Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[Beta King]

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

They plan to slash the max fights per day to ~250 fights per person in hopes that most the the fighters in the top and second guild get angry and leave the game thus making it much better for the people at the bottom that are whining about getting equal rewards for doing nothing...

 

[Emberguard]

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...

Ok, you're against the change. Fine. That wasn't my question. I was replying to someone that suggested there should be equal matchups and asking what solution they'd want for the extreme cases where there are no equals available, as it's those extremes where it becomes a issue

 

[Beta King]

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.

So they have taken the battle out of battlegrounds and it is like GE(how much you do is your choice other guilds cant slow your progress) everyone is able to go on and get their max attrition every day and collect their rewards regardless of how weak their guild is since Inno has hamstrung the stronger guilds. That just kills the competition and turns GBG into a farm grounds for all to collect their daily FPs based on their attrition. There is a guild ranking in every world and the goal is to have your guild up there so there is merit in locking your opponents in their corner. Its not being "mean" to them its only slowing their growth and helping your guild.

 

[Yekk]

Ok, you're against the change. Fine. That wasn't my question. I was replying to someone that suggested there should be equal matchups and asking what solution they'd want for the extreme cases where there are no equals available

Wait for the next league... The draws are now random. There is always a guild at the top of their game. Their players will tire of the work or the drama and it will be replaced by some other guild.

But since you asked wouldn't the best option be one that allows a guild founder to stay out of that guilds 1K league? In the next league down? A diamond lite league?

 

[DEADP00L]

That just kills the competition

Because you found that having 2 strong guilds with 6 smalls on the same map led to more competition?

So why have you always refused that the guidles be grouped together by force? Because it is true that putting the 8 strongest together and the 8 averages together would give more competition but less gains for the strongest.

There is a guild ranking in every world and the goal is to have your guild up there so there is merit in locking your opponents in their corner.

Because the current ranking is determined more by GvG than GbG results.

 

[Beta King]

Because you found that having 2 strong guilds with 6 smalls on the same map led to more competition?

So why have you always refused that the guidles be grouped together by force? Because it is true that putting the 8 strongest together and the 8 averages together would give more competition but less gains for the strongest.



Because the current ranking is determined more by GvG than GbG results.

I have no issue with changing the grouping system and welcome it, my guild has been the one taking the farm as well as being shut out and its probably 50/50 so i have been on both sides and we enjoy breaking out and busting up their farm so now most of the time they choose not to try and contain us but include us. Thats called competition. To your last comment, I understand GVG is the basis of the ranking but FPs make guild members stronger which makes the guild stronger and if they take an extra 150 FPs and 300 goods per person per day they will use that strength to advance in GVG. Its all relevant.

 

[DEADP00L]

Inno could use the arena principle to create a GbG leaderboard that doesn't include GvG.
At each GbG, the maximum would remain 1,000 LP but a general ranking could integrate the actual sum of LP obtained and accumulated from GbG to GbG.
Then, if the competition is the only motivation of the big guilds, the regroupings by card in diamond league could take place with this general classification.

 

[lacsapgaah]

It's amazing ! As of Wednesday June 29, we have 20 new members on the forum that we have never seen before.
They say that small guilds will have difficulty with the new rules, but for 2 1/2 years none of them cared about the difficulties of small guilds.
We will have to drastically reduce the personal rewards of the players and replace them with rewards for the guild.
Those who are not happy could go elsewhere and start another game when they are very young.

 

[Macha]

Several times while reading 42 pages I've seen it mentioned that 2-3 guilds team up to swap sectors (purely for the rewards) & the other uninvited guilds don't do anything, they don't even bother to get out of their hqs, these guilds & players have been described as many things, lazy being a popular word
But no1 is saying these guilds are smart or realist, they are realistic enough to know that they can't compete with the big guilds so the smartest thing they can do is nothing, that way they end up in the bottom half of the league, lose points & drop down away from the gbg farmers

 

[slamm]

I think this is a knee jerk reaction by Inno to the complaints by smaller guilds that the bigger. tougher guilds dominate the map and they don't get a chance to participate; shut out by the big guys. Seems a smarter change would be to give the mega guilds a new level of play, not everyone. Beyond Diamond, create an Emerald or Ruby guild and let the mega guilds compete against each other. when the rewards decrease, so does my interest and purchase of diamonds.

 

[jovada]

I'm sure that once it goes live , after a couple of seasons most of the players will adapt. Strong fighters will still be the better and they still can have a lot of rewards (just not endless as now) and players still will pay diamonds to have -66.6% attrition

All that yelling and shouting will be just a storm in a glass of water and is mostly inspired by greed.
It's nonsense that activity should only be mesured with the fact that the whole map is controlled within the first 4h.
Some say it will be boring if they only can do 300 fights, 300 clickingfights is boring but 600 clickingfights is fun ???
Some say they will snipe GG to have their FP, just like they did'nt do it before, and most of them don't even need the FP cause have plenty in stock.

