[DISCUSSION] Update to 1.27 Postmodern Era

[DeletedUser7719]

That still won't combat the ghost guild activity unless you meant a initial goods cost rather than just a deposit.

I think the idea suggested there meant that when creating a new guild a certain amount of goods from a particular age must be added to the treasury before that guild is then able to begin a siege on that age map. Personally I think that idea could work very well. For example, if a new guild required say 500 goods of the age to be donated to the treasury before sieges could begin, it would act as a heavy deterrent against ghost guilds as people wouldn't want to waste 500 goods just so they could ghost a couple of sectors. They may as well just keep hold of those goods and use them to pay for sieges from there own guild instead.

That's the point I'm trying to make If there was a cost of 500 goods, what you mentioned is correct. If there needed to be a initial deposit of 500 goods, to me it sounds like once you get 500, you can still use those 500 to start 100 sieges at one go now. That would just have almost the same effect as what the current change will be doing now

 

[DeletedUser]

This no rejoin the previous guild for 7 day wont kill ghost guilds, it will kill the small to medium size real guilds instead. Players who were ghostin` for their guilds will stop.
Players who were ghostin` for themselves will carry on. Actually you made it easier for them now that they dont waste 8 units in the process. Well done FOE staff, another exquisite decision. LOL
It seemed that all the opinions against this decision of yours expressed on the sever-whos-name-we-cannot-mention were in vain but after 2 years of playing this is pretty much a rule now.

Anyway I need some clarification with this:

PvE fights just became much more amusing:
On Postmodern Era map you will have to defeat 2 waves of fierce opponents. You lost? Sorry! You can always try again, but Che Guerrero and Minh-Ho Chi won't make it easy!

Do you get battle points after you defeat both waves or for each? If for each, does that mean you can win a wave, retreat in the second and this way fight unlimited number of time?

 

[DeletedUser100341]

In my opinion, so much effort by Inno games has been put into GvG that the original game hasn't changed much. Okay so you have new unit and new buildings and now even a new era PME, but their just fancier versions of the previous ones. There are still only 5 combat unit types. There are still coin, supply, happiness and goods buildings. Maybe some newer GBs have some interesting twists.

Maybe add some new building type like power independent of goods. New combat units like airship. Bigger PvP combat maps and more combat units. City rotation to view from different direction. Just a few I thought of while composing this.

 

[. ICE .]

This update is going to kill GvG completely. We now have people coming here saying "hopping guild to guild is cheating" "It's just as bad as ghost guilds" blah blah blah and all the rest of it. Please come and complain again about how your worlds GvG is at a stalemate with ghosting being the only activity? Now remember how active E world is because of large alliances being formed and people going back and forth from guilds doing battles here there and everywhere and ENJOYING the feature. Your point seems pretty pointless now doesn't it? You may enjoy sitting and looking at those pretty green and red sectors never changing, others, however, prefer to actually use the GvG feature as often as possible.
.

Spot on !
On east Nagach , GvG is alive & well . This will take away all the fun we extract from GvG ..

The 7 day restriction , plus the ridiculous no siege army cost is going to kill legit GvG activity , and make it a "ghost-mercenary" free for all !
Not something i want to be a part of.

Crazy ... still shaking my head at this announcement .
Cant even get excited about PME , i am so baffled by these decisions ...especially when far better ideas have been posted right here on this forum.

 

[DeletedUser13082]

Spot on !
On east Nagach , GvG is alive & well . This will take away all the fun we extract from GvG ..

The 7 day restriction , plus the ridiculous no siege army cost is going to kill legit GvG activity , and make it a "ghost-mercenary" free for all !
Not something i want to be a part of.

Crazy ... still shaking my head at this announcement .
Cant even get excited about PME , i am so baffled by these decisions ...especially when far better ideas have been posted right here on this forum.

With this update, E world is going to be just as dead as all the others worlds apparently are. Everything will be one guild and one guild only. Meaning maybe 2-3 sectors changing hands per week at most. All of this to try and stop ghosting, which has now been made easier because they no longer have to pay siege army? How does any of this even make sense? Completely ridiculous. Taking the worst possible "solution" (that doesn't even solve the issue anyway) rather than using the other solutions the players have suggested which will clearly work. Once again, not listening to us and once again losing more of the player base. Truthfully I think this one will probably be the last strike for myself too. When GvG is dead there's literally no reason to continue playing any more.

 

[DeletedUser14664]

Devs, please don't do this "no army thing". It's going to destroy everything. There will be constant non stop attacks, where even if the defender stops, he will still be losing, because he's losing troops by destroying a siege army that is just created from nothing

 

[DeletedUser5180]

Possibly the most little thought out change we have ever seen. The answer to ghost guilding and sector hopping has been discussed and has had a very simple solution by death ouron put forward ie set amount of goods per siege which will also see more activity on the gvg map as the ridiculously high siege costs once your guild has a lot of sectors

BUT NO, instead we have an update which will actually encourage this to continue. I see this as the beginning of the end to guild life.

