Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[Owl II]

Nos might happily play GBG to the extent they can anyways even though they wish it wouldn't happen

How will you measure the level of happiness? I have already been reproached that my fights have jumped compared to last months. But I didn't play almost, I was out of the guild and came back to look at this, if I may say so, "balance". However, there is little happiness in this

This really could go any direction at this point:

- forced live next season
- limited live to select realms in order to gather more data
- on beta for months on end
- shelved indefinitely after another season or two while they try to come up with a more acceptable alternative.

The longer they delay it the worse it will be. Waiting for the execution is always worse than the execution itself.

 

[Donna a Macskabolond]

Again assumptions and nonsens just to justify why not making changes.
First don't tell me that guilds don't want to be competitive , they not reached 1000LP doing nothing, Second it makes a difference if there is 0 1 or 2 slots in front of your HQ with 0 or 1 the two guilds working together maybe let you have the sector , with 2 slots they often will take it to use it to build up their 0 attrition. Third two guilds almost never ask to the smaller to jump in , they only ask it if they are the only big guild on the map, and then i ask you why should they jump in to please you at that moment only so you can do more fights? No wonder they show you a middlefinger then.

Clearly. Our actual group on live server have 5 small guilds. Always have open sectors for them to hit, not one of them took a sector for days.
Clearly, they so much competitive I can't even find the right words.

 

[jovada]

Clearly. Our actual group on live server have 5 small guilds

And of course you are speaking of a diamond group ?

 

[Donna a Macskabolond]

And of course you are speaking of a diamond group ?

1000 LP

 

[xivarmy]

How will you measure the level of happiness? I have already been reproached that my fights have jumped compared to last months. But I didn't play almost, I was out of the guild and came back to look at this, if I may say so, "balance". However, there is little happiness in this

The longer they delay it the worse it will be. Waiting for the execution is always worse than the execution itself.

What exact measures they use are necessarily a mystery (so we can't try to game them)

There'll certainly be some initial extra attention because changes always provoke attention. But in GBG's case much of that can be muted on account of people without real investment in beta not being in a position to move the needle much. i.e. my traz-less beta city in a 1-man previously-inactive copper guild should probably be easily excluded from their metrics by just considering platinum & diamond activity.

But the start of a 2nd season should give them at least a minor correction towards normal - a lot of the people that showed up for a season just to see what it's like, won't feel the need to show up for another season unless they either really play beta, or are having fun with the differences it brought about.

And I agree to some extent on the delay, that's one reason I expect it may be rushed to live (the other being that philosophically I expect they *want* this change to pass for design reasons and as long as the numbers don't say it's an unmitigated disaster, I expect it to pass in some form - they're willing to take some amount of a hit in order to correct what they consider a design flaw).

 

[Owl II]

Well, this has already been said above (not only by me): they won't see what effect it will have until they try it on a live server. Beta is a sleepy realm.

 

[PackCat]

1. Guilds are going to need to be stronger to compete with higher attrition. Why are powerful guilds afraid of this, if they are so powerful? Do these "powerful" guilds expect Inno to make it as easy for them as possible so that they do not need to use effort?

2. Other guilds do not want a "participation trophy". They just want to be able to play the game and do their best.

1. This is like tying a weight to your fastest track runners so the slower ones can compete.
Stronger Guilds are stronger because some have spent years improving their Guilds, their skills, their cities, their ability to optimize fighting.
This does not happen overnight and weaker Guilds are not going to compete on any level.

There are better ways to slow the game down and make it just as good. Make each attrition point worth 10% defense.
Change the clock timer to either random or 5-8 hours.

2, "other" Guilds do not want to fight (race) and compete for points. They want unrestricted access without any other Guild to interfere.
This change only handicaps the better Guilds, it does not make other Guilds magically better.
Other Guilds do not manage their treasury, and therefore do not build as many SC, therefore the change will not affect them.
I understand other Guilds want to share the map, but not share any new benefits. There is no up-side for better than average Guilds, and INNO has single-handedly killed the inspiration to be exceptional. It is like Communism and Collectivism... No aspiration for skilled players.

 

[PackCat]

"Nullified"? I think not. "Extreme manner"? It's not extreme. Actually, it's genius. The reduction in SC effectiveness impacts everyone. Players with high A/D will still have an advantage over players will lesser A/D. Seems fair to me.

How does infinite attrition affect Guilds who never managed resources and do not build camps in the first place.
It does not affect them at all! They will not notice an attrition increase.
This only punishes good players. It takes away all the incentive to work hard and be a good fighter.
INNO killed competition not increased it.

 

[King Flush]

@King Flush :
even if you are right in your reasoning, I have two questions to ask you of which a "yes" or a "no" is enough for me:
- do you think all guilds in all worlds of all servers play GbG like yours?
- Do you think that by adding attrition to your usual tactics, the strategy will remain so dull despite we all have a daily limit?

