Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[Reaver]

Ok…not going to read 27 pages of comments to be sure I’m repeating someone…

I suppose this change could actually help the majority of players in the large/strong guilds, because they typically don’t get as many fights right now because the map is all locked up by the time they come home from work/school/dinner/etc. The GBG leaders, and rightfully so, get the lion’s share of fights in a given season. They are the ones who are there, making the season happen. But, much of the rest of the guild has to rely on lucky timing to get a significant number of fights.

Just a thought.

 

[Owl II]

Ok…not going to read 27 pages of comments to be sure I’m repeating someone…

I suppose this change could actually help the majority of players in the large/strong guilds, because they typically don’t get as many fights right now because the map is all locked up by the time they come home from work/school/dinner/etc. The GBG leaders, and rightfully so, get the lion’s share of fights in a given season. They are the ones who are there, making the season happen. But, much of the rest of the guild has to rely on lucky timing to get a significant number of fights.

Just a thought.

I have good news for you: players of top guilds who login to the game once a day after work/school/dinner will be forced to login to the game when guild need to quickly take a province. And if not, they'll have to change guilds, most likely. Because the locks still fall every 4 hours. But now those who prevented your loaded RL people hit it provinces earlier can't take this province: they are limited by attrition

 

[Beta Eta]

Changing "back" will force very large changes for nearly all players -- for what?

I'm not sure if this really affects nearly all players. I know some which don't do many fights in GBG and even some that end the season with 0.
I can only speak for myself: The changes in my city will not be very large. The importance of attack % is not completely nullified, Guild Expeditions and conquering provinces on new maps will still need some fighting power. Some WP and BR go to inventory, some new buildings will bring more variety to my city. I like this thought, and I don't feel forced, these changes are voluntarily. Building a city and changing it with the flow of time (or the FoE-ages) is the type of game I have chosen years ago.

 

[Hesaphenomenon]

​

Dear Kings and Queens,
On Thursday, June 30th, the season with the rebalanced Siege Camps and Watch Towers will start.

This is the place to be if you have any questions about it or would like to discuss it with other players.
Please keep in mind that your opinion may differ from the opinions of other players, you don't have to convince each other of anything here.

We appreciate your feedback!

Please write your feedback in a factual and constructive way and stay on topic.
So that we can pass your feedback on to the developers, the following points would be important to note:

• Feedback that only contains one sentence like "I can't do maths" is not helpful. Please make sure to include reasons for your opinion.
• The same goes for positive feedback. We are happy about it of course, but describing what exactly you like is always very helpful!
• Limit your feedback to the actual content. Feedback like "You should improve X" or feedback that refers to other game content or previous events is not helpful.
• Use the "Like" button if another player has already reflected your opinion well.

Thank you very much and have fun!

Sincerely,
Your Forge of Empires Team

Ok, time to deleted Ai Core, Atomium and sohs, 6500 Treasury goods aren't needed anymore.

Also, now traps and statues will be a thing, no more peace between some guilds for being #1.

Also, Little new players are f..d, whales got everything for 2 years, myself included, and they will be left with almost nothing.

Ok, time to deleted Ai Core, Atomium and sohs, 6500 Treasury goods aren't needed anymore.

Also, now traps and statues will be a thing, no more peace between some guilds for being #1.

Also, Little new players are f..d, whales got everything for 2 years, myself included, and they will be left with almost nothing.

I hear the arguments of those that don’t like their investments in the game no longer being as valuable if this change is implemented. I hear that people in top guilds don’t want to give up power. I am part of a top guild in H live and I know how it feels to totally dominate a GBG map. It is freaking profitable. Power feels good. However, I also know what it is like to be smashed against the GBG wall and punished for trying to play. Top guilds rule GBG diamond league and those that haven’t figured out how to compete are left out get pushed around and are denied the opportunity to play. GBG is a fun part of the game and I believe that all players should be able to play to some extent. The new proposed change to GBG would effectively level the playing field so that more guilds can have a chance to play this important aspect of the game. “But they can play in lower tiers” I have heard, but many guilds are more advanced for that. However, they can’t compete in Diamond league either. They should be able to IMO.

Several people in my guild in live have proposed that instead of limiting attrition % we should expand diamond league so that top guilds can play each other and guilds that are not top guilds can play diamond league at a lower level that doen’t include the top guilds. But that solution doesn't really work. Let's say that Diamond league does expand so that only the top guilds get on the same map. How many top guilds can you swap with on one map? That would just cause another nightmare that no one would like. Let's say that top guild like mine always had to share the map with other “8” other top guilds like us, each with the treasury and top players like us. That would be a nightmare, WWIII. We all would be screwed. We all would lose. The only reason we can profit as much as we do is because the other guilds can not compete with us and don’t even try to participate. I admit that I love when we dominate the whole map, but I remember when I was in a guild that got smashed against the wall and punished if we tried to play. My guild is nicer than many top guilds. We try to include others, but other top guilds can be mean and non-inclusive.

