Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[jovada]

You see, you still can't break away from it. It’s not really a nuisance that you can’t fight enough, it’s that the other is making better use of opportunities and can attack more. In fact, it’s all about envy, and it shows up in every post because you always stress that others can attack less, and you don’t outline what makes you better after the changes (actually nothing, and even worse).

Again it has nothing to do with envy, only to have a more fair game for more players, fighting with no attrition is not correct. I see players that leave GbG because every time they come to do a fight everything is blocked and not all players have all day long to do GbG. Your reaction is only inspired by greed and you just joined the forum today because you are afraid of the changes.

And you are very wrong if you think i don't fight , i also take my profit but i'm not an egoïst and grant other players also to have fun.​

 

[TARS]

For now it sounds bad and I'm not pleased, but in the long run it's better for everyone, so at least now we can breathe freely and not have to be stuck in the game 24/7.

You want Watchtower and Siege Camp (SC) ability re-balance then traps and others need to be nerfed too!

There are still a lot of questions and probably other issues that go along with it.
What happens to the guild treasury that then accumulate when less SC are built..
And do we still need the Great Buildings A.I. and Atom or similar..
Will the rewards be adjusted when less battles are possible..
How does it look with the world ranking score in the future..
If less (SC) are built, also less diamonds are spent..

Personally I can live with it because it slows down the game, but I think not everyone sees it that way.
I think the re-balancing of GBG should be carefully considered!

But my point is, if you are already re-balancing the GBG would also be an adjustment to the GBG Guild ranking points?
What I mean...
For example:
maximum attrition=no (SC) or other: 1 point per fight
half attrition: around 0.5 points per fight (average of maximum and minimum)
no attrition: minimum points, (I know this doesn't exist anymore in the new GBG)
and everything else in between in relation to the attrition.

I am only trying to understand the example, the distribution of the points in relation to the attrition is yours.
The same of course for the negotiations, but double rated as before(I think it is ok).
That would be a fair ranking ;-)

kind regards max

 

[Arya66]

I'm confused by some of the posts.... Some make it sound like our personal Attack/Defense won't matter. I though this change prevented guilds from placing tons of buildings in the map, dominating over those guilds who can't afford to do.

 

[xivarmy]

I'm confused by some of the posts.... Some make it sound like our personal Attack/Defense won't matter. I though this change prevented guilds from placing tons of buildings in the map, dominating over those guilds who can't afford to do.

It's an indirect pathway they're concerned about.

They were making so much in GBG that their city collection was deemed unimportant to them, so they switched their city to "pure" attack/defense (despite that in many cases the incremental gain from going to that extreme wasn't really there anyways because they seldom fought a lot near their attrition ceiling). Often under the rationalization that they'd potentially get many more fights from 1 more attrition (even if often their stats didn't matter on any given day). Or that the "danger" was running out of troops rather than running out of attrition, and more attack/defense stats would lower the rate of troop losses, even at medium attrition.

Under the changes, now 1 more attrition is more clearly quantified as on average 3 more fights. And under the corresponding presumed limit of ~250-350 fights/day running out of troops is less likely to have reason to optimize around that. Hence the tradeoff of picking less FP-optimal pieces for more fight-optimal pieces is not necessarily as desirable if profit is your only concern.

Fortunately many fight-optimal pieces are also reasonable all-round pieces (like Eagle Mountain). So it's probably not going to have too many people intensely regretting their city choices. Also if fighting to higher attrition is their end goal rather than profit, it's still just as good.

 

[King Flush]

I've eluded to it on a number of posts already but would someone please tell me the purpose of what the game will be when the advantage of spending time and effort improving your city/stats is negated so much that it becomes completely not worth it. the desire to improve and progress has been the only thing that has kept me in the game for this long, I know players have different goals so for sure it will be fine for some but surely there are a lot of players like me who will be left with nothing to aim for.

I'd also like to say about the census that the players who get the high rewards are greedy, yes maybe some but if I take myself as an example my fights come as a biproduct for the rediculous time I spend on the game being a leader in one of the top GBG guilds, I don't go out of my way to get vast amount of fights and the fights I get will for sure be the lowest per time spent on GBG of the whole guild due to the diligence of what goes into leading where you actually spend more time doing other things than filling sectors, do I not deserve my fights and rewards, really?
Already I am often attritioned out early and still stay on the map for subsequent rounds just to help lead so the myth that how GBG works now results in an unlimited amount of fights just isn't so, I've been attritioned out on a single round many times before.

I'd really hate to see the game be all about huge Arcs and sniping as to me there's just no fun in that and certainly not a lot of skill required.

 

[Lucky Starr]

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.

I tried to explain it a few pages ago:

Strong and very weak guilds will not notice any difference. In the case of the strong guilds, there will only be a redistribution of the fights internally, so that no one can fight more than 4000, but others will compensate for this.

The average guild will have a big disadvantage, because it is usually dependent on 10-15 fighters and when they are worn out, then that's it. Nobody compensates for that there.
It gets worse: the strong guilds just build fortresses and an average guild is stuck in their corner because they now need 256 battles instead of 160 to take over a sector.

