Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[HunZ95]

part of that lies in each additional point of attrition having a larger increase in enemy boosts from the previous point of attrition gain

I know this.
But if they want to add more attrition to battles at all costs, wouldn't it hurt to revise their ratio as well? Because e.g. after 90-100 the penalties change ridiculously.
Of course, we don't know what the ultimate goal is and what limits they want to put the players under.

 

[CrashBoom]

actually we know what limit they want
300-400 fights per days

because that is what the math tells us for a 66.6% cap

if they wanted 450-550 they would have capped it at 5 SC

 

[HunZ95]

actually we know what limit they want
300-400 fights per days

because that is what the math tells us for a 66.6% cap

if they wanted 450-550 they would have capped it at 5 SC

No, right now we only know that this is the maximum. We don't know what they planned, because apparently it was a hasty change, and countless other circumstances were not taken into account, which caused the camps to weaken.
But many errors were listed here by the forum members, and if still they decide to introduce this change, hopefully these errors will be fixed with other changes.

 

[jovada]

But many errors were listed here by the forum members, and if still they decide to introduce this change, hopefully these errors will be fixed with other changes.

After two years of discussion they finaly do something, i don't know if it was a hasty change (because i received a confirmation on 25/11/2021 from the CM on our world that they will do something but have other priorities for the moment)
This is a first change, maybe after testing they will see some other changes have to be done also, but they will not make hasty changes before testing this one.

 

[DEADP00L]

But many errors were listed here by the forum members

What errors?

 

[jovada]

Obviously, you were not able to understand. I am not surprised and I don`t want to discuss with you, because you are under a special protection.

First you better think twice , because your solution is really simple and not tought about it .

What if i say i don't want to play the 1000LP but i choose the diamond light because that fits me and i can do a max profit , what if other guilds say don't put me in the upper platina because there i can't exploit GbG but put me in the platina cellar.

Second can you specify how i am under protection ? in what way ? i never insult only give my feedback and idea's , not a very smart accusation and same goes for the onces who liked this statement.

 

[DEADP00L]

What amuses me the most is in 2 years of discussions on the imbalance in GbG, we have seen few people and since this subject, we see them all, not to defend their point of view with arguments or in sharing their experience, but attacking anyone who doesn't think like them.

Not one has been honest enough to say that the update is causing them to lose FP and that's the only reason for their grumbling. No, they hide behind hypothetical direct server strategies or to attack those who want to test after having suffered this aberration for 2 years.

 

[Zuckerberg the Horrid]

Spoiler: Results

I can survive with this, but I will have to stick to 270-300 fights/day and lower attrition everyday, I lost more units currently than I produced to achieve 120 attrition on weaker days and 149 in that "top" day ...

continuously quoting your ability to go to 120+ attrition just proves your post's irrelevance and the lack of balance in this change
This unjustly affects people who age up beyond Future.
Also manual battles don't count, I assert anyone who would daily sit around to max their attrition via manual battles has no life and that that is not how anyone who developed GBG intended for the game to be played (whole guilds of people maxing their attrition via manual battles every night.. yeah right, no thanks, anyone who dreamt that up at GBG's inception would be a serious sicko.)

 

[-Alin-]

continuously quoting your ability to go to 120+ attrition just proves your post's irrelevance and the lack of balance in this change
This unjustly affects people who age up beyond Future.
Also manual battles don't count, I assert anyone who would daily sit around to max their attrition via manual battles has no life and that that is not how anyone who developed GBG intended for the game to be played (whole guilds of people maxing their attrition via manual battles every night.. yeah right, no thanks, anyone who dreamt that up at GBG's inception would be a serious sicko.)

Before the update I wasn't cherry picking the fights(only in the rarely ocasions if I was the single one "alive" to do the swap at that time and I had more than 110 attrition) as I do now to maximize my fights numbers, also the time was reduced drastically, for me It takes 50 minutes/day in total to reach 140 attrition, as I said, all auto from 0-120, and few more manual in easy fights if I can find easy combos, if not, done for the day.
For people with less stats or strange eras like AF/OF will not take them more than 30 minutes per day to do their atrition and wait for the next day.
Gbg was very time consuming.

50minutes(GbG)+15-20 minutes(sniping)+10 minutes helping guildmates with 1.9 and collecting my city+5 minutes looking for AD/collecting tavern and fight in continent map and pvp+5 minutes doing some negos from SC in GE+5 minutes aiding/tavern= 90-95 minutes/day are needed now to play the game on my level without events.
If I want to do GvG and reccuring Quests that's another story, If I have the time and desire to do so.

