-
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
DeletedUser
+1 for this from me
DeletedUser102085
cap the price for sieges BUT clear the entire GvG world once a quarter. A fresh start to clean out those GvG cubbie holes on the maps that nobody can get to because they are so easy to lock up. IE: see eastern side of CE. New guilds would have a chance then and the old powerful guilds would have to stay active in every GvG age which in turn would cause a lot more action for players around 200,000 points and below players. Currently only the big boys get to play.
I know nobody likes this idea, but I think it sounds amazing.
I know nobody likes this idea, but I think it sounds amazing.
DeletedUser98433
1. A filter for attached/unattached
2. Reduce siege costs - max 500
3. Reset GvG territory every 3 months - with return of goods and troops from defending armies (GvG is far too static once territory is held).
4. Siege notification to guildies/in event log
5. No troops, no siege
6.
2. Reduce siege costs - max 500
3. Reset GvG territory every 3 months - with return of goods and troops from defending armies (GvG is far too static once territory is held).
4. Siege notification to guildies/in event log
5. No troops, no siege
6.
DeletedUser99154
I am strongly against the recommendation of making all siege costs the same. This would complete change the way GvG works for the worst and will make having sectors in all Age provinces impossible. By everyone having the ability to siege 2-3 sectors per day this would completely ruin the 'strategy' side of things as people would spend less time considering the consequences as they would be insignificant.
As T.Bert once said; "If it ain't broken, don't fix it"
Correct me if I am wrong but is there any other reason for this 'improvement' <------ LOL than "The siege costs are extremely high!".
As T.Bert once said; "If it ain't broken, don't fix it"
Correct me if I am wrong but is there any other reason for this 'improvement' <------ LOL than "The siege costs are extremely high!".
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
1) Hard cap guilds being able to monopolise maps far below them. If you have CE goods in treasury, or hold CE sectors, holding half the Iron Age map is both unfair on lower guilds and faintly embarrassing. Maybe cap 6 eras down, so a CE guild cannot place a siege in LMA or below?
2) Increase re-siege costs on any single sector within a single calc period to rise as per the current scale. So if you try and resiege the same sector 30 times, the 30th siege costs the same as taking a 30th sector, if that makes sense?
3) Newly created guilds cannot lay GvG sieges for 7 days. A GL who dissolves a guild cannot create a new guild for 7 days. Players joining a guild cannot participate in GvG for 7 days (bah, humbug!)
2) Increase re-siege costs on any single sector within a single calc period to rise as per the current scale. So if you try and resiege the same sector 30 times, the 30th siege costs the same as taking a 30th sector, if that makes sense?
3) Newly created guilds cannot lay GvG sieges for 7 days. A GL who dissolves a guild cannot create a new guild for 7 days. Players joining a guild cannot participate in GvG for 7 days (bah, humbug!)
DeletedUser98433
There are quite a few people who agree GvG is too static and does not engage junior players. Quite a few like the reset idea. A reset every 3 months and a troop pool would help a lot. As a higher rated player I could donate lower age troops like I do lower age goods for help to lower age players, farmers can donate more easily as can those without traz - engaging all players is really important.
Sp32
Master Corporal
Man, I was going to come up with some neato ideas but you pretty much listed everything.
ddevil
Chief Warrant Officer
If Inno really wants to make GvG interesting and a long playing feature maybe they should go through this forum post given out by (now forum banned) player falcon93 GUILD WARS THEORY ...he had some pretty interesting ideas there and most of it looked really nice to have it in the game .... Please have a look at it ...it was discussed much before GvG came on to beta ... he was fantasizing that the whole Guild vs Guild will be something similar to his theory ... maybe that theory needs a few changes but the basic idea was really good ..... Think that topic should be reopened for discussion for all the current members to share their ideas and suggestions based on that if Inno thinks they can work on falcon93's GvG theory ...
DeletedUser
The cost of besieging is nice, because it limits cheating and the abuse stronger leagues on smaller ones. It's a good balancing act, compared to other games, like Stormfall: Age of War, where stronger guilds/leagues can easily pray on the weaker ones, which kills the will to play to many.
I think the weakest aspect of the GvG is the notification system, to the guild members involved in a situation, and other guilds. It would be nice to get notifications when our guild besieges or is besieged. And it would be nice to see the action with other guilds.
