Petition concerning GB changes update

[DeletedUser13082]

I've noticed a lot of players saying they want to "take a stand" against this update and I think the best way, without causing too much hassle, is a simple petition to show just how many people are against this idea.

Click Here to see the announcement thread in question.

Click Here to see the discussion thread for this topic.

I am not looking for new ideas or anything like that. A simple "I agree" or "I disagree" will be enough. I will then add your name to the list which you have chosen and this, in my opinion, should help to show whether this update should or should not go ahead. Also in my personal opinion, this is the sort of thing that inno should be doing themselves. We are the players, and in some cases, paying customers. We deserver the opportunity to be able to say whether an update should or should not go ahead. Our decisions should count too!

NOTE: I've added information next to some names as requested (started as a joke but all the same lol). Feel free to let me know if you would like the same done for you.

Disagree with GB changes update:
1. Death Oruon
2. ddevil
3.vlahia
4.Pzkpfwv1d
5.Huscarl
6.vossos
7.byeordie
8.mink (with reservations)
9.desypete
10.Greywolf
11.necromancer66
12.Coltfan1313 (somewhat)
13.car54
14.Hawr-nee knight
15.mrbeef
16.Sept7
17.Ggryvi
18.JohnW
19.robc999
20.fausto67
21.Praeceptor
22.pbajoyce
23.wickerhook
24.desert hamster
25.NimaV
26.wizard1001
27.igie
28.pertm
29.RitzyD
30.rogeroids
31.bmltanit
32.Rassie
33.leeroyj
34.powerrr
35.eddi1611
36.wibble
37.PFCjay
38.akbhoy67
39.Killgar II
40.Seserous Omega
41.blamage
42.fefalas
43.Farmerlynch
44.fischh
45.Zezinho
46.Lord B
47.New Maharg
48.NEPTUNE59
49.Nemulus
50.diziet
51.else
52.funstermarcus
53.Ekati
54.fermain
55.Readingcoops
56.James Henry
57.Giapman1
58.AngwyShaunce
59.Patepamore
60.Ekati
61.djpudz
62.sir dog-a-lot
63.hklbry
64.DrtyDawg54
65.Bloodandtears
67.johnnyhero
68.Whitesteel
69.lauris3722
70.Surge
71.PIESFATHEAD
72.MuffinMule
73.delacroix
74.King Lucci
75.GillT
76.PaulyP
77.Estipar
78.speedoblobb
79.Mcscrotee
80.Dralucious
81.boyington51
82.zorch666
83.SamLatoo
84.Moksha
85.buholc
86.Tudorian
87.Superator
88.alwinal
89.BRIDO
90.kendotm

Agree with GB changes update:
1.Mizar
2.Bartimaeus46
3.Micheal K.
4.cliff
5.FacetiousMike
6.naterichster
7.BestWarrior
8.der0123s
9.Billy the Fish
10.Albulus
11.Test Ament
12.Klab
13.mickyblue
14.MrDuke
15.Guptaji
16.Kelsdomain

 

[ddevil]

I disagree.

 

[vlahia]

Course I Disagree...

 

[DeletedUser15432]

I sincerely disagree and have stated my objection

 

[DeletedUser]

Disagree

I don't see this accomplishing anything though

Edit: To be clear, the thing I vehemently oppose is the implementation of GvG (which will be part of 1.20). I have seen what it's like; it's not ready.

 

[DeletedUser]

I strongly disagree.

However, if Inno were to change their plans and only implement Changelog 1.20 for balancing GvG only, then I would have no objection. As it stands now, I repeat, I strongly disagree

 

[DeletedUser1081]

I'm more disturbed by the threatened "imminent" launch of GvG in its seriously unready state, but since hamstringing the military GBs is apparently part of that, I support the petition.

Adding an attack boost to the defensive GBs is good, of course, but that could and should have been done in a way that felt like an improvement, not like a rip-off. And we should be given clear reassurance that the company has thought through the effects of these changes (eg on continental battles, pvp and the ability of newer players to participate in GvG).

The "just trust us - we see a bigger picture" approach might have worked a year ago when we were being promised "wondrous" things to do with duplicate BPs, an exciting and imaginative GvG feature, GBs that actually do what they're advertised as doing, etc ... but at this point the stockpiles of blind faith are seriously depleted.

 

[DeletedUser13805]

having given it much thought and argument i Disagree

 

[DeletedUser15501]

I agree with the GB changes. Not sure if 3% att/def is the right balance but I think it's a change in the right direction.

 

[DeletedUser4089]

I strongly agree with the announced changes.

