Feedback Guild Battlegrounds Update 2021

[xivarmy]

On a personal side note:
In the past, there were many complaints, that new additions feel like a copy past (especially the last ages). Would you prefer, if the new map was just a copy past of the old one? I guess not. I like, that the map has different rewards, a different layout and different unit constellations. Especially because of these things, it does not feel like a copy paste. Also, the developers could also include many more changes for future maps/additions: bigger maps, more/less guilds in one battleground, special buildings for certain maps, different building costs, different attrition values, ...
Would you also dislike it, if anything of these things would be done?

Well actually it kinda *does* feel like a copy paste. With a rewards nerf on top. Different armies might be the only thing about it that feels remotely positive. And that took what, some intern an afternoon to update some tables?

It's not different in any ways that would matter to people who are sick of the first map.

I can deal with the rewards nerf. Rogues, Coins, and Supplies may be appreciated in developing cities. But the map doesn't address any of the primary complaints:

- the power of holding the center is only enhanced further - more adjacent sectors means a higher % of sectors are free.
- the matchmaking is horrid: how you can dominate in platinum one week only to be completely locked out in the following round (the yoyo). At a minimum movement needs to be slowed down near the top because a win in the 15th percentile does not mean you belong in the top percentile of guilds.
- the lack of downtime can wreak havoc on people - ranging from impacts on real life as they wake in the middle of the night for an important fight, to just plain burnout because they've now been working their ass off for years. Action needs to be slowed down or we need more time off between rounds.

 

[drakenridder]

Just that they're independent chances.

Each siege camp is a dice roll, if one of them succeeds, no attrition. If none of them succeed, attrition. More siege camps = more dice, but you can still fail them all. The change would be disrupting to some - but it's not a foreign concept for people.

Edit: This is how some people insisted they did work at the start because it's what made sense to them reading the description. There'd be a transition period if it changed.

Thanks I got it the first time but I guess you're description will be best for a small change in the information box. Hopefully the devs picking this at least up. Though hope is a big word here nowadays.

 

[jovada]

Also, I have removed the off topic conversation. Please stay on topic and don't discuss the feedback handling here. Thanks.

?? give feedback but don't discuss feedback ???

Or is it just don't critic because that will be removed

 

[xivarmy]

Thanks I got it the first time but I guess you're description will be best for a small change in the information box. Hopefully the devs picking this at least up. Though hope is a big word here nowadays.

While it not be popular they could even do a quick animation for it showing a row of siege camps and traps and the result of each roll (quickly!). Then an ability to hide said animation once someone understands how it works and need not see it.

 

[Juber]

All these points you 2 mention are things I wished for personally too. But it was not done. I don't know the exact reasoning, why they did not do anything balancing wise. Maybe I have some information later this year, that I can also share with you (if what I planned works out ^^).

But let me ask you: What could a new map change to fix or at least address the current issues many players face? I don't think, that a new map can fix these one. These are more fundamental problems, that have to be addressed in another way.
@xivarmy I will go through your points from the standpoint of what I already wrote (this is also just my personal opinion:

Well actually it kinda *does* feel like a copy paste. With a rewards nerf on top. Different armies might be the only thing about it that feels remotely positive. And that took what, some intern an afternoon to update some tables?

Well, I think, that they changed a lot. The change to hexagons, rewards, armies and looks. There are other things they could change (like I wrote in my last post), but for me it feels very different to the old map.

It's not different in any ways that would matter to people who are sick of the first map.

Sure, this does not address the flaws Guild Battlegrounds have. But these flaws are more general and con not be fixed by a new map. Fundamental things have to be changed (Matchmaking, boosts for starting sectors, ...).

I can deal with the rewards nerf. Rogues, Coins, and Supplies may be appreciated in developing cities. But the map doesn't address any of the primary complaints

See comment above.

- the power of holding the center is only enhanced further - more adjacent sectors means a higher % of sectors are free.

But you also have to get more sectors first. I don't think, that it enhances it. It is "as bad" as on the old map.

- the matchmaking is horrid: how you can dominate in platinum one week only to be completely locked out in the following round (the yoyo). At a minimum movement needs to be slowed down near the top because a win in the 15th percentile does not mean you belong in the top percentile of guilds.

