New Content Guild Battlegrounds (concept)

[Ceban]

Do you know how to read? Are you competitive in this game? There is nothing 'fun' about having to log in every 2 hours to fight opponents. GE can easily be done in 30 minutes, all 64 encounters, spread out over 6 days or at one time. GVG can be finished in 10 minutes daily if organized correctly and enough fighters show up, even for a top ranked GVG guild.

Nobody, I repeat nobody, in any type of active guild would be in favor of Guild Battlefields. One person above claimed to be in a high ranking active guild that does not require any GE participation, what a joke. That's called a dead guild.

And for the record, I have L80 Traz on both my worlds, I know what i'm talking about.

In 'dead guild' wich dont require GE i probably do more battles in 2 days than you do in 2 weeks (just for the record) and if inno finaly add new levels for guilds (after over a year) then maybe we will demand GE, BUT JUST MAYBE... Cause we have so many extra points for probably next 5 levels...

 

[DeletedUser102725]

To help make Battle Grounds a "level playing field" can you restrict players to only use armies of their age or lower and no higher age troops than their current age? Players can walk through GE with army of higher age troops than their current age.

 

[DeletedUser3792]

Guild Battlegrounds! Read the announcement here

Please leave your feedback below, and we'll look into your ideas and opinions. We'll collect feedback for the next two weeks (until 3rd June 2019), integrate feedback into the concept and share an update within 3 weeks (by 10th June 2019). We will also hold a live Q&A on Facebook & Instagram on the 22nd May 2019 at 17:00 CEST (15:00 UTC). We hope you understand the reasons for this step and look forward to your feedback. Forge of Empires is played by millions of amazing players and together, we will make it even better!

The problem with GvG is that the large powerful Guilds dominate the maps. Nobody wants to do GvG in a situation like that.
Not sure how this will help GvG.

 

[Ceban]

The problem with GvG is that the large powerful Guilds dominate the maps. Nobody wants to do GvG in a situation like that.
Not sure how this will help GvG.

ok, give us some sugestion what should be done? delete strong guilds or what?

 

[DeletedUser110117]

So in GVG, you may use older era troops you have to do different areas; will this battlegrounds allow that or only current era troops? I ask cause being a guild leader, my guildmates may need help learning as most have never done gvg as I have. If we can go back to lower eras to help balance the fights to try for more that will be nice.

 

[Vesiger]

Nobody, I repeat nobody, in any type of active guild would be in favor of Guild Battlefields. One person above claimed to be in a high ranking active guild that does not require any GE participation, what a joke.

We're currently ranked 43 out of 4,000 without really trying; we don't do obligatory GvG or Guild Expedition. We just enjoy ourselves...

 

[Goremise]

Finally, Finally something gets done about GVG (A feature that never made much sense in this game) and it feels so good. Hopefully this completely replaces it and we have some real Guild verse guild action!

 

[Goremise]

I seriously cannot wait!! SUCH HYPE!

 

[DeletedUser2989]

I like the concept that is being put forward, not that I'm likely to use it as I don't use GvG (haven't for a long time) and barely use GE. As a time starved player these features that require daily game play don't do much for me. But it seems that this will provide another platform for guilds to compete while addressing some of the things that have been big issues of GvG for a while. There are only two things that I really want to bring up:

1. I'm guessing there is going to be a check box or something to enter the battlegrounds feature? It'd be nice to see a bit more detail on the proposed entry mechanic as it will be important that all participating guilds in the battleground will actively compete (unlike in GE currently where sometimes you are matched with guilds that do barely any of it and 25% can get you first place...).

2. Ranking and recognition. Currently it is easier to see which guilds are doing good in GvG thanks to the guild rankings, but guilds doing well in GE is less visible. Yes there is recognition but guild ranking points aren't doing a good job of showing people which guilds are great at winning GE comps. Adding in this third guild competition then provides a third activity a guild could specialize in and another set of recognition for effort. I think it's going to be very important (especially when people are looking for a guild to join) to have rankings that can make it easier to visually recognize the best guilds in all three features separately, something that means when you look at "Guild X" you can see they are the worlds 300th best GvG guild, 5th best GE guild and 150th best GBg guild.

