Iggy the Troll
Steward
They gave us the math on siege camps but not watchtowers. Anybody got the diminished rates on watchtowers?
-
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.
Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance
- Thread starter Juber
- Start date
CrashBoom
Legend
it is the same math
just calculate with 8% instead of 24%
8% / 15.36% / 22.13% / 28.36%
jovada
Regent
Of course the "big, strong, active or whatever you like to call them" will still rule the middle sectors and it's normal if they have the fighters, after all if they are better , bigger , stronger they deserve it , but that does'nt mean a 0 attrition abuse or exploit should exist.
You propose a guild should have a choice if they want to move up or not, it might be easy to code that as you say but not realistic, for example i play platinum but i'm tired to be beaten by guilds who just dropped down from diamond light or diamond 1000LP , so will i have the choice to go to lower platina or do i have to stay in upper platina ? same for gold.
Of course you will say let yourself drop to platina lower, but if many guilds do the same then it's maybe easyer to stay platina upper, you create far more problems this way.
No the only way is to have a proper matchmaking, a choice is not doable.
Thunderdome
Emperor
Okay, did I just read that "if guilds can choose their opponent" shtick?
Basically, this will make it that guilds can (and always will) choose the weaker opponents, which will leave GBg in the same shape pre-nerf (and post-nerf). I much rather have guilds with the same scoring system to be evenly matched up with other guilds of like kind. I don't want anything handed to me, but I don't want nothing taken from me as well; meaning, pre-nerf, if my guild has enough in the treasury to buy the buildings to full 0 attrition (costs increased with each) to take a sector or two with, then so be it; it's what we had worked for as a guild. This is why I don't do the swap thing (and am in a guild that doesn't do it either); I don't look at 159/160 hostage holdings as a deterrent if I can get a coordinated team to help me to take it and hoping that no one from the guild that is holding it is on at the time; in live worlds, I mostly see the 159/160s being held for a very long time.
Even if we forced a hostage holding guild to take in 1 more fight and claim the sector, they will lose it in 4 hours as we will revisit. We've had this happen before and we were laughing as we took that sector after the timer was done. You win some, you lose some.
Basically, this will make it that guilds can (and always will) choose the weaker opponents, which will leave GBg in the same shape pre-nerf (and post-nerf). I much rather have guilds with the same scoring system to be evenly matched up with other guilds of like kind. I don't want anything handed to me, but I don't want nothing taken from me as well; meaning, pre-nerf, if my guild has enough in the treasury to buy the buildings to full 0 attrition (costs increased with each) to take a sector or two with, then so be it; it's what we had worked for as a guild. This is why I don't do the swap thing (and am in a guild that doesn't do it either); I don't look at 159/160 hostage holdings as a deterrent if I can get a coordinated team to help me to take it and hoping that no one from the guild that is holding it is on at the time; in live worlds, I mostly see the 159/160s being held for a very long time.
Even if we forced a hostage holding guild to take in 1 more fight and claim the sector, they will lose it in 4 hours as we will revisit. We've had this happen before and we were laughing as we took that sector after the timer was done. You win some, you lose some.
Owl II
Emperor
The main problem it was conceived as an competitive gameplay. This implies that if you are not strong enough to break away from the shore, then you will get down, strengthen, come back and kick those who suppress you. But the victims (nerf supporters) don't want to strengthen. They don't want to compete. They want to chew grass peacefully in the absence of predators. It needs a different gameplay. Just a different gameplay. GE for example, or something like it. They will always be unhappy in GBG. Unless you "exclude from the equation" those who can and want to compete.
jovada
Regent
You better learn about compete, cause swapping with guild and blocking every other guild is not a competition, a competition should be that you fight that guild.
Fighting with 0 attrition and letting the other guildmates first use their attrition is not a competition but free farming .
Yekk
Viceroy
Your problem is you were beat in 1K by a 3 man guild that really did not want to be that high. This league though you are doing well are you not? In D-lite? My proposal has 3 higher leagues. No lower or higher platinum. I am for now calling them 1K, D-lite, and Platinum but each would have its own rewards with 1K having the best rewards. You place 5th the last time we met. The guilds below you were not given an option. They had to be in the 1K. Forced by a very bad system of match making. It was not proper match making. Mine is...
jovada
Regent
problem 1: platina i rule and i'm always nr1 or nr2 so i choose to stay in platina, but i just gained 175 points reaching 1000, do i keep these points? cause that gives me already an advantage against the other guilds and i can end 6th next time loosing 75 points and still have 925
problem 2: i'm platina i reach 1000 points , so i can go up but what , i can move diamond light or diamond 1000
problem 3: 4 big guilds in diamond 1000 , 3 guilds work together against the 4th , the 4th the strongest guild in reality says i let me drop to position 5 go to diamond light and rule that for several seasons and don't go up to 1000 anymore
Far to many possibilities for abuse.
