Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[Thunderdome]

And the next voting will be like:

Do you like the changes?
— Yes
— No, but who cares

Actually, I think they would be more "diverse" with the responses for the next round:

Do you like the changes?
• I have said "yes" before, and "yes" again, why are you asking?
• YES (with enthusiasm)
• Ask "yes" one more time (Samuel L. Jackson)
• Maybe (mysterious)
• No, God Dammit! You had asked the last two times!
• Noo-ooo-oooo-ooooo
• Hell *expletive* "no" (Samuel L. Jackson)
• Uh, what was the question, again?
• Error! File not found!
• I have lost all hope for humanity at this point

(and, yes I was being humorous)

first round: 319 dislikes
second round: 130 dislikes

so for more than half of the people against it of round 1 it isn't a problem anymore

You got to remember that they also allowed the option to vote Yes and No at the same time instead of creating a "middle" vote. If we did the math and take out the possible votes that ended in a double, we are still left with those who opposed more than favor the change. We can see it in the second vote the number of dislikes exceed the number of likes for the same thing (no change happened since the last round from the developer's end).

If this goes to the live servers I think a lot of players will quit. Inno will lose a lot of money from people building camps and using dimes to finish them and people who want to fight.....which is what the game is all about....... will get fed up and regard it as just another thing thats been nerfed. Its already bad enough the amount of negotiating we have to do

I'd say, let's take it to live and see if we are right since Inno doesn't want to believe it will happen. By then, it's already too late.

I did vote yes the first time, but no the second, because for smaller players with little attack power and not much troops, this is a huge penalty.

I agree with you. Even worse if the guild you're in kicks you out because you won't be able to complete said quotas now as a result.

 

[-Alin-]

I hear the argument about investet in city for GbG more and more, i can only laugh about it.
Attack and Defense for the attacking troops is nothing i persue only becouse of GbG, Me and many others wouldve focused on Attack buildings with or without GbG, thats really not an argument.
You wanna tell me without GbG everyone had a pure Fp cities all over, thats delusional.

I went for the attack stats way before knowing about GbG existence, used those stats for GvG or simply all auto for GE.
But with the beggining of 2020, almost every discussion about attack and stats were around GbG, GbG transformed the meta and people thinking, higher stats, more rewards in GbG, and that's the truth, that's what I mean in my post, rarely happened for someone to just say they raised their attack for GvG or just because they like the numbers.

I kept my city balanced anyway, forge points and attack too, not all the way around forge points or thousands of attack stats.

 

[Fenix]

I did vote yes the first time, but no the second, because for smaller players with little attack power and not much troops, this is a huge penalty.

why?
It's a matter of perspective. Many "weak" players and even others, less weak, reach the end of their possibilities long before reaching maximum attriction. Why? because they are without troops, because they are without goods, because they are without roges.

Only sharks are penalized, they can no longer do 10000 battles, all others will be little affected. Many do not even have the means to carry on battles.

 

[kama]

I think this change is a bad idea, not only for me, but for Inno. As has been pointed out, people will spend less diamonds. But also, players will be on less...the active players are thes ones that get more battles, but if there is nothing to do, they won't be on as much. The reason i consider this a bad idea for me, is part of the reason is also part of the reason it is bad for Inno..players won't be online as often. For me the best part of this game is the social aspect. I get to joke around, and chat with a lot of my other guild members on Angkor..but I spend very little time on between GBG seasons..as no one else is on.

If this happens, people will jump on, use up their attrition, then log off. Right now, we save attrition, talk about what the treasury needs, and find ways to get those things. We won't use up near as many goods, so won't need to worry about the treasury as much. So one more reason we don't need to strategize (or be logged in).

Honestly, I really believe this will cut down on playing time, and things to do in the game...which will make the game less interesting to many. Which also means less diamonds spent, and less income to Inno. After all, the most active players are the ones that spend the most money, IMO.

 

[kama]

My guts says a lot of of top scoring players will lose interest in the game. They spent there last 2+ years building up attack / defense to last longer in GBG. It has become the primary source of fighting points to up player score.

A lot of guilds have problems motivating people to fight the higher attrition sectors. A lot of people only will hit 4+ camp sectors for almost free fighting. The net effect of this chance will be lower interest in GBG.
Many guilds spend a great deal of effort setting up friendly GBG with low to no attrition battles. This concept will be broke with the above change. There simply won't have enough fights to keep the swaps going.

Do you really want to totally change the whole concept of GBG and have people less interested?

