GB balancing changes--Feedback thread

[DeletedUser4089]

Btw why do we have 2 identical big open threads on this issue(besides the closed 3rd one)? I know in past, duplicate threads have usually been merged into 1.

One is an official thread, the discussion thread. For players to find out how exactly it will work, the ins and outs, details etc.
The other is a player created thread, the feedback thread. This is where people can talk about how they feel about the changes described in the discussion thread.

The reason to keep them separate is so that all the information is in the one Discussion thread without lots of other posts that don't explain the feature. Makes it easy for players to get the information without wading through as many likes and dislikes.

 

[ddevil]

As for wanting players to play against, I really doubt that most will leave over a few percentage points in attack/defense boosts. I'm sure will most will stay and just get on with it. I'm not saying there won't be a few who leave, but I expect that to only be a small minority. Also, I'm in en6 a lot, and it's the recommended world just now, I can assure you that there is plenty new blood coming in

The way I see it, players haven't been treated badly by this announcement, I'd say it's nicer to be told now than just wake up one morning to reduced stats.
As for a few replies to the players in the discussion threads, it's a two way street and shouldn't really have any bearing on the changes themselves. (And that's all I'm going to say about that aspect in this public thread.)

---

if u r on en6 thats good bcoz i also play on en6 .... u can see 4100 pages of players in the ranking .... try seeing how many are actually playing / played the game ... after first 1000 odd pages its only the bare minimum 51 / 71 points players .... those who are joining and not continuing ... Please check how many are actually active in that first 100 pages .... most of the long time players have already left the game ... most of the premium players are getting bored and are on the verge of leaving the game ...nowadays they are also feeling cheated becoz of these new changes and on top with the kind of answers given by some of the mods on this forum infuriating them even more .... I really doubt if there's a single guild with full 80 active members in their guild atleast on en6...Claiming new blood joining the game is not going to help ...how do u think the new blood will survive the game with things changing for the worse with every new update .... I started playing on another world and have already lost interest to continue with it ...to tell u seriously its so much difficult / boring for lower age players to survive nowadays ...the game wants players to spend all their time on this game which i dont think is going to happen ... this new change is going to make it even more difficult ...Sometimes I wonder how many players will actually be around when finally the GvG makes its appearance on this server .... the interesting aspect of this game is only PVP for almost 90% of the players (dont think GvG can ever take that place ...i really found it boring after first few tries on the beta)...and now when the game dev's are trying to fiddle with that aspect making it almost impossible to compete i m sure many will just go inactive because there's nothing else left in this game other than PvP ...

GvG should have been added as an additional aspect to this game rather than mixing / linking it with PVP .... there are so many new ways it can be done ... GvG could have been started as a total new concept starting with all new Gbs for it specifically which we would have to try and get it in the GvG map itself ... just like for PVP we had to get these Gbs in the game ... maybe i will get an answer this is not feasible according to the powers to be ...but there have been games which had a new feature introduced as a support pack to the old game ... something in those lines ... GvG could have been a chance to all the long time players of this game who were getting bored with nothing new to do in this game anymore to start all over again which might have kept their interest ... instead having it very much similar to the PVP excpt in a different map and huge number of sectors to fight day in day out ...

This is a good game and i think most of them who are playing /played it till now really love it to an extent of getting addicted to it ... but the recent nerfings of the various aspects of the game and the way players are being treated on the forums is leaving a bad taste for the long time & premium players of this game ... I think dev's should try to keep the players interested and happy with whatever changes they bring on to the game instead of the opposite ... u simply cannot make people stay with a game however good and popular it is ...after making them unhappy or giving them a feeling of being cheated ....

 

[DeletedUser]

Personally, I don't think its so much the way they screwed with the GB's thats bothering me, or a lot of people, for that matter. They most certainly needed to do something on the PvP side of things to make things a little more fair to the defenders. That being said, by not doing anything with the watchtowers or monastery they have over-corrected for the issue that there was.

