Feedback Guild Battlegrounds update!

[MJ Artisan of War]

no.... we won't....

 

[Olddude]

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?!

Planet I do not even understand the premise of your question. I am ranked 74th in Asguard and I am happy enough with my Def/Attack structure I have no intention of deleting one in favour of the other...I fight well above my Guild ranking.

 

[Olddude]

Under the old system you could win the championship simply by the luck of the draw. You get six easy rounds and max out your VPs and you win. No need to actually be good or skilled in any way.

Now with the new system the team that win will absolutely be the best team having beat the top contenders. The winner can then truly claim to be the number 1 guild on the server.

 

[Daenerys Targaryen]

the cheapest to build and level: Obs & Zeus

the best and most expensive: Stellar Warship

It's expensive hahahaha Hydra is better, it's expensive, but it's better than the Warship.

 

[Deleted User - 279081]

It's expensive hahahaha Hydra is better, it's expensive, but it's better than the Warship.

I don't know about that. Both provide "Advanced Tactics" but the Stellar replaces Alcatraz.

 

[drakenridder]

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!


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

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

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.

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

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

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!

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

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.

Seems to me you're misunderstanding me entirely. The impression you're giving is that your point of view is that the human factor (guilds in this context) is predictable, rational and can be formulated. Otherwise that the human factor is an aspect of GbG that can be completely ignored or is insignificant to the point where it can be neglected.
So, let's separate the two main aspects: the human factor and the RNG. When talking about the RNG and the systems introduced with these changes I agreed. Simulations are providing a sufficiently accurate indication. To what degree deviations are to be expected and to what degree the desired results are met with set conditions. To give a concrete example. With luck-based events major players that contribute heavily frequently ran simulations. Using sample sizes of 1.000 or more. With the expected average event currency. Resulting in a reasonably accurate indication with a range of what we could expect to get out of the event as a f2p player. To be honest, there indications have been so far accurate. At least in my observations. The same can be said about frequency of blue/red tiles in GbG. Simulations with large samples will be sufficient to provide a good indication if the desired results will be met. Same applies to the match-making. No doubt about that. So, if this is the part where you've felt I misunderstood how data analyses work or how game development works. I'm confident we can put that aspect to rest and agreed that the systems can be tested through simulations and a limited Beta test-run. Alongside the bugs ofc.
Now for the human factor. The human factor is notoriously challenging to accurately formulate. A somewhat recent example of unforeseen consequence: the F(A)SP-items. Since their introduction the devs didn't foresee the consequences the F(A)SP-items would have on the game balance. Until they observed how they changed the balance of the game in an undesirable way. Players reacted and adapted to those items. Guilds will react and adapt to the changes. How exactly will they react and adapt? Like @Fury the Avenger explained excellently this is impossible to predict and the Beta server might not provide a sufficiently competitive environment. In the past they ran into the same issue and went on to test some major changes in a few live servers before fully releasing them. However they did inform the community back then about it, through announcements and kept the community posted. Fury the Avenger said that this might be fundamentally what drove the dev's decision to bringing the full change to all live servers. In addition Fury the Avenger brought in a nice table with potential benefits of doing this globally. For example noticing faster the adaptations or consequences of these changes. As for the unforeseen consequences. I'm calling them that as the impact of how guilds will adapt is not really something that can be formulated and discovered through simulations giving accurate indications of how they'll react and adapt. If you know how to formulate the human factor to obtain an indication from a simulator with a great accuracy how humans will react and adapt to whatever changes, in the context of games, I'm genuinely intrigued and would love to learn more about it. As to my knowledge the human factor is a notoriously difficult aspect to predict accurately.

