amendment
If this a bug, it should be fix asap
But this is not a bug,
this is a major game alternation
a major game alternation issued and implement like that without signs
For me, it is more like a bar......
DeletedUser99705
Let me tell you a little story about customer relations since there has been a serious lack understanding its importance displayed on this forum related to this hot button issue. It may seem off-topic at first, but I promise it comes full circle.
In 1990 I bought this new game, maybe you’ve heard of it before, called John Madden Football for my Sega Genesis. In fact, I bought the new one every year for well over a decade between the Genesis to PS1 and then PS2. By the end, I was averaging 7 seasons a year in franchise mode. I was completely addicted to it and spent countless hours playing…as I do FoE now.
As a result, I developed a trust for EA Games so I bought Lord of the Rings – Battle for Middle Earth, and I loved it as well. When they came out with a new one…I bought it too. Unfortunately, despite installing correctly, it would not play on the computer I had at the time. So I did what anyone would do, I sent in an email asking for assistance. I received no response. So, I sent another email expressing dismay at the lack of attention and said if I did not receive a response I would stop supporting EA Games all together. Again…no response. Well, that was over 7 years ago and EA has not received a dime of my money ever since. I quit my beloved Madden Football cold turkey despite my attachment to it.
I understand the dynamics of my relationship with EA and my relationship with Inno are not exactly equivalent, but I am once again on the verge of walking away. And before you respond with “people say that every time an update comes out” again…consider this…not everyone comes on your forum to announce their intention to leave. Sometimes they just leave. I’m sure you have a few knuckle heads that come on here and continually make idol threats about leaving and never do…but some actually do without ever saying it publicly.
In the year and a half I have been playing FoE I have seen neighborhoods crumble because players disappeared and I have seen a guild basically fall apart due to a massive amount of people who quit. So stop thinking that no one will ever leave due to your actions and start acting like you care about your customers.
You may place less value on those of us who do not buy diamonds, but without us, those diamond players will not stick around very long either. Your game is better with massive amounts of players and will struggle without those numbers. I am not saying this to be antagonistic…I am simply stating a fact of business. I would prefer you maintain profitability so I can keep playing FoE.
I have often wondered how tempted I would be to spend money on diamonds myself in less than a year, once I earn my degree in accounting and have more income to burn. You are doing an effective job of sealing your fate with this issue.
First, none of the points I raised were addressed at all.
Second, I have seen a condescending attitude toward your customers on display here that would make several of my professor’s toes curl. If you can ignore the valid points raised here by me and others, surely you can ignore the antagonistic idiots that are here to simply grumble and cause problems. You wonder why they continue even though you keep responding to them?
Third, you all seem to have made up your minds about this move and you have no problem taking your ball and going home. Maybe that is not the reality…but that is the perception right now. If you are to maintain the popularity of this game, and therefore the revenue streams it provides, I suggest you listen to what we, as the users of your product, think.
In 1990 I bought this new game, maybe you’ve heard of it before, called John Madden Football for my Sega Genesis. In fact, I bought the new one every year for well over a decade between the Genesis to PS1 and then PS2. By the end, I was averaging 7 seasons a year in franchise mode. I was completely addicted to it and spent countless hours playing…as I do FoE now.
As a result, I developed a trust for EA Games so I bought Lord of the Rings – Battle for Middle Earth, and I loved it as well. When they came out with a new one…I bought it too. Unfortunately, despite installing correctly, it would not play on the computer I had at the time. So I did what anyone would do, I sent in an email asking for assistance. I received no response. So, I sent another email expressing dismay at the lack of attention and said if I did not receive a response I would stop supporting EA Games all together. Again…no response. Well, that was over 7 years ago and EA has not received a dime of my money ever since. I quit my beloved Madden Football cold turkey despite my attachment to it.
I understand the dynamics of my relationship with EA and my relationship with Inno are not exactly equivalent, but I am once again on the verge of walking away. And before you respond with “people say that every time an update comes out” again…consider this…not everyone comes on your forum to announce their intention to leave. Sometimes they just leave. I’m sure you have a few knuckle heads that come on here and continually make idol threats about leaving and never do…but some actually do without ever saying it publicly.
In the year and a half I have been playing FoE I have seen neighborhoods crumble because players disappeared and I have seen a guild basically fall apart due to a massive amount of people who quit. So stop thinking that no one will ever leave due to your actions and start acting like you care about your customers.
You may place less value on those of us who do not buy diamonds, but without us, those diamond players will not stick around very long either. Your game is better with massive amounts of players and will struggle without those numbers. I am not saying this to be antagonistic…I am simply stating a fact of business. I would prefer you maintain profitability so I can keep playing FoE.
I have often wondered how tempted I would be to spend money on diamonds myself in less than a year, once I earn my degree in accounting and have more income to burn. You are doing an effective job of sealing your fate with this issue.
First, none of the points I raised were addressed at all.
Second, I have seen a condescending attitude toward your customers on display here that would make several of my professor’s toes curl. If you can ignore the valid points raised here by me and others, surely you can ignore the antagonistic idiots that are here to simply grumble and cause problems. You wonder why they continue even though you keep responding to them?
Third, you all seem to have made up your minds about this move and you have no problem taking your ball and going home. Maybe that is not the reality…but that is the perception right now. If you are to maintain the popularity of this game, and therefore the revenue streams it provides, I suggest you listen to what we, as the users of your product, think.
DeletedUser99705
Perhaps I was too long winded in my initial attempt so I will consolidate in hopes of a response from a moderator this time.
1. Why must you take away that which a lot of us have put massive amounts of time and effort into building? This feels more like punishment rather than rebalancing.
