GB balancing changes--Feedback thread

[DeletedUser96867]

how does anyone KNOW how this will affect a component of the game that has yet to be released? No player (even beta ones) knows what GvG will be like at this point. How many more changes will be coming due to GvG?

Then why not wait until gvg is further along to implement these changes? Why implement them now? Why not test the changes on a test server to see if they have a desired affect. When gvg was introduced on beta we were told it was basically still in a design stage and not ready for beta testing, but starting the beta testing was the only way to test the game design. From what i've seen on BETA many many many factors were overlooked. So how can it be determined that these changes are needed to balance gvg for aspect of gvg which have been released or tested in any ways?

I know you said you have little information on gvg, but from everything i have seen on BETA not only is there no justification for these changes, some of the major problems of gvg will only be made even worse by them. Guild held sectors are so hard to take that the 4 highest ages are completely stagnant. The lower ages guilds resorted to using spies to completely delete all defending armies other guilds had to take sectors, and as someone posted in these discussion earlier guilds are using multiple sisterguilds all working together to carry out an attack to defeat a sector. The majority of guilds/ players will not go these extremes to take part in gvg, and these changes are now making it even harder to take sectors especially for the smaller guilds and new players.

So basically what i'm saying is based on what i know about gvg, and any direction i can even imagine gvg going, the justification for these GB changes are i no way relevant. The answer that i should just trust that some time in the future, game elements which don't currently exist, and which can not and will not be discussed or shared with the players in any way at this time, elements which might be implemented in the next 12-18 months don't even come close to being enough to convince me to accept these changes, or justify why this has to be done at this time.

 

[DeletedUser]

Not to chew you up, but knowing these things isn't even remotely far fetched for the people who have been active in GvG.

And how do you know that the feedback received from the beta server has not been addressed, but the revisions not fed back into the beta server? Do you not think that the developers would not want to hold back some aspects/information to keep the product new, fresh and exciting? I certainly would not tip my hand in that manner if I didn't have to, especially with such a big new feature. I would test bits and pieces and never let the public see the final product until I was ready to put it in their hands for consumption. Just a thought ... I could be wrong .. but really, think about it ..

So basically what i'm saying is based on what i know about gvg, and any direction i can even imagine gvg going, the justification for these GB changes are i no way relevant. The answer that i should just trust that some time in the future, game elements which don't currently exist, and which can not and will not be discussed or shared with the players in any way at this time, elements which might be implemented in the next 12-18 months don't even come close to being enough to convince me to accept these changes, or justify why this has to be done at this time.

So you are admitting that you do not know what to truly expect from GvG. Thank you. Remember this notice of 1.20 update is an advance notice .. not a date of release. You don't know what other changes will occur with, before, or immediately after this mentioned update. So again .. before you get up in arms about what you THINK will happen, why don't we wait to see what WILL happen first. And again as beta is testing for GvG coding, this does not mean that the GvG in beta is what will be what we see when it goes live - which again we do not have a release date for. For all we know they could release GvG tomorrow, next month, or next year. The point is that we do not know how far along GvG is, so how can we determine if this change (remember, even this change is still without a release date) is going to be released at an appropriate time or not until it happens and we know what other items are included in the update?

 

[Praeceptor]

before you get up in arms about what you THINK will happen, why don't we wait to see what WILL happen first.

The thing is Beast - there has been an announcement of what WILL happen (attack buildings crippled) and it badly affects PvP, a very popular aspect of this game for many players. I appreciate that you think GvG may be different from the implementation on beta (and let's face it, it would have to be!), but for many of us GvG is of no interest. Every single post on here which expresses concerns is about PvP, so let's stop harping on about GvG.

 

[DeletedUser]

Every single post on here which expresses concerns is about PvP, so let's stop harping on about GvG.

While I tactfully disagree with you as I have been responding to comments made regarding GvG, much of the same also holds true for PvP. Perhaps this GB balancing is the only aspect of the update that will affect PvP, but again we do not know until it actually occurs.

