in my opinion it needs more optionsAs some have requested it, we have created a poll here this time. You can simply choose an option, but we would still want you to explain why you like the change or not.
I shall put it another way so you understand better.you hit the nail on the head there when you say 'GRANT the smaller guilds their fights' this is what it's all about and why it's wrong things shouldn't be 'granted' but earnt. try harder simple as that, everyone wants a free ride.
I have changed it now, that you can select both, if you have mixed feelings for example. For the poll I just want to see the total amount of likes vs. dislikes. Of course things like you mentioned will get more likes, but I don't want to give any ideas (yet).in my opinion it needs more options
at least a 3rd one: yes but with higher cap
@Juber before I can cast my vote, I will have to test how it is like first. Only when I am using the feature in its full practice will I do that.
Now for you supposed mathematicians out there (using core math I supposed), how did you get by using 4 SCs that will reach the cap while 3 will just do?
Each SC is 24% and three of them yields 72% (3 x 24). Since 66.6% is the cap, only three will be needed.
Sure thing, the poll will stay open and you can always change your vote@Juber before I can cast my vote, I will have to test how it is like first. Only when I am using the feature in its full practice will I do that.
It sounds like you meant to, or could have said, based on number of VP scored the previous seasons. The (+175 -175), does not give much variance, but if you score 400K VP in a season, it will give greater clarity to who participates and is successful vs. another Guild who scores <100K VP to determine true standing.The league system has been mentioned many times as one of the main gripes with GBG with various proposals for solutions. From my perspective, it could be done along the 'real life sport leagues' lines of promotion/demotion based on league position, with a fixed number leagues for all but the lower tier and points based on final league position rather than the current positive and negative points.
@Juber before I can cast my vote, I will have to test how it is like first. Only when I am using the feature in its full practice will I do that.
Now for you supposed mathematicians out there (using core math I suppose), how did you get by using 4 SCs that will reach the cap while 3 will just do?
Each SC is 24% and three of them yields 72% (3 x 24). Since 66.6% is the cap, only three will be needed.
I do not believe in participation trophies. All positioning should be based on merit.It is a matter of Inno design
each league (e.g. diamond ), Inno want lower league can cliam up
so Inno introduce a mechanism that allowing lower league to up from next lower league
then it become war between a game design vs player
player find a way that they use lower amount of player guild and acceleate themself faster to diamond league
to me, player are hijack GBG
so we have diamond league full of lower amount of member's guilds
nowaday, some of them go up and complaint they cannot do what they want (in fact, hijack GBG )
as if that GBG has sufficient good-GBG-Guild, they are drive to corner without any score as they do not get sufficient guild member co-operation
GBG should behave better if it is composed of guild with sufficent member size's Guild
in GBG, it is not strong guild determine the outcome
it is GUILD with sufficient guild member co-operation determine the outcome
take a example...
if a sector is hit by 80 members (even the guild is ranking 99999999), just 2 successful hit by 80 members, it result capture
a strong guild with 40 member hitting, it need 4 successful hit in order to do capture
if u are fully aware this mechanism, you will know ...how to play GBG
if Inno do not group those very few member guild into, GBG should be good
multiply instead of add
1- 76% ^4 = 66,6%
Heh, more like chance of it happening than multiplying or adding since adding 24+24+24 = 72 and multiplying 24 x 3 = 72 by calculatory mathematics. I would have gone with "security blanket" as a possibility to determine if building the last one would have been worth the resources to be used.because it's multiplicative as well as capped:
think of it this way (not exactly the right numbers):
siege 1,2,and 3 are all 6-sided dice. If any one of them rolls a 6, no attrition.
It's not 1/6+1/6+1/6 to get no attrition (because that gives too much credit to scenarios where more than 1 die rolls a 6), but 5/6*5/6*5/6 to get attrition.
The second Guild has the advantage of some camps remaining unless the 1st Guild removes them all or sets traps.The other guild will not succeed in taking all sectors of the first guild If they continue to have traps there, their atrition will be hurt badly, even negotiating and the stronger guild will continue to push and force other small players to advance to the other sectors, the second day they(first guild) will continue to push even harder.
Where do I find this poll?As some have requested it, we have created a poll here this time. You can simply choose an option, but we would still want you to explain why you like the change or not.
scroll to the top of this threadWhere do I find this poll?
It is on the very top of this thread.Where do I find this poll?