Again, I don't care for the GvG stuff. It's not here yet, and when they release it its been already stated that we're only getting about 10% of the final product, so count me out until its a little more polished. So, for me, I'm looking at things from the PvP/Campaign side of things only.

To make the PvP stuff balanced all that needed to be done was to give the defenders some sort of attack bonus while defending. That's it. Problem basically solved. Well they are doing that. Good. It was needed. But it wasn't needed to reduce the attack/defense bonuses of the attackers. Currently I've got the 150/150 attack bonus and I STILL lose units everyday fighting through my hood, and yes, I fight nearly all battles manually. So things aren't THAT far off from being correct now. A new GB that gave 3-5% attack bonus to defenders per level would have been enough. Or give Basil's and Deal each a 3% per level like they did. That would have been just fine and dandy with me. Would have LOVED to see that, actually. My issue is that they basically did what they needed to do, and then went 450 thousand steps further and nerfed the attackers bonus as well. And on top of that they didn't even bother to think about watchtowers or the monastery which are now way overpowered and likely the most desirable things for players to have in regards to PvP.

I looked at a city yesterday that had 66 watchtowers. 66. In all of history there hasn't been an army that could not be beaten. With the proper strategy any army should be able to be defeated. Even if it comes at a very steep cost. The aforementioned army cannot be defeated in this current setup. Just from towers alone they will have a 264% defensive bonus. Throw in a monastery and 2 fully leveled GB's and the final numbers going into battle will look like this: Attacker 90/90 Defender 60/344. Yea, that's not a winnable fight now unless said person is a complete idiot and fields no defensive army (which I doubt with that much invested in defense).

Now listen, I have quite a few watchtowers myself. 26 I think. My armies will be greatly helped out defensively by this update. Almost to the point of being unbeatable (My basil/deal are almost fully leveled). So, I'm not complaining about this because it only effects me negatively. It's actually going to make me stronger on defense. But its only making me that strong because of a 1x1 little building that was handed out in unlimited fashion (basically). That's not what the game should be about. There isn't a 1x1 building out there to raise my attack % by 4 points that I can buy/earn to compensate against those players with massive amounts of towers...

I guess what I'm saying is that doing what they did to the GB was... ok? Not great, but ok... Not addressing the towers and monastery was a huge mistake and basically changes the PvP dynamic from and offensive slugfest to a defensive standstill. And I find that boring.

 

[. ICE .]

Because the mod didn't like "feedback" being given in a "discussion" thread. I know. It makes no sense to me either!

agree....
I am jumping from one to another here just to keep up .
discussion/ feedback .... too many blurred lines to separate .
nonsense. !

 

[DeletedUser]

I haven't said much about this because I don't have much information on the new GvG component (I am not on the beta server). I am sure I will be chewed up one side and down the other for this, but ... how does anyone KNOW how this will affect a component of the game that has yet to be released? No player (even beta ones) knows what GvG will be like at this point. How many more changes will be coming due to GvG? Is it unreasonable to withhold judgement of such dire consequences until we actually are able to see the whole picture instead of ripping it all to shreds based on a few details of changes that have yet to even be released yet? Just my opinion, but I think this is all putting the cart before the horse.

I certainly can understand the discussion on how these changes affect the PvP as it currently exists as we can comprehend these changes, but the GvG discussions are just, in my opinion, premature at best.

Now please be kind to me as this is just my opinion as a fellow player, not the developers' or Inno's opinions (as I have no extra insight on this than you do from them).

 

[Praeceptor]

I am sure I will be chewed up one side and down the other for this, but ...

Actually, I think you'll be all right for the most part. It's not the GvG aspect that's causing the most grief, although most of us think GvG is nowhere near ready to be released from beta. It's the PvP aspect that's causing the most anger - especially the nerfing of the attack buildings without considering the towers and monastery (which aren't used in GvG anyway).

 

[DeletedUser1081]

INo player (even beta ones) knows what GvG will be like at this point. How many more changes will be coming due to GvG?

Shouldn't the add-on (GvG) be adapted to suit the game, rather than radically changing the game (and doing that in ways that upset miles of players) in order to accommodate an add-on? The tail wagging the dog is not a pretty sight.

