Feedback Guild Battlegrounds

[DeletedUser]

Which goods will the province buildings at the battleground cost?

Treasury Goods will be needed to build the Battleground Buildings on sectors your guild owns.

The needed goods will be random, depending on the highest member age of your guild. If one is in VF, than all goods until VF can be used. If the highest member in Iron Age, than only Iron Age goods will be used.

 

[Dinamite]

if you can negotiate this will be easy for the strongest guilds that have thousands of stored resources, this will create greater distance between the strong and weak, many unions could be dissolved.

I think 50% should be trade or battles and the other 50% a strategy and intelligence theme, like a chess game for example.

This is that the strongest wins ends up discouraging small players.

 

[Logain Sedai]

I like the idea of cooperative fighting. It looks nice on paper and I am curious to see how it will be once we can play it.
There is one thing I don't think is right is that there is attrition only for the fights and not for negociating. Why is that ?
I understand the usefulness in fighting (to stop the too big from getting everything) but the very rich in ressources will be able to overpower the other players as well without attrition...

 

[Thunderdome]

Of course it will be available on mobile.

One can really hope so as I am only speculating that the mobile player base outweighs the browser player base; but won't know for certain until those numbers come in.

As a guy who was wary on doing things via mobile when the concept first came out, I've begin to slowly take it in as most of my daily applications requires such. My work now requires the "fill and sign" on all work orders (yeah, there goes the printer now that they've gone paperless). I've done my time and mileage reporting on the tablet (as a matter of convenience). And, of course, gaming, Facebook, and forums have found their way to the mobile scene for me (yep, there goes the laptop as well, lol).

As far as this feature might be concerned, I can only assume it's a sign-up based thing like in other games that it happens during a certain time frame with a race to get as many territories as they can. If there no balance across then ones with the strongest (and spendiest) toys will take it all.

 

[DeletedUser4869]

This sounds very complicated to me. I see both positives and negatives. I like the fact that lower level players will be able to compete in the same area as higher level players. I am wondering where the holes are in the system. Part of the problem with GVG is that it takes a very coordinated attack in order to make headway. This benefits only those that have been around a long time. This also deters a lot of people that are new(less that 2 years) in the game. That causes a deficit of attrition whihc has probably led to the current low participation in GVG. I am game to try anything but personally i do not do GVG because it takes a lot of time and there is no real personal benefit. This new idea seems to be a cross between GE and GVG. It has both a personal immediate benefit and longer term guild benefit. We will see what happens. I would recommend letting this play out here in Beta for at least 6 months to see if participation is high enough to roll it out to the rest of the servers.

Just my opinion

 

[Hiep Lin]

Treasury Goods will be needed to build the Battleground Buildings on sectors your guild owns.

The needed goods will be random, depending on the highest member age of your guild. If one is in VF, than all goods until VF can be used. If the highest member in Iron Age, than only Iron Age goods will be used.

This point is a problem and seems to me to improve:
this will result in requesting resources of an age in which there are no players, for example, taking an extreme case of a player at the end of the game who decides to create a guild to guide beginners, would give a guild with a player in virtual, others going from iron to EMA for example, and this guild should use resources of any age at random.

It seems to me preferable to have a system equivalent to expeditions that takes into account the age of the members.

 

[shad2389]

would give a guild with a player in virtual, others going from iron to EMA for example, and this guild should use resources of any age at random.

i think what he meant was any random goods from the era's the members of the guild are in ex:
1 VF player in a guild full of players going from iron to EMA goods required would be from VF and goods from iron to EMA ,
so that guild for example would not need Col goods
till
a Col player joins or someone gets to Col amougn the players who were from iron to EMA

 

[DeletedUser4951]

I make some idea

1) On the other hand, that sense has to have maps from iron to industrial where in practice hardly ever plays anyone who commit a flood of space when maybe instead a map Multihad tried would make the game so much more exciting..................

2) On the other hand, that sense has to have maps from iron to industrial where in practice hardly ever plays anyone who commit a flood of space when maybe instead a map Multihad tried would make the game so much more exciting..................

3) Now many are in the guilds of 10-30 people at most
And do not move under any circumstances
I think a way to unite the various groups could be to create the "super guild"
You could give the opportunity to combine, for example, 3 guilds, up to a maximum of 180 subjects, inside a "super guild."
So that each remains in its own guild, but the "super guild" can fight or defend all together.
So you would have a chance to fight in the maps and it would be more fun.
Otherwise no more fights in the GVG

 

[shad2389]

From the question and answer page on the announcement
Treasury - what goods will be paid and how?
The Treasury Goods will be needed to build the Battleground Buildings on sectors your guild owns.
The needed goods will be random, depending on the highest member age of your guild. If one is in VF, than all goods until VF can be used. If the highest member in Iron Age, than only Iron Age goods will be used.

so if a guild has 1 VF player with only iron age members with him any goods from iron to VF will be useable in the new feature eaven if guild does not have members in the other eras kind of like GVG but with use of treasury goods that have been pilling up in guild treasurys for ages now in era's past FE

 

[DeletedUser7207]

Battleground is not going to replace GvG. GvG will still be there.