(PS, thanks for making this agree/disagree. I was just about to get myself ready to make a petition against this petition )

 

[DeletedUser14664]

disagree

 

[DeletedUser6065]

Strongly agree. Speaking as an Old Time War-gamer (anybody recognize the name Donald Greenwood), I think I know a little about strategic games. FoE with the Great Pukers (combat versions) just ain't it. I am just sorry I wasn't at the Beer Bust where the decision to include them was made. Must have been a great one. . . . mk

 

[DeletedUser]

Definitely agree

 

[DeletedUser]

I also agree, the Dev's have far more insight to the behind the scenes stuff than we do, AND they know a) what is coming and b) what is planned, I'm pretty sure a team of developers and the management team that make the decisions would have discussed the issue at length, considering they gave us advanced warning rather than the usual changelog 3 days before the update...

 

[DeletedUser14782]

I agree with the update. Attacking is way too OP right now.-

 

[DeletedUser13082]

I have to admit, I'm actually quite surprised at the amount of players who have agreed so far. It's still early so things can still change when more people view the thread obviously but so far it seems quite equal. Time will tell.

Thanks for all the people who have given their say so far.

@coltfan, I'm not sure what your post of "lol..." indicates, if you agree or disagree then feel free to let me know.

@byeordie, hope the "(somewhat)" next to your name helps buddy :p haha

 

[Greywolf]

I strongly disagree.

 

[DeletedUser13082]

I agree with the update. Attacking is way too OP right now.-

Sorry for multiple post. This interests me a little however, have you taken into consideration how overpowered defence will become when/if this update takes place? There will be a lot of defences that will become unbeatable due to this update, basically a defence with watchfires involved becomes overpowered due to the "balancing". I'm not trying to sway a vote I'm just mentioning this due to the comment you made about attack being overpowered.

Personally I do agree that attack is overpowered but in the long run I don't see this as being the correct decision. It overpowers defence instead of attack and balances nothing, instead it just pushes the advantage in the opposite direction which in my opinion is always going to be a bad idea. Fortunately I have a very good neighbourhood, we all have regular contact and majority are strong players who have played a long time and we have agreements between us to help ourselves in personal ranking (T8 clubs/P8 club set defences for max point gain). With that being said this update won't affect me as much as some other players however the affect will still be great enough for me to consider PvP to become a useless aspect of the game. With PvP being useless I see the game as useless which is the reason for the petition

 

[DeletedUser5904]

I have to admit, I'm actually quite surprised at the amount of players who have agreed so far. It's still early so things can still change when more people view the thread obviously but so far it seems quite equal. Time will tell.

Thanks for all the people who have given their say so far.

@coltfan, I'm not sure what your post of "lol..." indicates, if you agree or disagree then feel free to let me know.

@byeordie, hope the "(somewhat)" next to your name helps buddy :p haha

The "lol" was a chuckle @ how when I was here a little over a month ago complaining about the nerf to goods producing great buildings, I may as well have been tilting @ windmills. Every argument that was made for it (mostly by the 5-10% minority of the player base that actively PVP's on a daily basis) can now be turned around against. I even referred to the fact that those kind of changes to long standing content, especially those with a premium component to them, would set bad precedent and sooner or later it would hit one of the sacred cows of PVP'ers...and now it has. The "lol" also refers to my expectations of this changing nothing. The only time I have seen Innogames make an about-face in the 19 months I have played is over the bruhaha surrounding the points recalculation about a year or so ago (which never hit the live servers as badly as it hit beta, since it was a retroactive nerf there). And yeah after being told more or less to embrace this last awful decision of nerfing the goods GB's I suppose I could hold that grudge, thumb my nose "neener neener neener" style while repeating the mantra of "consider it a challenge" lol. But I won't do that, not my style.

Now, as to the opinion of the impending update I am still on the fence. On one hand something needed to be done to balance the attack/defense system which has been heavily skewed in favor of the attacker. But on the other hand (if only on principle) I oppose changes to long standing content to make a square peg (upcoming content) fit into a round hole (existing content). And just like the last nerf and many of the other bad decisions before these they seem to reside at one end of the spectrum or the other, as if finding the middle ground is a foreign concept. If they can't be innovative enough in their development to bring us something worthwhile without breaking something else then back to the drawing board I say. For the love of gods and dogs the name of the company is Innogames, be innovative!

Diatribe over and apologies to you and the rest for it. Put me in the disagree camp with the "somewhat" caveat byeordie was given.

 

[DeletedUser]

I also disagree with the changes.