DeletedUser100832
same here. Except it wasn't 4 hours, it was 15.
-
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:
- Status
same here. Except it wasn't 4 hours, it was 15.
Galladhorn
Monarch
GvG Map Suggestions
1) Make the GvG Map cloud animation optional in Settings, like with other animations. GvG is the part of the game that seams to stall the most.
2) I'd like a Guild Unit pool.
1) Make the GvG Map cloud animation optional in Settings, like with other animations. GvG is the part of the game that seams to stall the most.
2) I'd like a Guild Unit pool.
Last edited:
DeletedUser15425
just something that popped into my mind tonight - it might be nice to be able to see who allies are and who aren't. - visually, on the map, and in a guild's profile. meaning, for example, if enemy sectors are red, the guild's own are green, the sister guilds/allied guilds could be blue... that of course means a guild would be able to enter who their sister guilds/allies are in their profile and this info would then be taken over to the GvG map
DeletedUser15425
not sure if this has been suggested - but how about better highlighting attached and unattached units? when a player has many unattached ones, it is hard to find the attached ones by just looking for their orange ribbon... maybe make them stick out with a different background - just like those that are in the defense army are blue.
or - as a guild mate just suggested - simply highlight the ATTACHED troops and leave the unattached ones without the stripe. it would be much easier that way, when players have alcatraz and thus many unattached ones.
or - as a guild mate just suggested - simply highlight the ATTACHED troops and leave the unattached ones without the stripe. it would be much easier that way, when players have alcatraz and thus many unattached ones.
DeletedUser101441
Changes that should be implemented:
1)as suggested before, ghost guilds should be deterred further via having a minimum requrement of members(ie 10), time they had to have been in existence(id say a week/7 days) before being allowed to join in gvg and also any new members to join should also have a 7 day cooldown before being able to partipicate to stop those jumping between different shadowguilds. Also the cost of the very first siege should be a bit higher, as suggested 20-30goods, then level out later on. Any normal player would not have any problems with these implements. I would NOT cap the max cost of sige, as said that is one of the few things stopping from a single guild conquering all the maps. All of these put in one as they all have the same purpose-stopping shadow/ghost guilds.
2) this too has been suggested, all your units should be sorted alphabetically, as this will sort them via type, then attached status automatically without needing any extra "filters", but itd be also great if it then sorted via remaining health aswell.
3) it is a good idea to have a log for donated goods and troops, also mentioned somewhere. As i dont generally use the forums, i do not know how to link stuff besides replying with quote, but thatd be only one point then.
1)as suggested before, ghost guilds should be deterred further via having a minimum requrement of members(ie 10), time they had to have been in existence(id say a week/7 days) before being allowed to join in gvg and also any new members to join should also have a 7 day cooldown before being able to partipicate to stop those jumping between different shadowguilds. Also the cost of the very first siege should be a bit higher, as suggested 20-30goods, then level out later on. Any normal player would not have any problems with these implements. I would NOT cap the max cost of sige, as said that is one of the few things stopping from a single guild conquering all the maps. All of these put in one as they all have the same purpose-stopping shadow/ghost guilds.
2) this too has been suggested, all your units should be sorted alphabetically, as this will sort them via type, then attached status automatically without needing any extra "filters", but itd be also great if it then sorted via remaining health aswell.
3) it is a good idea to have a log for donated goods and troops, also mentioned somewhere. As i dont generally use the forums, i do not know how to link stuff besides replying with quote, but thatd be only one point then.
DeletedUser
perfect - all I would add, is to this is something that effects PvP and GvG - add a tick box in units select screen for attached and unattached units, particularly in GvG when your looking for the attached units to donate to defence, so a tickbox for each please
DeletedUser1081
-1 from me! But I don't understand why people (and mods :cool
are posting all these +1/-1s. In the post launching this thread Starzaan asked each of us to post the 3 main changes we want to see in GvG. But if it's supposed to be a discussion thread instead: The present system allows demolition guilds to set nonstop sieges with virtually no costs, while their targets have no way to retaliate because their siege costs are too high. That's why many people strongly support changing this aspect of GvG.
+1 x2, but regular resets would only work if siege costs are radically lower (and some way is devised to reimburse investments in the current ill-thought-out form of GvG)
+1! See my post on page 1!
+1 Something more imaginative than monotonous fights with the AI over hexes please!
DeletedUser
-1 from me! But I don't understand why people (and mods :cool
probably because some of us Mods not only have an opinion but are also Guild Founders and we are as entitled to voice an opinion as anyone else who has done so.
DeletedUser4879
Very good idea!! Points given for GvG fights should have their own Champion tower!!!
