Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[conqueror9]

current situation of GBG that our guild involve
Guild , Guild-member-size , current holding prov , vp
Dr, 56 , 7, 38k
Ma, 57, 11, 17k
Sat, 30, 6, 9k
Th, 29, 2, 6k
Sant, 36, 3,4k
sanc , 28,7,4k
hun, 36,2,811

Map...continuous changing multi-color

looking for guild member size, ranging from 28 to 57
looking at lesser prov holder range from 2 to 3 and 1 guild can rank 4, this indicates "corner" is never a problem if guild get sufficient guild-co-operation
the lowest rank have 2 sector with 811 vp, 811 points reflect that guild does hold more than 2 sector for a long periods

the flucation of amount of prov that each guild hold does not follow the current ranking indicates there is "tons of guild-co-operation of each guild has performed that amount of vp do not follow amount of sector holding, it only reflect sectors swap no matter guild-strength but according to guild-cooperation to capture sectors"

In fact, this GBG is running with guilds with sufficient degree of guild-co-operation. Guild push down in ranking according to their amount of guild-co-operation in capture sectors from other guild. More guild members will have high guild-co-operation if member are active, that is why they go up in ranking. Less member with sufficient guild-co-operation can always get sectors and vp and also reflect there is no "so-called ..so-complaint...blocking"
and Map is continuous changing in muti-color reflects various guild does able to go out <not block> and capture some sectors. However, a lot of un-finished sector as player are facing a hugh amount of attri and cannot continue becos the capping of sc at 66.6%...they can capture more sectors when they start their guild-co-operation in capturing various sectors from other guilds, but they cannot proceed further as there is no more attri for them to proceed

That 66.6% capped only give some diffculties in high -degree co-operation guilds, but never be a problem as those guilds has now get the chances to share those member who do not have sufficient battles.
But that 66.6% is now a heavy penalty those guild who has sufficient guild-co-operation and cannot proceed further as their attri is raising too fast when they try to advances

 

[Kommodor]

I wrote to the support service more than ten times when I entered a sector with four camps, conducted 20 battles and received 6!!! attrition the answer was fine.... so 66.6 is absolute crap with a probability from INNO

although no game, no matter how good it is, cannot be good for decades, and having lost revenue to a critical level, the servers will close, restart the graphics, rebrand and start on new servers... this is already a familiar life

 

[Emberguard]

I wrote to the support service more than ten times when I entered a sector with four camps, conducted 20 battles and received 6!!! attrition the answer was fine.... so 66.6 is absolute crap with a probability from INNO

66.6% reduction means 33.3% attrition

((6/20)x100) = 30%

You're actually getting 70% less attrition. That's better, not worse.

((20/100)x33.3) = 6.66 Attrition gained.

So you should be getting somewhere between 6 and 7 for every 20 hits, leaning ever so slightly towards the 7... which is what you got. A 6


Regardless of whether you like the result, the percentages you've presented are actually accurate for the amount of Siege Camps

 

[CrashBoom]

if I would be in the support and someone telling me he got too less attrition then I would ask if I should add the missing attrition

 

[Emberguard]

if I would be in the support and someone telling me he got too less attrition then I would ask if I should add the missing attrition

xD You're assuming you'd even be able to touch the attrition

 

[CrashBoom]

xD You're assuming you'd even be able to touch the attrition

no
I am assuming that nobody will say yes

 

[Emberguard]

no
I am assuming that nobody will say yes

Lol. So if they say yes then what? Nervously sweat?

 

[jovada]

I am one of the "small players" that this nerf is supposed to be helping but I'm afraid that's not what will happen. The people sitting at 2+ billion in SAJM are not worried about the nerf as it will take far less to maintain their status after the nerf. The little guy struggling to grow will suffer and that's who will be voicing their dislike when it goes live

Well maybe after GbG will be totaly fixed ( no longer 0 attrition, 1 slot in every sector, matchmaking ) they can open a new world everywhere (with no GvG) so you can all start from 0 with equal weapons. Then you have a real challenge instead of free candies

 

[Emberguard]

Well.. you only need to build Arc and Traz to be competitive for GBG. Event buildings will do the rest(att, def, and the collection of FP in the city).

