• 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

PackCat

Squire
End of Nerf Season #3... nothing changed. We finished the season owning every sector not belonging to base.
I'm sure the effect of this nerf had to do with more than just penalizing good players and Guilds,
There must have been a silver lining like making poop teams better or participate more, but no... INNO shot themselves in the foot again.
Until INNO matches competition much more decidedly, this will continue no matter what shenanigans they try to disrupt success.
But then again, you cannot fix stupid.

As the saying goes: "All your base are belong to us"
 

Owl II

Emperor
I1A75.png
I like that:)
 

Fenix

Viceroy
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.

1659934087291.png
 

PackCat

Squire
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
What 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.
1659934939892.png
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.
 
Last edited:

Fenix

Viceroy
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.
 

Attachments

  • Final map, real competition.jpg
    Final map, real competition.jpg
    374.5 KB · Views: 18

Owl II

Emperor
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.
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.
 

PackCat

Squire
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.
It is just like GVG during reset, if people do not show up to fight, then your success will be limited.
I am not faulting your logic, just that penalizing good players/Guilds does not encourage more participation from lesser ones.
It only allows weaker Guilds to achieve PITY points, because they are not worth fighting for.

The Stronger Guilds are expected to decimate the map. the weaker ones will quiver in the corners. That is the way it should be.
The current Nerf is very similar to Eastern European conflict. The weaker country has absolutely no chance of winning, but the west (like INNO) keep pumping in more help to the weaker country to try to delay the inevitable.
It is inevitable that weaker Guilds will fail until they put in a concerted effort to be better.
Once they become better, the stronger Guilds would in fact welcome them to the competition and help them along.
The poison for good Guilds is to be in a season with other Guilds that do not even try to compete.
 

CrashBoom

Legend
What 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.
I like that result

finally only guilds which were mentally strong enough to follow the "do nothing deal" :D

on live there would always be at least one guild which is then still fighting
 

PackCat

Squire
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.
Yes, lack of participation should penalize Guilds.
Even before, weaker Guilds could battle. They may lose to stronger competition, but they always had a chance to score.
Guilds scoring less than 10K VP should drop to a lower league until they reach their correct abilities.
 

CrashBoom

Legend
then they win platinum and be in the 1000 LP diamond league again :rolleyes:

much easier and better
remove the LP cap ;)

that will move the top teams higher and away from platinum winner 1000 LP one season in diamond guilds

and in addition guilds with 1000LP+ will not lose a fix amount of LP but on percentage
8th: -17.5%
7th: -12.%
6th: -7.5%
5th: -2.5%

so for 1000 LP and lower it doesn't change anything
but higher teams will lose a little bit more
 
Last edited:

kawada

Marquis
This change has worsened GBG for really active guilds (I mean the ones who have more than a few active fighters). those guilds still can occupy the whole map with no problem, but it’s way more difficult to find equal rivals to keep GBG entertaining (especially on beta). or they‘d have to fight agains the same guilds again and again and again
The guilds which used to be on top due to 3-5 active players, now seem to be just average.
I’d say it’s frustrating for both
 
I think that if FoE doesn't want guilds to have attrition zero, they could create a way to reduce attrition individually, so those who like the GBG modality can have better results.
An option would be to enable (as in expedition) an extra turn for negootiations in the tavern shop and and even more interestingly, create a GB that provided attrition reduction (Level 80 -90% reduction like arc), which would somehow become a barrier for guilds to lock the field with sector changes (which I think not be bad but strategy) but allow the player to have the benefit of fighting with zero friction.
 
Last edited:

DEADP00L

Emperor
Perk Creator
or they‘d have to fight agains the same guilds again and again and again
So 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!
 

kawada

Marquis
So 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!
you can understand my post however you wish, but I did not say anything of what you're pointing out ;)
 

MATR

Squire
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.
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.
 

Owl II

Emperor
I like the test results. There are fewer and fewer votes with each round. They need to spend a couple more rounds to reduce the number of votes to zero. And then they will be able to send it to the living. They will be able to tell players are used to
TotalLikeDislike
Initial Feedback and first round:​
466​
153​
319​
not included yet​
Second round:​
323​
114​
207​
2​
Third round:​
201​
66​
134​
1​
 

King Flush

Marquis
Good luck to all who still wish for the game to be saved, decided my time in the game is done either way, thank you Inno for at least suggesting this terrible idea as has made me focus on RL again and enabled me to get away from this addiction, a new golf membership beckons, time to start living again! :)
 
Top