-
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
PrinceJ on a PC
Farmer
That is a very good point: I totally agree with that.
My problem is that of all the problems in GBG listed by @Juber, like the disproportionate League Point Matchmaking and Map size, the fact that this came first is a bit... controversial. Everyone is right to complain about the wasted guild goods because they spend their cities' effort on GBG, and you know, this will be a major change that can have very negative impacts on dedicated players.
Although I'd still like to see the outcome of this, I don't think this will have much of an impact because of the existing unbalanced features in GBG. Thank you, Inno for actually giving a hoot about this problem, but this solution is not the right one in my humble opinion.
A minor request: @Juber can you add a poll to this (by any chance), just so we can all see the controversial opinions.
mintbunnies
Farmer
Wow! What an excellent way to kill GBG and FoE! Amazing it's a 2 in 1 deal!
If anyone doesn't think this will kill GBG then you don't play enough.
This is the worst thing to do. There would be no motivation to play seriously. Camps would be too expensive to make them worthwhile. What is the benefit of increasing your attack bonus and buying diamonds for the newest and lastest event buildings?
If anyone doesn't think this will kill GBG then you don't play enough.
This is the worst thing to do. There would be no motivation to play seriously. Camps would be too expensive to make them worthwhile. What is the benefit of increasing your attack bonus and buying diamonds for the newest and lastest event buildings?
FrejaSP
Viceroy
I'm not sure it will do much diff, it won't help the weaker guilds, who never get close to the center.
I also believe people will be less temted to pay Diamond for Camp 3 and 4, just like noone will pay Diamond for a Watchtower, that only gives 8%
It is very hard to test here on Beta, where we do not have our Guilds from Live servers. It's not only how many fights we will get but the interact between the Guilds.
I also believe people will be less temted to pay Diamond for Camp 3 and 4, just like noone will pay Diamond for a Watchtower, that only gives 8%
It is very hard to test here on Beta, where we do not have our Guilds from Live servers. It's not only how many fights we will get but the interact between the Guilds.
OmegaLee
Steward
Very good point. Diamond usage for GBG will go down. Plenty in my guild were willing to give up 50 diamonds for camp #4. That camp is now pretty useless.
SpinDizzy
Farmer
Off hand, this is too much of a hit. No reason to not have watchtowers and camps stack. A more reasonable limit would have been the 80% limit from 3 camps at 24%, plus an 8% tower, or some combination of towers and camps. This would still allow for a player with 80 attrition limit to get up to 400 fights per day, while limiting the seemingly endless zero attrition players.
IMO, a better solution to farming would have been to require a "supply line" of continuous sectors back to home base, or with the supply line gone, all the timers to expire. This would have changed the play of the game (as would your proposal) - while capping the attrition factor to 80% would still leave guilds with a reason to build treasury, while also preventing the zero attrition only players. This requirement for a supply line would alter the strategy and make GbG both more realistic (in real life an army which looses it's supply line is more vulnerable).
Because of the crazy game rules, I'm a NOOB here, but in the main game I'm a 160 mil player with 130,000 battles.
IMO, a better solution to farming would have been to require a "supply line" of continuous sectors back to home base, or with the supply line gone, all the timers to expire. This would have changed the play of the game (as would your proposal) - while capping the attrition factor to 80% would still leave guilds with a reason to build treasury, while also preventing the zero attrition only players. This requirement for a supply line would alter the strategy and make GbG both more realistic (in real life an army which looses it's supply line is more vulnerable).
Because of the crazy game rules, I'm a NOOB here, but in the main game I'm a 160 mil player with 130,000 battles.
Last edited:
Thunderdome
Emperor
Two things I want to know:
• Who got the popcorn?!
-AND-
• Whose idea was it for this to happen?
Either way, it won't be "Farmville" for sure. It will tone down those who are throwing in thousands of fights per day due to 0 attrition and high attack %s. For the rest of us, I don't know if we want to go further on the GBg participation as we are still trying to last longer to get more fights for rewards.
Unless, of course, this daffy update will lay another thing along the way in the ill-famed FoE+ which sane people won't purchase.
• Who got the popcorn?!
-AND-
• Whose idea was it for this to happen?
