• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can
    REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • Summer Event 2022

    Read all about the Summer Event 2022 here!

Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

Emberguard

Emperor
Under Diamond there were few problems if any... So you are the minority...
I sometimes fear people are just talking past each other here because they are starting from totally different places. I believe much of that is based on the assumption that "best guilds" mean "highest ranked". Perhaps that is true for some players, especially fighters, but not everyone is a fighter. To me, absolute hell would be to be in a guild where I was expected to log in every 4 hours, fight several hundred battles every day in GBG, and turn my city into something that is devoted to producing Attack bonuses. *Shudders* That does not mean that I don't want to be able to complete 10 or 20 encounters (battles and negotiations) in GBG most days, or that I want to be locked out of it. Sadly, it also means that all to often I do end up in Diamond league, and get locked out of the GBG map as two "high ranking" (shudder quotes) guilds farm the map to the exclusion of everyone else.

Bottom line is that "best guild" means different things to different players, and depends on the players style, the amount of time they have for the game, and what they enjoy. My experience is that most players have no desire to be in one of the "best guilds" as defined by many people in this thread. That doesn't mean they want to be totally locked out of part of it, and I honestly believe that what Inno should be doing (and is trying to do here) is make the game enjoyable for the largest number of players. You may disagree with the way Inno is trying to do that, but if everyone would stop it with the implicit and unfounded assumptions as to what a "good guild" is and think about how do we make the game fun and exciting for everyone, we would not need 158 (and counting) pages of discussion that is 90% repetition based on different starting places.

*off soap box and back into lurker mode*
LordTachikawa, I agree with your point

Yekk, based on the point you’ve given that the problem is mostly in Diamond, and the points raised by LordTach…. I’m wondering if Inno would be best served by making different rules specific to Diamond, even more so for 1,000 LP (assuming Inno doesn’t create a new League, raise the LP cap or remove the cap altogether)

‘Cause quite frankly, the top performers will always be “playing a different game” in everything in life. Not just GBG, but that also means the fix (on whatever the goal is) may need to be tailored differently for a top performer VS everyone else



If they would implement a brand new guild combat system that was truly fun and competitive with player rewards like GBG they can then delete GBG/GvG/and PvP..... we would all be better off and INNO would have reduced server loading as well...
if they came up with something better, then yes I’d be all for it replacing those game modes. But I’m not convinced they would come up with something I’d enjoy more (or that wouldn’t repeat the same problems or have worse ones)


I understand but not being able to read this thread with certainly good ideas, makes me think more that Inno does not want transparency.
I think you misunderstood the feedback page approach. The feedback page is not there to discuss anything at all. It is only for us to receive feedback without any interference. It is simply to make the work for us easier/doable. I am not payed for reading all the discussion here and simply don't have the time for it. This is why we went this way and moderated the feedback thread.
If we would set all feedback posts to public now, then all the new feedback would only refer to the old one. This is exactly the opposite of what we want.
Juber, would it help you at all if we players were to go through the thread and write a summarised report of the ideas, pain points and conclusions from this thread? (With of course us players making sure it’s only submitted once by one person )
 

Thunderdome

Regent
Juber, would it help you at all if we players were to go through the thread and write a summarised report of the ideas, pain points and conclusions from this thread? (With of course us players making sure it’s only submitted once by one person )
I'm all for a composite if this were to happen...
 

Yekk

Baronet
LordTachikawa, I agree with your point

Yekk, based on the point you’ve given that the problem is mostly in Diamond, and the points raised by LordTach…. I’m wondering if Inno would be best served by making different rules specific to Diamond, even more so for 1,000 LP (assuming Inno doesn’t create a new League, raise the LP cap or remove the cap altogether)

‘Cause quite frankly, the top performers will always be “playing a different game” in everything in life. Not just GBG, but that also means the fix (on whatever the goal is) may need to be tailored differently for a top performer VS everyone else



if they came up with something better, then yes I’d be all for it replacing those game modes. But I’m not convinced they would come up with something I’d enjoy more (or that wouldn’t repeat the same problems or have worse ones)


Juber, would it help you at all if we players were to go through the thread and write a summarised report of the ideas, pain points and conclusions from this thread? (With of course us players making sure it’s only submitted once by one person )
Yes, new rules to whom is qualified for the 1K are needed. Diamond lite (901-999) has few problems. Platinum none. In 2 1/2 years only the 1K has seen guilds that should never be at that level. My suggestion was to allow Founders to say no to moving up to 1K. They could stay in their platinum league where they prosper, move to D-lite, or if they felt the time was right move to 1K. It would alleviate almost all the complaining of being stuffed. As each league has very different speeds no abuse should be seen. Platinum is slowest with less rewards, D-Lite a bit faster but still slow, 1K moves quickest. Coding is very easy.
 
