DeletedUser97883
Oh, I agree that separate GvG rights system is needed. I only suggested that as the quickest, easiest solution to close the security holes.
-
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:
DeletedUser97603
Inno likes complex updates, so we can force them for seperate rights 
DeletedUser1081
I think the risk is not very great that anyone would replace hundreds of armies with rogues before anyone else noticed and started rescuing the situation - and if it did happen you'd want as many good guildmates as possible to be able to help replace the rogue armies, wouldn't you.
So my vote for the short term solution is either to let every guildmember replace armies, or to roll back to the "trusteds delete/others fill empty slots" mode we're all used to. That's until they give us the well-thought-out system of separate rights for GvG that we've been asking and waiting and yearning and pining for.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser97883
Eventually, yes, but this problem is very severe and needs a quick fix, IMO. They can't code an entirely new rights system in days. Unless, of course, they've already been working on it for a while and are almost ready, which I doubt.
DeletedUser97883
Actually, the saboteur could have days to work on it. People don't usually pay attention to the exact composition of the def armies in their sectors, only their health. It could go unnoticed for days.
Edit:
If the log worked reliably, it wouldn't be such a problem, but as it is...
Edit:
If the log worked reliably, it wouldn't be such a problem, but as it is...
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser97603
yeah, logs big problem. Hope It will be detailed and usefull soon.
DeletedUser99438
Surely they can add a feature that would disallow an 8 Rogue Army to be placed.
DeletedUser5180
i would like to see a new rights system which is exclusive to gvg, thus allowing trusted members to use the hidden guild forum threads as originally intended.
on the subject of gb balancing.....
Autonium.................. for the size of the gb it was a meagre amount of goods to start with, reducing the boost even from later levels really is a very poor decision and hardy inspires anyone to find the space to build it.
Space Needle......... i've expected the happiness value to increase since day 1, the amount is no-where big enough for a Modern Era gb.
Royal Albert Hall..... Nerfing this probably won't be a big issue with most players if they were compensated better with the others.
Deal Castle............. quite an increase in medals (almost giving back what was taken from us with the absurb nerfing all those months ago, makes me think that if it needed increasing now it was the wrong decision to nerf it). As there are more ways to gain medals now ie victory towers, buying them from events etc than there were back at the time of the nerfing it makes this decision even stranger. INNO admitting they were wrong perhaps.? For the players who deleted high level Deal Castles after the nerf this is a right old kick in the teeth.
finally, NO MATTER HOW BIG OR SMALL / GOOD OR BAD .............sneaking these in without being included on the original changelog is very poor but is exactly the way INNO behave.
another example of leaving their mods to take the flack / criticism which is very wrong. If this is how they treat volunteers i wonder how paid employees are treated.
on the subject of gb balancing.....
Autonium.................. for the size of the gb it was a meagre amount of goods to start with, reducing the boost even from later levels really is a very poor decision and hardy inspires anyone to find the space to build it.
Space Needle......... i've expected the happiness value to increase since day 1, the amount is no-where big enough for a Modern Era gb.
Royal Albert Hall..... Nerfing this probably won't be a big issue with most players if they were compensated better with the others.
Deal Castle............. quite an increase in medals (almost giving back what was taken from us with the absurb nerfing all those months ago, makes me think that if it needed increasing now it was the wrong decision to nerf it). As there are more ways to gain medals now ie victory towers, buying them from events etc than there were back at the time of the nerfing it makes this decision even stranger. INNO admitting they were wrong perhaps.? For the players who deleted high level Deal Castles after the nerf this is a right old kick in the teeth.
finally, NO MATTER HOW BIG OR SMALL / GOOD OR BAD .............sneaking these in without being included on the original changelog is very poor but is exactly the way INNO behave.
another example of leaving their mods to take the flack / criticism which is very wrong. If this is how they treat volunteers i wonder how paid employees are treated.
DeletedUser97883
It's not that I like the rebalance, but in all fairness I must say that I still find Atomium to be easily worth the space. The original amount of 100 goods a day for the lvl 10 building was hardly meager, especially considering the 8000 happiness. You'd have to build 4-5 goods buildings of your current age (not to mention the houses to get the population to work those buildings) to make up for the goods, and at least a couple of cultural buildings to make up for the happiness.
I find the complaints regarding "forgetting" to mention the rebalance in the original announcement quite justified, but the actual content of the rebalance is mostly boosts, and I don't find the nerfs that bad.
DeletedUser99438
Here's an idea to stop ghosting. Make it so that a guild with less than 10 cannot participate in GvG. Guilds with less than 10 cannot establish themselves very well on GvG anyway. And no guild is going to throw out 10 of their best players for 7 days. If they did, I can only say - Stupid Move!