Either way, it won't be "Farmville" for sure. It will tone down those who are throwing in thousands of fights per day due to 0 attrition and high attack %s. For the rest of us, I don't know if we want to go further on the GBg participation as we are still trying to last longer to get more fights for rewards.
Unless, of course, this daffy update will lay another thing along the way in the ill-famed FoE+ which sane people won't purchase.
Donna a Macskabolond
Merchant
Let's see how it will work, but based on experience:
- 66,6% will mean about 50%
So by spending 12000 guild goods we get about half the fights than now.
There are some different groups who were complaining about GBG:
- Big, fighter guilds, beacuse the matchmaking is uneven, the number of guilds in diamond league is too high, so it's quite often when a fighter guild is matched with 7 small and inactive guilds and the big one can't setup swap and don't get enough fights. In this case their problem is solved? No.
- Small or medium guilds, beacuse 2 big guilds are swapping sectors and they can't come out of their base - Their problem will be solved? Maybe, but probably no. Big guilds will always won.
- Those who are bored with GBG - this change won't make the GBG more exciting - with high attrition no one will race for a sector.
- Those whose treasury is empty, so can't build SCs - well, they can be happy, because most of the guilds won't build any even if they can afford it, because it won't worth it. But usually these guilds aren't active enough to win in GBG..
Maybe I left out some groups but this change will affect about 10% of the players only who were active in GBG. Those players won't bat an eyelash who is in SAJM without an Arc or Traz, but those who where building their city to be effective in GBG won't be happy wih this change. And that's the least what can be said
- 66,6% will mean about 50%
So by spending 12000 guild goods we get about half the fights than now.
There are some different groups who were complaining about GBG:
- Big, fighter guilds, beacuse the matchmaking is uneven, the number of guilds in diamond league is too high, so it's quite often when a fighter guild is matched with 7 small and inactive guilds and the big one can't setup swap and don't get enough fights. In this case their problem is solved? No.
- Small or medium guilds, beacuse 2 big guilds are swapping sectors and they can't come out of their base - Their problem will be solved? Maybe, but probably no. Big guilds will always won.
- Those who are bored with GBG - this change won't make the GBG more exciting - with high attrition no one will race for a sector.
- Those whose treasury is empty, so can't build SCs - well, they can be happy, because most of the guilds won't build any even if they can afford it, because it won't worth it. But usually these guilds aren't active enough to win in GBG..
Maybe I left out some groups but this change will affect about 10% of the players only who were active in GBG. Those players won't bat an eyelash who is in SAJM without an Arc or Traz, but those who where building their city to be effective in GBG won't be happy wih this change. And that's the least what can be said
planetofthehumans2
Emperor
This is going to be a negative that affects everyone regardless of what people may say about being "excluded by farmers", every guild across the board is going to find difficulty gaining sectors. If you can get up to 100 attrition, you alone can conquer maybe 2 sectors for the day and that's it and only if they're at 3+ camps. Most people can only get up to 20 attrition which means single person or few active fighter guilds would take days to get one sector.
Why not have the cap change based on league? Diamond maybe this is appropriate, but copper league with new/one man guilds don't deserve this treatment that's for sure - they don't even have the goods for one siege camp anyway. Maybe for copper there is no cap, silver (?) has a cap of 95%, gold has a cap of 90%, platinum has a cap of 80% and diamond has a cap of 66%. How many farming guilds are seriously going to stay in the lower leagues below platinum? The reward in those leagues is smaller than the cost of getting up to at least plat.
Reading back on this post...
The pacing sure doesn't feel the same to me at this point in the game and this change will only exacerbate that. I'm hoping you will consider some leniency in the smaller leagues for smaller guild who really don't care about GBG or only have one person fighting or don't have any treasury built yet where this whole thing is a non-issue.
This is actually a great idea that we should revisit. Why should someone who gains 20 attrition max have to wait as long as someone who gets 100 attrition? Surely the person with 100 attrition should have that attrition dwindle out for longer than 24 hours...? Like maybe you lose 1 attrition/hour (example), that guy with 20 attrition would reset faster than currently and that person with 100 would reset over several days. Doing it as a percent would put more power to the higher % players (ex 10%/hour, the 100 attrition goes to 90 while the 20 attrition goes to 18, 10 extra fights per hour versus 2). It doesn't really hold the same problem as gvg as all people jump on after reset, the magic of gbg is that you can fight at any time but have to manage your own attrition through the day SIMPLY because the sectors reset after a few hours unlike GVG. Like do you want to burn it all at midnight on a sector you may lose anyway or wait to farm later when more people are on? But for this idea, why not?
