New Idea: GvG 2.0

[Droppy]

U sure Droppy?
Special Military Building reward thing for quest:
-Rogue hideout
-Champion retreat
-Colour guard camp
-Drummer school

NOT the 7-Daily-challenges-completed reward. Don't u know these things??

Yeah I missed that one. You and your brother must have been the two most lucky players in FoE ever.

Still it does not really matter. To build an Alcatraz you need 1750 goods. Even if the people in your Guild were nice enough to offer you a 2:1 trade you still had to produce 875 goods within a week. No way you were able to do that.

 

[WraithramUA]

Yeah I missed that one. You and your brother must have been the two most lucky players in FoE ever.

Lucky full stop. I found a 4-leaf clover once.

Still it does not really matter. To build an Alcatraz you need 1750 goods. Even if the people in your Guild were nice enough to offer you a 2:1 trade you still had to produce 875 goods within a week. No way you were able to do that.

Had to do 1 for 2, 2 for 4, 4 for 8... took ages... Surprised they had the patience lol

 

[Droppy]

Had to do 1 for 2, 2 for 4, 4 for 8... took ages... Surprised they had the patience lol

BS. You can directly trade 1 bronze/iron for 2 progressive goods, but no way you had the needed 750 within a week.

Same as with the Easter eggs, you just make things up, so you can try to participate. You never played GvG.

 

[Droppy]

Buddy it was 3yrs ago. I don't remember exactly, but I do know I blew all my unattached rogues

Rogue hideout was Daily Quest.And my brother got it, not me. I had colour guard,

Dig, dig, dig.

 

[Laci Flogger]

I voted yes, absolutely, for GvG 2.0.

Not because GvG was perfect. It wasn't. I voted yes because GvG gave Forge something I don't think any feature since has managed to replace: a reason for players to need one another.

GvG wasn't simply another place to rack up fights and collect a reward. It was a persistent world. Your guild could gain territory, lose territory, defend it, attack somewhere else, negotiate with another guild, supply goods, plan an offensive or suddenly discover that somebody had changed the map while you were gone.

And because of that, people mattered.

You knew the fighters. You knew the people who supplied the treasury. You knew who could organize an attack, who watched the map, who understood diplomacy and, eventually, you knew people in other guilds too. Rivals became friends. Alliances formed. Feuds happened. Sometimes the person you spent months fighting against became someone you were still talking to years later.

That was GvG.

There is history behind it that deserves remembering as well. Anwar Dalati, a Lead Game Designer at InnoGames, was integral to GvG's development. After his death in 2015, Forge honored him with the Hero's Tale memorial questline and Speaker's Corner. When GvG was finally removed, InnoGames returned to that memorial and based the Last Province commemorative building on Speaker's Corner because of his connection to GvG.

GvG mattered enough to become part of Forge's history.

One of the statistics repeatedly associated with GvG was that fewer than 5% of players participated. That number needs context.

GvG was browser-only.

At the same time, Forge was rapidly becoming a mobile game too. InnoGames reported that by 2017 more than half of new registrations were coming from mobile, and by 2019 mobile had become the most popular platform among daily active players.

Yet GvG was never brought to mobile.

That doesn't make the less-than-5% figure false. But measuring participation in a browser-only feature against a player population increasingly playing on mobile leaves an important question unanswered:

What could GvG participation have become if GvG had been developed for the platforms where those players actually were?

Instead, GvG remained behind on browser while Forge moved forward around it.

And yes, GvG had problems. Fight exchanging and ranking manipulation needed attention. If GvG returns as GvG 2.0, those systems should be reworked.

But imperfect balance is not unique to GvG.

We can see that in Guild Battlegrounds today. Highly developed accounts can reach a point where the limitations that once constrained fighting become far less meaningful. Players can produce extraordinary numbers of fights. That doesn't mean GBG should disappear because players found ways to push its mechanics beyond what was originally envisioned.

You fix the mechanics. You don't throw away everything the feature created.

That is what I wish had happened with GvG.