In conclusion the RNG aspects, match making and other relevant mechanics that can be formulated can indeed be checked through simulations. As they're offering a quick and accurate indication. However what can't be formulated accurately and thus can't be simulated is the human factor: how guilds will react and adapt. The latter is where real world data comes in. For example: a rise in investments towards defensive GB's, competitive behavioural changes in guilds, organisational changes in guilds, alliances, etc. To get a good understanding and analyses out of it you need an exposed test group and to see the full affects at least 1 season should give a reasonable indication of these changes in this regards.
I hope by providing this additional context to have cleared up the standing misconceptions and misunderstandings of my original question: why releasing significant changes so fast, w/o a thorough test phase? To me Fury the Avenger has provided sufficient plausible reasons of this decision. Thus to me the question has been answered although with speculation (as it isn't confirmed by a dev or c.mod).

 

[lord budovatel cz]

the cheapest to build and level: Obs & Zeus

the best and most expensive: Stellar Warship

thank you

The 3x Saturn VI Gate but you need space age Titan goods

thank you

 

[The Lady Ann]

No we are aiming to have 10K of everything and the way event buildings are going some are way over that with red and not to far behind with blue

 

[Mor-Rioghain]

Seems to me you're misunderstanding me entirely. The impression you're giving is that your point of view is that the human factor (guilds in this context) is predictable, rational and can be formulated. Otherwise that the human factor is an aspect of GbG that can be completely ignored or is insignificant to the point where it can be neglected.
So, let's separate the two main aspects: the human factor and the RNG. When talking about the RNG and the systems introduced with these changes I agreed. Simulations are providing a sufficiently accurate indication. To what degree deviations are to be expected and to what degree the desired results are met with set conditions. To give a concrete example. With luck-based events major players that contribute heavily frequently ran simulations. Using sample sizes of 1.000 or more. With the expected average event currency. Resulting in a reasonably accurate indication with a range of what we could expect to get out of the event as a f2p player. To be honest, there indications have been so far accurate. At least in my observations. The same can be said about frequency of blue/red tiles in GbG. Simulations with large samples will be sufficient to provide a good indication if the desired results will be met. Same applies to the match-making. No doubt about that. So, if this is the part where you've felt I misunderstood how data analyses work or how game development works. I'm confident we can put that aspect to rest and agreed that the systems can be tested through simulations and a limited Beta test-run. Alongside the bugs ofc.
Now for the human factor. The human factor is notoriously challenging to accurately formulate. A somewhat recent example of unforeseen consequence: the F(A)SP-items. Since their introduction the devs didn't foresee the consequences the F(A)SP-items would have on the game balance. Until they observed how they changed the balance of the game in an undesirable way. Players reacted and adapted to those items. Guilds will react and adapt to the changes. How exactly will they react and adapt? Like @Fury the Avenger explained excellently this is impossible to predict and the Beta server might not provide a sufficiently competitive environment. In the past they ran into the same issue and went on to test some major changes in a few live servers before fully releasing them. However they did inform the community back then about it, through announcements and kept the community posted. Fury the Avenger said that this might be fundamentally what drove the dev's decision to bringing the full change to all live servers. In addition Fury the Avenger brought in a nice table with potential benefits of doing this globally. For example noticing faster the adaptations or consequences of these changes. As for the unforeseen consequences. I'm calling them that as the impact of how guilds will adapt is not really something that can be formulated and discovered through simulations giving accurate indications of how they'll react and adapt. If you know how to formulate the human factor to obtain an indication from a simulator with a great accuracy how humans will react and adapt to whatever changes, in the context of games, I'm genuinely intrigued and would love to learn more about it. As to my knowledge the human factor is a notoriously difficult aspect to predict accurately.

In conclusion the RNG aspects, match making and other relevant mechanics that can be formulated can indeed be checked through simulations. As they're offering a quick and accurate indication. However what can't be formulated accurately and thus can't be simulated is the human factor: how guilds will react and adapt. The latter is where real world data comes in. For example: a rise in investments towards defensive GB's, competitive behavioural changes in guilds, organisational changes in guilds, alliances, etc. To get a good understanding and analyses out of it you need an exposed test group and to see the full affects at least 1 season should give a reasonable indication of these changes in this regards.
I hope by providing this additional context to have cleared up the standing misconceptions and misunderstandings of my original question: why releasing significant changes so fast, w/o a thorough test phase? To me Fury the Avenger has provided sufficient plausible reasons of this decision. Thus to me the question has been answered although with speculation (as it isn't confirmed by a dev or c.mod).

