Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[Retired Guy]

What's your end goal?
- to increase player participation? - then add some small portion of attrition simply based on the number of player fights that day.. More members will have to participate.
- reduce the ability for large guilds to control the map? - your current changes have simply made larger guild even more beneficial.. "but" it is hard to run the entire map every 4 hrs now.. unless you have even larger guilds.. I suppose the change does allow more opportunity in large guilds for more players to get hits in.

 

[-Alin-]

Spoiler: 144 atrition be like, broken ...

Is this the way InnoGames imagined IN 2019 higher stats players in order to get something „better” from GbG than the majority of mid players?

957 fights in 3 days with atrition higher than 136 everyday?

 

[jovada]

unless u have bad guild in your GBG, they all prefer you to get sector from them so they can have more battles ( multiple of 160 battles )

Yes that is true if it is the only big guild on the map, when you have two big guilds they don't care because they swap with each other

 

[xivarmy]

Realities please...with limited fights available stuffing a guild works. Saves fighting for real foes. Swat the weak is still a viable strategy.. AGAIN nothing has changed except the strong guilds have less fights. Oh... and the weak ones too

Realities require testing. Sure you can still swat the weak - but personally I'd rather be stuffed with a trap than stuffed with a lock on my doorstep every 4 hours. Whether you *should* swat the weak will depend on a lot of factors - some rounds you should probably be glad that they take a sector or two now or then because there are no strong enough opponents in the group to feed you as much as you want, and stuffing them is pointless at best, and counterproductive at worst. Other rounds keeping them out of the way might be better.

Either way, at least there's a cost to whatever you decide to do to them now. As opposed to often pure additional profit for stuffing them with lockouts

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

The big conclusion is, that INNO don`t want to stimulate the small players and guilds to develope, but to penalize the players and the guilds who were engaged. This is non-sense.
I think that those, who taked this not very intelligent decision don`t know what the GBG really is.
What surprises me is that the % of the vote are always 30-70. Let`s see how this will be used later.

 

[Ted the huge]

Please. Unless you can cite an INNO announcement that reveals their motivation to introduce GBG this is pure conjecture.

Actions always speak louder than words. No business would ever make a statement like that. They sugar coat what they are doing. If I remember correctly the reason stated for starting gbg was to create a guild compettition that could be played across all platforms, also they stated that the participation was dwindling in gvg and that adding another map 'all ages' did not increase participation. So that is what puzzles me this change is being advertised by inno as a way to decrease participation. Decreasing participation does not seem like a good business plan.

 

[-Alin-]

I am used to every change, I can adapt easily to everything even if I am completely against such changes, I know how is to struggle only with 24 fps a day or enjoy with few ten thousands fps a day from sniping and GbG, but reducing this drastically, as Inno did now, it will have consequences for smaller and newer players which are cursed with this update. Bigger players will just quit this game, or try to find something else to occupy their time after they burnt their atrition in that day, if this is going to hit live.

Now its too late to make this change, this idea with not letting 100% reduction from camps/buldings should have been introduced at the very beggining. You made the majority of players to go for higher stats in their cities, literally, 70% of the player base of this game are speaking about how to increase their stats around GbG to increase their fps/diamonds and goods stocks, and now, what You did? You took everything from them, their hard work, and made them again to change cities to have fps in them?

Personally it doesnt affect me directly, I wasnt playing GbG that hard in the last year and few months, only ocasionally I found some energy to sit and swap few rounds with more than 12k fights, other rounds I just let others from my guild to benefit, I just collected/donated my 6.5k city goods daily to the treasury.
I have my city with 2120/1155 stats, 1.2k fps daily including BG, lots of goods, 6.5k treasury goods and the reason I play right now IS TO HAVE 31 GBS, I do love them, even if some of them are worse in my city, I do like to collect them and none could change my mind to delete them )
So I can survive, but the problem is for other players which will lose interest in this game and newer players will just not find it attractive being limited.

Right now with this change made me wanting to reach 150 atrition just to be first and I enjoy that, but not for long, I reached 144, maybe next time I can reach 150, I I find the willing to do so.
Thats just my opinion, after testing how things are going now and playing FoE for nearly 10 years (since octomber 2012).

