In all honesty, when you change your mind like this in 24 hours it just makes the decision makers at Hunted Cow Studios look like idiots.
Do you think if the President of the United States makes a decision and then comes out 24 hours later and says "woops, we'll just listen to feedback", he would get any respect? Not even close.
All this does is undermine your authority and ability to make logical decisions in the first place.
What I want to know is... "What was the logic and decision making process that led to the decision to charge higher level guilds more gold in GvG?" Who was the person that suggested this and what were his reasons behind it? What was the HCS group response? Was there debate and discussion?
I'm more confused and less hopeful there are any constructive changes being made to this game. You might as well throw darts after a dozen beers, make the change and wait for who shouts the most about it. That seems to be the M.O. with changes in the game.
Grow some cajones and make solid, good decisions the first time that you actually thought through and then stick to your decisions for at least a week.
This "woops, I guess we riled up too many people" decision making process is embarressing.
We don't always get updates right however we do change these to do whats best for the game. We feel this is a better solution that leaving things broken.
We are also considering making inactives not count towards the 4 player limit.
Maybe I was harsh in my original comment, but I am still frustrated.
You ask for "comments" and "input" but you never truly come out with your opinion on what really needs to be fixed.
There is a large segment of the gaming community that had no issues with the way GvG was being run. There were complaints about the number of FSBox ads, but as far as "trading" GvG points, there was a very large group that believed it wasn't hurting anything in the game.
You obviously can't appeal to that segment of the community or listen to their feedback if you philosophical don't agree with GvG being that way.
We need more feedback from YOU on what you want to accomplish before we can really help solve the problems in the game for you. We need more information.
You still haven't answered the logic behind the update yesterday. What was your thinking behind making higher level guilds pay more for conflicts? What was your logic and what was the goal of that change?
I'm honestly confused what you are hoping to accomplish. I will be glad to offer more constructive suggestions (and I have on many, many boards here) if I think they are in line with the goals you see for the game.
How about just answering the following questions:
1. Is it the intent to make GvG only a confrontation and aggessive mechanism of the game? Do you want strict winner/losers, highly competitive participants?
2. Is it the intent to make GvG rating matter other than bragging rights?
3. Is it the intent to allow guilds that don't want to participate in GvG a game mechanism to either make them less attractive targets or avoid GvG altogether?
4. Is there desire to increase or decrease the number of GvG conflicts?
5. Do you want more or less small, GvG specific guilds?
6. Do you consider GvG a gold sink and an important part of the GvG game mechanism?
7. Are you currently happy with the current stamina output vs. profit potential of the RP for Epic component system?
These are just a few examples that cause all us players to just argue back-and-forth about our opinions, but that's not feedback. And because the sampling of players that participate on the forum is so small, it's not even an accurate reflection of the true opinion in the FS community.
Your position on these points will ultimately decide the direction of the game. Not ours.
You say you listen to our feedback, but that's really not true. You have an opinion on what you want GvG to be way before you start "listening" to us. It would help if you explain what you want to accomplish first in a lot more detail than "We're thinking of changing GvG, what do you think?"

