Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[DEADP00L]

The % are relative is often interpreted by your feelings.
Only Inno knows how many players are affected by GvG, Arenas and GbG.
Much like bitching about the drop in GbG activity, you have no idea of the final numbers let alone what it will look like live.
But you always prefer to believe that you alone hold the absolute truth and attack each other instead of contributing constructive ideas.
After all, for two years you have been deaf to the hundreds of complaints about guild blocking and you hope that those who have been your victims for more than 2 years will sympathize with your loss of earnings.
The only smart point I read briefly from the CONS is that Inno is also reviewing the % traps. But again, you'd rather unleash your hatred on players who understand this nerf than remind Inno that the traps remained cumulative, unlike camps.

 

[jovada]

I see all the rest of that leagues guilds except one did nothing. You just do not get it do you? His data shows 2 guilds that are decent, 2 that should be in the next league down and the rest tanking the league to get out of 1K. Not a fun league for any of the guilds. At any point the strongest could and finally did take the full map. Completely boring. That was not a battleground. The worst part is 3rd and 4th are stuck in 1K next league and will see the same results...

You just don't get it , we all know matchmaking is a problem and the pro and contra agree on that, what he shows is just bragging and is not pointing the matchmaking,, that is what i said . but you must always be contrary.

 

[jovada]

@Yekk

What you and other players don't want to understand is that fighting with 0 attrition is also part of the problem just like matchmaking is a part.

A few players (guilds) just out of egoïsme block thousands of other players just because they have not the opportunity to fight all day.
No if they can't be ready to fight all day long they don't derserve to play GbG and are considered , weak or lazy like some of you said.
We the big , we the active , only we deserve to fight and farm rewards and points endless in the BIG league, i wonder if they take away rewards and points how many of you "the elite" will still play even with the 0 attrition.

 

[Owl II]

I wonder if they take away rewards and rating points, will you still whine that you are blocked and not allowed to hit?

 

[Thunderdome]

I still like the idea of just limiting the fights to a certain number per day rather than ripping attrition management to shreds. It seems like those that shell out 10k fights a day (exaggerated number or maybe true, who knows) are the real problem in combination to the 0 attrition spiel. If fights were limited to 500 or 1000 a day, it will eliminate (or curb) the rewards farming and the botting while keeping a competitive edge for the smaller players and guilds; this will give other players in that guild a chance to participate (imagine trying to take a sector only to find a hogger took it thus sitting you out of the fight) as well (if they want to). The fight number would reset at midnight server time and players can strike.

I will oogle at rewards when they are handed after each fight/nego; not after so many fights/negos done; to even address such as farming. In my 70 fights (burning 45 attrition in a day), I only get 10-15 rewards; so that is not something to be ecstatic about.

I would keep the 0 attrition for those that have the guild goods to build for such as this will give the smaller players the chance to get more fights in. Another thing, and I haven't built any SCs or WTs in the times I done it solo, would be not give a refund/discount if a building is destroyed. Like medal attempts in PVR and GE, the rising costs to build subsequent SCs or WTs should be kept until after the season ends; it resets to the defaulted amounts for the first building when a new season begins. THIS will make those guilds stand apart from the rest (and maybe will have them stop building them once their treasury is expended), it will put a use back to the Arc (and other buildings where guild goods are generated), and probably puts a purpose back into diamond purchasing for those who don't have that much diamonds.

 

[jovada]

I wonder if they take away rewards and rating points, will you still whine that you are blocked and not allowed to hit?

Oh but i always hit don't worry about me , but not being an egoïst i think of the thousands of other players that have no fun when every time they come and see nothing can be done and finaly don't bother to look anymore.
that is what i do almost every season cause i'm not waiting for guildies to use their attrition before i use mine.

 

[kawada]

1. Why being a strong player/guild is considered wrong or even almost cheating by some players in this thread? Raise a fighting account, join a strong well coordinated guild, win GBGs — easy peasy. If it’s not your way, just accept where you are and get the rewards in accordance with your efforts. If you’re a newbie, just be patient and take your time (Though, it will take much more with the cap)
2. Why do you think the cap would equal those guilds/players? It will affect everyone the same way and strong will remain strong, weak will remain weak.