Well.... debatable that you even need Traz to be competitive, which would then make Arc mostly for the Guild Goods when it comes to remaining competitive in Guild Battlegrounds

Granted successfully skipping Traz and still being competitive is more likely to be something a experienced player would pull off, not necessarily a brand new player still working out troop combinations. But there is a lot of avenues for troop generation these days that provide Troops + Stuff-That's-Not-Just-Happiness, or doesn't even take up city space

 

[Kommodor]

Скорочення на 66,6% означає скорочення на 33,3%.

((6/20)x100) = 30%

Ви фактично отримуєте на 70% менше витрат. Це краще, а не гірше.

((20/100)x33,3) = 6,66 Отримано виснаження.

Отже, ви маєте отримувати десь між 6 і 7 за кожні 20 звернень, трохи схиляючись до 7... ось що ви отримали. A 6


Незалежно від того, чи подобається вам результат, подані вами відсотки насправді точні для кількості облогових таборівцебц

66.6% reduction means 33.3% attrition

((6/20)x100) = 30%

You're actually getting 70% less attrition. That's better, not worse.

((20/100)x33.3) = 6.66 Attrition gained.

So you should be getting somewhere between 6 and 7 for every 20 hits, leaning ever so slightly towards the 7... which is what you got. A 6


Regardless of whether you like the result, the percentages you've presented are actually accurate for the amount of Siege Camps

this was before the nerf at 4 camps 96%!!!!

 

[Emberguard]

this was before the nerf at 4 camps 96%!!!!

Ok, so what was your results after 100 battles? 300? 1,000? Was it still at a 70% rate with a higher amount of battles? (assuming no miscounting on amount done)

 

[Kommodor]

my "best" sector attack with 4 camps (96%) was 80 battles and 20 attrition. I entered the sector, spent 80 battles, and when I saw exhaustion, I checked five times whether I really fought from four camps!!

 

[.Chris]

this was before the nerf at 4 camps 96%!!!!

It is possible to gain 6 Attrition from 6 fights with 96% reduction - it just means you got really unlucky in those 6 fights.

 

[DEADP00L]

Many do not understand the difference between "probability" and "frequency"!

96% probability means that each time you have a 4 out of 100 chance of being disappointed, which can, in the extreme over 100 fights, give 100 attrition just like 0.
It's like having 96 white + 4 black stones in a bag and putting the drawn stones back into the bag each time.

96% frequency means that every 100 fights you will get 4 attrition, no more, no less.
It's like having 96 white + 4 black stones in a bag and not putting the randomly drawn stones back into the bag each time.

 

[TheSovereign]

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.

My contention all along has been that the overall result of this 66att nerf is a DEEP RECESSION for the entire game. In the end, we run on a fiat system (fps given as rewards by Inno at no cost to repay) and we flow these rewards back into the FoE "Economy" of our guilds and of our cities. Reduce the income from a lower paying job (the new version of GbG) and you're going to lose those extra 500 fps per day with NO BENEFIT for that Loss. When that economic recession hits my gameplay, why on earth would I keep playing??? Right now I can level a building a day and can derive some personal satisfaction with the accomplishment... now reduce my income and a level takes two to four times as long and suddenly, I'm not so interested in playing the game at the new, reduced pace. Remember, we aren't in lockdown any longer and so there are other more interesting things to do with our time. And, if govco tries to go back to lockdowns, the war in the streets will be lots more valuable a use of our time to protect our futures, instead of struggling with leveling buildings on a banana republic income.

 

[TheSovereign]

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.