One area that could be a MAJOR addition to the game, is to expand the Guild HQ, by making it a 'city' where the guild can build buildings from the treasury, like a city, to help the league in GvG situations only. Players could donate coins and supplies to help the guild build buildings. Most GBs could be built for the HQ, but some extra GBs could be made available through quests/achievements; for example, a GB that lowes the besieging cost in resources. ;-) A Guild Tech Tree could be built, specifically for the HQ city. Resources that could be built would be found from the sectors taken. Then implementing guild-specific quests would be easy.
To deal with Guild hopers, simple, make it a week before participating in Guild activities.
In short:
1- Better notification system
2- Guild HQ as a city that can be built
3- Guild hopers; wait a week before participating in GvG
Reck
I think the weakest aspect of the GvG is the notification system, to the guild members involved in a situation, and other guilds. It would be nice to get notifications when our guild besieges or is besieged. And it would be nice to see the action with other guilds.
One area that could be a MAJOR addition to the game, is to expand the Guild HQ, by making it a 'city' where the guild can build buildings from the treasury, like a city, to help the league in GvG situations only. Players could donate coins and supplies to help the guild build buildings. Most GBs could be built for the HQ, but some extra GBs could be made available through quests/achievements; for example, a GB that lowes the besieging cost in resources. ;-) A Guild Tech Tree could be built, specifically for the HQ city. Resources that could be built would be found from the sectors taken. Then implementing guild-specific quests would be easy.
To deal with Guild hopers, simple, make it a week before participating in Guild activities.
In short:
1- Better notification system
2- Guild HQ as a city that can be built
3- Guild hopers; wait a week before participating in GvG
Reck
DeletedUser97347
Some people don't want GVG, any chance of GVG-Lite? Too much is drained from the enjoyment of the game to support this GVG area. Green
Eden7c
Private
Those two get my vote, how about an email notification to thrusted members as a notification?
DeletedUser99692
1. I agree with all of these proposals especially that all sectors should be LZ's. Why should guilds be able to strangle areas of the map and block access to unoccupied sectors. Yes I know its a War game and this is tactics to get us all at each others throats but its wearing a little thin as time goes by. If you want us to fight then lift this stupid restriction and lets fight. Limit sieges to the edges of held territory or unoccupied sectors but open the maps.
2. A guild by definition is " An association of persons of the same trade or pursuits, formed to protect mutual interests and maintain standards" it is not one or 2 friends out to cause trouble.
3. Love the idea of a guild barracks for all of the guild to donate too similar to the guild treasury could we draw fighting troops from it too
DeletedUser
1. G v G wars are dominated by the big players, throughout all ages.
To prevent this , only allow players to fight in their empires age and 2 ages below.
Example : My empire is in the Industrial age.
I may only fight in GvG wars Industrial,Colonial and Late middle age.
This will open the game up to new players wishing to fight in GvG wars.
2. Also all seige troops must be deployed from their armies stock, NOT ghost troops.
3. Mininum of 2 guild members for iron age, 3 for EMA, 4 for HMA and so on to make it harder for ghost guilds to form.
4. CPU invasion. This is where the computer will automaticly conquer a landing sector. Then moving randomly 1 sector each day and releasing the previous sector ( At random times ). Changing the dynamics of the map. Encouraging wars between guilds that would normally live in peace side by side.
As many of these GvG maps now conquered don`t seem to change much.
To prevent this , only allow players to fight in their empires age and 2 ages below.
Example : My empire is in the Industrial age.
I may only fight in GvG wars Industrial,Colonial and Late middle age.
This will open the game up to new players wishing to fight in GvG wars.
2. Also all seige troops must be deployed from their armies stock, NOT ghost troops.
3. Mininum of 2 guild members for iron age, 3 for EMA, 4 for HMA and so on to make it harder for ghost guilds to form.
4. CPU invasion. This is where the computer will automaticly conquer a landing sector. Then moving randomly 1 sector each day and releasing the previous sector ( At random times ). Changing the dynamics of the map. Encouraging wars between guilds that would normally live in peace side by side.
