Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[CrashBoom]

Do 8-hour lockdowns if you or Inno care that I spend a lot of time on the game.

I would put a guild related 24h lockdown on lost sectors

that means: the guild who lost a sector can't attack the same sector for the next 24h
but others can attack that sector

 

[HunZ95]

Let's think this through. 70 player guild. 5 swaps per day. 160 tiles per sector. 20 sectors per swap shared by 2 guilds. 8000 battles fought per day per guild. 1 player is 1.4% of the guild roster, 1000 battles is 12.5% of the total battles per swap day. For the sake of conversation, let's assume that 60 of the 1000 are end-of-day attrition burns. 940 (net) is 11.8% of the total. Yes, it's safe to presume that this player is exploiting his guildmates and the guild's leaders are enablers.

16,000 battles a day, not 8,000.
Those who reach 1000+ battles per day are usually also present at night, there are times when the number of active players is small and there is no one to attack the sectors. But he will hit the 2 and 3 camp sectors too in the same way, so will not end up with 0 attrition, because then the swap would not be able to continue in the morning.
So everyone takes their part in the struggle, otherwise the exchange could not be functionally maintained. but you only manages to determine that whoever has a lot of battles must be a sloppy sniper and spins battles with 0 attrition all day and just exploiting guildmates.
Normal guilds don't even tolerate such players.

 

[Yekk]

There will *always* be also rans. The top 2 or 3 guilds on most servers are so far ahead of the top 10 who are far ahead of the top 30. It's hidden by the current profit motive encouraging those top 2 or 3 to prop up some of the top 30 letting them have zero-attrition fights so they can get fights back. And comes at the expense of the current also-rans who might be able to fight back to some degree if not for things flipping every 4 hours by cooperative effort.

While the matchmaking could be better, the same problems will exist unless the behavior incentives are such that "going to 1000 is not worth avoiding". Removing zero attrition is essential for that (how much attrition is needed exactly is however an open question).

It may also encourage less lockdown because guild #1 is not sufficiently fed by #14, and #22 and would rather see more guilds doing what they can.

You do not play GBG on live. That is overly evident... 60 diamond guilds means 8 different league matchups...In 2 1/2 years many many guilds now are very strong at the Diamond level... You lost that debate.

FoE is not a charity. Players do not want to be charity cases...If your nerf goes live there will be a mass exodus of players. On that there is no doubt.

 

[Owl II]

I would put a guild related 24h lockdown on lost sectors

that means: the guild who lost a sector can't attack the same sector for the next 24h
but others can attack that sector

I would cut this gameplay out of the game altogether to avoid disagreements. Alas, it is not me and not you who decide.

 

[xivarmy]

You do not play GBG on live. That is overly evident... 60 diamond guilds means 8 different league matchups...In 2 1/2 years many many guilds now are very strong at the Diamond level... You lost that debate.

FoE is not a charity. Players do not want to be charity cases...If your nerf goes live there will be a mass exodus of players. On that there is no doubt.

Well I guess we'll see once it hits live just how strong those "many" guilds actually are. It's obscured atm because as long as they're in the club and have people showing up on time it could be 5 people doing 10k fights each, or it could be 25 people doing 2k fights each that makes up the backbone. The former is now going to be much more vulnerable than the latter - and should be.

I seriously doubt there'll be a mass exodus of players. Some will leave, many will adapt (whether they like it or not), and even more will not care.

p.s. it's not "my nerf". I have no more input into the decision making process than you do (and let's face it - we both have almost no say ). I just agree with it and you do not.

 

[xivarmy]

But it is almost impossible to achieve 0 attrition even now. I don't know where this crazy idea came from. We are sharing the map this season with one more or less live guild. Camps are placed in every available slot. The checkerboard order of the tiles is optional on the waterfall map: you always have two adjacent tiles at least. I had a round with my guys yesterday right after the reset. Then in the morning I hit 5 or 6 more provinces, 2 of them on 4 line with 3 camps. I received 60 points of attrition as a result. Then in the afternoon we had to take a tile with 3 camps to stay in the center. And now I have 70. I can hit of course. But I won't: spending units in a sluggish season is unwise. So where is my promised 0 attrition?

The center 2(volcano)-3(waterfall) rings will almost always be attrition free without the nerf. Since they are attrition free, guilds often extend out to the 3rd-4th ring that is not entirely attrition free, but still quite cheap. The lack of attrition costs in those middle rings where the fighting is cheapest is what allows the doorsteps to be farmed as well with impunity.

