Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[Owl II]

You overestimate the strength of your average guild. 5 good members is significantly more than your average guild has (they may have a larger roster, but most of the roster is inactive or effectively so). There isn't some magical pool of guilds with 20 active members being held back by guilds with 5. I've made it to diamond as a guild with *1* active member before.

While I am hopeful for a small shift in terms of some guilds that were sandbagging either now don't see the use or just can't help themself but take "too much", it's not going to be a night and day difference - small guilds will still sometimes make it to diamond.

Changing the ranking system is the only surefire way to keep some of the guilds out that don't belong there - but the attrition thing needs fixing first. If the map is still being overwhelmed then it doesn't matter how strong the weakest are, they're going to get the shaft and then some of them will try to avoid being there - sending less capable guilds in their place.

I read your remark and wanted put like it until I got to the place "if the map is overwhelmed". Understand, if they achieve that the map is "not overwhelmed" in the current model, it will only mean that GBG is dead. A strong guild will strive to protect its territory in any case. In any case. Look at the GvG. But why not separate the sandboxes? Strong to strong, weak to weak. The most intense and interesting seasons that have been deposited in my memory are those in which there were more than three strong guilds. This happened only once or twice, unfortunately, after 100 LP was flooded with "also a diamond"

 

[xivarmy]

I read your remark and wanted put like it until I got to the place "if the map is overwhelmed". Understand, if they achieve that the map is "not overwhelmed" in the current model, it will only mean that GBG is dead. A strong guild will strive to protect its territory in any case. In any case. Look at the GvG. But why not separate the sandboxes? Strong to strong, weak to weak. The most intense and interesting seasons that have been deposited in my memory are those in which there were more than three strong guilds. This happened only once or twice, unfortunately, after 100 LP was flooded with "also a diamond"

Not overwhelmed means needing to make strategic decisions over *what* to protect. That taking every 3rd/4th ring sector may not be the most efficient use of resources to protect the 1st/2nd/3rd rank sectors that matter. i.e. if you're running yourself out of attrition trying to do the whole map, but still have the attrition to flip with your ally every 4 hours, just 1 layer deeper that's kinda the ideal result of this. The weaker guilds have a little space to play (and compete amongst themselves for lower places), while you still keep your top 2 places on lockdown - and possibly lash out to the 3rd/4th ring at the end of the day when you know you have attrition to burn before reset.

 

[blueskydwg]

but you could get those rewards by putting some effort in and experience GBG as a means of battling with rewards as a secondary bonus rather than just wanting GBG to become another GE where you just click on for no other purpose than to get the rewards.

I think I understand what you're saying here about the battles being the primary objective.

I don't believe that Inno ever expected battlegrounds to be a farming map. In fact, the first few (maybe even 10 or 20) seasons it really was a "replacement" for GvG - guilds did battle and race each other to cap tiles. But then the players got smart and realized that working together by two, three, and even sometimes four guilds could be much more profitable to the participating guilds.

And so we find ourselves here.

And another thought that occurred to me. Several folks are predicting the demise of FoE with this change. But I wonder what the normal turnover is?
How many veteran players sign off for the last time each day/week/month and how many new players start the game in their place?

Realize that all the hundreds or thousands of new players every month won't have a clue what used to be in battlegrounds - they will only know what is, and will be happy.

 

[blueskydwg]

On my main world my attack army A/D is 1800/1100. After the change, I'm going to disconnect roads from enough to get down to 1000/800 and see how far I can push attrition. Then, I'll restore to 1800/1100, battle again, and calculate the incremental benefit of the extra A/D. I think that I'll be able to remove a lot of A/D structures, replace them with FP producers, and exceed what the extra 800/300 provides. I never built CC. With any remaining free space, I'll start building a city that's aesthetically appealing instead of the one I have now with row, after row, of Carousels, Checkmates, Winner's Plazas and Stage of Ages. I've often thought that the I artists do a great job creating beautiful buildings that nobody builds.

If you do this - please report back in the forums with your findings. I think that kind of information would be very interesting.
My main city is built primarily on attack/defense. I have no "pretty" buildings unless they also provide a sizable attack boost.

I've also tried to get any empirical data on how much the defense boost for attacking armies really helps - but haven't found anything yet.

 

[mcbluefire]

Of course we all play the game in different ways and for different reasons.
My point in the extra fights I've gotten is the extra rewards - for this season so far that translates to:
910 fps
90 troops
750 goods
90 diamonds
Those rewards may not be much to someone in SAJM who has all they need of those items - but for me working my way through SAM every little bit helps.