2. Why not elevate the bonuses of the offensive GB’s, add the attack bonus to the defensive GB’s, and add a third defensive GB? If they all provide 10/10 that would create instant balance and make the GB’s MORE attractive instead of LESS attractive to obtain and build. The current plan will certainly have a further chilling effect on GB donations. Why would anyone spend 100’s upon 100’s of FP’s to gain a 3% bonus? This makes no sense whatsoever.
3. If you are really that concerned about how the bonuses affect GvG, then why not have this change only apply to GvG bonuses rather than across the board? Or you could easily change the formula used to determine the amount of bonus GB’s provide in the context of GvG.
There are several viable options that have been proposed here and are being ignored that could easily fix the current disparity. Unfortunately, you are choosing not to listen to your customers. I have taken enough business classes over the last several years to know that is a recipe for disaster. I love this game and I don’t want to see it tank over a few bad decisions.
1. Why must you take away that which a lot of us have put massive amounts of time and effort into building? This feels more like punishment rather than rebalancing.
2. Why not elevate the bonuses of the offensive GB’s, add the attack bonus to the defensive GB’s, and add a third defensive GB? If they all provide 10/10 that would create instant balance and make the GB’s MORE attractive instead of LESS attractive to obtain and build. The current plan will certainly have a further chilling effect on GB donations. Why would anyone spend 100’s upon 100’s of FP’s to gain a 3% bonus? This makes no sense whatsoever.
3. If you are really that concerned about how the bonuses affect GvG, then why not have this change only apply to GvG bonuses rather than across the board? Or you could easily change the formula used to determine the amount of bonus GB’s provide in the context of GvG.
There are several viable options that have been proposed here and are being ignored that could easily fix the current disparity. Unfortunately, you are choosing not to listen to your customers. I have taken enough business classes over the last several years to know that is a recipe for disaster. I love this game and I don’t want to see it tank over a few bad decisions.
DeletedUser100756
Dont you admins think that a thing like that should be resolved witha a simple Yes or No vote option? I think that would be the only fair thing in this case... Why?
Becouse you once decided on how much bonus a GB will give and I think its wrong to change it without asking us on opinion about this. Not only becouse we will ''sufer'' with our attack in PVP. I would like to have a vote even if the topic would be an increasement of GB power...
I just think that when you go to change something like that which was good till now that there should be a public vote on this...
regards
Becouse you once decided on how much bonus a GB will give and I think its wrong to change it without asking us on opinion about this. Not only becouse we will ''sufer'' with our attack in PVP. I would like to have a vote even if the topic would be an increasement of GB power...
I just think that when you go to change something like that which was good till now that there should be a public vote on this...
regards
DeletedUser12086
Good morning,
To address some more of your questions:
Watchfire - Some of you have asked why we decided not to extend the rebalancing to include the watchfire. One thing we want to avoid in GvG is making it a pay-to-win feature, and so we have left it out of the feature, and have not included it in the rebalancing.
Campaign map - There are no plans to rebalance existing campaign maps. Some areas may be challenging, but the most challenging areas were never intended to be easy to complete.
Plundering threats/blackmail - Just to clarify, the balancing changes were not made because of players being plundered, or threatened to be plundered. They are for the purposes of bringing GvG into the game in an integrated manner.
The changes were discussed in depth beforehand, in an attempt to ensure that they would be fair for players and that, while some functions are being adjusted, the overall result is an improvement to the affected GBs, as they will have additional uses.
To address some more of your questions:
Watchfire - Some of you have asked why we decided not to extend the rebalancing to include the watchfire. One thing we want to avoid in GvG is making it a pay-to-win feature, and so we have left it out of the feature, and have not included it in the rebalancing.
Campaign map - There are no plans to rebalance existing campaign maps. Some areas may be challenging, but the most challenging areas were never intended to be easy to complete.
Plundering threats/blackmail - Just to clarify, the balancing changes were not made because of players being plundered, or threatened to be plundered. They are for the purposes of bringing GvG into the game in an integrated manner.
The changes were discussed in depth beforehand, in an attempt to ensure that they would be fair for players and that, while some functions are being adjusted, the overall result is an improvement to the affected GBs, as they will have additional uses.
Praeceptor
Lieutenant Colonel
The problem with watchfires is not GvG, but PvP - they're worth more defence each than a whole level of a DGB. That's ridiculous!
Perhaps you could explain how Zeus (which is the OGB most players have) will get better by having it's stats reduced by 40%?
DeletedUser96901
not if you do the math correct
one level DGB: 3% attack and 3% defense
one watchfire: 4% only on defense: so only have of the values are increased: effective 2%
2% is less than 3% (or 4% is less than 3%+3%)
Last edited by a moderator:
Praeceptor
Lieutenant Colonel
def 3% < def 4%
Last edited:
DeletedUser96901
give it back: you sure don't deserve it if you think one watchfire is better than one level DGB
3% attack on defense is more than 0% attack on defense
so 3% more in half and 1% less in the other is still 2% more for DGB
DeletedUser8504
Thanks for a positive response Countess. I understand the reasoning that GBs will have a new advantage in GvG and that is the reason that their worth is reduced in PvP.
I still have a concern about the relative value that watchfires have in PvP. For a single square they give 4% bonus to defense - I have 26, giving me 104% in 26 squares whereas my St Basils takes up 25 squares and will now give a maximum of 60% bonus and my Deal Castle uses 49 squares again for a maximum 60% bonus. I would add that the maximum bonus is only achievable in the case of Deal Castle after donation of over 3600 Forge Points. Although it would hurt my defenses I really think the defensive value of watchfires need to be reduced at the same time as GBs as the advantage they give is not in proportion to their cost.