Discussion What would it need to replace GvG?

[Demeter7]

the one thing that needs to be fixed in gvg is the fact that it's possible to automate most/all of it.... some guilds use bots to do all the fighting (army replacing included) which suffocates the maps and prevents benevolent guilds (that do not cheat) to do anything (unless you lick the feet of that cheating guild's leader ofc). some even use bots to watch the maps so they can respond immediately when under attack. get rid of these bots please, and gvg would become much better.

also, finding some means to add it to mobile in some way (it has to be possible imho) would be very good, but then beware of server overloads because gvg apparently is very demanding of the game servers, which is prob why it was never brought to mobile in the first place

lastly, removing "All Ages" map and replacing it with maps for each age (including space-themed maps for the space ages) would be nice. currently i am sitting on thousands of unused units of ages between Arctic and Venus, and it would be nice to have some meaningful use for these again.

and overall: nothing else needs to be changed for gvg... keeping it simple fighting (without the big rewards you get with battlegrounds) would be best to keep all parties happy

All of what he said ^^^^
GvG is the best part of this game. It is challenging and takes strategy. The bots NEED to be eliminated. If it worked on mobile and if there were more maps for the other ages, that would make it better.

Bigger maps with more sectors, more obstacles, etc. might be fun too.

 

[DEADP00L]

One thing Inno never understood: if GvG is so popular it's mainly for its strategic side, unlike everything else it does by adding randomness.

 

[planetofthehumans2]

This by contrast does not work. There are lots of guilds with whatever level that are virtually non active, or only still even figure because they can muster a few people to take some sectors in Gvg. It would be much better to count Gbg also as number of fights taken or sectors turned over (adjusted weight against league so platinum fights count for less than diamond ones maybe) or however it might be calculated, rather than based solely on league points.

But back to any potential Gvg replacement. Whatever reason people have to play it, it is in its current form part of the game, with an unbalanced weight on guild rank, with most importance to fighting set for a short period of time at antisocial hours, and inaccessible to the majority of players. If anything alternative can be envisaged, those issues need to be addresses. If they can’t, at least the current weighting against rank needs to change. Maybe also the impact on player points, but it would seem unfair that that troop spend wouldn’t give you anything in return.

The simplest* solution, not the best. Because the best is going to require a complete redesign and overhaul which will cost Inno money and Inno doesn't want to spend money to make the game better.

 

[Grzechu Junior]

fog of war. (Caveat done to stay within the topic).

fog of war is not the problem. It is strategy. Powerfull guild has the right to control bigger part of map. Its nothing bad. (i was on both situations as keeper guild and fighting "for freedom")
It is not abuse. Its tactic. One of the way of playing it.

Another ideas to heal gvg.
If a guild is deleted from map - they should be punished with sotmehing like being unable to land on beach for 3-5 days.
Now trhwoing guild out of map gives nothing good. They have go into anywhere else. This would make fighting for last sector more important.

 

[Estipar]

GvG worked, perhaps a long time ago before 2000% Attacks against 75/50% Def to battle against, things were much simpler back then. Then Ranking became important and Guilds figured a way to 'Be Creative' to amass as much control, power and ranking points as possible. Now Bots have taken control with Sectors taking Seconds to take.. Eliminating the use of spears just evolved into Archers and having Medals for AA made them meaningless (most guilds having hundreds of millions to throw about on AA Sectors) releasing and retaking them nightly. I agree open it up to more ages, increase the Def boosts from 75/50% to a more realistic number, eliminate the use of Bots, make it more than a 3 minute scramble to release and retake sectors at 8pm every night, add more ages and stop Guilds blocking off entire Maps.. Give us back the GvG that we all loved back before it became a 3 minute a day joke...

 

[Yekk]

fog of war is not the problem. It is strategy. Powerfull guild has the right to control bigger part of map. Its nothing bad. (i was on both situations as keeper guild and fighting "for freedom")
It is not abuse. Its tactic. One of the way of playing it.

I completely disagree. It allows the abuses we see to now exist. A guild at the moment can drop set a couple of tiles at reset in an age and their area is safe for another day. No powerful in that. Some ages have the majority of tiles closed off from attack. It was a strategy back when good were always in short supply. I have been around since CA was the new age. No Traz's then. Now guilds have millions of goods and medals but denied access to much of the higher GVG map because fog closed the shore. If you are the strongest come out and fight. You still win there but with more honor to that win.