I agree completely. GBG is the only thing that keeps me playing, as it keeps other members online and active. The days that there is no GBG, I seldom get online..as I like chatting, and people are seldom online anymore. Also, why did I work to get my attack and defense over 2500 each..because of GBG. I don't do much GVG, and sure don't need that for GE LOL

 

[Lucky Starr]

why?
It's a matter of perspective. Many "weak" players and even others, less weak, reach the end of their possibilities long before reaching maximum attriction. Why? because they are without troops, because they are without goods, because they are without roges.

Only sharks are penalized, they can no longer do 10000 battles, all others will be little affected. Many do not even have the means to carry on battles.

Again,
how much players can do 10.000 battles?
in strong guilds? No, because they take away the fights from each other.
in other guilds? No, because they don't create the possibilities to guarantee something like that. It takes strong players.
Who else? When two medium-strong guilds meet and there are only a few active fighters.
And if there are only 1-2 nocturnal fighters. And nocturnal are really not the problem.

 

[Owl II]

A joke from childhood: The cartoon hero comes to the bakery and asks the seller: "Do you have raisins?" The seller replies "No." Hero: "And in buns?" Seller: "We have buns with raisins." Hero: "Pick me please half a kilo raisins".

I remember this joke when I read all these songs about exploits and zero attrition. But I think I'm starting to understand now where this nonsense comes from. They play like that themselves. And they think that it can't be otherwise. Indeed, if you can hit 20 tiles for 2 guilds with zero attrition, then why hitt 30, but get attrited at the same time? Only stupid people would do that.

You're not taking into account a few things. Basic: the map is very small in fact, so you can't occupy less than half and have freedom of maneuver at the same time (for the fighting season). Farming is even more demanding of free space. You can afford to serenely chew 1-2 lines only in the lower diamond or platinum. All your feng shui will be broken from the coast in 4 hours if you don't hold the 3rd line.(in 1000).

So we hit with two and three camps. Without camps if it need. No one makes a tragedy out of it. No one picks raisins out of buns. We hit everything that is required

 

[glibber]

I think that the ability to farm abundantly was the only attractive feature of GBG. You removed it. Excellent. Now it will be the same trash as the PVP tower. But now at least GL can breathe freely and not be stuck in the game 24/7, providing farm to teammates

I do not believe that! I rather think that the attractiveness will even increase, because it's finally becoming more exciting again which guild can activate its fighters. however, i fear that small guilds will end up suffering if they are in a group with large guilds. because guilds with many active players are clearly preferred in the new system.

 

[Shalimar the Brave]

I do not believe that! I rather think that the attractiveness will even increase, because it's finally becoming more exciting again which guild can activate its fighters. however, i fear that small guilds will end up suffering if they are in a group with large guilds. because guilds with many active players are clearly preferred in the new system.

View attachment 8266

GBG will become boring, not more exciting because this will not change whether a guild fights or farms. That depends on world culture. This will just slow things down for everyone. You know how boring it is to monitor a slow map?

 

[David the sagacious]

Battlegrounds now is anything but exciting. Whether your guild is one that monopolizes the map or that spends your time trying to get out of the corner, it's already boring,

The only question that matters has already been answered, i.e.: Does GBG operate the way Inno intended when the feature was introduced?

Think back to the first Cultural Settlement. Some people found an unintended way to make a "fast" fp profit without really playing the settlement. So, Inno swapped a couple of rewards to take that option away. As some said at the time, "It was nice while it lasted."

People found a way to use Siege Camps to have ALMOST unlimited attrition-free fighting. And to swap the map back and forth with another guild so as to pretty much exclude everyone else. Players who've been getting rich doing this don't want it to change. But it's Inno's game and it seems clear that THEY do want it to change.

Maybe the changes will be an improvement. Maybe not. Maybe other changes will be needed. Time will tell.

But I'm happy to see changes being made.

 

[blueskydwg]

OK, again - lots of thoughts and opinions. I have mine but for now I'll just report facts.
I'm a mid level player in a large guild. (number 33 out of 70)
My number of attacks in the two rounds of testing averaged 1648
My number of attacks in the five rounds prior averaged 552
That equals a nearly tripling of my attacks.

Unfortunately I don't know what my average attrition was before the change but it was 57.31 the first season and 58.55 the second.

I was able to get supported fights just about every time I checked the map. A perfectly supported round would be 66.6 so I achieved about 88% of the max. Not too bad.

In my live world I'm a big player (top 63) in a smallish guild (32 members - all with level 80 and above Arcs)
We are currently in diamond lite and control the map.
I'm getting almost 9 fights for every attrition point - my attrition avoidance is 88.9%.