 

[CrashBoom]

I assert anyone who would daily sit around to max their attrition via manual battles has no life

like the people who autobattle all day with 0 attrition (before the change): also no life

that is not how anyone who developed GBG intended for the game to be played

autobattle GBG with 0 attrition all day is also not how anyone who developed GBG intended for the game to be played

 

[Volshebnitsa]

autobattle GBG with 0 attrition all day is also not how anyone who developed GBG intended for the game to be played

Many things do not work out as originally designed. GBG was planned for battles. Right now very few players want to fight. Fight seasons consume too much time and energy. That's why guilds make arrangements and share the field. That's their preference. And the guilds are not as greedy as before, even in 1000PL 4 guilds may participate in swaps, not 2 like a year back. Inno just have to accept the reality and adapt.

 

[Owl II]

like the people who autobattle all day with 0 attrition (before the change): also no life



autobattle GBG with 0 attrition all day is also not how anyone who developed GBG intended for the game to be played

Really? Are you not playing like this because it is not intended? Or are there other reasons?

 

[Ted the huge]

What amuses me the most is in 2 years of discussions on the imbalance in GbG, we have seen few people and since this subject, we see them all, not to defend their point of view with arguments or in sharing their experience, but attacking anyone who doesn't think like them.

Not one has been honest enough to say that the update is causing them to lose FP and that's the only reason for their grumbling. No, they hide behind hypothetical direct server strategies or to attack those who want to test after having suffered this aberration for 2 years.

I think I layed out my points pretty well without attacking anyone. It will hurt my ability to conquer sectors. It will hurt my ability to recruit new players. It will change how i create fp. There are other ways to create fp. This is the one that needs most teamwork(with guild mates and other guilds) I think even though the developers did not intend guilds to use sc in this manner. It has become something players expect now. Just like when you go to McDonald's you expect to buy a hamburger.

I like that some of the solutions are so simple and could all be combined. I would love to see a 3rd rotating round that the developers could test out some very clever ideas that have already been bounced around.

I am surprised it has never came up for a vote on live servers. The people who do beta are such a small slice of the player base. I would think they would at least want to test such a major change on a random control group.

Because of the developers previous ideas it is pretty clear they do not have to take away free attrition sectors to implement this new idea.

 

[GateKeeper]

autobattle GBG with 0 attrition all day is also not how anyone who developed GBG intended for the game to be played

well they developed an attrition factor and than made Sieges so players would use diamonds, i.e. spend money. So the developers have some blame here for the disaster GBG turned out to be for overall game play and integrity.

This has been a great change to GBG. No more free attrition as it should have been from the start. This will make 3-4 guilds swap sectors instead of just 2 guilds. Still the name GBG won't make sense unless the full name is Guild Bargain Grounds now?! But its a good start to fixing GBG.

Inno/Juber do not be swayed by the poll requests....30% approval on a change like this is pretty dam good. Forge on , make the changes on Live servers. Bring some balance back to the game.

 

[Zuckerberg the Horrid]

I am surprised it has never came up for a vote on live servers. The people who do beta are such a small slice of the player base. I would think they would at least want to test such a major change on a random control group.

Because of the developers previous ideas it is pretty clear they do not have to take away free attrition sectors to implement this new idea.

It won't make a difference, there are enough small people and small guilds that don't understand the reasons for their failures and don't understand how this won't improve things for them (or just want to stick it to the big guilds they think have subjected them to inequality over the years) that any test or vote across the live servers will be overwhelmingly for this
but a metric like time played, which for anyone other than someone completely unable to control themselves, is a decent (closest we can get) analog for enjoyment, will undoubtedly be against this change.

 

[Zuckerberg the Horrid]

as I said, all auto from 0-120, and few more manual in easy fights

and as I said, >continuously quoting your ability to go to 120+ attrition just proves your post's irrelevance and the lack of balance in this change

I only reply to you because I'm worried that other people will give it credence who understand less about the game and how ridiculous your fighting capability is (which players in other ages can't reach, and obviously they also can't age backwards to make it possible), and the developers clearly know way less about their game than the average player so maybe they'll use your posts as evidence towards validating their mistakes.

How about this? a change to the slope of attrition, so that players like you can't fight past 80, while players who were already capped under 80 is relatively unaffected?
oh what's that, you think you earned the ability to fight to 120? well, people that spent all their FP and diamonds and effort building their guilds to compete at max capacity (and I emphasize compete here because I don't come from a farming guild or server) - they also think they earned the outcome, where they can fight together whenever sectors open.
so naturally because it's the same argument, do you now think your attrition should be capped at 80, or are you against the change to siege camps?

