Feedback Guild Battlegrounds update!

[Thunderdome]

@Dessire
Enough with the riddles and charades. Until you can show something to put your money where your mouth is, everyone, including this bloke, is going to regard you as a joke.

We are talking about results, not photoshopped claims that make 0 sense.

 

[Mor-Rioghain]

I think the center of both map 1 and 2 and their surroundings should be either all blue or all red. This will balance all guilds in the difficulty of fighting on the blue icon.

How so? All guilds recruit and guilds who are serious about competing at the top levels of their leagues are going to recruit for specific traits such as DAT (Daily Automatic Treasury), fight stats, establish minimums on advances, and now they're going to recruit for red and blue players. I highly doubt there's a single thing that Inno can do to truly prevent players from creating super guilds completely (and why would they want to?) and I do think that the stacked VPs will go a very long way towards ameliorating rank due to receipt of unearned VPs, i.e., the "fifth hour" by capping at XX:59.

I also think that you're assuming that most (all?) top guilds are lagging on blue attack. Why would they be if they're staying competitive? We get predictions of upcoming changes and we see the results of A/B testing so we're already prepared to make the necessary changes addressing these types of issues before they go live. (Plus we see possible changes in our items/bldgs all of the time, i.e., event items and GBs. We've know for what, 6 months? longer? that we were going to be seeing blue attk/d in battlegrounds just based on event items with the BG standard/icon).

The issue of the diamond league being only 1,000 will mean that in the future there will only be 3 to 4 guilds in diamond, restricting the gain from buildings.

I highly doubt that. What we see on the game screen are numbers that are rounded to a certain delimiter but I strongly suspect that what's often referred to as Senior Diamond League Guilds have, in fact, earning far more than 1000 LPs much like we saw in L100 guilds that continued to increase their prestige holding higher ranks even without the benefit of holding land in GvG.

I've long been an advocate of a Crystal League but I have to say that based on the actual disparity between Senior and Regular Diamond League Guilds that this change is a more practical and realistic separation of guilds that don't really match up for prolonged periods of time. (Not even the Super Guilds perform at those crazy levels every single season! Been there, done that and the burnout is real! Probably explains why virtually all of the tippity-top guilds have so many more feeder guilds than they used to).

Because it may happen that some guilds join together and and rotate positions and then whoever does not join these guilds will be deprived of the earnings. I think a margin of 950-1000 should be placed to be diamond league and not only 1000.

If what you mean by rotating positions is swapping on the map, what makes you think they're not doing it now? Just because I've not seen (or heard of) more formal swap arrangements like the ones that existed prior to the tournament-style BG doesn't mean they don't exist. You don't even have to be in a top guild (or even Diamond league) to see that people are still prone to checkerboarding the map to keep their attrition down or at the very least using the good old hurricane swap method and just rotate that way.

If what you mean by rotating positions relates to building Super Guilds, it's already happening and has been happening for a lot longer than early release info about these changes and even the Tournament Style. Players want to win and they're going to do just about anything they can to do it. I personally think that these changes are going to go a long way towards evening out some of the current disparities in the matchmaking system and overall balance of the feature.

 

[drakenridder]

So, the significant changes have taken affect in the live servers. Despite the fact that no genuine testing phase has been concluded in Beta. As this changes significantly impact the GbG season, alteration in match making and even a special round. For this to be genuinely tested at least 1 full season is required to fully observe the effects effectively and coming to a full conclusion if the changes are meeting expectations of the intended results. The failure in completing a full genuine test round, to observe how this effects a full season deeply concerns me and makes me wondering what ultimately drove this decision.
If the Beta server lacked a sufficiently competitive environment to be suitable for such genuine test, I would’ve understood and expected this to be communicated clearly through announcements. Much as was done years ago. When a specific live sever was selected to test significant changes. As beta was unable to give concluding results due to the lack of a sufficiently suitable environment. This leaves me to speculation of what could’ve driven this decision to release the changes while it’s not fully tested yet. Could a mod shine a light on this or could someone provide a link to the explanation for this? It’s very concerning to observe this development

 

[MJ Artisan of War]

It is most likely being implemented on live because the increased sector building costs have resulted in more diamond sales...
In other words, for the same reason that drives ever INNOvation in FoE..... Monetization.

 

[Deleted User - 279081]

Bring it on!

