I think this is the first time i leave a comment here, although i check threads regularly. I play in L world and am very active in gvg. Our guild is important to me and please consider the following... Overall i like these changes, eventhough I'm European and the resets times arent the best for me, I like more action in the maps. However, you're making this unplayable for high rank guilds, and veeeeery benefitial for 1 man guilds and ghosts. A player alone can move HQ 3 times a day. Why would you want to make a single player have a change of getting 20 sectors from a big guild? Where's the realism in that? If you want to fix this you need to heavily consider a way for big guilds to fight back. IMO, the best way to do this would be firstly to make unlocking DA costs free. Why in the world should a guild have to pay 300 of each good to unlock 8 DAs? They already are spending the units and they have to pay an absurd amount to defend a single sector. Making it free would allow for more defending. Secondly, you need to reduce siege costs asap. A big guild needs at least a chance to fight back without running down their treasury against a single man guild. I wont comment on the amount of HQ moves or amount of resets a shield lasts, you need to check how it affects the game, and I dont have the data on it. But please take measures as fast as possible to heavily penalize single man guilds, aka ghosts, that just cause chaos and dont fill anything and farm points. This behavior shouldnt be incentivized.. Please inno... please dont make me dislike the game I've fallen in love with
you like these changes?,your a big guild and you cant beat a single player guild?,that says to me your not very good and then you want to make holding sectors easier to defend this says to me the map would end up stale/dead with a few so called big guilds just sitting doing nothing all in a pact
the 4am reset is wrong even for a ghoster,just as well go back to how it was before the updates
thats simply the price for having many sectors. if its too expensive simply have less sectors. why should game favor large guilds?What are you talking about? First off, where did i say we couldnt beat a single player guild? what Im saying is that these players shouldnt have the chance to spend a big guild copious amounts of goods. Its extremely easy to take 3-6 sectors alone, so at least make it cheaper to get them back, and make it easier for guilds to fill the sectors, allowing more time to spot a siege. How would making Sieges cheaper and DAs free to unlock reduce the action in a map? It would only increase. These players going for points would love more units and it would also allow smaller guilds to also fill their sectors and have a chance. How can a guild with 10 lower level players have the resources to fill a sector? How often do you see a LMA player with 1500 goods in hand to fill a single sector? What ends up happening is that these smaller guilds need to leave the sector with 2 DAs only because unlocking DAs is often more expensive than a siege.
thats simply the price for having many sectors. if its too expensive simply have less sectors. why should game favor large guilds?
why should game favour those wich are to useless to form a decent team??? and dont forget that 1x20 can become 4x5 and if that happend forget any serious play of gvg related to tactic... this is killing of any tactical aspect of gvg and nothing else!thats simply the price for having many sectors. if its too expensive simply have less sectors. why should game favor large guilds?
do you think that game is balanced if 20 players can create guild and in a few weeks become top 1 guild and control half of AA map? balance is needed but not in direction you want it. game should favor avg size guilds so there would be more than 20 guilds on AA map for example.Im not saying they should favor large guilds. I'm saying there needs to be a balance. A large guild with 20 fighters at reset should just simply be more powerful than a few individuals playing alone. Isn't the purpose of gvg to have team play in the game? Shouldn't a guild that needs to plan out the fights for various ages be more rewarded than a random person that logs in whenever he feels like it and just checks whats available to take? I'm not saying they should remove the possibility of one man guilds from the game. Just make it balanced. Reward team play and strategy.
i think that creating 4x5 is the way to go. at least with the way things are now.why should game favour those wich are to useless to form a decent team??? and dont forget that 1x20 can become 4x5 and if that happend forget any serious play of gvg related to tactic... this is killing of any tactical aspect of gvg and nothing else!
why??? why should weaker teamwork be rewarded???i think that creating 4x5 is the way to go. at least with the way things are now.
it shouldnt but it is, if things change that its no longer rewarded then I will have to change how I play the game. don't complain but rather adopt to get most of the situation.why??? why should weaker teamwork be rewarded???
do you think that game is balanced if 20 players can create guild and in a few weeks become top 1 guild and control half of AA map? balance is needed but not in direction you want it. game should favor avg size guilds so there would be more than 20 guilds on AA map for example.