• 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
  • Forum Contests

    Don't forget to check out the current contests here.

Update Update 1.36

DeletedUser2989

The problem with the current feedback system to developers is it is being decided by the CM team who will be biased by their own experiences in the game and their guilds. Quite often these are high ranking players who may not see the problems lower ranking players/guilds face.
The developers also read through the forums themselves, so it'd be hard (pretty much impossible) for the CCM's/CM's to blind the developers to particular concerns raised by the player base.

I have been amazed at how the delete button being returned has been dismissed completely although many on this post called for it be reinstated. Are Inno unable to admit to making a mistake. Do they lack the humility to do so or is it that the CoM team do not want it returned. We can never know as players because Inno do not engage with us directly.

Shocking really how little credence they give to their customers.
The CCM's/CM's may have their own opinions about the delete button, however the decision to not reinstate it came from Inno. At this point in time Inno doesn't want to make it possible to delete defensive armies, probably because new things they are working on will render bring it back pointless (unfortunately I can't be sure).

With regards to the delete function that was removed, it would seem to me that other solutions can be found for the problems caused by removing it. For example an idea to enable the release of the HQ when it is the last sector of a province would most likely gain support from lots of players and could be accepted by the devs. There are other problems of course but the HQ thing was just the first thing that came to mind.
 

DeletedUser99588

With regards to the delete function that was removed, it would seem to me that other solutions can be found for the problems caused by removing it. For example an idea to enable the release of the HQ when it is the last sector of a province would most likely gain support from lots of players and could be accepted by the devs. There are other problems of course but the HQ thing was just the first thing that came to mind.
I agree with the implementation of the HQ being able to be released if last sector but that doesn't help me reduce the defence armies in one of my sectors should I choose to do so. It would be nice to have some control even if you couldn't delete the last defence army.

However you look at it they shouldn't have removed the delete button until they had implemented other features to cover things lost by its removal. Shows a total lack of understanding of how the game is played or just a lack of respect to the players.

As someone else has already mentioned maybe it is time for Inno to share their vision of GvG because from what I can see reading the forum it seems to be at odds with many of their customers.
 

DeletedUser97349

Tracey, our Community Manager, does not play the game, and therefore is not biased in any direction. It is necessary however for there to be someone at CCM level who plays the game in order for issues which require in-depth game knowledge to be addressed.
 

DeletedUser5180

Thanks for the info and amazingly I have 3 side quests and no main quest line which means the Princess didn't come back into the picture after I moved from PME to CE
Anyway I shall look for the other post. I figure if they already know about it no need to send them too many tickets
Had you definitely finished the PME quest line, ie were you getting 3 looping quests before the CE release?

Perhaps you could submit a screenshot of the quests you currently have
 

DeletedUser99588

Posts #238, 239, 240 and 244 are completely off topic and I'm surprised that they haven't moved them to the 1.37 discussion. Especially as a Mod and CCM have commented after the first 3 of those posts.

lol, normally your on the ball guys your slacking today :p

Feel free to delete this post once you get round to moving them :)
 

DeletedUser2989

Post 239 directed that conversation towards the right thread so it wasn't so bad, hopefully any more CE talk will go to the 1.37 Update feedback thread :)

That is to say, no more CE talk here please it it more relevant in this thread.
 

DeletedUser99588

Well we have seen update 1.37, 1.38 and now 1.39 and still no action with regards to sorting out the mess removing the delete defence army button has introduced. It is shameful that functionality has been removed without first introducing an alternative option. If the developers goal is to reduce involvement of smaller, younger guilds in GvG then job done. You have left a glaring hole in the game allowing HQ's to be stranded without a means by the owning guild to remove it and try again.

Has this stopped ghost guilds? NO! In fact ghost guilds are the ones it doesn't effect because they just dissolve the guild and start again with a new guild. It has gone beyond a joke now. Why didn't the developers just make it so you cannot delete the last defence army of a sector unless it is the only sector remaining? Job done. You limit the ability of saboteurs to release sectors through the delete defence method and you still have a means of relocating on a map if needed. Which I can assure many new guilds do when trying out GvG. I'm in favour of keeping the replace army feature as well as I do think that brings additional options to the game.

So many changes seem to now be aimed at making the strong stronger that although the developers are reluctant to share their vision for the game it is becoming clear they are not interested in new players in existing worlds. Just living of the flash of diamond sales when a new world is launched.


Post 239 directed that conversation towards the right thread so it wasn't so bad, hopefully any more CE talk will go to the 1.37 Update feedback thread
For all those that have had posts removed or edited due to being apparently of topic will be wondering why it is now considered acceptable. Maybe your allowed to go of topic as long as you post a link to a relevant thread. Something to remember for the future. Seriously though this just gives merit to the belief some players are more rigorously moderated than others.