The matchmaking is another thing, that does not have to do anything with what has been done. But I agree, that it is something that should have been addressed.

- the lack of downtime can wreak havoc on people - ranging from impacts on real life as they wake in the middle of the night for an important fight, to just plain burnout because they've now been working their ass off for years. Action needs to be slowed down or we need more time off between rounds.

Well, this is a problem players create themselves. You don't have to be active at 4 AM if you don't want to. If you want, you can, if it creates stress, you can just have a nice and relaxing sleep. I am still one of the top 100 players on my live world, but I don't stress myself anymore. I play how I want and if I want to fight, then I fight, sometimes thousands of fights in one gbg round. If I want to do GvG, I help my guild mates conquer sectors, if I don't want, I don't do it. Many players, especially the ones at the top of the ranking forget, that it is still a game, which should be fun to play. The main improvement, when developing gbg in comparison to gvg was, that you can always do anything, and not wait until 8 PM every day to do all your actions at one time.
The only possibility to improve this with a new map would be, to increase/decrease all the timers for certain maps. But this would probably also create dissatisfaction, because then players would always complaint, when they get a map with timers they don't like.

It is very difficult to find solutions, that fit every playstyle. It could also be impossible.

For the negative feedback in general in the forums: You all have to consider, that mostly the high developed players write in the forum (in the beta forum especially). This of course gives a perspective of the most active users, but not the majority of players. I don't want to say, that your feedback in the forum does not matter, but what I want to tell is, that this is not the only source of feedback.
Of course I try to forward your feedback as accurately as possible!

 

[Juber]

?? give feedback but don't discuss feedback ???

Or is it just don't critic because that will be removed

I had to warn some players because of what they wrote in the last couple of days. Before it got out of hand, I removed the discussion.

 

[xivarmy]

Well, this is a problem players create themselves. You don't have to be active at 4 AM if you don't want to. If you want, you can, if it creates stress, you can just have a nice and relaxing sleep. I am still one of the top 100 players on my live world, but I don't stress myself anymore. I play how I want and if I want to fight, then I fight, sometimes thousands of fights in one gbg round. If I want to do GvG, I help my guild mates conquer sectors, if I don't want, I don't do it. Many players, especially the ones at the top of the ranking forget, that it is still a game, which should be fun to play. The main improvement, when developing gbg in comparison to gvg was, that you can always do anything, and not wait until 8 PM every day to do all your actions at one time.
The only possibility to improve this with a new map would be, to increase/decrease all the timers for certain maps. But this would probably also create dissatisfaction, because then players would always complaint, when they get a map with timers they don't like.

But this is a key thing a game designer needs to understand - the players will optimize for efficiency out of anything you create. As a designer you have to make sure the efficient path is also a fun path.

*Not* getting up at 4 AM, can mean you lose an important race, losing the important race can get you locked out of the center, getting locked out of the center can make it harder to get back *into* the center. So to a competitive player, not getting up at 4 AM may *not* be an option. Especially if you're a guild leader who feels under pressure from membership for good opportunities. As one of those members who just lets someone else worry about it it might not be an issue for you - but guild leaders burning out is absolutely bad for the game.

Edit:
Now yes timers are a further issue. Maybe a longer timer wouldn't be better - and you'd still wind up with a key moment being in the middle of the night at times. But that's where time off between rounds might be the thing they could've tweaked to deal with burnout. i.e. maybe a round doesn't need to last 11 days with 3 days off. Maybe it could be 7 + 7. It's not like the last few days of a typical round change much in the standings anyways - it's just more opportunities to farm.

Edit2:
Also attrition running out for everyone would decrease action without touching timers and give a chance for someone to say "well we'll let them wipe us out at night if that's what they're going to do, they'll run out of attrition and we'll hit em back tomorrow". Whether that's nerfing siege camps to be capped or independant chances, or stabilizing building slots to 1 per sector.

 

[DEADP00L]

Sure, this does not address the flaws Guild Battlegrounds have.