Remember though, those fps used to get that Arc to 150 didn't cost you anything. They were REWARDS!!! Even daily collections carry no cost to the player. If you don't use them to increase a future income, what else are you going use them for? Remember, all fps you get come as fiat rewards from Inno. They are paying for you Arc build. You'd be hard pressed to find a better use for them as they come in for free. The free income blows your typical ROI calculations to dust because ROI calcs usually assume a cost of the initial money (investment). At the macro level, the spend opportunities are a closed loop situation. The Arc kinda becomes the only way to increase the NAV of your city.

 

[TheSovereign]

While you may indeed end up being correct it is too soon to tell. Some number of players (myself included) will experience a reduction in GBG battles and the resultant rewards. However, there will be players that are able to battle more. Will their combined increase in battles be enough to offset the reduction experienced by the top fighters? Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, FOE managed without GBG for years and will likely continue to do so with, or without, this change.

Just taking a first cut at your guesstimate, all one has to do is to look at the total fights of each guild before and after the start of the beta test of the nerfed seasons. In our guild alone we're down 70%. We're near having 3 seasons of data to look at now.... if the reward percentages are the same, the reward totals will be equivalent. It certainly has impacted my numbers by that percentage just on GbG stats alone. A preliminary look at two other guilds seems to reveal a similar reduction in total fights.
I do suggest that the beta guildspace might produce a variance to what we'd see in a group of production guilds, just due to the differences in how production GbG seasons unfold and flow compared to same in Beta... but my perspective is the changes would be even more pronounced.

 

[DEADP00L]

all one has to do is to look at the total fights of each guild before and after the start of the beta test of the nerfed seasons.

What if we looked at the number of players?
How many have lost fights and how many have made more, regardless of the number of fights?

I'm sure that overall there were more players who did a few more fights with this nerf than those who did less (admittedly, much less). The huge amount of losses of a few players should not predominate over the huge amount of players who could simply play from now on, unless the notion of community play does not ring a bell to you.

 

[TheSovereign]

What if we looked at the number of players?
How many have lost fights and how many have made more, regardless of the number of fights?

I'm sure that overall there were more players who did a few more fights with this nerf than those who did less (admittedly, much less). The huge amount of losses of a few players should not predominate over the huge amount of players who could simply play from now on, unless the notion of community play does not ring a bell to you.

You make valid points, but remember, we're dealing with a macro-level total of all activity in gbg. In the end, ALL GBG feeds into the same community as a whole. It's a function of how many fps INNO awards in a season for the entire GbG system. At this point, admittedly a cursory scan, the total fights certainly appear to be reduced at all levels. The total numbers normalize for the smallar and larger players as a group as the guild total is a function of all players. If the initial scan across several guilds is any indication the 'class' of all players, big and small is a component of the total numbers. A variation in the totals of the 'smaller' or 'weaker' guilds might give a different number, and we eventually have to include all the guilds to know for sure, but remember that the smaller ones are likely to produce less fights overall. So they'd have to be compared, pre-nerf seasons to post-nerf seasons as well.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Just taking a first cut at your guesstimate, all one has to do is to look at the total fights of each guild before and after the start of the beta test of the nerfed seasons. In our guild alone we're down 70%. We're near having 3 seasons of data to look at now.... if the reward percentages are the same, the reward totals will be equivalent. It certainly has impacted my numbers by that percentage just on GbG stats alone. A preliminary look at two other guilds seems to reveal a similar reduction in total fights.
I do suggest that the beta guildspace might produce a variance to what we'd see in a group of production guilds, just due to the differences in how production GbG seasons unfold and flow compared to same in Beta... but my perspective is the changes would be even more pronounced.

I agree that Beta will likely be much different that the live servers. Even so, 2 1/2 seasons in Beta is insufficient to predict what may, or may not, happen if this is introduced to the live servers. Additionally, if introduced to live, it will take a while for the full effect to be realized. Certainly, active fighters will experience an immediate impact. However, I believe that there is a segment of the player base that is underrepresented in GBG. They are the players that became frustrated with GBG and focused their cities on farming, not fighting. It will take some time for these players to appreciate the new paradigm and align their cities to better pursue GBG if they choose to do so. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.