Because Forge today can give us more attack, more defense, another building, another event and another reward. We can make our cities stronger and our armies stronger.

But eventually you have to ask:

Stronger for what?

GvG answered that question.

You logged in because something might have happened. Your guild might need you. A sector might be threatened. Someone might need goods. An opponent might have moved.

And then there was the bell.

If you played GvG, you know what that meant. There was a time to be there, and people showed up. Someone called the bell and suddenly guild chat came alive, fighters appeared, goods moved, plans changed and people who might have been doing completely different things a few minutes earlier were together on that map.

That is the part I miss.

GvG didn't rely on the game constantly manufacturing another reward to make us participate. We pulled each other into it.

You weren't logging in only because there was something waiting to be collected. You logged in because other people were there—and sometimes because they were waiting for you.

You weren't only building an account.

You were part of a world.

Quantum Incursions came after GvG, but even InnoGames made clear that QI was a completely new feature. And that distinction matters. QI and GBG can provide guild activity, fighting and rewards, but neither recreates persistent territorial competition between actual guilds living together on the same world.

So no, I don't want the old GvG copied exactly as it was.

That is precisely why GvG 2.0 is the idea I support.

Fix the ranking problems. Fix fight exchanging if necessary. Rebalance it for today's accounts. Modernize the interface. Most importantly, build it for browser and mobile, so this time the entire Forge community actually has access to it.

But preserve the continent. Preserve territory. Preserve attack and defense. Preserve diplomacy. Preserve the need for goods and different kinds of players. Preserve the possibility that what another guild does tonight changes what your guild does tomorrow.

Because I can remember plenty of GvG battles.

What I remember much more clearly are the people I met because those battles happened.

That was what brought Forge together for me.

Not another building. Not another percentage. Not another reward.

People.

Years later, I still miss it.

And when I think about GvG, I can still almost hear that bell in the distance.

Not as a sound.

As that feeling that somewhere, somebody is calling everyone back to the map.

Bell.

Bring it home.

Give us GvG 2.0.
Official Forge of Empires GvG shutdown announcement
Official InnoGames 2017 mobile-growth announcement
Official InnoGames 2019 Forge mobile announcement
Official Quantum Incursions introduction

 

[Droppy]

In a fair assessment you would also mention how players ruined it for other players by taking out large parts of the map. One of the reasons a lot of players lost interest. You can claim the 5% to be false, but with 30% able to play GvG 5% is still rather low.

 

[Shad23]

Successor can mean replacement. The two words are frequently listed as direct synonyms.

Successor = next thing
replacement = something that replaces something
something that replaces something means it will be something that looks and feels the same way
next thing does not need to feel or look the same
not same thing at all lern your language while lerning french in french classes they tough us diference between words like big biger bigest large huge humongus
some words may seem to say same thing but are'nt
wich is the case here with Successor and replacement
they dont mean same thing in the context of the sentence

 

[Shad23]

I voted yes, absolutely, for GvG 2.0.

Not because GvG was perfect. It wasn't. I voted yes because GvG gave Forge something I don't think any feature since has managed to replace: a reason for players to need one another.

GvG wasn't simply another place to rack up fights and collect a reward. It was a persistent world. Your guild could gain territory, lose territory, defend it, attack somewhere else, negotiate with another guild, supply goods, plan an offensive or suddenly discover that somebody had changed the map while you were gone.

And because of that, people mattered.

You knew the fighters. You knew the people who supplied the treasury. You knew who could organize an attack, who watched the map, who understood diplomacy and, eventually, you knew people in other guilds too. Rivals became friends. Alliances formed. Feuds happened. Sometimes the person you spent months fighting against became someone you were still talking to years later.

That was GvG.

There is history behind it that deserves remembering as well. Anwar Dalati, a Lead Game Designer at InnoGames, was integral to GvG's development. After his death in 2015, Forge honored him with the Hero's Tale memorial questline and Speaker's Corner. When GvG was finally removed, InnoGames returned to that memorial and based the Last Province commemorative building on Speaker's Corner because of his connection to GvG.

GvG mattered enough to become part of Forge's history.