Last edited:

King Flush

Marquis
really nothing to do with the nerf but in light of the talk about a new game model, if Inno ever considers this it would be great to maybe make use of a battlefield where you actually control your units, I haven't seen the unit battlefield in GBG or GE for that matter or even Cont map since I was in Iron Age so feel it's somewhat a waste to have all these units of different abilities where no one ever controls them manually.
 

Yekk

Baronet
If apart from 2 or 3 guilds, all the others refuse, what would happen?
Are they doing a GbG at 3 or they are not participating in any GbG for 2 weeks?
On my world the 1K league I am in has 5 guilds all 1K able and 3 that moved up directly from platinum. For each of those 3 their founders would get a message, just after their last league, saying "congratulations you have the choice of moving to 1K, D-lite, or staying in Platinum" where they won or took second. Guilds tank Platinum to avoid 1K regularly. It is that leagues major problem and causes players fights. I have little doubt over a few leagues most guilds would find where they can compete and where they are way to weak. Once in 1K or D-lite all they need do is lose to move down. Adjusting league point gains and losses would also be needed but could be minimal. 175 points of gain for a win is just plain wrongheaded.

Since early GBG, a month or 2, in I have not seen any world where there is only 3 diamond guilds. 50-60 now on most US servers of which most work well together. It is in their interests to work together. Leaders and sleep deprivation are real problems if you have enemies...
 
Last edited:

MrBrister

Steward
really nothing to do with the nerf but in light of the talk about a new game model, if Inno ever considers this it would be great to maybe make use of a battlefield where you actually control your units, I haven't seen the unit battlefield in GBG or GE for that matter or even Cont map since I was in Iron Age so feel it's somewhat a waste to have all these units of different abilities where no one ever controls them manually.
Maybe after the nerf since it will be super slow you can start manual fighting every one of your 100 fight daily allowance of "candies" then it will stretch GBG out to a couple hours!
 

Emberguard

Emperor
On my world the 1K league I am in has 5 guilds all 1K able and 3 that moved up directly from platinum. For each of those 3 their founders would get a message, just after their last league, saying "congratulations you have the choice of moving to 1K, D-lite, or staying in Platinum" where they won or took second. Guilds tank Platinum to avoid 1K regularly. It is that leagues major problem and causes players fights. I have little doubt over a few leagues most guilds would find where they can compete and where they are way to weak. Once in 1K or D-lite all they need do is lose to move down. Adjusting league point gains and losses would also be needed but could be minimal. 175 points of gain for a win is just plain wrongheaded.

Since early GBG, a month or 2, in I have not seen any world where there is only 3 diamond guilds. 50-60 now on most US servers of which most work well together. It is in their interests to work together. Leaders and sleep deprivation are real problems if you have enemies...
His question is what happens if no one volunteers to move up? What then?

We don’t have worlds with only 3 Diamond Guilds because the game hasn’t asked the player to choose their opponent. Closer matches would solve a lot of issues, but getting players to choose an opponent is more likely to have the exact opposite result, as if you put it upto choice then people are more likely to avoid being placed with opponents they’re capable of fighting against but not necessarily win.
 

Owl II

Emperor
really nothing to do with the nerf but in light of the talk about a new game model, if Inno ever considers this it would be great to maybe make use of a battlefield where you actually control your units, I haven't seen the unit battlefield in GBG or GE for that matter or even Cont map since I was in Iron Age so feel it's somewhat a waste to have all these units of different abilities where no one ever controls them manually.
It would be easy: take away the stupid boosts att/def of PVP arena. Bingo! Players would have to turn on the brain to win, and not just press the "auto" button. Make interesting rewards and the feature would be popular.
 