 

[DEADP00L]

1. Why being a strong player/guild is considered wrong or even almost cheating by some players in this thread?

But nobody says that!
Only embittered players "think" that the "weak" are jealous of them.

Many of us say zero attrition over hundreds or thousands of fights is Inno's mistake. This penalized only players who were not in the "good guilds" and who did not wish to face the best, only with guilds of their abilities, like in a championship.

Why on the live worlds, there are a good ten groupings in the 1000 PL league, where NEVER the 8 opponents are of equivalent strength? Most often 2 or 3 strong with 5 or 6 medium. We come back to the concern of the MMR.

Maybe not you, but you systematically accuse the middle and weak of jealousy while you refuse to understand that by finally giving importance to attrition, it allows guilds who want to hit, as little as possible, to do it.

Even within the big guilds, I received messages from players telling me that they will finally be able to type, and not just the crumbs left by 4 or 5 players from their own guild.

 

[Thunderdome]

2. Why do you think the cap would equal those guilds/players? It will affect everyone the same way and strong will remain strong, weak will remain weak.

That's what I am trying to tell some people... everyone gets the same applied to them, whether weak or strong.

 

[DEADP00L]

What saddens me is the hypocrisy of a few players who have been repeating the same things over and over for 150 pages.
Because, for example, they all say that they like GbG for competition and hate the arena. However, if Inno, as of tomorrow, offered to earn 50 PF for each fight won in the arena, all of a sudden, these same players would become more active in the arena than in GbG.

I would like Inno to publish the number of players who before the nerf were doing 10 fights every day and the number after the nerf.
Just the comparison of these 2 figures would show that the abuse of SC was harmful for the majority of players. The majority, whatever some may say, are not made up of players who were making more than 300 fights every day.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

2. Why do you think the cap would equal those guilds/players? It will affect everyone the same way and strong will remain strong, weak will remain weak.

I would agree that, at the individual player level, the cap will affect everyone that plays GBG. Players that burnt their attrition daily will continue to do so but will hit their limit after fighting fewer battles than before. The "strong" will remain strong and the "weak" will remain weak. The big difference that I predict will happen is at the guild level. There are many 1K guilds that have only 20-30% of their membership carrying the bulk of the load with the remaining 70-80% not fighting at all or only fighting casually. Pre-nerf GBG was a fertile playground for guilds such as these. Post-nerf they will not be able to dominate the battleground as before. No longer will a 70ish player guild be able to farm the map if only a dozen top players are hitting the sectors. I believe that there are many "strong" guilds that will fall far behind when zero attrition sectors go away. Then, INNO can address guild GBG match-ups if it is still necessary.

 

[Mysty 5]

is this a problem anywhere outside of the 1000lp grouping ?

I play in 1000lp and other, in the lower groupings most guilds aren't able to build that much anyway, the maps are slower and there are as many fights available as a player/guild can do.

In the 1000lp group its different as you have the big guilds that can fight and build all 24 hours and some guilds that reach that group that cant compete. Isn't the issue really about the match ups in this group rather than the amount of attrition you gain or the number of fights a player does ?

 

[Pericles the Lion]

is this a problem anywhere outside of the 1000lp grouping ?

I play in 1000lp and other, in the lower groupings most guilds aren't able to build that much anyway, the maps are slower and there are as many fights available as a player/guild can do.

In the 1000lp group its different as you have the big guilds that can fight and build all 24 hours and some guilds that reach that group that cant compete. Isn't the issue really about the match ups in this group rather than the amount of attrition you gain or the number of fights a player does ?

Both. Fix the zero attrition first, then tackle matchups after the dust settles.

 

[Move]

remove the possibility of speeding up the construction of buildings.

