how to stop the stalemate in gvg

[DeletedUser]

guild v guild needs a major overhaul

How does expanding the avaliable area to take enable guilds to prove their skill? doesn't that just enable guilds who can't handle taking on other guilds to take on more NPC's. Lets face it the NPC's are no challenge to take out it's the other guilds, so by making more sectors your avoiding the challenge.

The answer is to get rid of the goods all together and make it more guild versus guild that way fights can take place more frequently . Then to allow more guild participation forget the different era maps and just have one big map , when one guild challenges another the eras covered by each guild can be fought in and the smaller guild sets the limit of participants by the size of their guild . So for example guild A has 65 members covering all ages , guild B has 39 members and only covers ages from iron to progressive, so the fights that take place are 39 and only take place in those eras that way all more of the guild get a chance to fight and if all Gb bonuses are turned off it makes it a level playing field for all guilds what ever the size . This would mean more wars , many different winners and an active map . Remove all NPC's as they are a complete waste of time and bring back the skill of pvp without gb bonuses and lets see who fights the best across the ages

 

[DeletedUser96867]

@ rtyrolia what you are suggesting is a complete different concept, and i really don't understand how it would work.

 

[DeletedUser2989]

@ rytrolia, I don't think that idea would really work. Removing the goods cost would increase the number of attacks but means those with the most soliders will dominate the maps and this would reduce participation in GvG as the only thing holding back the top guilds from owning everything is the goods cost.

If you restrict GvG to being a set of "challenges" between Guilds I can see several problems. When the map is set to "any age allowed" the only troops people will use is the latest meaning ME players would be able to own everything. If you guild A and guild B are challenging eachother what happens if guild B doesn't have the troops to fight 39 battles or not all 39 members are active? What if guild B was replaced by a 10 man or a 1 man guild? What if guild A is full of people in ME and guild b is full of people in the PE? Without NPC's who owns the sectors before we get there or is it simply first there gets free power?

Not sure if you have fought in GvG but even with both sides having GB bonuses you still need skill to win some of your battles, sure some battles some people might be able to autobattle and not care about skill but people would be able to do that without GB bonuses.

 

[DeletedUser102241]

The same top few guilds (with all players in the most advance eras) are controlling nearly all sectors on all the GVG maps (all ages / eras). This cannot be the intention of the FoE developers – excluding all but the very top players from this important game feature.

The following game changes should correct this imbalance and improve the gaming experience for all players.

1. A guild can only fight / control sectors on one GVG map at a time.

2. At higher ages, bonuses are very significantly higher, encouraging more advanced guilds to compete in more advanced GVG ages.

3. A guild can “quit” a GVG map to advance to a higher age map. The guild keeps all the bonus and awards from the lower age map, and the guild gets a “refund” of sector goods to their guild treasury (current age goods are exchanged with next age goods at a 4 to 1 ratio).

4. Global guild rankings should be based on a combination of the current GVG prestige points and a new point system that accounts for the points of all guild members.

5. A Modern Era map should also be developed, and maybe even an “All Star” map or a “Cross World” map, so the top guilds can battle against other top guilds. But less advanced guilds can also compete against other guilds at a similar level, improving the game experience for everyone.

This is not complaining about being “unfair”, this is about improving the gaming experience for all players. It is clear that FoE makes money from the big spending top players, but the game must have competitive balance for enjoyment of all so that newer players will want to continue to play and advance and spend money.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

The following game changes should correct this imbalance and improve the gaming experience for all players.

Spoiler

1. A guild can only fight / control sectors on one GVG map at a time.

2. At higher ages, bonuses are very significantly higher, encouraging more advanced guilds to compete in more advanced GVG ages.

3. A guild can “quit” a GVG map to advance to a higher age map. The guild keeps all the bonus and awards from the lower age map, and the guild gets a “refund” of sector goods to their guild treasury (current age goods are exchanged with next age goods at a 4 to 1 ratio).

4. Global guild rankings should be based on a combination of the current GVG prestige points and a new point system that accounts for the points of all guild members.

5. A Modern Era map should also be developed, and maybe even an “All Star” map or a “Cross World” map, so the top guilds can battle against other top guilds. But less advanced guilds can also compete against other guilds at a similar level, improving the game experience for everyone.

I don't see how this helps against the big guilds attacking sieges...
and I still don't think this would encourage more guilds to fight each other either.

 

[DeletedUser4879]

I play in 3 worlds and this GvG has ground to a halt in all of them!
Whatever is suggested here is more or less useless ' cause Inno
doesn't seem to be interested what Players have to say about it!
I've read several forums and all say the same!
Maybe the Easter Event will bring some changes and the
latest GB which is very expensive to build! So it's back to square
one....