One of the statistics repeatedly associated with GvG was that fewer than 5% of players participated. That number needs context.

GvG was browser-only.

At the same time, Forge was rapidly becoming a mobile game too. InnoGames reported that by 2017 more than half of new registrations were coming from mobile, and by 2019 mobile had become the most popular platform among daily active players.

Yet GvG was never brought to mobile.

That doesn't make the less-than-5% figure false. But measuring participation in a browser-only feature against a player population increasingly playing on mobile leaves an important question unanswered:

What could GvG participation have become if GvG had been developed for the platforms where those players actually were?

Instead, GvG remained behind on browser while Forge moved forward around it.

And yes, GvG had problems. Fight exchanging and ranking manipulation needed attention. If GvG returns as GvG 2.0, those systems should be reworked.

But imperfect balance is not unique to GvG.

We can see that in Guild Battlegrounds today. Highly developed accounts can reach a point where the limitations that once constrained fighting become far less meaningful. Players can produce extraordinary numbers of fights. That doesn't mean GBG should disappear because players found ways to push its mechanics beyond what was originally envisioned.

You fix the mechanics. You don't throw away everything the feature created.

That is what I wish had happened with GvG.

Because Forge today can give us more attack, more defense, another building, another event and another reward. We can make our cities stronger and our armies stronger.

But eventually you have to ask:

Stronger for what?

GvG answered that question.

You logged in because something might have happened. Your guild might need you. A sector might be threatened. Someone might need goods. An opponent might have moved.

And then there was the bell.

If you played GvG, you know what that meant. There was a time to be there, and people showed up. Someone called the bell and suddenly guild chat came alive, fighters appeared, goods moved, plans changed and people who might have been doing completely different things a few minutes earlier were together on that map.

That is the part I miss.

GvG didn't rely on the game constantly manufacturing another reward to make us participate. We pulled each other into it.

You weren't logging in only because there was something waiting to be collected. You logged in because other people were there—and sometimes because they were waiting for you.

You weren't only building an account.

You were part of a world.

Quantum Incursions came after GvG, but even InnoGames made clear that QI was a completely new feature. And that distinction matters. QI and GBG can provide guild activity, fighting and rewards, but neither recreates persistent territorial competition between actual guilds living together on the same world.

So no, I don't want the old GvG copied exactly as it was.

That is precisely why GvG 2.0 is the idea I support.

Fix the ranking problems. Fix fight exchanging if necessary. Rebalance it for today's accounts. Modernize the interface. Most importantly, build it for browser and mobile, so this time the entire Forge community actually has access to it.

But preserve the continent. Preserve territory. Preserve attack and defense. Preserve diplomacy. Preserve the need for goods and different kinds of players. Preserve the possibility that what another guild does tonight changes what your guild does tomorrow.

Because I can remember plenty of GvG battles.

What I remember much more clearly are the people I met because those battles happened.

That was what brought Forge together for me.

Not another building. Not another percentage. Not another reward.

People.

Years later, I still miss it.

And when I think about GvG, I can still almost hear that bell in the distance.

Not as a sound.

As that feeling that somewhere, somebody is calling everyone back to the map.

Bell.

Bring it home.

Give us GvG 2.0.
Official Forge of Empires GvG shutdown announcement
Official InnoGames 2017 mobile-growth announcement
Official InnoGames 2019 Forge mobile announcement
Official Quantum Incursions introduction

you forgot preserve placement of def troops that was part of strategy in GVG

 

[Droppy]

Successor = next thing
replacement = something that replaces something
something that replaces something means it will be something that looks and feels the same way

Not always. If a minister steps down from his position the next person is both his successor and replacement. They do not look the same. If they feel the same I leave to you.

 

[Shad23]

Not always. If a minister steps down from his position the next person is both his successor and replacement. They do not look the same. If they feel the same I leave to you.

thats why i talked about context lern to read and lern what words mean in diferent contexts damn it Droppy

 

[Droppy]

thats why i talked about context lern to read and lern what words mean in diferent contexts damn it Droppy

You don't know in what context it was posted.