Your "hardship" of 3 camp sectors to hit won't even be that much worse if those are the sectors you feel you need to hit. If that's really your average sector, you're only gaining 57% more attrition with the change (56% vs 72% attrition reduction). You'll live.

 

[Owl II]

The center 2(volcano)-3(waterfall) rings will almost always be attrition free without the nerf. Since they are attrition free, guilds often extend out to the 3rd-4th ring that is not entirely attrition free, but still quite cheap. The lack of attrition costs in those middle rings where the fighting is cheapest is what allows the doorsteps to be farmed as well with impunity.

Your "hardship" of 3 camp sectors to hit won't even be that much worse if those are the sectors you feel you need to hit. If that's really your average sector, you're only gaining 57% more attrition with the change (56% vs 72% attrition reduction). You'll live.

I have no hardship now. I have no hardship now finally, after two years. But it will appear after the nerf. It will appear after the nerf for everyone, including tops. But tops will cope with them better than me: they have been swinging for 8-10 years in this game. They have a margin of safety, unlike me. Oh, no. The players of the "weekend" will not be affected in any case. They don't care even if they vote here on the forum in favor of nerf

 

[DEADP00L]

Your childishness is tiring!
Stop attacking yourself and propose solutions!

 

[Owl II]

Your childishness is tiring!
Stop attacking yourself and propose solutions!

Your mentoring is tiring. No one has asked you to moderate the communication thread. The suggestion thread is located elsewhere and it is not available for your control, fortunately

 

[Pericles the Lion]

But it is almost impossible to achieve 0 attrition even now. I don't know where this crazy idea came from. We are sharing the map this season with one more or less live guild. Camps are placed in every available slot. The checkerboard order of the tiles is optional on the waterfall map: you always have two adjacent tiles at least. I had a round with my guys yesterday right after the reset. Then in the morning I hit 5 or 6 more provinces, 2 of them on 4 line with 3 camps. I received 60 points of attrition as a result. Then in the afternoon we had to take a tile with 3 camps to stay in the center. And now I have 70. I can hit of course. But I won't: spending units in a sluggish season is unwise. So where is my promised 0 attrition?

Zero attrition is far from impossible and it's not a crazy idea. Go into your map, press "d", count the building slots. I just finished a waterfall map swap round. 8 of 11 sectors taken had protection from 5+ slots. 189 battles with zero attrition added. Happens like this every day until I burn attrition on an outer ring sector at the end of the day. If zero attrition were not possible then how do players get in 600+ battles in a day

 

[bones42024]

As a strong player on a live server, from a strong guild who usually gets about 2500 to 3k fights a season, I'm interested to see the impact of these changes. I'm sure it will likely reduce the amount of fights I get some, but not by too much. It will certainly prevent players from being able to farm the whole map every 4 hours, and getting 10k, 20k or even more at times a season. It could make war seasons a little less predictable and I could definitely see on farming maps guilds getting included in swaps that wouldn't have been before the nerf as the big guilds will need less fights to keep all the hungry fighters fed. I don't expect guilds to no longer placing a high priority on getting the most rewards for their members, so I would expect the cooperative farming to continue.

 

[bones42024]

And yes, pre nerf, Zero attrition farming on the waterfall map is easy. Instead of a checkerboard, you do columns. While some sectors will definitely require attrition to be taken, several others will be attrition free.

 

[Thunderdome]

Farming *is* a bad thing.

For a minute there, I was waiting on the "m'kay" part when I read that. It's Mr. Mackey's fault.

I would put a guild related 24h lockdown on lost sectors

that means: the guild who lost a sector can't attack the same sector for the next 24h
but others can attack that sector

Could be a novel concept. This might have guilds plan accordingly on which areas to hit to maximize their point gathering efficiency. The only downfall I see in this is when a guild takes a good number of sectors (if they haven't taken the whole map) and another guild that is like them takes away all their sectors. This means that guild will be locked out of the map for those 24 hours until they are able to take back those sectors... pretty much a whole day of doing nothing until then.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

16,000 battles a day, not 8,000.
Those who reach 1000+ battles per day are usually also present at night, there are times when the number of active players is small and there is no one to attack the sectors. But he will hit the 2 and 3 camp sectors too in the same way, so will not end up with 0 attrition, because then the swap would not be able to continue in the morning.
So everyone takes their part in the struggle, otherwise the exchange could not be functionally maintained. but you only manages to determine that whoever has a lot of battles must be a sloppy sniper and spins battles with 0 attrition all day and just exploiting guildmates.
Normal guilds don't even tolerate such players.

No, it's 8000. Yes, 16,000 total battles in this hypothetical swap but they are shared, equally, between the two guilds.

