GB balancing changes--Feedback thread

[DeletedUser96695]

I am totally dis-appointed after

I do not see any response to my message and they are being skipped
and
observe the subject is being side-tracked to other issues (like AI )

while we are clsoing up to revision 1.20

sorry ...for my re-post my repsonses ( in other thread ) in there

 

[DeletedUser13805]

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.

hmmm i know with computer chess for example 3 seconds a move is quite tricky for most players and if you put it in for 1 sec a move it will do all sorts of stupid moves so would 3 seconds a move be to long for the game as i know players can auto in about 3 seconds a fight
but surely there must be some way to make the ai a bit smarter in its selection processes ?

 

[DeletedUser]

hmmm i know with computer chess for example 3 seconds a move is quite tricky for most players and if you put it in for 1 sec a move it will do all sorts of stupid moves so would 3 seconds a move be to long for the game as i know players can auto in about 3 seconds a fight
but surely there must be some way to make the ai a bit smarter in its selection processes ?

All battles are processed by the server, together will all other things. If there are 100 battles running simultaneously, even 1 sec of server time per battle per turn would be too long.

 

[DeletedUser]

This update would be wrong on so many accounts I won't try to list them again.
One point that I haven't seen made yet is that it would be plain unfair if map defenses are not "rebalanced" (read: nerfed) too. The players having conquered a certain sector before the nerfing have received more points for it than the players fighting it after the update will. This creates an unfair gap.

All in all... I just can't believe that "please don't ruin the game we love and have invested countless hours in" seems too much too ask at the moment. That's a rather nasty situation, why are you doing that to us? Is the idea to cull the player pool? I, for one, know that I will lose interest in this game if the developers go for major retroactive changes ruining the experience.

 

[Belcher]

Just a reminder that information from other servers (Notably Beta world) is not permitted to be posted in these forums.

 

[DeletedUser1081]

Yes, the continental army boosts need adjusting to accommodate this change, and the costs of building/levelling up the military GBs need to be reduced as well.

Just a reminder that information from other servers (Notably Beta world) is not permitted to be posted in these forums.

Again, what are you referring to, please and thank you?

 

[DeletedUser]

Again, what are you referring to, please and thank you?

Again, the references to the beta server were removed. You comments regarding the announced plans to change GB boosts will affect the game play on this server are welcome here.

 

[DeletedUser1081]

Again, the references to the beta server were removed. You comments regarding the announced plans to change GB boosts will affect the game play on this server are welcome here.

Again, thanks for clarifying your colleague's mystifying statement. We can't tell what's referred to if it's been removed, unless that's explained.

 

[DeletedUser97960]

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.

With respect this feels like a bit of a politicians answer, i.e it's too hard to fix something that is a problem so we'll tinker with something else instead. Lots of players have said that the changes to the GBs will result in significantly increased battle time for them anyway, so if they would have to spend longer fighting either way surely they would prefer a longer fight against smarter AI. That would seem better than taking away a large portion of the GB boost and causing imbalance elsewhere in the game (i.e. the sectors with huge attack and defence boosts). I still fail to see how improving the AI can't be the better option.

 

[DeletedUser]

Again, thanks for clarifying your colleague's mystifying statement. We can't tell what's referred to if it's been removed, unless that's explained.

You most welcome, mink. Always happy to explain as best we can. However, Belcher did state that it was a reminder to not "post information from other servers (Notably Beta world)" as it is not permitted. Without the prior posts, his statement can be construed as a random reminder and not targeting anyone in particular (as I think was his intent).

 

[DeletedUser]

I still fail to see how improving the AI can't be the better option.

I'm not sure that anyone is disagreeing with this point, madnat. Actually I think they rather agree with you, even byeordie. I think the comment was made regarding how exactly to make that update without increasing the processing time as the AI would have additional criteria to consider in it's programming. I can't imagine it has not already been suggested (improving AI's intelligence), but please search the ideas section of the forum and put this idea in there if it is not already. Further discussion of AI intelligence can be discussed there, as it is a valid discussion point. Let's try to keep this discussion on topic of the affect this GB balancing change may have to the game.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

With respect this feels like a bit of a politicians answer, i.e it's too hard to fix something that is a problem so we'll tinker with something else instead. Lots of players have said that the changes to the GBs will result in significantly increased battle time for them anyway, so if they would have to spend longer fighting either way surely they would prefer a longer fight against smarter AI. That would seem better than taking away a large portion of the GB boost and causing imbalance elsewhere in the game (i.e. the sectors with huge attack and defence boosts). I still fail to see how improving the AI can't be the better option.

lol mate, I'm agreeing with you hence my last sentence

 

[DeletedUser97960]

lol mate, I'm agreeing with you hence my last sentence

Apologies, I misunderstood your post! Well at least we all seem to have found something that we would like to have changed!

 

[DeletedUser97960]

Thanks Beast I will look.

 

[DeletedUser]

I fit into a category of the players 1.20 would affect the most in the non-GvG worlds. This category are those middle aged players who are full of energy and have invested everything into offensive GB from diamonds to developing friendships to GB clubs to collecting resources for the GB to investment in military buildings to hours upon hours of fighting battles manually. The advanced players just have to do some battles now manually. The newer players haven't made the sacrifice in offensive GB. In doesn't hurt players equally, it ends up targeting the most active, best young rising stars like myself holding me personally the All-world LMA Tower Championship and newly crowned LMA Champion of Houndsmoor.