Inno........Guild v Guild was supposed to be a feature of the game to promote guild play, encourage team work etc but you have created an environment where the lone player benefits more. Given an opportunity to change it to the way it should be you've made it 100 times worse

WELL DONE..!! I was looking forward to postmodern but to be honest, after reading the update announcement i don't really care anymore. Every update saw me purchase 13k of diamonds on release date for scouting, building troop buildings instantly and also premium houses, supplies and happiness buildings.

THERE IS NOT A HOPE OF YOU GETTING THAT £70 FROM ME AGAIN

 

[DeletedUser100341]

You finally get something for free and everyone's complaining. Wait in this case free is not good.

 

[mrbeef]

Free men to siege with... in the words of Homer Simpson... Woo hoo

 

[DeletedUser]

• 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.

Would just like to highlight a key line in this: This will also solve a few other long-existing non-GvG issues

Guilds have always been restricted to 80 members as per the game design. creating sister guilds and jumping between them is a work-around of that restriction. Restricting guild hopping will therefore help to restrict guilds to 80 members as per the original design.

Trading within your guild will not cost you Forge Points as per the game design. Guild hopping is another work-around of that restriction and therefore restricting movement between guilds will also mean players can't just work-around that intended cost.

A player leaving their guild for a week to perform "ghost guild-ing" will mean they also don't get the benefits from their previous guild for a week, they also will incur FP charges to trade with players outside their guild and so effectively for a week they will be a lone player in the game unable to provide support to their guild. Would be amusing if some of the big "ghosters" all leave in the same week to ghost, to then leave their main guild's sectors unprotected!

As for the removal of unit cost for siege armies, no idea why they chose to do it, but at least now my trusted members that look after lower maps, can place sieges for higher maps in the absent of higher-up trusted members. And if you have trusted members placing unnecessary sieges, then I wouldn't consider them to be too trustworthy....

Anyway I need some clarification with this:

Do you get battle points after you defeat both waves or for each? If for each, does that mean you can win a wave, retreat in the second and this way fight unlimited number of time?

Battle points are awarded at the end of a successful fight. This fight will not be successful until the fight is over, that is, defeating both waves of the army, so no, you cannot use it for unlimited PvP points!
Due to my misinterpretation of an internal communication, I unintentionally posted inaccurate information.

 

[mrbeef]

I honestly think it is just a 'sticking plaster on a gaping wound' approach.

Spending a few FP to do some trades is hardly going to worry established players who have CdMs, Hagias and even Shrines to add to the daily 24 FP. Most of the longer-established players will get through the new age tech within a few days using FP packets saved up over the past few months, and so paying for trades won't be a big issue.

The loss of benefits that the guild level provides is also too insignificant to be of any real consequence to longer-established players either; 1 or 2 FP per day, a few % reduction in training/healing times and a few % reduction in buildings costs.... I'm sure most won't even notice.

I'm sure these restrictions and loss of guild benefits would have a greater impact on lower level players; but they're not the ones doing the guild-hopping and ghosting etc.

 

[DeletedUser13082]

Would just like to highlight a key line in this: This will also solve a few other long-existing non-GvG issues

Guilds have always been restricted to 80 members as per the game design. creating sister guilds and jumping between them is a work-around of that restriction. Restricting guild hopping will therefore help to restrict guilds to 80 members as per the original design.

Trading within your guild will not cost you Forge Points as per the game design. Guild hopping is another work-around of that restriction and therefore restricting movement between guilds will also mean players can't just work-around that intended cost.

A player leaving their guild for a week to perform "ghost guild-ing" will mean they also don't get the benefits from their previous guild for a week, they also will incur FP charges to trade with players outside their guild and so effectively for a week they will be a lone player in the game unable to provide support to their guild. Would be amusing if some of the big "ghosters" all leave in the same week to ghost, to then leave their main guild's sectors unprotected!

As for the removal of unit cost for siege armies, no idea why they chose to do it, but at least now my trusted members that look after lower maps, can place sieges for higher maps in the absent of higher-up trusted members. And if you have trusted members placing unnecessary sieges, then I wouldn't consider them to be too trustworthy....



Battle points are awarded at the end of a successful fight. This fight will not be successful until the fight is over, that is, defeating both waves of the army, so no, you cannot use it for unlimited PvP points!

So when guilds were first designed devs expected that players WOULDN'T form alliances between guilds? I'm sorry but in the forging of an empire, alliances are always going to be a part of the equation. First we were alone, forging an empire of a single city by ourselves, then we have guilds, a group of people (country) forging many cities together and helping each other. There are then other guilds (countries), but you expect that they would not form alliances? Seems like a pretty naive way of thinking in my opinion.

I understand that yes, this will "fix" these none GvG issues... which have been here for years... and never been a problem in the past... only now that GvG is here it's considered a problem... because the problem actually lies with GvG... Is the true issue beginning to show yet? Or am I wasting my time trying to prevent a good game from imploding on itself due to terrible ideas and lack of customer recognition?

