DeletedUser16026
Starting from today, the aggressive NPCs will become peaceful and will no longer attack your sectors. Click Here
-
Dear forum reader,
To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account, you need a forum account. You can REGISTER HERE!
Please ensure a translation into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
DeletedUser15432
Well, not sure this is a good or bad thing
Good - no more daily damage to defending armies so they can only be damaged by sieges
Bad - unless the defending guild is careless all armies will be a full strength
Good - no more daily damage to defending armies so they can only be damaged by sieges
Bad - unless the defending guild is careless all armies will be a full strength
DeletedUser1302
Great idea guys. Anything that can make the attack process less strenuous on your servers will hopefully result in less problems in GvG wars. No freezes or boots would be a much appreciated. Thank you guys.
DeletedUser104940
what are NPCs?
DeletedUser14664
will border raiders do damage ?
DeletedUser100008
NPCs are Non-Playing-Characters, in this case the non-guild-owned sectors.
From the Beta discussions, Border Raiders count as NPCs and will not do damage either.
So there is no more need to constantly replace coastal DAs
I'm still undecided if this is a good or bad thing, but since it's live now I doubt any feedback is going to change anything anyway :p
From the Beta discussions, Border Raiders count as NPCs and will not do damage either.
So there is no more need to constantly replace coastal DAs
I'm still undecided if this is a good or bad thing, but since it's live now I doubt any feedback is going to change anything anyway :p
Estipar
Chief Warrant Officer
Strange.. for once I have to agree with MrBeef ;-(
This is music to the ears of the already powerful Guilds .. now they don't even have to bother topping up their already Vast Empires !!
80Tanks per sector taking 0 Damage daily .. good luck to a new Guild trying to establish a foothold in Contemporary Era !!!
This is music to the ears of the already powerful Guilds .. now they don't even have to bother topping up their already Vast Empires !!
80Tanks per sector taking 0 Damage daily .. good luck to a new Guild trying to establish a foothold in Contemporary Era !!!
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser80579
Agreed, this change will only fuel the stagnation, an end to which was one of the main points stressed in the feedback provided last year. This seems a step in the wrong direction
DeletedUser6065
I also find myself in the awkward position of agreeing with Beef.
This new 'feature' is a set-back' players who possess little if any combat bonuses that are often necessary to compete in GvG.
. . . . mk
DeletedUser7768
I can find a lot of bad words which could describe this decision.. But is will hold them for myselfe.. BAD!!!!
mrbeef
Lieutenant-General
It's ok chaps, I'm fairly sure that you haven't sold your souls by agreeing with me :p
DeletedUser914
How about that second arguement? load on servers during daily recalculation will decrease. I never calculated the time needed at 21.00 cet but in my feeling it was not 1 minute. I can wait for that.
DeletedUser97883
This change takes away one strategic level from the GvG experience. Also, this increases the importance of goods buildings in comparison to barracks. The devs might want to take a step back and see where the game is going: first, raising your GBs became the primary way to gain points, and now this. FoE is becoming less and less a game of war.
In short, while the change has some positive effects, overall I do not approve.
In short, while the change has some positive effects, overall I do not approve.
DeletedUser99588
Might be worth taking a look at this thread in beta where it has been discussed over the last week.
http://forum.beta.forgeofempires.com/showthread.php?5055-Feedback-GvG-NPC-changes
http://forum.beta.forgeofempires.com/showthread.php?5055-Feedback-GvG-NPC-changes
DeletedUser100832
Horrible.
NPC damage was one way a determined little guild could get at a big guild, by taking advantage of the latter resting on their laurels and being sloppy with replacing. Now that's removed, without as much as a consultation with the community. Of all the things wrong and broken with GvG, they decide to 'fix' something that wasn't a problem, and was actually good.
(oh, and does the fact that most heavy diamond spenders sit in big guild have anything to do with this, by any chance)?
NPC damage was one way a determined little guild could get at a big guild, by taking advantage of the latter resting on their laurels and being sloppy with replacing. Now that's removed, without as much as a consultation with the community. Of all the things wrong and broken with GvG, they decide to 'fix' something that wasn't a problem, and was actually good.
(oh, and does the fact that most heavy diamond spenders sit in big guild have anything to do with this, by any chance)?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser1032
There was a consultation with Beta community. All of the above arguments were brought up by players. Then they were ignored.
DeletedUser7768
Probably money flow decreased and they need to find to save money on servers. So its just economical point.. not to simplyfy.. They just wrap it as that.. To simplyfy means to make the GVG even more booooooooooring and passsssssssive as it is. At the end they will loose players and even more money. Wrong decisions (read stupid) lead to decrease and fail!!!
DeletedUser100832
nah, the only load on the servers was in the 90 seconds after timer. That doesn't matter. It was probably because they felt it would be popular with the big spenders in big guilds.
DeletedUser2989
I'd already given feedback in the beta thread but I've thought about it some more and have some more things to add (for reference my first post is in this spoiler):
So going beyond what this change is intended to do I've though of the impact of this change that would appear to be "unintended":
GvG - A feature really meant for guilds to fight other guilds for power, thus this change is good as it reduces the impact of NPC's that are really only needed to hold onto sectors when no one else is. So a good change in this case
Activity - As this game often values active players above less active ones this change is bad as it reduces the need for activity.
Resource cost - GvG had a fairly heavy bias to needing lots more goods than troops (the two resources it consumes), since then we've had two changes that further that bias by reducing the number of troops needed. I acknowledge that it's harder to mass troops than goods (anyone can mass goods but you need a Progressive Era GB to mass troops), so there should be a bias but does it need to be this heavy? Uncertain if this change is good or not here but it makes GvG feel like goods are more important than troops which is odd for a feature where guilds are fighting...
So overall, the change does what it's intended to do but I'd say a "simpler" GvG was not needed as it doesn't take much to learn. Other than that it has both good and bad "unintended" effects depending on what aspects you look at. This makes it hard for me to take a clear stance against or for the change. If anything this idea might have been a good one if it was being made for a better reason (like to better align GvG with it's original intent or to prepare for changes coming).
For me this means I'll tolerate the change but I'd be looking for better changes to GvG in the future.
Tankovy said:
So going beyond what this change is intended to do I've though of the impact of this change that would appear to be "unintended":
GvG - A feature really meant for guilds to fight other guilds for power, thus this change is good as it reduces the impact of NPC's that are really only needed to hold onto sectors when no one else is. So a good change in this case
Activity - As this game often values active players above less active ones this change is bad as it reduces the need for activity.
Resource cost - GvG had a fairly heavy bias to needing lots more goods than troops (the two resources it consumes), since then we've had two changes that further that bias by reducing the number of troops needed. I acknowledge that it's harder to mass troops than goods (anyone can mass goods but you need a Progressive Era GB to mass troops), so there should be a bias but does it need to be this heavy? Uncertain if this change is good or not here but it makes GvG feel like goods are more important than troops which is odd for a feature where guilds are fighting...
So overall, the change does what it's intended to do but I'd say a "simpler" GvG was not needed as it doesn't take much to learn. Other than that it has both good and bad "unintended" effects depending on what aspects you look at. This makes it hard for me to take a clear stance against or for the change. If anything this idea might have been a good one if it was being made for a better reason (like to better align GvG with it's original intent or to prepare for changes coming).
For me this means I'll tolerate the change but I'd be looking for better changes to GvG in the future.