 

[Praeceptor]

Shouldn't the add-on (GvG) be adapted to suit the game, rather than radically changing the game (and doing that in ways that upset miles of players) in order to accommodate an add-on? The tail wagging the dog is not a pretty sight.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[DeletedUser]

Shouldn't the add-on (GvG) be adapted to suit the game, rather than radically changing the game (and doing that in ways that upset miles of players) in order to accommodate an add-on? The tail wagging the dog is not a pretty sight.

Perhaps so, perhaps not. It is impossible to please all people and with thousands playing, do that math. Many people are looking for more challenge to this game. They have completed all tech research and are stuck with repeating quests and the same PvP hood. This will create more challenge for PvP and the new GvG component will give another area of challenge to focus on. It APPEARS to be a radical change to the game, but as I stated before.. how can that be determined before it is released? As best as I can understand it, it appears that the full GvG has the potential of never seeing the beta server. Beta may only see pieces of GvG at best. Perhaps I misunderstand. But bottom line, until GvG is released we have no idea if GvG is wagging the dog or not.

 

[DeletedUser4089]

Well, GvG is part of the game and has probably been in Anwar's head since day 1. Just because we didn't know it was going to become part of the game, doesn't mean it wasn't always planned to be part of the game. We're not playing a completed game that they are adding to, we are playing a game that is still halfway through being completed.

 

[Praeceptor]

@Beast - you may be right about a lot of this, and as you say, it's impossible to please everyone. It is however very easy to upset lots of people, and this announcement has done exactly that.

I don't want to get into the GvG issue too deep, but I was looking forward to it when it was first mooted. I have been very disappointed about the way it's being developed though, and I can't see it being radically different from the beta implementation. Loads of us just aren't interested in it.

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't even think its that making things a little tougher in the PvP side is what bothers me. I'm all for a little bit of a challenge. But just looking at things right now I see PvP turning into players only fighting people much much lower than them both in the tech tree and in points. Battles between top players are going to result in massive losses to the attacker with no change to the reward they are going to receive. As a result you are going to see players plunder more to compensate for the losses (or simply because they are mad about losing units). This causes more moaning on the forums. Also, I think everyone will start to focus on the defensive side of things and we will end up at a point where is it basically pointless to fight neighborhood/continent battles anymore. Negotiate the map, polivate the hood and then sit and twiddle our thumbs as we wait for GvG to get ironed out to a point that it is actually viable.

I think we all know that the game is no where near complete yet. But with no end game ever being revealed to us we are left to go on what we have TODAY. To simply state "I have seen the proposals and this is all needed and good for the game" is not good enough for the PLAYERS. We are the ones who have to slog through all of these seemingly mindless changes blindly, hoping that one day they all make sense. Secretly knowing that half of them won't turn out nearly as well as we are lead on to believe.

 

[DeletedUser]

As a result you are going to see players plunder more to compensate for the losses (or simply because they are mad about losing units). This causes more moaning on the forums. Also, I think everyone will start to focus on the defensive side of things and we will end up at a point where is it basically pointless to fight neighborhood/continent battles anymore. Negotiate the map, polivate the hood and then sit and twiddle our thumbs as we wait for GvG to get ironed out to a point that it is actually viable.

You might be right, you might be wrong. My crystal ball has yet to reveal the future to me. I am reserving judgement until I actually see/experience the situation. And we we obviously see, changes are made. So if it is truly as dire as you believe it will be, then adjustments can be made. I am not convinced that the situation is as dire as you think it will be. But all we can do is wait and see, as none of us players KNOWS what will happen next.

I think we all know that the game is no where near complete yet. But with no end game ever being revealed to us we are left to go on what we have TODAY.

Exactly, work with what we have TODAY. Tomorrow (or whenever this release happens) will be worked out in due time by all the players who are willing to take up the challenge. And imo, what fun is a game without challenge? If nothing else, the changes create new challenges each time. If the game were to never change, how boring would that be? Just like other hand held games that you defeat in a month and then sell because there is no challenge left.