Although I do agree with the many people who say this is an across the board change, so it is fair. I also agree that attacks have been too easy and, with our 'stupid' ai controlling the defenders, is almost impossible to defend against the well OP attack GB. Attackers should lose troops in a well defended city. Frankly many hypothesized that the monastery was to help all those who were being unable to defend as there are so few defense items available to combat the high powered attack boosts. This just appears to me to be a continuation of balancing the troops in attack/defense so that the outcome requires more skill instead of pure overpower. But that is just my opinion .. athough I have seen it voiced elsewhere as well.

 

[DeletedUser]

And how do you know that the feedback received from the beta server has not been addressed, but the revisions not fed back into the beta server? Do you not think that the developers would not want to hold back some aspects/information to keep the product new, fresh and exciting? I certainly would not tip my hand in that manner if I didn't have to, especially with such a big new feature. I would test bits and pieces and never let the public see the final product until I was ready to put it in their hands for consumption. Just a thought ... I could be wrong .. but really, think about it ..?

You asked a question and I answered it. You are still throwing a ton of speculation in there to arrive at the conclusion that it is impossible for people to know anything about GvG. How many changes have we seen from beta to normal in the past? (nothing drastic enough to support your extreme position) Do you truly believe that your position is more reasonable than one that says "hey maybe people who have tested it for last 3 months actually know something about GvG?

The mode we have been testing is ridiculously broken right now, and, given your response and original hypothesis, I can only assume that you think it would be unreasonable for Inno to want to test something that in any way resembles the final product. Part of the problems are exploits, wouldn't they want to make sure those were closed at least? Ignoring everything else I mentioned, don't you think it is likely they couldn't plan for all of the exploits that thousands of players will be looking for? Why not get rid of those at least. I would hope this thought had occurred to them. Can they really be sure they closed them without at least letting the people who are exploiting now take a crack at these hypothetical preventative measures?

Many of the worst exploits would require a drastic change to create/join/leave guild system. This would make PvPers (especially those who don't do GvG) even angrier considering over half my hood is made up of top 2 guilds (something that was supposed to be addressed when new merge system came about).

Lke Praeceptor, I also think that most of the comments have revolved around the changes to PvP (which was caused by GvG), I just wanted to point out that I don't think your comment really stands up to much scrutiny

 

[DeletedUser]

You are still throwing a ton of speculation in there to arrive at the conclusion that it is impossible for people to know anything about GvG?

I agree I am throwing a ton of speculation in there to arrive at any conclusion. I believe that is the point I am making about all of us. This is all just speculation at this point. No one but the developers know where any of this is headed at this point in time.

 

[DeletedUser96867]

@beast

While i don't agree with most of what you have said, thank you for providing a response which shows you have given at least some consideration, posted in clear language with some detail, and in a respectful manner which didn't just dismiss our concerns without a seconds thought.

The fact of the matter remains these are changes that many players will not be happy with. To make matters far worse most of us still don't accept the stated reasons for the changes. If i and the other player were at all convinced there was a good reason for these changes and that it had any chance it would improve some aspect of the game, i believe many player would be more prepared to let it go and move on despite the negative aspects.

Now, I'm going to have a few drinks and try to convince myself that gvg which has been being tested for nearly 4 months now on beta, is a decoy from Inno. An elaborate ruse designed so players will be surprised when a completely different version of gvg is introduced on the other servers, a version that may actually work, and make the GB changes make some sort of sense. Basically a version of gvg that you speculate on in your previous posts. I really do hope you are right.

However i will leave you with this to think about. At one point the community manager on beta told me that gvg really wasn't ready for beta testing when it was introduced to beta. That it was barely out of alpha but was introduced to beta because such an game element could not be properly tested internally in the normal fashion. If that is indeed the case do you think gvg will be introduced with such drastic changes (from the version which exists in beta), as you suggest above, without testing that can't be done internally on a non-server scale? Just something to think about, no need to respond.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree I am throwing a ton of speculation in there to arrive at any conclusion. I believe that is the point I am making about all of us. This is all just speculation at this point. No one but the developers know where any of this is headed at this point in time.