I really did try reading all of that but ... nope, my eyes crossed one too many times. You can keep explaining it but what you say still doesn't make sense nor is it realistic. Expecting that level of testing on a FREE product is ridiculous!! If it were still the days of packaged products and they could name their price, maybe, that is if they really believe their product is all that special. Again, not realistic.

And you are missing my point: you can argue all you want but you're not going to change my mind. You're not debating facts, your debating your opinion.

 

[drakenridder]

I really did try reading all of that but ... nope, my eyes crossed one too many times. You can keep explaining it but what you say still doesn't make sense nor is it realistic. Expecting that level of testing on a FREE product is ridiculous!! If it were still the days of packaged products and they could name their price, maybe, that is if they really believe their product is all that special. Again, not realistic.

And you are missing my point: you can argue all you want but you're not going to change my mind. You're not debating facts, your debating your opinion.

Lol, by that logic Beta should become a closed Beta and devs should only fix bugs on payed features: QI and events. Never mind the products sold in events are potentially payed products for GbG. By that logic never mind that cause GbG is, according to you, FREE. Only too bad the wales logically mainly spend for GbG. If there is unintended impact of the changes and they're viewed negatively by wales they might cut cut spending. However it doesn't matter cause it's a FREE product, right..? Right?!! In all seriousness though. We can agreed to disagree on rather testing significant changes is beneficial or not.

Like you've pointed out. I may not be able to describe the situation well. However Fury did and for that reason I'd like to redirect to read this comment instead:

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.

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.

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

 

[Olddude]

Good luck beating Asguard in the championship 39 minutes in and this is the map.

 

[Fury the Avenger]

Good luck beating Asguard in the championship 39 minutes in and this is the map.

Asgard does have a 500 battle/season requirement. If they lock the map that quickly they probably need to get it early on or strugle to meet the demand.

I also notice that both Asgard and the next two guild built an Avanced Guild Fortress and used diamond to finish it. That is 100 000 guild goods!
From VP/hour total I would guess asgard also build at least 10 Advanced Field Outpost, maybe more.

 

[Fury the Avenger]

BTW if none of the guild with 0 VP/hours do any battle or spend guild good on buildings, then you all end up in 4th place and should all remain in Diamonds (+25 LP).
But it's very risky! Beauase of backstabing (conquer 1 province for the 4 hours on lock down and you push all the other into 5th place). And the guild risk being kicked out of GbG for inactivity, so it cannot be done for multiple session (I'm not sure what is the limit).

 

[Charles el Britannia]

Asgard deserves to be number one. They are the best of the best (since the sudden demise of ΚΥΡΙΑΡΧΟΙ / SOVEREIGNS / Hyksos).

 

[drakenridder]

Good luck beating Asguard in the championship 39 minutes in and this is the map.

That's really impressive from their end. Must've taken significant commitment and coordination from their team. Gotta say though, the guild named ------- got the most creative guild name I've seen this far. Too bad they can't get bonus points on that front.

 

[RKinG]

Considering our opponents, this GBG round is going to be boring for our Asgard Warriors.

Christmas Truce in GBG by DEV InnoGames

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce

Dragon Star, Hyksos and White Rabbit are our favorite opponents. But we don't have to beat them every round.
They are all great champions

 

[Mor-Rioghain]

Lol, by that logic Beta should become a closed Beta and devs should only fix bugs on payed features: QI and events.

I'm not all that familiar with closed Beta testing but what I do know of it, I doubt it would serve as well for FoE as the existing system does. I never said that our Beta testing isn't sufficient, what I said was that using such extensive testing methods as you describe would for all intents and purposes simply prolong delivery of the finished product and in my experience/opinion, cost more in the long run. You simply cannot fly in the face of history: many companies have tried this and many have seen their 'new' programs overlooked by consumers because other developers already scooped their ideas.