As many of these GvG maps now conquered don`t seem to change much.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Some of these ideas/changes would work well on their own, some would need other modifications in the gvg mechanics so that they make sense, some of the ideas are radical or might be exclusive of other ideas... Here's my long list:
Instead of giving out *arbitrary* numbers; Where X Exists, just replace X with numbers of your choice...
Ghost guilds:
Require newly created guild to wait X days before being able to participate in GvG.
Require guilds to have X members before they can participate in GvG
Alternate idea just to put it out there: for the first X days of new guilds all sieges would cost XYZ (instert insanely high number here) goods.
Guild Hopping:
You want to ALLOW Guild Hopping for non-GvG reasons, but BLOCK Guild Hopping for GvG reasons. With that in mind:
1. Get rid of the 7 day block period for returning to your 'Home guild'.
2. INSTEAD, DO THIS: Block players from participating in GvG for X Days after they join any guild.
Alternate idea just to put it out there: for the first X days a new guild member would have no def/att bonus in GvG battles...
Siege costs:
Require all sieges to cost X Goods (I can see this CAN be a problem, unless other game mechanics are also changed... ie. land auto-releasing after X Days)
-or-
Require Sieges to cost X goods Minimum AND X goods Maximum
-or-
Require Sieges to have variable cost, NOT related to land owned, but related to the individual sector's power. For example: a sector with power 12, would cost X of each goods to siege, a sector with power 24 would cost 2*X of each goods to siege. Or something along those lines.
-or-
At the very least, if all other costs ideas are ignored, make sieges costs relate to overall (global? local?) map power and not overall number of sectors owned in this map.
-or-
Turnips? OK! How?
Static Land ownership -- Or, how to make land ownership more fluid:
First off: Would a more fluid land ownership be a good thing or a bad thing?
...If costs are reduced this idea becomes reasonable:
After X days, the sector 'reverts' to the wilds... as in: It is automatically released (whether goods are returned or not, is another issue).
Perhaps the guild HQ and the immediately surrounding sectors (those touching HQ) would be 'safe' from this?
...If costs are not reduced... well, the above idea might be problematic!
Unable to defend against repeat sieges: (Note: if fluidity is more important, then leave this issue as is)
If the various the siege cost recomendations are ignored and the siege costs stay the same, this issue *might* need addressing:
http://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/...-Popular-Ideas&p=159370&viewfull=1#post159370
Perhaps implement a siege timeout of X minutes/seconds after a defender defeats an enemy siege so the defender can swap defense troops? ...maybe...
Would that make conquering a sector difficult/impossible? ...maybe...
Ignore this issue in the interest of allowing lands to change hands more freely? ...maybe...
---
Change/improve/modify/revamp the guild member permissions.
They were created with only the guild forum, kicking and inviting in mind, as such they are currently useless in all aspects of GvG. Allow specific permissions PER ERA instead of for all ages. ie. HMA players shouldn't be able to release a PME sector! Yes, yes I know, this would add a lot of overhead on whatever storage/Database rows the current simplistic permissions scheme uses; So what?
Until that's fixed:
1. All members should be allowed to swap armies.
2. Any army that is to be put in a defense slot should only be allowed to have X Rogues (with X being certainly LOWER than 8!)
Weird, Alternate idea for the whole lacking permissions issue:
No one (YES NO ONE!!) should be allowed to swap damaged armies with fresh ones, this would certainly be interesting to watch... guilds would have to keep an eye out to add defenses after their def slot armies die by the daily resets... but if this is coupled with other changes, ie. the timeout-after-siege is broken it could work as a game mechanism... maybe.
Frankly, I am personally affected with the lacking 'Trusted' issue on all but my main city, I cannot swap armies on damaged def slots; sure, the permissions are currently lacking, and could be fixed in the future; but, what if you instead keep it that way by making it --WORSE-- by not allowing anyone to replace damaged armies. Yes, it's a thought. Silly? Good? Horendous? Ponder it...
Guild Unit pool:
I like the general sound of this idea, but I can also see potential problems with it.
1. Those units should only be used to fill defense slots and maybe sieges, not used to attack. Otherwise the more numerous and powerfull guilds can end up having large unit stocks to use for attacking (by whoever has the highest attack bonus)
2. There should be some maximum unit pool limit per Era.
3. The barracks slot where the unit originated should have a timeout period, X Hours, until a new unit can be recruited in that same slot. (this wouldn't be an issue if the unit was unattached...)