 

[DeletedUser2989]

@ stoag, I've replied to most of those points in a different thread you started but noticed a 5th point that was missing from the other. A modern era exculsive map would be pointless as it is not the final age and I'm not sure a cross world battle map is possible, it's an interesting idea but is really no different from just sugguesting a merging of worlds to increase the number of people in one GvG map.

You discussion about competitive balance I think is important but somewhat seperate from the current stalemate issue where large guilds are sitting around doing little but build up troops and making it impossible for people to take their sectors.

Pisepampel, I disagree with you, Inno listened when players begged to have the delete function remain when they were going to remove it. Inno can read all of what has been said and our feedback can be important but it will only work if many people voice support for a fix or a change. Many are voicing their disappointment about GvG and Inno is working hard on making changes, in itself proof that players do matter. Our hope with threads like this (and those in the ideas section of the forum) is that our ideas may influence some of the upcoming fixes.

I see slight improvements coming with the next 1 to 2 updates (including easter). The additional goods from the observatory will be handy but only if many people get it, I can't see many building the new GB (I doubt I will). I hope for more improvements to GvG, something with a greater impact, but as with all things it will take time

 

[DeletedUser102241]

@sergeant
I'm glad you like football analogy, but you completely miss the point. It's not that all teams should start in the bottom league again. The problem with GVG is that Premeire League teams are playing and dominating Conference North and Conference South. Why are guilds packed with 1,000,000+ point players competing in the Iron Age map? Does Colwyn Bay have a fighting chance against Man Utd. NO! That's why they play in different leagues. But in GVG, the same top guilds dominate all the maps, and the lower level guilds can't even get their teams onto the pitch.

 

[DeletedUser102241]

@Tankovy
Thanks, I saw your other reply and followed your link here.
Indeed, my issue is with the competitive ballance and the top guilds holding all the sectors on all the maps. But, I think fixing the competitive balance could also help with the stalemate issue. New guilds effectively entering the maps, and guilds leaving a lower map to move to a higher map, would in itself cause more action, at least at the lower map levels.

 

[DeletedUser96867]

Likely how new guilds will get a foothold on the map is when other guilds completely lose interest in gvg. I suspect that might happen once a number of the midrange guilds reach level 10 and start getting 1fp a day. If they take the time to do the math and realize it'll take them another 12 to 18 months at their current rate to reach level 18 to get their 2fp/day i suspect they will defend their sectors less and less when they realize 1)The rewards really aren't worth the effort 2)it becomes a daily chore to check the map and replace damaged armies =3) it really isn't very fun

I agree with what Pisepampel said above. In 5 months i haven't seen one shred of evidence to suggest INNO has any interest in trying to fix the problems with gvg, nor that they have any idea those problems even exist.

 

[DeletedUser]

when initially discussed GvG, it was suggested you could develop your sectors as well as conquer. an element of turn over could be guild wide development of a sector ( add ornements, defence that need maintenance, or welfare, or a governor who needs an income , civilservice , and police whall of which could have development attributes) and link time without change to a build up of unhappiness. As the overall empire gets bigger with higher levels of players(increased inequality to base level players) the chance of secession increases and unhappiness in adjacent sectors should link together either increasing overall unhappiness or if one sector revolts all surrounding unhappy sectors follow. There would need to be balancing rewards because more work would be involved in GvG. It would also increase complexity which may involve some more and turn off others. This also increases developer costs, but GvG is a separate bolt on looking at the code so release cycles do not have to follow the main game. Mostly I would favour creating more diffuse work in having a large sector count and if it can be made, less chance of one or two high powered individuals doing everything with the rest of the guild an audience.

 

[DeletedUser2989]

I'd think adding a "development" part to GvG would be interesting but I doubt it would do anything about the stalemate some people are seeing in GvG. Personally I like the idea, I just don't see it encouraging fighting between guilds which is what GvG is supose to be about.

 

[DeletedUser]

As large guilds lose peripheral areas to NPC's their attention is diverted also the need to maintain happiness takes time and resources. We only have to look at the hundred years war in Europe for inspiration. formalise treaties, create agent provocateurs guilds can use clandestinely to undermine another's sector anonymously or flying false colours. look at ww1 the treaties were used by a small power serbia to push the whole of Europe into conflict. from which the German,French,Italian and British empires never recovered. My suggestion introduced unhappiness as a method of allowing sectors to be removed from a guild. there are a lot of potential applications of that method once it is installed. if it is left flexible it also allows game development sideways rather than linearly. we are already post modern ( not to much Dali in the graphics tho) then post structural, then post industrial then .... the amount that INNO have invested in the game means they need to maximise its life without it becoming stale.
Sorry for such a long post

 

[DeletedUser1081]

Before it was unleashed I was really hoping GvG would entail developing the territory somehow. It would certainly make it a lot more interesting.