We all already know that the features aren't going to behave in the same manner when they go to Beta phase and that's why it's done. We already know that the way it behaved during in-house testing and Beta is not necessarily going to illustrate it's behavior once it goes to the much larger live servers. I go back to something I said in an earlier post: Better that the update to battlegrounds was launched mid-championship than to wait the entirety of it. Who wants to wait another 10 weeks for the updates on the live servers after the annoucements on Beta? There was such positive feedback on the changes in Beta that Inno felt that it could be launched immediately. To wait would have been derivative.

Never mind the products sold in events are potentially payed products for GbG. By that logic never mind that cause GbG is, according to you, FREE.

Really? You've never achieved more than one fully leveled EB? I have a total of 7 cities in eras spanning from IA to SASH, and even in my IA (Beta) city, I've been able to achieve it and I purchase nothing there or any of my non-main cities and in my main I generally only purchase the gold tier package unless I'm in a mood to spend on a diamond package.

And how on Earth do you justify stating that BG isn't free? What surcharge are you paying that no one else is?

Only too bad the wales logically mainly spend for GbG. If there is unintended impact of the changes and they're viewed negatively by wales they might cut cut spending. However it doesn't matter cause it's a FREE product, right..? Right?!!

Yes, actually it is. Spending is entirely a personal choice. I think that you are confusing a fully leveled EB with one that is either premium or elite (silver and gold tiers). The EBs that are fully leveled are just fine and do far more for players today than EBs from long ago. What's wrong with charging for premium or elite levels? Again, a personal choice.

I would much rather have a choice on which events I choose to purchase such tiers on than a blanket system on all of the events that would cause me to lose more. (An example would be the Wildlife Event for me. I like the mini-game but that's about all I like but I have terrible luck with it and rarely earn the entire main building. Consequently, I rarely bother to purchase the event pass because it's just a waste of money if I'm not even going to be able to use the silver or gold tier of it). This subject has been hashed out over and over again and the consensus has simply been that it's a better system today than it was in the past mostly due to there being even more choices for the individuals over a broader spectrum.

In all seriousness though. We can agreed to disagree on rather testing significant changes is beneficial or not.

Like you've pointed out. I may not be able to describe the situation well. However Fury did and for that reason I'd like to redirect to read this comment instead:

Yes, I read his synopsis and I also found it very interesting and perhaps beneficial (to me). I enjoy seeing people's feedback but you quoting him only solidifies what I stated earlier: you are arguing with opinions, not facts. At least he's gone to the trouble to track and chart his findings and formalated his opinion on the facts he has in evidence. Conversly you are just angry, expect for things to be free, and demand testing that would just make the final product even more expensive to launch. Do you honestly believe that the developer would be able to continue to keep the game free if that were to happen?

 

[drakenridder]

Mor-Rioghain in regards of the EB's. My comment was purely sarcasm. With the wales (big spenders) I was referring to spending big to get as many additional maxed out EB's as possible + top1% league at the end of the event. The main motivator is GbG. Getting as many highly efficient EB's that provide military buffs and fps (to be used on military GB's) to be able to fight up to an as high as possible attrition level in GbG.
The entire game is free to play. However funded by paying players. GbG is the biggest motivator to spend during events. Make changes that have an impact with a negative impact on spending habits and the game's future becomes bleak.

As for my own experience with events. For the majority of events getting 1 new maxed out EB has been achievable for most events. Only one event I gave up entirely as it went hard on RNG: carnival 2018. So, don't worry I'm not paying a special fee to play GbG nor am I struggling with events.

Regarding rather we discuss opinions or facts. You are mistaken my concerns for anger and opinions. I've been concerned that the impact of the significant changes on GbG would be perceived negatively by mainly wales. Further more conducting a limited Beta test prior to this. All of this appeared to me like the changes were released prematurely. Making me seeking an answer to the question: why releasing such significant changes w/o careful testing? Since this could put the viability of the game at risk. Hence my concerns. Fury brought the answer to that question. With convincing arguments.
For further understanding. How something appears is not an option. Just the impression something or someone gives. An impression although subjective is a factual experience.

