GvG Importance / Relevance

[DeletedUser99438]

He's not saying people are not helping, he's saying any single aspect of the game cannot have all resources directed towards it entirely at the expense of everything else. Inno is still working on GvG, but they're not going to focus on that and never work on anything else. That'd be like putting every cent you have into a investment and then not having any money left for a house/rent.

So while they are working on GvG, don't be surprised if you see other things being worked on at the same time. That's the biggest complaint that gets expressed whenever a update is given "you added X thing why isn't GvG fixed instead?" and is the point he was replying to in the part you quoted

For one thing companies do tend to have different teams work on specific parts of a project. So while I don't actually know what system Inno uses, it would not surprise me if whoever works on GvG are not the same people working on other concepts in the game. I know in my own job the skillset I have as a waitress does not translate to what the chefs do, and likewise the chefs have no idea how to do what I do. It's also more efficient for multiple tasks to be completed simultaneously then a single order at a time as certain meals take longer then others but have ingrediants that other meals can borrow. So if programming skills is anything like that, it would not be possible for everyone to work on a single project anyway as they'd only be useful in specific parts of the process and need to have another project to work on while others finish the first task.

I can understand what you are saying there, and I agree to an extent. However, our argument there is that it's been at least 3 years and GvG has been largely shelved, despite the fact that issues were being repeatedly made known during this time. This in many of our opinions, is an unacceptable length of time, should they wish us to stay loyal to a product that we largely bought into due to the GvG aspect. It does appear from the many comments I am hearing, that GvG enthusiasts are generally feeling "sold out".

 

[Praeceptor]

Most of these posts are tldr; but have some good content.

My view?

If sectors became available 24hr after being taken instead of the crazy bottleneck bell...

If points hunters couldn't set up easy high point battles for each other...

If AA was any era AFTER future so silly spear fighters couldn't be used...

...I'd become a lot more active, and I'm guessing quite a few others would too.

 

[DeletedUser]

GvG my favorite part of this game this while I started my game on the app September, 2017 and didn’t know about it at all for a long period of time.
That said, many players do not even have a PC or Mac anymore: it’s getting old.
Therefore I understand the focus of the developers lays more in trying to make the app meet the standards of the software version which is far from the case.

The app is missing so much!

- Not being able to chat.
- Being able to write but not read profiles.
- Not being able to play GvG.
- Not being able to see from whom a marketoffer is.
- Paying way more for diamonds (if applicable).
- No collecting timer on GB’s.
- A crippled rankinglist (no variety of tabs).
- Not being able to read guild charters nor see their members.
- No guild forum.
- No opportunity to collect all at once (15 diamonds option).
- Not being welcome in “good” guilds because app players can’t play GvG and can not chat.
- Being blamed for the urge to socialize via guild mail.

The disadvantages are numerous whilst truth has to be said the app is advertised back in 2017 which our family acted upon and we simply could not expect this.
If we only knew by far back when that there are no equal advantages compared to the PC/ Mac players we probably didn’t even consider playing this game.
Looking back I am glad I joined though I’ve met super nice, generous and tolerant people over the time which is compensating a lot
That said having a Mac or PC to access the game is absolutely needed in order to blend in with the rest.

GvG knows a lot of problems which need to be addressed but I suppose all in all there are other very urgent matters as well.
I was slightly disturbed a lot of fanciness was released (i.e. the reward system) while there are still so much essentials to do!

And indeed GvG please do something, anything really!

There is a whole new FoE playing generation, like it or not, who souly play via the app and practise a lot of patience in waiting to become a fully recognized and operating player with equal advantages.

 

[DeletedUser99438]

If sectors became available 24hr after being taken instead of the crazy bottleneck bell...

There are many implications that this idea could have to the dynamics of the game and it's important that people really do consider the depth/consequences of them before buying into the idea, which seems like an easy fix but could become your worst nightmare!

Firstly, it seems one consensus behind this idea is that it will be easier for guilds to maintain their holdings and not have them taken by other guilds so easily. While it could potentially protect a guild from smaller/less active guilds, the bigger/more active guilds will still find a way around this strategy and work it to their advantage. It would be more difficult to predict when a guild will retake a sector, thus the guild that holds the sectors can retake borders and place perpetual blocks, virtually unchallenged. A small guild may have a great difficulty in preparing and getting their guild together to over-ride these blocks. A larger guild, will have the manpower to watch the maps and figure out timings, they'll have players willing to dedicate themselves to a few nights of being on call and will be ready to pounce on the next attempt to block and steal it. For most guilds, this is just going to end up a frustrating stalemate. It gives too much unfair advantage to the guild holding the sectors, that can't really be challenged by the majority. Sectors are not supposed to be Fort Knox, it is supposed to be possible to reasonably challenge the position of another guild. It's not a game of "I got there first, so I should own this indefinitely", or at least it's not intended to be.