 

[joyfulrider]

To replace GvG, my only choice bringing new advanced continent map area with different provinces globally with new logics.

Let all guilds in same world fight for each province. No honeycomb level size provinces anymore and make everything like province size.

If no guild captures the province, the defense units will be set by AI. If captured, guild should mandatorily need to apply defenders for the province. If not, opponent may get free win without any defenders.

Advanced new continent map,

Hierarchy:
Age/Era -> Territories -> Provinces

With this, multiple territories available on every age and each one has minimum 7 provinces. Each territory is a base for any guild and they can receive defense or attack power from the territory base only if any guild capture province in the territory. Multiple guilds gets benefit from same territory if those guild captured few of the provinces in the territory. If all provinces are captured by single guild, a territory can produce random rewards for every two hours which can be gathered only by acquired guild. In this process, if other guild captured any province when those rewards are available, those rewards will be declined.

A province which got captured by any guild doesn't have any lock time period, it will be available for other guild to capture anytime. So making strong defense to a province is must.

And mainly, attack or defence units used should be match to the territory age. No cross age units fighting and exception is no age units only.

Can add more details, but this itself will not get implemented since it's a massive change where Dev's need to adjust lot of codes to this game approach. As a fact, it will take minimum 3 weeks time to delivers this without any issue or lag if no challenges on making same design pattern on Mobile and PC.

 

[LastWarrior]

It should have gone years ago when you brought GbG out.
As stated many times it just allows bots to gain many points easily.
As for a lot of active players use it thats rubbish, most players are mobile only?
The ranking system is archaic.
Replace with a mobile version then it would be a lot better.

 

[Aeshma]

I don't want to see it replaced, just modified. It's pretty much the only reason I still play this game. GVG requires tactics and diplomacy. GBG only benefits the people lucky enough to be online when there are low attrition sectors (and those people usually have really high attack bonuses and don't need the help or the rewards), and I find GE to be boring.

It needs to be available for both mobile and pc

Perhaps once a week, the LZs could change randomly, this would help keep them from being permanently blocked

For the AA map, there should be a special set of units, allowing anyone of any age to participate. Their troops would be automatically turned into these special units when fighting and filling sectors.

I would like to see more things that can be done at different hours. For some countries, the current reset time is ok, but those of us who live in 24 hour societies are not always able to be online at reset because we have to work or sleep.

Something I absolutely do not want to see is what some people seem to have suggested with limiting the number of actions a player can do. This would completely ruin any chance smaller guilds have to participate.

 

[Beta567]

It should be replaced with something more interesting than just farm for guild points which don't give any rewards. It should be accessible not only on PC. Supposedly available 24 hrs not only at 8pm.

 

[Demeter7]

We need challenges. We need strategy. No farming or mindless clicking.
GvG gives that to a point, in spite of the issues.

One thing Inno never understood: if GvG is so popular it's mainly for its strategic side, unlike everything else it does by adding randomness.

Agree! Strategy is fun. Challenges are fun.
Events like the Summer event where you just click/click/collect/spend/click = very boring.

We need more challenges! If we want Candy Crush, we will play Candy Crush.

 

[Grzechu Junior]

lucky enough to be online when there are low attrition sector

? xD you set alarms to come online for those sectorsn

 

[SlytherinAttack]

To replace GvG, my only choice bringing new advanced continent map area with different provinces globally with new logics.

Let all guilds in same world fight for each province. No honeycomb level size provinces anymore and make everything like province size.

If no guild captures the province, the defense units will be set by AI. If captured, guild should mandatorily need to apply defenders for the province. If not, opponent may get free win without any defenders.

Advanced new continent map,

Hierarchy:
Age/Era -> Territories -> Provinces

With this, multiple territories available on every age and each one has minimum 7 provinces. Each territory is a base for any guild and they can receive defense or attack power from the territory base only if any guild capture province in the territory. Multiple guilds gets benefit from same territory if those guild captured few of the provinces in the territory. If all provinces are captured by single guild, a territory can produce random rewards for every two hours which can be gathered only by acquired guild. In this process, if other guild captured any province when those rewards are available, those rewards will be declined.

