Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[King Flush]

@King Flush

So if you play the game and are not afraid to take attrition you still be happy with -66.6% attrition,
When i say endless rewards i mean the few whales that only come in all day long only fighting when there are plenty of camps to fight with 0% attrition and doing more then1000 fights a day, they don't care about guild or guildmates, most of them even have the mentality of hurry, hurry to take sector before an other guildmate jumps in.

what I fear the most apart from the whole list of things that'll be broken that I mentioned in my earlier post is it will also take away the tactical element of the game, for sure there will still be tactics to a degree they just will be much poorer in nature, why have good battles trying to race a sector anymore, you may lose better just to take uncontested sectors the guilds limited fights will be too valuable to risk using attrition to maybe not even gain a sector. I see none of these 'whales' you mention in our guild and knowing most of the top guilds and players in my world I don't think it's as prevelant as you and others make it out to be. I know a few GBG leaders in some mid size guilds that on the right settings get some huge numbers, this is due to the fact there are very few guildmates who bother so they carry the load of the whole guild, you see players with big numbers you are wrong to assume that these players are just on taking easy sectors all day for personal benefit, not saying never but believe it is very rare.

 

[jovada]

not a slight chance. If an opposing guild has 2 or 3 times the members and the attrition is capped at 76%, how can you realistically keep up when they can do a fixed maximum of fights per day which is double or triple the fights tjat your own guild can do.

Then maybe your story is not completly correct or you forgot to mention a few things.

Opposing guild had 2 or 3 times the fighters you have also before, so you can say that whenever you took a sector you loose him 4h later , or maybe that guild let you take sectors with many slots so you have a lot with 0 attrition and they have to fight with attrition ?
So i think if limited to -66.6% and you receive the slots to put them and the others the same way have none i think your story could be pretty much the same

 

[Knight Roland]

Do you realize the contradiction in these two statements? Increasing the cost of SCs and WTs will favor the big guilds.

maybe they could change it to a more dynamic cost per siege camp where the size of a guild matters

currently the cost for a SC is fixed, no matter how big the guild is, which favors the big guilds.

how about that: each additional guild member beyond the first guild member can trigger an additional cost when a SC is being built

 

[DEADP00L]

I have *never* seen an "every guild's happy" coop group.

On my French world, all the diamond guilds and those in platinum that regularly meet in diamond have signed a charter that everyone respects:
- no traps
- no deletion of camps
- we leave the sector in front of each HQ without attacking it
- no sector is timed

So no one is ever stuck as a spectator, no need to agree to coordinate and the guilds make between 1k and 150k with each GbG.

-----------

I understand those who will lose a lot, but none answered my simple question:
Do you prefer to go back to the old system BUT only group the best guilds on the same map?
OR
Would you like to test the current system where guilds that are not as optimized as yours can play around a bit?

 

[Knight Roland]

or maybe that guild let you take sectors with many slots

i assure you they didnt let us take any sector willingly. after we had a few skirmishes, there was one crucible 3-slot sector ahead of us that day which we had to win in order for doing more and we won it only half a second before red took it themselves.

Then we had two more sectors which would open up the whole map that day and we won these also only very tight, maybe two or three seconds ahead of them.

by that time we were almost completely expired, there was only little attrition left for everybody, but then we had only 0-attrition fights ahead of us across the entire map.

so no, with a capped 66% attrition reduction, taking the one 3-slot sector would have been the end of the gg activity for that day, and we couldnt even gain any benefit from
conquering it. It would have had no effect at all. Could as well just dump your daily fights into some random sector and be done with it for the day, it would make no difference.

 

[Juber]

The most disturbing sentence in the announcement is still this one:

"In addition, it was something often remarked upon by our communities and players, who participated in Guild Battlegrounds. We even had this same suggestion polled on different occasions, with players voting overwhelmingly for a change to the Watchtower and Siege camp ability formula."

