[DISCUSSION] Update to 1.27 Postmodern Era

[DeletedUser23291]

I think eurdmp is more upset about how it was made easier to do with the newest update. You need significantly less troops than before to wipe off guilds from the map. So even though it is the same ghost guild problem the upset is really that it has been made worse.

I'd expect compaints like this to escalate, ghosting being made easier is very much the opposite of what many wanted.

Note: While the 7-day block causes ghost guilds to be somewhat more permanent (and potentially becoming a annoying guild and not a ghost guild) I'm still going to use the term ghost guild assuming it is "temporary" in the sence of lasting roughly 7 days (or less and spending early days in attack prep). So if a guild is doing what was described above but lasts longer (say a month+) I'd call it an annoying guild.

The guild in question is not a ghost guild, it is far worse. They simply want to destroy, have a 9 million point strong leader, got fed up that GvG goods costs prevents expansion. They have been doing this for more than a month. FoE needs to make a rule that you cannot give up your HQ unless it is the last sector in ther map. as well as not being allowed to move HQ to newly conquered sector. That would be in the spirit of GvG. That would prevent this tornado effect of marching through the map in day. This should be a trivial update.

Or base siege costs in goods to be based on all currently held territory plus all the sectors freed within the last 7 days. That's probably more diffilcult to implement because it requires keeping track of all those sectors.

 

[DeletedUser13082]

The guild in question is not a ghost guild, it is far worse. They simply want to destroy, have a 9 million point strong leader, got fed up that GvG goods costs prevents expansion. They have been doing this for more than a month. FoE needs to make a rule that you cannot give up your HQ unless it is the last sector in ther map. as well as not being allowed to move HQ to newly conquered sector. That would be in the spirit of GvG. That would prevent this tornado effect of marching through the map in day. This should be a trivial update.

Or base siege costs in goods to be based on all currently held territory plus all the sectors freed within the last 7 days. That's probably more diffilcult to implement because it requires keeping track of all those sectors.

That wouldn't counter ghost guilds. They would just take a sector on a possible landing area, release it, then take another. The only way to stop ghost guilds is to make them pay more in goods, hence why a fixed goods cost based on the power of the sector being attacked would put a stop to ghosting and pretty much every other GvG issue. The idea of getting rid of unit cost for sieges just made it 10x easier for ghost guilds to attack, then adding a restraint against guild hopping means that guilds can no longer ally themselves to be able to help each other defend when ghosting takes place. Everything done was done to benefit ghost guilds rather than to stop them. Clearly inno feel that unfair game play is the way forward for a game, despite the blatant out-cry from their customers.

It's their game, they do what they want when they want whether customers agree or not. Their reason is "It is needed for balance for a future update... which we will never reveal to you and which will never actually come". Much like "balancing" the attack/defence boosts so that people who use diamonds are able to have a city defence that is impossible to defeat. It's all about a company which is corrupt by greed. Doing everything in their power to get more people to require the use of diamonds to be able to advance in the game. Constantly we are told that the outcome of this game is already planned out, that plan is to eventually turn the game into a premium only game, as is clearly shown by the ridiculous updates we constantly receive.

To give an example of the above, does anybody honestly believe that the new 2 wave battles were to give the battle feature a new twist and make it more interesting? Of course it wasn't. It's to try and entice people to heal their units with diamonds in order to complete the battle.

Greed is the answer, greed is the problem and greed is the overall reason of why this game will slowly dwindle away to nothing.

 

[DeletedUser7223]

To give an example of the above, does anybody honestly believe that the new 2 wave battles were to give the battle feature a new twist and make it more interesting? Of course it wasn't. It's to try and entice people to heal their units with diamonds in order to complete the battle.

Greed is the answer, greed is the problem and greed is the overall reason of why this game will slowly dwindle away to nothing.

lol , need we say anymore !

 

[DeletedUser2989]

To give an example of the above, does anybody honestly believe that the new 2 wave battles were to give the battle feature a new twist and make it more interesting? Of course it wasn't. It's to try and entice people to heal their units with diamonds in order to complete the battle.

Greed is the answer, greed is the problem and greed is the overall reason of why this game will slowly dwindle away to nothing.