For the new card we want more equity:
- the same number of sectors in contact with the HQ (achievable by putting only 6 guilds and not 8)
- the same number of locations around the HQ and on the straightest line to the center
- the same number of LPs for a sector of the same ring

 

[Juber]

the same number of sectors in contact with the HQ (achievable by putting only 6 guilds and not 8)

This is an improvement, that could be done the the waterfall map, yes. But for this I don't know how difficult it would be to change the current 6-8 guild per battleground to something else with max 6 guilds. The Vulcano also has 6-8 guilds on a map. It is also unfair for some, when there are less than 8 guilds for example.

the same number of locations around the HQ and on the straightest line to the center

Well, isn't this a change that should be made to every map and not just one new map?

the same number of LPs for a sector of the same ring

This would lead to problems, especially on smaller leagues. There, it is common, that guilds have the same amount of sectors for around the same amount of time. What do you do in the case 2 guilds have the same amount of LPs and the same amount of sectors? How do you determine, which guild was better? It is better do have a bit of variation, especially, if it encourages guild do place cheap flags or other buildings, that provide more LPs.

 

[jovada]

This would lead to problems, especially on smaller leagues. There, it is common, that guilds have the same amount of sectors for around the same amount of time. What do you do in the case 2 guilds have the same amount of LPs and the same amount of sectors? How do you determine, which guild was better? It is better do have a bit of variation, especially, if it encourages guild do place cheap flags or other buildings, that provide more LPs.

??? i don't see any problem, i guess the first guild to reach that certain amount automaticaly comes first , the other guild reaching the same amount will be second.
That is the same in expedition the first to reach 133% is first no matter if the others reach also 133%

 

[Juber]

??? i don't see any problem, i guess the first guild to reach that certain amount automaticaly comes first , the other guild reaching the same amount will be second.
That is the same in expedition the first to reach 133% is first no matter if the others reach also 133%

But there is no "the same moment", because you constantly get more points, when you have a province. And if you have the same amount as others (mostly just one in lower leagues), then you end up with the same amount of point.
It has to be at the same hour, yes, but this would happen way more often, than currently with the random amounts.

 

[DEADP00L]

But for this I don't know how difficult it would be to change the current 6-8 guild per battleground to something else with max 6 guilds.

do you still play FOE?
All the active guilds meet one day or the other in diamonds and are purely spectators. So instead of penalizing 6 guilds on a card of 8, you might as well only penalize 4 on a card of 6.

Well, isn't this a change that should be made to every map and not just one new map?

Yes !!! and it's only been a year since we claimed it on the volcano map.

What do you do in the case 2 guilds have the same amount of LPs and the same amount of sectors?

This has happened before and the guilds are tied.

 

[drakenridder]

But there is no "the same moment", because you constantly get more points, when you have a province. And if you have the same amount as others (mostly just one in lower leagues), then you end up with the same amount of point.
It has to be at the same hour, yes, but this would happen way more often, than currently with the random amounts.

Well how about who had at first the lead? Another solution could be at least not such overly dramatic differences that causing some guilds with luck to have an extremely favourable position. EG in the same ring 30-60 more vp/province. They just take 2 provinces and easily gain more vp then an guild with unfavourable provinces and 4 provinces. How can that be remotely be considered that the lucky guild is better?
If it would vary 1-10 vp for each province in each ring. Wouldn't it already solve it? Also in the cases described the game already discovered an solution: draw, shared positions. What's so bad to have an draw when 2 guilds are objectively equally good? Wouldn't an draw be more fair then just plain luck?

 

[xivarmy]

This would lead to problems, especially on smaller leagues. There, it is common, that guilds have the same amount of sectors for around the same amount of time. What do you do in the case 2 guilds have the same amount of LPs and the same amount of sectors? How do you determine, which guild was better? It is better do have a bit of variation, especially, if it encourages guild do place cheap flags or other buildings, that provide more LPs.

Technically not a problem. Tied guilds share the spot. i.e. it could be T1, T1, 3rd, 4th, ...; It's already possible in those very low leagues for an 8-way tied for first group where everyone promotes Usually it's only 1 or 2 guilds that do enough to be considered active and promote - but they can both do 40 advances without taking a sector and get credit for 1st.

It wouldn't happen that often to be much of a disturbance to the ecosystem anyways. There'd be an hour here or there in the difference.

 

[jovada]

It has to be at the same hour, yes, but this would happen way more often, than currently with the random amounts.

