Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[CrashBoom]

why not just put the 8 best guilds into one league

and best would be the amount of advances in the previous season

wouldn't that be fun:
a battlefield where all 8 guilds did 200k+ advances in the previous season
(or are they doing 500k ???)

 

[CrashBoom]

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.

in my opinion it needs more options
at least a 3rd one: yes but with higher cap
(and the other: yes 4 is a good value)

and why do 2 options have a multiple vote ?

 

[jovada]

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 shall put it another way so you understand better.

Grant smaller guilds their RIGHT to fight also and not block them by leaving flags 159/160 and swap with the other big guild by exploiting the no attrition

 

[Juber]

in my opinion it needs more options
at least a 3rd one: yes but with higher cap

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).

 

[DEADP00L]

The vote will be a good clue but the silent majority never come to the forum, while it is used daily by the few regular players. The result can therefore only be distorted, especially when in addition we vote BEFORE having tested.

 

[Bestio]

I am honestly just full of fears. When I first heard about the castel system I thought it being simply absolutely great, thus in comparison I would then say no to the question above. But the truth is: I just do not know and I simply fear this change. In my opinion it will change the way GBG is played (if I just think of what is announced without amendments/adds-on) with much more traps and much less rewards for everybody then, but actually this depends on the behaviour of other guilds. If they will not start to make extensive use of traps, then I would fear the change less.

 

[King Flush]

I'd like to be an F1 driver and you know what I reckon if they just limited the cars to 10mph I might just have a chance with the best of them.

 

[Thunderdome]

@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.

 

[CrashBoom]

@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.

multiply instead of add
1- 76% ^4 = 66,6%

 

[Juber]

@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.

Sure thing, the poll will stay open and you can always change your vote

 

[PackCat]

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.

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.

In real life sport, the score is not 1-0 every time.

 

[xivarmy]

@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.

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.

 

[Demeter7]

This is a good idea. GBG will be more challenging. It will be worth building up a city with fighting power when GBG requires more strength. Repeatedly clicking Auto Battle with zero attrition gets a little old after a while.

Maybe we can start using GBG as it was intended - as a battleground instead of as an FP/Diamond Farm.

GBG should not be won by the guild with the strongest Treasury. It should be about teamwork in battle.

Something does still need to be done about the league system. There is too much inequity in the guilds pushed into Diamond League.

 

[PackCat]

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

I do not believe in participation trophies. All positioning should be based on merit.
Maybe there can be a crystal league for the top 10-15 Guilds to play against each other for real competition.
Since they will not be competing with lessor Guilds, those lessor Guilds have a greater chance of success.
The top Guilds will face greater competition and become less bored.

I agree with you, it could also be broken up more like GE to keep apples vs apples.
I did notice last season, one of the Guilds had 4 or 5 players.

 

[Thunderdome]

multiply instead of add
1- 76% ^4 = 66,6%

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.

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.

 

[PackCat]

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.

The second Guild has the advantage of some camps remaining unless the 1st Guild removes them all or sets traps.
In the long run, it is better for Guilds to work together to save treasury goods, even if it does hint at farming.

 

[TheAmazingCW]

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.

Where do I find this poll?

 

[CrashBoom]

Where do I find this poll?

scroll to the top of this thread

 

[Juber]

Where do I find this poll?

It is on the very top of this thread.

 

[xivarmy]

Incidentally I do have a sneaking suspicion that the initial state of this change was done as a worst case scenario (both multiplicative and capped rather low), to set the tone. And that they may have plans to walk back the cap to a higher value later if it's determined to have gone too far. By doing both it allows them to give something back "due to feedback". I could see it possibly ending up with a 75% or 80% cap instead of 66% (and possibly even planned to be there all along, just as a strategy for releasing news that some will consider bad news) - the multiplicative alone would seem to be enough that everyone gains attrition even without a cap.