Oh I agree that this is all speculation, but it seems like you are saying that speculating that the sun will rise tomorrow is the same as speculating that it won't

 

[Praeceptor]

@beast

While i don't agree with most of what you have said, thank you for providing a response which shows you have given at least some consideration, posted in clear language with some detail, and in a respectful manner which didn't just dismiss our concerns without a seconds thought.

True - thank you Beast.

 

[DeletedUser13805]

@beast

While i don't agree with most of what you have said, thank you for providing a response which shows you have given at least some consideration, posted in clear language with some detail, and in a respectful manner which didn't just dismiss our concerns without a seconds thought.

The fact of the matter remains these are changes that many players will not be happy with. To make matters far worse most of us still don't accept the stated reasons for the changes. If i and the other player were at all convinced there was a good reason for these changes and that it had any chance it would improve some aspect of the game, i believe many player would be more prepared to let it go and move on despite the negative aspects.

Now, I'm going to have a few drinks and try to convince myself that gvg which has been being tested for nearly 4 months now on beta, is a decoy from Inno. An elaborate ruse designed so players will be surprised when a completely different version of gvg is introduced on the other servers, a version that may actually work, and make the GB changes make some sort of sense. Basically a version of gvg that you speculate on in your previous posts. I really do hope you are right.

However i will leave you with this to think about. At one point the community manager on beta told me that gvg really wasn't ready for beta testing when it was introduced to beta. That it was barely out of alpha but was introduced to beta because such an game element could not be properly tested internally in the normal fashion. If that is indeed the case do you think gvg will be introduced with such drastic changes (from the version which exists in beta), as you suggest above, without testing that can't be done internally on a non-server scale? Just something to think about, no need to respond.

its true players are not happy at all with the change and more so as many dont even want to play gvg so the excuse for changing is not good enough for me as i think gvg is rubbish i tried to get into it on the beta but i couldnt even get a single fight going and as a pvp player thats all i am interested in
i dont want to save up tons of resources to get a chance of a fight
i dont want other players to help me to fight
i want to play pvp ONLY just like i have been doing for the last year or more

now all the changes that have happened over the last year to pvp have brought it down big time, at one time players could do a hood in well under an hour useing just long range units and a gren or similar
then came the tweaks and worse came the new battle scale maps which slowed the game down no end
then came the new selection of units and what a farce that turned out to be as it slowed us down even more with not being able to find attached units from unattached and seraching took ages per fight
we all scremed for a simple change here and nothng so far has happend
now we are getting the castle changed around all for gvg that many dont want to play yet its going to hit us that pvp the worse
so all in all over the last year it looks to me like the company has gone out of its way to make sure pvp is going to die off

the time it will take now for me personaly to battle my hood manual will increase from about 3 hours per day to about 4 or more hours depends on the defenses and now when the new attack boost comes my hoods way it will be even more time spent per fight trying to save units

ok i welcome the challenge but why does pvp playing always get the worse of it all ?
and if i can not complete my hood and end up losing points etc then the game will be over for me as i dont want to gvg i dont want to farm or trade that side of the game bores me to death each to there own on that one

 

[DeletedUser15432]

We know have a total of 459 posts with regards to this issue, even with multiple posts form some members, this still only averages just over 2 posts per contributor to the posts therefore, taking the higher value at 2.3 posts per person, this still gives 200 contributors, the vast majority of whom are expressing some form of annoyance over the announcement of the impending changes to the offensive great buildings. Now, at the bottom of the forum page it lists the number of active players at 1708, this is 11.71% of the active player who have expressed some sort of opinion regarding this. Given that a large number of the active players only log on at the week end. There will probably be an exponential increase in the number of posts regarding this subject