A province which got captured by any guild doesn't have any lock time period, it will be available for other guild to capture anytime. So making strong defense to a province is must.

And mainly, attack or defence units used should be match to the territory age. No cross age units fighting and exception is no age units only.

Can add more details, but this itself will not get implemented since it's a massive change where Dev's need to adjust lot of codes to this game approach. As a fact, it will take minimum 3 weeks time to delivers this without any issue or lag if no challenges on making same design pattern on Mobile and PC.

Out of the box thinking and this much level of focus for a new thing is highly doubtful. Already GbG one year time wasted, event designs are getting copy paste with few modifications, not sure if it is considered for a general discussion irrespective of GvG context and again this also a repetitive design of continent map but with few modifications in the player usage.

 

[.Chris]

GBG has a ton of impact on the ranking, but the balancing is absolute hot garbage which is why it does not matter where it should absolutely matter. also imho GE should contribute to guild ranking aswell.
still, in my opinion guild ranking should include all parts of guild activity, so GvG should not have that much of an impact, but some.

The problem with GBG ranking points is that they are equal for all guilds in Diamond (or in every other league). This does in no way reflect a guilds "real" strength when it comes to GBG.
The ranking system for GBG needs a revamp

The placement of guilds is entirely determined by their activity in GvG since reaching Diamond Leauge is so ridiculously simple.

The overall ranking should include all types of ranking points, but it would be nice to have extra categories. Those may include:

• GvG
• GBG
• GE
• Guild Level
• Treasury
• Members
• ...

 

[Aeshma]

? xD you set alarms to come online for those sectorsn

I don't have access to the game while at work, and I prioritize my health over any game, meaning I will not set an alarm to interrupt my sleep just for something stupid like that.

 

[Grzechu Junior]

I don't have access to the game while at work, and I prioritize my health over any game, meaning I will not set an alarm to interrupt my sleep just for something stupid like that.

well i am not speeking about night. But duirng day. You dont work all day, you come back home, do some stuff and during that time alarms are kinda okey
and in many guild you have discord/whatsupp so ppl are massaging about sectors - so you get simply notification that some sector are open to fight

 

[Aeshma]

well i am not speeking about night. But duirng day. You dont work all day, you come back home, do some stuff and during that time alarms are kinda okey
and in many guild you have discord/whatsupp so ppl are massaging about sectors - so you get simply notification that some sector are open to fight

I am asleep during the day and I work in the evening. Not everyone has the same schedule, that is what I meant about living in a 24 hour society. I am online mostly between 1 AM and 7 AM. I prefer not to have to use a translator, or I would play on a server that is active when I am. This thread is meant to be about GvG though, not about different schedules and GBG low attrition fights.

 

[drakenridder]

I'm not sure I would want it replaced.

I know in theory what I would like, but the flaws of Guild Battlegrounds are the same flaws of GvG and every copycat out there (by unaffliated companies). If the fundamental issues cannot be resolved, then there's no point in making GvG v3

Biggest issue is no matter what solutions you come up with, it needs to be something that can work with Power Creep at play. Do you have a equalizer that either scales with the power creep, or if it's a cap isn't going to be overpowered by players being stronger than the cap? Attrition simply does not do the job of an equalizer in Guild Battlegrounds, and GvG get's broken by the ability to remove beaches from play as it doesn't restrict the winning Guild, only the opposing Guilds. There's too much difference in Guild strengths for either mechanic to succeed at that job.

The more power creep we get the more crucial it is to have a equalizer that isn't going to break the moment the next Event gets released. Usually the faster you increase the power of new additions the more likely you'll destroy any solution implemented that would allow more than just the #1 Guild to actually do anything on the map.

You need a dynamic where the lowest strength Guild on a map has the capability to both Attack and Defend (in a scenario where no one is going easy on them), not choose between one or the other as then they end up with neither option (due to difference in Guild strengths) while the top Guild has the resources to sustain both.