 

[zookeepers]

GBG is principally a <Winner-take-all> system.
This is because gaining new sectors get easier by holding other sectors (to build SCs).
The guild which holds the most number of sectors have the most chance to expand.
Because lock time of 4 hours exist, guilds cannot maintain their territory alone,
and require a partner guild, making 2 strongest guilds rule the whole map.

This is not because SC is too strong, and so, nerfing SC would not make a definite difference.
This was expected strongly from the beginning.

If you don't like the <Winner-take-all>, you have to make change so that
gaining the first sector get easier than conquering the 40th sector.
--Something like this.
1. Each guild member gains 2 attrition when the guild gains 1 sector.
2. Each guild member loses 2 attrition when the guild loses 1 sector.

The number(2) is tentative. If it is 1, the effect may be scarce.
If 5, it would be quite impossible to gain more than 20 sectors.

But... as I have mentioned earlier, Inno's intention is not to change the <Winner-take-all> system at all, maybe.

 

[CrashBoom]

2. Why do you think the cap would equal those guilds/players? It will affect everyone the same way and strong will remain strong, weak will remain weak.

actually that is totally wrong

a top fighters will lose 80%-90% of their fights
"weak" players/guilds in most cases less than 10-20%

that is not the same way



and what does "equal those guilds/players" mean ? all get the same ?
that doesn't happen. BUT it will make the (reward) gap between them much smaller

 

[CrashBoom]

GBG is principally a <Winner-take-all> system.

really ?

so only the winner guild will get rewards (=all) and all other guilds nothing (no rewards for the thousands of their fights)

that would really be fun

 

[zookeepers]

really ?

so only the winner guild will get rewards (=all) and all other guilds nothing (no rewards for the thousands of their fights)

that would really be fun

You are misdirecting.
I am talking about the system. Not the rewards.

The strong would win, the winner gets stronger, and the stronger would win again.
In this system, there is no real challenge for the strong guilds after they have won the first fight.

You have also said...

a top fighters will lose 80%-90% of their fights
"weak" players/guilds in most cases less than 10-20%

Number of farming fights is not the matter here.
Even if the strong guilds make swaps less frequently,
it doesn't mean that the other guilds have more chance to gain a province.

It should not be easy for the weak guilds to defeat the strong.
But I think when the guild power is 3:2 (ie 15 active players vs 10 active players),
the final score should better get closer to 30-20, not 45-5.

if not, we should not match guilds with so much different power in the same league.

----

In conclusion, SC nerf is not a good method if you want to balance the power between guilds,
and to make more exciting fights to be held.

SC nerf is good to balance the number of rewards taken by players, though.
and so, I imagine that Inno is trying to do the latter.

 

[Owl II]

Oh but i always hit don't worry about me , but not being an egoïst i think of the thousands of other players that have no fun when every time they come and see nothing can be done and finaly don't bother to look anymore.
that is what i do almost every season cause i'm not waiting for guildies to use their attrition before i use mine.

Your zero to the place and out of place only means that you do'nt know GBG. You don't understand how the strongest play. You will never understand what thousands of fights are made of. I showed our map in the living world a couple of days ago. One of the guilds approached us with an offer of swops. Then they brought another guild. There are only two tiles with three slots on the map. And the geniuses wanted to hit only these tiles and everything that is around. But not always, but only when tiles are left with camps after the capture. They never understood why I was against it. They never understood why I insisted that they go next, on tiles with 2 and 1 slot and hit it. Well, now they're sitting in HQ. You will never understand where thousands of fights a day come from. You'll just sit in your shell and yell about zero attrition.

 

[Emberguard]

That's what I am trying to tell some people... everyone gets the same applied to them, whether weak or strong.

Only on a technicality.

It won't negatively affect those that were already on 100% attrition, or didn't get far out from headquarters before being locked back in...... it only affects you in a negative way if you were actually reaching 66.6%+

Of course the weak won't magically become strong from this change, but it's something they'll really only notice if they're sufficiently getting onto the map for 3+ camps to come into play.