Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[PackCat]

3rd day in.... There is no improvement in GBG efficiency.
We close sectors and wait and wait and wait.
Other Guilds are not building SC. They just sit not attacking, hoping they accumulate VP by osmosis.

I want someone from INNO to explain again how this is so much better than before?
It changes nothing with lame Guilds and only punishes players who have improved their skills.

Outside of scrubbing this entire chaos of an idea, INNO needs to immediately:
1. Match Guilds of equal competition.
2. Do not put Guilds with 50+ players and another Guild with <10 players in the same pool. (use GE standards)
3. Divide groups into more equal strengths, such as using the Guild prestige rating as lineup indicator.
4. Put timeouts on Sector ownership. Sectors held for more than 8 hours should revert back to initial state (no owner)
5. Either move Attrition retard Cap to 80% or remove Cap and use a player by player Cap of 500 fights per day per player.
This fits in with a ceiling of 5K VP per season. Not super great for whales, but great for wannabe whales and others.

 

[Amdira]

Number of members says nothing bout the strenght of a guild as - as mentioned several times - in most cases max 50-60% are participating in GbG (about 15% from those steadily, the rest casually) - in most guilds you will find about 40% or more not playing GbG at all. But those are within the ranking calculation as well and get their rewards for free. As mentioned many times - why not use the same calculation as in GE, where the activity of the whole guild is counting and not the one of a handful hyperactive and normal active neglecting the inactive (in GbG). You cannot win a GE season with 133.3% if you are having 40% not playing GE, but you can win in GbG with 60%.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

After the ``genial`` ``innovation`` the activity in my guild is almost zero. 2-3messages on a day! Wow, it`s fantastic, INNO! You are doing great innovations!
By the way, no players are spending diamonds, Nice, isn`t it?
If someone in my company produces such an ``innovation``, the next day will be free like a bird

 

[Pericles the Lion]

It is at least satisfying that to read back practically 39 pages of negative comments. Talk about ratioed. I still haven't seen a good argument for this change except for the standard "This change doesn't affect me but I think it's a good idea".

Also:
92 YES votes 31.1%
208 NO votes 70.3%

And people wonder about INNO math.

The argument for the change was provided by INNO in the announcement. The 39 pages of negative comments that you refer to are mostly a mix of conspiracy theory, conjecture, and hyperbole. Face facts, it's INNO's game and they can change it any time they want, with or without a reason that the majority of players find acceptable. I find that the sad thing contained in these 39 pages is that only 1 or 2 players have provided any objective evidence of how the change has affected them personally. Does anyone think that INNO hasn't noticed? This reminds me of the uproar over the 2000 abort limit last year. LOTS of overreaction that died down very quickly when the vast majority of players came to the conclusion that they never come close to 2000 aborts anyway.

 

[-Alin-]

Spoiler: Preety active

Bootiful isnt, it?

4th day and 13391 fights as a whole guild ....
We still pingpong sectors from each other without deleting camps, no swaps.

 

[PackCat]

Number of members says nothing bout the strenght of a guild as - as mentioned several times - in most cases max 50-60% are participating in GbG (about 15% from those steadily, the rest casually) - in most guilds you will find about 40% or more not playing GbG at all. But those are within the ranking calculation as well and get their rewards for free. As mentioned many times - why not use the same calculation as in GE, where the activity of the whole guild is counting and not the one of a handful hyperactive and normal active neglecting the inactive (in GbG). You cannot win a GE season with 133.3% if you are having 40% not playing GE, but you can win in GbG with 60%.

I'm sorry, but to put it politely... Your entire analysis is wrong.
Based on your stats, a Guild of 50 will have 25 participating and a Guild of 10 will have only 5 members participating.
In a race for a sector, the assumption of all 5 members fighting at the same time vs, a Guild that can have 15-20 members fighting, is there any reason to feel it is unfair for the Guild of 50 who maximizes their treasury, builds SC's, and understands strategy to win 99% of the battles with the Guild of 10 total members? It seems the smaller Guild is overmatched and will only win sectors by luck or if the entire other Guild is sleeping. This is where the responsibility falls on INNO to match Guilds of similar size to have equality in numbers. The more aggressive Guild is still going to win most battles.

GE and GBG are unlike in strategy. GE gives you 6 days to win/negotiate 64 encounters. It does not care if you do it in the first 5 minutes or 5 minutes before the end of the session. GBG REQUIRES you to coordinate with Guild members and fight at nearly the same time to win battles. If you are not interested in GBG, fine, but your singular participation does not affect the general results. Everyone has an opportunity to look at the map layout and determine the best time for them to fight. Many/Most Guilds will publish the upcoming pending fights and you can set your calendar accordingly.
Complaining that you are working and cannot participate is not an excuse. Work comes first, and you shouldn't shame others who have a more flexible schedule.