I agree that a 66% cap is too low. We can limit top guilds with a higher cap. 73% would be more than enough (the equivalent of 3 camps at 24% each). That would

 

[Boo...]

The top guilds have become like this because they know all aspects of the game, have made efforts to develop, and, they have a full treasury.
If circumstances change, and changes are introduced that will give advantages to weak guilds, then strong guilds will be divided into small ones. And it will be a nightmare for the weak - strong small guilds will create fighting alliances.
We are able to build a strategy and tactics depending on external circumstances. And we are not afraid. We'll still take everything.
Dear developers, please consider getting strong guilds interested in accepting weak ones and putting efforts into their development. By punishing the strong, you make them even stronger.

 

[CrashBoom]

A sector with 3 traps is only 200% attrition? 100%+45%+45%+45% = 200? I thought it was 235%
With the new formula you'll be able to get 66% attrition reduction no matter how many SCs are around the sector. Am I missing how that doesn't calculate to 168.4% attrition for a fully trapped and 4+ SC surrounded sector?

Please share. Thanks!

you know that you can't get double attrition in 135% of your fights

135% is actually 100%
because more then all your fights (where the siege camps doesn't work) can't be doubled

 

[Volshebnitsa]

I hear the arguments of those that don’t like their investments in the game no longer being as valuable if this change is implemented. I hear that people in top guilds don’t want to give up power. I am part of a top guild in H live and I know how it feels to totally dominate a GBG map. It is freaking profitable. Power feels good. However, I also know what it is like to be smashed against the GBG wall and punished for trying to play. Top guilds rule GBG diamond league and those that haven’t figured out how to compete are left out get pushed around and are denied the opportunity to play. GBG is a fun part of the game and I believe that all players should be able to play to some extent. The new proposed change to GBG would effectively level the playing field so that more guilds can have a chance to play this important aspect of the game. “But they can play in lower tiers” I have heard, but many guilds are more advanced for that. However, they can’t compete in Diamond league either. They should be able to IMO.

Several people in my guild in live have proposed that instead of limiting attrition % we should expand diamond league so that top guilds can play each other and guilds that are not top guilds can play diamond league at a lower level that doen’t include the top guilds. But that solution doesn't really work. Let's say that Diamond league does expand so that only the top guilds get on the same map. How many top guilds can you swap with on one map? That would just cause another nightmare that no one would like. Let's say that top guild like mine always had to share the map with other “8” other top guilds like us, each with the treasury and top players like us. That would be a nightmare, WWIII. We all would be screwed. We all would lose. The only reason we can profit as much as we do is because the other guilds can not compete with us and don’t even try to participate. I admit that I love when we dominate the whole map, but I remember when I was in a guild that got smashed against the wall and punished if we tried to play. My guild is nicer than many top guilds. We try to include others, but other top guilds can be mean and non-inclusive.

I agree that a 66% cap is too low. We can limit top guilds with a higher cap. 73% would be more than enough (the equivalent of 3 camps at 24% each). That would

The changes will not punish top guilds. They will still hold the map, own sectors with slots to build SCs, etc. Those guilds have power to fight with attrition. The changes will punish medium guilds instead. Those guilds do not have enough players to fight through the day with no zero-attrition sectors and will end up returning to the base. The changes will not make things better or fun for weak guilds either. The guilds will not move far away from the base and will not have sectors to build SCs anyway. No one wins.

 

[planetofthehumans2]

What if - all buildings had a 4 hour timer of effectiveness? That way guilds have to be much more strategic to farm/build/diamond camps or hemorrhage goods to keep camps on sectors. Guild inherits timer when winning a sector.

And guilds can't hold/trap/fort sectors all week unless they're scumbags who put them back and hemorrhage goods.

 

[conqueror9]

I remember some one say, in GBG u get more diamond than u spent. I just do a checking

THAT IS A LIE

I have spend 450 diamond when GBG start
and

I only have 75 diamond back in GBG

Playing game is a combination of effort /reward / fun
u pay effort, u expect reasonable reward and fun

With the tons of effort I spend, the total reward (fp, diamond ...etc) is no good at all, it just imply no FUN at all and numerous UPSET and angry

apart from the needs of Castle-system that I need from GBG , in fact, some of 15-negotiation/ 15-fight can be obtained thro' quest /map and PVP Arena
It is time i should cut my timing ( possible total time ) on GBG

Ladies and Gentlemen , have your fun in GBG, hope it is not your UPSET

 

[planetofthehumans2]

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.

I don't know about that, a lot of top players have like 5+ of latest event buildings with the best %. Can't get more than 1 without diamonds, and I do know some top players that do buy diamonds regularly because their castles are level 15.... Hell it takes me months/year to get a complete set of another building from the AD/events, so it must be through the events themselves. But anyways, will have to see how players shift on this.

