• 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:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

[DISCUSSION] Update to 1.27 Postmodern Era

DeletedUser7719

Before reading the announcement, the title of this thread is wrong :p (it should be Update to 1.27;))
Thanks!

After reading the announcement: Hooray for the PME!
GvG-related changes

  • To combat GvG hopping, a new system has been implemented to stop players from rejoining a guild they have left for 7 days. This will also solve a few other long-existing non-GvG issues there were caused by accounts leaving and rejoining their guilds.
I'm going to hold back on this one until the last GvG change.

  • From now on, one player can grant freedom to a sector only 4 times per day. This solution has been implemented to prevent abuses that might happen when not-exactly-trusted guild member is accidentally given "trusted" right. The limit resets at daily calculation.
Is this 4 sectors in general, or 4 sectors per province? (My hats off to the devs for this temporary solution for the "trusted" right)


  • Siege army unit cost has been removed. The requirement to field a siege army with full units was a bit confusing to new players and was also hindering activity for guilds that fight across multiple ages. For this reason we implemented following changes:
    - Placing a siege army no longer costs or requires having a currently selected army.
    - When a siege army is placed (by paying goods), "matching" units are automatically copied from the player's current army. "Matching" means "units of the correct era". If there are empty unit slots or non-matching units in the player's army, the missing units are randomly selected from that age (excluding, as always, special units like barbarians, rogues etc.).
Does this plus the first one mentioned kind of encourage people to break from their guild to use GvG to farm for PvP points?

And last question: Will the PME be implemented with the PME GvG province as well?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Siege army unit cost has been removed. The requirement to field a siege army with full units was a bit confusing to new players and was also hindering activity for guilds that fight across multiple ages. For this reason we implemented following changes:
- Placing a siege army no longer costs or requires having a currently selected army.
- When a siege army is placed (by paying goods), "matching" units are automatically copied from the player's current army. "Matching" means "units of the correct era". If there are empty unit slots or non-matching units in the player's army, the missing units are randomly selected from that age (excluding, as always, special units like barbarians, rogues etc.).
What does this mean? That you don't have to have an army selected to unlock a siege slot, or does this mean placing a siege no longer costs an army?

I can see that ghost guilding is almost gone with this, but can someone start in guild A, hop to guild B, then to guild C and so be able to go directly back from guild C to guild A?
 

DeletedUser7719

What does this mean? That you don't have to have an army selected to unlock a siege slot, or does this mean placing a siege no longer costs an army?
Both ;) If I understand correctly, you do not need to donate any of your own units to create a siege army (only goods). The siege army that appears will be a copy of the units that you have in your selected army (and any empty slot (or slot filled with a unit that you normally could not donate) will equate to a random unit [still same era])
 

mrbeef

Lieutenant-General
Surely that is going to make it easier to 'ghost' or whatever you want to call it.

With enough goods in stock, multiple repeat sieges could be made without the attacker losing 8 units per siege.
 

DeletedUser

^^ Yep.

So now we just fuel the players that have no interest in being in a guild that just make up a guild in order to attack sectors to gain PvP points.

It now won't cost a player any units to lay a siege. So Jim Bob walks around GvG age to age laying random sieges to fight and boost his PvP. It doesn't cost him a single unit except for what he may lose in battle, if any.

Uhhhhmmmm..... :confused::confused::confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser13082

GvG-related changes
To combat GvG hopping, a new system has been implemented to stop players from rejoining a guild they have left for 7 days. This will also solve a few other long-existing non-GvG issues there were caused by accounts leaving and rejoining their guilds.

I urge that this idea please be revoked and re-thought. Please take into account the thoughts of the players/customers. This patch will further the stalemate issues in GvG and not fix the current issue which it is intended to fix. I have stated strong opinions on this already and have seen many others do so. This new feature will bring GvG to a complete deadlock and leave nothing for the veteran players. You will see another vast amount of the long term player base leaving the game if this feature is implemented. There are a lot of far better ideas which will actually fix the issue that they are aimed at. A guild hopping cool-down period is not the answer to fix the issues in GvG.

I ask that a vote be conducted on this idea prior to implementation. I am 100% sure that you will see a very strong support for this feature being revoked. We have 5 days until this feature is implemented which is more than enough time for a substantial verdict to be reached.
 

DeletedUser4879

I urge that this idea please be revoked and re-thought. Please take into account the thoughts of the players/customers. This patch will further the stalemate issues in GvG and not fix the current issue which it is intended to fix. I have stated strong opinions on this already and have seen many others do so. This new feature will bring GvG to a complete deadlock and leave nothing for the veteran players. You will see another vast amount of the long term player base leaving the game if this feature is implemented. There are a lot of far better ideas which will actually fix the issue that they are aimed at. A guild hopping cool-down period is not the answer to fix the issues in GvG.

Disagree! 'Bout time to put an end to those HOPPERS!! Where I live players like that called Cheats!;)
 

mrbeef

Lieutenant-General
Here's a likely scenario:

Player leaves guild and joins/makes new mini guild. Collects from his/her Atomium/Observatory for a few days. Then, without losing any units to place sieges and only costing a minimal amount of goods, wreaks a fair bit of havoc on the map. After 7 days player returns to former guild.
 

DeletedUser

Exactly, mrbeef. That scenario, as well as the similar one I stated three posts up. Baffled.
 

DeletedUser3707

A bit disgusting the wars are modelled after US imperialist invasions in South America and South East Asia... but there's always winning Areas with trade, rather than conquest. I'll think of the Trade route as the Communist route for these areas :)
 

. ICE .