There have been lots of suggestions, but I cannot remember this one neither having voted for or against this - maybe someone can show me the original pls.

One early idea is this one for example. But there were some more (I remember some in the German forum as well).

 

[King Flush]

@King Flush

So if you play the game and are not afraid to take attrition you still be happy with -66.6% attrition,
When i say endless rewards i mean the few whales that only come in all day long only fighting when there are plenty of camps to fight with 0% attrition and doing more then1000 fights a day, they don't care about guild or guildmates, most of them even have the mentality of hurry, hurry to take sector before an other guildmate jumps in.

further more in regards to this post, regarding these players that you mention who you say have the 'hurry, hurry to take sector before an other guildmate jumps in' mentality, I'll fill a sector as fast as I'm able though spend much time focussing on what's happening elsewhere on the map or coordinating but isn't it just and fair that those who are able to fight faster (less troop swapping due to their stats) should get more fights than someone with less? and how is it any different than other aspects of the game? those with big Arcs race for positions on 1.9's for Arc profiteering, snipers don't think well I've sniped enough for today I'll let someone else take advantage of that cheap position just seen, it just doesn't happen, this is where the competitive nature of the game comes in, I don't know there may be a game out there that lacks any competitive element maybe you should consider trying to find one rather than lobbying to turn FOE into such.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

maybe they could change it to a more dynamic cost per siege camp where the size of a guild matters

currently the cost for a SC is fixed, no matter how big the guild is, which favors the big guilds.

how about that: each additional guild member beyond the first guild member can trigger an additional cost when a SC is being built

Does your guild set a minimum performance standard for GBG encounters and have the discipline to enforce it without exception? If not, it will need to start if this idea was ever implemented. Currently. "dead weight" is costless to all but guilds with 80 members and a wait list.

 

[Jonny1961]

After so many pages, maybe an addition that sheds a different light on the whole problem.
Why is it always only asked of Inno that they should undo everything?
There were even voices demanding compensation for the now missing rewards and further restrictions.
Perhaps everyone should re-read what each of us agreed to at the start of our game.
It says which framework conditions are provided by Inno AND that these framework conditions can be changed AT ANY TIME WITHOUT giving reasons.
This would mean that the whole discussion being conducted here would no longer be relevant.
In addition, it should be clear that the behavior of players made these measures necessary, even if most here do not want to admit that.
The only decision that every player has here is whether to continue playing under the new conditions
want or not.
And Inno will have very precise figures on whether the changes to be implemented will jeopardize the profitability of the game. So the hints that you won't buy diamonds are meaningless, because the probable decline due to the (almost) unlimited rewards could also have been a criterion.
The profitability of the game allows all players to have this pastime at all.
FoE is NOT a stubborn war game as many would like and demand. But there are other things in the game market that can give much better wartime with all the things a warrior wants to have.

 

[King Flush]

After so many pages, maybe an addition that sheds a different light on the whole problem.
Why is it always only asked of Inno that they should undo everything?
There were even voices demanding compensation for the now missing rewards and further restrictions.
Perhaps everyone should re-read what each of us agreed to at the start of our game.
It says which framework conditions are provided by Inno AND that these framework conditions can be changed AT ANY TIME WITHOUT giving reasons.
This would mean that the whole discussion being conducted here would no longer be relevant.
In addition, it should be clear that the behavior of players made these measures necessary, even if most here do not want to admit that.
The only decision that every player has here is whether to continue playing under the new conditions
want or not.
And Inno will have very precise figures on whether the changes to be implemented will jeopardize the profitability of the game. So the hints that you won't buy diamonds are meaningless, because the probable decline due to the (almost) unlimited rewards could also have been a criterion.
The profitability of the game allows all players to have this pastime at all.
FoE is NOT a stubborn war game as many would like and demand. But there are other things in the game market that can give much better wartime with all the things a warrior wants to have.