4. Guild permissions NEED to be modified if this idea is ever implemented...
Guild logs:
Yes! Please! For the sake of common sense, make the logs contain actual usable information.
Accounting of GvG bonuses:
So, this sector of mine has 35% att/def bonus, right? where does that come from? hmm?
Of my fellow guild members who gives what in the GvG def/att pool? Should the guild leaders know this info? Perhaps they would encourage them (or the guild as a whole) to upgrade some of the guild's GBs specifically if they actually had this info?
"Your Sector is Being Sieged" notification:
Once again, for the sake of common sense, the guild should be notified when one of their sectors is being Sieged.
Same for: "Your guild is now Sieging a Sector! Go Fight!" Notification.
Keep in mind that the messaging system is (still) so broken that many people ignore it entirely; so, use some alternate form of notification.
Siege replacement with fresh units:
Why are sieges allowed to be withdrawn/replaced in the first place?
Siege sniping:
If guild "Foo" Sieges a sector, then guild "Bar" should not be able to 'steal' the sector from them by placing their own siege when the defending armies are nearly dead. Make it impossible for guilds other than "Foo" to siege a sector until the daily reset.
Power varies, number of def slots should also vary?
...Should lower power sectors have less defense slots? ie 4 instead of 8? This would address the issue that the conquering guild will get less benefit from conquering this sector.
Turn off GvG for non participating guild members:
Well, it's been mentioned, and it's worth pondering... Though it would have to go both ways too: if a member is blocked from participating in GvG and bloked from getting the GvG rewards (FP in town hall) then the member's GBs should not give goods into the guild treasury or def/att bonus into the guild's sectors.
Coupled with a better logging facility to see who does and who does not contribute in GvG this could be usefull as a 'stick and carrot' approach for guilds where erm, *strong* leadership exists (see Dictators... )
Siege def bonus:
Sieges currently have 0 att/def bonus. Is that good or bad?
Bandits (mountains/rivers):
Have *all* sectors be attacked by X bandits daily (lose X health from each sector daily)
-or-
The idea of no landing zones had been mentioned, ie. guilds could land anywhere. IF such an idea was to be implemented, it should be coupled with having all sectors be attacked by bandits daily.
--------
So, A fluid GvG (with sectors auto-releasing), with different siege costs and a guild unit pool? what do you think? is that game mechanic workable for the players?
My main Guild has land in Eras we hardly participate currently, is this good? bad? Sure I like not having to bother with the Iron age map even though we have several sectors there... But is that good for the game?
Should conquered swaths of land be kept by the same guild forever?, or should a continuous effort be needed for them to be kept?
There's certainly room for changes and improvements.
Instead of giving out *arbitrary* numbers; Where X Exists, just replace X with numbers of your choice...
Ghost guilds:
Require newly created guild to wait X days before being able to participate in GvG.
Require guilds to have X members before they can participate in GvG
Alternate idea just to put it out there: for the first X days of new guilds all sieges would cost XYZ (instert insanely high number here) goods.
Guild Hopping:
You want to ALLOW Guild Hopping for non-GvG reasons, but BLOCK Guild Hopping for GvG reasons. With that in mind:
1. Get rid of the 7 day block period for returning to your 'Home guild'.
2. INSTEAD, DO THIS: Block players from participating in GvG for X Days after they join any guild.
Alternate idea just to put it out there: for the first X days a new guild member would have no def/att bonus in GvG battles...
Siege costs:
Require all sieges to cost X Goods (I can see this CAN be a problem, unless other game mechanics are also changed... ie. land auto-releasing after X Days)
-or-
Require Sieges to cost X goods Minimum AND X goods Maximum
-or-
Require Sieges to have variable cost, NOT related to land owned, but related to the individual sector's power. For example: a sector with power 12, would cost X of each goods to siege, a sector with power 24 would cost 2*X of each goods to siege. Or something along those lines.
-or-
At the very least, if all other costs ideas are ignored, make sieges costs relate to overall (global? local?) map power and not overall number of sectors owned in this map.
-or-
Turnips? OK! How?
Static Land ownership -- Or, how to make land ownership more fluid:
First off: Would a more fluid land ownership be a good thing or a bad thing?
