Discussion Battlefield Changes (Opinion Poll)

[AllamHRK]

What do you think of the current Battleground system regarding the issue below:

> Random difficulty system.

Explaining ... regarding the randomness of fights and negotiations, where on a lucky day you can start with easy negotiations and averages of 4 or 5 options. Or on an unlucky day you can start with 5 difficult trades followed by 6 options. Or even in fights where with luck you can start with a medium fight or if you're out of luck start with a 2-wave fight with opposite units.

Some ideas...

> Progressive difficulty system (Same as Expedition)

In that way there would be a progression of the difficulty of the fights / negotiations ... for example the first fight would be a simple fight / negotiation in a fixed way (Not random). And as the player progressed, the difficulty would gradually increase ...

Negotiations: 3 options> 4 options> 5 options> 6 options

Fights: 1 simple wave> 2 simple waves> 1 difficult wave> 2 difficult waves

Of course, the number of items and the NPC attack bonus would also increase as the difficulty increases in the same way it is today.

PS. Please be sure to vote. Thank you.

 

[Arwaren]

I see some problems here.
1) GE is linear (A ----> B), GBG is not.
In guild expeditions, we move where the game shows us ... we start with the easiest opponents but we also get small rewards ... later we get increasingly stronger opponents but we can also get better rewards.

In GBG we can choose which sectors we want to attack, the rewards are the same for each sector. Sectors differ only in the number of buildings constructed and points. And nothing more.

2) "Difficult" 2 wave battles and 6 option negotiations
In GBG we can meet from 8 to 14 units in each battle. And is it difficult? It depends. We must remember that:
*) Attack and defense percentages are rising very slowly at the beginning of an enemy army.
**) We can use rogues.
***) We can change an enemy army in the sector, just attack another sector and return to the previous sector. (Negotiations work the same)
****) Build Siege Camps to do more battles(and negotiations)
As you can see it is not so difficult.

 

[AllamHRK]

I see some problems here.
1) GE is linear (A ----> B), GBG is not.
In guild expeditions, we move where the game shows us ... we start with the easiest opponents but we also get small rewards ... later we get increasingly stronger opponents but we can also get better rewards.

In GBG we can choose which sectors we want to attack, the rewards are the same for each sector. Sectors differ only in the number of buildings constructed and points. And nothing more.

2) "Difficult" 2 wave battles and 6 option negotiations
In GBG we can meet from 8 to 14 units in each battle. And is it difficult? It depends. We must remember that:
*) Attack and defense percentages are rising very slowly at the beginning of an enemy army.
**) We can use rogues.
***) We can change an enemy army in the sector, just attack another sector and return to the previous sector. (Negotiations work the same)
****) Build Siege Camps to do more battles(and negotiations)
As you can see it is not so difficult.

I totally agree that it is not difficult ... I have more than 1,000% attack and more than 100 thousand of all goods from all eras accumulated over the course of 8 years of play. It doesn't matter to me, it doesn't have any difficulty.

But not all players have these conditions ... imagine putting yourself in the shoes of a small player for a moment, a player who can't do more than 5 fights / negotiations per day. Then e will start the day on the battlefield and take 5 trades followed by 6 options or 4 fights followed by 2 waves with mixed units.

So for a player like this you will say that this random system is also easy, fair and good?

Before I come to say that if the player can only do 5 fights per day he must evolve ..... please this is obvious, now evolving takes time as you should know.

So the question that remains is ... during that time a small player should totally screw up on the battlefield and that's it? Was this feature made only for big players?

I'm saying this because this week 3 new players from my guild with only a few months of play, simply stopped playing for the same reason discussed here ...

 

[Logain Sedai]

I like the random difficulty system, but I understand it does not make things easier when you don't have a big fighting power.

 

[Luke Stark]

lack of 3rd option in the poll:

c) stays as it was :]

 

[Umbrathor]

lack of 3rd option in the poll:

c) stays as it was :]

I think @AllamHRK means that the current system is Random.

 

[Umbrathor]

I'm not entirely sure what to think of the suggestion. It actually seemed to me as if fights get slightly more complex as the number of victories on a sector increases. Bit it may be entirely random, I am not sure.

Fights with more units (two waves) are not necessarily harder than fights with 8 units. There is a two-wave fight in GS consisting of heavy, light and fast. In many eras, you can win that with one heavy and 7 rogues on auto.

Also, there already is a system of increasing difficulty in place with the rising attrition.

What does surprise me (since I never negotiate in GB) is that negotiations can differ in complexity. That I believe should not be the case. I have the same problem with settlements: it makes no sense to me that some negotiations are very simple and cheap, with just 5 options that include coins and supplies, and options with 6 goods that also cost more goods per try. I always just skip/refuse the expensive amnd complex ones, and swear profusely if they show up at the very first negotiation when you have just freed up the merchant, when you cannot afford to refuse them.

Does anyone have any idea why that is?

 

[AllamHRK]

I think @AllamHRK means that the current system is Random.

But the current system is completely random, that is a fact!

We took the 1st fight / negotiation of the day .... in one day you can get lucky and take a simple negotiation of 4 or 5 options .... and in an unlucky day you can take a negotiation of 6 options .... and up to 4 in a row like that.

I don't know what world some people live in ... but this is random to me ....

 

[AllamHRK]

For those people who like this randomness and difficulty so much ... they could put a variation ... the first fight can be 0% bonus or 1,000% .... totally random ...

I think these people would love it ... there would be days when they would be able to fight and other days not.

They would definitely love it, because it would be random, lucky. kkkkkkkk

 

[Hedning1390]

Neither. I would like a fixed difficulty for negotiations. Just have it 5 options always and let the attrition increase the cost like it is today. Why should we have randomness in pvp? It's stupid. We should win by skill, not luck. Progressive difficulty doesn't make sense when there is no upper limit. Should we have 20 goods going back 4 ages when we reach 50 attrition?