• 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 in to 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:
    Apply
  • Fall Event 2021


    Calling all Bakers! Read all about the Fall Event 2021 here!
  • Forum Contests

    Do you want to win great prizes? Don't forget to check out the current contest here.

Update Update 1.36

DeletedUser99588

My comment about adaptation was in reference to removing the option to delete your HQ; this is not going to be reinstated, so adaptation to this new state of affairs is the logical choice. Yes I put forward the feedback that many players would like it back, and have linked to a couple of relevant posts on here, however I have been told categorically that this feature is not going to be reinstated. Me attempting to push the issue further will gain nothing, there is no more I can do about this; believe that I have caused a fuss, and will continue to reiterate its urgency, but I can do no more.

What is done about the feature is predominantly down to the developers/game designers. Whether this is simply the removal of the need for trusted status, or whether they choose a different method is currently the question that is being considered.
Well if that's the case we are back to them not giving two hoots about feedback given. Do they actually monitor activity in GvG because I can tell you in Brisgard it needs the kiss of life. It will spike for a while with the new map but then die of again. When your customers are telling you there is a problem it's time to listen and not the selective kind we have seen to date. They've made some mistakes with update 1.36 and need to rectify them instead of putting their hands over their ears singing 'la la la I can't hear you'.

Sorry Starzaan but you are the conduit to them because they won't lower themselves to converse directly with us.
 

DeletedUser2989

I'd also like to add that the following idea on separate GvG rights has been forwarded and the moderator team is hoping that it'll get a positive response as it should help the GvG rights issue (which is part of the problem with the current replace button):
http://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/showthread.php?24306-We-Need-Separate-GvG-Rights-PLEASE

If this goes through we'll be in a much better position to suggest other features that can replace what we used to use the delete button for (rather than reinstate it being in new features that more directly address the players needs). I'd be most interested to know what we'd still need a delete button for (after the replacing troops thing is fixed) to see if a better feature can be found and suggested (and most importantly player supported!).

(In saying that I have a somewhat poorly timed holiday starting very soon lasting just over a week, but I look forward to hopefully getting some good news when I get back and to also reading some good ideas as well)
 

DeletedUser99588

I'd be most interested to know what we'd still need a delete button for (after the replacing troops thing is fixed) to see if a better feature can be found and suggested (and most importantly player supported!).
Firstly a means of removing the HQ if it is the last sector on a map needs to be implemented. They shouldn't have messed about with the delete button until then. Seems fairly simple to me that they could just allow a HQ to grant freedom if it is the only sector owned. HQ hopping could be stopped by only allowing a sector to be granted freedom after the first clock reset from winning it.

Secondly, you would need the delete defence army button strangely enough to delete defence army. There are very few tactics or options available in GvG so this constant reduction in features available is reducing the game play. Activity levels are so poor it is hard to understand why the developers cannot see many of their changes have not been positive for the game. Time to take their heads out of the sand and to look around at what is happening or should I say not happening. The maps are gathering dust with so many guilds getting to the point where it isn't worth the effort.

The real killer of GvG was the 7 day guild lock because it allowed guilds to work together and I have never seen the maps as active since. Sorry that bit is of topic but just another change that didn't solve what it was meant to and caused more problems and reduced enjoyment of the game whether a GvG guild or not.
 

DeletedUser1081

If this goes through we'll be in a much better position to suggest other features that can replace what we used to use the delete button for (rather than reinstate it being in new features that more directly address the players needs). I'd be most interested to know what we'd still need a delete button for

I don't understand "(rather than reinstate it being in new features that more directly address the players needs)" but: There needs to be a way to delete siege armies that have been wrongly placed.

The trouble is that removing something we actively need without first implementing an Even Better Way - or at least assurance that an Even Better Way will be implemented in the nearest future - just upsets people. Inno should know that by now, they've done it often enough! :cool:

And thanatos is right that if releasing one's HQ "was never supposed to be allowed" (quoting Starzaan from memory here), then why in the world did they allow it for MONTHS while players were pointing out the giant flaws and gaps they'd left in GvG and even begging them to clarify how they envision GvG being played, since their vision of it is obviously so different from ours.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser7719

Siege armies can still be deleted as far as I know. Even if they couldn't, you're wasting goods both ways, so I don't see the point of wanting to delete one unless your planning to replace it...
 

DeletedUser99588

Siege armies can still be deleted as far as I know. Even if they couldn't, you're wasting goods both ways, so I don't see the point of wanting to delete one unless your planning to replace it...
Out of interest do you participate in GvG byeordie? Guilds that don't have the luxury of end of tree players have to think out of the box to survive in GvG. In general the developers have made it harder and harder for younger guilds with these so called improvements. My guild has not ghost guilded or HQ hopped right across a map. We don't use spies or saboteurs but we have used the delete defence on our own sectors to our advantage whether that is so we can relocate or for other tactical reasons.

The changes the developers make tend to be sledgehammer ones. They rarely achieve the desired result and almost always cause additional problems.
 

Sp32

Master Corporal
Great stuff! Can't wait, keep up the excellent work :-)

Game developers are doing a fantastic job

+1
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser7719

Out of interest do you participate in GvG byeordie? Guilds that don't have the luxury of end of tree players have to think out of the box to survive in GvG. In general the developers have made it harder and harder for younger guilds with these so called improvements. My guild has not ghost guilded or HQ hopped right across a map. We don't use spies or saboteurs but we have used the delete defence on our own sectors to our advantage whether that is so we can relocate or for other tactical reasons.

The changes the developers make tend to be sledgehammer ones. They rarely achieve the desired result and almost always cause additional problems.
I understood the problems with the replacing part for defenses. My last reply was talking specifically about sieges. It needed trusted rights before to delete AND place a siege, so why do we need to be able to delete siege armies?