Hi,

So, Will "Guild Battleground" replace the "Expedition"?

I hope you can help me resolve the doubt, thank you very much.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hi,

So, Will "Guild Battleground" replace the "Expedition"?

No.

 

[DeletedUser]

Am sorry but I asked @Zarok Dai about this, since she is the official source

Unless You are one of the devs :> if not I'm still curious about my question

Why so rude? I just answered your question, as it was already answered in the announcement.

 

[DeletedUser7207]

No.

So, the idea is to modify the gvg configuration with the parameters explained in the "Guild Battleground", which does not eliminate the concept of gvg, but it modifies the gvg configuration as it is currently known. I am right?

I hope you can help me resolve the doubt, thank you very much.
* I'm sorry for my english is machine translation

 

[DeletedUser]

So, the idea is to modify the gvg configuration with the parameters explained in the "Guild Battleground", which does not eliminate the concept of gvg, but it modifies the configuration as it is currently known. I am right?

I hope you can help me resolve the doubt, thank you very much.
* I'm sorry for my english is machine translation

No, those are totally different modules. GvG, GEx and GBs will be available as separate systems. GvG will always be browser-only, though.

 

[DeletedUser10106]

It looks like a lot of fun! I'd definitely use it, and I don't do GvG. I especially like the inclusion of negotiation so farmer-type players can participate properly.

 

[DeletedUser6015]

It looks like a lot of fun! I'd definitely use it, and I don't do GvG. I especially like the inclusion of negotiation so farmer-type players can participate properly.

and farmers gonna paying from their pockets and not from the guild tresuary avoiding the pimps and parasites

 

[DeletedUser8908]

imagine i have no time to make entirely the EG.. no time to start colonies. i dont play gvg too. so add a nyew feature.. no time for it.
with all events, all worlds.. it becomes impossible to make all things foe purpose, because of too much time taken.
other problem is that gcg has many bugs which are not corrected. make another small gvg will again create nex problems of global performance !
new bugs to correct.. and less time for developpers to correct gcg bugs. i would like the nex feature replaces EG which are always the same thing.
make encounters to take sectors with the new system will be more fun as boring EG system. and will take the same time for us to play, and bring changes with direct match with othgers guilds in the nex map, a little more exciting than the actual tournament

 

[qaccy]

I have always been a fighter at heart so any opportunity for a few more battles will go down well with me. From the couple of graphics provided, there looks to be an emulation of the continental map format rather than the GvG format. That gives rise to my only serious concern. When implemented, please ensure that battles follow the GvG & PvP AI - that is to say - enemy attacks rogues first. If you deploy the Continental map AI (ignore rogues until other units killed) you will not get the increased participation that you are seeking. Whilst some may play, that AI uses up military units at an unsustainable rate and make rogues virtually redundant.

This is something I didn't think of myself, so I'm glad you brought it up. Depending on what 'negotiation' means here, I'd actually rather see the smarter continent AI used. If negotiation functions as it does in Guild Expeditions, then the smarter AI should definitely be used as an auto battler can put in many more than a single battle in the time it takes to complete a round of negotiation and something should be done to balance this. Using the 'smart' AI is one way to go by either slowing down battlers or making it more costly in troops (possibly both), or simply have negotiation count for more progress than fighting does. If negotiation instead works like the continent map where you simply pay goods with one click and you're on your way, then I'm fine with having the 'dumb' AI in play. Either way though, it's a fact that negotiation always has a cost - it's never free. However, it's very possible and generally common to win battles without losing a single unit, effectively making them free wins. This is a discrepancy I'd like to see kept in mind in the interest of balance.

 

[Dan 77]

Guild doesn´t give me extra units to do GvG, but gives me goods to pay for sieges nevertheless. I don´t see how your argument is valid here, sorry.

???
Sieges aren't similar to negotiations at all. In GvG, there isn't anything like negotiantions at all, because you can fight only.
Siege on a new sector is like unlocking next level of GE. Then it's up to you how you will fulfill unlocked area - by fighting or by negotiations (if enabled). The fighter builds units and GBs, the negotiator produces goods.

 

[Dan 77]

ipenguinpat: Very complex comment full of truth.
Only a few things I would like to add:

GvG is pretty complex. There could/should be either a step-by-step tutorial or a video training. If there was a practice area where a player could learn the mechanics without serious points/unit loss, it would definitely bring more into the fold.

1. Tutorials in forums and wikis exist.
2. Every guild can teach own players the basics - it really isn't that complicated. Only the advanced tactics are taught/learned for a longer time than a few minutes. In practice.

That makes the jump from FE to AA a 5-6 month wait.

Only? Maybe if you do recurring quests really hardly with a highly levelled Frontenac. Otherwise, it's for 2 years of playing actively.