New Content GvG Change - no more aggressive NPCs

[DeletedUser6065]

' . . . 2. Increasing goods cost at lower stages . . . '

I find this an interesting suggestion that has recently been posted a few times now. But, can somebody please reconcile this suggestion with the other (very frequently posted) suggestion of lowering the siege costs at later stages?? What exactly have you accomplished?

. . . mk

 

[Rosletyne]

I find this an interesting suggestion that has recently been posted a few times now. But, can somebody please reconcile this suggestion with the other (very frequently posted) suggestion of lowering the siege costs at later stages?

I once had an idea about that, but never posted it - why bother, when InnoGames never listens anyway?

My idea would be to introduce siege army slots, which work exactly the same way as defensive army slots. In more detail, the initial cost of opening the first two siege army slots would be exactly the same as it is now - this is necessary since the rising cost is the only thing that keeps a single powerful guild overrunning an entire map. After that, the cost of opening additional siege army slots would be the same as for unlocking defensive army slots, and if the siege is successful, any unlocked siege army slots become defensive army slots. What this means is that the attacker can have no more than 8 siege armies. Resieging should be disabled - if the siege is broken, the attacked sector enters protected status for 24 hours, during which no guild can attack that sector.

This idea is intended to solve multiple problems. Too often I have broken siege after siege, only to see the attacker replace it for a nominal cost and continue breaking our defenses insultingly slowly. The simple fact is that as long as the attacker can afford to replace sieges, defense is impossible. Having a limit of 8 siege armies is supposed to make defense feasible while not making attacking too hard. If you can't win with 8 siege armies, you don't really deserve to win the sector in my opinion.

Another thing is that this change would deal with ghost guilds once and for all. Ghost guilds would no longer be able to keep resieging for a nominal cost, instead they would have to pay the initial siege cost and 300 of all goods to unlock all siege army slots. This should be enough to make ghost guilds obsolete.

Also, this change would encourage fighting between larger guilds. Everyone thinks twice before spending thousands of goods on a siege that may not even be successful, but more guilds would be doing this if you only have to pay that much for the first siege army slots, and the cost for the remaining slots is fixed.

There it is. No let's watch as InnoGames continues not to listen.

 

[DeletedUser2989]

This thread is still being used to provide feedback to the devs about their decision to make this change (No more aggressive NPC's), so while it's nice to mention all of these various options to improve GvG we still need this thread for feedback on the change. I agree with many of you that there are far better changes that could have been made to encourage activity and reduce ghosting (or otherwise improve/balance GvG) but lets not forget that we need to relate the feedback to the topic.

So it'd be great to hear from some more people, have them add their pros/cons about the change. It's a good opportunity to provide your feedback while the devs are actually looking for it.

 

[Estipar]

My only feedback is that it further stagnates and already stagnant GvG ;-(( Dev's please make some changes that would actually improve GvG and playability and not just improve 1 Minute of performance.. the other 23 Hours and 59 Minutes is what you should be focusing on !!!

 

[DeletedUser98461]

This thread is still being used to provide feedback to the devs about their decision to make this change (No more aggressive NPC's), so while it's nice to mention all of these various options to improve GvG we still need this thread for feedback on the change. I agree with many of you that there are far better changes that could have been made to encourage activity and reduce ghosting (or otherwise improve/balance GvG) but lets not forget that we need to relate the feedback to the topic.

So it'd be great to hear from some more people, have them add their pros/cons about the change. It's a good opportunity to provide your feedback while the devs are actually looking for it.

Are they?

You say so, but I have not seen any action in the unbalanced GB issue, the Neighburhood issue..........

Why should we vaste time writing about issues when nothing is ever done against most of the large bugs which have been presented by players.

This NPC change sucks naturally like most changes made by Inno the last year!

It is so totally stupid in combination with not being able to delete the HQ that anyone playing this game for days would understand it. Maybee time for the devs to start playing the game they are slowly ruining..............as they don´t care about feedback

 

[Estipar]

The game is slowly grinding to a halt.. with every change made it becomes more and more difficult to actually play... Stop the Stupid updates and give us back our game ;(

GvG has now become a complete an utter farce !!