...If costs are reduced this idea becomes reasonable:
After X days, the sector 'reverts' to the wilds... as in: It is automatically released (whether goods are returned or not, is another issue).
Perhaps the guild HQ and the immediately surrounding sectors (those touching HQ) would be 'safe' from this?
...If costs are not reduced... well, the above idea might be problematic!
Unable to defend against repeat sieges: (Note: if fluidity is more important, then leave this issue as is)
If the various the siege cost recomendations are ignored and the siege costs stay the same, this issue *might* need addressing:
http://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/...-Popular-Ideas&p=159370&viewfull=1#post159370
Perhaps implement a siege timeout of X minutes/seconds after a defender defeats an enemy siege so the defender can swap defense troops? ...maybe...
Would that make conquering a sector difficult/impossible? ...maybe...
Ignore this issue in the interest of allowing lands to change hands more freely? ...maybe...
---
Change/improve/modify/revamp the guild member permissions.
They were created with only the guild forum, kicking and inviting in mind, as such they are currently useless in all aspects of GvG. Allow specific permissions PER ERA instead of for all ages. ie. HMA players shouldn't be able to release a PME sector! Yes, yes I know, this would add a lot of overhead on whatever storage/Database rows the current simplistic permissions scheme uses; So what?
Until that's fixed:
1. All members should be allowed to swap armies.
2. Any army that is to be put in a defense slot should only be allowed to have X Rogues (with X being certainly LOWER than 8!)
Weird, Alternate idea for the whole lacking permissions issue:
No one (YES NO ONE!!) should be allowed to swap damaged armies with fresh ones, this would certainly be interesting to watch... guilds would have to keep an eye out to add defenses after their def slot armies die by the daily resets... but if this is coupled with other changes, ie. the timeout-after-siege is broken it could work as a game mechanism... maybe.
Frankly, I am personally affected with the lacking 'Trusted' issue on all but my main city, I cannot swap armies on damaged def slots; sure, the permissions are currently lacking, and could be fixed in the future; but, what if you instead keep it that way by making it --WORSE-- by not allowing anyone to replace damaged armies. Yes, it's a thought. Silly? Good? Horendous? Ponder it...
Guild Unit pool:
I like the general sound of this idea, but I can also see potential problems with it.
1. Those units should only be used to fill defense slots and maybe sieges, not used to attack. Otherwise the more numerous and powerfull guilds can end up having large unit stocks to use for attacking (by whoever has the highest attack bonus)
2. There should be some maximum unit pool limit per Era.
3. The barracks slot where the unit originated should have a timeout period, X Hours, until a new unit can be recruited in that same slot. (this wouldn't be an issue if the unit was unattached...)
4. Guild permissions NEED to be modified if this idea is ever implemented...
Guild logs:
Yes! Please! For the sake of common sense, make the logs contain actual usable information.
Accounting of GvG bonuses:
So, this sector of mine has 35% att/def bonus, right? where does that come from? hmm?
Of my fellow guild members who gives what in the GvG def/att pool? Should the guild leaders know this info? Perhaps they would encourage them (or the guild as a whole) to upgrade some of the guild's GBs specifically if they actually had this info?
"Your Sector is Being Sieged" notification:
Once again, for the sake of common sense, the guild should be notified when one of their sectors is being Sieged.
Same for: "Your guild is now Sieging a Sector! Go Fight!" Notification.
Keep in mind that the messaging system is (still) so broken that many people ignore it entirely; so, use some alternate form of notification.
Siege replacement with fresh units:
Why are sieges allowed to be withdrawn/replaced in the first place?
Siege sniping:
If guild "Foo" Sieges a sector, then guild "Bar" should not be able to 'steal' the sector from them by placing their own siege when the defending armies are nearly dead. Make it impossible for guilds other than "Foo" to siege a sector until the daily reset.
Power varies, number of def slots should also vary?
...Should lower power sectors have less defense slots? ie 4 instead of 8? This would address the issue that the conquering guild will get less benefit from conquering this sector.
Turn off GvG for non participating guild members:
Well, it's been mentioned, and it's worth pondering... Though it would have to go both ways too: if a member is blocked from participating in GvG and bloked from getting the GvG rewards (FP in town hall) then the member's GBs should not give goods into the guild treasury or def/att bonus into the guild's sectors.
