This was stated in the announcement.
Because only changes to these buildings are currently tested. When and if other buildings will also get a rebalancing depends on the test results here.
-
Dear forum reader,
To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can REGISTER HERE!
Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance
- Thread starter Juber
- Start date
Bestio
Farmer
ehm, I also actually asked yesterday if it was possible to know if Inno excludes to give back zero attrition for diamonds
planetofthehumans2
Emperor
All of these buildings are in symbiosis with each other - when you alter one it alters the rest. Like giving less power to congress, then the executive/judicial powers of government gain more power. There have been in years many solutions to the "farming problem", yet inno picks the most complicated solution and ignores the other buildings ???
MJ Artisan of War
Baronet
Attrition maxed.... Whole 70 fights.... Sidelined till reset..... Thanks @inno....
If this goes to live servers is will be the strongest signal ever to sell stock in this company.
If this goes to live servers is will be the strongest signal ever to sell stock in this company.
So you are saying the buildings were equal before and none has been used more than others?
This is a question, but there is no way I can answer that in any way. I have no insight in the strategy from Product Management.
Devilsangel
Baronet
I'm actually sorry to say this, but...this is one test that needs more tester guilds than Beta has to offer...the only thing you would be able to see is how fast/slow the progress is of guilds on the map. In terms of strategies, apart from swaps, and usage of other buildings (traps etc.) not sure beta will suffice
So while Beta can help answer the amidiet question of "is the cap too low/enough" the question of other buildings will be left out of the equation here
Zuckerberg the Horrid
Squire
so to help people have self control, because you don't have self control, lets turn the game in to a minefield simulator where everyone's scared to move less they run out of attrition and get wiped by someone who saved until the 4h before reset so they could wipe you and trap your HQ for the next day
awesome
A different way to encourage self control, coming from a different game I play, is to close all events 12 hours per day (or in our case just close GBG 12 hours a day) - they close everything from 8pm to 8am PST for US servers (11pm to 11am EST/US server time).
I don't like that idea either but I quite enjoy having built my guild around having people around 24/7
mfb.
Farmer
1) requiring a separate login for beta forum is an... interesting design decision 
2) Only changing SCs and WTs is nonsense. Like planetofthehumans2 called out, the buildings all work together. Are you really suggesting that you're going to have SCs and WTs have multiplicative, capped impact and the others be additive? That would not make it through even a brainstorming session in my product group, much less to a design doc or beta testing. That proposal should have been nerfed from the second it was created.
3) The ranking system is the biggest issue. We're in a season right now where there are a bunch of folks that moved up from platinum to diamond and cant keep up. so its super slow in the top league. For other seasons we're with a bunch of competitive guilds and someone gets bumped down to platinum that shouldnt. Put limits on the number of guilds in each league as many others have suggested. These limits could be tied to percentages of "active" guilds on each server.
4) I understand why cross server battlegrounds is technically difficult or even impossible, but that would be way more interesting. Larger pool, more evenly matched guilds, you dont "know" all of the players, and people actually fight
5) If you want to get rid of farming, introduce a mechanism to encourage or force guilds to team up - cumulative scores, mechanisms to support guilds you're teamed up with, etc.
6) This low of a cap will massively reduce participation. A lot of people that are for this change are calling out the benefits of being able to spend less time. The amount of time you spend is a personal choice. If you have issues with self control, perhaps therapy is a good option instead of pushing Inno to limit everyone else based on the amount of time you want to spend on the game. Inno effectively capping the time in GBG is really confusing. You're creating a disincentive to be online for more than 10-30 mins - I'm estimating that max fights for a person that gets to 100 attrition is 300 and you can do ~15 fights a min if you're in a good flow. That would be 20 mins of activity, but buffer a bit for swapping troops as attrition gets higher. Why are you forcing that limit?
7) Perhaps most importantly, almost 70% of people in the poll attached to this thread are against this change. Will you guys act in accordance with what the majority of people want?
2) Only changing SCs and WTs is nonsense. Like planetofthehumans2 called out, the buildings all work together. Are you really suggesting that you're going to have SCs and WTs have multiplicative, capped impact and the others be additive? That would not make it through even a brainstorming session in my product group, much less to a design doc or beta testing. That proposal should have been nerfed from the second it was created.
3) The ranking system is the biggest issue. We're in a season right now where there are a bunch of folks that moved up from platinum to diamond and cant keep up. so its super slow in the top league. For other seasons we're with a bunch of competitive guilds and someone gets bumped down to platinum that shouldnt. Put limits on the number of guilds in each league as many others have suggested. These limits could be tied to percentages of "active" guilds on each server.
