Pericles the Lion
Emperor
If 80% doesn't get the result that INNO wants they will adjust it further. From the Announcement:
-
Dear forum reader,
To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can REGISTER HERE!
Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
Feedback Guild Battlegrounds Update 2023
- Thread starter Juber
- Start date
denhviteguden
Farmer
Stopping swapping NEEDS to be the main priority for the Innos. They need to make it harmful to the guilds, somehow. Otherwise, GBG will remain GFG (guild farming ground).
-Alin-
Emperor
There is only a way to stop farming, remove attrition reduction buildings.
You can build only buildings that will improve the VP.
The strongest players and the strongest guilds will win the round.
But there is needed to improve the rewards being such less fights, to motivate players play GbG and ofcourse lock Higher Age Units players from using units higher than the era they are.
Pericles the Lion
Emperor
I don't think that removing the attrition reduction buildings will be enough to stop swapping. Even with zero attrition reduction, strong guilds will still swap sectors, at least with their neighboring Guilds (fewer sectors to take). Increasing the number of required encounters would slow things down but, eventually, this would simply eliminate Guild vs Guild activity entirely. Draconian reductions in rewards would stifle farming but would also bring player activity to a near standstill. I believe that the best INNO can do is to reduce farming. Stopping farming entirely isn't in the cards.
LiMuBi
Farmer
Current GbG is perfect as it allows those who want to stick around across the entire day and have some fun. GbG is the only activity which is keeps you entertained across the day in this game. GvG is over in 5 minutes, collection and following activities can be done ij around the same time period.
Even the planned 80% attrition cap will hurt the most active guilds and their members very hard. As you gonna be able to do just couple of hundred fights a day and around 5k per season.
But yeah the dream of lousy guilds will come true and successful players will get their wings trimmed.
LiMuBi
Farmer
Now you need to work hard for those rewards, it's much harder to fight large quantities of battles in SAT than many people which cannot wait until Inno restrict guilds and players who investment huge amounts of time and in a lot of cases even money to reach the point where they can keep taking entire map 5 times a day.
It requires dedication from members of the guilds with are capable of doing that. Those people had to work hard to build their cities, guild treasury and strong team to make sure there are fighter available across the day.
What you want is what? More rewards for less?
Should not Inno just start adding some extra forge points for free? As it seems everything guilds with can't leave HQ and their members want is to seek revenge on the more successful players and free rewards.
-Alin-
Emperor
Are forge points relevant in 2023?
You find them everywhere, literally everywhere, forge points lost their value long ago.
You don't need nowadays more than 5 great buildings.
The arc, because treasury and helping people.
Arctic Orangery to aid You in fights.
Alcatraz to give you units.
CF to grind goods and quests rewards.
Blue Galaxy to give more fragments.
The other great buildings are just an addition for the city and guild which probably need observatory, AI Core and hydra.
You need several events and You are good to go, You will keep accunulating more and more event buildings for free or with the event passes bought.
Regarding GbG, is perfect as it is on beta right now.
80% is the perfect sweetspot.
Stronger people that invested in their cities will see their effort worth it going higher in attrition than others that are in lower eras with less stats.
Infinite fighting should have never been existed, 100% reduction was a very bad implementation of InnoGames, but for 2020-2022 when pandemic hit us, was profitable for them. But this affected the game longterm, and players too making them greedy.
Glad they try to fix it now, even if it is later than needed ...
You want to do more than others, you grow stronger and invest into that thing. Not profit from an entire team/guild, leeching their goods and swap enormous ammounts of sectors while others are bored or not online at all, this was the worst and most umbalanced thing in this game that lead this game into the direction we are seeing now.
I still remember when GbG came out and which was supposed to make guilds competitive, indeed made them competitive, competitive in grinding
)Forge of Empires summary:
2012-2022 vs 2023, you can reach in less than a year what a veteran endgamer achieved in lots of years of playing, this is the definition of powercreep in this game. And this is the result of some bad choices from Inno that are trying now to fix them, from making GbG less powerfull and improve events to get more revenue also.
Last edited:
Emberguard
Emperor
That wouldn’t stop farming either, attrition doesn’t really change anything other than the speed things progress
Mind you, if removing farming was the only goal then that would be incredibly easy. Really, really easy in fact.
It just probably wouldn’t be all that fun if you’re exclusively looking to remove farming as the only goal due to farming being more a symptom rather than the underlying problem - we need opponents that want to fight, have the tenacity to keep fighting, and the ability to do so to the same degree we’re able to
Don’t even need Alcatraz if you’re not touching GvG. GBG gives more units than I know what to do with.
LiMuBi
Farmer
GbG was released in 2019, so if a new player managed to overgrow someone who played for many years means the veteran player was just lazy cause he already had a well-developed city so all the advantage to profit from GbG extensively more than the new player.