And I agree - most guilds won't build more than 3 SCs - it would be a waste of goods.

Perhaps you should join a guild in Beta so you can see what is actually happening. Might make the transition in your live world(s) a little easier if/when the change is made there.

I hear that. Honestly before all this discussion I never realized just how much FP I was getting in GbG - figured it was nice, but didn't realize it was about another 500/day from season to season. Based on my averages (% reported by FoE) I'm looking at dropping from 7000FP to 2520FP/season. That is a significant negative as I'm in single digits of levels left to complete Arc 180. I had many goals following that, but they are disipating like fog in the wind as they were about myself and helping more directly with others being competitive in GbG which appears to be getting setup as a diminishing returns so only helpful to the most junior players I know. It will result in me not helping as much on the 1.94-2.0+ (in and out of guild) threads that I currently support which will negatively affect the players I help as they go seek drop threads with lower pay rates to get positions filled faster.

I am nowhere near in a position to test GbG like on live, but I appreciate the invite to do so and more importantly your actual experience in numbers.

 

[DEADP00L]

If it helps, beyond certain attack percentages depending on the era of the city, the Arctic Orangery is more effective than 200% additional attack.

 

[xivarmy]

If it helps, beyond certain attack percentages depending on the era of the city, the Arctic Orangery is more effective than 200% additional attack.

To an extent. Arctic Orangery is a bit strange - they experimented with accelerating returns past 10 on it (and perhaps less interestingly Seed Vault as well), but then they do eventually slow down as well past lv 100.

Lv 110 or so Arctic Orangery makes a fair bit of sense - but by time you're hitting 130-140 territory there may be serious questions about whether it's worthwhile to do more as the return/level is slowing down while the cost per level is exploding.

 

[blueskydwg]

If it helps, beyond certain attack percentages depending on the era of the city, the Arctic Orangery is more effective than 200% additional attack.

Yep - I've got my AO in Beta at 89 and 110 in my main world.

 

[blueskydwg]

To an extent. Arctic Orangery is a bit strange - they experimented with accelerating returns past 10 on it (and perhaps less interestingly Seed Vault as well), but then they do eventually slow down as well past lv 100.

Lv 110 or so Arctic Orangery makes a fair bit of sense - but by time you're hitting 130-140 territory there may be serious questions about whether it's worthwhile to do more as the return/level is slowing down while the cost per level is exploding.

All the GBs have a diminishing rate of return built in.
My main city Arc is 125 and I'm having a hard time figuring out why I would want to go any higher?
Thoughts?

 

[Pericles the Lion]

I hear that. Honestly before all this discussion I never realized just how much FP I was getting in GbG - figured it was nice, but didn't realize it was about another 500/day from season to season. Based on my averages (% reported by FoE) I'm looking at dropping from 7000FP to 2520FP/season. That is a significant negative as I'm in single digits of levels left to complete Arc 180. I had many goals following that, but they are disipating like fog in the wind as they were about myself and helping more directly with others being competitive in GbG which appears to be getting setup as a diminishing returns so only helpful to the most junior players I know. It will result in me not helping as much on the 1.94-2.0+ (in and out of guild) threads that I currently support which will negatively affect the players I help as they go seek drop threads with lower pay rates to get positions filled faster.

I am nowhere near in a position to test GbG like on live, but I appreciate the invite to do so and more importantly your actual experience in numbers.

The reduction in battles will certainly reduce the amount of FP rewards. No argument there. Fewer FPs coming in will slow down progress towards ARC180. Again, no argument. But, how will a reduced FP income have a negative impact on ability to help level other players' GBs? I've been using GBG revenue to level my Arc (now at 150) but set a lower limit of 100K FPs in the bank just for the purpose of helping Guildmates level buildings. They level up fast and I get a 1:1 return on investment so, even if GBG went away, I'd still be able to help out. I may never get to ARC180 but always looked at it as "nice to have" not "need to have". YMMV

 

[Pericles the Lion]

All the GBs have a diminishing rate of return built in.
My main city Arc is 125 and I'm having a hard time figuring out why I would want to go any higher?
Thoughts?

Honestly, I've been levelling mine up (@150 now) because I have no other GBs that I need to build, my existing GBs are at solid levels, and I have more FPs in the bank than I need for regular operations. ARC seems the best place to put them. From an ROI point of view, it probably doesn't make sense though.

 

[xivarmy]

All the GBs have a diminishing rate of return built in.
My main city Arc is 125 and I'm having a hard time figuring out why I would want to go any higher?
Thoughts?