 

[Bagoas]

This seems like a very good initiative and well thought out. Like GE is will be accessible for all guild members whether fighter or farmer.
A few suggestions

1. I disagree with No Defence feature. Depending on the pace of the game Buildings could be destroyed almost immediately even before they are completed. Defence through attack is impossible adjacent to home provinces.
Suggestions for defence include

- Further attacks / negotiation in held province reduces advancement points of attackers, or increases the advancement points required to take the province
- Certain buildings have defence capability e.g. increases the advancement points required

2. Can we have a reset time that is not always the same as the fixed reset in GvG disadvantages various time zones. A couple of suggestions
- A randomly selected reset time is set at the start of the 10 day period.
- Guilds can select their own reset time, which remains for the 10 day period

3. I suggest a contribution reporting system similar to GE. In our experience the introduction of a reporting system in GE substantially increased interest, participation, and teamwork

 

[Bagoas]

Is the wording in the announcement confusing on purpose?, way it reads to me is that this new game feature is completely separate from what is currently known as GvG and that that element will stay as it is and not change (but maybe improved in time), but it is also worded in such away that the current GvG is going to be altered into this new game feature but retain the name GvG.

If its the former, and its simply a new standalone game feature, why does the announcement even mention GvG ? why begin the announcement about how few players use it and that only a small quantity of players have access to it, you don't do that for any other game feature introduction so why this one ? this makes me think that its the latter and is a replacement for what we currently know as GvG.

Could someone who knows the answer please let us know - replacement GvG or a standalone game feature ?

Already been answered many times, this is a new feature quite separate from existing GvG, and does not replace it. GvG continues in current form with some technical fix ups

 

[Bagoas]

With regards to attrition, what is to stop someone from doing countless negotiations in a day? Would the cost of negotiating go up?

2 other things:
-Do guilds volunteer to do the battlegrounds? Imagine a battleground where only 1 of the guilds is playing

-When matchmaking, guilds should be put together not only by rank, but by size

Related question to "is there attrition for negotiation?" : Would negotiations affect fighting attrition? i.e. would doing 5 negotiations result in same attrition as 5 fights, for the next fight.

In order for the game to operate fairly I believe there SHOULD be attrition for negotiation, as for fighting.

 

[Bagoas]

I agree, falling between 2 stools here.
Think I got the general gist of this, parts of it seem to be a very poor google translate. It appears to be some kind of hybrid GE/GVG system which is going to swap one set of problems with another, but probably end up with the same outcome which makes GvG so unrewarding to the majority. It will still be the same guilds with the fanatical rules on GvG who will rise to the top.
If we can no longer actively defend, then inevitably the rewards will go to the insane who are chained to their keyboards 24/7, and while you have this attrition point system, it still does not appear to reimburse those who've invested heavily over the years to raise GBs etc...

Particularly annoying is announcing a Live Q&A session with just 2 days notice in the middle of a working day.
So, is everyone expected to bunk off work/school etc... or do you assume we can take time off at the drop of a hat? Even though I'm no longer working, that afternoon has been earmarked for other things long in advance.
Five years ago, many happy, long-established guilds were ripped apart by the dreadful Update 1.20 and none of the issues raised then have been addressed, it remains an unfair, top heavy system trying to turn a nice little building game into a watered down version of the many, many pvp/gvg type games already out there, the reasons that made us leave games like Grepolis are now being foisted on FoE and now you've invented yet another way to suck already limited time out of our already busy days and it's not even replacing the old broken version, it's adding another one on top of it, and no doubt the ever increasing "mini events" will incorporate quests to try and force us into this.

Participation in all Forge features is optional. If you truly just want a "nice little building game" then join a guild that ignores GE, GvG, Events etc

 

[DeletedUser109918]

-Since you are not listening to us on our feelings about GvG anyhow I will not go into a tirade, but just know I disagree with your reasoning for not fixing GvG and your justifications for not wanting to fix GvG are to the point lame and are filled with excuses.

-I believe there needs to be attrition for negotiating. (maybe decrease the number of attempts you have to negotiate or increase the goods you have to negotiate with to multiple ages)
Is the tavern negotiation purchase going to be allowed?
-I'm not sure there needs to be a reset time if the conquered sectors are unlocked after a few hours
-I agree that the goods should come from the guild and not from personal stash. It saves the hassle of trading and then age of player wouldn't be an issue. Plus we use them in GE and GvG.
-I agree defensive capability needs to be added.
-It was mentioned that if there are buildings in progress of being built and the sector is conquered 1 building is destroyed and the rest are captured. What about the buildings that are already built? I'd also like the option added to torch the buildings to prevent capture.
-I like GBG (Guilds Battling Guilds)

 

[DeletedUser96901]

what ?
you proposing that they creat a treasury for troops ?

if negotiation is paid from guild treasury like some players propose

 

[DeletedUser111769]

I am not to sure about this new feature. The main reason i am playing this game is because of GvG. If it is possible to create a new feature that allows mobile players to join in the fun, then it might work but i would strongly suggest to try and keep it based on life battle. We it has the same siege, attack and defend life action as in GvG. Then i would say go for it.