 

[Owl II]

Speed can be an element, but it shouldn't be the only element. If you want nothing but speed, GvG is always there with its horribly outdated boost values.

GvG really is not just about speed. It is also an effort to build a top team first of all. I personally gave up GvG a few years ago because of clickers and bugs. Bugs and clickers. The first is unacceptable to me, the second is intolerable. I went back there again at some point. And at some point it was even interesting there. But I found that the clickers didn't go away. And they returned the bugs. They've brought back those old bugs that haven't been around for a long time. These friezes are recalculated. You open one sector - you are redirected to another. These constant reboots to get something done. This is hell, this is not a game. At the same time, all these joys do not interfere with scripts in any way. And now they've killed GBG.

I would replace "strong rivals" with "equal rivals" and then I think we mostly agree. It really doesn't seem to happen much anymore though in my experience.

I talk about platinum a lot - gold and silver I pass through now and then when there's a new guild I'm playing around in - or when I decide to do a little something on an alt world for some reason. There are actual guilds in there, even if they don't measure up to your standards (or mine for that matter) There has to be, otherwise the number of guilds in diamond would be decreasing as diamond destroys points (from the cap - a 1000 diamond group with 8 guilds will have the top 4's points gain go to the nether, and the bottom 4 lose points) and the thing propping guilds up is new points rising up from copper.

As for imposing "my fun" on everyone, no moreso than "your fun" is imposed on me now. I would like at least variety in the types of rounds I see. Not months and months of farming (when i was in a 1000 guild). Not always easy rounds in platinum and impossible rounds in diamond (in the small-medium guilds which were the last place I used to find fun before so many guilds started fearing diamond that they'll beg you to take 1st in platinum).

I remember you and I left the guilds in 1000 almost at the same time and tried the solo game at the same time, this can be found in the archives of this forum But then you went to explore other worlds and various guilds, and I went to build a guild with an ideal (or almost) organization based on the mechanics that Inno provided. And I almost did it. But now I have to redo it. You can continue your research. You acted more wisely, I must admit it

For which the meta needs a good shake. I have no doubt there'll still be farmers, especially at first. But over time if the incentive to be farmers isn't as big, there should be other approaches that rise as well giving rounds some more variety. And possibly the matching may improve because of the shift of what makes a guild "strong enough to promote".

Shake? Yes, this gameplay and this gaming community have been in need of a shake for 2 years now. It would be possible to experiment with the distribution by league. It would be possible to change the rewards, personally and guilds. It would be possible to rework the ratings, personally and guilds ratings first of all. But they did as usual, removed the dynamics. They emasculated GBG, equated it with other equally tedious and boring things. Like a PVP arena. Like delays (and now new bugs) in RQ. Hell, they even added a delay when buying attempts in GE. Have you ever had to drag yourself in a stream of cars behind a car that is moving at a minimum speed, without the possibility of overtaking it? This is what any player who does not suffer from inhibition feels right now. Shake? No. I would say this game needs a different audience.

 

[6zeva9]

Also:
92 YES votes 31.1%
208 NO votes 70.3%

And people wonder about INNO math.

Already asked over 20 pages ago, Jubers reply is #363 on page 19.

 

[PackCat]

After the ``genial`` ``innovation`` the activity in my guild is almost zero. 2-3messages on a day! Wow, it`s fantastic, INNO! You are doing great innovations!
By the way, no players are spending diamonds, Nice, isn`t it?
I hope sincerly, that this big genial brains, who invented the ``innovation`` will be fired.
If someone in my company produces such an ``innovation``, the next day will be free like a bird

INNO does not use linear thinking. Unfortunately the superb developing staff of 3+ years has flown the coup, and the others are still trying to understand the game logic. There is a circular wall between end users with vast experience and the people who can make the changes.
As usual, a company grows beyond its ability to react in a coherent way to issues that come up. Everything must be politicized, and monetized, long before it gets to the eyes and ears of the developer.

Working for such a big corporation, I was fortunate to be in a position to look past the politics and determine if an action was the right thing to do, then try to squeeze it into the budget. We were much more attentive to user issues, being that they paid millions of dollars for our equipment and support. And we also charged them big bucks for changes that were outside the scope of the original design.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

INNO does not use linear thinking. Unfortunately the superb developing staff of 3+ years has flown the coup, and the others are still trying to understand the game logic. There is a circular wall between end users with vast experience and the people who can make the changes.
As usual, a company grows beyond its ability to react in a coherent way to issues that come up. Everything must be politicized, and monetized, long before it gets to the eyes and ears of the developer.

Working for such a big corporation, I was fortunate to be in a position to look past the politics and determine if an action was the right thing to do, then try to squeeze it into the budget. We were much more attentive to user issues, being that they paid millions of dollars for our equipment and support. And we also charged them big bucks for changes that were outside the scope of the original design.