A potential solution lays in the groundwork's of gvg. The cap of defending armies' buffs could be dependent on the age and the cap could be applied to the attackers too. For example:
Iron Age GvG: 75%
Every next age: +25%
This could serve in 2 ways as a equaliser. It gives each age a more reasonable fair cap. Upon which a well established player of set age could get to those buffs. It also prevents players with more buffs to obtain a large advantage, except number of disposable units. Further more maintaining the restriction of fighting with the age of the GvG, will ensure the equality in challenge. It further rewards guilds with larger support pools in higher GvG ages. Where much higher caps exist and the support pool is exhausted quicker. No work arounds with either further fortifications other than the set cap should exist or % reducing features. To maintain the equalisers as described.

For example in PME GvG:
Units: PME & no age only
Max. % player: 275%
Max. % defending armies: 275%

In this scenario, no matter how much more than 275% buffs are. Both in the attacking players side and the targeted guild's mustered support pool, it's capped at 275% on both sides. Also both sides are limited to PME & no age units. Which is an equal ground of challenge. The only "unequal" part is for those who haven't hit or exceeded 275% as a player or as a guild having sufficient support pool to distribute 275% buff to their sectors.

Imho the weak point of GvG is mainly the cap of 75% only on defending armies and the restricted landing zones. If all sectors can be attacked, this would make larger dominant positions harder to maintain. Yet also leaving more opportunities for conflicts on a potential GvG successor.
Imho GvG's true successor, if it'll ever be made, should include all ages from Iron Age/early Middle Ages up to whatever the true final age will be. Caps in buffs may can be increased at a higher rate if desired to keep up with power creep and/or start at a higher base lvl.

 

[Grzechu Junior]

Imho the weak point of GvG is mainly the cap of 75% only on defending armies and the restricted landing zones. If all sectors can be attacked, this would make larger dominant positions harder to maintain. Yet also leaving more opportunities for conflicts on a potential GvG successor.

the main thing about GvG
You cant defend secotr if it can be attacked. You cant block siege for 24 hrs. You have to attack next sector so the enemy can attack it.
When 2 same number guidl are fighting - the sector will always be switched. No chance to def them.
you either have to free 19;59:59 - and attack 20;00;01 or you need tio have greate rpower then oponnent to take all conected sectors.
When powers are equal - you cant do anything. bot guild cant. Its just wating for morning to take those secotr w/o presence of second guild.

Maybe if there would be a limit for like 50 sieges for one sector - it would be something good. Or 5 sieges per one member on map.

 

[drakenridder]

the main thing about GvG
You cant defend secotr if it can be attacked. You cant block siege for 24 hrs. You have to attack next sector so the enemy can attack it.
When 2 same number guidl are fighting - the sector will always be switched. No chance to def them.
you either have to free 19;59:59 - and attack 20;00;01 or you need tio have greate rpower then oponnent to take all conected sectors.
When powers are equal - you cant do anything. bot guild cant. Its just wating for morning to take those secotr w/o presence of second guild.

Maybe if there would be a limit for like 50 sieges for one sector - it would be something good. Or 5 sieges per one member on map.

The cap of 75% means practically at the loss of no with large % the defending army can be overwhelmed. With equalised % this will be significantly harder. With an age dependent cap, it's encouraged to improve upon those stats but also maintains equality. It'll be far more costly for the attacking parties to succeed or proceed their siege. Let's not forget that besieging armies can be attacked and defeated. Each time this happens, it'll cost another 8 units from the attacking party +. Combine this with higher losses if equal buffs exist, it'll pose a greater barrier.
It'll be admittedly a battle of attrition: who'll be exhausting their military assets faster? With 2 larger guilds with members who have acces to large numbers of disposable units, the defending party is at a slight advantage. As they can have up to 6*10 armies on their side. The attacking guild has 1*10 specific "army." Which cost them each time up to 8+X. While dealing with rotating 6 randomly selected different armies that all must be defeated 10x. While the defenders can swap damaged slots with fresh, new units and continue to beat with fewer losses of on their end.

In this regards it is a much greater chance to successfully defend. Over a relentless siege, where the only losses are from fresh new besieging armies comes. Fighting on equal grounds result in losses in both the attack itself and fresh, new sieges.
Perhaps you're right. That a Xh protection could be implemented. Triggered after successfully repelling X sieges. The Achilles heel in this, however on the defending side is, the attacking party can pull out before the trigger has been reached. Gambling on the defenders not go grant freedom and recouping the sector, before them. They however can wait on this and then attacking their sieges. Effectively sabotaging their chance to obtain invincibility on that sector.