 

[Pericles the Lion]

I only reply to you because I'm worried that other people will give it credence who understand less about the game and how ridiculous your fighting capability is (which players in other ages can't reach, and obviously they also can't age backwards to make it possible), and the developers clearly know way less about their game than the average player so maybe they'll use your posts as evidence towards validating their mistakes.

I saw a YouTube video 2 days ago showing a player finishing a GBG battle at 2000 attrition. He was in Indy, fighting IA units, using OF troops. I can't imagine the number of diamonds that he spent rushing from IA to Indy in a matter of days along with breezing the C-Map all the way to OF just to grab the advanced era troops, but he did it. My point is that 140 attrition is reachable at lower ages. Now, none of this is the least bit relevant. @-NinjAlin is providing data that compares his current experience with what he was able to do earlier. It's a simple exercise for a player to take his information and use it to predict the impact on their game, if any. While I appreciate your concern, it comes off as being condescending.

 

[Fire Witch]

I only reply to you because I'm worried that other people will give it credence who understand less about the game and how ridiculous your fighting capability is (which players in other ages can't reach, and obviously they also can't age backwards to make it possible), and the developers clearly know way less about their game than the average player so maybe they'll use your posts as evidence towards validating their mistakes.

Juber gathers the feedback and he has almost 10 years of game experience, so no need to worry.

 

[-Alin-]

and as I said, >continuously quoting your ability to go to 120+ attrition just proves your post's irrelevance and the lack of balance in this change

I only reply to you because I'm worried that other people will give it credence who understand less about the game and how ridiculous your fighting capability is (which players in other ages can't reach, and obviously they also can't age backwards to make it possible), and the developers clearly know way less about their game than the average player so maybe they'll use your posts as evidence towards validating their mistakes.

How about this? a change to the slope of attrition, so that players like you can't fight past 80, while players who were already capped under 80 is relatively unaffected?
oh what's that, you think you earned the ability to fight to 120? well, people that spent all their FP and diamonds and effort building their guilds to compete at max capacity (and I emphasize compete here because I don't come from a farming guild or server) - they also think they earned the outcome, where they can fight together whenever sectors open.
so naturally because it's the same argument, do you now think your attrition should be capped at 80, or are you against the change to siege camps?

I said in some posts earlier it doesn't affect me directly these changes, I will miss the possibility to do ****loads of fights, but I can survive with them, they can cut GbG entirely and I will still play the game on my free time, there are still other means to play FoE.
In the last 2 and a half years in FoE, the entire game was about GbG for many players, they built their stats just to increase their rewards either fighting in GbG or grinding/farming.

I can't see what's ridiculous about my fighting "capability" in doing 120+ attrition, this is the result of advancing in game and raising stats, everyone can reach that If they have the desire, it's just a mater of time and dedication.
And I don't took the advantage from GbG in raising my GBs, I had the attack ones higher long before GbG existence)

Also, my posts are just for the numbers, I don't post them strictly for me or to brag how "strong" I am(when I know I am nothing compared to others), I just do this for others, maybe they are interested on how the "Nerf" will affect them if this is going live, many players used GbG for farming. I don't blame them, they did the right thing, this was offered by InnoGames from the beggining, so is their fault, not the players that adapted and raised their stats and treasuries just for this reason.
You can't please everyone everytime, ragarding each update and changes.

And there is no need to be that toxic, believe me.

 

[xivarmy]

I think there is a simple solution to reorder this caos - return to the previous system, but give the guilds the possibility to make a choice where to play. Now this is automatic and generates the problemes.
A guild can feel very good in Platinum, but not in Diamond, so let it play there. When the guild will be strong enough, it can always pass in Diamond.
This way you can obntain the balance, that all are talking about and will cost almost nothing to INNO.
This is a simple solution, that will make all happy. And will eliminate the envy

The problem with "choose where you play" is that while it may work out ok at first (and if it was used in the right spirit), it'll only take a couple guilds who could be (stable) at 1000 to decide to recreate 1000 at 900 as well on their terms. The motivation could be that they want an easy stomping ground without much worry, or it might be that they want their ideal swap partner every season and there's only 1 900 group. Either way now guilds at 900 now have to face 1000-level competition before 1000.

Non-optional matchmaking is important. Even if the existing matchmaking leaves something to be desired, it's better with it than without it.