 

[HunZ95]

No, it's 8000. Yes, 16,000 total battles in this hypothetical swap but they are shared, equally, between the two guilds.

If 2 guilds dominate the map, 160-170 thousand battles are allocated to 1 guild per season...

 

[Zuckerberg the Horrid]

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 doubt you were actually asking but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and give you an answer
because in a farming season a lock means it can't be farmed for up to 4 hours (whereas you could have let another guild come in to farm it if you'd already brought it to 159)
and in a competitive season, a lock prevents you from re-locking it when an opponent wakes up

 

[zookeepers]

Could be a novel concept... This means that guild will be locked out of the map for those 24 hours until they are able to take back those sectors... pretty much a whole day of doing nothing until then.

The concept might be good, though the number is too strong. 6 out of 8 or 7 guilds may be locked out from the sector at the same time. In order not to be completely wiped out after 24 hours, your guild can keep only 3 or 4 sectors.

You have to make the restriction weaker. Something like this.

A. Guilds cannot re-attack the same sector during 12 hours.

Instead of starting the timer when you lost the sector, you make the new timer start when you capture the sector. So, if you keep the sector longer the lock timer decrease to the minimum of 4 hours. In addition, I suggest the timer itself to be 12 hours, rather than 24 hours.

B. The Guild-Related timer automatically resolves with the owner change of the sector.

I mean, you cannot attack the sector you lost for 24 hours, but when another guild get it, you can attack it right after it is unlocked for everyone. At that time, the guild who took the sector from you is locked out.

 

[zookeepers]

I doubt you were actually asking but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and give you an answer
because in a farming season a lock means it can't be farmed for up to 4 hours (whereas you could have let another guild come in to farm it if you'd already brought it to 159)
and in a competitive season, a lock prevents you from re-locking it when an opponent wakes up

About this topic...
The volcanic map and the waterfall map is somewhat different.

In the volcanic map, even the strongest guild would find themselves difficult to get out from the 159/160 blockage, even when they are strong enough to win all the racing situations.

When you try escaping from the blockage, you need 2 different routes to the sector in order to
gain control of it. One route is to attack and enforce owner change, the other is to attack right 4 hours after the first to actually capture the sector. You can't use the same route (except when you are attacking from the guild's base) because when the target unlocks, the first route would be taken away by the blocking guilds.

In the volcanic map, 2 routed attack is only possible for 2 of the surrounding sectors in addition to the 3 sectors adjacent to the base. Strong guilds may feel cheated when they are blocked by weaker guilds.

In the waterfall map, 2 routes can be found to the center of the map. And so, blocking strong guilds is rather difficult, and it is necessary to win races to keep the blockage. This means that strength of the guilds is more dominant in this map. Blocking don't look like a cheat any more, but in the realms, nothing really changed because in most of the cases, the blocking guilds are the strongest guilds on the map.

 

[Owl II]

Zero attrition is far from impossible and it's not a crazy idea. Go into your map, press "d", count the building slots. I just finished a waterfall map swap round. 8 of 11 sectors taken had protection from 5+ slots. 189 battles with zero attrition added. Happens like this every day until I burn attrition on an outer ring sector at the end of the day. If zero attrition were not possible then how do players get in 600+ battles in a day

It's always so funny to see it: "We also play swaps. We also a diamond league." "We just ignore half of the map. We climbed into the center and are spinning on a piece of 8k fights per day." It just means that there is no one in the group this time to come and kick you out of there. Because three lines on the volcano map are 22k fights for 5 exchanges per day. 11-12k for each guild. There are 37 provinces in waterfalls on 1-4 lines. This is 30 k fights in total, 15 for each guild. And tops are not limited to three lines. They go and clean the coast. They do it not to lock someone up in the hq, but so that the coastal guilds have something to do. When 2 guilds compete, the shores are the place where the outcome of the competitions is decided. But we're still yelling about something we haven't even seen. Can I ask a question: if the attrition is zero, then why don't you play on the whole map, but only took a small piece for yourself?

 

[Owl II]

I doubt you were actually asking but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and give you an answer
because in a farming season a lock means it can't be farmed for up to 4 hours (whereas you could have let another guild come in to farm it if you'd already brought it to 159)
and in a competitive season, a lock prevents you from re-locking it when an opponent wakes up

Well, why? I really wanted to understand what the players thought about it. But only you answered. Well, we have the opportunity to move on and block the next province by the time this one opens. And we can wait for another guild to fill the fights before we lower the flag. It's all in the hands of the players. You just need to use it or not