Surely with this sort of response, the decision will be reconsidered

 

[DeletedUser3157]

We know have a total of 459 posts with regards to this issue, even with multiple posts form some members, this still only averages just over 2 posts per contributor to the posts therefore, taking the higher value at 2.3 posts per person, this still gives 200 contributors, the vast majority of whom are expressing some form of annoyance over the announcement of the impending changes to the offensive great buildings. Now, at the bottom of the forum page it lists the number of active players at 1708, this is 11.71% of the active player who have expressed some sort of opinion regarding this. Given that a large number of the active players only log on at the week end. There will probably be an exponential increase in the number of posts regarding this subject

Surely with this sort of response, the decision will be reconsidered

People hate losing their privileges more than anything else in world. People who had hard time fighting worked their way to make it very easy, only for the rules to change and it become harder again. Even if this change is much needed and makes sense on grand scale, it was always obvious that the initial response is gonna be majorly negative. For example nobles in europe were not too happy either giving up their unfair unadvantages and good life, ppl always hate when their stuff gets nerfed

 

[DeletedUser97960]

While I tactfully disagree with you as I have been responding to comments made regarding GvG, much of the same also holds true for PvP. Perhaps this GB balancing is the only aspect of the update that will affect PvP, but again we do not know until it actually occurs.

Although I do agree with the many people who say this is an across the board change, so it is fair. I also agree that attacks have been too easy and, with our 'stupid' ai controlling the defenders, is almost impossible to defend against the well OP attack GB.

So if the AI is not intelligent enough to make attacking hard, why not improve the AI? Make the AI smarter instead of removing boosts that people have invested time to achieve.

 

[DeletedUser97960]

There's a difference between how things will work in your head than how they work in practice. A few percent isn't far off, just a tweak.

I apologise in advance if I have misunderstood you here, but if you are referring to the 40% boost reduction as being not far off and just a tweak I think i'd have to disagree. If it is necessary to amend anything by 40% it can't have been all that close to being right in the first place, 40% is a big number. Not to mention the 70% defence reduction for the defending GBs.

Again if you were referring to something different I apologise.

 

[DeletedUser13805]

So if the AI is not intelligent enough to make attacking hard, why not improve the AI? Make the AI smarter instead of removing boosts that people have invested time to achieve.

now there is the best suggestion i have read so far, that's exactly what the game needs is a smarter AI, it would solve all sorts of issues
why couldnt they tweak the ai ?
well said madnat

 

[DeletedUser8813]

So if the AI is not intelligent enough to make attacking hard, why not improve the AI? Make the AI smarter instead of removing boosts that people have invested time to achieve.

the best suggestion so far i think...easier and it would be more easily accepted by the players...

 

[DeletedUser7719]

The problem with tweaking the AI would be the wait time between turns since it'll take a longer time for the AI to process your move and the move it's going to make. Fortunately, I don't think that will be a problem as it's working great right now, and improving it feels like it wouldn't cause too much of a lag between turns.

 

[DeletedUser96695]

I am re-posting my response in there :


I am lost about it
as far as i know, GvG sector defense come from whole guild
The defend do not count whether a player has or has not watchfire...monastery
The defend bonus % is taken from whole guild ( sum of all GB who provide defend bonus + other defend structure ( like watch fire, monastery) )
Exact logic is unknown
it function like our battle in contential map and hoods, computer do the defense
there is no watchfire and monastery in GvG sector
as a player role in defending a sector, player is only providing defending armies while each sector consump part of the whole guild 's defending bonus
< defending army strength is not related with the provider, even provider have 300% defending bonus, his defending army 's defending with 0 to 50% (normal and maximum for non head quarter ), 0% defending bonus if there is no more remaining defending % from whole guild >
Including watchfire /monastery 's defending bonus only affect the amount of sector u can hold. E.g. your guild has 80 member, all with monastery, u will have 80X20% = 1600 % defending bonus due to monastery, each GvG sector need 50%, so u can hold another 32 ( 1600%/50% ) GvG sector due to monastery if the defending bonus logic of a GvG sector is purely a deduction.