Secondly, the argument seems to be that the server time doesn't allow for people on differing time zones to come together. There are other servers for differing time zones. It seems to be that the International server is largely European - and in the face of not being able to cater for everyone - the majority is usually the way to go. 8PM GMT tends to suit the majority of Europeans, as was evidenced when they changed the server time to 10AM and the GvG maps had tumbleweed on them - a few who managed to keep the 10AM server time got the advantage over the many - but mostly there was just little action and a lot of outcry.

Thirdly, it'll take away the real time aspect which means the fast paced strategic side of GvG disappears. This would be a shame because it is the only aspect of the game that drives team based socialised play. Moreoever, you may as well PvP as opposed to play GvG without this aspect. In such circumstances as proposed, you will likely fight unchallenged by any guild, this takes away the only aspect of the game that requires at least 2 real minds to go up against each other, ie. one guild leader strategising moves against another in real time, countering each others moves on the maps, whether it be trying to get a sector before the other .... or defend and save a sector before loss, etc.

And lastly (though I'm sure if we really start to get into the nitty gritty of this, there'll be far more implications found) such a move would dilute the intense social aspect that GvG Calculation time brings to global chat. There is nothing like a specific time and place, to get people gathering together and this is enjoyable for many (even non GvGers). Spread that out over an entire 24 hour period and this culture will be lost. Everyone knows the majority of players come on at 8PM GMT and global will likely be buzzing (or it wouldn't be difficult to get it buzzing) at this time. It creates a constant.

If points hunters couldn't set up easy high point battles for each other...

Point hunters will always find a way around the limitations. Many limitations have been placed in the face of point hunters, this is something Innogames have addressed on many occassions [examples: the changes to how one could place siege armies/inability to resiege a dropped sector]. These limitations had the adverse affect of affecting the fast paced action on GvG too, which some think unfortunate and others welcome. It's impossible to completely prevent people from hunting for points without taking away GvG completely.

If AA was any era AFTER future so silly spear fighters couldn't be used...

Again any guild with a good strategic mind and an ability to manage its team effectively will find tactics to their advantage, regardless of the limitations put in their way. So removing this, won't necessarily change a guild's ability to be successful. In fact, this particular aspect kind of helps smaller guilds gain a footing on AA that they wouldn't have on any other map. It is also one of the few maps in which more advanced guilds can involve all of their members and share more of the fun.

There are pros and cons to every situation and it's about being tactically smart in using what's at your disposal to your advantage ... in order to get ahead!

 

[Praeceptor]

There are many implications....

Lots of good points made here, but it's not about limiting the ability of strong guilds to succeed - of course they will adapt their tactics to suit, and good for them to do so.

My main point was to make it easier for more players to take part. If you can't get on at the bell, there's little incentive to get on at all as it stands.

Players will of course still abuse GvG for battle points etc, but taking away the ridiculous spearman issue would at least mean sieges and def armies would be meaningful.

None of these issues affect me btw. I'm strong enough to take any sector I want - but as it stands, I can't be bothered.

 

[DeletedUser99438]

My main point was to make it easier for more players to take part. If you can't get on at the bell, there's little incentive to get on at all as it stands.

I addressed the ramification to that above too. From experience, during quiet times, if there's no real reason for members to come on at 8PM GMT, the guild goes quiet. If you give them a reason to come on at a different time, ie. during the day or during the early hours of GMT time, it doesn't have the same gathering effect that 8PM GMT has. It's really up to each guild to cater for and provide all their members with incentives to come together. Leaders need to be creative to keep all content, even the ones that can't structure themselves around central guild activities, otherwise they will see the members find a guild that does [at times that is best for all concerned and is one of the reasons it's great to have so many diverse guilds out there, with environments that can pretty much suit someone or other]. I personally believe this is the responsibility of the guilds as opposed to Innogames.

There's pros and cons as I say and the very definition of abuse probably differs from one perspective to the next.

 

[DeletedUser110620]

Hey guys, nice idea to have an importance/relevence thread. But the only way to really do this properly is to have a mass demonstration where the majority of the GvG guilds, (especually the biggest ones,) decide to protest by not playing GvG for a weekend. Founders can lock out all other members from taking action on that weekend, and even ask everybody not to log in.

Once they see the impact of that, they will be concerned that we may organise a week long walkout of the game, a week long walkout would see them loose profits. We do have the power to do this, and why not?

 

[Emberguard]

The problem with that, is will it really have the desired effect? Would it be showing the devs that it's in demand? Or would it show that we're capable of doing without it?

