Pericles the Lion
Emperor
You know, I bet that, if you tried real hard, that you could say something nice about others for a change.Yes, yes, yes. And who is the egoist here
You know, I bet that, if you tried real hard, that you could say something nice about others for a change.Yes, yes, yes. And who is the egoist here
Just on beta.Which servers (in which markets) are they testing this?
He cleared it up later as a bug in the app version.You are wrong:
Will it work for what? It reminds me of a daycare with shared toys. I may be playing with this toy car, maybe not. But it's mine, and don't you dare touch it! So that you don't want to touch it, I'll spit thereMaybe things like this would work.
Sectors adjacent to the base gets automatic 30% attrition reduction. The sectors adjacent to them gets 20%, next sectors 10%, and finally 5% auto reduction.
This makes it with 5% reduction at the X1X sector in the waterfalls map for everybody, 5-10% reduction at tier 1 sectors in the volcanic map for everybody.
In the closer half of the map, the attrition reduction would be capped at 71.6-96.6%, and in the other side at 66.6% never having 0% attrition.
iOS app, version 1.234.17Which App Version are you on?
that's too complex for the devs to understand and also for young players who want clear, simple rules.Maybe things like this would work.
Sectors adjacent to the base gets automatic 30% attrition reduction. The sectors adjacent to them gets 20%, next sectors 10%, and finally 5% auto reduction.
This makes it with 5% reduction at the X1X sector in the waterfalls map for everybody, 5-10% reduction at tier 1 sectors in the volcanic map for everybody.
In the closer half of the map, the attrition reduction would be capped at 71.6-96.6%, and in the other side at 66.6% never having 0% attrition.
GvG already uses that functionality for defending boosts, so I doubt it’d be too complex for understandingthat's too complex for the devs to understand and also for young players who want clear, simple rules.
Well for one, the vast vast majority of "everyone" just doesn't play GvG anymore. One would think inno would like that *not* to be the fate of GBG.The GvG support pool is a cat in a bag, about which everyone knows that it exists, but no one knows why it is and how it is calculated. Another thing is interesting here: no one is confused by the shields on the GvG. Everyone understands what needs to be done to bypass the shields. Why is this not happening with the blocking of provinces in GBG? Why is the lock considered sacrilege? Any ideas? I have one
I recall bridge information from the devs stating something to the affect that GvG is too complex to do more than correct bugs on. Maybe defending boosts is part of that problem? (Okay, I just joshing here!)GvG already uses that functionality for defending boosts, so I doubt it’d be too complex for understanding
2 Guilds with heavily reduced attrition or 0% attrition depending on map layout VS one Guild on 100% attrition, is much more difficult to break through than GvG's Shield. You're not dealing with attrition in GvG. At most you're against 75% defence boost.The GvG support pool is a cat in a bag, about which everyone knows that it exists, but no one knows why it is and how it is calculated. Another thing is interesting here: no one is confused by the shields on the GvG. Everyone understands what needs to be done to bypass the shields. Why is this not happening with the blocking of provinces in GBG? Why is the lock considered sacrilege? Any ideas? I have one
I'm not talking about that at all. Only about that the shields do not outrage anyone on the GvG. But some believe that it is their constitutional right to come to the game at any time convenient for them and have provinces available for attack in GBG.2 Guilds with heavily reduced attrition or 0% attrition depending on map layout VS one Guild on 100% attrition, is much more difficult to break through than GvG's Shield. You're not dealing with attrition in GvG. At most you're against 75% defence boost.
It's not a case of getting out of the GBG lock being confusing, but once you're hemmed in the game effectively requires the hemmed in Guild to be stronger than the Guilds that are already on the map. But if they were stronger they wouldn't be hemmed in the first place.
At the very start of the season it makes sense to have HQ on 100% attrition because everyone is working without support at the start. Later on in the season it doesn't really work so well to keep it on 100% attrition. And if we're drawing comparisons with GvG, you can ignore the HQ in GvG knowing it's got the highest boost. In GBG you can't get around the attrition as a hemmed in Guild.
I find it amusing how ideas like these somehow seem to take root. Perhaps you could share how you come up with this. I do not recall any "Yea" poster claiming a right to open sectors or are protesting total farming. To the contrary, most, if not all, of the "Yeas" are high level fighters in upper-level guilds and get plenty of GBG battles. They are, precisely, those players that have the most to lose when this change goes live.I'm not talking about that at all. Only about that the shields do not outrage anyone on the GvG. But some believe that it is their constitutional right to come to the game at any time convenient for them and have provinces available for attack in GBG.
Ironically, these are just the players who are protesting against total farming on GBG
if you look, most of them are lone wolves fighters or burned out players, trying to protect their own interests by pretending you to be greedy.I'm not talking about that at all. Only about that the shields do not outrage anyone on the GvG. But some believe that it is their constitutional right to come to the game at any time convenient for them and have provinces available for attack in GBG.
Ironically, these are just the players who are protesting against total farming on GBG
could have fooled meWell for one, the vast vast majority of "everyone" just doesn't play GvG anymore. One would think inno would like that *not* to be the fate of GBG.
Not necessarily. But you are right about one thing: the very mind of "coming when it's convenient for me and hit GBG" contradicts the idea of a team game. This is a team game because it has common tasks. Team tasks are performed not when your left heel itches, but when the gameplay requires it (when the shield or the lock has fallen, in our case).if you look, most of them are lone wolves fighters or burned out players, trying to protect their own interests by pretending you to be greedy.
But I would be very curious about their reaction, if the personal rewards were taken out of gbg, would they still fight for change?
I think everyone knows the answer because social gaming is not what drives these players.