Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[Donna a Macskabolond]

So, they get 180 fights. That's about 300 FPs and 100 diamonds. Then they can switch to negotiations for what, another 20 (50?). A player capable of 60 attrition may need to level up CF more and spin some RQs for more goods. I don't nego GBG now but it's because I don't like to nego, not because I'm short on goods. The change to SC/WT will likely make some adjustments to play style necessary. Is that a bad thing?

Jovada was very lucky with the diamonds. The diamond drop rate is about 0,8-1%, so every 100 fights give back 25 diamonds.
In average. If you do some thousand fights in a season.

 

[Knight Roland]

Ill break down the „GBG rebalancing changes“ (as they call it) for all of you:

- the wording alone is a lie. It is NOT a rebalancing, its a nerf-hammer.

- the current attrition system hurts no one. The changes hurt in manifold ways: they hurt those who invested alot into those LB who produce guild-goods, it hurts the GBG because it’s going to be dumb and boring (see my above posts where i explained that in detail). It hurts InnoGames, because the spending of diamonds on siege camps will collapse to probably 10% compared to before. It hurts the ingame market because why trade any goods when they are not longer needed to refill the guild vault. It hurts many LB‘s, because it will make those LB which produce unrefined goods (babel, lighttower etc) obsolete (again, why produce these goods when they are no longer needed to refill the guild vault)

- the vast majority opposes these changes, many players hate them

- GBG as it is now is the central and most important aspect for many players, which inno is about to take away from them. Which somehow reminds me of the infamous „NGE“ changes that killed Star wars galaxies, and how the SWG developers had completely ignored the player protests.

- this nerf hammer to GBG is completely unnecessary. Not a single one of the pro nerfhammer crowd has brought any valid argument to the table why the nerf hammer would benefit the game.

 

[DEADP00L]

@Juber : Can we know what Inno means by "balancing"?

Because 90% of this discussion is sterile, between the oppositions of style of play and the threats, I see few constructive comments there.
And for good reason, no one knows why Inno made this change, the answers can be thousands of miles from the feedback they expect.

The discussion would be more useful if we knew the reason:

- if it is to fight bots and macros?
- if it is to mitigate the gains of some?
- if it is to reduce the activity on the computer servers?
- if it is to give importance to attrition?
- if the goal is to force players to negotiate more and therefore potentially use more diamonds?
- if the goal is to purge the worlds of over-optimized players?
- if the goal is to better distribute the guilds within the leagues according to their capacity?
- if the goal is to satisfy the "jealous"?

Otherwise, this topic will be of no use, except to exacerbate hatred between different types of players, which would be against the rules of the forum.

 

[CrashBoom]

- if it is to fight bots and macros?

an idea to fight bots
only one fight per 5 seconds

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

Jovada was very lucky with the diamonds. The diamond drop rate is about 0,8-1%, so every 100 fights give back 25 diamonds.
In average. If you do some thousand fights in a season.

Today - 180 fights - 0 diamonds.

 

[CrashBoom]

Today - 180 fights - 0 diamonds.

with 1% diamond chance that happens in 16.38%

so approx to 1 out of 6 players

 

[PackCat]

wouldn't that be the same as:
make all buildings 3 time more expensive

proposal: scrap this change, because it makes all the guild good LB’s meaningless, and do it this way instead to limit the FP farming:

double or triple the amount of building slots per sector and at the same time reduce the effects of buildings by half or by a factor of 3.

For example: sector X1X would have 6 building slots instead of 3. and each siege camp would only provide 12% attrition reduction instead of 24%

That way obsis, atomiums and ai cores would become very desirable and everyone would want to level them as high as they could

What if it were governed like GVG in that the more sectors you hold, the more expensive the goods, and/or goods would be more expensive approaching the center.

Previously, outer sectors were more expensive because they require older age goods which are scarce.
You always have Guild members in lower levels without much treasury GB support.
The inner sectors require later age goods, which are usually plentiful based on player ages.

Some or most Guilds will not build camps unless they have a surplus of 100K goods, or the camp cost is less than 5% of inventory.
Guilds that do a lot of fighting in GVG FE/TE are very stingy about sharing with GBG.

A few may say that the Stronger Guilds would still hold an advantage, but why shouldn't they.
If you physically exercise several days a week and stay in shape, why should I complain if I stay indoors and never exercise, and I am in poor health?

 

[Knight Roland]

The discussion would be more useful if we knew the reason:

the devs will soon come to their forum, explain their reasons and discuss all of it with us





















not

 

[Knight Roland]

What is it were governed like GVG in that the more sectors you hold, the more expensive the goods, and/or goods would be more expensive approaching the center

i like your approach on how a possible gbg balancing could be like

 

[DEADP00L]

What is it were governed like GVG in that the more sectors you hold, the more expensive the goods

Unlike GvG, you cannot free up a sector in GbG to reduce the cost.
The active guilds would therefore be penalized more than the others, it doesn't seem fair to me.