The amount of GvG sector that a guild can hold depends on
(1) total defending bonus of a guild
(2) how the work with differenent age provinces, do they share or not
(3) amount of goods ....your 1st sector is a few goods, your 18th sector of a age may need over 300 goods < that is what i hear > ...

I totally lost when game developer say
"watchfire and monastry is not included in GvG"
It look to me, they try to limit the amount of sector u can hold in a age provinces and across all age provinces
nothing related with GvG sector battleing ( attack and defend bonus )

For me
their saying about GvG is just a excuse of that amendment
if they want to amend GvG , all amendment should make in GvG side, leave non-GvG (like attack bonus of zeus /aachen/ del monte ) unchanged

as far as i know
game developer never tell us..how those defending bonus logic is calcualted
if they do not include watchfire/monastry in GvG defending bonus, they do not need to inform us
prehaps some clever figure it is a simple summation and deduction of whole guild defending bonus
again, they can amended it as it is a beta ...no need to inform us

 

[DeletedUser96695]

I am re-post my repsone in there

As i say in my last message
watchfire only affect amount of sector that a guild can holds
GvG sector defending do not count any watchfire in a GvG sector, in fact, there is no watchfire inside a GvG sector
GvG sector is either 75% defend bonsu, 50% defend bonus ( 99.99% sector with this value), 0 to 50% defend bonus (only apply to the last sector)
[ if there is different due to watchfire, please let me know,i do want to know "how" ]

As a result,
GvG is GVG
non-GvG is non-GvG
there are completely separation

and GvG is a beta
game developer can do any adjustment in beta to test
e.g in GvG, our attack bonus from GB can be lower...etc

Please do not use GvG as a excuse, to make a major amendment in non-GvG area

they can be completely separated...that is the beauty of "beta"

it is not a two side of a coin, it is completely different 2 coins
please do not mix and confuse us

 

[DeletedUser96695]

I am re-post my reposne in there ( this thread look to me is also "off topic about GB balacing"

difference, but for new players to the game working their way up, I expect it will greatly improve the experience by balancing the progress.

Yes, this threads now look like "off topic"

Suppose this topic are talking about "GB balacing change" due to need of GvG
i am trying my best to address those change should be in GvG contential map, they should not bring this change to non-GvG part
my message keep on skip and ignored....

As u say, the rogue and AI is not part of that GB balancing due to GvG and those combat stuff is not related to GB-balancing
They are still chating about those ir-revent stuff ( look like to me ) in there
They should open another thread to discuss those subjects

Glad to see your progress in your tech tree and contential map and storyline quests
But i do not totally agree with your points on GB balancing
You are an experience player, that is "why u can progress to that goal"
You get sufficient experience of using those GB's bebefits
However, for those young player or player who is still learning, those GB attack bonus is very important to them
a reduction of 40% is critical /vital issue to them
Perosnal , i think, u find it is easy ( for new player, it is not ) becos of the GB's bonus
But i think, it is the other side of the battle
(I) the AI do not defend properly
(II) Game developer should riase the defend strength / defend attack.e,g, the sector carring out a defend bonus , then u will not find it easy to progress thro' those contential map....again, this is nothing related with GB blancing. Perosnally i think it is a design mistakes og game developer, for player to player (hoods), attacking side use their GB attack bonus, the defend side use their GB defend bonus. For ocntential map's sector, attacking side use their GB attack bonus, the defend side has no defending bonus <----that is the design mistakes. I can imagine most player reach a certain age, they all have a attack bonus, why game developer do not add defending bonus to sector to counter-act player attack bonus in order to make the game more attractive.

In short
The GB Balacing due to GvG should be delayed until further notice