Feedback Guild Battlegrounds Update 2021

[Deleted User - 57457]

Bigger issue of breaking through are that those top guilds' pride can't handle losing any province by anyone but their allays. So, they're cowering behind 4h protection pingpong exploit. Ensuring no one stands an chance to breaking through. Besides cowering behind SC cause that allows virtually endlessly farming with fighting. Talking about "hiding" in hq... hiding behind those exploits are less honourable. All of that combined you can have 0 attrition all you want from HQ but the results will be the same: they see an guild advancing in their allay's province, clicking and for 4h the guild is locked in hq once more. Shortly after those 4h their allay advances until 1 fight is needed. Then they just wait until the guild tries to breaking through containment.

Better solutions are the cap of 1 building/province and the removal of the 4h protection in the highest league(s). An significant reduction in platinum and gold. Besides an better ranking system in which top1 guilds of diamond league are put together to fight each other. Though something must appeal them and I have an hard time believing that they're willing to go into an real competition. Cause then they can't brag how amazing they and their guild are in farming, while mocking those looking for an real competition instead of getting locked out with the 4h protection exploit.

 

[xivarmy]

We had seasons when 4 or 5 top guilds gathered in one group. A powerful guild of 70 people of an era no lower than the Future was "fodder". Have you ever played in such seasons? Obviously not. If you were playing, you would understand that it's not the SC that are needed there. They need additional fighters to break out of the HQ. Because a sector is taken in seconds. The SC in the HQ would help weak guilds beyond 1000 or in the lower leagues. Yes, it will work where the sector takes half a day. But they are in their sandbox. They have everything in ok without it there.

Sure I've been in such rounds - usually as a spectator; occasionally as a grunt in a tolerated-guild. But the majority of 1000-rounds are not those rounds - that's perhaps the one bright light of the otherwise awful matchmaking

No it wouldn't have to be "half a day to take a sector" groups for 2 sieges to matter. With 2 sieges, I could drop a sector myself in about 10-15 minutes - if I have any support at all, it might well be 5. Is that enough to win a highly competitive race? of course not. Is it enough to get out at some point? Probably! Especially if I pick a sector that those bigger guilds don't really *want* to flip back and forth as fast as they can because it costs them attrition.

And what could it hurt having those guilds pinned in their HQ be cut a little break to try? You've been so fervently against this suggestion because you believe it's the wrong direction - but what damage does it do exactly? If the worst you can come up with is "it doesn't help", why not give it a try?

---

I don't think any of us are really "ok" with the matchmaking as an aside - just resigned to accept that nothing's going to be done about that, so we look to what are smaller suggestions we could make that might have some hope of traction? Since you know, a copy and paste map of "ooh shiny waterfalls" and "hexes instead of circles!" was the best they could come up with on their own

 

[Owl II]

You've been so fervently against this suggestion because you believe it's the wrong direction - but what damage does it do exactly? If the worst you can come up with is "it doesn't help", why not give it a try?

No. No. I don't mind. I just know it won't help where you expect it to. It's just free 2 camps on a permanent basis. Let it be, I'm not being greedy In the end, I am able to build them at the expense of the treasury. And if someone does not, then let it be a subsidy. It's not from my treasury. I just want guilds to have an incentive to develop. So that there, at the tops, there will be more competitors. Not everyone will get into the top If the guild wants a quiet game without stress and humiliation, it should get such a game. In his environment. In his league. But now we have no landmarks. There is no reason to develop. And you want to cultivate it. That is my protest

 

[Yekk]

No. No. I don't mind. I just know it won't help where you expect it to. It's just free 2 camps on a permanent basis. Let it be, I'm not being greedy In the end, I am able to build them at the expense of the treasury. And if someone does not, then let it be a subsidy. It's not from my treasury. I just want guilds to have an incentive to develop. So that there, at the tops, there will be more competitors. Not everyone will get into the top If the guild wants a quiet game without stress and humiliation, it should get such a game. In his environment. In his league. But now we have no landmarks. There is no reason to develop. And you want to cultivate it. That is my protest

Most guilds in most leagues have problems reaching the middle. As put in earlier threads only a handful of guilds have the treasuries, the players, the leaders to continuously flip a map. That group works deals from the first few minutes of day one of an new league. They keep lists of leaders and split the map as is best for flipping. This works well for 4 of the 8 guilds in a league...The other 4 hope for crumbs, are almost always willing to hold up on moving past their 3 row. They know they are overmatched and will be eternally stuffed if they misbehave. Every guild gets the 2 slots. Some will not be able to build. Others will see an increase if fights. Of the top hundred guilds on my main world I know of only one that would misbehave often and yes that guild would still be stuffed.

