GB balancing changes--Feedback thread

[DeletedUser]

Given the feelings of neglect, antagonism, etc. at the hands of Inno and its representatives that many were voicing, the more diplomatic approach may have been to simply retitle the old discussion thread and then create a new discussion thread rather than delete and create, but I do not know what it is like to be in Remorce's position, and that might not have solved whatever problems were created. I am sure it was done for the best.

I will create this thread in the hopes of avoiding a repeat and more anger.

Like I said before, I think this type of change should have happened a long time ago (GBs were way OP and this was what made new merge system a farce in my opinion), but I do have to question some of the decisions that were made in making this change (ex. watchtowers). I also hope that it would not actually take effect until GvG is truly near. GvG was one of the stated reasons justifying the hood merge, but GvG was not exactly imminent at that point. I know it is hard to predict though, so who knows if it seemed like it was at the time (it wasn't even hinted at on beta though).

 

[DeletedUser276]

very busy position dealing with the same posts on every single release of the game gets tiring hearing the same old thing over and over about how the game is going to die and how inno doesnt respect the players.

but those same players stick around update after update saying the same thing over and over riling up more players *shrug* easier to start afresh than to keep pushing a circular logic with many posts misleading and antagonizing other players.

 

[DeletedUser]

Firstly, yet again battles will be severely in favour of attackers, where's the 'balancing'?
Secondly, as someone that has spent a lot of money amassing quite a few watchtowers I find it hard to swallow that they will be useless in GvG. This just makes me question Inno's ethics. Basically, sell buildings to customers then change how effective they are.

 

[DeletedUser]

I have never posted on the forum before, but feel the need to express my distress at the deleting of 16 pages of customer feedback on the forthcoming GvG changes.
I feel this is censorship of the highest degree.

Having followed the thread from the start I felt the co-community manager was heavy-handed in their responses and appeared out of their depth in this situation. Perhaps a less customer faced role would be appropriate.

I would also like to point out 2 inconsistencies in the responses given :-

a) The original announcement described GvG as "imminent" and "due to be released very soon" but the co-community manager repeatedly refered to GvG as 1/10 complete and appeared to say at one point that it was 18 months away from implementation.

b) I recently opened a ticket regarding a guild member being "blackmailed" for forgepoints (as discussed in the thread) and was given a reply that this WAS a breach of rules, yet the co-community manager on the thread stated that it was not.

 

[DeletedUser276]

Linhope your post has been answered in another thread and this is the third post you have put it into. Please refrain from posting the same thing in multiple threads or it will be construed as spam.

 

[DeletedUser]

Isn't this the balancing feedback section? Already one post off topic.
Firstly, yet again battles will be severely in favour of attackers, where's the 'balancing'?
Secondly, as someone that has spent a lot of money amassing quite a few watchtowers I find it hard to swallow that they will be useless in GvG. This just makes me question Inno's ethics. Basically, sell buildings to customers then change how effective they are.

Where is the balancing.... a defender now can get +60% attack and +60% defence bonus (compared to +0% attack and +200% defence) from their defensive GBs - couple this with a reduction in the attacker's bonuses, this means that an attacker will now take a lot more damage and it now might be possible to defend your town more effectively and PvP is going to be much more costly (in terms of damage dealt to the attacker's troops). Much more balanced than the current system where you can attack players with over 300% defence bonus and take some damage but usually zero casualties.

Watchtowers are now more effective in PvP defense - compared to one level of a defensive GB they used to give 40% of the defensive bonus now they give 133% of the defensive bonus of one level of a defensive GB. Much more useful than previous and I don't see that there is an issue if you differentiate buildings between what is useful for the player (like Watchfires where the guild has little input into how many you get) and what is useful for the player and the guild (i.e. GBs which the guild has likely helped to level up).

 

[DeletedUser]

Oh, very sorry, as I said I'm new to the forum, realized I was in the wrong thread to begin with, then posted in another thinking it was the right one (but you closed it), finally hopefully found the right place for my presumedly valued feedback

 

[DeletedUser]

Back to the topic.
I feel very aggreived, I have spent real money on watchtowers that I now find out will be completely useless in what is to become a major part of the game. Is that even legal? Had I known that the power of watchtowers was restricted I wouldn't have bothered. After all, I wouldn't buy a car with extras if I was told I couldn't use them on a motorway.

 

[DeletedUser276]

ah well its much easier to check the first place you put it. If its in the wrong place the mod if they have time may move it or let you know if they dont have time that its in the wrong section.