Coupled with a better logging facility to see who does and who does not contribute in GvG this could be usefull as a 'stick and carrot' approach for guilds where erm, *strong* leadership exists (see Dictators...
)Siege def bonus:
Sieges currently have 0 att/def bonus. Is that good or bad?
Bandits (mountains/rivers):
Have *all* sectors be attacked by X bandits daily (lose X health from each sector daily)
-or-
The idea of no landing zones had been mentioned, ie. guilds could land anywhere. IF such an idea was to be implemented, it should be coupled with having all sectors be attacked by bandits daily.
--------
So, A fluid GvG (with sectors auto-releasing), with different siege costs and a guild unit pool? what do you think? is that game mechanic workable for the players?
My main Guild has land in Eras we hardly participate currently, is this good? bad? Sure I like not having to bother with the Iron age map even though we have several sectors there... But is that good for the game?
Should conquered swaths of land be kept by the same guild forever?, or should a continuous effort be needed for them to be kept?
There's certainly room for changes and improvements.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser100305
Hello
1. guild capital. Establish a guild capital on some sector by guild chose. In capital place guild GB. Were all guild could work to get it on high lvl. And clearly this capital can have guilds who is already over 200 days as egzisting guild. So ghost guilds or ather same groups will not have any profit from capital. Also to build guild GB spend more FP goods and athers. This will concentrate active ppl together. Plus make game more interesting.
2. Quest for whole guild. This quest only will be finished if whole guild will work together. And of course guild will get profit in diferent ways. In goods for tresury for egzample. Or if guild have a capital, then guilds GB gets "FP" or warever form it will be lvl up.
3 Alow to motivate goods buildings. Why ?! Everything here on top ages gets very slow. Slow GB leveling. Slow advance on map and ather. Lets make game more quick and more interesting. Less BORING And for active moves i think everybody agrees we need goods. More goods we get.More goods we spend.
Because as for now i have to agree and i hate to do that. But ghost guilds brings at least some activity. Some dangerous situations wich make some people move. I hate that ghost guilds is the option for making it more "dangerous" But for persons who want more sharp feelings here thats the only way.
sorry for bad english
1. guild capital. Establish a guild capital on some sector by guild chose. In capital place guild GB. Were all guild could work to get it on high lvl. And clearly this capital can have guilds who is already over 200 days as egzisting guild. So ghost guilds or ather same groups will not have any profit from capital. Also to build guild GB spend more FP goods and athers. This will concentrate active ppl together. Plus make game more interesting.
2. Quest for whole guild. This quest only will be finished if whole guild will work together. And of course guild will get profit in diferent ways. In goods for tresury for egzample. Or if guild have a capital, then guilds GB gets "FP" or warever form it will be lvl up.
3 Alow to motivate goods buildings. Why ?! Everything here on top ages gets very slow. Slow GB leveling. Slow advance on map and ather. Lets make game more quick and more interesting. Less BORING
And for active moves i think everybody agrees we need goods. More goods we get.More goods we spend. Because as for now i have to agree and i hate to do that. But ghost guilds brings at least some activity. Some dangerous situations wich make some people move. I hate that ghost guilds is the option for making it more "dangerous" But for persons who want more sharp feelings here thats the only way.
sorry for bad english
DeletedUser105549
..............................
DeletedUser14664
maybe the first 3-4-5 siege be at a certain cost, something like 100-150 goods each, to avoid ghosting, and after that they progressively increase
DeletedUser6272
some small guilds would be ruined because others ghost guild by taking away there choice of battling if they only have say 3 members of all family or friends etc.
ghost guilds is the problem with gvg so that should be the focus, stopping it i have no idea tho. maybe just outlaw it so that we can report it then get sectors back free of charge.
only thing id like is the support pool more clearer and rewards much better.
ie top 3 at every age get 10% 20% 30% of goods used back.
please no more drastic changes imo apart from ghost guilds its not broke so donot fix it.
ghost guilds is the problem with gvg so that should be the focus, stopping it i have no idea tho. maybe just outlaw it so that we can report it then get sectors back free of charge.
only thing id like is the support pool more clearer and rewards much better.
ie top 3 at every age get 10% 20% 30% of goods used back.
please no more drastic changes imo apart from ghost guilds its not broke so donot fix it.
- Status