Update Update 1.36

[DeletedUser13082]

Sorry electricrainbows et al, I'm missing something - have ideas to stop ghost guilds got something to do with the 1.36 update? The replace-army issue wasn't to stop ghost guilds, it was to stop saboteurs - entirely different issue.

It was first suggested as a way to stop ghosts, albeit a broken fix, because it stops players being able to drop the HQ sector. The "saboteur" issue was "fixed", again another broken fix, by making players need trusted rights to delete armies, prior to GvG being released from beta. So it's actually aimed at both issues.

 

[DeletedUser1081]

We do need the Separate rights Mink

Yes, we do. The idea proposed way back in February is currently under further discussion:
http://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/showthread.php?24306-We-Need-Separate-GvG-Rights-PLEASE

It was first suggested as a way to stop ghosts, albeit a broken fix, because it stops players being able to drop the HQ sector.

All a ghost guild needs to do is dissolve and form a new guild. Voila, no more HQ. Replacing armies instead of deleting them has no effect on that. If you mean HQ hopping, that's still another issue

 

[DeletedUser13082]

All a ghost guild needs to do is dissolve and form a new guild. Voila, no more HQ. Replacing armies instead of deleting them has no effect on that. If you mean HQ hopping, that's still another issue

The replace feature first came to light as a preventative for HQ dropping, so it's not another issue, it is this issue. HQ dropping and ghost guilds/ demolition guilds/whatever people are calling them now, all go hand in hand. So yes, this is to do with ghost guilds and HQ dropping as well as saboteurs. Problem is that it doesn't do much to fix any of them.

 

[DeletedUser1081]

Sigh. Have it your way

 

[DeletedUser5180]

it doesn't fix anything, a gg can simply dissolve and move to another part of the map, start sieging again with 5 of each goods and NO cost in troops, in the meantime the guild they have sieged lose the prestige from that sector.......it makes you wonder if whoever thinks up the schematics of gvg actually has a living brain cell, its so ludicrous not even a mad person could come up with it

 

[DeletedUser14758]

Another way to stop ghost guilds is to put a time limit on a player being able to take part in GvG after joining a guild. If you had to remain inactive for 2 weeks after joining a guild you'd need 4 weeks before you could go back to your original guild and fight in GW. If it remained a problem with the 2 week wait, raise it to 4 weeks

I tried to post something similar yesterday but I can't see it, sorry if this is a repeat

 

[DeletedUser99588]

Another way to stop ghost guilds is to put a time limit on a player being able to take part in GvG after joining a guild. If you had to remain inactive for 2 weeks after joining a guild you'd need 4 weeks before you could go back to your original guild and fight in GW. If it remained a problem with the 2 week wait, raise it to 4 weeks

Things have moved on since ghost guilds. We have demolition ones now which wouldn't be effected by a 2 week waiting period.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

I still remember my idea on demo guilds. Numbers seem too high now, but it wasn't a complicated process:

Another solution would be to set a siege cost at 1000, decrease it by 50 everyday, and add 100 to every consecutive siege on the same day (will reset back to 1K by the next day if siege cost passes 1K).

 

[DeletedUser5180]

I still remember my idea on demo guilds. Numbers seem too high now, but it wasn't a complicated process:

i think it all comes back to the solution of SET GOODS COST PER SECTOR

 

[DeletedUser5356]

They need to take a step backwards, take a look at what they are actually trying to achieve and then formulate a solution including an evaluation of any knock on effects the solution might produce. They have many suggestions on this forum which although not perfect are better than the status quo. They also need to take more notice of update feedback prior to introduction of the update.

Really they have had more than enough time to get it right when you consider that many of the things being raised were also raised during beta testing before GvG even went live. Rights management has been a disgrace from the very start. Hijacking the trusted status which was for private forum use was just plain laziness.

Sorry this is off topic, but for me the main problem with Inno is it seems they don't play the game - or play it to enough of a level to see all the issues. The problem with beta is that players feedback is often ignored (although that seems to have changed in the past couple of months) and to test the latest age in beta you have to have been playing beta for a whole year - how stupid is that - most players on beta can't test the latest changes as they are not at the highest level - beta should allow players to be able to move to any age in the game to test any age - people currently treat beta as a game in itself which is pointless.

Regarding the GB changes - presumably an oversight they weren't announced (which I can forgive) but I don't understand the reason why. Changing the rewards of GBs that players have ploughed hundreds of FPs in just annoys your playerbase. We just can't trust that anything you give us won't be reduced or halved after we have spent time and sometimes $$$ on the game. You are just annoying people Inno - rebalancing or not IMHO that is the effect you generate.

The replace armies change makes sense if they were trying to stop sabotage and HQ hopping, but I can't believe they didn't playtest the game enough to realise the issues. Surely a guild not being able to release the last sector on a map wasn't intentional. Guilds are having to beg neighbours to wipe them off the map so they can relocate lol

Personally I'd keep the option of players having to be trusted to replace. If you open it up to all the guild, any player can set 8 rogues (and yes people do have 500+ rogues - have you every played on the iPad its so slow to display the units before a fight) and this will be impossible to police with 80 guild members. Easiest to give trusted temporarily to a player to allow him to replace IMHO.

Just my two cents.

 

[DeletedUser104815]

Personally I'd keep the option of players having to be trusted to replace. If you open it up to all the guild, any player can set 8 rogues (and yes people do have 500+ rogues - have you every played on the iPad its so slow to display the units before a fight) and this will be impossible to police with 80 guild members. Easiest to give trusted temporarily to a player to allow him to replace IMHO.