 

[DeletedUser96867]

very busy position dealing with the same posts on every single release of the game gets tiring hearing the same old thing over and over about how the game is going to die and how inno doesnt respect the players.

but those same players stick around update after update saying the same thing over and over riling up more players *shrug* easier to start afresh than to keep pushing a circular logic with many posts misleading and antagonizing other players.

This is the first subject i have posted about in the forum, as it is the first for several of the other players. Looking at many of the players posting about this topic, about half have 10 posts or less. Clearly it isn't just the same players all the time.

 

[DeletedUser]

Where is the balancing.... a defender now can get +60% attack and +60% defence bonus (compared to +0% attack and +200% defence) from their defensive GBs - couple this with a reduction in the attacker's bonuses, this means that an attacker will now take a lot more damage and it now might be possible to defend your town more effectively and PvP is going to be much more costly (in terms of damage dealt to the attacker's troops). Much more balanced than the current system where you can attack players with over 300% defence bonus and take some damage but usually zero casualties.

Watchtowers are now more effective in PvP defense - compared to one level of a defensive GB they used to give 40% of the defensive bonus now they give 133% of the defensive bonus of one level of a defensive GB. Much more useful than previous and I don't see that there is an issue if you differentiate buildings between what is useful for the player (like Watchfires where the guild has little input into how many you get) and what is useful for the player and the guild (i.e. GBs which the guild has likely helped to level up).

But attackers are still highly favoured with maximum 90% attack and defence, if it was balanced the maximums would be equal, hence the word 'balance', look it up.
The issue of watchtowers in PvP is irrelevant in GvG. Apparently GvG is intended to be a big part of the game, so disregarding some existing aspects is wrong on so many levels. I built my city knowing GvG was approaching, had I known things were going to change this drastically I would have done some things differently, things that can't be changed.

 

[DeletedUser276]

the start of the thread on the previous thread were instigated by those same. I am not talking about in this thread. Best not to rehash old threads and stay on topic please.

But attackers are still highly favoured with maximum 90% attack and defence, if it was balanced the maximums would be equal, hence the word 'balance', look it up.
The issue of watchtowers in PvP is irrelevant in GvG. Apparently GvG is intended to be a big part of the game, so disregarding some existing aspects is wrong on so many levels. I built my city knowing GvG was approaching, had I known things were going to change this drastically I would have done some things differently, things that can't be changed.

your balance and coding balance are a bit different.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

Umm, I had a question earlier, and I had to immediately go to work to do a few errands:
Sorry if you answered this before, but will PvP points be increased because of this change? This change will cause longer, harder, and less battles and farming is... farming (nothing good, nothing bad). I liked the ratio as it is now and think it should stay about the same.

 

[DeletedUser276]

no as its across the board change. As such I cant forsee any points changes happening as its still even and equal across the board. Getting 1 point instead of 100 or 100 instead of 1 still equals the same.

 

[DeletedUser]

your balance and coding balance are a bit different.

So your basically saying that the values I see aren't the actual values that take effect in the game engine? If so, what is the point of giving values at all? GBs may as well say 'at the next level it will be a bit better than this level'.

 

[DeletedUser276]

at the next level it will be a bit better than this level.

 

[DeletedUser]

I wasn't sure which thread to post this in, but what is the estimated time frame for the ACTUAL release of GvG? Not the full version, or the beginning of bringing code over, but the ACTUAL release?

Also, it looks like autobattles will become a highly ineffective way to battle now. Will something be done about the unbearable lag in 1.5x battles to make fighting tolerable?

 

[DeletedUser13082]

This announcement is being made early as we want you to be aware of the changes well in advance of the update to avoid any surprises.

"PSYCH" We're actually going to nerf the PvP aspect of the GB's. SUPRIIIIISE"

 

[DeletedUser97960]

I find the prospect of this change to the value of the boost given by military GBs to be frustrating at best. As is, what I perceive to be, the dismissive attitude to the thoughts of the players about this - they are customers at the end of the day. Ignore the opinions of your customers at your peril, that is no threat by the way; many a company has found their pocket hit when customers began taking their business elsewhere because they felt unvalued. As for telling them to go elsewhere if they don't like it....well that's just madness.

Now the announcement says that this is about GvG, if that is the case why can a percentage of the GBs overall boost be used in GvG rather than the whole thing? This would allow GBs to maintain their current value, something that many players rely on to help with PvP and fighting sectors. Since it seems that attacking GBs are to lose 40% of their bonus, if someone has for example a fully levelled Zeus why can they not have 50% boost for PvP and map fighting, and only 35% when fighting GvG battles?