 

[Atosha]

So, the significant changes have taken affect in the live servers. Despite the fact that no genuine testing phase has been concluded in Beta. As this changes significantly impact the GbG season, alteration in match making and even a special round. For this to be genuinely tested at least 1 full season is required to fully observe the effects effectively and coming to a full conclusion if the changes are meeting expectations of the intended results. The failure in completing a full genuine test round, to observe how this effects a full season deeply concerns me and makes me wondering what ultimately drove this decision.
If the Beta server lacked a sufficiently competitive environment to be suitable for such genuine test, I would’ve understood and expected this to be communicated clearly through announcements. Much as was done years ago. When a specific live sever was selected to test significant changes. As beta was unable to give concluding results due to the lack of a sufficiently suitable environment. This leaves me to speculation of what could’ve driven this decision to release the changes while it’s not fully tested yet. Could a mod shine a light on this or could someone provide a link to the explanation for this? It’s very concerning to observe this development

Fully agree.

I was about to post this when live announcement came, unfortunately, we'll learn if that's right the hard way...

New Diamond league activity level & matchmaking

A- There are only a few cycles for guilds that doesn't stay permanently in Diamond league (that can be partially or fully followed depending on each guild capacity).
Cycle 1 = R1 Diamond -> R2 Plat -> R3 D -> R4 D -> R5 P -> R6 D -> R1 D...
Cycle 2 = R1 P -> R2 D -> R3 P -> R4 D -> R5 P -> R6 D -> Cycle 1
Cycle 3 = R4 P -> R5 D -> R6 P -> R1 D -> Cycle 1

Consequences :
1/ Within guilds that can't stay permanently in Diamonds, the most competitive one (i.e. the one able to go back to diamond after 1 round in Plat) will follow the same cycle (#1).
2/ Platinium will therefore be more competitive on rounds 2 & 5.
3/ Less Platinium competitive guilds will still have other opportunities at rounds 1, 3, 4 & 6.

B- With this, we can reach the conclusion that the powerful enough guilds will therefore meet more frequently less active guilds than currently (outside of special round). Diamond maps will have globally less activity.

Of course, that's depending on the following:
>> that diamond size increases.
More guilds with less battles capacity will be included in the matchmaking list.
Well we won't know how it really evolves as on Beta we're having consecutive special rounds [unless someone got the stats of size evolution of current Diamond 1000PL on long term / made simulations].
But with 2 rounds with no demotion, we can assume, it will increase bit by bit, as it seems stable with current GBG system.

>> that match count doesn't reset, guilds that stays permanently in diamond will meet less and less (especially as they'll still get paired during special rounds).
(Actually, even if match count resets every championship, that will be the case, in lower proportions).

 

[Amitola1]

Speaking from a GBG officer perspective. The new GUIs are great. I like the the look of the new buildings also. However, for a GBG officer the challenge of managing GBG for a guild hasn't changed. It's still the challenge of managing the guild treasury.

 

[drakenridder]

It is most likely being implemented on live because the increased sector building costs have resulted in more diamond sales...
In other words, for the same reason that drives ever INNOvation in FoE..... Monetization.

I don't like to be forced to resort to such speculation. Although a very compelling theory. Which is more in line with recent developments. Which appear more... impulsive compared to prior years. Alongside other signals I won't go further in detail off for now. As it may be unrelated to the dev's and their decision to ship major changes despite completion of a full test.

Fully agree.

I was about to post this when live announcement came, unfortunately, we'll learn if that's right the hard way...

New Diamond league activity level & matchmaking

A- There are only a few cycles for guilds that doesn't stay permanently in Diamond league (that can be partially or fully followed depending on each guild capacity).
Cycle 1 = R1 Diamond -> R2 Plat -> R3 D -> R4 D -> R5 P -> R6 D -> R1 D...
Cycle 2 = R1 P -> R2 D -> R3 P -> R4 D -> R5 P -> R6 D -> Cycle 1
Cycle 3 = R4 P -> R5 D -> R6 P -> R1 D -> Cycle 1

Consequences :
1/ Within guilds that can't stay permanently in Diamonds, the most competitive one (i.e. the one able to go back to diamond after 1 round in Plat) will follow the same cycle (#1).
2/ Platinium will therefore be more competitive on rounds 2 & 5.
3/ Less Platinium competitive guilds will still have other opportunities at rounds 1, 3, 4 & 6.

B- With this, we can reach the conclusion that the powerful enough guilds will therefore meet more frequently less active guilds than currently (outside of special round). Diamond maps will have globally less activity.