I'll humour you but imagine you will make some assumptions from my yes or no answers that will be incorrect but here you go.

- do you think all guilds in all worlds of all servers play GbG like yours?

no

- Do you think that by adding attrition to your usual tactics, the strategy will remain so dull despite we all have a daily limit?

I tried but can't even answer this with a yes or no, by adding MORE attrition to my GBG fights I'd probably max out within a matter of minutes therefore there would be no strategy from me personally, when I've been really enjoying the tactics of a campaign I have on numerous occasions stayed on to lead after getting attritioned out but I don't expect there will be many of these interesting battles post nerf so very unlikely I'll be there waving my stick, guildmates will most likely be left to do as they will with some loose guidance rather than any specific tactics relating to current opponents or map position, I kinda doubt there will be GBG leaders at all post nerf, if I was to imagine what that would look like it would be very dull indeed, not just the actual GBG battling itself but the lack of interaction with your guildmates that go hand in hand with current GBG model, it really makes a difference to activity levels when you have Leaders pushing their team on so I'd expect activity to really drop off, significantly.

 

[PackCat]

And I agree to some extent on the delay, that's one reason I expect it may be rushed to live (the other being that philosophically I expect they *want* this change to pass for design reasons and as long as the numbers don't say it's an unmitigated disaster, I expect it to pass in some form - they're willing to take some amount of a hit in order to correct what they consider a design flaw).

I think what is missing is that it costs goods, time, and sometimes diamonds to build SC. They are NOT free. They are the trade-off Guilds are willing to pay for lower attrition. The weaker Guilds do not have the ability or discipline to store up their Treasuries to be able to compete with SC to combat attrition, so this changes does not change anything for them. The weaker Guilds feed off stronger Guilds leaving them crumbs if they do not delete SC or they simply do not build.

 

[PackCat]

And now there can be no more competition and tactics ????? If i understand you well there can only be a competition and tactic when there is 0 attrition ???

Those that save up their Treasuries to build SC should have a decided advantage over Guilds that do not.
There is now much less incentive to build-up treasuries and build SC.

 

[xivarmy]

I think what is missing is that it costs goods, time, and sometimes diamonds to build SC. They are NOT free. They are the trade-off Guilds are willing to pay for lower attrition. The weaker Guilds do not have the ability or discipline to store up their Treasuries to be able to compete with SC to combat attrition, so this changes does not change anything for them. The weaker Guilds feed off stronger Guilds leaving them crumbs if they do not delete SC or they simply do not build.

Oh please - it's not hard to build up a treasury. The weaker guilds in diamond absolutely can build siege camps - and do in platinum to get to diamond in the first place. If they don't build them in diamond it's because they don't expect to keep the territory long enough to use them!

 

[DEADP00L]

- do you think all guilds in all worlds of all servers play GbG like yours?

no

At least you can understand that not all guilds have the same experience as you, so not everyone can love/hate ke nerf like you.

- Do you think that by adding attrition to your usual tactics, the strategy will remain so dull despite we all have a daily limit?

I tried but can't even answer this with a yes or no, by adding MORE attrition to my GBG fights .........

There is bad faith on your part.
When you are unlimited in combat, the strategy is limited to typing faster at the right time.
On the other hand, when you have to pay more attention to your attrition, you have to make certain choices in the sectors to type and manage to mobilize more people within the guild.

I've been in guilds of 80 where a dozen big players were enough to take the whole map, even against a guild of 20 players where everyone participated according to their abilities.
This too will be a game-changer for fights with attrition.

I'm not trying to convert you, I just want you to understand that those who appreciate change are not just jealous, there are a lot of players who like real strategy and rewards to match their investment, without falling into the excess of which the complainers claim a certain normality.

 

[DEADP00L]

The weaker Guilds feed off stronger Guilds leaving them crumbs if they do not delete SC or they simply do not build.

I have no word for this sentence.
Either you are truly undue of your person, or you do not understand anything OBJECTIVELY to the game.

For you, the FOE world is divided into two: the strong and intelligent against the poor and lazy guilds.
I would like so much that GbG after GbG there are only the same 8 leagues between them and that Inno leaves the guilds of miserable between them.
We will see after 2 months who would complain.

 

[Balinor]

Reading this thread is like riding a merry go round without the fun
Its going round and round and ending up nowhere except where you started
You guys and gals sure do love sounding like broken records

 

[Pericles the Lion]

This only punishes good players. It takes away all the incentive to work hard and be a good fighter.
INNO killed competition not increased it.