because they say they can change the game at will doesn't mean it is a fair thing to do and rightfully people will be p1ssed if they do, like you get a phone contract and in small print it says we can put prices up at will, you're a few months in and they put price up by a staggering amount would you not be annoyed? for sure you may be the kind of person who will always read the small print and think well that's their problem for not doing so but majority just put some trust in a company not to shaft them, well this will certainly open peoples eyes to not trusting Inno from this day forward if implemented.

luckily a lot of companies are restricted by certain behaviours by governing bodies and such that prevent them doing certain unfair things, maybe this isn't the case in the gaming world but despite the small print I'd say it is fraudulant or misleading at best to have people invest money on a pretense then drastically alter things.

I'd like to put in small print outside my house that tresspassers will be shot but unfortunately even if I was to do so I doubt it would wash with the law in the UK

 

[Knight Roland]

Currently. "dead weight" is costless to all but guilds with 80 members and a wait list.

i know what u mean, but still: the current fixed cost per siege camp heavily favors big guilds.

how about this modified suggestion:

a) the current cost for siege camps and watch towers stays the same

b) for every guild member beyond the first theres an additional cost per siege camp being applied.

c) members who were not online for at least 24 hours, or members who did not participate in an ongoing GBG round for at least 24 hours, or members who did not participate in the last 2 days of the last GBG round, or members who currently cannot participate in an ongoing GBG round cant trigger the additional cost per siege camp. but maybe this is all to complicate to be implemented, i dont know

 

[-Alin-]

One early idea is this one for example. But there were some more (I remember some in the German forum as well).

This might have been a good idea at the beggining, NOT NOW, when thousands of players are used on how GbG is working, mostly for farming having their cities made just for this

I also still remember how GbG was without buildings, which were added a bit later here in beta, 2 weeks I think, if I reckon correctly.

Spoiler: GbG and privinces buildings

 

[Knight Roland]

One early idea is this one for example. But there were some more (I remember some in the German forum as well).

that is definately the most representative poll i have ever seen, with 8:4 votes, which counts to 12 participants.

seriously?…

and it was 3 years ago, so that is what you base your design decisions on?

damn

 

[Gattaca]

There will be no new balance like this. The strong guilds will continue to make up the places among themselves.

The balance only reduces the fights and rewards... probably that's supposed to be the balance.

In order to conquer as many sectors as possible, many negotiations will have to be made. And if traps are set, it will not work at all without negotiations. Diamonds are also used and Inno can rejoice.

It won't be very important to have high fight bonuses either. That only brings a few more fights. I don't think players will rebuild their cities (more goods buildings) they have invested too much for that
.

 

[Fire Witch]

that is what you base your design decisions on?

No. It was just an example.

 

[Knight Roland]

No. It was just an example.

ok they have
made a few polls over the years with each having around a dozen participants.

please dont bring these GBG changes to the live servers, in your own interest and in the interest of the player base, it would do the game no good. It would instead piss off alot players.

Theres so many opportunities and possibilities to make the game better, why must they take away our GBG fun instead?

 

[jovada]

this is where the competitive nature of the game comes in, I don't know there may be a game out there that lacks any competitive element maybe you should consider trying to find one rather than lobbying to turn FOE into such.

It's amazing that competition is only mesured with the ability of 0% attrition, like there can be no competition with -66.6% attrition

 

[Ted the huge]

You mean like Netflix and CNN+ ?
It would create a mass exodus and then all the weak Guilds could have the place to themselves.
If there was an analysis on the revenue stream, I bet it would show 90% of the diamond purchases come from the better Guild members.
It is not cheap to build fast camps and other buildings in GBG. It has been proven that more activity does not result in a even return on investment.
It also requires humongous Treasury goods and they come from hard work, not from thin air. I would rather they give cheap buildings to weaker Guilds, than deprive the others' ability to navigate the map and play according to their abilities. FOE could delete the lower half of its members and not have an impact on the game or revenue. Redefine groupings. Make being a diamond Guild mean something. When there are 7 Guilds in a season and 5 of them sit idle in their bases, (not blocked) they do not deserve to be in diamond. There should be a metric to determine a Guild's effort. If they do not participate, then they should not be in a group of other Guilds who do wish to participate. GBG should not be an automatic. Guilds should need to qualify to play GBG or at least be grouped with other Guilds with the same interest/abilities. Before INNO went with this test idea, they should have experimented by putting the strongest Guilds in matchups with their peers, and put weaker Guilds in a groups by themselves.