So, as for the opinions you're talking about. I'd love to see those opinions. As I've sticked as close as possible to facts and factual observations.

 

[Mor-Rioghain]

Mor-Rioghain in regards of the EB's. My comment was purely sarcasm. With the wales (big spenders) I was referring to spending big to get as many additional maxed out EB's as possible + top1% league at the end of the event. The main motivator is GbG.

Opinion, not fact. Did you do a poll?

One of the most popular EBs in recent events is the Eco Sanctum which provides no military buffs at all but does have a rather large FP boost. Are you claiming that the whales want the fps only to level up military buildings? Would it really surprise you all that much to find out that most of these folks have already leveled up their military GBs to the Nth degree and are spending those FPs on the over-inflated Arc, if they've not already achieved L180, or for the new(est) stable of GBs?

Getting as many highly efficient EB's that provide military buffs and fps (to be used on military GB's) to be able to fight up to an as high as possible attrition level in GbG.
The entire game is free to play. However funded by paying players. GbG is the biggest motivator to spend during events. Make changes that have an impact with a negative impact on spending habits and the game's future becomes bleak.

Opinion, not fact. Did you do a poll?

Again with the battlegrounds! Not everyone lives to pound their fingers bloody in battlegrounds. There's far more proof out there that profit as we all pretty much define it, is not to be had in battlegrounds. Based on comments in the forums and in-game, I would strongly suspect that the repositioning of the buttons has been the single-most popular part of the revision and that addresses ease of movement, not player profit.

As for my own experience with events. For the majority of events getting 1 new maxed out EB has been achievable for most events. Only one event I gave up entirely as it went hard on RNG: carnival 2018. So, don't worry I'm not paying a special fee to play GbG nor am I struggling with events.

Regarding rather we discuss opinions or facts. You are mistaken my concerns for anger and opinions. I've been concerned that the impact of the significant changes on GbG would be perceived negatively by mainly wales.

Based on your previous statements, I'd have to say that I don't just find this difficult to believe but impossible to believe.

Further more conducting a limited Beta test prior to this. All of this appeared to me like the changes were released prematurely. Making me seeking an answer to the question: why releasing such significant changes w/o careful testing? Since this could put the viability of the game at risk. Hence my concerns. Fury brought the answer to that question. With convincing arguments.
For further understanding. How something appears is not an option. Just the impression something or someone gives. An impression although subjective is a factual experience.

So, as for the opinions you're talking about. I'd love to see those opinions. As I've sticked as close as possible to facts and factual observations.

Your posts are filled with unsubstantiated opinions. You don't even attempt to provide any actual facts to the situation but instead, quote someone else and use their work, i.e., Fury. Nothing wrong with it if you keep citing the source but honestly, you've not been able to track anything? If you haven't, at least own your opinions and call them what they are!

 

[drakenridder]

@Mor-Rioghain ngl you really badly wanna be "right" in a silly discussion long past the scope of the subject? This is a rhetorical question. Your gaslight attempts won’t work and don’t make you “right” either.
Failing yourself to provide independent evidence too. From all servers combined top100 GB’s the majority is military (53 military, 37 CF, 9 Arcs, 1 oracle). Just one indication of popular fp-sinks. EB’s & allies are indicating what sells. Overwhelmingly most is military oriented. Even the eco hubs give NAU. Quite a number of allies giving GbG specific bonuses in contrast QI, GE and fp allies are absent. Would it make sense to sell so many solutions for GbG attrition, if it doesn’t sell well and make whales spend..? Rhetorical question too.
I’ve had concerns, asked an question, got likes indicating others shared those concerns, got an answer. Thought all of this was about a miscommunication. It’s now clear to me it’s not. Don’t know, don’t care what’s motivating you. I’ll leave it at you misjudging me for the sake of whatever