Obviously there is a communication probleme, but you know well, that the information follows a downside up chain and the people, situated down are always trying to do less and to give not the right information, so long the chain the truth is missing.

 

[-Alin-]

So many posts here and good points but InnoGames will still go live with this nerfing anyway, because what's here "is not enough" ...

 

[Amdira]

So many posts here and good points but InnoGames will still go live with this nerfing anyway, because what's here "is not enough" ...

I bet they will just increase the cap to max 75% to make us feel heard at least

 

[thelegend88]

it sounds like Inno is getting tired of this game too .... like the current event where they took the frogger game and just changed the frogs to the knight picture. now the nerfing of GBG, which was a great addition to the game - now it will be just another aggravating waste of time, and it seems like there won't be as many people wanting to play. Maybe they want to get the longtime players off and get brand new players that will buy diamonds?

Same they decide to nerf SCs which will without any doubt cause massive player exodus, they also decide to show adds promoting other games. It is like they want people to leave for some odd reason and even give suggestions which new games to start playing

 

[DEADP00L]

Other Guilds are not building SC. They just sit not attacking, hoping they accumulate VP by osmosis.

While less than 300 players, of which more than 200 are distributed in less than 10 guilds, expressed themselves here and you think that all the guilds understood the change?
For these weak guilds to change their way of playing, they need time and above all to know what changes for them.
I remain confident that it will take a minimum of 3-4 GbG to start seeing changes in guilds that were just watching others play.

And if, by then, we do real feedback on what we live depending on whether we are in a large guild, or in an average, then Inno will be able to correct its errors to offer us another version.

In any case, on 40 pages, we all agree that 3 leagues are under-exploited and that Inno should focus on this area as a priority.

 

[Emberguard]

Outside of scrubbing this entire chaos of an idea, INNO needs to immediately:
1. Match Guilds of equal competition.

What would be your solution if the Top Guild has no equal to the point of thrashing the Second Guild, and the Second Guild also has no equal to the point of thrashing everyone below them? What would be your solution in those kinds of power dynamics where each degree of power past a certain point only has one or two Guilds with no equal to compete against?

I agree equal competition is needed. Absolutely agree on that point. But, if finding an equal is simply not an option because an equal doesn't exist at the top, I would be interested to hear if that would change anything for you in regards to how you would want the problem approached

 

[jovada]

Thanks for the reply, but please do not change my statement
I spend 450 diamond (not 250 diamond), and get 75 diamond back

Please do not count my other guildmates, it is a bad statement to innocent player

In previous message from others, it state a player get more diamond than he spend
it refer to PERSONAL, not guild

I just express my feeling, that statement is completely wrong when it apply to me
it may be correct when apply to you
but it is deffinetly incorrect to me

The first reaction i made was on 450 diamonds that i said 250 now is just a mistake

But your statement is wrong , how can you expect to have your 450 diamonds back that you payed for camps if you do only 200 fights and received 75 diamonds, so to be correct you have to count the diamonds other guildmates received with your investment, to know the total return, had nothing to do with innocent or not player.

 

[ArklurBeta]

After the ``genial`` ``innovation`` the activity in my guild is almost zero. 2-3messages on a day! Wow, it`s fantastic, INNO! You are doing great innovations!

So, you are saying that the only thing that kept the guild active is farming in GBG? That's kinda sad. There are valid criticism about this change, but this is not one of them.

 

[Yekk]

What would be your solution if the Top Guild has no equal to the point of thrashing the Second Guild, and the Second Guild also has no equal to the point of thrashing everyone below them? What would be your solution in those kinds of power dynamics where each degree of power past a certain point only has one or two Guilds with no equal to compete against?

I agree equal competition is needed. Absolutely agree on that point. But, if finding an equal is simply not an option because an equal doesn't exist at the top, I would be interested to hear if that would change anything for you in regards to how you would want the problem approached

Equality is not tying a lead weight on everyone with the heaviest weight on the strongest guild so the slowest guy has a chance to compete in a race. Put the slow "horse" in a race where they can compete. Solutions galore abound for that. See Juber's GBG thread...
This change is not for equality... It is a nerf plain and simple. If done originally it would have been okay. That was asked for 2 years ago. Ignored by Inno. Now it will make a system of those with prior high GB's and new players that can never catch up. That alone means it is a total failure...

 

[DEADP00L]

What if we stopped with the calls to hate without any argument?
Juber asks us to speak out about the change, not how others vote.
Argue with what you see and not with what you believe will happen.

In 4 days of the new system on my GbG Diamond, strong guilds stay strongest, weak stay weakest, but I don't see any guilds stuck in HQ anymore.
The big guilds continue to exchange sectors but no longer come to finish their attrition after thousands of free fights on the exteriors of the map; which frees up game possibilities for guilds that have neither the level nor the desire to meet here.

 

[Fire Witch]

I had to intervene here.
Please refrain from insulting people who have a different opinion than you do. Thank you!