My current limitation on fights in live is:
1. Holding up so my team mates get some
2. My mouse finger gets tired
3. I get bored.

My rewards in live for the current 4 days is:
4790 fps (1.6 per fight)
950 diamonds
600 troops
4100 goods

Also, my fights have moved me from 65 to 63 in overall ranking.

So, just the facts ma'am

 

[Thunderdome]

@David the sagacious people are always "smart" in finding things to play the game efficiently. Inno, however, drops the player down with their "downgrade". I don't see why Inno has to punish the ones who found an easier way of playing and was willing to share with everyone else.

Granted, I have not been in the GBg scene long enough to leave a footprint, so I don't know the particulars. However, I do remember being a player who was at the bottom of the ladder, the struggles I had gone through with each new city, and the help I get along the way. I never forget this, especially when I was putting forth my two bits worth into this feedback. Do I think that farming was a problem? I probably say yes to it but it's not my position in saying so because those who do the farming thing can also stop the farming thing whenever they want; even before this change. It really became the problem when folks were using bots or other forms of cheating to keep on farming.

@blueskydwg I am a mid player (#11 in my guild of 72) and I can get to 40 attrition (sometimes pushing to 45; once to 50) on my own. Before the change, we would have 0 attrition sectors where I can keep fighting for rewards (don't see what the problem is anyways since they pop out once every 5 or 6 fights or so) while being able to take sectors for my guild. These past two seasons had seen its take when I can get to my mark in attrition, but I don't get as many fights as I had once did. I also mentor a small group of players that are no later than the EMA and with 100% Attack Army Attack to their names. They can get to 10 attrition if they like, but often are safe around 5 to 8. With 0 attrition increase, they can feel useful in the guild while getting rewards to grow further.

This change hasn't hit live as of yet (no announcement of such) so no one there is going to feel the effects like in Beta. The only advice I can give is "enjoy it while you still can".

 

[Yekk]

From everything I've read here or in the live forums, no world has more than 5 or 6 really top GbG guilds.
Why then does Inno not restrict the diamond league to a single grouping?
Only the first would remain in diamond and the best 7 in platinum (by the number of accumulated VPs) would be promoted to diamond.

You need to check again...on my world there are over a dozen guilds capable of doing 5 flips a day. Another 8-10 capable of 4 flips.

That said, until Juber has someone above him respond that yes they are looking at other avenues nothing we put here matters. He has not done that. He has only done his "I send everything up to them" message...

 

[Yekk]

And is'nt that the idea to work up att/def so you can afford more attrition ? They still can pick their moment to fight when there is low attrition with the camps , that way they still can do more fights then a player that can afford 120 attrition but has to fight on a full sector without camps

You just do not understand how flips work... Not all tiles are at no att. Some are at 72 reduction, some at less. All need to be walked up. High att/defense means those tiles get walked up too. Your premise that everyone at the top is greedy is fake, false, wrong. You have not been in such a guild... ever. You should never talk about something you have no clue on...

 

[CrazyMary]

I'll take my case as an example:
I am part of an average guild of 20 active members who are 90% of the time in the 1,000 LP league
I push my daily attrition to 90 and average 3,000 fights per GbG.
With your proposal, I will only do:
- 990 fights with 0 Camps per GbG.
- 1.227 fights with 1 Camps per GbG.
- 1.406 fights with 2 Camps per GbG.
- 1.544 fights with 3 Camps per GbG.
- 1,650 battles with 4 Camps per GbG.
I won't waste as much time in GbG anymore, but I will spend less diamonds as a result.
In short, I do not criticize, I ask to test and possibly make a return if the % of the camps are to be reviewed.
On the other hand, ArklurBêta is right, the traps and others must also be nerfed.