 

[Owl II]

Most guilds in most leagues have problems reaching the middle. As put in earlier threads only a handful of guilds have the treasuries, the players, the leaders to continuously flip a map. That group works deals from the first few minutes of day one of an new league. They keep lists of leaders and split the map as is best for flipping. This works well for 4 of the 8 guilds in a league...The other 4 hope for crumbs, are almost always willing to hold up on moving past their 3 row. They know they are overmatched and will be eternally stuffed if they misbehave. Every guild gets the 2 slots. Some will not be able to build. Others will see an increase if fights. Of the top hundred guilds on my main world I know of only one that would misbehave often and yes that guild would still be stuffed.

Misbehave? I like it! I would like outsider guilds to misbehave instead of asking for camps at HQ You are right to say: they must have several components to dominate the map or try at least. SC is not the main thing. The SC at the HQ will encourage them to sit at the HQ. But.. it doesn't matter if everyone is happy with it....

 

[jovada]

The SC at the HQ will encourage them to sit at the HQ

You are wrong, sitting at HQ is what happens now, This will encourage them to try for a few sectors each time wich is also in favor of the dominating guilds otherwise complaining they have no more fights because the other guilds do nothing.

 

[Owl II]

You are wrong, sitting at HQ is what happens now, This will encourage them to try for a few sectors each time wich is also in favor of the dominating guilds otherwise complaining they have no more fights because the other guilds do nothing.

Let's see. 2 SC will save you 77 points of attrition. If you are unable to overcome 77 points of attrition, then where will you go next? Back to your HQ to your 2 sc. You need SC in the HQ only once a season if you are able to compete with rivals. If not, then the dominating guild doesn't care if you sit in the HQ with or without 2 sc. But I agree it is more pleasant for you to sit there with 2 SC

 

[xivarmy]

Let's see. 2 SC will save you 77 points of attrition. If you are unable to overcome 77 points of attrition, then where will you go next? Back to your HQ to your 2 sc. You need SC in the HQ only once a season if you are able to compete with rivals. If not, then the dominating guild doesn't care if you sit in the HQ with or without 2 sc. But I agree it is more pleasant for you to sit there with 2 SC

Well let's say your guild has 200 attrition of capability on a typical day. Not necessarily on at once. If 83 attrition gets you out to the doorstep, perhaps other people will be able to tackle something after that. On the other hand if it's 160 attrition, you don't necessarily have such capability to do something after you get the doorstep unless it's straddling reset.

But then taking it a step further - perhaps you get out 2 rows before reset instead, and after reset you can make a real push before you get put back in your hole.

Unless you're spending the majority of the season in the center, attrition rules what you can or cannot do.

So 1) It does help to give those most affected by attrition more of a break than they currently get. 2) It would also help if free attrition was destroyed so those in the middle might eventually attrition out themselves.

 

[Owl II]

Well let's say your guild has 200 attrition of capability on a typical day. Not necessarily on at once. If 83 attrition gets you out to the doorstep, perhaps other people will be able to tackle something after that. On the other hand if it's 160 attrition, you don't necessarily have such capability to do something after you get the doorstep unless it's straddling reset.

But then taking it a step further - perhaps you get out 2 rows before reset instead, and after reset you can make a real push before you get put back in your hole.

Unless you're spending the majority of the season in the center, attrition rules what you can or cannot do.

So 1) It does help to give those most affected by attrition more of a break than they currently get. 2) It would also help if free attrition was destroyed so those in the middle might eventually attrition out themselves.