I'm one who believes that... It's nice to see them trying something along the lines of "expanding" the battles. It'll be really cool if they could implement a 2 wave system for us next Personally I won't be spending any more diamonds healing my troops than I did before (which is none), I'll battle through it and have some fun trying (or buy out the sectors/province).

 

[DeletedUser97883]

With the rip-off diamond costs, it was clear to me from day 1 that greed is the driving force here. Nothing new there. Still, so far the game has remained enjoyable enough for free players.

Ignoring the "pay-to-win" PME GvG province entry, the thing that most annoys me is the fact that starting a siege now copies the units, doesn't consume them. Makes ghost guilding and the like even easier. There's little point in trying to defend your territory now, in most cases, since if the attacker guild doesn't have much land, it can in practise just renew the siege until the defenders get bored and go to sleep. No, I'm serious, that's exactly what happened with us tonight. After killing 4-5 sieges, we figured it wasn't worth defending a mere LMA sector, since the attacker only had 2 sectors and would thus be able to keep it up all night. That was an awful, nonsensical change.

 

[DeletedUser1081]

Well, you didn't have to "pay to win entry" to PME GvG - all you needed was a champion retreat, a renovation kit and a lot of rogues, plus the usual stockpile of forgepoint packages from waiting at the end of the ME tech tree.

As for the sieges no longer consuming units, all I can fathom is that for whatever reason the devs don't want to stop ghosting and nuisance sieges, since it encourages "action" in GvG when people had been complaining that there was a deadlock. If it went along with a massive reduction in the what sieges and defense cost in goods, it might even make a sort of sense - GvG as an ongoing free-for-all, where you expect to fight nonstop, not hang onto territory.

Meanwhile, I have a question: If my guild changes its name a day after I leave it (for example just adding a comma or something) can I return to it immediately? In other words, is guild name-changing a way around the seven-day cooldown? If so, is it permitted by the rules? (If this has been discussed already and I missed it, I'd be grateful for a link to the discussion - apologetic thanks!)

And I have to say: The buildings in this era sure are colourless! Even the zoo looks disappointingly drab. I'm sure the brilliant art team had much better ideas and I hope they'll be allowed to be more creative in coming eras.

 

[DeletedUser]

wait 7 days in order to rejoin a guild is for both players that leave AND were kicked out right?

 

[DeletedUser7719]

Meanwhile, I have a question: If my guild changes its name a day after I leave it (for example just adding a comma or something) can I return to it immediately? In other words, is guild name-changing a way around the seven-day cooldown? If so, is it permitted by the rules? (If this has been discussed already and I missed it, I'd be grateful for a link to the discussion - apologetic thanks!)

I can't be sure, but I think you still couldn't. (The reason why I say so is because if changing your guild name changes what guild you last entered, how would your guild level stay constant and not reset as well?)

wait 7 days in order to rejoin a guild is for both players that leave AND were kicked out right?

Yes, I think a mod confirmed this one earlier

 

[DeletedUser]

wait 7 days in order to rejoin a guild is for both players that leave AND were kicked out right?

Yes, I think a mod confirmed this one earlier

Actually it was confirmed at a much higher level:

7 Day Guild Cool down

This is only for rejoining your previous guild it does not stop you joining a new one.
This cool down block also happens if you have been kicked either deliberately or accidentally.

 

[DeletedUser1081]

Meanwhile, I have a question: If my guild changes its name a day after I leave it (for example just adding a comma or something) can I return to it immediately? In other words, is guild name-changing a way around the seven-day cooldown? If so, is it permitted by the rules? (If this has been discussed already and I missed it, I'd be grateful for a link to the discussion - apologetic thanks!)

I can't be sure, but I think you still couldn't. (The reason why I say so is because if changing your guild name changes what guild you last entered, how would your guild level stay constant and not reset as well?)

Maybe because there are different mechanism involved in keeping track of the two things - the programming making it impossible for me to rejoin my last guild for 7 days has just been introduced, after all, and it might have unexpected features (or are those bugs? so hard to tell sometimes! :cool. Is there some way we could get this checked out, please and thank you?

 

[DeletedUser]

Alright thanks guys.
Also with this new update the PvP became even slower than per usual. GVG fights as well. If before I had to refresh after 3-4 fights, now sometimes I refresh during every one of them. That without the hardware acceleration thingie on, because that makes everything unbearable.
So questions to mods or community managers, whoever knows, is this being looked on, or am I the first one who noticed?