 

[Laci Flogger]

Shad, you're right that I didn't specifically mention the placement of defensive armies. I was thinking of that as part of defending territory and the different roles and eras involved, but defensive placement absolutely was part of the strategy and deserves to be preserved in a GvG 2.0.

On guilds controlling large portions of the map, though, I see that a little differently.

That was the point of GvG.

The objective was territorial control. If a guild had the fighters, goods, organization, defensive placement, leadership and coordination necessary to control a large portion of a continent, why shouldn't it?

And if another guild wanted that territory, they had to figure out how to take it.

Sometimes that meant bringing guilds together. Sometimes it meant diplomacy. Sometimes it meant finding the right place to attack, coordinating different eras, wearing down defenses or simply having a better GvG leader and a better plan.

That was a real fight between guilds.

It wasn't about reaching a reward threshold and deciding everyone had done enough for the round. The territory itself was what you were fighting over, and another guild was actively trying to stop you from having it.

And just to clarify the 5% point: I never claimed the less-than-5% figure was false. I specifically said it wasn't. My point was about the context behind that number.

GvG remained browser-only while Forge's player population was increasingly moving to mobile. If we're going to use the roughly one-third desktop figure as the comparison, then 5% of the total player population would not equal 5% participation within that one-third.

Mathematically, if the desktop group represented roughly 30–35% of the total population, then 5% of the total would represent roughly 14–17% of a subgroup that size.

I'm not claiming that means GvG actually had a 14–17% participation rate. We don't know enough about exactly how InnoGames defined the populations behind those statistics, and mobile-primary players could still use a browser.

But that's precisely why the platform context matters, and why simply saying "5% is still low compared with 30%" doesn't really settle the question.

My question remains the same: what might GvG participation have looked like if GvG itself had actually been available on mobile?

There certainly may be balancing mechanisms worth discussing for GvG 2.0, but I wouldn't consider a successful guild controlling a large amount of territory, by itself, evidence that the system failed.

I'd consider that a reason for somebody else to ring the bell.

 

[WraithramUA]

Lucky full stop. I found a 4-leaf clover once.

Had to do 1 for 2, 2 for 4, 4 for 8... took ages... Surprised they had the patience lol

BS. You can directly trade 1 bronze/iron for 2 progressive goods, but no way you had the needed 750 within a week.

Same as with the Easter eggs, you just make things up, so you can try to participate. You never played GvG.

Ok some brains can't learn.
Now look at Ser Proletius on Forge DB.

 

[WraithramUA]

Dig, dig, dig.

I can have unattached rogues without a rogue hideout. I just got one from Daily Challenge.
But why do I need to tell u this? U've plagued Forum for years... surely u should know what u can get in a Daily Challenge or Welcome Event?

 

[Droppy]

That was the point of GvG.

Hell no it wasn't!!

"Your guild is fighting against others for survival and power. Your goal is to expand your guild's territory and hold on to it, to level up your guild and gain bonuses and glory for all its members."

Not to make large parts of the map inaccessible!

My question remains the same: what might GvG participation have looked like if GvG itself had actually been available on mobile?

You can make an educated guess from info available. Player participation in QI isn't that high either. Guild Battlegrounds on the other hand is rather popular. Can you figure out why?

 

[Droppy]

I can have unattached rogues without a rogue hideout. I just got one from Daily Challenge.

One rogue isn't rogues. You played GvG within a week. Must have been that incredible luck of yours that gave you a rogue every day

 

[Laci Flogger]

Droppy, the quote you posted is actually what I mean by territorial control:

“Your goal is to expand your guild's territory and hold on to it.”

Under the old GvG system, territory, power and prestige were interconnected. The more successfully your guild controlled the map, the more power it had to work with, and ultimately that success translated into prestige and helped the guild climb the rankings. So if a guild had the fighters, goods, leadership, defensive placement and organization to control a large portion of the map, I don't see that as the system failing. They were succeeding at what the system was designed around.

If another guild couldn't break through them alone, that's where alliances, diplomacy and coordinated attacks came in. That was part of GvG too.

