Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[CrashBoom]

And they're getting ready

and what if this doesn't go live for lets say 2 month ?

or did I miss the announcement that it starts live this week ?

 

[Owl II]

and what if this doesn't go live for lets say 2 month ?

or did I miss the announcement that it starts live this week ?

I have no idea. Try asking them
For example, ask them
Tired of the chill, probably I don't want to spend a lot of time searching. But I think many worlds were subject to such migrations

 

[Pericles the Lion]

It happens. But not on this scale. It happens. But the guilds had to comply with the restrictions so that the monsters would not devour each other due to lack of farm. Everything is changing now. And they're getting ready

So what? Why is evolution a bad thing? Players come, and go, all the time.

 

[Nessie]

I don't know why 66% fix is always mentioned here, it's not true.

Siege Camp: "the chance of the attrition level not increasing starts with 24%". THE CHANCE !

However, my guildmates and I experience the algorythm not being correct. Even when we have a theoretical 66% reduction we aren't getting it.
66% or even close to 66% is not true. Attrition increases much faster

 

[Pericles the Lion]

I don't know why 66% fix is always mentioned here, it's not true.

Siege Camp: "the chance of the attrition level not increasing starts with 24%". THE CHANCE !

However, my guildmates and I experience the algorythm not being correct. Even when we have a theoretical 66% reduction we aren't getting it.
66% or even close to 66% is not true. Attrition increases much faster

It's simple probability. There is a 24% chance that attrition will not increase which means that there is a 76% chance that it will. With 2SCs it's 48% that it will not increase, 52% that it will. With 4SCs, even though the probability it that there is a 96% chance that attrition will not increase, there is still a 4% chance that it will. This means, statistically speaking, it is entirely possible that 10 battles could increase attrition 10 points, or zero points, or anything in between. It's not the algorithm, or the RNG, it is just probability.

 

[CrashBoom]

I don't know why 66% fix is always mentioned here, it's not true.

Siege Camp: "the chance of the attrition level not increasing starts with 24%". THE CHANCE !

However, my guildmates and I experience the algorythm not being correct. Even when we have a theoretical 66% reduction we aren't getting it.
66% or even close to 66% is not true. Attrition increases much faster

yeah randomness numbers are terrible

I am doing settlements and should get 25% x4
but it is more like 10%
I am already failing the 2nd time in a row to reach the fastest reward

 

[Shalimar the Brave]

It's simple probability. There is a 24% chance that attrition will not increase which means that there is a 76% chance that it will. With 2SCs it's 48% that it will not increase, 52% that it will. With 4SCs, even though the probability it that there is a 96% chance that attrition will not increase, there is still a 4% chance that it will. This means, statistically speaking, it is entirely possible that 10 battles could increase attrition 10 points, or zero points, or anything in between. It's not the algorithm, or the RNG, it is just probability.

That’s how it is in live with the numbers being additive. In beta it’s multiplicative with a cap at 66.6% reduced chance of gaining attrition. Takes 4 camps to reach 66.6% chance of not gaining attrition with camps being multiplicative

 

[Pericles the Lion]

That’s how it is in live with the numbers being additive. In beta it’s multiplicative with a cap at 66.6% reduced chance of gaining attrition. Takes 4 camps to reach 66.6% chance of not gaining attrition with camps being multiplicative

I understand and was referring to live because Nessie's quote related to live, but probability works the same in Beta. There is a max 66.6% chance of zero attrition increase. In 100 battles, it is conceivable that attrition could increase 100, zero, or anything in between. With an infinite number of battles, the mean will be 66.6% but with a small sample (and all sectors in GBG will be small samples) there is no guarantee that it will be 66.6%. Simple statistics.

 

[Owl II]

So what? Why is evolution a bad thing? Players come, and go, all the time.

Who said it was bad? It's good. It's great even. But what does evolution have to do with it? the weak will sit on the shore, the strong will farm. Does it remind you of anything?

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Who said it was bad? It's good. It's great even. But what does evolution have to do with it? the weak will sit on the shore, the strong will farm. Does it remind you of anything?

For once, something we can agree on.

 

[jess1155]

Hi there, looks like we have another one able to see the future. You sound like you are familiar with cheater mentality or why the assumption?
Who cares about cheaters and what they do to improve their game. They will all get banned evantually at some point.
Hovers in PE is already a thing, so nothing new here.

I have to say i like some of your ideas. worldwide or only countrywide GG, like with GE sometimes. Thats a great idea.
You should open a discussion about it or feedback thread.
We already had plenty good ideas in the past 2,5 years, no feedback was good enough for inno, maybe rightfully so.
But you should be aware if your idea makes it to testing, there will be many people against changes, and be prepared for people like you with crystal balls predicting the future.

