What is your point? All Guilds had the same ability to score now & before.Do you really think that this distribution of sectors would be possible without these changes? I believe that the competition for the highest scoring places was really achieved. Before that, in this group of guilds, only 2 would dominate the map.
View attachment 8333
If we didn't lead them, then someone would have taken 2-4 place anyway. They would have done less fighting, that's all. what changes are waiting for Inno? I don't know.The only reason for 2-4 success was that we led them by the hand to gain more points and waited patiently (a day) for them to capture sectors, leaving ourselves with more difficult battles. This test was a complete failure to balance anything.
It is just like GVG during reset, if people do not show up to fight, then your success will be limited.My point, many, many, players had the chance to pitch in and do something, and this is something that they would not be able to do. Before that, only 10 players in 2 guilds would benefit from the GBG.
I like that resultWhat is your point? All Guilds had the same ability to score now & before.
The only difference is the stronger Guilds do not waste their time on low profit corners and some of the weaker Guilds give it a shot for a day or so of the season. They still sit idle for 95% of the time. The stronger Guilds let them sit on the lame sectors in the corners.
The scoring does not prove anything, at the most that Guilds pay less attention to the corners.
The only reason for 2-4 success was that we led them by the hand to gain more points and waited patiently (a day) for them to capture sectors, leaving ourselves with more difficult battles. This test was a complete failure to balance anything.
Yes, lack of participation should penalize Guilds.By the way, here is a thought: If you want to achieve a change in the match, then raise the minimum fights so that the guild can stay in the league. That makes 40 points now if I remember correctly. Raise it to 4k, and then we will see how weak ones fall to the bottom.
So your pleasure comes down to being strong and confronting the weak for fun?or they‘d have to fight agains the same guilds again and again and again
you can understand my post however you wish, but I did not say anything of what you're pointing outSo your pleasure comes down to being strong and confronting the weak for fun?
Because what bothers you is being confronted again and again with the same adversaries?
As you are talking more about force-feeding and not competition, Inno is right to have implemented this nerf!
Prior to gbg we spent much more time socializing in chat, with current game design there are so many game things to do that there is little time for the social aspect.I would definitely not have spent money on this game had GBG been as it's intended post nerf as it would be obvious that the money would do very little to 'advance gameplay', I don't even know what gameplay there is post nerf, yes people played before GBG I've asked as to why as I don't get what there was to take from playing back then (genuinely interested) and sure people will continue to play thereafter (those that like dull games I guess) but I'm sure the players who desire something a little more from their games will not bother with it.
think we can make a few fundamental points - competitive players (whether they be new or advanced players) don't like the nerf, competitive players are those most likely to purchase diamonds. do the math.
Total | Like | Dislike | ||
Initial Feedback and first round: | 466 | 153 | 319 | not included yet |
Second round: | 323 | 114 | 207 | 2 |
Third round: | 201 | 66 | 134 | 1 |