The #1 reason weaker Guilds are locked out of a competing map, is because they bring no value to the map. You let them have a few sectors, and they do not build camps, only get in the way, and complain when they are captured again in 4 hours. They have no understanding of renting sectors in 4-hour increments and think they should be able to just sit on them ALL DAY! Instead of limiting the ability of fighting Guilds, weaker Guild members need to understand GBG is like a Merry-go-round. You pay your ticket and ride for the length of the song. When the song is over, you must get off or buy another ticket.
The entire incentive of GBG is to capture and exchange sectors. Now, because a few Guilds have figured out a way to maximize this ability, they want to shut it down completely.

Our Guild strategy this season was to let weaker Guilds participate and hold sectors as long as they built camps and attack adjoining sectors.
If they do not build camps, they do not show interest of expanding, and the order has been given to recapture them as soon as possible. Use it or lose it.

I understand the concept to make the game fairer, (only to weak Guilds) but I think there are many other ways to balance that do not punish success.
Better Season matchups would help, limiting the number of Guilds to 5 in a contest would be better, better spreading of building slots, (especially closer to base) Giving 0 attrition on launching attacks from base. There are many ways to make the game more interesting, that doesn't single out one group of successful members, who are successful because they understand all facets of the game and how to balance their cities to make their fighting experiences better.

The reason for suggestion was to reach stated goal of having attrition have more of an effect. Big guilds will still be able to go across the map. They just won't be able to have free attrition on 75% of map. My vote is still no to any change to seige camps. It would make new players that don't understand what free attrition does for you enjoy battlegrounds. After all no matter what your business you need that carrot that attracts new customers. Free attrition is that carrot in gbg. High attrition isn't sustainable even for the arrogant whales because eventually even the best lose more troops than they gain.

Edit: add : Just to remind everyone what my original suggestion was was to make attrition be 0% in sectors next to base and inrease by 33% each sector away and when you get more than 5 sectors away your attrition would go up by 2 every time.

 

[Knight Roland]

It's amazing that competition is only mesured with the ability of 0% attrition, like there can be no competition with -66.6% attrition

there will be competition theres no doubt about it, but the competition with 66,6% will be like this:

each player in a guild has so many fights per day, + - a few.

The guild with the most active members and the strongest white whales owns the most sectors at the end of the day. Thats it.

There will be no tactic, no diplomacy needed, no excitement, no surprise attacks. Its only about the numbers.

All in all, there will be alot less fights than there were before, with the big guilds dominating the maps even more.

You really seem to be looking forward to that, which is absolutely ok, i just cant get it

 

[jovada]

there will be competition theres no doubt about it, but the competition with 66,6% will be like this:

each player in a guild has so many fights per day, + - a few.

The guild with the most active members owns the most sectors at the end of the day. Thats it.

There will be no tactic, no diplomacy needed, no excitement, no surprise attacks. Its only about the numbers.

Hahaha read the 50 pages of yelling , we the active players secure the map within the first 4h and then swap with other guild to do maximum of fights, we the active players we play all day long why should they cut our attrition and most important our rewards, why should players that only jump in for 10 minutes receive rewards.
Maybe those players that work all day or go to school will come in handy now as they can do their fights and there will still be activity and it is not at the end of the day and stop , always yelling of good organization well now you can prove it there still can be activity when the whales stopped