Just to concentrate on the PvP for a few moments, during tonight's conversations about this some people have said that the attack bonus from GBs mean that everyone can autobattle, lose no units, and win easy PvP points. I cannot be the only person for whom this is absolutely not the case, I don't autobattle - I tried it a couple of times, I lost far more in auto than I do when I battle manually. It's true that battling manually does take a huge amount of time, especially when there are so many players competing in the towers, but for me auto isn't worth the losses. If it is hoped that this change might prevent 'lazy' (not my phrase, one from earlier this evening) players from using auto, why punish every player? Just remove the auto button.

I also fight all of my sectors manually, even with a 75% (currently) boost I have as yet not come out of a fight in the boosted Industrial Age sectors without heavy losses. I don't just throw any troops in and hope for the best, I do take my time with the battle, I still suffer some pretty big losses, it would be much worse if I only had 45% boost which is what is about to happen. To be honest i'm not sure that I could continue to fight these sectors, I will end up being forced to negotiate. If you can fight against an army with 200% boost when you have ) and win (as was suggested to me) then congratulations to you, my guess is that is not the case for many players. Surely if we are having 40% of our GB boost taken from us there should be some change to the boosted sectors, I simply can't see how this creates balance there at all. So, I ask again because this surely is a massive oversight - what will be done to change the boosted sectors on the map? (I would like to point out that - it's currently too easy - is not an answer that is acceptable to me)

It has also been suggested that this change is necessary because some players are being plundered too much, and some are being blackmailed into donating fps to GBs to stop their attackers, so my questions here are:
Plundering is apart of the game, that is why the function is there I presume, if the developers no longer wish for people to be able to plunder why do they not remove the plunder function? If GB boosts can be removed i'm sure that the plunder function can be removed easily, so why has it not been if this is a problem?
As far as blackmailing goes, if this is a cause for concern why not change the rules to disallow it? I don't think it is any meaner or stricter than taking away 40% of each military GBs boost, I simply don't understand that.
Reading the comments here and in chat within the game, some players are thinking that blackmailing for fps may be the way to go now because they will need to level military GBs more quickly so that they still have an almost worthwhile military boost.

GvG is not ready to be fully released yet, why implement these changes now (if they are about GvG) rather than wait until GvG is ready for release? I have played on BETA and seen GvG in action there, I wasn't impressed personally, from what I hear others haven't been either, if there is more to it that will appease players who are angry about this latest announcement why wind them up further by not releasing the relevant information?

It is also my opinion that unless attacking GBs are on level 9 or 10 they will be pretty worthless, I still fail to see how it will be possible to attract players to invest in a building they can see no value in having. Telling people who already have these GBs that if they feel they are worthless don't have them is not an adequate answer to this question at all. If you are offering bps for these buildings in exchange for real money you surely have to make them worth having - it'll be much harder to get new players to open their wallets for GBs that have little value.

While i'm thinking of the diamonds, I am also wondering, if people have used diamonds to buy bps so that they can build their GBs some of these bps have effectively been paid for with real money, they spent that on the basis that they were getting the item advertised (a Zeus for example which gives an extra 5% military boost each time it levels) is it ethical to change the conditions of that purchase when the buyer is unable to request a refund? Before you say 'yes it's fine', consider this, you buy a car, after you've had it for several months the manufacturer calls and tells you that they will be modifying the car and taking away 40% of its horse power, are you happy or do you feel ripped off?

I appreciate that it must be hard to listen to negative feedback when changes are implemented, and I don't dismiss the work involved in creating a game and running it - I work in retail, it's no picnic! But if people who don't usually comment in the forum (such as myself) have taken the time to express unhappiness with a change to the game it seems a little arrogant (my opinion) for us all to be dismissed, questions not adequately answered, and told that ultimately it's happening no matter what you think and if you don't like it there are other games (i'm paraphrasing but that was the jist).

Would it hurt to take a little time to consider the opinions of players and customers? I use the word customers because anyone who has paid their hard earned real life money for diamonds to use within the game is a customer, yes they do have the option of taking their cash elsewhere but I assume it goes towards someone's salary here right?

I have much more to say, but it's late so maybe best saved for tomorrow. Please can I have some real answers to my questions, not the 'politicians' answers, real answers, please?

(I don't think I have been insulting or antagonistic in anyway here, but I have given my opinions - which I believe I am allowed to do)

 

[DeletedUser3157]

Not just closing, but actually DELITING an entire 16 page thread what people spent collective hours if not days writing? Way to go to infuriate people even that half that didn't mind the change, well at least until now. Why was this new thread even made btw? Not like you want people to actually discuss this stuff AT ALL, as evident.