It makes me personally look at a game I love and look at Inno as an inane company that doesn't act upon player feedback. I mean really this is not fair that I buy some diamonds to support a game I love and then can't enjoy the fruit of that purchase as it was presented to me when I bought the diamonds. I want my money back but more than anything I don't want to lose a game I have a love affair with.

I read the forum and players have been asking for an unattached filter for troops for months. I would love this. No one asked for Changelog 1.20. So what's my reward for being Champion? I get hurt the hardest by Changelog 1.20. That's enough to for me to get really angry and ultimately I won't support a game that makes me angry.

I know I've probably vented too much and broken some rule and if I did I hope you won't ban me too long here. I don't want to offend any mod or player or break any rule I can't remember or swear like I feel like doing so I'll take a screenshot of my post before it disappears like 15 pages of comments did in the discussion forum. Hopefully someone at Inno will listen and ACT. I don't care what happens to GB in GvG because I didn't build my GB for GvG except my new Basil since Inno announced about defense pool. I just refuse to accept 1.20 applied to non-GvG. It is 100% not fair.

 

[DeletedUser15432]

I quite agree with Vossos as I also fall in that category om three separate worlds, on 1 I have maxed all three offensive GB's, on the other 2, I have maxed Zues and through agreements, I am working in each of the other 2, this change log will lose me 60%, 44% and 40% currently which equates to 1 entire set of buildings

 

[DeletedUser98483]

Further agreement here, too. I have spoken with so many players in IndA & PE. On one world I am just conquering a territory with 75% defence; my current att/def is 55%. I now have no choice but to stop as soon as 1.20 is implemented. I can farm for the next few months and negotiate, or I can farm, find the space to construct Basil's & Deal (somehow), spend months of FPs all to get back to where I am now. Or, I can just sell off everything now in sheer frustration at a major change which is upsetting so many players who, like me, cannot understand why a change which could be implemented solely in the GvG maps is being implemented throughout.

At this moment in time, I see little option but to find another game since I have little inclination to spend the 3 months following 1,20 implementation stagnating.

 

[DeletedUser13805]

Further agreement here, too. I have spoken with so many players in IndA & PE. On one world I am just conquering a territory with 75% defence; my current att/def is 55%. I now have no choice but to stop as soon as 1.20 is implemented. I can farm for the next few months and negotiate, or I can farm, find the space to construct Basil's & Deal (somehow), spend months of FPs all to get back to where I am now. Or, I can just sell off everything now in sheer frustration at a major change which is upsetting so many players who, like me, cannot understand why a change which could be implemented solely in the GvG maps is being implemented throughout.

At this moment in time, I see little option but to find another game since I have little inclination to spend the 3 months following 1,20 implementation stagnating.

i do hope this feeling isnt the norm as pvp is struggling enough as it is to hold any sort of credibility. why dont you just wait till its here and give pvp a try and see how much of an effect it has first before closing down everything ?

 

[DeletedUser98483]

i do hope this feeling isnt the norm as pvp is struggling enough as it is to hold any sort of credibility. why dont you just wait till its here and give pvp a try and see how much of an effect it has first before closing down everything ?

PvP is not the issue per se. The proposed changes certainly will affect PvP but, for anyone who does not wish to get involved in GvG AND is trying to conquer the map, the map suddenly becomes nigh on impossible in the Americas. If the map is too easy in Europe & ME (I agree it is not difficult), why not increase the def bonus on the map in those continents. To leave the Americas, however, as it is without any reduction to compensate for 1.20 to leave me no option. I can continue to take part in PvP for those 3 months it will take me to get back where I started so as to be able to continue to conquer the map, but boredom will set in a being principally a farmer in the city. This is NOT the game I thought I was playing. FoE will lose a lot of players over 1.20. If they think otherwise - why don't they have the courage to do a simple poll:

"If 1.20 is implemented, will you (A) Leave the game (B) Continue playing (C) Don't know.
That will give FoE devs the real feedback. BTW, mine will be "A".

 

[DeletedUser13805]

PvP is not the issue per se. The proposed changes certainly will affect PvP but, for anyone who does not wish to get involved in GvG AND is trying to conquer the map, the map suddenly becomes nigh on impossible in the Americas. If the map is too easy in Europe & ME (I agree it is not difficult), why not increase the def bonus on the map in those continents. To leave the Americas, however, as it is without any reduction to compensate for 1.20 to leave me no option. I can continue to take part in PvP for those 3 months it will take me to get back where I started so as to be able to continue to conquer the map, but boredom will set in a being principally a farmer in the city. This is NOT the game I thought I was playing. FoE will lose a lot of players over 1.20. If they think otherwise - why don't they have the courage to do a simple poll:

"If 1.20 is implemented, will you (A) Leave the game (B) Continue playing (C) Don't know.
That will give FoE devs the real feedback. BTW, mine will be "A".

i have to agree with you and i have just quit gvg as a form of protest as i dont want to play that game not at the expense of pvp, so your message actually gave me an idea of protest as they dont listen to words so if enough players also ended gvg i am sure the devs would have to stop the planned changes and take notice of the players its sad to do this but they clearly are not going to listen and of course it if do this on my own well there used to players doing that so it will take numbers and big numbers not just 1 or 2