With SAT you have Saturn VI Gate: Pegasus, Hydra and Centaurus getting these three great buildings to a mere lv50 will cost you 483 000 forge points so i really would say forge points have no value. If a guild wants to be competitive in GbG they need large quantities of goods so there is a need for AI, Obs, and Arc over lv100 minimum cause in SAT you can not donate goods to the treasury due to the fact each level on new great buildings cost you goods and large quantities.
Yes, you keep getting new event buildings and keep deleting the old ones as event buildings released in 2023 made all the previous ones obsolete.
It's not infinite fighting as the map has given a number of sectors and encounters to take them and 4 hours lock means there is a very finite number of fights you can do in 24 hours. To reach 100% attrition reduction you need 5 SC minimum which only a handful of sectors can provide as with 4 SC sectors you still keep getting attrition, slowly but steadily. So to reach high numbers you still need to be able to fight to attrition 100, and be able to replace troops you lost, your guild needs to have goods to pay for the structures and diamonds to pay for finishing the construction.
So what you call "easy" and "infinite" isn't relly easy or infinite.
-Alin-
Emperor
Write the same phrase after You play in Space Ages please, especially titan, even doing several fights on zero attrition You lose units, so Alcatraz is mandatory.
For previous round I grinded 2.5k flying units, going only 120-130 attrition.
Alcatraz is mandatory even on lower eras actually with the changed GbG, people want to push higher too, because there are no longer zero attrition fight to preserve units, and a city full of viceroy villas aren't enough either.
If You are fine with just 100 fights, then Alcatraz surely isnt needed.
Last edited:
Arch1e
Marquis
We have very different definitions of what constitutes a successful player. I for one learned long ago to discount any difference in fights when assessing the strength of anyone around me in ranks.
So did everyone else. The team is a different issue to how hard people who grew their cities purely on the basis of farming actually worked for that city, compared to those who worked on theirs outside of Gbg. Please do recognise that just because it suits your playing style to farm Gbg, it doesn’t mean you are being hard done by when Inno take your golden goose away.
You seem to not have understood that nobody is arguing these changes out of any desire to do this. What people want to see is the end to people farming away fps to the tune of 10s of thousands of fights every season. Period. And the other issue mentioned by several, the end to young era players using higher era units to farm indefinitely, hence stopping their natural progression through the eras. If the consequence is that a few more guilds get in on the map, good for them. But as far as I’m concerned, these changes have nothing to do with helping weaker or disinterested guilds do anything, they have everything to do with making the game playable and fair on the bulk of players who play the game the way it is intended, not through endless swapping between guilds that have made it their purpose in life to farm max benefits out of one feature.
This is exactly the point. Nailed in one.
100% with you here. Glad this is now at least being balanced.
Vic.Vicious
Marquis
I'm fighting tiles with a 20% chance of increasing attrition and going up to 130-145 attrition each day. Why is it that I can get over 580 fights? I just did 25 and gained 11 attrition. This is getting old fast.
-Freya-
Farmer
Some thoughts on the news and direction of the past period.
It can be seen that the developers want to eliminate the rotation of guilds on the battlefield. This is somewhat understandable, since the essence of it would be the fight.
However, the fact that the rotation was born at all happened because the structure of the game is what it is. And yet, for some reason, the developers only want to modify the battlefield. And in the worst possible way.
In practice, there are the following problems:
Guilds that cannot (and do not want to) compete with larger, more active guilds either in terms of staff or activity are included in the Diamond League.
There are a lot of players in the game who don't really want to fight, they only care about the things they can get.
There are a lot of guilds with 1-2 people and yet they reach the entire palette of the game.
There is no retribution in the hands of the guild leaders for those who do not follow the rules.
The perks given by the guilds have now become very meager.
In the case of a guild change, there is no disadvantage that would make the person change his mind.
GVG is an element of the game that cannot be avoided, but it is inaccessible to a significant number of players.
Neither the previous (already abandoned) nor the current battlefield modification will solve these problems.
In my opinion, the following could make a difference. I emphasize that these are only examples to make it easier to understand what the problems are:
Starting in the leagues should be tied to the number of people.
Diamond 60+ people
Platinum 40+ people
Gold 30+ people
Silver 15+ people
Copper with up to 1 person
The guilds can choose whether they want to start in, say, the diamond league, or whether they prefer to stay in the platinum league. This would apply equally to the lower leagues. Of course, if the conditions are met.
The guild leaders should have the authority to revoke the right to hit on the battlefield from 1-1 players for x amount of time. Also, hide guild correspondence from them for x amount of time.