 

[xivarmy]

Actions always speak louder than words. No business would ever make a statement like that. They sugar coat what they are doing. If I remember correctly the reason stated for starting gbg was to create a guild compettition that could be played across all platforms, also they stated that the participation was dwindling in gvg and that adding another map 'all ages' did not increase participation. So that is what puzzles me this change is being advertised by inno as a way to decrease participation. Decreasing participation does not seem like a good business plan.

The relevant metric isn't merely a few players spending 12+ hours a day playing GBG clicker, it's how many players say spend 1 hr a day, or even say a few hours a season. Which they'd have the numbers for, and we wouldn't.

They would not be acting on complaints alone to try to make these changes - they've avoided any real changes (the new map was not real changes) for 2 years out of fear because of its popularity.

There is certainly some sort of underlying concern with their numbers for them to finally do something.

 

[jovada]

Yes, it shows really high activation.
The owner changed in only 5 sectors, and 75% of the map is not even used for battles.

Is that an other way to say everything should be under slots or have 159/160 flags on it to show that the farmers are really busy , is that the only way to mesure activity ????

 

[Yekk]

Realities require testing. Sure you can still swat the weak - but personally I'd rather be stuffed with a trap than stuffed with a lock on my doorstep every 4 hours. Whether you *should* swat the weak will depend on a lot of factors - some rounds you should probably be glad that they take a sector or two now or then because there are no strong enough opponents in the group to feed you as much as you want, and stuffing them is pointless at best, and counterproductive at worst. Other rounds keeping them out of the way might be better.

Either way, at least there's a cost to whatever you decide to do to them now. As opposed to often pure additional profit for stuffing them with lockouts

The lock is one more tile away sitting at 159/160. guilds that are problems to the map, those that do not build, or do delete, or get mouthy can expect they will not get much respect. In the end this change just reduces the number of fights possible. The 4 hour locks still exist. The imbalances still exist. Platinum still gets forced into 1K. Only now there are no winners

 

[xivarmy]

The lock is one more tile away sitting at 159/160. guilds that are problems to the map, those that do not build, or do delete, or get mouthy can expect they will not get much respect. In the end this change just reduces the number of fights possible. The 4 hour locks still exist. The imbalances still exist. Platinum still gets forced into 1K. Only now there are no winners

159/160 isn't locked however. Someone who shows up at a random time can hit it. The lock can be forced, keeping half progress and getting closer to being able to actually race whoever the slower of the two guilds "swapping" the sector is. And each swap costs attrition they didn't necessarily want to spend (again focused on the weaker of the two guilds involved who may be running out of attrition trying to feed the stronger).

Bottom line - the guilds running the map having actual costs (i.e. treasury costs don't count if they've reached "bottomless treasury" status) does have substantial meaning. Whether it changes behavior in positive/negative ways in the long run is difficult to predict. But it does also open up more meaning to changing other balancing levers if it alone doesn't do the trick.

 

[HunZ95]

Is that an other way to say everything should be under slots or have 159/160 flags on it to show that the farmers are really busy , is that the only way to mesure activity ????

No, but the picture shows that no one can attack. This would be acceptable even on the first day, because then all guilds start without a camp. But in the 3. day? Ridiculous.
10 minutes of gvg (if you have a computer,) 10 minutes of GBG, daily collection, 64 battles on the expedition per week, and your game is complete.
It's not even worth spinning the events, because at higher atrocity the values go away so much that you don't even feel the bonus of 1-1 new event buildings (which are also all based on the attack bonuses, to support the current GBG).

 

[Beta King]

Let's assume that Inno puts back the % of the camps while limiting to 300 fights per day and per player for individual gains (beyond 300 fights a player could continue to fight but no points would be recorded for his classification and all the gains would be replaced by crowns), would you be happy?

You could find the pleasure of doing 1,000 fights every day and more for the good of your guild.

Currently the only way for me(2 yrs) to close the gap/player ranking on a casual player that has been playing 10 years is for me to grind harder than them for gains that will raise my player points and if Inno makes it so that casual player can log in once a day and throw down a couple hundred fights to maintain their player ranking and there is no way for me to catch up then there is no point in me even trying to be competitive any more... If you are a top 50 player in your world im sure you are welcoming this change so you can keep you high ranking without have to try very hard thus dumbing the game down for everyone and making the competitive aspect irrelevant.