I can only thank those who are providing the various perspectives of viewing/considering some of the mathematical aspects of the changes. Totally appreciate it. My hopes, regardless, are that others who feel left out and hopeless in gbg, and elsewhere, are better able to play and participate in the fun of winning and protecting their cities from scoundrels such as myself. Some balance may provide that for those not adept or lack understanding of how strategy works nor the desire, time or wherewithal to prepare themselves. I also understand the frustration of those who have spent much effort to situate themselves to make them dominant, knowledgably and highly capable players. Meanwhile, it does make others who have not reached that level feel abused, frustrated and often left out. I say the changes are good starts in inclusion of more players game styles, etc... it is probably also good for business and makes it merrier game play for many, as such. Win, win..."A happy wife [player] is a happy life [longer term & contented customer]"... so I've heard. Don't know what the numbers present, but would imagine, the numbers, and having MORE happier consumers, eventually, would say wise decision. Personally, I'm impressed at the thoughtfulness of MANY of the new additions. I had to learn the harder way, I enjoyed that part, great challenges to me, BUT I also enjoyed starting my BETA city with the Castle and A/D and other boosts it provides. Tremendous help. I think it's a GREAT GAME and it's getting better all the time, especially, for those who can't handle the earlier challenges surrounding fighting, etc... certainly great for wimps, non warriors, young pups and more casual players who love many of the other aspects of the game; they are generous and VERY, very helpful additions . -Jabbering Mary

 

[**Eternal*Flame**]

I'm founder of a small guild here on beta and this new system is a disadvantage to me and my members. In my own game play I've really just got to where I can fight more and having no attrition really helps to get the fights in during a season especially if we're up against the bigger guilds. Some of my members are of low might and some can't even put in encounters during a season. The way this new system is now in GBG makes it really hard for a guild our size that really need to get as many encounters in a season very difficult. I wasn't to big on the fact when Inno brought GBG into the game, I've since grown use to it and like it. It is one way to grow and we in my guild need to grow. It just really makes it harder for the smaller person all the way around.

 

[PackCat]

Of course always the same when they have no arguments they must act denigrating.
As a small guild doing 4 or 5 sectors a day with full or nearly full attrition , i think that you the "oh so big and good fighter" can swap all day long with limited attrition.
I posted prints before from real world and beta with our participations in diamond league, the only one making assumptions (like mostly all your posts) is you.

As everyone keeps telling you. This nerf does not affect the standings or the outcomes.
It ONLY punishes smart Guild players, and gives participation trophies to weak or lazy Guilds who cannot or will not compete.

How about building up your Guild to 30 or more players, or stop complaining about your results.
Bigger Guilds = more possible opportunities and spread the attrition, just like before.

This Zero attrition thing is a myth. maybe there are 5 battles a day with no attrition.
There are maybe only 2 or 3 Guilds in beta out of about 750 active, that can even manage that and they do not usually meet in the same seasons together.
Before it took 5 camps to achieve this. (only on the center)
The rest of battles are anywhere between 0-3 camps with guaranteed attrition.

But INNO has spent over 2 months of research into handicapping 3 out of 750 Guilds, but NOT 1 hour into stopping Bot Cheaters.

It would have the same effect, but spread the pain attrition more fairly, if INNO were to divide the camp slots more evenly around the map instead of bunched up near the center. They could make buildings need higher good requirements near the center.

 

[PackCat]

Something may have gotten lost in translation. Claiming that another player hasn't played in a top guild and has no idea what happens in GBG is not "denigrating"? I agree with @jovada, resorting to insults is a clear sign that you have nothing worthwhile left to contribute.

Facts are ALWAYS denigrating to those ignorant of the facts.
Ignorance is not a sin... but the refusal to learn to become more educated is.
Virtual Signaling every time you "feel" slighted, does not change the facts.

 

[Owl II]

I do not know what Inno is testing and what indicators they want to see. None of us know, and no one believes what they have written regarding their goals. But my guys ask me: what should we prepare for? I do not know what to answer them. Because I've been yawning for 2 seasons, looking at the flags. I came to the guild before the start of the changes in the hope of seeing how it works and with the confidence that my help would be useful to my guild. But I realized on the third day that they were coping on their own. There's just nothing to deal with except guarding endless-endless-endless flags. Someone has to keep an eye on it and close it when necessary. This is our decision, we let others to hit. Other can play like the Ninjalin guild. But they (Dragonstar) obviously did not succeed in fun battles or farming too.

So I want to ask the developers: please, I know this is technically possible. This was done at the start of this gameplay. If you plan to do the third round, match please manually the most strong guilds. So that we can understand at least approximately how it will work on live servers. Or finish this clowning and send the changes to the live servers. We understand that you are not developing a game for players, but to develop a game. But there are limits to everything

 

[CrazyMary]

You need to check again...on my world there are over a dozen guilds capable of doing 5 flips a day. Another 8-10 capable of 4 flips.

That said, until Juber has someone above him respond that yes they are looking at other avenues nothing we put here matters. He has not done that. He has only done his "I send everything up to them" message...

I would like to think that they do consider what many say here and in our cities, I'd surmise it's a huge part of why some of the newer resources, current adjustments and balancing acts are occurring ... (?!)