Feedback Guild Battlegrounds Update 2023

[UBERhelp1]

Constructing buildings of various strengths and spending tons of goods to do so. Who will be trusted to do this in the guild? More supervision is needed, etc.

But the confusion is not my main objection to the changes. IMO, capping attrition destroys the heart and soul of the game. Everyone I know makes getting free sectors their main task. Additionally, capping attrition greatly limits the contribution that one player can make and necessitates having many more players all putting in time to come anywhere near what a guild can accomplish under the present game.

So, what you're mad at is that one player can no longer just farm rewards by clicking one button, and it will actually take working together to succeed? Sounds more like a feature that would be good for the game than bad for it.

 

[xivarmy]

Constructing buildings of various strengths and spending tons of goods to do so. Who will be trusted to do this in the guild? More supervision is needed, etc.

But the confusion is not my main objection to the changes. IMO, capping attrition destroys the heart and soul of the game. Everyone I know makes getting free sectors their main task. Additionally, capping attrition greatly limits the contribution that one player can make and necessitates having many more players all putting in time to come anywhere near what a guild can accomplish under the present game.

You'll still be able to farm plenty. i.e. let's say you can hit 100 attrition, across 12 reset periods for a season. At max reduction that's still 6k fights. And you can increase it by increasing the attrition you can handle. It'll also be easier to hit that cap - 2 building slots adjacent to a territory can cap attrition reduction in general now at 80% off. Where 2 building slots before would be no more than 48% off. So now pretty much any territory you'll be able to hit at 80% off now as opposed to just the center for free.

The cost per attrition reduction is still about the same as siege camps were other than the HQ building (i.e. the ones that give you more reduction than a siege camp are the ones that cost more than the siege camp) - the buildings aren't notably more expensive for what they do. The extra options just give you a fallback if you're low on the goods in that sector for your "usual" favorite building.

The HQ building's expense can be justified because you only have to build it once a season - you can't lose it.

The same people you trust to build siege camps now can handle building the new buildings. If someone with rights wanted to destroy your treasury they could do so anyways - actually watched that happen one season where a guild that was imploding due to a founder hijacking had someone with construction rights go through every sector building every type of building they could and deleting it

 

[Pericles the Lion]

But the confusion is not my main objection to the changes. IMO, capping attrition destroys the heart and soul of the game. Everyone I know makes getting free sectors their main task. Additionally, capping attrition greatly limits the contribution that one player can make and necessitates having many more players all putting in time to come anywhere near what a guild can accomplish under the present game.

In a single paragraph, you summarized much of what is wrong with GBG on the live servers.

 

[Aerendil]

The 125 Diamond rush costs seem to be extremely unpopular in my guild and also in my life guilds. Can we split the buildings?
Instead of one building which you can rush in one bulding place for 125 Diamonds, two buildings are built in one building place which can be rushed individually. If only one is rushed you get half the effect

 

[SoulPeace]

What is the reasoning for discouraging battleground farming? Is there another way that players who prefer to make alliances and cooperate can also enjoy game play? So far it sounds as if the changes are to encourage all players to be adversarial fighters.

 

[MB-Gucky]

The attrition cap hits everybody and does not balance anything between stronger or weaker guilds.
What is the intention behind the attrition cap, what is the added value?
The main effect is, that players don't have the need to log in multiple times a day, because the max. attrition is reached very quickly.
No need to accelerate buildings with diamands, no race beween guilds, not strategies or alliances required. The game is reduced to a dump series of clicks and that's it. The game has become boring and is not worth to spend time on it anymore.
As a result of this, the communication with(in) the guilds dies - there is simply nothing to tell, align, talk.
Bottom Line, INNO will make less money with the game.
The number of rewards is reduced significantly. Why should we invest time, money, diamonds in events, if there is no return of the investment.
Active players are punished and will withdraw from the game, passive players don't care at all.
I will certainly not play on live servers anymore, as long as the capping is active.
TURN OFF CAPPING NOW AND FOREVER !!!

 

[CrashBoom]

and introduce a building which produce "finish all special productions"

FARMING FOREVER
without even fighting

 

[CrashBoom]

So, what you're mad at is that one player can no longer just farm rewards by clicking one button, and it will actually take working together to succeed? Sounds more like a feature that would be good for the game than bad for it.

that's it

players are mad for not getting so much REWARDS anymore

i.e. let's say you can hit 100 attrition, across 12 reset periods for a season. At max reduction that's still 6k fights.

and let's say a guild has 80 players

is it even possible for a guild to make 480k fights in one season on a map ?