It's not going to go the way some people imagine. There are enough GG strategists who will come up with something to maximize their guild's battles.

 

[xivarmy]

I've eluded to it on a number of posts already but would someone please tell me the purpose of what the game will be when the advantage of spending time and effort improving your city/stats is negated so much that it becomes completely not worth it. the desire to improve and progress has been the only thing that has kept me in the game for this long, I know players have different goals so for sure it will be fine for some but surely there are a lot of players like me who will be left with nothing to aim for.

I'd also like to say about the census that the players who get the high rewards are greedy, yes maybe some but if I take myself as an example my fights come as a biproduct for the rediculous time I spend on the game being a leader in one of the top GBG guilds, I don't go out of my way to get vast amount of fights and the fights I get will for sure be the lowest per time spent on GBG of the whole guild due to the diligence of what goes into leading where you actually spend more time doing other things than filling sectors, do I not deserve my fights and rewards, really?
Already I am often attritioned out early and still stay on the map for subsequent rounds just to help lead so the myth that how GBG works now results in an unlimited amount of fights just isn't so, I've been attritioned out on a single round many times before.

I'd really hate to see the game be all about huge Arcs and sniping as to me there's just no fun in that and certainly not a lot of skill required.

Well I mean, you can try to find ways around the new obstacles put in your path: ways to keep winning personally at higher and higher attrition, goods to negotiate more to keep pushing what you can contribute further, changing your guild's strategies to be able to handle using non-free attrition efficiently moreso than just pure speed. Picking which sectors are worthwhile, and which are just end-of-the-day dumps for whatever someone has left.

The trouble with "progress" in the "free fight era" is that to many it didn't really feel like progress anyways. You double your boost... and pretty much keep doing what you were doing anyways. You could level your arc to 180 because it's there - but aren't even really making much use of the extra %. Progress, to me, is being able to do something you used to not be able to. Not just a bigger number next to one of your assets.

 

[HunZ95]

Again it has nothing to do with envy, only to have a more fair game for more players, fighting with no attrition is not correct. I see players that leave GbG because every time they come to do a fight everything is blocked and not all players have all day long to do GbG. Your reaction is only inspired by greed and you just joined the forum today because you are afraid of the changes.

And you are very wrong if you think i don't fight , i also take my profit but i'm not an egoïst and grant other players also to have fun.​

I am not writing out of greed.
The embarrassment is that many player and guilds expect the developer to solve a problem that they themselves are unwilling to do.
I still don’t understand why a smaller guild needs to be competitive among the best and why it’s not the goal to fight at its own level.
It’s very ridiculous that you want to penalize an active player because have a lot of free time, but you want a player who jumps in for 10 minutes a day to have 100% of the full content available to him at any time in the game.
In most games, you usually get something extra for the time you put in the game. And now they want to take that plus now, encouraging players to be just a 10-minute player, because you get exactly the same number of opportunities even if you don't take hours. This will have a demotivating effect on all active players and guilds, which will eventually lead to the extinction of the game, then everyone will jump in for 10 minutes, collect, start a few battles, then quit, looking for another game where they get something in return for the time invested. The community will be completely destroyed and everyone will adopt the solitary warrior style as in most of the little guilds. Would that be the goal?

 

[zzaann]

I think the main goal is to reduce the "farming" and not to better balance the forces between guilds. Because this will not happen. I agree with the intention but not on the execution.

With this change, all the difference between a young player with 400% attack in PE that does attrition 50 and a big player with 2000% attack on SAJM that does attrition 100.. will be 100/150 battles?

Really?

 

[planetofthehumans2]

I think the main goal is to reduce the "farming" and not to better balance the forces between guilds. Because this will not happen. I agree with the intention but not on the execution.

With this change, all the difference between a young player with 400% attack in PE that does attrition 50 and a big player with 2000% attack on SAJM that does attrition 100.. will be 100/150 battles?

Really?

Just by the numbers, the numbers would be 150/300 battles or just short of 1/2 sectors between the ages with those attritions (arguably you'd need to be 1000% to get to attrition 50 before losing a battle, but that's a different point). But getting up to max attrition is no fun, tons of lost units, usually have to negotiate which blows in gbg when you're trying to be competitive. Usually only reserved for war battles.

 

[jovada]

I still don’t understand why a smaller guild needs to be competitive among the best and why it’s not the goal to fight at its own level.

Where did you read that smaller guilds wants to be competitive with the best guilds? No they just want to have a little more balance and have fun in the game also.

It’s very ridiculous that you want to penalize an active player because have a lot of free time, but you want a player who jumps in for 10 minutes a day to have 100% of the full content available to him at any time in the game.

It's a little bit arrogant to classify active players only those who can do a 1000 fights a day without attrition , there are more active players then only you, and if you are a big fighter you still will do more fights then the player who jumps in for 10 minutes , it's not that there are no camps at all , you still can have a -66% attrition , and for your information there are players who jump in 4 or 5 times a day only to see they can do nothing, where is the fun for them.

In most games, you usually get something extra for the time you put in the game.