Just my two cents.

What was so wrong with the way it was? Guild leaders deleting armies allowing anyone (trusted or not) to place armies. Worst update ever, giving non trusted players rights to delete the guilds sectors. No point of having trusted members, let them all be trusted!

DD

 

[The Tominator]

Thank you for the feedback, Mink

To clarify guys, we are asking for your help to make this decision: shall trusted status remain a requirement for replacing armies, or shall it be removed?
Ofc feedback on further development and other aspects of the update are also welcome, however this is the decision we are making right now, so we would appreciate some more responses if anyone has an opinion on this

what do u think starzaan?...do you actually play the game ?...ofc we don't want it, how many more people do u need to tell you this is a ridiculous approach by the devs - 1000 from me.

 

[DeletedUser97883]

I don't know any guild that doesn't notice the composition of its defense armies. If a saboteur spent days replacing armies with rogues without anyone noticing I'd reckon the guild wasn't very interested in GvG. (I do feel for the guild that had all its armies deleted by a saboteur - which is probably what prompted the introduction of the "replace army" function - but that didn't take days.)

...Personally, I shudder to think how much time it would take to check the unit composition of each army in each of our ~200 sectors, every day. If the log worked, it would be easy to see what replacements have been made during the day, but you can't trust the log.

 

[DeletedUser97349]

what do u think starzaan?...do you actually play the game ?...ofc we don't want it, how many more people do u need to tell you this is a ridiculous approach by the devs - 1000 from me.

We could simply make the decision without consulting the player base if you prefer, however I believe most people would like some input on it, so please could you keep your remarks polite and constructive. Thank you

 

[DeletedUser9546]

Yes, but tell me: how many members have at least a level 7 Atomium? Because that's where the change takes place (at level 8 while the happiness starts to increase at level 6). If you're going to encourage a member to build a GB, you don't compare it with level 10 (or else even the Space Needle could be useful ). It has to start being useful within the first few hundred FP or else they aren't building it.
Note if you do have an level 8+ Atomium or were planning to reach those levels, I do believe that you do and should have every right to be upset.

On the replacing army topic, I believe this was either overlooked, or this replace army feature may be only implemented in parts (like the message system). The latter would explain the major delay with the feature, but I cannot guarantee anything.

EDIT: Do we have any more feedback on the goods buildings being ignored by the Idle icon?

---The Atomium adjustment upset me because it happened the very same day I got to level 10. Id laugh if it happened to someone else, oh karma you're such a ...

Please bring back Idle icon, it is very much needed for those with smaller screens I have mostly PE goods buildings and sometimes it is hard to see if a buildng is producing or not because of its dull grey colour. Idle icon was helpful

Regarding the gvg issue, I admit I cannot think of a fix for it. However, the old was was better; trusted people could delete defenses and anyone could refill. Now if you want to make a newcomer to your guild trusted thats up to you.

 

[DeletedUser9057]

We could simply make the decision without consulting the player base if you prefer, however I believe most people would like some input on it, so please could you keep your remarks polite and constructive. Thank you

A key question, when is something going to be done? Can we get the delete/replace change removed so we can play as normal before a final decision is made? As it stands, we have players with armies that can't be used to replace unless we give them trusted - not acceptable.

 

[DeletedUser653]

I just think INNO needs to talk to the players about their "proposed solution" to a problem rather then thinking that they know better and go off and invest lots of effort and cash in providing a solution which we then all say yuk to. Please INNO, post your proposed idea to a problem and let they players give some feedback before implementing it.
No one knew about this change to trusted status and while many posts did indeed suggest that it would be better to stop the deletion of an army there were just as many concerned about it and hence PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE post back to us your proposed solution for live players to comment on.

thanks - Mark

 

[DeletedUser99588]

We could simply make the decision without consulting the player base if you prefer, however I believe most people would like some input on it, so please could you keep your remarks polite and constructive. Thank you

Yes we would like to be consulted first.

The code for delete army exists, the code for replace army exists, add a button so we can have both. Make it so a HQ cannot have all its defence deleted unless it is the last sector. This will be a good start and although it won't solve the ghost/demolition or saboteurs issues it will be better than what we have until other measures can be implemented. Those measures being a rights management system and an overhaul of sector costs. However I think everyone needs to understand whatever changes are made all it will do is reduce the benefits of ghost/demolition guilds it won't necessarily remove their existence.

 

[DeletedUser14817]

The most important thing to do in the next update is to stop the champions abusing. There are a lot of "personal guild" with two or more sector, that make point simply fighting the defense with champions over and over again. This is really a bad thing but there are many solutions to contain the problem.

For the new feature of replacing army, I don't see really big problems, and I think that a full log of GVG actions is necessary.

 

[DeletedUser1081]

...Personally, I shudder to think how much time it would take to check the unit composition of each army in each of our ~200 sectors, every day. If the log worked, it would be easy to see what replacements have been made during the day, but you can't trust the log.

Obviously a reliable log is urgently needed, along with a separate GvG rights system. But if a guild with 200+ sectors doesn't have a few members watching over each GvG province and keeping track of the state of the armies, that's what I mean with "not very interested". (I don't blame you, by the way - it's not very interesting. But it's part of GvG.)

For the new feature of replacing army, I don't see really big problems

... You don't see any problems with only a few people per guild having to provide all the armies for GvG?? That's what 1.36 has caused. The discussion is whether that mess needs prompt fixing. It does.