 

[DeletedUser99445]

The game is slowly grinding to a halt.. with every change made it becomes more and more difficult to actually play... Stop the Stupid updates and give us back our game ;(

GvG has now become a complete an utter farce !!

HI Estipar, I think that GvG was created and released and when released was found by the Dev's to be too much fun and not in keeping with the slow laborious nature of FOE.
After listening to the complaints of some people who like dull and boring, the Dev's then devoted their time and efforts to shackle GvG.
Today after much tinkering and adjusting, the GvG game is more in keeping with the nature of FOE and slowly the complaints from the dull and boring have quietened down.
Of course this is just the opinion of someone who likes fast and exciting and believe me, when I was smashing my way through the GVG mapping, I found it to be Fast, Fun and Exciting.
It Sure Isn't Anything Like That Anymore!

 

[DeletedUser16126]

This change sucks!
As a small guild we could hold some area in the mountain zone for a long time after a lot of initial fighting.
Big guilds were not interested because they had to replace the armies.
For us it was good, at the cost of replacements.
But now these sectors are ideal for the lazy big guilds. They get extra sectors where they can do their sit, do nothing and cash daily strategy.
So ridiculous to indicate that it is to make GvG more accessible. If that was the idea, then INNO should see that this change completely missed his purpose, and shall revert it.
The problem with GvG is that big guilds spoil the fun of the smaller guilds, and this change is making it much worse.
Big guilds that have tons of fighting power do not have to fight, smaller guilds that have less fighting power are now forced to fight contineously and have to be ready around the clock to keep the area that they gained. INNO is loosing track with their players, and only cares about feedback of big guilds to make them more greedy. They forget that players in smaller guilds also use diamonds to pay them. And indeed Inno is loosing this kind of players all the time...

The game is slowly grinding to a halt.. with every change made it becomes more and more difficult to actually play... Stop the Stupid updates and give us back our game ;(

GvG has now become a complete an utter farce !!

Estipar, I fully agree with you!
Many changes in the game just promote GvG to become a sit and wait game for big guilds. GvG is more boring than ever...
It's idiot to say, but I'm looking forward to the release of the second GB in TE.
If players are already looking forward to that then the game really starts sucking....!

I read that one of the reasons was that the daily calculation took too long.
Why shall the daily loosing of an army be hooked to the daily calculation?
I have no objection to spread the loosing the armies over the full day... You have 24 hours to do it.
You can even just handle it slowly sector per sector.
It will make it less predictable that's true, but it will also create more awareness.

Of course this is just the opinion of someone who likes fast and exciting and believe me, when I was smashing my way through the GVG mapping, I found it to be Fast, Fun and Exciting.
It Sure Isn't Anything Like That Anymore!

Since most liked GvG in the beginning more than now... It's maybe a good idea to flush the GvG map completely each time a new era starts. Iknow it's not worth to add this to the idea page, because the players of the big guilds that are monopolizing the game and forum will ensure the idea will be refused.

 

[Rosletyne]

What gives you the idea that the developers would listen to big guilds? I see no evidence that they would listen to anyone or anything.

 

[DeletedUser99445]

What gives you the idea that the developers would listen to big guilds? I see no evidence that they would listen to anyone or anything.

So you believe its a coincidence that the changes made in GvG have been the ones that supported the big guilds and reflected their requests?

 

[DeletedUser7719]

So you believe its a coincidence that the changes made in GvG have been the ones that supported the big guilds and reflected their requests?

Which requests would that be?

 

[DeletedUser99445]

Which requests would that be?

The ones about dropping the HQ delete, Restricting how many times the HQ can be moved.......Would you like a full listing?

 

[DeletedUser7719]

The ones about dropping the HQ delete, Restricting how many times the HQ can be moved.......Would you like a full listing?

Yes please
Restricting how many times the HQ could be moved was requested by big guilds I can agree, but stopping the HQ deletion was not requested unless it was to restrict how many times the HQ could be moved, so that would fall under the exact same category.