Last edited:

Owl II

Emperor
Maybe after the nerf since it will be super slow you can start manual fighting every one of your 100 fight daily allowance of "candies" then it will stretch GBG out to a couple hours!
No. Let them eat their own candy. GBG takes a lot of time to coordinate. If I still spend precious minutes on "candyes", I will have to live in the game. So to hell with candyes:D
 
There is a thread on the US server Forum, dating back to early 2020, that primarily deals with the match-up issue. There, and here, no one really describes what an ideally matched up L1000 battlefield will look like (or any other level). Will it be 8 guilds? Some other number? Perhaps the discussion should begin with the end in mind. I doubt that anyone wants 8 equally matched guilds on the field simultaneously but, anything less, seems like a nod to farming.

Also, there is the matter of zero attrition. I, for one, don't think that INNO is going to walk that one back. Perhaps not 66.6% but I'd bet that 100%+ is out of the question.
 

Owl II

Emperor
I0KJ8.png
Two days of torment, and we brought the map into proper shape. There are very few slots for buildings in the center. It's hard for weak guilds to play such a map. But they cope twain. And we even managed to close synchronously finally. Hooray!;)
 

Yekk

Baronet
His question is what happens if no one volunteers to move up? What then?

We don’t have worlds with only 3 Diamond Guilds because the game hasn’t asked the player to choose their opponent. Closer matches would solve a lot of issues, but getting players to choose an opponent is more likely to have the exact opposite result, as if you put it upto choice then people are more likely to avoid being placed with opponents they’re capable of fighting against but not necessarily win.
Pre nerf the co-op system would decide that. Guilds that were sidelined would want a league down.

Post nerf the ability to move to the center decides the matter. Guilds in the center, if SC's are built get easier fights at better reduced attrition.

There is always the 15 man guild that wants the highest levels to be considered. 1K could have a 4-5 guild maximum. Easy to add to the coding.

Rewards could be adjusted to entice moving up. 1K, D-lite, and Platinum all separated. Point is guilds are still tanking Platinum post nerf to avoid 1K.
 

Emberguard

Emperor
Pre nerf the co-op system would decide that. Guilds that were sidelined would want a league down.

Post nerf the ability to move to the center decides the matter. Guilds in the center, if SC's are built get easier fights at better reduced attrition.

There is always the 15 man guild that wants the highest levels to be considered. 1K could have a 4-5 guild maximum. Easy to add to the coding.

Rewards could be adjusted to entice moving up. 1K, D-lite, and Platinum all separated. Point is guilds are still tanking Platinum post nerf to avoid 1K.
They are tanking yes, but there’s always Guilds going up and down, not just down.
 

Yekk

Baronet
They are tanking yes, but there’s always Guilds going up and down, not just down.
Guilds tank to stay where they are BUT that is inefficient. Their member lose battles. Weaker guilds are forced to move up. That is a broken system. Just as the nerf is. No one item totally fixes GBG. For example it is a rarity to see 66% AF as most guilds have to fight from their sectors. The result of the top 1-2 still controlling the middle. Most fights even for those top 2 guilds will be at a much higher attrition. Inno with the nerf used a bottom dollar fix when for a few more hours coding might have made something more would enjoy...
 

blafke

Farmer
The original proposal will be welcomed with applause by the majority of diamond GBG players. That is, that majority of players who get forced into that league without really wanting to. There are on average 5 or 6 of those on every diamond map, every new round. However, the original proposal doesn't evven go halfway far enough to achieve its goal. I don't believe the monster guilds who colonize an entire map in 10 minutes will be stopped from doing that with the calibration (cap at 66% etc.) as it is proposed right now. Here are a number of ideas that imo are needed in addition to what is originally proposed :

- make the cost of building a linear function of the number of guild members, just as it is in GE. 3K goods for a 40 heads guild seems mostly reasonable and doable, the exact same cost for an 80 heads guild is just laughable, and the exact same cost for a 20 heads guild is most likely putting the bar at levels that are unreachable for most guilds that size.
- cap the total number of camps a guild can build, or even farther, don't allow two buildings of the same type to be built on one sector.
- at the very least, cap the reduction in attrition at least at 50 or even 40.

And of course, as a great many others have already indicated, just fix the matching system, because that would be fixing the real root cause. There are no 40 "matching guilds" at the top of GBG ranking.
 
Top