Chief Warrant Officer
I urge that this idea please be revoked and re-thought. Please take into account the thoughts of the players/customers. This patch will further the stalemate issues in GvG and not fix the current issue which it is intended to fix. I have stated strong opinions on this already and have seen many others do so. This new feature will bring GvG to a complete deadlock and leave nothing for the veteran players. You will see another vast amount of the long term player base leaving the game if this feature is implemented. There are a lot of far better ideas which will actually fix the issue that they are aimed at. A guild hopping cool-down period is not the answer to fix the issues in GvG.

I ask that a vote be conducted on this idea prior to implementation. I am 100% sure that you will see a very strong support for this feature being revoked. We have 5 days until this feature is implemented which is more than enough time for a substantial verdict to be reached.

100% agree :
vehemently opposed to this poorly thought through change. It will kill GvG .Almost every player who takes part in GvG alongside me , will be adversely effected, to the point GvG will stagnate entirely , and be no fun any more. Players will leave because of this , believe me . Think again , before its too late.
 

DeletedUser4879

100% agree :
vehemently opposed to this poorly thought through change. It will kill GvG .Almost every player who takes part in GvG alongside me , will be adversely effected, to the point GvG will stagnate entirely , and be no fun any more. Players will leave because of this , believe me . Think again , before its too late.

Read this before a lot of times and the game and GVG still here!! Stop complaining and get on with playing.....:rolleyes:
 

DeletedUser1081

Siege army unit cost has been removed. The requirement to field a siege army with full units was a bit confusing to new players and was also hindering activity for guilds that fight across multiple ages. For this reason we implemented following changes:
- Placing a siege army no longer costs or requires having a currently selected army.
- When a siege army is placed (by paying goods), "matching" units are automatically copied from the player's current army. "Matching" means "units of the correct era". If there are empty unit slots or non-matching units in the player's army, the missing units are randomly selected from that age (excluding, as always, special units like barbarians, rogues etc.).

Sorry but I don't understand this bit at all.

Sieges still cost goods, yes?
But I don't have to donate any units to set a siege?
I don't even have to have any units from the era I want to set a siege in??

What exactly is the aim of that, please and thank you?
 

DeletedUser2989

I'll give my opinions 1 dot point at a time:

First I like a new age, always good :)

Second not sure on the second wave stuff, won't really know if I like it or not till I get to it

Third fine with the balancing changes.

Fourth (and into the GvG content)
I didn't think that all hopping was all that bad, but I can understand that there is suppose to be certain perks to being in a guild and a reason for limiting its size (with guild hopping defeating this intent). If they wanted to stop GvG specific hopping then you'd put a lock on new members under 7 days old cannot access GvG. But as there are other reasons for the lock (that do make sense in some way) I can't argue against this point.

Fair enough on the trusted rights thing, I never saw a need for it but that might be just me.

This last point baffles me, how is it too hard to say “you need a full army so that you can place it as the siege army!” (you need full armies for everything else GvG, it's really very consistent). Adding to that a lack of troops is not hindering activity for guilds, goods costs are doing that.
So now we'll all have free troops to siege with and I'm guessing they are also the first defending army if the siege is successful. Why not make placing defending armies free to? If your going to give out all these free troops because some people can't grasp “it takes troops to siege!”.

As usual I like the bug fixes so long as they actually work :)
 

DeletedUser76094

I was actually excited about the Guild Hopping restriction.. But then saw the siege unit change. Now I feel that yet again developers have not at all taken the time to think through some of the obvious repercussions. If you allow a guild to place siege armies without having to use any troops, there will be permanent ghost guilds. For ambitious, battle hungry players, this would mean that living in a guild is useless. Hence, most guilds would fall apart and many new, ghost guilds would come into picture whose only interest in playing GvG would be to place sieges for free battles and free battle points. They will get goods/favors for attacking larger guilds who are hardworking and serious about the game. I guess after this update you should rename the game to Forge of Mercenaries
.
Essentially, you are giving one feature that attempts to contain the dirt in the game and at the same time introducing a feature that would ruin the GvG twice as much!
.
Thanks for your smartness and common sense.. But hey, common sense is not common to all.
 

DeletedUser14664

Sooooo basicaly, you can do unlimited sieges as long as you have goods. Well, so i place siege, beat the defence > start another siege, beat the defence(as much as i can) > place a siege , beat defence > place siege, beat defence. BEST 20 goods i've spend. You can see how some players will take advantage over this, so ghosting will be even more common , IMO, since you are not limited by your military buildings
 

DeletedUser1081

I was actually excited about the Guild Hopping restriction.. But then saw the siege unit change. Now I feel that yet again developers have not at all taken the time to think through some of the obvious repercussions. If you allow a guild to place siege armies without having to use any troops, there will be permanent ghost guilds. For ambitious, battle hungry players, this would mean that living in a guild is useless. Hence, most guilds would fall apart and many new, ghost guilds would come into picture whose only interest in playing GvG would be to place sieges for free battles and free battle points.

Guptaji, I'm puzzled: You don't get points for setting sieges. You get points for battling sieges. To do that, we'll still need troops, right? So although I don't see what the point of making it possible to place sieges without having troops, I don't understand your objection either. Can you explain like to a three-year-old, please and thank you?

And if Tracey or Anwar could explain what the point is of making it possible to place sieges without troops, I'd be very grateful. More nuisance sieges? More PvP points for guildmembers fighting nuisance sieges? Or ... ???
 

DeletedUser

new tittle:
dev's killed the GvG

Golias kill David!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top