Of course, that's depending on the following:
>> that diamond size increases.
More guilds with less battles capacity will be included in the matchmaking list.
Well we won't know how it really evolves as on Beta we're having consecutive special rounds [unless someone got the stats of size evolution of current Diamond 1000PL on long term / made simulations].
But with 2 rounds with no demotion, we can assume, it will increase bit by bit, as it seems stable with current GBG system.

>> that match count doesn't reset, guilds that stays permanently in diamond will meet less and less (especially as they'll still get paired during special rounds).
(Actually, even if match count resets every championship, that will be the case, in lower proportions).

It's an interesting analysis. However due to the lack of data collected on at least 1 full GbG season with this changes in affect. It's more an educated guess than an analysis based off factual real world data from 1 affected season. While a decent hypothesis based off indications, it lacks the real world data necessary.
How competitive guilds will truly react and adapt is for now speculative. At best educated guesses. For that reason I'm seriously questioning what has driven the devs to rush through such impactful and significant changes without proper testing, collecting real world data and taking the time to analyse set data. Making conclusions based off that and informed decisions: necessary tweaks due to unforeseen consequences, unexpected/unwanted effects, meeting expectations or not, etc. It's all very atypical for a professional enterprise

 

[Fury the Avenger]

So, the significant changes have taken affect in the live servers. Despite the fact that no genuine testing phase has been concluded in Beta. [...]

In case you didn't notice all changes that are championship related are always being deployed with next championship in live. Regardless of any feedback. This applies both to GbG and QI, but not GE.

I suspect this represents some issue with code.
Even just an issue where updating the tower in GbG for next championship is linked to any change in championship code, so deploying one without the other risk creating more bugs (since that split isn't being tested in beta at all). Not sure why this applies to QI too. But notice the amount of effort they took to increase separation between qi championship end in beta and live.

If you want to provide feedcack on GbG and qi, I suggest you write your feedback as early as possible.
Note: I'm a player that posted feedback on settlement this week after over 5 months late.

[...] For that reason I'm seriously questioning what has driven the devs to rush through such impactful and significant changes without proper testing, collecting real world data and taking the time to analyse set data. Making conclusions based off that and informed decisions: necessary tweaks due to unforeseen consequences, unexpected/unwanted effects, meeting expectations or not, etc. It's all very atypical for a professional enterprise

It was previously stated that beta data doesn't constitute real data (no additional details).
So by your argument, dev SHOULD rush it to live to start collecting "real world data". They get no such data from beta.

 

[drakenridder]

In case you didn't notice all changes that are championship related are always being deployed with next championship in live. Regardless of any feedback. This applies both to GbG and QI, but not GE.

I suspect this represents some issue with code.
Even just an issue where updating the tower in GbG for next championship is linked to any change in championship code, so deploying one without the other risk creating more bugs (since that split isn't being tested in beta at all). Not sure why this applies to QI too. But notice the amount of effort they took to increase separation between qi championship end in beta and live

I noticed with QI that it was hastily released. Same goes with this. One time could be written off as somewhat impulsive. A second time is unlikely not to be a pattern.
I have an hard time believing an enterprise would build in such an obviously critical design flaw. Let some not trying to patching it or letting it slip through.

If you want to provide feedcack on GbG and qi, I suggest you write your feedback as early as possible.

Thanks for the advice and I did. I provided this piece of feedback before anyone else here did. As soon I noticed the devs have decided to not compete a full genuine test phase for these changes.

It was previously stated that beta data doesn't constitute real data (no additional details).
So by your argument, dev SHOULD rush it to live to start collecting "real world data". They get no such data from beta.

It was years ago stated for something else, yes. It’s also evident that it should be possible to selectively release significant changes. Hence why it’s so strange. Can you elaborate further on the by your implied logic? I’ll give more context from where I’m coming from.
Without sufficient real world data collected on the affects of significant changes, no meaningful analysis can take place and from that no effective and informed decisions can be formulated. Like I said in my original post. If the Beta server doesn’t support a sufficiently competitive environment to facilitate meaningful real world data. They could opt like they’ve done in the past to select one suitable live server. Since they’ve done that in the past, I don’t see any reasons why they miraculously couldn’t do it this time around. The theory of critically flawed code as it’s too entangled seems unlikely on those grounds. However since neither of us have direct access to asses the underpaying code nor inside knowledge we’re left to speculate and theorise. Until a mod in contact with the devs or a dev releases more information on the subject.