 

[Knight Roland]

Unlike GvG, you cannot free up a sector in GbG to reduce the cost.
The active guilds would therefore be penalized more than the others, it doesn't seem fair to me.

in GBG a strong active guild could free up a sector by simply letting the weaker guilds take it

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

Some minutes ago i was navigating in internet and found something about the children in Africa. I was very curios to read it
Than I found out, that mother with two children couldn`t pay a loan or 7.5 Euro for a room. You can imagine what kind of room it is, but any way, the mother couldn`t pay the amount.
So I made a donnation and decied, instead of giving money to INNO, to donnate them to people in need.
I`ll continue to play FOE and defend the interests of the players, but will never more give money to INNO, because simply they don`t need them the way other people do.
Maybe thes is the only positive thing from the ``rebalance``

 

[Matt999]

@Juber : Can we know what Inno means by "balancing"?

Because 90% of this discussion is sterile, between the oppositions of style of play and the threats, I see few constructive comments there.
And for good reason, no one knows why Inno made this change, the answers can be thousands of miles from the feedback they expect.

Well put. This is the crux of it. I am not enjoying the experience on beta personally. There are likely many more ways to solve the same "problem", if we knew what the "problem" being solved is. Whether that is more leagues, nerfing/limiting the rewards rather than the playing, limiting how many sectors can be "held" etc etc.

Is anybody getting a demonstrably better experience on beta to what they had before (i.e. better themselves, not happier because others are nerfed)?

 

[Beta King]

an idea to fight bots
only one fight per 5 seconds

I dont have to change troops but every 3-4 fights and if i dont get a reward popup in 2 fights i can auto at least 2 in 5 seconds without a bot

 

[DEADP00L]

@InnoGames is connected. But he recently told us:

As a primary goal of ours, we would like to improve transparency, and therefore, we would like you to get involved in the discussion.

Maybe we will finally understand the reason for this adjustment and redirect the discussion towards something constructive!

 

[Beta King]

I'm curious if 1100+ comments in a week is a normal amount of traffic for a forum post about a possible change?

 

[Astrid]

It's a nerf, a big one I would say, but they will never use this word. They hide behind words with neutral sense like balancing. I remember well a few years ago another big company decided to make drastic nerfs to drop chances of powerful items and they said just the same, it's a re-balance, not a nerf lol.

The problem with GbG(and they don't want to publicly admit it) is the use of automated scripts by some players to cheat. Unfortunately Inno demonstrates time and time again that they can't stop it, the cheaters will always find a way around their fixes, adapt the script and continue using it. They simply can't stop it or don't consider it's worth allocating more staff to keep banning the cheaters.

Remember the repetitive quests ? Yes, players were using automated clicking software to do unlimited battles overnight or / and gather unlimited goods from rewards. What Inno did ? They limit the number of quests / day you can make.

So players are cheating with auto battles on the map ? What does Inno do ? Drastically limit the number of battles a player can do per day.

See the pattern here ? It's not about the rewards, or getting too many goods, forge points or diamonds. They don't care about it, if they considered the drop rate for diamonds was too high for example they would have simply addressed it.

The idea here is simple: limit the number of repetitive quests / day, limit the number of battles / day.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

I'm curious if 1100+ comments in a week is a normal amount of traffic for a forum post about a possible change?

Absolutely not

 

[Amdira]

It's a nerf, a big one I would say, but they will never use this word. They hide behind words with neutral sense like balancing. I remember well a few years ago another big company decided to make drastic nerfs to drop chances of powerful items and they said just the same, it's a re-balance, not a nerf lol.

The problem with GbG(and they don't want to publicly admit it) is the use of automated scripts by some players to cheat. Unfortunately Inno demonstrates time and time again that they can't stop it, the cheaters will always find a way around their fixes, adapt the script and continue using it. They simply can't stop it or don't consider it's worth allocating more staff to keep banning the cheaters.

Remember the repetitive quests ? Yes, players were using automated clicking software to do unlimited battles overnight or / and gather unlimited goods from rewards. What Inno did ? They limit the number of quests / day you can make.

So players are cheating with auto battles on the map ? What does Inno do ? Drastically limit the number of battles a player can do per day.

See the pattern here ? It's not about the rewards, or getting too many goods, forge points or diamonds. They don't care about it, if they considered the drop rate for diamonds was too high for example they would have simply addressed it.

The idea here is simple: limit the number of repetitive quests / day, limit the number of battles / day.

the easiest thing would have been a cap on fights then without punishing the rest of "normall" engaged players, too

 

[DEADP00L]

I am disappointed to have noticed the presence of Innogames on this forum and no response to our questions.

I give up!
I wanted on several occasions that this subject does not turn into a fight that it is constructive but it is clear that Inno makes fun of us.
This discussion, like voting, is just window dressing.
This is total disrespect and proof of their lies about the desire for transparency.