You are hoping in vain that reducing the slots in the center will mean immobilizing the dominant guilds. That is, it will only work in the lower leagues. And you hope in vain that the weak will run forward, getting 77 points for free. I think they will try to exploit them as much as possible. I repeat for the hundredth time: it is not attrition at the start that prevents them from playing. They are hampered by the lack of organization, the lack of elementary tactics and in general the desire to make any effort to do so. I was playing alone. And I was the leaving the HQ on line 2 at the beginning of the second day of the season. So don't tell me that 77 points of attrition is the only thing that prevents them from living

 

[xivarmy]

You are hoping in vain that reducing the slots in the center will mean immobilizing the dominant guilds. That is, it will only work in the lower leagues. And you hope in vain that the weak will run forward, getting 77 points for free. I think they will try to exploit them as much as possible. I repeat for the hundredth time: it is not attrition at the start that prevents them from playing. They are hampered by the lack of organization, the lack of elementary tactics and in general the desire to make any effort to do so. I was playing alone. And I was the leaving the HQ on line 2 at the beginning of the second day of the season. So don't tell me that 77 points of attrition is the only thing that prevents them from living

They're not you. They may not want to be organized or bigger or to worry about tactics. You want them to be something they aren't. That'll never happen.

And yet they make up a larger part of the active player base than the heavily coordinated serious guilds - their experience shouldn't be miserable. They don't try because they've tried in the past and saw it in vain - and thus opted not to bother in the future. 2 siege camps can help to that end. And perhaps most importantly, they might not fear 1000-diamond quite as much if "sitting in HQ with 2 sieges" is the worst case scenario. Perhaps they won't *try to lose* in lower groups just to avoid 1000-diamond - and perhaps with guilds not trying to sandbag you won't see the worst offenders as often (about half the time my mini-guilds have wound up in 1000 it's because some macro-guild that could've beaten me in high-platinum deliberately tried not to). So you might also get a higher quality of competition in 1000.

And even if they try to just exploit the area around their HQ (and that's fair), at some point they'll have to take those sectors to get more to do. Either those sectors get taken back (as they often have in the past) or they keep some territory because noone else wants it - and maybe they go a bit further. Either way they're participating.

---

Particularly on the new map, I tend to agree that 1 slot per sector might not be enough to make attrition matter for top guilds - might make coordination more annoying, but guild A loads while they have 4 sectors adjacent, and then guild B takes some of the sectors they had preloaded and loads others. They might still get nonstop free fights. Which is largely why I favor the "siege camps are independant/multiplicative instead of additive" solution.

 

[Deleted User - 57457]

Let's see. 2 SC will save you 77 points of attrition. If you are unable to overcome 77 points of attrition, then where will you go next? Back to your HQ to your 2 sc. You need SC in the HQ only once a season if you are able to compete with rivals. If not, then the dominating guild doesn't care if you sit in the HQ with or without 2 sc. But I agree it is more pleasant for you to sit there with 2 SC

Correction:
Most guilds ain't 1-person guilds

Most of the times those guilds getting locked out due the 4h protection exploit as soon the guilds in charge notice any advancements in their doorstep

So, let's just roll with with what you're suggesting and let's just assume the locked guild isn't fast enough. What will happen is they try to pushing further. Whatever province they decide on under the 4h protection, it's likely the ruling guilds locking them out anyways with the 4h protection exploit. Effectively trapping them dead in their track. Then indeed throwing them back into their HQ.
How can anyone expect any competition aslong this is the case? Would be better if attrition can't be bypassed and no 4h protection for the highest leagues. This together will make them harder and impossible for any guild to locking others out through advancing until just 1-5 fights are left. Then when an guild is advancing completing those final fights and the 4h protection paralysing the advancing guild. Afterward they're thrown back into HQ easily. If there's no 4h protection, there's no benefit 4h protection to exploit for those "amazing" guilds to cower behind. Instead GbG becomes how it was designed again: actively defending by attacking.

 

[Owl II]

And yet they make up a larger part of the active player base than the heavily coordinated serious guilds - their experience shouldn't be miserable. T

Stop. Let's not be unfounded. How did you measure? I opened a statistics website. Statistics say that there are 5700 active players on beta. 2,400 of them play in top-50 guilds. It's all a diamond league. And almost all of it is 1000 LP. How do you determine who of them is capable of a normal organization, and who needs a crutch in the form of 2 free SC? It doesn't matter in general. They're not me. But I'm playing it too. And along with me, there are from 30 to 50 guilds in my world who can independently organize themselves 2 SC. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the gaming experience for us?