 

[DeletedUser99438]

Hey guys, nice idea to have an importance/relevence thread. But the only way to really do this properly is to have a mass demonstration where the majority of the GvG guilds, (especually the biggest ones,) decide to protest by not playing GvG for a weekend. Founders can lock out all other members from taking action on that weekend, and even ask everybody not to log in.

Once they see the impact of that, they will be concerned that we may organise a week long walkout of the game, a week long walkout would see them loose profits. We do have the power to do this, and why not?

The idea has been considered but there are many variables which would likely see it not work. The major one being that of getting all guilds on board, have you ever done a ceasefire for Christmas on your worlds? There's always someone that breaks it and takes advantage on maps... this risk sees even guilds that want to participate in such a ceasefire, not participating.

The problem with that, is will it really have the desired effect? Would it be showing the devs that it's in demand? Or would it show that we're capable of doing without it?

There's another problem lol, as pointed out by Ember, who does this hurt more, Innogames or us?

Even if we're right and it will prove our point, we'd probably need longer than a weekend to show this.... and an adverse side effect of that is ... have you ever left the game for a couple of weeks for real life? It can be difficult to come back, you can start to see how you can really live without the game impeding on it. The only thing that ends up driving you back is the team ... if all the team are out and a few core players are lost because of this... that will lose the incentive to play.

The goal isn't to lose players really. But to be honest ... I do think if given the appropriate time and if all genuinely participated in it, it would prove our point.

Further, if they don't sort GvG soon ... I think they'll find out for real, be it for good or for bad, when players leave to join a different game. It won't concern us then mind and surely Innogames will just find another way to market the game to success.

 

[DeletedUser110620]

He's not saying people are not helping, he's saying any single aspect of the game cannot have all resources directed towards it entirely at the expense of everything else. Inno is still working on GvG, but they're not going to focus on that and never work on anything else. That'd be like putting every cent you have into a investment and then not having any money left for a house/rent.

So while they are working on GvG, don't be surprised if you see other things being worked on at the same time. That's the biggest complaint that gets expressed whenever a update is given "you added X thing why isn't GvG fixed instead?" and is the point he was replying to in the part you quoted

For one thing companies do tend to have different teams work on specific parts of a project. So while I don't actually know what system Inno uses, it would not surprise me if whoever works on GvG are not the same people working on other concepts in the game. I know in my own job the skillset I have as a waitress does not translate to what the chefs do, and likewise the chefs have no idea how to do what I do. It's also more efficient for multiple tasks to be completed simultaneously then a single order at a time as certain meals take longer then others but have ingrediants that other meals can borrow. So if programming skills is anything like that, it would not be possible for everyone to work on a single project anyway as they'd only be useful in specific parts of the process and need to have another project to work on while others finish the first task.

But when there is a problem with the system, when the orders are not being taken care of, and finally when the customers get angy about it. What part of the system do you suggest is working like it should be?

 

[DeletedUser99438]

But when there is a problem with the system, when the orders are not being taken care of, and finally when the customers get angy about it. What part of the system do you suggest is working like it should be?

It's a very good point indeed. Though, the support team here are hired [voluntarily in most cases] by Innogames and have a role to play, one which sees their own personal views having to be set aside and one in which they must always juggle the concerns of the players with their responsibility to Innogames ... it's a very delicate balance, I'm sure. Certainly, Innogames themselves should be answering that question.

 

[Emberguard]

I haven't got all the answers, but given there have been recent improvement then that would indicate they are working on it

Will it ever be bug free? Who knows. Sometimes companies will publish once something is "good enough" and update as time goes on because to go for spotless would mean the product would never be released.

The best we can do is try to help Inno by passing on what does or doesn't work. Trying to hurt the company to be heard doesn't get anyone anywhere.

 

[DeletedUser110620]

The idea has been considered but there are many variables which would likely see it not work. The major one being that of getting all guilds on board, have you ever done a ceasefire for Christmas on your worlds? There's always someone that breaks it and takes advantage on maps... this risk sees even guilds that want to participate in such a ceasefire, not participating.



There's another problem lol, as pointed out by Ember, who does this hurt more, Innogames or us?

Even if we're right and it will prove our point, we'd probably need longer than a weekend to show this.... and an adverse side effect of that is ... have you ever left the game for a couple of weeks for real life? It can be difficult to come back, you can start to see how you can really live without the game impeding on it. The only thing that ends up driving you back is the team ... if all the team are out and a few core players are lost because of this... that will lose the incentive to play.

The goal isn't to lose players really. But to be honest ... I do think if given the appropriate time and if all genuinely participated in it, it would prove our point.