 

[DeletedUser5180]

I don't fully agree that all changes to gvg were actually requested from big guilds, BUT they (mostly) have favoured big guilds at the expense of small guilds.

ironically some of these changes were meant to stop the ghost, in typical INNO fashion these have not worked.

beta server is there for a purpose, to test and also gain feedback but most feedback given is ignored and due to the short time frame between a beta release and en server release then testing cannot possibly be carried out fully especially to evaluate game changes and the effect they have.

there should be a delay of a couple of months and feedback needs to be appreciated and listened to, not ignored.

 

[DeletedUser106685]

I don't understand all these complaints that small guilds don't stand a chance. It is to be expected.
When you're going up against a guild that is much richer, and has a lot more fighting power: you will probably lose. Nothing unfair about it.
People say the rules of the game need to change, so the small guilds have more chance of winning? What's that about?
What's next? Changing the rules of the next FIFA World Cup so Honduras has a better chance of beating Germany?
It's not going to happen, and it's not supposed to.
If you can't beat large guilds, then join a large guild yourself, or merge with another small guild to become stronger together.
There are many ways to accomplish your goals. Waiting for favorable rule changes is not one of them, I'm afraid.

 

[DeletedUser5180]

I don't understand all these complaints that small guilds don't stand a chance. It is to be expected.
When you're going up against a guild that is much richer, and has a lot more fighting power: you will probably lose. Nothing unfair about it.
People say the rules of the game need to change, so the small guilds have more chance of winning? What's that about?
What's next? Changing the rules of the next FIFA World Cup so Honduras has a better chance of beating Germany?
It's not going to happen, and it's not supposed to.
If you can't beat large guilds, then join a large guild yourself, or merge with another small guild to become stronger together.
There are many ways to accomplish your goals. Waiting for favorable rule changes is not one of them, I'm afraid.

i think from what i'm reading here and on other threads is that what players are actually saying is that all (if not all, then most) changes have favoured big guilds and made it more difficult for small guilds.

i don't think small guilds are asking for changes to suit them, just for future changes to stop making it harder and harder for them which seems to be the case

 

[DeletedUser106685]

Well, the thing that bothers me, is that it implies that only large guilds hold large quantities of sectors, and small guilds are all standing on the sidelines, hoping for a few leftover breadcrumbs.
This is not true. There are many examples of small guilds who managed to conquer an area of 20 sectors or more on a certain map, with only a few active players.
This change doesn't favor large guilds (ie. strong guilds with many players), it favors guilds that have a many sectors on a map. But this could just as well be a small guild with only 25 members. And for them, this is indeed a very welcome change, because there are a lot less players who can replace armies there, so it made it especially difficult to keep control of the sectors.
Now they have a better chance of fighting off 'large guilds' that come at them, because they will have more units to fight with.

 

[DeletedUser99445]

Well, the thing that bothers me, is that it implies that only large guilds hold large quantities of sectors, and small guilds are all standing on the sidelines, hoping for a few leftover breadcrumbs.
This is not true. There are many examples of small guilds who managed to conquer an area of 20 sectors or more on a certain map, with only a few active players.
This change doesn't favor large guilds (ie. strong guilds with many players), it favors guilds that have a many sectors on a map. But this could just as well be a small guild with only 25 members. And for them, this is indeed a very welcome change, because there are a lot less players who can replace armies there, so it made it especially difficult to keep control of the sectors.
Now they have a better chance of fighting off 'large guilds' that come at them, because they will have more units to fight with.

The reason why small guilds sometimes have many sectors is the big players from big guilds jumping into small allied guilds and setting up the small guild with lots of strategically placed sectors and then jumping back to their original guilds.
Alliances are a far bigger problem than ghosts at this stage of the game.

 

[DeletedUser106685]

It happens, sure, but it's not an absolute truth.
You make it sound like small guilds can only have many sectors if they borrow players from a large guild, and that they can never accomplish that by themselves.
Some guilds really do accomplish it on their own, you know.

 

[DeletedUser99445]

Only in the very low ages!