Guild level should be more than 100 and give more buffs. Also have different offensive and defensive buffs. In addition, there should be a building that the members build from their own warehouse (fp, goods, pendants), thus they are more connected to the guild. This building would also give various buffs.
In the event of a guild change, certain game elements should not be available for a longer period of time.
It would be best if GvG was abolished. However, it can be seen that the development team does not want this. That way, I would also link the presence there to the number of employees. The many small guilds of 1-2 people should not troll the work of a big guild, because he wants to destroy and harm.
Thus, I would define at least 30 people to be able to participate in GvG for a guild. Let's say that I would add so many twists to it that if only 1-2 people are active compared to the number of members of the guild, I would take the authorization of the given guild from the GvG.
These are the things that can make a real difference to the current normal course of the game in the long run.
I wonder how anyone sees it.
I apologize for any spelling mistakes, I used a translator.
And sorry for the length.
It can be seen that the developers want to eliminate the rotation of guilds on the battlefield. This is somewhat understandable, since the essence of it would be the fight.
However, the fact that the rotation was born at all happened because the structure of the game is what it is. And yet, for some reason, the developers only want to modify the battlefield. And in the worst possible way.
In practice, there are the following problems:
Guilds that cannot (and do not want to) compete with larger, more active guilds either in terms of staff or activity are included in the Diamond League.
There are a lot of players in the game who don't really want to fight, they only care about the things they can get.
There are a lot of guilds with 1-2 people and yet they reach the entire palette of the game.
There is no retribution in the hands of the guild leaders for those who do not follow the rules.
The perks given by the guilds have now become very meager.
In the case of a guild change, there is no disadvantage that would make the person change his mind.
GVG is an element of the game that cannot be avoided, but it is inaccessible to a significant number of players.
Neither the previous (already abandoned) nor the current battlefield modification will solve these problems.
In my opinion, the following could make a difference. I emphasize that these are only examples to make it easier to understand what the problems are:
Starting in the leagues should be tied to the number of people.
Diamond 60+ people
Platinum 40+ people
Gold 30+ people
Silver 15+ people
Copper with up to 1 person
The guilds can choose whether they want to start in, say, the diamond league, or whether they prefer to stay in the platinum league. This would apply equally to the lower leagues. Of course, if the conditions are met.
The guild leaders should have the authority to revoke the right to hit on the battlefield from 1-1 players for x amount of time. Also, hide guild correspondence from them for x amount of time.
Guild level should be more than 100 and give more buffs. Also have different offensive and defensive buffs. In addition, there should be a building that the members build from their own warehouse (fp, goods, pendants), thus they are more connected to the guild. This building would also give various buffs.
In the event of a guild change, certain game elements should not be available for a longer period of time.
It would be best if GvG was abolished. However, it can be seen that the development team does not want this. That way, I would also link the presence there to the number of employees. The many small guilds of 1-2 people should not troll the work of a big guild, because he wants to destroy and harm.
Thus, I would define at least 30 people to be able to participate in GvG for a guild. Let's say that I would add so many twists to it that if only 1-2 people are active compared to the number of members of the guild, I would take the authorization of the given guild from the GvG.
These are the things that can make a real difference to the current normal course of the game in the long run.
I wonder how anyone sees it.
I apologize for any spelling mistakes, I used a translator.
And sorry for the length.
outoftheline
Squire
there are 67 people in my guild, but only 50 participated in the currently running season of GBG. and 10 of them barely played.
strength has nothing to do with the amount of people in a guild.
GateKeeper
Baronet
Looks like the guild ranking is now only calculating GBG point for the season, 57th based on below? But on the GVG Maps, it shows a different ranking number, the older ranking, #14. Once the GBG season is over on 11/16, what "ranking" will show?
How are "no age requirement guilds" expected to pay all these amount of Guild Goods for Fortified buildings at 7000 goods a building? If a guild has just 1 player in any of the lower ages, there is no way this is sustainable. This will cause "Elitest Guilds" to form to only have players in the higher ages to control the Guild Goods, leaving out any new players to fend in lower level guilds, less active players, and no reason to play GBG.
Its hard enough for guilds who play both actively GVG and GBG to sustain the lower aged goods even before these changes.
How are "no age requirement guilds" expected to pay all these amount of Guild Goods for Fortified buildings at 7000 goods a building? If a guild has just 1 player in any of the lower ages, there is no way this is sustainable. This will cause "Elitest Guilds" to form to only have players in the higher ages to control the Guild Goods, leaving out any new players to fend in lower level guilds, less active players, and no reason to play GBG.
Its hard enough for guilds who play both actively GVG and GBG to sustain the lower aged goods even before these changes.
Yekk
Regent
Quite a few of the top 10 GBG guilds on beta have less than 60 players AND there are really really bad guilds with 80 players. I can not see your suggestion working out.Some thoughts on the news and direction of the past period.