Depends how much you spend daily. While Arc definitely does have diminishing returns, its returns are so high for people that make use of it that it can make sense to keep going. Though by 130 on arc we are talking about 100s of thousands of FP cycled a day through others gbs if you're trying to justify the cost to go further as a return in reasonable time.

But most people doing the Arc-180 trek do it not for any rational reason, but simply because they need something to work on and Arc having a fixed goal of "stops getting better at 180" appeals in that sense.

When it comes to superhigh buildings, Arctic Orangery mostly enters the discussion for being a unique combat benefit you can't get anywhere else. So yea, at some point, you might add more to it because you don't have anything else you want more of anyways. Apparently level 201 gets you a 50% to crit if you want an arduous journey for a goal that sounds nice

 

[DEADP00L]

especially since Inno hasn't offered transcendent GB for 2 or 3 years.

 

[DEADP00L]

Unless the nerf to the SC camouflages a future GB whose main bonus would be directly linked to the GBG...

 

[Donna a Macskabolond]

Unless the nerf to the SC camouflages a future GB whose main bonus would be directly linked to the GBG...

Don't get your hopes too high...

 

[DEADP00L]

Don't get your hopes too high...

But if ! Santa Claus told me.
Already that I learned lma last week that the little mouse did not exist, I want to keep this hope to compensate.

 

[mcbluefire]

All the GBs have a diminishing rate of return built in.
My main city Arc is 125 and I'm having a hard time figuring out why I would want to go any higher?
Thoughts?

Simple answer: Math.
More complex answer: The higher your percentage, the more FP you make on each investment. Also it opens access for you to server-wide drop threads like 1.97 and 2.0. This in turn saves you thousands on leveling other GBs while helping other players do the same at little cost, break-even, or profit for you. My guild has a 1.97 drop thread for guild good GBs and we'd like to be able to continue that and have more contributors as time goes by, not less.

Take for example one placement of 3012FP on a GB with Arc125 (1.945) versus Arc180 (2.0):

• 3012FP 1.9 investment with 1.945 Arc provides a profit of 71FP
• same investment with 2.0 Arc provides a profit of 158FP

Granted the delta diminishes when you are placing on spots under 3K, but earning more for the same actions done in the past is well worth it to me to make my game time more enjoyable and less time consuming. Competitive edge one might say.

The reduction in battles will certainly reduce the amount of FP rewards. No argument there. Fewer FPs coming in will slow down progress towards ARC180. Again, no argument. But, how will a reduced FP income have a negative impact on ability to help level other players' GBs? I've been using GBG revenue to level my Arc (now at 150) but set a lower limit of 100K FPs in the bank just for the purpose of helping Guildmates level buildings. They level up fast and I get a 1:1 return on investment so, even if GBG went away, I'd still be able to help out. I may never get to ARC180 but always looked at it as "nice to have" not "need to have". YMMV

I, like you, held a 100K FP pool for a while. But as time went on I got a bit weary of watching 40-60K FP sitting in my bank, so I moved some of it to my Arc. I'm able to supplement my bank quickly by converting FP from GbG through other GBs and eventually end it up on the Arc. Thus, now I'm concerned that with reducing production of FP from GbG will negatively affect my ability to fill positions until I can eventually build bank back 60K+ a month or so after I finish Arc180. So good point, it's not a permanent issue for me, but never-the-less it is an issue that many will not overcome based on guildmates that I know never build up an FP bank pool at all and are using FP rewards from GbG to be able to "afford" positions on the drop threads. They will just go back to taking P4/P5 and waiting for others to take P1-P3.

 

[blueskydwg]

LOL - my bank is over 100K but there is something inside me that just doesn't like to see it less than that.
I really need to set a lower limit - say 50K and use the excess to build my AO and Arc.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Simple answer: Math.

The math is why I'm in no hurry to take ARC over 150. Using 1.9s, the owner investment getting from 150 to 180 is just over 1 million FPs. Investing 50,000 FPs in other player's GBs the payback period is about two years. I invest heavily in 1.9s but, even so, finding opportunities for 50K daily is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Donna a Macskabolond]

The math is why I'm in no hurry to take ARC over 150. Using 1.9s, the owner investment getting from 150 to 180 is just over 1 million FPs. Investing 50,000 FPs in other player's GBs the payback period is about two years. I invest heavily in 1.9s but, even so, finding opportunities for 50K daily is a bit of a stretch.

You know, the different 1.9x threads also will slow down. There will be less and less requests because lots of FP will be eliminated from the game and also the player activity will be reduced because they will have nothing to do in the game beside collecting...