In the same hour ore not , easy the first who takes a province in the last hour of the tournament his VP/hour changes and will be ranked first , the second in that hour with same points and province his VP/hour changes later and so is automatically second , no ??

 

[Prom d Exolandia]

This would lead to problems, especially on smaller leagues. There, it is common, that guilds have the same amount of sectors for around the same amount of time. What do you do in the case 2 guilds have the same amount of LPs and the same amount of sectors? How do you determine, which guild was better? It is better do have a bit of variation, especially, if it encourages guild do place cheap flags or other buildings, that provide more LPs.

It should be +3 or -3 and not +50 like on some maps.
Exemple : 11 to 40 on 5th circle in my map
40 to 80 on 4th circle
46 to 119 on 3th circle
105 to 186 on 2nd

We are fedup with that random

 

[Owl II]

Well, this is a problem players create themselves. You don't have to be active at 4 AM if you don't want to. If you want, you can, if it creates stress, you can just have a nice and relaxing sleep. I am still one of the top 100 players on my live world, but I don't stress myself anymore. I play how I want and if I want to fight, then I fight, sometimes thousands of fights in one gbg round. If I want to do GvG, I help my guild mates conquer sectors, if I don't want, I don't do it. Many players, especially the ones at the top of the ranking forget, that it is still a game, which should be fun to play. The main improvement, when developing gbg in comparison to gvg was, that you can always do anything, and not wait until 8 PM every day to do all your actions at one time.
The only possibility to improve this with a new map would be, to increase/decrease all the timers for certain maps. But this would probably also create dissatisfaction, because then players would always complaint, when they get a map with timers they don't like.

You understand this is not a tetris that can be left if you bored? This is a team gameplay. If I don't wake up at 4 a.m., then the game for two guilds will be ruined for half a day. If I come into the game only when I want to, then my guild will sink to the bottom and lie down next to the rest. I don't want that kind of game. You have to devote more time to this than you can afford if you want to keep the gameplay at a high enough level. In the end, it drives you into a corner and forces you to quit.

 

[Owl II]

For the negative feedback in general in the forums: You all have to consider, that mostly the high developed players write in the forum (in the beta forum especially). This of course gives a perspective of the most active users, but not the majority of players. I don't want to say, that your feedback in the forum does not matter, but what I want to tell is, that this is not the only source of feedback.

That is, literally, the game is now focused not on the most progressive (and enthusiastic) part of the players, but on the half-wits unintentional visitors who accidentally wandered here and will fall off as soon as they get tired of collecting unfinished buildings? Ok. Obviously, the progressive part of the players does not belong here

 

[Owl II]

Players suggested above so that the HQ always has 2 SC. Then let's go ahead and allow us to conquer someone else's HQ. And the guild who lost the last province is removed from the map until the end of the season. I think it can remove most of the problems. Including weak guilds, who do not want to play with strong opponents, will not be able to play with them

 

[tunix]

Then let's go ahead and allow us to conquer someone else's HQ. And the guild who lost the last province is removed from the map until the end of the season.

This is a team gameplay. If I don't wake up at 4 a.m., then the game for two guilds will be ruined for half a day. If I come into the game only when I want to, then my guild will sink to the bottom and lie down next to the rest. I don't want that kind of game. You have to devote more time to this than you can afford if you want to keep the gameplay at a high enough level. In the end, it drives you into a corner and forces you to quit.

After reading her objections (and after another 10 days of brutal oppression, this time by the cooperation of the number 1 and 7 in the ranking list), I had the idea of how to solve most of the problems...

Instead of a league system that doesn't work, just switch to a cup system. Two guilds compete against each other per round. The winner moves up (or stays at the highest level), the loser moves down (or stays at the lowest level).

The new system is good for less active guilds. They now have 10 days to conquer the map at least once.

If one guild is very active and the other guild is not very active, you can conquer the map once and then happily sleep at night. No need to quit.

Two hyperactive guilds can fight each other to their heart's content. A cooperation of two guilds as before, which is neither in the interest of the other participants nor of Inno Games, will probably not take place anymore.
So we would have a real competition instead of the senseless trading of sectors that we (almost always) have now.

To heat up the competition further, it would be advantageous to also award prestige points for the places instead of the victory points. This would be good for the guilds that do not participate in the GvG and therefore are now not among the top 10 in the ranking.