And you still have something extra when you play GbG, when you don't play GbG you have nothing , right ? Same for PvP you do an extra time to play that and you receive rewards , you don't put extra time in it you receive nothing. But i read you well, it is "give me more, more, more" for my endless clicks and time i spend.

 

[Balinor]

Do you like the changes in general​

Who cares about the changes that arent here yet
I just pulled up a chair grabbed my popcorn and loving this thread
290 posts,16000 views,83 votes in the poll all in just over 24hrs
A whole new crop of chicken littles letting us know to watch out the sky is falling
Same old experts telling inno what all the other players are going to do and how this change will kill the game
Well done @Juber best thread in a long time
Its got to be a forum record

FTR I voted yes

 

[zzaann]

One more question: why this complicated math, if there is a cap on top? Wouldn't be better say, everything like now but with a cap of 66.6%? That -2/3% for each extra siege what does it changes?

 

[Thunderdome]

Do you like the changes in general​

Who cares about the changes that arent here yet
I just pulled up a chair grabbed my popcorn and loving this thread
290 posts,16000 views,83 votes in the poll all in just over 24hrs
A whole new crop of chicken littles letting us know to watch out the sky is falling
Same old experts telling inno what all the other players are going to do and how this change will kill the game
Well done @Juber best thread in a long time
Its got to be a forum record

FTR I voted yes

I so doubt this thread will go stagnant as the others in the past. Seems like when Inno makes an announcement of something that will have game changing effects, everyone flocked to the yard.

While I still have mixed feelings about the change, I have yet to test it as it hasn't come forth yet. I was still kicking butt before I knew about little to no attrition as most of the maps I had been did have little to no SCs built. Does it take its toll on my torpedo count? Yes, since higher attrition do hurt, heh heh. Although, Inno should work a bit more on their rewards structure when competing in certain leagues; after all, we do work hard to get that far, it's only fair we get a higher payout than a "toddler's allowance". Make it attractive and they will probably look beyond this little thing.

 

[scibuff]

This is the second dumbest idea right after those stupid ads

 

[Markus2720]

Well if that get's finalized. You will even get more trouble. Then many organised good Guilds will be very unhappy with that. And the price to pay for that will definitive go to the small guilds.

Then the other guilds will say that guilds bring us that damage, so as present for that they will get bombed with traps und forts. And i have total understanding for that move.

Then we will see if that was such a smart idea.
Many guilds will consider that option of corse. Then goods will be again no problem more. Less action means less good costs

 

[Volshebnitsa]

By introducing the change, you’re killing the game for medium guilds. Currently, active players of those guilds can fight through the entire day due to SCs. If SCs are re-balanced, strong guilds still control the map. Medium guilds with less amount of active players will reach the attrition limit very fast and return to the base. There will be no reason for the members of those guilds to log in to the game more than once per day. Active players will either leave their guilds to join a stronger one or leave the game. That is the dead end.

 

[Emberguard]

I still don’t understand why a smaller guild needs to be competitive among the best and why it’s not the goal to fight at its own level.

Because one of the quickest ways to kill activity in any game is to have players so overpowered by their opponents that it’s impossible to make any progress even if you put everything into pushing back on your opponent. The only reason players haven’t been entirely overpowered by the strongest of the strong is either from the instances where Guilds are matched with the same capabilities and degree of tenacity, -OR- instances where the dominating Guilds hold back from going all out, allowing the smaller guys some freedom of movement. (The no-communication swaps where mistakes happen tend to be way more fun for me as the opponent gets to break through sometimes)

Which of course also goes back to the question of are there enough stronger Guilds to pit solely against stronger Guilds (From what I’ve seen when playing, on any one world, no)? Or a better way of matching Guilds? (If it can be done cross world, there’s a chance it’d give a large enough pool of Guilds to work out a better matchmaking in the high end).

 

[mintbunnies]

I have read back through this thread and it seems that the people that support this change are the ones that it won't affect them. They are happy to eat popcorn along the sides and watch everything burn.

I think this poll is misleading.

It's like the people that want to buy a luxury car with all the extra features and become so enraged that microchip shortages are causing supply shortages. But they have no intention of actually buying that car.

For anyone that plays GBG, this change is a game killer. It will kill GBG. And FoE. Not only because it will be boring and there will be no motivation to improve one's town. But you mess with people's trust in your product, you won't be able to earn it back so easily. You sell a product with a reasonable level of expectation, no one would buy a car if it stops working by design after 2 years.

At the very least, I say the change should only apply to the waterfall map. The elephant is still desired enough that will make a decent prize for anyone that wants to fight 200 times per day. And you won't kill the game for everyone else.

 

[jovada]

Medium guilds with less amount of active players will reach the attrition limit very fast and return to the base

???? Is'nt that what happened all these time ??? Two guilds blocking everything keeping the other guilds on the outer side with no chance to build camps so their attrition is reached very fast.

There will be no reason for the members of those guilds to log in to the game more than once per day. Active players will either leave their guilds to join a stronger one or leave the game.

Of course if beïng a guildmember means nothing and you don't care about the guild but care only for your profit. And during all this time players already changed guild to make more profit by joining a bigger guild or most of them changed guild because there were troubles in guild because some egoïst players took everything on GbG leaving nothing for other members