As the facts are standing now however: significant GbG changes have been released. Insufficient time has past for real world data to accumulate for meaningful analysis to for meaningful conclusions and making informed decisions based off that. As for now how competitive guilds will react and may adapt is speculative and at best educated guesses. However due to the absence of sufficient real world data, it is more a gamble that no unforeseen consequences will come forth from it and the expected results will be met. Those facts are what deeply concerning me. As GbG is a delicate core feature that mainly maintains high engagement.

 

[Atosha]

In case you didn't notice all changes that are championship related are always being deployed with next championship in live. Regardless of any feedback. This applies both to GbG and QI, but not GE.

Well, GBG championship was already running on live and implementing it with next championship in Jan would have made more sense.

I also checked records, last big change on GBG (attrition cap - mid-2023) was implementend 5 weeks after Beta.
Here, we're live only 3 weeks after Beta...

 

[Fury the Avenger]

I noticed with QI that it was hastily released. Same goes with this. One time could be written off as somewhat impulsive. A second time is unlikely not to be a pattern.
I have an hard time believing an enterprise would build in such an obviously critical design flaw. Let some not trying to patching it or letting it slip through.

It's not that difficult to understand once you realise what the advantages are.
If a company wish to be able to deploy feature and new tower separately, then they need to add an additional testing environment to check it. This is an additional cost with no actual direct return.
They already shown in some hastily fix made during a championship on beta that this schedule is locked in. They can test whatever they want before going live, but then need to go live for the next championship. Once they solved this by extending the current championship on live (qi). At least once they did the change on beta very late and let live get it with minimal testing.
If Inno subscribe to the agile dev philosophy, then this might be even considered a feature. In addition if data from beta in unreliable then there is little advantages in testing the feature on beta for a longer time. If the feature, as is, is already an improvement, they can alway adjust it later on.

Thanks for the advice and I did. I provided this piece of feedback before anyone else here did. As soon I noticed the devs have decided to not compete a full genuine test phase for these changes.

I would argue that the scheduled release of the feature is not a comment on the feature, but I did the same. It can be argued both ways.

It was years ago stated for something else, yes. It’s also evident that it should be possible to selectively release significant changes. Hence why it’s so strange. Can you elaborate further on the by your implied logic? I’ll give more context from where I’m coming from.
Without sufficient real world data collected on the affects of significant changes, no meaningful analysis can take place and from that no effective and informed decisions can be formulated. Like I said in my original post. If the Beta server doesn’t support a sufficiently competitive environment to facilitate meaningful real world data. They could opt like they’ve done in the past to select one suitable live server. Since they’ve done that in the past, I don’t see any reasons why they miraculously couldn’t do it this time around. The theory of critically flawed code as it’s too entangled seems unlikely on those grounds. However since neither of us have direct access to asses the underpaying code nor inside knowledge we’re left to speculate and theorise. Until a mod in contact with the devs or a dev releases more information on the subject.

As the facts are standing now however: significant GbG changes have been released. Insufficient time has past for real world data to accumulate for meaningful analysis to for meaningful conclusions and making informed decisions based off that. As for now how competitive guilds will react and may adapt is speculative and at best educated guesses. However due to the absence of sufficient real world data, it is more a gamble that no unforeseen consequences will come forth from it and the expected results will be met. Those facts are what deeply concerning me. As GbG is a delicate core feature that mainly maintains high engagement.

There are some ways that data from beta could be useless.

1. Guild composition and participation might be very unusual on beta server.
2. KPI might be unreliable on beta. For example: dollars average per month per paying customer.
3. There might be huge difference in guild composition and activity between bigger and smaller server that are relevant for this feature. Beta server data might be representative of part of live servers and completely misleading for other server. For example: if you play on the smaller European server you can see how much action or members is need to reach top 20 in qi compared to some of the us servers, which are much bigger (which I saw is different). It might be visible in GbG ranking to, but I never looked at the data.
4. The sample might be too small to be significant on beta. Forcing a choice between selecting a much larger population of server and very long testing phases. This might be the reason that testing on some live servers is not a good option.

Those are all issue that might impact any feedback on matchmaking changes deployed. It might be working for bigger server and be a disaster for smaller one and beta data will never reveal the issue no mater how long it is tested. But they can do adjustment to that part of the feature during the championship if it turn out to be ab problem (and they see it early enough).