Additionally, capping attrition greatly limits the contribution that one player can make and necessitates having many more players all putting in time to come anywhere near what a guild can accomplish under the present game.

but that is what guild really means : many all together
and not one or a few are making everying

because it is still GUILDbattlegrounds
not PLAYERfarminggrounds

 

[CrashBoom]

The 125 Diamond rush costs seem to be extremely unpopular in my guild and also in my life guilds. Can we split the buildings?

aren't they already split
60% into a 20% building and a 40% building

and 125 is EXACT the cost of previous siege camps
24% costing 50 diamonds isn't cheaper than 60% for 125 diamonds

the 20% only cost 50 diamonds but that is then more because for 60% with 3 you then pay 150 diamonds

 

[Owl II]

The detailed map view has attrition posted,
100% attrition - X% (your buildings) = % attrition level (AL%)
I can't be 100% sure but the AS% has always been in red. In pic below, D3Z is blue.
Is there something about blue vs red? Is it supposed to be blue?

D3Z has 3 IGCP's, 60% off
100% - 60% = 40% why blue?
A2S and A3X have 1 IGCP, 20% off
100% - 20% = 80% why red?


View attachment 10064

Blue is your guild attacking that sector , red are other guilds attacking a sector

It doesn't take a genius to notice a pattern. But for some reason, people don't draw conclusions based on observations and comparison of facts. They draw conclusions based on some personal feelings that are inaccessible to others. Everything is simple here: blue is the maximum support(the chance of not getting attrition is 20% in the general case). Red - you will increase attrition in this province with a higher chance. This is done to make it easier for officers to place buildings. Or maybe for farm fans. They can now not to torment themselves with calculations and just press the trigger in the provinces marked with blue

BTW, based on the above, there is probably a trap on D3 Z

 

[-Alin-]

The selection kit I don't like especially if we can't sell it. So what you guys know we don't want this and want us to just delete it and not even make a few coins from the dealer?

What Inno should do with the selection kit is add a level 2 upgrade for the roads....with defending army bonus.

The selection kit is bugged, you will be able to sell it after it gets fixed.

Regarding the old fragments, well, You have to Simply delete the roads fragments and SoHs that are extra and can't be used anymore, same goes for elephants.

 

[CrashBoom]

Regarding the old fragments, well, You have to Simply delete the roads fragments snd SoHs that are extra and can't be used anymore, same goes for elephants.

road fragments are still season end reward (at least in platinum league)

 

[Boo...]

that's it

players are mad for not getting so much REWARDS anymore

This is not a correct conclusion.
I'm not angry about awards.
I'm angry at the random selection of building supplies.
I'm angry because of the increased spending of the treasury.
I'm angry that treasury spending doesn't depend on the number of guild members in an era.
I'm angry that they added fatigue and increased costs.
I end up getting angry because Inno wants more money and fewer players.

 

[Boo...]

Now you have focused on fatigue, and showed us its meaning.
If the purpose of GBG is ranking, then add information about the impact it gives to each sector.
We want more rating, show us which sectors will give it.

 

[-Alin-]

This is not a correct conclusion.
I'm not angry about awards.
I'm angry at the random selection of building supplies.
I'm angry because of the increased spending of the treasury.
I'm angry that treasury spending doesn't depend on the number of guild members in an era.
I'm angry that they added fatigue and increased costs.
I end up getting angry because Inno wants more money and fewer players.

Random selection of goods is still based on the era of the players You still have in the guild, motivate them to advance in eras in which You guild could sustain those goods, if they don't want, the guild have the option to lay off that player aswell.

And yes, it sucks about number of Goods that are needed from a specific era, but that can be avoided making people in that guild advancing in the eras.


Increased spending?
It's way cheaper with the cap at 80 rather than playing ping-pong and fill sectors with camps.

When we played with 66.6% limit for one year we barely spent a quarter of goods compared to what our guild spent when swapping with other guilds on the unlimited GbG that is still in live.