On the participation question, I agree that we can make an educated observation from the information available—we just can't turn it into a participation percentage that was never measured. GvG was browser-only while mobile had grown to become Forge's most-used platform. Had GvG been available across all platforms, its potential participating population would obviously have been substantially larger. What percentage of those additional players would actually have participated is the part neither of us can know.

And I think your comparison with GBG actually highlights one of the biggest differences between them. GBG gives players immediate, tangible incentives for participating—individual rewards, guild rewards, buildings and upgrades. Of course that encourages participation.

GvG was different. There wasn't that same cycle of individual instant gratification. You fought, supplied, defended and organized, and then you had to hold what you had until bell.

The territory was the prize.

If another guild controlled half the map and you wanted it?

Build an alliance and come take it.

 

[Droppy]

Droppy, the quote you posted is actually what I mean by territorial control:

“Your goal is to expand your guild's territory and hold on to it.”

Under the old GvG system, territory, power and prestige were interconnected. The more successfully your guild controlled the map, the more power it had to work with, and ultimately that success translated into prestige and helped the guild climb the rankings. So if a guild had the fighters, goods, leadership, defensive placement and organization to control a large portion of the map, I don't see that as the system failing. They were succeeding at what the system was designed around.

If another guild couldn't break through them alone, that's where alliances, diplomacy and coordinated attacks came in. That was part of GvG too.

You are wrong. You do not expand your territory by leaving sectors open. Same as with Battlegrounds now, the idea was for Guilds to hold as many sectors as they could. Not being top on the map by making it impossible for others to get sectors. Players found a loophole.

And I think your comparison with GBG actually highlights one of the biggest differences between them. GBG gives players immediate, tangible incentives for participating—individual rewards, guild rewards, buildings and upgrades. Of course that encourages participation.

With that you hit the reason why GBG works.

GvG was different. There wasn't that same cycle of individual instant gratification. You fought, supplied, defended and organized, and then you had to hold what you had until bell.

The territory was the prize.

If another guild controlled half the map and you wanted it?

Build an alliance and come take it.

Numbers show not many were interested in that prize. The major part of FoE is to build your city. GvG contributed nothing to that so it wasn't and isn't interesting to most players. Only the fanatics were interested in it and with the direction changes the game made, it is doubtful they still would be. If that is what you are looking for, go play Tribal Wars.

 

[Laci Flogger]

You are wrong. You do not expand your territory by leaving sectors open. Same as with Battlegrounds now, the idea was for Guilds to hold as many sectors as they could. Not being top on the map by making it impossible for others to get sectors. Players found a loophole.



With that you hit the reason why GBG works.



Numbers show not many were interested in that prize. The major part of FoE is to build your city. GvG contributed nothing to that so it wasn't and isn't interesting to most players. Only the fanatics were interested in it and with the direction changes the game made, it is doubtful they still would be. If that is what you are looking for, go play Tribal Wars.

I think I've explained where I stand on the rest, and I don't want to turn Moppy's thread into the same two people going back and forth.

But the Tribal Wars comparison is actually worth mentioning for one reason. Tribal Wars is an InnoGames game that began as a browser-based strategy game built around persistent territory, alliances, diplomacy and coordinated warfare. InnoGames successfully carried it onto mobile rather than leaving it browser-only.

That's particularly relevant here because one of GvG's biggest limitations was that it remained browser-only while Forge increasingly moved toward mobile.

So when we're talking about GvG 2.0, Tribal Wars doesn't convince me that this kind of gameplay belongs somewhere other than Forge. It shows that InnoGames already knows how to take an older browser-based territorial game and bring it to mobile.

I don't need another game to show me what this kind of gameplay could look like in Forge. I already played it in Forge. That's why I want it back.

 

[WraithramUA]

One rogue isn't rogues. You played GvG within a week. Must have been that incredible luck of yours that gave you a rogue every day

Rogues from Welcome Event.
Rogues from Daily Challenge
I had like 5 rogues Droppy. Is this clear enough for u?