DeletedUser101441
AND, forgot to add, definetly, DEFINETLY readd the cost of the army for each siege. Dont know why they ever removed. I thought it was a bug fr a long, long time.
DeletedUser97349
Great ideas so far, keep them coming, and yes feel free to vote for other suggestions if you like them. Below I have a quick count of all ideas which have 2 or more supporters so far - I have left a couple out such as changing the GvG rights system and changes to logs, as these have already been put forward. If I've left anything out feel free to PM me.
| Proposal | Support |
| Unattached unit filter | 15 |
| A cap on siege costs | 13 |
| Improved siege notification | 12 |
| Restore siege unit cost | 11 |
| Minimum no of guild members for GvG participation | 10 |
| Automatically reopen sector options after battle | 10 |
| Fixed siege costs | 8 |
| Minimum time after guild creation before it can participate in GvG | 6 |
| Guild Unit Pool | 6 |
| GvG mode – ability to deactivate GvG (also disabling any guild bonuses) | 6 |
| Implement minimum siege cost | 4 |
| Make all sectors LZ | 4 |
| Minimum time after joining a guild before a player can participate in GvG | 4 |
| Reset maps | 4 |
| Improve final battle of a siege | 3 |
| Time delay after deleting siege before sieging again | 3 |
| Bronze Age map | 3 |
| Limit the ages advanced players can participate in | 3 |
| Expand HQ with greater guild options | 3 |
| More LZs | 2 |
| Guild treasury trading | 2 |
| Develop aggressive NPCs | 2 |
| Separate GvG points from PvP | 2 |
DeletedUser
+1 for GvG Mode, Guild Trading and anything related to killing Ghost Guilds
DeletedUser105565
1) Each player should get a kick back for participating in GvG. As much as we'd like us all to be team players, players can get much more from plundering neighbors in goods instead of wasting troops in a prestige rank system. I do enjoy our rank system and I do participate in team efforts, but always in the back of my head I know what is more efficient. Also other players I have ran into have voiced a huge disappointment in not being able to start sieges and feel they would be wasting their time as they don't see any kick backs besides helping some other persons guild out. Kick backs for participation would not only squash this mentality, but it would promote a higher level of cooperative playing.
2) I agree that our treasury designed for GvG should be opened up for trade. Allowing a guild treasury trade option will help guilds get the goods they need for all types of sieges, offense/defense in the proper eras as per the guilds members population for more specific eras. With greater control of a guilds goods the leadership will be able to have more control over when sieges can take place and the types of goods coming in for the proper eras the guild wishes to participate in.
3) An increase in NPC assaults. With guilds being less active in an era map, it would be nice to see an increase in NPC take over. If the assaults were at least doubled from NPCs it would keep the players on their toes. Players would need to more actively check the GvG map, keep tabs on their sectors. With NPCs wiping out the inactives a big faster, the active guilds in each era will find it more thrilling to not only take over more sectors, but they will get to see who is active, who is not, and then some interesting battles could take place as actives reach each other.
Deevaun, The Black Market, EN.Jaims.
2) I agree that our treasury designed for GvG should be opened up for trade. Allowing a guild treasury trade option will help guilds get the goods they need for all types of sieges, offense/defense in the proper eras as per the guilds members population for more specific eras. With greater control of a guilds goods the leadership will be able to have more control over when sieges can take place and the types of goods coming in for the proper eras the guild wishes to participate in.
3) An increase in NPC assaults. With guilds being less active in an era map, it would be nice to see an increase in NPC take over. If the assaults were at least doubled from NPCs it would keep the players on their toes. Players would need to more actively check the GvG map, keep tabs on their sectors. With NPCs wiping out the inactives a big faster, the active guilds in each era will find it more thrilling to not only take over more sectors, but they will get to see who is active, who is not, and then some interesting battles could take place as actives reach each other.
Deevaun, The Black Market, EN.Jaims.
DeletedUser97551
1) Let people play FoE when they have time, a bit like chess. FoE is very intrusive in ones life, in a bad way. Don't use 24hours cycles, but a bit shorter ones. Presently, it is not possible to play FoE always at the same, convenient time, because the collection takes few minutes and the collection time keeps moving. Very annoying.
2) Many people play FoE because they like to build the city, grow through the times, explore/battle on the map. Remove plundering: It frustrates unnecessarily the weaker (new) players.
3) Most time consuming activities in FoE are utterly stupid, like polivating others. Performing the same meaningless clicks for years every day is just not something enjoyable :-(
2) Many people play FoE because they like to build the city, grow through the times, explore/battle on the map. Remove plundering: It frustrates unnecessarily the weaker (new) players.