Yekk
Viceroy
As I said before I hate the point system. It should allow at best moving up one spot or down one spot. It is inherently unfair to put a Platinum guild in 1K or vice versa. Only 3 matters and yes they can team up against the 4th guild who would move to D-lite. Key though is you, as founder, keep the choice of do you move up. For your guild you would probably do so but for many they would remain in the league where their players do best. Less tanking, better competition, happier players, more total rewards over time.
onclouds
Farmer
Please just make it live already and finish with the 0 atrittion exploit that is killing the game, this nerf will end the bots too, resulting in a cleaner game believe me. Swaping sector with 0 atrittion is not competing, every think head can face it, INNO is finally taking action to make the environment better, and i support that. The CBG as it is right now is just pure abuse nothing more, stronger guilds will still have more advantage, but at least it will be more competitive, and the bots will go away. Congrats INNO, finally.
Owl II
Emperor
Come and stop me. I didn't like it too that someone was farming under my nose, and I couldn't move further than 3 lines. Now they don't bother me.
Last edited:
zookeepers
Marquis
Seige Camp nerf is fine. I suppose 75% or 80% cap is better, but multiplicative calculation is absolutely fine.
But relatively, this will make traps too strong. The checkerbord swapping is done by agreements by guilds not to build traps, and so, even after the nerf those swaps would continue denying use of traps.
But when those agreements do not exist, traps are very annoying, after nerf, it would be more difficult to handle.
One solution can be just deleting traps, and do the nerf both together. Or else, if you want to keep traps, I recomend making traps to give time limitted attrition (that last only one hour) instead of regular attrition.
But relatively, this will make traps too strong. The checkerbord swapping is done by agreements by guilds not to build traps, and so, even after the nerf those swaps would continue denying use of traps.
But when those agreements do not exist, traps are very annoying, after nerf, it would be more difficult to handle.
One solution can be just deleting traps, and do the nerf both together. Or else, if you want to keep traps, I recomend making traps to give time limitted attrition (that last only one hour) instead of regular attrition.
jovada
Regent
You say no point system but how are you telling who is diamond light and diamond 1000 ?
How are you going to tell who is upper platina and who is lower platina? That also is making a big difference , are you going to face a guild that just dropped down from diamond or a guild that just moved up from gold?
Beta King
Viceroy
Or make is so that they are so restricted that the competitive don't want to play anymore. Nerf=problem solved for non-competitive
Yekk
Viceroy
No I said I do not like the current point system that allows guilds to move from Platinum to 1K way to fast. Just as you have put Inno did not intend to have 0 attrition fights I also put they did not want the number of guilds we have at 1K. Both were mistakes. We can argue back and forth but until Juber does his job we will not see improvements. One change is worse than no change if it leaves the system still broken...
Yekk
Viceroy
Yes it does... That GBG will still be broken if the nerf happens.
Thunderdome
Emperor
For once, I agree with you.
I. Any moderator, CM, admin, or just staff of Inno should be doing their jobs so stuff like this didn't turn into a grade A cluster among everyone.
II. The first thing that should have been done is take the data as it is, along with the feedback, announce and send to live for testing to see what will happen, gather from both tests, make the appropriate adjustments or rollbacks, leave at end of story from that point. All within two seasons (4 weeks) as I don't buy that garbage as none of my QA tests in the places I had worked took longer than two weeks to test.
III. Juber made it clear that nothing gets forwarded from a discussion thread, so when a thread is moved from feedback to here with another thread that is hidden from public view, it does speak about what our opinions mean at that point.
IV. Maybe not to you, but to me, there were ideas from others about how to shape (or fix) this to make it better; most were centered around making better matching between guilds and league tiers; but nothing was said from Inno's end.
Beta King
Viceroy
I agree lets move it to live servers next season! Is Aug 18 good for you?