Above there are comments on how the current change might affect guild winning pattern.
But I don't know if if any of those patterns would be considered a downside by Inno. And guild patterns might require a few session before they emerge as people move between guilds, both to more competitive guilds, and to more relaxed guilds. In qi we saw a similar issue with player needing some incursion before we could devise settlement strategies that take advantage of the changes. That doesn't make the changes a good idea, but it does increase the time, before "real world data" are useful to make additional changes.

Please notice that the above reasons are mostly speculation, since, as you wrote, we do not have access to actual data.

They have introduced a bunch of feature in this championship:

Feature	Feedback	Longer testing advantages
Provinces with blue army boost	Generally positive. Some complain on people not having as much blue bonuses There might be some issue with the randomisation of provinces	Randomisation forming patterns might better tested with more data, but using all live server might reveal any issue much faster. Beta testing already show that there is no major bug here.
Matchmaking enhancement	Many complain, but I didn't see any specific issue mostly theoretical complain	Real world data in needed. Longer test might be insufficient
Leagues ranger changes	Some theoretical analysis on it effect on guild participation. They might have also changed the amount of LP for victory. In bronze it's now 263 for participation, but I'm not sure what the old value was.	Real world data in needed. Longer test might be insufficient. Beta data might be not representative
Special matchmaking for 3rd and 6th session	Some theoretical analysis on it effect on guild behaviour	Real world data in needed. Longer test might be insufficient. Beta data might be not representative
Usability improvement	There are a couple of issue reported here. Some might be fixed, but they were not major enough to delay deployment to live. If the same low severity issue had delayed deployment of flat mode we would be enraged.	Maybe there is some minor issue we missed on beta. No guarantee it would have been found with a longer test.
Reward pop up removal	Positive feedback. Personally I would prefer if clicking to see the reward open a window that can be closed with ESC on keyboard.	No benefit
Building cost and VP scaling	I saw no feedback	Not sure anyone is testing the effect of this. Live data might be needed to see any issue
Building with new ability (VP amount not just %)	I saw no feedback. I think this has the potential to have a big impact since the amount from the home base province is huge.	Pattern need to emerge is there is something to twich here. Live data might be needed to analyse any issue here.
New look	I saw only positive feedback	No benefit
New attrition level	I saw feedback that I would sum up as: Who cares	Live data might be needed to analyse any issue here, like burnout risk

 

[Fury the Avenger]

Well, GBG championship was already running on live and implementing it with next championship in Jan would have made more sense.

I also checked records, last big change on GBG (attrition cap - mid-2023) was implementend 5 weeks after Beta.
Here, we're live only 3 weeks after Beta...

Sorry I was under the impression we just srted a new championship. I was wrong since the championship started at the end of November.
If they waited for the next one it would have been mid February.

 

[Hiep Lin]

The new matchmaking is totally useless!
On my French world, there are 108 guilds in the gold league, between places 88 (800 lp) and 196 (502 lp).
In my group there is the guild ranked 91 with 788 lp and the guild ranked 195 with 503 lp.

It is obvious that we will meet more different guilds since in the gold league there are guilds that were previously in platinum, and that the first in the league can meet the last.
This is not an improvement, it is rather a catastrophic deterioration.

 

[lord budovatel cz]

I upgrade attack bonuses in main world on life server now I must stop upgrade catedral of anchen/state of zeus/... and I have upgrade observatory/build new GB and upgrade it. I have upgrade defense bonuses

 

[Mor-Rioghain]

I noticed with QI that it was hastily released. Same goes with this. One time could be written off as somewhat impulsive. A second time is unlikely not to be a pattern.
I have an hard time believing an enterprise would build in such an obviously critical design flaw. Let some not trying to patching it or letting it slip through.

I think you misunderstand what software developers actually do to test a new/upgraded feature. The testing you seem to think has been overlooked happens in their own systems analysis, i.e., running sims. Before releasing the develop-ing (-ed is more accurate to what actually happens) software to a live audience, e.g., A/B or Beta testing, they've already determined it's functionality. What they're looking for is a live audience to what amounts to testing the market. Will the product sell? Will it be popular or successful? And so on. If they happen to gain valuable information regarding everything from marketing to actual bugs/glitches from their volunteer testers while they're doing that, all the better!

Thanks for the advice and I did. I provided this piece of feedback before anyone else here did. As soon I noticed the devs have decided to not compete a full genuine test phase for these changes.

I'm still convinced you don't fully understand what a "full genuine test phase" is.