It can be seen that the developers want to eliminate the rotation of guilds on the battlefield. This is somewhat understandable, since the essence of it would be the fight.
However, the fact that the rotation was born at all happened because the structure of the game is what it is. And yet, for some reason, the developers only want to modify the battlefield. And in the worst possible way.
In practice, there are the following problems:
Guilds that cannot (and do not want to) compete with larger, more active guilds either in terms of staff or activity are included in the Diamond League.
There are a lot of players in the game who don't really want to fight, they only care about the things they can get.
There are a lot of guilds with 1-2 people and yet they reach the entire palette of the game.
There is no retribution in the hands of the guild leaders for those who do not follow the rules.
The perks given by the guilds have now become very meager.
In the case of a guild change, there is no disadvantage that would make the person change his mind.
GVG is an element of the game that cannot be avoided, but it is inaccessible to a significant number of players.
Neither the previous (already abandoned) nor the current battlefield modification will solve these problems.
In my opinion, the following could make a difference. I emphasize that these are only examples to make it easier to understand what the problems are:
Starting in the leagues should be tied to the number of people.
Diamond 60+ people
Platinum 40+ people
Gold 30+ people
Silver 15+ people
Copper with up to 1 person
The guilds can choose whether they want to start in, say, the diamond league, or whether they prefer to stay in the platinum league. This would apply equally to the lower leagues. Of course, if the conditions are met.
The guild leaders should have the authority to revoke the right to hit on the battlefield from 1-1 players for x amount of time. Also, hide guild correspondence from them for x amount of time.
Guild level should be more than 100 and give more buffs. Also have different offensive and defensive buffs. In addition, there should be a building that the members build from their own warehouse (fp, goods, pendants), thus they are more connected to the guild. This building would also give various buffs.
In the event of a guild change, certain game elements should not be available for a longer period of time.
It would be best if GvG was abolished. However, it can be seen that the development team does not want this. That way, I would also link the presence there to the number of employees. The many small guilds of 1-2 people should not troll the work of a big guild, because he wants to destroy and harm.
Thus, I would define at least 30 people to be able to participate in GvG for a guild. Let's say that I would add so many twists to it that if only 1-2 people are active compared to the number of members of the guild, I would take the authorization of the given guild from the GvG.
These are the things that can make a real difference to the current normal course of the game in the long run.
I wonder how anyone sees it.
I apologize for any spelling mistakes, I used a translator.
And sorry for the length.
By the way Dragonstar is looking for a few GBG fighters to help us move up from fourth to first. (shameless plug)
planetofthehumans2
Emperor
The better solution is just to have guild leaders "unlock" or opt into going to the next league with a simple prompt in between sessions. If they don't do anything or say "no", they stay in the same league.
It would be interesting if it cost guild goods to go up leagues like in GEX.
It would be interesting if it cost guild goods to go up leagues like in GEX.
CrashBoom
Legend
and the 8 guilds with 1000 LP which decided to stay in platinum league and don't move up will be grouped together in a platinum battleground
CDmark
Baronet
| beta | live | |||||||
| Category | 2500 2470A/30N | Category | 2500 | |||||
| 10 Forge Points | 331.00 | 13.2% | 3310 | 10 Forge Points | 430 | 17.2% | 4300 | |
| Fragment of Tourney Grounds - Active | 291.00 | 11.6% | 291 | n/a | | |||
| 3 Fragments Elephant Kit | 193.00 | 7.7% | 579 | 1 fragment Elephant kit | 291 | 11.6% | 291 | |
| 4,000 Supplies | 170.00 | 6.8% | who cares | supplies/coins | 183 | 7.3% | who cares | |
| 50 Goods | 65.00 | 2.6% | 3300 | 50 Goods | 61 | 2.4% | 3050 | |
| 5x Rogue | 72.00 | 2.9% | 360 | 3x Rogue | 55 | 2.2% | 165 | |
| 5x units | 54.00 | 2.2% | 270 | 5x/2x units | 107 | 4.3% | 469 | |
| attacker boosts | 33 | 1.3% | x | |||||
| 45 Diamonds | 9.00 | 0.4% | 405 | 25 diamonds | 24 | 1.0% | 600 | |
47.4% | 47.4% |
Both waterfall map, 2500 attacks on live, 2470 A/30N in beta. More data would be nice but I think I can draw some rough conclusions
I see a reduction in FPs (this data suggests 25%) and a reduction in diamonds (this data suggests 33%).
Old GBG, 1.5 elephant levels, new GBG almost 6 levels
New GBG, more rogues, less units
Tourney Grounds, say 12%, probably takes from FPs, elephants kits, units and attacker boost