 

[DeletedUser1081]

We're not playing a completed game that they are adding to, we are playing a game that is still halfway through being completed.

I guess you weren't here when The Countess told us that we should look at the Modern Era as an add-on - which certainly sounded like she considers the game complete.

Moreover, we've been told repeatedly that GvG is designed to be optional. So you're free to call it what you want, dear, but elements of the game that people have spent a lot of time and effort on are being crippled to suit an optional add-on.

And if GvG (and whatever it is that supposedly requires GB-ganking) had been in the brilliant and good-lookin Anwar's head from the get-go, don't you think he would have designed the GB boots appropriately to begin with, to avoid angering so many players?

 

[DeletedUser4089]

I guess you weren't here when The Countess told us that we should look at the Modern Era as an add-on - which certainly sounded like she considers the game complete.

I stand by what I said, there are different ways of wording changes as add ons, but since there is a longterm plan for all the things to come to make the game what it is destined to be, and in line with how all other Inno's games have been created, I go with half complete.

Moreover, we've been told repeatedly that GvG is designed to be optional. So you're free to call it what you want, dear, but elements of the game that people have spent a lot of time and effort on are being crippled to suit an optional add-on.

Most of the game is optional. Being optional doesn't make something any less part of the game.

And if GvG (and whatever it is that supposedly requires GB-ganking) had been in the brilliant and good-lookin Anwar's head from the get-go, don't you think he would have designed the GB boots appropriately to begin with, to avoid angering so many players?

There's a difference between how things will work in your head than how they work in practice. A few percent isn't far off, just a tweak.

 

[DeletedUser13805]

Actually, no, I'm not a mod. That said, it doesn't matter if I am a mod or not, all the mods are players too. And no, there's no obligation for a mod to support the changes that the company implements, mods can speak their minds just as freely as players, and have done so in the past.




As for wanting players to play against, I really doubt that most will leave over a few percentage points in attack/defense boosts. I'm sure will most will stay and just get on with it. I'm not saying there won't be a few who leave, but I expect that to only be a small minority. Also, I'm in en6 a lot, and it's the recommended world just now, I can assure you that there is plenty new blood coming in

The way I see it, players haven't been treated badly by this announcement, I'd say it's nicer to be told now than just wake up one morning to reduced stats.
As for a few replies to the players in the discussion threads, it's a two way street and shouldn't really have any bearing on the changes themselves. (And that's all I'm going to say about that aspect in this public thread.)

---

sorry for mixing you up with a mod its just you seem to pop up answering all the points made in any thread so i took it your a mod

as for your claims en6 is the world to be in ?? how would you know ?
i looked at your pvp fights won and your on 300 odd batles ? so i dont think you really understand the impact its going to have on the pvp players at all

the time it takes to do a hood is going to be twice as long ( its ok for me as i manual battle anyway so it will add a bit more time )
what i worry about is the huge defense boosts that now will have a boost attack and thats a lot of players in my hood
i already lose units manual with 150% attack boost players swap there defenses around and catch me out at times so if i go in with the wrong type of troops its costs me dearly
so i wonder how many more units i will lose ? or how many players will now be unbeatable ? and ultimately cost me a lot of lost battle points

i can only hope the casual player will hang on in there but again looking at your low fight score it would seem you to have joined the ranks of the players who dont pvp and en6 has more player now that dont pvp and i suspect the change will increase that number

 

[Praeceptor]

I see from the Announcements forum that there has been an apology forthcoming.

On my part I would like to say thank you for that, and it is appreciated; as are the difficult decisions mods need to take sometimes under extreme pressure.