It was years ago stated for something else, yes. It’s also evident that it should be possible to selectively release significant changes. Hence why it’s so strange. Can you elaborate further on the by your implied logic? I’ll give more context from where I’m coming from.
Without sufficient real world data collected on the affects of significant changes, no meaningful analysis can take place and from that no effective and informed decisions can be formulated.

You're rephrasing what you've already stated so I will also: see above.

Like I said in my original post. If the Beta server doesn’t support a sufficiently competitive environment to facilitate meaningful real world data. They could opt like they’ve done in the past to select one suitable live server.

This would probably be far more reliable a testing means than what you call a full-blown Beta phase, e.g., the full championship season.

Since they’ve done that in the past, I don’t see any reasons why they miraculously couldn’t do it this time around. The theory of critically flawed code as it’s too entangled seems unlikely on those grounds. However since neither of us have direct access to asses the underpaying code nor inside knowledge we’re left to speculate and theorise. Until a mod in contact with the devs or a dev releases more information on the subject.

You're rephrasing what you've already stated so I will also: see above.

As the facts are standing now however: significant GbG changes have been released. Insufficient time has past for real world data to accumulate for meaningful analysis to for meaningful conclusions and making informed decisions based off that.

There's that pesky "real world data" stuff again. See above.

As for now how competitive guilds will react and may adapt is speculative and at best educated guesses.

To my knowledge Inno has never concerned itself with the collective's (guild) reaction but only that of the playerbase as a whole so I'm not sure why they would start now!

However due to the absence of sufficient real world data, it is more a gamble that no unforeseen consequences will come forth from it and the expected results will be met.

Again with "real world data." Rinse, repeat.

Wouldn't "no unforseen consequences" equate to "expected consequences?" Double negatives are funny that way buuuut, I think what you mean is that (paraphrase) "in the absence of any real world data, aka, fully realized testing procedures, the developer is facing ____ consequences in ____ (this is where I think you've bogged down).

The mechanics of the game, i.e., software, hardware, server based, and so on (words that I'm not all that familiar with being a non-techie) are already realized "in-house" long before they go to any live player-based format, i.e., Beta, or Live. Using a live Beta server helps to defray costly downtime due to bug reports and unforeseen glitches in a real-time play scenario, nothing more. How long do they need? I'm not sure how a 12-week championship season would benefit rather than detract from a single 2-week season.

Speculating on player response, re-matchmaking and so on? How do you justify that assessment? They've had the program out there for FIVE years live! (Who knows how long in testing before it was launched). This is an upgrade to an existing system, not new code! Timely

Those facts are what deeply concerning me. As GbG is a delicate core feature that mainly maintains high engagement.

l couldn't agree with you more, nor do I think would the developers. I'm quite sure that's why they've spent 5+ years developing, maintaining, and upgrading the feature. (Do you realize this is not the first major upgrade to battlegrounds?) I think you've brought up some laudable points but I think they're misplaced and well, not fleshed out. I'd suggest you try to separate your concerns between actual game mechanics and marketing techniques after familiarizing yourself with the testing and implementation phases of software before you present it, but that's just my opinion.

 

[lord budovatel cz]

what GB is best for defense bonuses?
and what GB is best for attack bonuses?

 

[CrashBoom]

what GB is best for defense bonuses?
and what GB is best for attack bonuses?

the cheapest to build and level: Obs & Zeus

the best and most expensive: Stellar Warship

 

[RKinG]

what GB is best for defense bonuses?
and what GB is best for attack bonuses?

The 3x Saturn VI Gate but you need space age Titan goods
For defense: Pegasus and Hydra
For Attack: Centaurus and Hydra

Saturn VI Gate HYDRA - Forge of Empires - Wiki EN

en.wiki.forgeofempires.com

Saturn VI Gate PEGASUS - Forge of Empires - Wiki EN

en.wiki.forgeofempires.com

Saturn VI Gate CENTAURUS - Forge of Empires - Wiki EN

en.wiki.forgeofempires.com

For event buildings, I think Eternal market will be very useful. We can also have event buildings for attack and defense boosts
This is an evolving building. You will need to complete several events

Eternal Market - Tuscan Horizon - Forge of Empires - Wiki EN

en.wiki.forgeofempires.com

 

[planetofthehumans2]

My hypothetical is...for the players in the top 1-2 guilds...will they drop all attack buildings as they stay in the championship round for the whole tournament and just keep the defense buildings?!