Now with the newer buildigns it's still cheaper, even with that main Building in the first HQ sector.
You are limited to the number of fights, a maximum of 700 fights per player If You go full blown till 150 attrition fighting only on 80% sectors.
Also keep in mind You need more fights per sector now, from 160 to 220, and there are buildings that increase the fights aswell, so one player would be able to take only 2 sectors a day from that guild, that reduces a lot the sectors in which You need to build attrition reduction buildings. Also we don't delete them, nor the enemy guilds, so many of them will just stay there on the map, and we just take sectors from each other according to the force of players in our guilds.

So GbG now is way cheaper in term of goods, ofcourse, people will burn goods without thinking if it's needed or not.


Regarding money, I do agree, InnoGames are making these changes for Revenue.
They decreased aswell the diamonds rewards in the new GbG, from 0.25 diamonds per fight to 0.12 diamonds per fight now, literally half.

 

[drakenridder]

I'm agree with you. I think that was the plan from the beginning when gbg came out, there were also traps and other buildings to compete with each other but the guilds quickly figured out that they play as a team and let each other's support to switch every 4 hours to achieve the maximum fp and other stuff.
Now they want to sensitively correct this without upsetting the players too much.

So it seems. Practically the only place where it makes sense to indefinitely invest into % is GbG. Just to push for higher attrition tolerance. Any other place is just not giving any result. GE1-4 poses the biggest other opposition. Though eventually you'll get enough buff to walk over it anyways. Same goes with GE5, although sower.
I'm pretty sure this changes are deliberately aimed at the top guilds. Particularly the attrition reduction % chance cap in combination with exclusive rewards. Though I suspect the rewards must be improved all the time. To keep up with power leap. To remain relevant and worth the trouble.
The other changes like an minimum number of building slots + HQ buildings appear to be a general improvement. Which could spice up high gold - low platinum leagues already. Depending on the server. Generally speaking I've observed variable levels of activity in those leagues. With natural lows and peaks in line with national vacation periods.

 

[Boo...]

Random selection of goods is still based on the era of the players You still have in the guild, motivate them to advance in eras in which You guild could sustain those goods, if they don't want, the guild have the option to lay off that player aswell.

And yes, it sucks about number of Goods that are needed from a specific era, but that can be avoided making people in that guild advancing in the eras.


Increased spending?
It's way cheaper with the cap at 80 rather than playing ping-pong and fill sectors with camps.

When we played with 66.6% limit for one year we barely spent a quarter of goods compared to what our guild spent when swapping with other guilds on the unlimited GbG that is still in live.

Now with the newer buildigns it's still cheaper, even with that main Building in the first HQ sector.
You are limited to the number of fights, a maximum of 700 fights per player If You go full blown till 150 attrition fighting only on 80% sectors.
Also keep in mind You need more fights per sector now, from 160 to 220, and there are buildings that increase the fights aswell, so one player would be able to take only 2 sectors a day from that guild, that reduces a lot the sectors in which You need to build attrition reduction buildings. Also we don't delete them, nor the enemy guilds, so many of them will just stay there on the map, and we just take sectors from each other according to the force of players in our guilds.

So GbG now is way cheaper in term of goods, ofcourse, people will burn goods without thinking if it's needed or not.


Regarding money, I do agree, InnoGames are making these changes for Revenue.
They decreased aswell the diamonds rewards in the new GbG, from 0.25 diamonds per fight to 0.12 diamonds per fight now, literally half.

Find discrepancies between people and required goods

 

[CrashBoom]

actually GBG is cheaper in guild goods costs

siege camp costed 3000 goods for 24%
biggest barrack costs 6800 goods for 60% --> 24% would only cost 2720 goods --> almost 10% cheaper
biggest fieldcamp costs 7000 --> 24% still only 2800

diamond cost are the same
50 diamonds for 24% equals 125 diamonds for 60%


and now the IMPORTANT factor why it is SO MUCH CHEAPER NOW
previously a sector allowed 160 battles

now it is 200-220 + more fights if the attacked field has buildings which increase the needed advances

so everybody who pretends the costs increased should prove that with calculations
or else they are just liars

(HQ buildings are excluded in this argumentation because they weren't available before. so nothing to compare with. and if they are too expensive just don't build them. you haven't used them in past either)

 

[Boo...]

It is not possible to make a selection of a building for construction that corresponds to the eras of the guild.

 

[Praeceptor]

because it is still GUILDbattlegrounds
not PLAYERfarminggrounds

Well said - couldn't agree more.

Perhaps GbG should only add to guild ranking, not player ranking (it will never happen!)