It's the same with GvG during all these past years, with every change to avoid exploiting ( moving HQ several times, granting endless freedom, using spears, making champions obsolete) there was always yelling to , but at the end they always adapt.

Maybe it's not the very best adaption , but maybe inno will correct some other things to later on, looking forwards for the yelling and shouting when that happens

 

[HunZ95]

https://forum.beta.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/jubers-gbg-suggestions.15503/

By the way, why did the developers choose one of the worst implementation options from the suggestions made here?
There were also acceptable options.
And I bet, the answer to the many complaints will be that the penalty for the 4 camps will be 24%.

 

[Fire Witch]

https://forum.beta.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/jubers-gbg-suggestions.15503/ By the way, why did the developers choose one of the worst implementation options from the suggestions made here?

@Juber said at the beginning and the end of his first post that these are only his personal ideas that have no official value. Nobody chose anything from that list.

 

[DEADP00L]

@Juber said at the beginning and the end of his first post that these are only his personal ideas that have no official value. Nobody chose anything from that list.

If many of us had validated at least one of Juber's proposals, perhaps Inno would have acted differently.

But always wanting to challenge believing that his style of play is the best or the only one, he was almost certain that the developers (who are not in the game like us) would have another vision of the problem.

 

[Aerendil]

this changes takes the fun out of GBG

some observations from current GBG
every guild tries to hold their flags as long as possible - GBG is getting slower, sector changes takes more than 4 hours. open sectors remain unattacked
Fewer races for one sector, its more cost effective to not attack if you will probably loose or the reduction is too low.
Not 2 but 4 guild are splitting the map, the smaller guild are still stuck on the outer sectors - the change doesnt help smaller guilds
fight per member drop significantly as expected - this is a huge nerf
And noone is buildings trap, at least. its bad enough without traps
@Juber have a look at our GBG map

I posted on yor idea post "this change is too dratic", I liked the idea to give every home sectors 2-3 building slots way better.

 

[HunZ95]

@Juber said at the beginning and the end of his first post that these are only his personal ideas that have no official value. Nobody chose anything from that list.

Then it's just a coincidence that the punishment % of the camps is the same, not 26% or 31% or anything else, exactly the same

 

[jovada]

Not 2 but 4 guild are splitting the map, the smaller guild are still stuck on the outer sectors - the change doesnt help smaller guilds

I don't know but it seems to me that is an improvement if before only 2 guilds shared the map and now there are 4

 

[DEADP00L]

Then it's just a coincidence that the punishment % of the camps is the same, not 26% or 31% or anything else, exactly the same

Where were you when we discussed this?
It took Inno to decide for us to see you coming to complain.

So if you want to cancel this current test, argue by talking about what you are going through, don't worry about others and try to propose a solution that will seem fairer to everyone.

 

[PackCat]

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

You cannot control what you cannot control. The #1 Guild in Beta is only great because of the "C" word which I am not allowed to say here.
If INNO tackled that other problem, GBG re-calibration would not be needed.

As for being the best, it should not change. Do as any other Guild would do in that situation and take 2 weeks off.
You are not going to get a situation where a weak Guild is going to get magically better, no matter who they play against.
Quit expecting a level playing field, it is not supposed to happen, or you will lose all of the good Guilds.

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.

If they want to re-orientate the map, why not just take out the 3rd ring and everything will be to their liking.

Still after 42 pages, nothing has encouraged me to think this change is for the betterment of players.
Great Guilds stay Great, Weaker Guilds stay weak, etc, etc....
1 gratuitous sector on the edge of the map, is not going to make me think this was all worth it.
Players interested in playing successfully in GBG look for Guilds who are successful.

Weak Guilds should play against other weak Guilds and then they can figure out for themselves.
I am growing tired of the shaming of good Guilds, who stock their Treasuries, Build Camps, spend diamonds, and fight together as a team. Plus instead of building camps and using their own inventory, weak Guilds are piggy-backing on the labor of the better Guilds.
The weak Guilds should learn from watching the activity, but they do not. Even when put in a group of their peers, they still act slowly.
GBG is not for every Guild or player, and the other Guilds should not have to dumb down to their level.
GBG was created for 2 main reasons, to give fighters another option than GVG which is very strict in its timetable, and to enable mobile devices.

 

[DEADP00L]

If they want to re-orientate the map, why not just take out the 3rd ring and everything will be to their liking.

You too :

Where were you when we discussed this?
It took Inno to decide for us to see you coming to complain.