4) I understand why cross server battlegrounds is technically difficult or even impossible, but that would be way more interesting. Larger pool, more evenly matched guilds, you dont "know" all of the players, and people actually fight
5) If you want to get rid of farming, introduce a mechanism to encourage or force guilds to team up - cumulative scores, mechanisms to support guilds you're teamed up with, etc.
6) This low of a cap will massively reduce participation. A lot of people that are for this change are calling out the benefits of being able to spend less time. The amount of time you spend is a personal choice. If you have issues with self control, perhaps therapy is a good option instead of pushing Inno to limit everyone else based on the amount of time you want to spend on the game. Inno effectively capping the time in GBG is really confusing. You're creating a disincentive to be online for more than 10-30 mins - I'm estimating that max fights for a person that gets to 100 attrition is 300 and you can do ~15 fights a min if you're in a good flow. That would be 20 mins of activity, but buffer a bit for swapping troops as attrition gets higher. Why are you forcing that limit?
7) Perhaps most importantly, almost 70% of people in the poll attached to this thread are against this change. Will you guys act in accordance with what the majority of people want?
Pericles the Lion
Emperor
I'm wondering about the prevalence of traps and decoys. I've been playing for nearly 2 years and part of a top guild for only the past year (on my main world). 24 seasons, 200K+ battles, and I've never seen a decoy used, saw a trap once (the guild that placed it was beached almost immediately, and have only begun to see fortresses used when the waterfall map was introduced (only on X1X). Are traps/decoys a Copper-Platinum thing?
PackCat
Squire
They keep using the word "balance" but soon that will become a 4-letter word, as nothing is balanced about the change,
other than maybe INNO being able to balance their checkbook.
The idea of balance means give and take.
All they have shown is all stick and no carrot.
I would rather see a cap on the number of battles in a 24-hour period, or a higher cap with SC. (75%)?
Donna a Macskabolond
Merchant
Petrus1942
Farmer
No, I started when we already had sectors with 3+ SC. By the time I logged on to my Beta account we were already towards the center (because I start the day on my live server and get to beta when I have time). I should have been able to fight for several sectors but thanks to this change my day ended after about an hour and a half total time. If lower engagement is what Inno is after, they've nailed it.
PackCat
Squire
That is like asking the bank for lower interest rates because the people want it.You must understand, when it comes to business, your feelings do not matter, Only the green and the bottom line.
If they though they could keep everyone, they would add a monthly subscription fee.
Someone asked me yesterday if there was a fee for beta.
planetofthehumans2
Emperor
I'm not sure how this is going to help innos bank - were the people complaining giving inno the most money? I doubt it. More people spend money on sc camps and paying for buildings with % especially during events to get more turns for more buildings with %.
You must understand, when it comes to business, your feelings do not matter, Only the green and the bottom line.
If they though they could keep everyone, they would add a monthly subscription fee.
Someone asked me yesterday if there was a fee for beta.
I really see the difference the Siege Camp rebalance made there. There were so many possibilities where they could have been placed!
(Sorry, just had to make that sarcastic comment)
Please note, that it is just natural that there are more negative than positive comments here and also votes. Most people only visit the forum to complain and not to say that they like something.
I am actually surprised to see it is not more negative votes, I expected way more. ^^
Owl II
Emperor
No, no, no. This "blah, blah, blah, the players asked" is not the answer. You can now see the opinion of the players in the voting. 2 years is not an indicator of sustainability? And I wrote above here, and my colleagues confirmed that battles without attrition are a myth. Either this is an omission of any particular team in relation to a particular player.
No, I'd like to see a straight answer. Like, "We want to limit rewards." Ok, then here in the thread there are several suggestions on how to do this efficiently and without compromising the main gameplay. From "increase the blocking time in the provinces" to "remove the SC in the center".
Or "We want to satisfy the crying of coastal residents who do not want to make an effort, but want to have fun". Then I'll pack my things and get out of here.
Or "We want the guilds to fight, not farm" There are a lot of suggestions to implement this, but for some reason you just cut the SC. Why?
Donna a Macskabolond
Merchant
Also platinum, live server,after 8 days:
As you can see, there lots of sector what never been conquered.
With this change, this will be much worse.
Whether rushing siege camps really gets people to *buy* diamonds is questionable atm - given that GBG farming also produces diamonds. And often you can just wait the 2 hours for them to build naturally, especially once the swap has started.
As for events... that's a more complicated question - a lot of the spenders in events aren't top players to begin with - many top players are already quite saturated with good stuff anyways. Shifting the focus away from endless FP in GBG with very little boost actually *required* might increase spending as it shifts some of the focus back to the city. Or yes, changes to enthusiasm may decrease spending. It's really something that would require testing.