3) Most time consuming activities in FoE are utterly stupid, like polivating others. Performing the same meaningless clicks for years every day is just not something enjoyable :-(
DeletedUser101441
does this support take into account the ones AGAINST it? capping siege costs is definetly a bad idea and i see quite a few posts mentioning being against it, as itd only help the already overly large guilds.
Last edited by a moderator:
Galladhorn
Monarch
Attached/Unattached Units / Orange Stribes + numbers
Well that certainly is an issue with Alcatraz and heaps of units so a good idea with the reversed highlighting Attached/unAtt.
In addition it would also be very helpful to show the various units available in numbers.
Well that certainly is an issue with Alcatraz and heaps of units so a good idea with the reversed highlighting Attached/unAtt.
In addition it would also be very helpful to show the various units available in numbers.
DeletedUser105565
I think the only way to fight bad ideas is to post good ideas and get others to back you up.
DeletedUser101441
in reply to the table, my votes are as follows
+1 to unit attached/unattached sorting, though as i said, simply sorting by alphabet will do the trick there, but also would be good to sort via health aswell.
-1 to capped sieges as itd only help the already overly large guilds, id give -100 if i could
improved siege notification may be good in some ways, may be bad in others, but i think in the end id have to vote against it as this is what gives the battles an element of suprise, and, against 80 battle sectors, is well needed. So -1 there.
Restore sige unit cost +1, defiently, dont get why it was ever removed. Mainly helps ghost guilds if theres none.
minimun nr of members for gvg +1
auto open sector options, 0/neutral.
fixed siege costs, no way. -1.
time delay before guild can patipicate in gvg +1 also id say time delay before a freshly joined member can do gvg, as otherwise it wont stop shadowguilds as they can have 1 member keeping the guild alive while others do the hopping..
Guild unit pool +1
GvG mode-dont see the point of this, UNLESS the ones WITH the gvg mode also get the bonuses of the turned ff member somehow, but i do not see how this could be executed. 0
Min siege cost +1
All sectors Landing zone. Has both its pros and cons. I definetly think there should be more of them to avoid these very large well-secluded areas, but im not convinced all of them would be the right way to go. maybe all boarderline sectors(also ones boardering rock?) Dont know. 0.
Min time after player can partipicate in gvg +1, defiently. Thatd do what the 7 day cooldown to return was SUPPOSED to do
Reset maps? dont know. Not an entirely bad idea, but thatd take completely redoing gvg alltogether. no vote. 0
Improve final battle of a siege? Not entirely sure what its referring to, but, definetly on the rest of the battles you shouldnt get the same one as someone else and in the last one, units should be healed if was completed by someone else. In that case +1. If its referring to having options to finish battle anyways, 0, no vote.
time delay after siege for resieging? -1. thatd make it next to impossible for anyone to claim any sectors.
Bronze age map +1, dont see why not
Limit ages advanced players can partipicate in -1. BUT i DO agree there should be some limitation for advanced players dominating/having too much of an advantage. SO how about a person can use a maximum of the equal amount of att/def boost as the hqs have in the same age?(usable boost capped per age accordingly) ALSO the auto battle should be a bit more intelligent, like the autobattles when fighting for sectors. MEANING for armys containing mostly rouges the units attack the other unit first? Gives fairer grounds in battles and stops these silly 1 unit- 7 rouge armied autobattles.
Expand HQ-not sure, so 0.
More LZ-s +1, add to some restricted areas especially
guild treasury trading +1
Develop agressive npcs -1
Separate gvg from pvp. neutral/0.For me personally gvg is my way to do pvp, i do not like fighting neighbors, and i dont really see why itd have to be separate.
DeletedUser101441
i dont think thats right, i think both votes FOR and votes AGAINST should be counted. Might avoid some really stupid mistakes. As simply posting good ideas wont do anything for your being against another opinion that may ruin the game for you and many many others.
DeletedUser101085
I have 2 ideas:
Improve how the GvG map look, it now looks very primitive with the hexing look.
To solve the problem of big guild monopoly too much in earlier map, limit the Age one can fight in up and down 2 Ages, for example you are in CA, you can only fight down to LMA&HMA and up to InA&PE. A guild with a lot of high level members would most likely have all the high level attack GBs will dominate lower maps with their attack bonus.
Improve how the GvG map look, it now looks very primitive with the hexing look.
To solve the problem of big guild monopoly too much in earlier map, limit the Age one can fight in up and down 2 Ages, for example you are in CA, you can only fight down to LMA&HMA and up to InA&PE. A guild with a lot of high level members would most likely have all the high level attack GBs will dominate lower maps with their attack bonus.
- Status