I brought up cheating as a reaction to a couple posts I read before I posted complaining about cheaters and bots.
I didnt claim or say anthing about thinking I know it all and/or know the future and your assumptions make you look hostile and stupid. The fact is there are people I see with multiple accounts already (for years, never banned) and the people that want to fight all day if these changes go live are going to see those people doing it and do the same. And yea, hovers in PE are already a thing captain obvious. But hated by a lot of players for some to have that kind of advantage. Just saying I think we will see more multi accounts and possibly utilizing PE accounts to get a leg up.
This is a discussion thread about it and thats what Im doing. If youre going to call someone out at least do it tastefully based on facts, not assumptions

 

[blueskydwg]

Lots of speculation - here's some facts.
I've tracked my attrition vs. fights for the past two seasons.
I'm mainly fighting with 2, 3, or 4 SCs.
My attrition for the full first season was 57.31%
My attrition so far this season is 57.11%
Both of those are right in line with what I was expecting with a cap at 66.6%
My fights in these two seasons is more than double what it was averaging in the prior 10 seasons.
Why? Now we're into speculation but I can say that it is much easier for me to find supported fights now than it was before the change.
Prior to the change most times I'd check the map there would be nothing available, or at most only tiles with no support or at most one SC.
Now I can get 3 an 4 support tiles just about every time I check.
Could it be that those that were normally getting all the free fights they wanted are now limited to 4 or 5 hundred?
Geeee, I wonder.

 

[jess1155]

There alre

Instead of fighting bots, there will be negotiation bots, where you are only limited by your amount of goods.
We can guess those same players probably have a huge inventory and can absorb the 4K amount of goods to get in 1000 fights a day.

there already are people that make scripts to bot negotiations, heard about it at least 2 years ago. Unfortunately this will make people use them more

 

[dpghost]

come on, get it done on live servers too

 

[blueskydwg]

You hope in vain. Beta does not play the way live servers play. The activity of players is not comparable on beta and in the living worlds. Even beta has slowed down, I think, compared to what it was before. This will be a emergency brake effect in the living worlds. Everything will be blocked by flags. Provinces will be closed only forcibly if there is a threat of losing progress. Weak guildsYwill be removed from the equation completely

I just don't see that happening.
You are right that our ability to close out tiles here in Beta is slowed down, but is that by some choice or just that the heavy hitters are maxing out much earlier?
People will still want to get in as many fights as they can - whether it's 1000 or 400 - to get the rewards.
Sitting on tiles (blocked by flags as you put it) serves no purpose.
The swaps might not happen as quickly as they did, but they will still happen.
My speculation is that the big guilds will control the center of the map where the most building sites are, and the smaller guilds, to the extent they want to participate (some do, some don't) will have the beach properties as much as they want.
We'll see.

 

[Owl II]

My speculation is that the big guilds will control the center of the map where the most building sites are, and the smaller guilds, to the extent they want to participate (some do, some don't) will have the beach properties as much as they want.
We'll see.

Well, how does this differ from the current situation?(on live servers)

 

[Owl II]

The further it develops, the less I understand why nerf was introduced. You chanted at the beginning that this would allow the weak to enjoy farming, because the strong would not be able to control the map. Now you are ready to agree that the weak will be content with the shores as before and if they only want to. So what was the riot about?

 

[Pericles the Lion]

The further it develops, the less I understand why nerf was introduced. You chanted at the beginning that this would allow the weak to enjoy farming, because the strong would not be able to control the map. Now you are ready to agree that the weak will be content with the shores as before and if they only want to. So what was the riot about?

In this context, who is "You". A player? Inno? Players did not introduce the SC/WT change, INNO did. INNO didn't say that it was to allow the weak to enjoy farming, players did. It's not hard to believe that you are having a hard time understanding this. How about we just continue to collect real data and base decisions on data instead of feelings, opinions, innuendo, etc. That, to answer your question, it "what the riot is all about".

 

[Nicanor de Corda]

Diese Änderung war längst überfällig ... Und ehrlich gesagt hätte sie es tun sollen, kurz nachdem sich herausstellte, dass die Spieler das Feature ausnutzen würden, anstatt wirklich miteinander zu konkurrieren.

Die Empörung der Ausbeuter ist jetzt nur deshalb so "groß", weil diese Änderung so spät kommt

und wie soll nach Deiner Ansicht funktionieren?

1. die stärkste Gilde färbt die Karte einmal ein und dann? zwei Wochen Däumchen-Drehen?
2. wahrscheinlich wird die zweitstärkste Gilde dann alles in ihrer Farbe einfärben
und so weiter

da Menschen denken können, werden sie eine Möglichkeit suchen, welche effektiv IST, das Beste aus den entsprechenden zu machen.

was WIRD passieren, wenn es weniger Kämpfe zu verteilen gibt. Vergleich in der Tierwelt: Raubtiere teilen nur dann, wenn für sie genug da ist, wenn nicht gehen die Schwächeren leer aus.

Dies wird auch im GvG stattfinden, die schwächeren Gilden werden noch mehr eingenagelt, da die Wenigen Kämpfe nicht geteilt werden wollen

und sind wir ehrlich, jeder Firma geht es um Gewinn, was auch nicht verwerflich ist, ich will auch nicht gartis arbeiten

 

[jess1155]

The further it develops, the less I understand why nerf was introduced. You chanted at the beginning that this would allow the weak to enjoy farming, because the strong would not be able to control the map. Now you are ready to agree that the weak will be content with the shores as before and if they only want to. So what was the riot about?

No matter what inno tries to do to nerf it it will not benefit the "weak" how they want it to. The weak are on the beaches or in their HQ BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ACTIVE ENOUGH OR STRONG ENOUGH. Or simply dont care to put in the effort. Simple fact is they shouldnt be placed on the same map as the strong active big guilds. Its a MMR/ranking issue with the current league set up. Hurting everyone equally sure, hurts the people exploiting it but hurts the small guilds more. This rebalancing is not the answer to help the small guy get a leg up. Period. Its just a way for inno to try to stop farming exploit. But I dont think its going to work. Players will adapt