 

[Demeter7]

So many complaints. It is going to be harder to get rewards with attrition. Yes, it will slow you down at first if you are not prepared.

A game is supposed to be challenging. If most of your guild waits for a few to take the first sector(s) and then gets a free ride from the camps, then you are not doing the game right. This is supposed to be a "challenge". Build up your A/D. Level up your GB's like AO, Kraken, TA, Alcatraz, CdM, Zeus, CoA. Use those A/D boosts from the Tavern and from the rewards in your inventory. Look for every chance to use your city space to your advantage to build up A/D and other military power. And then you will be getting the GE rewards in spite of facing attrition.

All of us are going to need to work harder instead of getting unlimited hits with low attrition. So... have fun with that! This change will show who are actually the fighters instead of which guild has the biggest Treasury. When new members join your guild, you are going to be looking for who can actually fight instead of who has an Arc/Obs/Atom/AI Core. If you are teaching new players in your guild, instead of forcing them to concentrate on leveling Arc first, teach them to power up their city and learn to fight first.

 

[CrashBoom]

Currently the only way for me(2 yrs) to close the gap/player ranking on a casual player that has been playing 10 years is for me to grind harder than them for gains that will raise my player points and if Inno makes it so that casual player can log in once a day and throw down a couple hundred fights to maintain their player ranking and there is no way for me to catch up then there is no point in me even trying to be competitive any more... If you are a top 50 player in your world im sure you are welcoming this change so you can keep you high ranking without have to try very hard thus dumbing the game down for everyone and making the competitive aspect irrelevant.

casual players don't do hundreds of fights per day

 

[Beta King]

Wrong! It will not make "everyone think about stop playing". When it goes live, this change will cut my battles from 8K per season to 2K with a commensurate reduction in rewards. Regardless, this change has not given me reason to consider quitting the game. I'll simply adapt and overcome.

And spend a lot less time playing FOE correct? Maybe it will give you time to explore other games during the time it would have taken you to do those additional 6k fights

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

In Nature nothing desappears, but transforms.
If the current situation don`t change, I`m convinced, that many new guilds will appear. Guilds, composed only with fighters and probably located in the last 2-3 Ages. Than the small guilds and players will have chance 0.
Two of this guilds on the map means swap the entire map.
Think twice, INNO, because you can provoque unexpected ``BALANCE``

 

[jovada]

A game is supposed to be challenging. If most of your guild waits for a few to take the first sector(s) and then gets a free ride from the camps

Some of them don't have to wait for other guildmates to take first sector(s) they created double accounts for that purpose, so two or three players from the guild with double take first sector and then they jump in, that's a fact.

 

[jovada]

If the current situation don`t change, I`m convinced, that many new guilds will appear. Guilds, composed only with fighters and probably located in the last 2-3 Ages. Than the small guilds and players will have chance 0.
Two of this guilds on the map means swap the entire map.

is'nt that exactly what happened before ???

 

[HunZ95]

So many complaints. It is going to be harder to get rewards with attrition. Yes, it will slow you down at first if you are not prepared.

A game is supposed to be challenging. If most of your guild waits for a few to take the first sector(s) and then gets a free ride from the camps, then you are not doing the game right. This is supposed to be a "challenge". Build up your A/D. Level up your BG's like AO, Kraken, TA, Alcatraz, CdM, Zeus, CoA. Use those A/D boosts from the Tavern and from the rewards in your inventory. Look for every chance to use your city space to your advantage to build up A/D and other military power. And then you will be getting the GE rewards in spite of facing attrition.

All of us are going to need to work harder instead of getting unlimited hits with low attrition. So... have fun with that! This change will show who are actually the fighters instead of which guild has the biggest Treasury. When new members join your guild, you are going to be looking for who can actually fight instead of who has an Arc/Obs/Atom/AI Core. If you are teaching new players in your guild, instead of forcing them to concentrate on leveling Arc first, teach them to power up their city and learn to fight first.

Do you know how much the difference in punishment is, e.g. between 50 and 140 attrition? More than 6000%. And how many battle is the difference between the 2 attraticions if this is introduced? 138.
What you suggest will significantly affect the number of battles if the penalty increases by the same amount after each attrition.
But that's not what it's about, is it?