EDIT: Just checked, and we can still delete siege armies. Now I'm wondering why you think I don't participate in GvG...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wournos

How can we delete armies? Several members of the guild I am in, including myself, cannot delete armies. We can replace them as long as we have 8 units selected AND ONLY if we have trusted rights.
 

DeletedUser7719

How can we delete armies? Several members of the guild I am in, including myself, cannot delete armies. We can replace them as long as we have 8 units selected AND ONLY if we have trusted rights.
I am talking about siege armies NOT defenses. Defenses need to be replaced by the new feature while siege armies still use the old way of deleting and placing a new one one top.
 

Wournos

Ok I misread. My bad.
I do hope the devs understand how absolutely idiotic this change is. It severely reduces GvG activity and puts too much responsibility on those with trusted rights and blocks out those without trust who wants to help out.
 

DeletedUser99588

Now I'm wondering why you think I don't participate in GvG...
I have no idea if you do or don't that is why I was asking the question. Your comment about not understanding why a siege army would be deleted leads me to believe you either have limited experience with GvG or more likely you are an end of tree player in a top guild that has never had to implement this tactic. The point is moot as you have already discovered you can still delete siege armies. Not sure why you do not wish to be drawn into a discussion of deleting defence armies but that is obviously your choice.
 

DeletedUser7719

I have no idea if you do or don't that is why I was asking the question. Your comment about not understanding why a siege army would be deleted leads me to believe you either have limited experience with GvG or more likely you are an end of tree player in a top guild that has never had to implement this tactic. The point is moot as you have already discovered you can still delete siege armies.
The only time we would need to implement this tactic to siege armies is when we are going to replace one. The only other time I would see this being used if you accidentally sieged the wrong sector and another guild (or the NPC) cannot finish the siege for you. You still would be able to siege another sector at that point (unless it is the landing zone in which a random player will most likely will off your siege anyways), but that would be the guild's fault, and the punishment isn't that bad imo.
 

DeletedUser1081

Siege armies can still be deleted as far as I know. Even if they couldn't, you're wasting goods both ways, so I don't see the point of wanting to delete one unless your planning to replace it...
Mercy, byeordie - of course there are situations when one needs to delete a siege army, not replace it or wait for the hex owner to kill it. Especially now when miles more members needed to be given "trusted" rights, and might do reckless things, or simply make a mistake. Yes one loses goods when one does that, but your opinion of whether or not the "punishment" is apt isn't what the devs rely on when they're implementing/devolving the features of GvG (or is it? :cool:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser7719

No one has given me a reason as to why deleting a siege army (and not replacing) is necessary. (Did I mention it already on one of my previous replies?)
Also, I forgot to mention that if you accidentally place a siege that cannot be killed (and is not on the landing zone), you could always take the sector and grant freedom to it as well.

I digress since there isn't a replace option for siege armies anyways, and I guess there's not much of a point for me to argue for it. :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser1081

No one has given me a reason as to why deleting a siege army (and not replacing) is necessary. (Did I mention it already on one of my previous replies?)
Also, I forgot to mention that if you accidentally place a siege that cannot be killed (and is not on the landing zone), you could always take the sector and grant freedom to it as well.

I digress since there isn't a replace option for siege armies anyways, and I guess there's not much of a point for me to argue for it. :p
You're absolutely right - moderators have a higher purpose than to argue with the people posting.

And I did outline reasons for deleting rather than replacing a siege, right above your post. But if that was too generalized for you: A reckless uninformed and/or less-than-sober guildmate sets a siege where s/he shouldn't, right in the middle of tense diplomatic negotiations. Use your imagination! I believe in you! :cool:
 

DeletedUser653

No one has given me a reason as to why deleting a siege army (and not replacing) is necessary. (Did I mention it already on one of my previous replies?)
Also, I forgot to mention that if you accidentally place a siege that cannot be killed (and is not on the landing zone), you could always take the sector and grant freedom to it as well.

I digress since there isn't a replace option for siege armies anyways, and I guess there's not much of a point for me to argue for it. :p

Because we now need to give trusted rights to almost every player, we have players placing sieges on guilds we have naps or even sister guilds. once we spot that, of course we want to delete the siege.
 

DeletedUser99445

Should we just start a thread in the new ideas section? Something along the line of ...... "CREATE A DELETE BUTTON" or something like that and see if it gets some support and then the moderators could forward the NEW IDEA (if gets any support) to the developers.
Just a thought. :)
 

DeletedUser7719

You're absolutely right - moderators have a higher purpose than to argue with the people posting.
I'm arguing as a player and am giving my opinion. As a moderator, I shouldn't even be arguing against replacing siege armies since we still have the delete function.

Because we now need to give trusted rights to almost every player, we have players placing sieges on guilds we have naps or even sister guilds. once we spot that, of course we want to delete the siege.
Thank you HRC, mink, and thanatos. I am only in one guild that is active in GvG, so I cannot find out all of the problems guild run into off of it alone ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser653

I'm arguing as a player and am giving my opinion. As a moderator, I shouldn't even be arguing against replacing siege armies since we still have the delete function.
Well Byordie, the forum is a much better place for having you express your players opinion and I thank you for doing this even when on the odd time I disagree with you. keep it up. :)

Thank you HRC, mink, and thanatos. I am only in one guild that is active in GvG, so I cannot find out all of the problems guild run into off of it alone ;)
WOW - Theres me thinking you were playing GVG across mutiple worlds and kicking bottoms in each of them. Most shocked :eek:

Keep up the good work in these forums even when we disagree with you.