I respectfully disagree. I have a 1800/1100 stat and typically get in 6K-8K battle each season. Does this make me a "good fighter"? Perhaps. Honestly, I do not feel that I am being "punished" by this change. Why might you ask? Because I really don't think that massive zero attrition fighting was anticipated by the Devs and correcting this oversight is something that needs to be done. It's not "punishment", it just is what it is. What I do think is that this change is going to expose a lot of weak guilds that are masquerading as "Strong" guilds. Currently, in live, on opening day a cadre of players (15-20) with high A/D can capture enough sectors to set themselves up for a swap season with 1-3 other guilds. From that point, onward, the weakest players in that guild are able to fight, a lot, even though they have weak A/D%. Going forward, this will be much more difficult. Every bucket is going to sit on its own bottom, so to speak. Swaps, which were previously a piece of cake, will be much more difficult because guilds may find that they have insufficient effective fighters. Just my .02.

 

[King Flush]

We all know that GVG holds a greater importance on guild rankings than GBG do we not think that there would be a greater shift from GBG to GVG post nerf? with guilds being able to spend more goods there instead of in GBG? if so does this not make it a more fragmented gaming enviroment with GVG only being open to PC users? would seem to make the two platforms more unbalanced than they currently already are. I admit I don't know much about GVG so am genuinely interested in those that do as to whether this sounds plausible.

 

[Donna a Macskabolond]

At least you can understand that not all guilds have the same experience as you, so not everyone can love/hate ke nerf like you.


There is bad faith on your part.
When you are unlimited in combat, the strategy is limited to typing faster at the right time.
On the other hand, when you have to pay more attention to your attrition, you have to make certain choices in the sectors to type and manage to mobilize more people within the guild.

I've been in guilds of 80 where a dozen big players were enough to take the whole map, even against a guild of 20 players where everyone participated according to their abilities.
This too will be a game-changer for fights with attrition.

I'm not trying to convert you, I just want you to understand that those who appreciate change are not just jealous, there are a lot of players who like real strategy and rewards to match their investment, without falling into the excess of which the complainers claim a certain normality.

Your opinion as much exaggerating as mine when I say the smalls don't have any interest in GBG.
There is strategy in GBG and it can be played well if your guild like it. Most of the guilds don't play war because it takes too much time from the leaders and really there is not too much leader who really understands strategy. Swapping sectors are easier.

On the other hand, 99% of the guilds really doesn't care about GBG. And don't have enough treasury to build SC continously for 11 days. Beleive me, there were time when I begged every guild in my group to take at least 1-2 sectors per day because I will go mad. I went mad..

And probably there will be a couple dozens players who will see this nerf as nirvana and will take a sector per day. Or just a half and leaves the flag for days, because not one of his/her guildmate will finish it.

And there will be a couple dozen players who will find more choice in a big guild when logs in once a day. Clearly they are not in the right place now. But it's their choice, I just don't understand the complains.

In the end nothing will change because the nerf won't solve the real problem, the big guilds will adapt, the medium guilds will die, the small ones remains small. But at least some hundred people per server won't get as much fight as they would be able to do, get bored and find another hobby.

 

[Owl II]

Oh please - it's not hard to build up a treasury. The weaker guilds in diamond absolutely can build siege camps - and do in platinum to get to diamond in the first place. If they don't build them in diamond it's because they don't expect to keep the territory long enough to use them!

Oh, please! It is not difficult to build the treasury, only if you do not spend it. A simple GBG season without removing the SC with a normal partner or rival (who is built the camp too) will cost you from 1,5 to 2kk per season. The lvl80 arc will give you 11k per season. It is not difficult to build the treasury, you only need to place 180 arcs in the guild and collect them daily. However, the lvl180 arc already gives 25k goods per season. Place 80 such arcs in the guild, and they will produce the 2kk you are looking for

I am convinced again those who welcome the nerf and those who are against are residents of different planets. No, not planets. They are inhabitants of different realities. What genius had the idea to put them in a place?

 

[xivarmy]

We all know that GVG holds a greater importance on guild rankings than GBG do we not think that there would be a greater shift from GBG to GVG post nerf? with guilds being able to spend more goods there instead of in GBG? if so does this not make it a more fragmented gaming enviroment with GVG only being open to PC users? would seem to make the two platforms more unbalanced than they currently already are. I admit I don't know much about GVG so am genuinely interested in those that do as to whether this sounds plausible.

GvG's problems run deep. I would not expect any change in GvG activity from GBG nerfs:

- no reward at all other than ranking points (individual and guild)
- one specific time of day that rules the entire feature - if you can make it great. if not, you're not really competing (you might be able to ghost still).
- no scalability in defenses - it's basically like fighting at < 20 attrition without the point Nothing but races.
- no accessibility for mobile players

More or less GvG has been ignored by the vast majority for longer than GBG has existed.