 

[Owl II]

Correction:
Most guilds ain't 1-person guilds

Most of the times those guilds getting locked out due the 4h protection exploit as soon the guilds in charge notice any advancements in their doorstep

So, let's just roll with with what you're suggesting and let's just assume the locked guild isn't fast enough. What will happen is they try to pushing further. Whatever province they decide on under the 4h protection, it's likely the ruling guilds locking them out anyways with the 4h protection exploit. Effectively trapping them dead in their track. Then indeed throwing them back into their HQ.
How can anyone expect any competition aslong this is the case? Would be better if attrition can't be bypassed and no 4h protection for the highest leagues. This together will make them harder and impossible for any guild to locking others out through advancing until just 1-5 fights are left. Then when an guild is advancing completing those final fights and the 4h protection paralysing the advancing guild. Afterward they're thrown back into HQ easily. If there's no 4h protection, there's no benefit 4h protection to exploit for those "amazing" guilds to cower behind. Instead GbG becomes how it was designed again: actively defending by attacking.

The key point: it is necessary to ensure that it is impossible to avoid attrition. We can go further from this

 

[jovada]

You are hoping in vain that reducing the slots in the center will mean immobilizing the dominant guilds.

We never talked about immobilizing dominant guilds, only to give the other guilds also a chance to do some fights by according 2 SC in the HQ

The key point: it is necessary to ensure that it is impossible to avoid attrition. We can go further from this

That is why we proposed only 1 slot in every sector so you can't play with 0 attrition

 

[jovada]

But I'm playing it too. And along with me, there are from 30 to 50 guilds in my world who can independently organize themselves 2 SC. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the gaming experience for us?

As a dominating player do you mean ensure that you have fights all day long and 3 slots in every sector to be sure you can fight with no attrition, is that what you mean by "improve the gaming experience for us?"

Innogames should create a map for ego's where they can pay individual SC and farm points all day long.

 

[Emberguard]

Stop. Let's not be unfounded. How did you measure? I opened a statistics website. Statistics say that there are 5700 active players on beta. 2,400 of them play in top-50 guilds. It's all a diamond league. And almost all of it is 1000 LP. How do you determine who of them is capable of a normal organization, and who needs a crutch in the form of 2 free SC? It doesn't matter in general. They're not me. But I'm playing it too. And along with me, there are from 30 to 50 guilds in my world who can independently organize themselves 2 SC. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the gaming experience for us?

Beta is not a accurate statistic

 

[Deleted User - 57457]

The key point: it is necessary to ensure that it is impossible to avoid attrition. We can go further from this

And something that prevents the 4h protection being exploited. In lowest leagues they're hardly of any use. In gold it can becomes tactical valuable but rarely exploited. In overwhelmingly dominant alliances the 4h protection ensures that except for the 2-guild alliance all others are blocked out for the season. Still surprised people get disappointed in GbG when it happens and trying to avoiding those established alliances at all cost? Combined with SC no attrition or hardly any they don't stand any chance. Both together are the game breaking duo: 2-guild alliances and SC+4h protection exploit together are the coffin nails in GbG.

 

[Emberguard]

How can anyone expect any competition aslong this is the case? Would be better if attrition can't be bypassed and no 4h protection for the highest leagues. This together will make them harder and impossible for any guild to locking others out through advancing until just 1-5 fights are left. Then when an guild is advancing completing those final fights and the 4h protection paralysing the advancing guild. Afterward they're thrown back into HQ easily. If there's no 4h protection, there's no benefit 4h protection to exploit for those "amazing" guilds to cower behind. Instead GbG becomes how it was designed again: actively defending by attacking.

I agree on a fighting basis. But it’d need rebalancing the individual rewards if lockouts were removed for the purpose of fighting

 

[Deleted User - 57457]

@Emberguard you mean upwards to compensate the poor No attrition alliances? Cause they still end up with more then the locked out guilds getting now. As those locked out guilds lost entire seasons due to the exploits the alliances using.

 

[Emberguard]

@Emberguard you mean upwards to compensate the poor No attrition alliances? Cause they still end up with more then the locked out guilds getting now. As those locked out guilds lost entire seasons due to the exploits the alliances using.

Right now the 4 hr lockouts are the only thing preventing players from getting rewards 24/7.

So no, I don’t mean balancing with a increase. I mean a max cap of receivable rewards per sector, per 4 hrs, per player to make sure the maximum players get now would remain the maximum if 4 hr lockouts are removed.