• 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

beelzebob666

Overlord
Pathfinder
Spoiler Poster
No, there's something else here...
there only are a handful of truly strong guilds per server... so it simply is really unlikely for more than two of them to meet up

PS: also, on my server there are like 70 guilds at 1000 - so about 9 battlegrounds. So, Even if there were like 12 Top guilds, it would already be rare for three of them to meet in the same battleground
 
Last edited:
I think Inno has some special algorithm for match rivals in groups. How do they manage to form groups in GE, where one strong team and the rest are placeholders? The same thing happens with GBG. We observe 5 seasons of the sleepy kingdom. 1 strong participant and 7 placeholders
I would agree with you, taking into account that the match in GE is made among a huge number of all guilds of the market. The chance to run into an equal rival in your category is minimal. But GBG, where no more than 50 guilds wich 1000 LP? 6 group? No, there's something else here...
You didn't specify if you are referring to Live or Beta though it really doesn't matter. In nearly two years of playing GBG with D1K guilds I can recall only one season where we were matched with 7 weak guilds (the "placeholders" that you refer to). If 1 + 7 was a common occurrence there would not be nearly three years' worth of complaints about strong guilds collaborating to checkerboard the map. Most often, there are 4 strong guilds and 4 weaker ones and this results in the complaints about farming and "bullying".
 

jovada

Regent
You all forget the difference between a forumpost here (discussion or feedback) and a poll on an idea.
An idea can be rejected due to the votes.
Feedback can be a long going item like we discussed here for more then 2 1/2 years GbG on several forumposts.
 

Owl II

Emperor
there only are a handful of truly strong guilds per server... so it simply is really unlikely for more than two of them to meet up

PS: also, on my server there are like 70 guilds at 1000 - so about 9 battlegrounds. So, Even if there were like 12 Top guilds, it would already be rare for three of them to meet in the same battleground
I'm talking about beta. 56 guilds here in 1000 this season. To be honest, I have a very bad idea of the balance of power here. I saw earlier that we won mostly. I see now 5 seasons in a row that we get dead group. I want to understand if the reason is nerf or that beta always plays sluggishly. We are not using our potential even by half, as I assume. Not because we don't want to hit. Rather, because the opponent does not want to
 

Yekk

Regent
I don't think they have adjusted the ads strategy that they incorporated into mobile users lives that i know of...
If this change was done as some say, to just increase revenues, beta has shown that was a failure. Removing the cap with a adjustment to the 24% a SC has would do that at least in Diamond. Taking 24% to a slightly higher number AND changing the maximum SC cap to 5 would do just that. At the moment there is little incentive to build. Leaders get on but att out quickly. There is no reason to diamond tiles and in weaker guilds even less to use diamonds at all. 28% for SC would give 80% at 5 SC. 30% would give 66% at 3 SC.

Inno has done little to explain the why's of the nerf. Its only posts are weak and incomplete. If removing no att fights is a goal then the above does so. If more revenue is the above does that better than what we have.
 

Owl II

Emperor
Inno has done little to explain the why's of the nerf. Its only posts are weak and incomplete. If removing no att fights is a goal then the above does so. If more revenue is the above does that better than what we have.
Yes! this is the main reason for disappointment. Perhaps they have achieved their target. But we don't know what that target is. And we feel like idiots and experimental mice without the right to vote. If they had said directly what they wanted to achieve, everything would have been different
 

Beta King

Viceroy
Im sure the goal for Inno has always been clear and that's to pacify those baby guilds with weak treasuries that have been pinned down and have been crying for 2.5 years of the atrocities that their guild has endured at the hands of so many "super active" tyrants in their world! Unfortunately the only way to make this right is to change the entire game for everyone that plays more than an hour a day right?
 

jovada

Regent
Im sure the goal for Inno has always been clear and that's to pacify those baby guilds with weak treasuries that have been pinned down and have been crying for 2.5 years of the atrocities that their guild has endured at the hands of so many "super active" tyrants in their world! Unfortunately the only way to make this right is to change the entire game for everyone that plays more than an hour a day right?
Can you declaim some more stupidity ???? It's not because we pointed the anomalies already 2 1/2 years ago that we were cry babys, if inno reacted right away at that moment there would be no fuzz from spoiled players like now.

Maybe it's the anti-gameplay by some guilds that caused them to react , leaving flags 159/160 between 2 dominating guilds had only 1 purpose (whatever excuse you might invent) and was to secure their positions to farm with 0 attrition and was pure egoïsm.
 

Beta King

Viceroy
Can you declaim some more stupidity ???? It's not because we pointed the anomalies already 2 1/2 years ago that we were cry babys, if inno reacted right away at that moment there would be no fuzz from spoiled players like now.

Maybe it's the anti-gameplay by some guilds that caused them to react , leaving flags 159/160 between 2 dominating guilds had only 1 purpose (whatever excuse you might invent) and was to secure their positions to farm with 0 attrition and was pure egoïsm.
Maybe there wasn't enough up votes and your complaints got rejected all these years
 

Thunderdome

Emperor
I just pulled back from participating in GBg only because I work 10-hour days and would come back very tired, heh heh. It was fun while it lasted.
 

jovada

Regent
I just pulled back from participating in GBg only because I work 10-hour days and would come back very tired, heh heh. It was fun while it lasted.
And are you entiteled now to be a lazy player or a non-active player now because you can't play 24h a day like some suggested here on the forum????
Because most of them only shout that active players are those who can play 24h on command.
 

Beta King

Viceroy
And are you entiteled now to be a lazy player or a non-active player now because you can't play 24h a day like some suggested here on the forum????
Because most of them only shout that active players are those who can play 24h on command.
Yes exactly an active player=24 hrs straight with no blinking!
 
Top