These things were never considered a problem prior to GvG, to consider it a problem now is a simple way of saying "We don't have a better idea so we will make excuses for this one". As for proof that they weren't an issue prior to GvG, yes I do have some I have years of playing this game in which these "problems" could have been addressed, but they weren't, why not? Cause it's clearly not a problem.

I rest my case.

 

[. ICE .]

So when guilds were first designed devs expected that players WOULDN'T form alliances between guilds? I'm sorry but in the forging of an empire, alliances are always going to be a part of the equation. First we were alone, forging an empire of a single city by ourselves, then we have guilds, a group of people (country) forging many cities together and helping each other. There are then other guilds (countries), but you expect that they would not form alliances? Seems like a pretty naive way of thinking in my opinion.

I understand that yes, this will "fix" these none GvG issues... which have been here for years... and never been a problem in the past... only now that GvG is here it's considered a problem... because the problem actually lies with GvG... Is the true issue beginning to show yet? Or am I wasting my time trying to prevent a good game from imploding on itself due to terrible ideas and lack of customer recognition?

These things were never considered a problem prior to GvG, to consider it a problem now is a simple way of saying "We don't have a better idea so we will make excuses for this one". As for proof that they weren't an issue prior to GvG, yes I do have some I have years of playing this game in which these "problems" could have been addressed, but they weren't, why not? Cause it's clearly not a problem.

I rest my case.

Will someone in dev-land , please ...for the love of god , take notice of this man !
Once again... a spot on assessment and contribution.

Non-GvG related issues .... !?!
Issues to whom ... cant ever remember a complaint on the "issues" Mike brought up in his post.
Therefore , player -base is happy with that side of things ! ......so this needs fixing ?? really ??

 

[DeletedUser]

I understand that yes, this will "fix" these none GvG issues... which have been here for years... and never been a problem in the past... only now that GvG is here it's considered a problem... because the problem actually lies with GvG... Is the true issue beginning to show yet? Or am I wasting my time trying to prevent a good game from imploding on itself due to terrible ideas and lack of customer recognition?

I'm pretty sure that the game won't implode due to some restrictions being placed on joining and rejoining a guild. It is incredibly easy to set up a guild in this game, and to move from guild to guild. I don't think I have ever come across a situation where it is so easy to create guilds and move from guild to guild; generally there are some restrictions that mean you cannot set up your own guild within five minutes of starting the game, which is possible here.

 

[DeletedUser13082]

I'm pretty sure that the game won't implode due to some restrictions being placed on joining and rejoining a guild. It is incredibly easy to set up a guild in this game, and to move from guild to guild. I don't think I have ever come across a situation where it is so easy to create guilds and move from guild to guild; generally there are some restrictions that mean you cannot set up your own guild within five minutes of starting the game, which is possible here.

Much like the game wouldn't implode when GB's were nerfed and around 15% (from my own rough estimates) of the veteran player base left, we said it then, and we was right. Also like the GvG feature being released early in an unfinished and very poor state wouldn't also cause a mass amount of players to leave the game, we said it then too, and again we was right. This is just another instance where players are quite clearly stating that the game is going to take another plunge, and again we, the players, will be right. Even before this update has been released I've been told by people they are quitting cause there's no point bothering any more.

Maybe It's just me, but I would assume that the best course of action for a company is to try and keep their custom, not lose it. Currently it seems that every possible measure is being taken in order to relieve this company of their paying customers rather than to encourage them to stay.

The game will die with this update. I guarantee it. The only thing left keeping the vast majority of players in this game is GvG, despite how bad it currently is due to major imbalances and terrible mechanics. Once this update goes ahead, GvG becomes less active than it already is. If I wanted to play this game without PvP (already dead) and without GvG (soon to be killed) I'd just play farmville...

 

[DeletedUser98465]

I don't think I have ever come across a situation where it is so easy to create guilds and move from guild to guild; generally there are some restrictions that mean you cannot set up your own guild within five minutes of starting the game, which is possible here.

Actually, there are others but the context and game style is different and longer established

 

[mrbeef]

I have a question. What if one is booted from a guild? That is different to a conscious decision to leave it. Can that player join that guild again without the 7 day restriction?

 

[DeletedUser13082]

I have a question. What if one is booted from a guild? That is different to a conscious decision to leave it. Can that player join that guild again without the 7 day restriction?

Well here, I believe you have spotted what is know as a loophole, not a bug. Much like HQ dropping, this will be an issue that will not be fixed

 

[DeletedUser]

I have a question. What if one is booted from a guild? That is different to a conscious decision to leave it. Can that player join that guild again without the 7 day restriction?

If a player has been booted from a guild, would the guild want them back?

 

[DeletedUser13082]

If a player has been booted from a guild, would the guild want them back?

Accidental removal. Clicking the boot option for an inactive player but hitting the one above or below by mistake. I've done it before myself.