Why not have the cap change based on league? Diamond maybe this is appropriate, but copper league with new/one man guilds don't deserve this treatment that's for sure - they don't even have the goods for one siege camp anyway. Maybe for copper there is no cap, silver (?) has a cap of 95%, gold has a cap of 90%, platinum has a cap of 80% and diamond has a cap of 66%. How many farming guilds are seriously going to stay in the lower leagues below platinum? The reward in those leagues is smaller than the cost of getting up to at least plat.
Reading back on this post...
The pacing sure doesn't feel the same to me at this point in the game and this change will only exacerbate that. I'm hoping you will consider some leniency in the smaller leagues for smaller guild who really don't care about GBG or only have one person fighting or don't have any treasury built yet where this whole thing is a non-issue.
This is actually a great idea that we should revisit. Why should someone who gains 20 attrition max have to wait as long as someone who gets 100 attrition? Surely the person with 100 attrition should have that attrition dwindle out for longer than 24 hours...? Like maybe you lose 1 attrition/hour (example), that guy with 20 attrition would reset faster than currently and that person with 100 would reset over several days. Doing it as a percent would put more power to the higher % players (ex 10%/hour, the 100 attrition goes to 90 while the 20 attrition goes to 18, 10 extra fights per hour versus 2). It doesn't really hold the same problem as gvg as all people jump on after reset, the magic of gbg is that you can fight at any time but have to manage your own attrition through the day SIMPLY because the sectors reset after a few hours unlike GVG. Like do you want to burn it all at midnight on a sector you may lose anyway or wait to farm later when more people are on? But for this idea, why not?
planetofthehumans2
Emperor
Funny comment on this update I saw in global chat: They obviously think I play too much.... Did my wife go to work for Inno?
Kranyar the Mysterious
Baronet
Well, if this hits live without major changes, that will be the day that I am gone from the game forever.
I know most won't care, and say adios, and that's fine.
Between Ads, PTP paywalls getting added, nerfing of recurring quests, etc, this would be the final straw. This also just informed me not to make any purchases on live for the upcoming events, because I'm not likely to around to enjoy the benefits.
I know most won't care, and say adios, and that's fine.
Between Ads, PTP paywalls getting added, nerfing of recurring quests, etc, this would be the final straw. This also just informed me not to make any purchases on live for the upcoming events, because I'm not likely to around to enjoy the benefits.
Last edited:
In regards to smaller guilds: I doubt they will see a harsh decline in their number of fights - they rarely have the chance to fight with more than 3 SC anyway...
Goldra
Marquis
What i see in this:
- Inno continues with the idea to stop battle farmers, now limiting the number of battles in de GB. Instead of to change that the better way to go up is fighting.
- Inno continues without giving us the information of how works siedge camps vs traps. We know that 4 siedge camps make useless traps. But with this change? 4 siedges vs 2 traps = 66'6% no attrition; 33'4% 2 of attrition?
- Now, we only see and build siedge camps. Tomorrow, we will see more traps, fortress... But carefull with the trap lovers.
- Inno continues with the idea to stop battle farmers, now limiting the number of battles in de GB. Instead of to change that the better way to go up is fighting.
- Inno continues without giving us the information of how works siedge camps vs traps. We know that 4 siedge camps make useless traps. But with this change? 4 siedges vs 2 traps = 66'6% no attrition; 33'4% 2 of attrition?
- Now, we only see and build siedge camps. Tomorrow, we will see more traps, fortress... But carefull with the trap lovers.
TheTomatoMan
Farmer
One more thing I would like to add. You mention there was a poll, but I don't remember getting a notification of any sorts on it, it must've been a rather small poll, and I for one would announce it on all servers and on every single social media outlet, to inform the players of a poll with this magnitude (considering GBG is one-of if not the main part of the game for the majority of the players), and perhaps not make such a rash decision on the basis of a small poll, that alters the game perhaps forever, or in a very big way. I doubt the results of the poll would stay the same if it were announced once more, but globally.