Further, if they don't sort GvG soon ... I think they'll find out for real, be it for good or for bad, when players leave to join a different game. It won't concern us then mind and surely Innogames will just find another way to market the game to success.

1) It's not my job to protect everyone, rather it is a choce. As anyone who has ever done GvG knows, losses do happen. So try not to understimate the resolve of these people.

2) A weekend would be just a freindly demostration to show there is relevence in listening to us, friendly ok? A week would be more of a strike as other parts of the game would fall too like GE, without those in power to open the levels.

3) Why is everyone pointing at Devs? It is clearly also a design issue, Devs can't be held responsible for everything. If I would list out the fault I would have a list that would surprise you and insult a few. So I won't be doing that. But a coordinated effort led by managers who can bring together teams of designers, programmers, and testers at a minimum is very crucial. This is the minimum that needs to be done.

 

[DeletedUser110620]

It's a very good point indeed. Though, the support team here are hired [voluntarily in most cases] by Innogames and have a role to play, one which sees their own personal views having to be set aside and one in which they must always juggle the concerns of the players with their responsibility to Innogames ... it's a very delicate balance, I'm sure. Certainly, Innogames themselves should be answering that question.

Yea, the question was more retorical in nature. I'm afraid in my opinion Inno Games have simpily built a structure that is missing the relevence of that which they designed. It's like giving a neclace to a baby and watching it pull and tug at it until it breaks. That is how I see Inno Games. They are not even capable of respecting what they've made.

 

[DeletedUser99438]

2) A weekend would be just a freindly demostration to show there is relevence in listening to us, friendly ok? A week would be more of a strike as other parts of the game would fall too like GE, without those in power to open the levels.

I do see your point, I see how it could play out, I just can't see the majority of guilds coming together to do it. But who knows!

Why is everyone pointing at Devs?

We've addressed higher than the Devs on another platform

 

[DeletedUser110620]

I'd say we don't really need every guild on this. We just need the few who are extreamly active on GvG to protest. And it will be the founders leading the charge on this, so the others will kind of fall into line. And I would put money on any oportunistic people taking sectors during the pause get a backlash which will make them regret the move, and be a little more respectful of a week lond protest.

 

[DeletedUser97166]

I'd say we don't really need every guild on this. We just need the few who are extreamly active on GvG to protest. And it will be the founders leading the charge on this, so the others will kind of fall into line. And I would put money on any oportunistic people taking sectors during the pause get a backlash which will make them regret the move, and be a little more respectful of a week lond protest.

I can tell you now that a lot of guilds will not do this, speaking from experience with my guild in my main world, we love GvG, we don't care so much about refreshing a couple of times because of the little bugs there are, we fight during the daily play time and have a lot of fun in the process. Telling that fight hungry lot there will be no GvG in a protest would not go down well.
Just my personal thoughts on this suggestion.

 

[DeletedUser99438]

I'd say we don't really need every guild on this. We just need the few who are extreamly active on GvG to protest. And it will be the founders leading the charge on this, so the others will kind of fall into line. And I would put money on any oportunistic people taking sectors during the pause get a backlash which will make them regret the move, and be a little more respectful of a week lond protest.

I guess there is no harm in putting the idea out there and seeing if there is support behind it.

But I do think Jade is right here

I can tell you now that a lot of guilds will not do this, speaking from experience with my guild in my main world, we love GvG, we don't care so much about refreshing a couple of times because of the little bugs there are, we fight during the daily play time and have a lot of fun in the process. Telling that fight hungry lot there will be no GvG in a protest would not go down well.
Just my personal thoughts on this suggestion.

 

[DeletedUser110620]

All I know is there is great value in even a few doing this. And even in my little guild of 20 people there is money flowing into Inno Games. They would really hate it if nobody is around for a week to accomodate this income. And since we are talking about getting the large guilds in of between 40 and 80 players. Placing restrictions too. This should be enough to make them think hard about the way they value things in the game. As I'm quite sure, those few who are in it to fight, are the ones who drive forward those who are in it to farm for the guild, as I'm sure both parties are the ones who are sending fps up the food chain to the large players who sell goods. If the analytics of FoE customer base do not see this, then they have totally misaligned their priorites. We're actually doing Inno Games a favour, and ensuring the continuation and profitibility of the game by demostrating.

I do on the other hand, apreciate that a lot don't apreciate the economics of it all. But if they want to put up with a game that sucks and a management structure that ensures it sucks, then ok. Lets all back team suck.

 

[DeletedUser97166]

You also have to remember.....this is just one server. For a real impact you would have to get almost everyone on ALL servers to do it, and that is not likely to happen. I understand that people don't want to hear that, but personally I do not feel an unsuccessful boycott would work in this instance.