Another suggetion, is it possible to make Arc's good production adjustable. Once you reach AF it should have the option to let us decide what era goods it must produce.

 

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Think that his new Guild Battleground will be just like GvG is now, with a huge difference of not counting milliseconds for sieging a sector (but still time is key here to Guildwide conquere a Provinces). Strong GvG guilds will play both feature and brings fresh feature to FOE.

Province negotiation must be (will be) from players stash, just like in GE or Continental map, but the Province Buildings will be from Guild ge ditreasury. It would be great, if the guild could use every Age goods for buildings (pick goods what you want to spend, higher era goods need less, lower more...).

GE ranking is almost a joke. Why? Because 3members guild (or more) can complete it within 1 hour and be 1st, and when this guild will have let say 70 members, the trophy count will be the same..so this is ok only for strong guilds who have from the begining many members.
And because of this new Guild Battleground, 5th GE lvl would be pointles at this time.

Will Guild Battleground exchange GvG? In time...yes....maybe in 5 year....but yes, because no new FOE player will use PC anymore....

At the end Guild Battleground and GvG isnt so different, in both you need the whole guild to participate and only the strongest can/will survive.

 

[DeletedUser112017]

Ok, my 5 cents.

First, it's an opinion from almost daily GvGer and a player that plays FoE pretty much only because of GvG. I'm lucky that recalc falls into my daily timeslot that suits me really well (like, REALLY well, an hour earlier or later would already be a bummer, anything else would be nearly impossible).

I'm also coming from a competitive gaming world, my connection is very fast, PC is top notch, I've got over 1100% att with almost 300% def for attacking units, so you can imagine GvG for me is quite easy, even if we're severely shorthanded in terms of PC players active at GvG, we're doing a good job at sticking it at the largest guild on our server, it's often like poking a single-cell organism. So yeah, GvG is fun, I like it.

However, I'm fully aware of why GvG is bad and will never be good, even with technical fixes, and kudos to Inno, with this new gameplay feature it seems they mitigated most of the issues that GvG has, namely a) removing a set time recalc, b) removing a siege speed importance and c) involving mobile players, even if that's where I personally do very well, I would still like other players to be able to participate more actively.

So far so good, WIP idea looks fine, seems like Inno is willing to listen for suggestions too, if it proves to be what it promises, I'd happily live without GvG altogether. Even if poking that single-cell organism can be loads of fun, doing the same thing day after can also become boring.

And for those people saying that 5% of GvGers are irrelevant, would you also say that ~10% of paying customers are also irrelevant? If you know that a large portion of those 5% are making those ~10% of paying customers, and most of that 5% are also long term players, then your statement would be shortsighted. Inno obviously isn't that shortsighted, that's why they are keeping GvG alive, even if they would shot that monster a long while ago, if it's not for $$$.

 

[DeletedUser113402]

My suggestions:

1. I think matchmaking needs to work similarly to expeditions - you only face guilds of similar size. Otherwise, attrition will ensure that whoever has the most bodies to throw around wins, instead of whoever is active and strategic, and it's quickly going to become a situation where if you see one of the mega-guilds on your battleground map, don't bother.
2. Because buildings are going to be important, making this its own permission would be a big help... most guilds have people they would trust with building rights, but not full leadership.
3. Negotiating is listed as a method of taking territory, but there's no way to gain personal goods within the BG... I would suggest having those +5 FP rolls also have a chance to roll 5 or 10 goods when they don't roll the FP. (similar to how expeditions give some goods)
4. Have the new great building's FP production receive a bonus every day you actually participate in a BG... this will encourage more players to at least poke it regularly.
5. Have negotiating share attrition, and the attrition make it harder to do... otherwise you've addressed people having insane +attack percentages, but allowed people with insane goods generation to run amok instead. Having them use the same attrition stat also means that whether you're a fighter, producer, or balanced, you can participate fully, and you're not forced to have a particular type of town to do well.

 

[DeletedUser15425]

I think it should be possible to defend the provinces. that 's what made gvg exciting. fighting a guild directly and being quicker than them at reset. rather than just amassing some points and boom - you got the province. I miss the ability to directly defend my city if I'm online as well. I get that the direct fight is probably what makes gvg very complex and hard to implement on mobile, but not being able to directly fight will make this new battleground less appealing imo