 

[DeletedUser4089]

sorry for mixing you up with a mod its just you seem to pop up answering all the points made in any thread so i took it your a mod

as for your claims en6 is the world to be in ?? how would you know ?
i looked at your pvp fights won and your on 300 odd batles ? so i dont think you really understand the impact its going to have on the pvp players at all

the time it takes to do a hood is going to be twice as long ( its ok for me as i manual battle anyway so it will add a bit more time )
what i worry about is the huge defense boosts that now will have a boost attack and thats a lot of players in my hood
i already lose units manual with 150% attack boost players swap there defenses around and catch me out at times so if i go in with the wrong type of troops its costs me dearly
so i wonder how many more units i will lose ? or how many players will now be unbeatable ? and ultimately cost me a lot of lost battle points

i can only hope the casual player will hang on in there but again looking at your low fight score it would seem you to have joined the ranks of the players who dont pvp and en6 has more player now that dont pvp and i suspect the change will increase that number

Hehe, no worries, I was indeed a mod before.
By recommended world, I mean that all new players have en6 listed as recommended (recommended world cycles through all worlds giving the less active worlds mor players to fill them). Not that is the place to be. Just 99% of new players are going there for the momenta as it is the world preselected for them to join.

Yes, I don't fight that much anymore, I generally negotiate the continent map. But across the 8 worlds here, plus beta and US servers, I've put a fair bit of time into battling, so I do understand what the changes will mean to that.

For me, I don't really see the gain that defenders may gain over attackers as too harsh. in most cases I think it will still be possible to win. Yes more damage will be dealt to attackers, and it will be more work, but I don't see why it should be made easy for attackers. Attacking gains points while being a negotiator/friendly neighbour doesn't, so I see it as attackers having to earn those points by skill and effort.

I think a lot of casual players will just continue to play as they are already, going with the flow as casual players are wont to do. And less PvP'ers would mean easier PvP tower victories for you so maybe that's in your favour

 

[DeletedUser]

If a player wants only to increase PvP difficulty, he can simply detach some of the attack GBs during fights or intentionally use less than 8 units in the attack army. I haven't seen many players doing that. The cry "I want more challenging fights!" that we heard from many PvPers is not complete. What PvPers want in reality is to increase importance of the PvP aspect of the game. It includes increasing difficulty, but it also includes increasing rewards from PvP. I'm sure that if this GB nerfing came together with announcement of increase of PvP rewards (more medals, points, maybe some new rewards), there would be much more positive feedback from heavy fighters.

But just increasing PvP difficulty and, most important, time needed for fighting while keeping rewards at the old level does exactly the opposite. Fighting is the most time-consuming part of the game now; and after the 1.20 update we will need to spend 2-3 times more time on it. Rewards will effectively decrease because of increasing losses, invincible neighbors, and more military buildings. Even now, many players are on the verge of quitting PvPing (or quitting the game at all) because of the very low reward/effort ratio from PvP. If the 1.20 update will be implemented as it is announced the game will turn mostly into farmville.

 

[DeletedUser]

how does anyone KNOW how this will affect a component of the game that has yet to be released? No player (even beta ones) knows what GvG will be like at this point.

Not to chew you up, but knowing these things isn't even remotely far fetched for the people who have been active in GvG. Explaining why we think these things would require a rather detailed description of things on another server (not supposed to do this) and would likely be difficult if you have no base of knowledge. But one easy problem to describe goes like this: it is already next to impossible to take win 80 fights against armies with 50-75% defense boost in less time than it takes the other guild to win 10 fights against unboosted units. Cutting the attack boosts by 40% exacerbates this problem (especially if that 50-75% defense boost gets an upgrade in attack and a corresponding reduction in defense).

ex. fully boosted both parties

I and (assuming all attacking members of guild are maxed) guild have to be fighting with 90% att/def against 80 armies with 15%-25% att/def.

The defending guild will be fighting 10 armies with 0% att/def bonus and they will have 90% att/def bonus. Given that this was basically impossible from a 150% att/def attacker's standpoint before (if guild was remotely active and small to mid-sized), how could this not be a huge problem for GvG? Why wouldn't they beta test it under at least remotely similar conditions to what its release will resemble?

I think it will help young guilds have a chance b/c divide is nowhere near as large, but it doesn't solve one of the biggest problems that have caused GvG to stagnate. The other huge problems involve ridiculous exploits and loopholes to game the system.