DeletedUser99588
-1 from me I know of legitimate guilds of 7 or 8 that have a presence in GvG.
DeletedUser97603
how they reach the level10 without GvG? there are only HoFs. Its not enough.
EDIT: Sorry, you meant member of guild, I thought level.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser99438
Fair point. 7 or 8 is still a high enough number of your best players to lose from a guild
DeletedUser9057
This would be too limiting for guilds with generals in each era that have trusted status now, but are not Founders or Leaders.
Regardless what the decision is, it needs to happen fast so we can function in GvG!
DeletedUser8813
why do we not just have a different set of rights ..one for guild life ..then one for GVG..surely that is not beyond the devs ability..and so much simpler...as to the ghost guilds well the solution is as simple as listening to what players are saying..costs are too high..INNO may want to slow the game down but players like to play not sleep between moves
DeletedUser653
Not so sure about that, nothing wrong with a small highly active guild who support each other well, ie "Whatever" in EN1, only 7 players and upto 7th place in PME and on every map down to PA. I also remember a few one man/girl guilds which active in GvG BUT.... Nice idea and if only to stop "Whatever" being kicked out I would suggest it might work with the figure at 5 players.
PS Whatever has one of the best lines in their profile, it talks about being active in GVG etc etc and ends in "If your a tyre kicker or lack the above bu@@er off" Classic.
DeletedUser12400
They should change first siege cost from 5 to 50. For a guild its not much for a ghost guild its something. 5x5=25/50x5=250.
DeletedUser1081
Sorry electricrainbows et al, I'm missing something - have ideas to stop ghost guilds got something to do with the 1.36 update? The replace-army issue wasn't to stop ghost guilds, it was to stop saboteurs - entirely different issue.
Meanwhile, regarding the replace-army question:
I don't know any guild that doesn't notice the composition of its defense armies. If a saboteur spent days replacing armies with rogues without anyone noticing I'd reckon the guild wasn't very interested in GvG. (I do feel for the guild that had all its armies deleted by a saboteur - which is probably what prompted the introduction of the "replace army" function - but that didn't take days.)
To address the immediate problems, either "replace army" needs to be available to members without "trusted" status or the whole thing needs to be rolled back to "trusteds can delete armies/others can place armies" that we're all adjusted to.
For the longer term: We've been asking for separate rights for GvG ever since it was introduced. Please implement something like that, finally - but think it through and respond to feedback from the players.
Meanwhile, regarding the replace-army question:
I don't know any guild that doesn't notice the composition of its defense armies. If a saboteur spent days replacing armies with rogues without anyone noticing I'd reckon the guild wasn't very interested in GvG. (I do feel for the guild that had all its armies deleted by a saboteur - which is probably what prompted the introduction of the "replace army" function - but that didn't take days.)
To address the immediate problems, either "replace army" needs to be available to members without "trusted" status or the whole thing needs to be rolled back to "trusteds can delete armies/others can place armies" that we're all adjusted to.
For the longer term: We've been asking for separate rights for GvG ever since it was introduced. Please implement something like that, finally - but think it through and respond to feedback from the players.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser99438
Probably not the right place for that discussion. I do like Overtype's idea on cost of goods for first siege though! and HRC 5 is still a lot to lose for many guilds so could work.
As for the saboteur - isn't that what trusted rights are for? Sure that's solved with this feature already, do not give trusted to guild members who don't need them. This update feature only further instills the ability for saboteurs because it means guilds have to liberally hand out trusted rights to keep their sectors.
We do need the Separate rights Mink
This update feature would be good if people without trusted rights could only replace armies with a max of 3 Rogues in each army and people with trusted rights can still work away as normal.
Well said
so could work.As for the saboteur - isn't that what trusted rights are for? Sure that's solved with this feature already, do not give trusted to guild members who don't need them. This update feature only further instills the ability for saboteurs because it means guilds have to liberally hand out trusted rights to keep their sectors.
We do need the Separate rights Mink
This update feature would be good if people without trusted rights could only replace armies with a max of 3 Rogues in each army and people with trusted rights can still work away as normal.
Well said
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser99588
These sort of solutions just complicate things and who says I don't want 4 rogues in my defence. I can understand why you have suggested it but it is like putting a sticky plaster on top of a sticky plaster on top of........ well you get my drift.
They need to take a step backwards, take a look at what they are actually trying to achieve and then formulate a solution including an evaluation of any knock on effects the solution might produce. They have many suggestions on this forum which although not perfect are better than the status quo. They also need to take more notice of update feedback prior to introduction of the update.
Really they have had more than enough time to get it right when you consider that many of the things being raised were also raised during beta testing before GvG even went live. Rights management has been a disgrace from the very start. Hijacking the trusted status which was for private forum use was just plain laziness.