 

[planetofthehumans2]

I remember some one say, in GBG u get more diamond than u spent. I just do a checking

THAT IS A LIE

I have spend 450 diamond when GBG start
and

I only have 75 diamond back in GBG

Playing game is a combination of effort /reward / fun
u pay effort, u expect reasonable reward and fun

With the tons of effort I spend, the total reward (fp, diamond ...etc) is no good at all, it just imply no FUN at all and numerous UPSET and angry

apart from the needs of Castle-system that I need from GBG , in fact, some of 15-negotiation/ 15-fight can be obtained thro' quest /map and PVP Arena
It is time i should cut my timing ( possible total time ) on GBG

Ladies and Gentlemen , have your fun in GBG, hope it is not your UPSET

What were you spending the diamonds on (???)

 

[CrashBoom]

obviously one player don't get back all diamonds he spends if he is the only one speeding up the siege camps

and btw:
GBG can be played without anybody spending any diamonds

who is forcing the players to rush the whole map in the first few minutes after the season started ?

What were you spending the diamonds on (???)

most likely instant finishing 9 siege camps

I remember some one say, in GBG u get more diamond than u spent. I just do a checking

THAT IS A LIE

you are right

it is possible to spend more diamonds than you get

 

[Donna a Macskabolond]

The changes will not punish top guilds. They will still hold the map, own sectors with slots to build SCs, etc. Those guilds have power to fight with attrition. The changes will punish medium guilds instead. Those guilds do not have enough players to fight through the day with no zero-attrition sectors and will end up returning to the base. The changes will not make things better or fun for weak guilds either. The guilds will not move far away from the base and will not have sectors to build SCs anyway. No one wins.

Our is a medium sized guild with 45 players. About 25-30 players are active on GBG regularly which is a fairly good percentage. On top of that we are quite new - has been founded 18 months ago. We put all of our effort to build up a treasury. Every player has min. level 80 Arc, level 60 Observatory, Half the players has high level Atomium and/or MI core. Lots of SoH and all. There is no player in the guild below 2000 guild goods production/day. Now we have a pretty strong treasury, can build as much SC as we want without too much thinking.

Sometimes we dominate the map, sometimes we are beached - depends on the situation. We try to form alliances for swapping when it's possible. I don't complain, we are doing quite well, but we worked hard to be where we are now.

This change eliminates all of our effort, because of the cap we will be beached a lot more when facing the big guilds. When grouped together smaller/less active guilds we will dominate but won't be able to get enough fights with the cap because the other guilds will be pretty much inactive with the cap.

So we are screwed. Thanks Inno and to you all who just complaining about your situation instead of working on a solution!

 

[The Lady Ann]

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.

in an all our war which we are lucky enough to have about every 4/5 seasons (wish it was more frequent) we spend big, really big to rush camps, if we waited for them to build we would be sat in the corner twiddling thumbs, bottom of the leaderboard not top or 2nd

so yes a lot, an awful lot of diamonds are bought to rush camps

 

[Amdira]

The very best on this change actually is to see more than the usual 15 players in the forum

 

[Ushinator]

Increasing the rewards of GBG rounds, for example, adding forge points and diamonds or even goods to the guild treasury would be extra motivation for the guild to fight for 1st place.

I like the change, I don't know if 66.6% is the best, but definitely doing away with attrition-free sectors is the right way to go

 

[HunZ95]

How do you think that this change is pandering to weak cities? It takes a stronger city to fight when attrition is higher. Have you actually read the description of the change?

May I ask how many attrition you have achieved so far maximum?

 

[ArklurBeta]

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?

The majority of the people who is here, which is not the majority of the playerbase, and not even representing the whole active playerbase either.

 

[Amdira]

Increasing the rewards of GBG rounds, for example, adding forge points and diamonds or even goods to the guild treasury would be extra motivation for the guild to fight for 1st place.

I like the change, I don't know if 66.6% is the best, but definitely doing away with attrition-free sectors is the right way to go

Honestly? The current rewards are more than enough. If those rewards and the goal to support for the guild hasn't been enough til now, it won't be in the future, no matter how big the rewards are. Problem of most big guilds is, that they didn't even try to motivate the casual players for GbG, because the big farmers were afraid of losing fights. As said before - good luck with motivating them now to burn their units for less than before

Edit: Another problem, which is Inno's fault, is the fact, that GbG is the only feature you are getting rewards (SoH- and Elepant-Fragments) for not participating at all. This also was leading to think for the GLs there would be no need to motivate casual players to GbG, as they were supporting the guild with the treasury-goods from free SoHs anyway.
There are still lots of guilds who are kicking players for not participating in GE, because they want to be asuccessfull GE-Guild. If you want to be a successfull GbG-Guild you will have to do the same or at least voting for deleting the free rewards for doing nothing or just admitting that you are not a #1 GbG guild, but just a guild with big some farmers, which have been disempowered now.

 

[beelzebob666]

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?

As Juber already said - the poll is biased as long as you do not prepare a poll (via the game for example), in which every player (or at least a random selection of players) is obligated to participate.

It is just overwhelmingly likely that players that do like the change will not come to the forums (because they have no reason to complain) and therefor will not participate in the poll.