 

[DeletedUser]

Alright thanks guys.
Also with this new update the PvP became even slower than per usual. GVG fights as well. If before I had to refresh after 3-4 fights, now sometimes I refresh during every one of them. That without the hardware acceleration thingie on, because that makes everything unbearable.
So questions to mods or community managers, whoever knows, is this being looked on, or am I the first one who noticed?

There is a discussion thread here on the issue of slow battles (click). In order to solve this problem, more information is required, so it would help if you could post in the thread.

7-Day Cooldown for Rejoining a Guild:

Meanwhile, I have a question: If my guild changes its name a day after I leave it (for example just adding a comma or something) can I return to it immediately? In other words, is guild name-changing a way around the seven-day cooldown? If so, is it permitted by the rules? (If this has been discussed already and I missed it, I'd be grateful for a link to the discussion - apologetic thanks!)

Maybe because there are different mechanism involved in keeping track of the two things - the programming making it impossible for me to rejoin my last guild for 7 days has just been introduced, after all, and it might have unexpected features (or are those bugs? so hard to tell sometimes! :cool. Is there some way we could get this checked out, please and thank you?

Yes, there is a way of checking this out, and it involved me getting kicked from a guild to experiment.... I can confirm that it makes no difference if the guild name is changed, you still cannot rejoin for 7 days. You can receive an invite to join, but when you try to accept, you get a message to say that you cannot rejoin until [Date] [Time].

Guild name-changing is not a way round the seven-day cooldown.

 

[mrbeef]

'There is a discussion thread here on the issue of slow battles (click). In order to solve this problem, more information is required, so it would help if you could post in the thread.'

...To be honest..more people posting about is isn't going to solve the problem..simple fact - since the update the whole game has become unbearably slow

 

[DeletedUser2989]

'There is a discussion thread here on the issue of slow battles (click). In order to solve this problem, more information is required, so it would help if you could post in the thread.'

...To be honest..more people posting about is isn't going to solve the problem..simple fact - since the update the whole game has become unbearably slow

It could help, I'm not experiencing any slow game play and I have Hardware Acceleration turned on (it started to work properly for me this update). So more details being posted means this can be forwarded and fixed, staying silent menas they might miss the fix needed for you.

 

[DeletedUser13082]

Ok so the new 2 wave battle feature on the continent map allows players to defeat the first wave, get the points, retreat from second wave and repeat the process. This now gives players the ability to earn stupidly high amounts of points very easily with no loss of units, goods or anything else (except time).

My question is this; HQ dropping was doing something that was not supposed to be possible and was classed as a "loophole in game mechanics". Therefore it was not a punishable offence. This new rank point boosting method is doing something that is not supposed to be possible, will this too be known as a "loophole in game mechanics"? Will players be permitted to cheat their way to the higher ranks of the personal leaderboards, the same way they were permitted to cheat their way to the higher ranks of the guild leaderboards?

 

[DeletedUser12400]

Ok so the new 2 wave battle feature on the continent map allows players to defeat the first wave, get the points, retreat from second wave and repeat the process. This now gives players the ability to earn stupidly high amounts of points very easily with no loss of units, goods or anything else (except time).

Well this is just plain dumb!

 

[DeletedUser1081]

Ok so the new 2 wave battle feature on the continent map allows players to defeat the first wave, get the points, retreat from second wave and repeat the process. This now gives players the ability to earn stupidly high amounts of points very easily with no loss of units, goods or anything else (except time).

I thought the points for the first wave weren't awarded until we've won both phases of each battle.

 

[DeletedUser12400]

I thought the points for the first wave weren't awarded until we've won both phases of each battle.

You thought wrong.

 

[DeletedUser]

It is very clear that a few players are exploiting the two wave battles, even doing over 1,500 battles and counting and they should get some sort of punishment for this!

 

[DeletedUser13082]

It is very clear that a few players are exploiting the two wave battles, even doing over 1,500 battles and counting and they should get some sort of punishment for this!

But how can you punish somebody for this if people aren't punished for HQ dropping. Both situations are exploiting something within the game that should not be possible. You can't punish one and not the other. If people doing this are punished then people who HQ dropped across the maps should also be punished.