Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[DEADP00L]

Don't be gullible please, you should know that the massive guilds will still dominate, albeit with more difficulty, and to the detriment of the "big hitters", but they will still dominate, and the big fighting guilds will still outperform the small, inexpirienced ones.

I never said the opposite !
I'm just saying that the guilds will, while dominating, fizzle out faster and thus allow the guilds that were still stuck the opportunity to play a little.
The moaners reap what they sow!

 

[Yekk]

with my stats 1400+/1100+ I can't fight anywhere near the attrition levels that I know some of my guildmates do with advanced age troops and they can get a hell of a lot more fights in that what you suggested you got so unsure as to how your numbers were so low but I'm telling you now it will make this gamestyle much more advantageous than it is currently

Hovers have a flaw in how they fight. Using auto battle they will move to hit the enemy even though they land on a tile where they are "seen" by the defense. They then take damage. They also move out farther than rogues do so will see even more damage. Trick smart players do is manual the first round holding Hovers at the back then auto from that point. Rogues may take damage but against Indy level even a 500/350 player can prosper.

 

[beelzebob666]

Don't be gullible please, you should know that the massive guilds will still dominate, albeit with more difficulty, and to the detriment of the "big hitters", but they will still dominate, and the big fighting guilds will still outperform the small, inexpirienced ones.

Yes, but they will likely not be able to lock up the whole map 24/7 in checkerboard anymore and that will allow the smaller guilds to break in - they will not get too far, but at least they have the chance to see some action

 

[TheTomatoMan]

I never said the opposite !
I'm just saying that the guilds will, while dominating, fizzle out faster and thus allow the guilds that were still stuck the opportunity to play a little.
The moaners reap what they sow!

You know for a fact that a very strong guild (such as the one you are in on one HU server ..) is still going to be astronomically stronger than a small guild, if they wanted to they could still lock up the map, perhaps with a little more difficulty, yes, but they could.

 

[MonkeyDMonkey]

Finally, the biggest balancing error that exists in the guild battles is fixed. Very good.

 

[TheTomatoMan]

Yes, but they will likely not be able to lock up the whole map 24/7 in checkerboard anymore and that will allow the smaller guilds to break in - they will not get too far, but at least they have the chance to see some action

If they really wanted to break out, they could do it in today's environment, and if they can't even break out in a matter of 30 minutes-to sometimes 1 hour, then it's their problem, and this change is going to do f... all for them.

 

[conqueror9]

STOP ADJUSTMENT
THAT IS ILLEGAL AND STEALING

player who spend goods to build sc and watchtower, what they spend should be what they get
if siegh camp is promised to have 24%, it will be reward as 24%
any less than 24% due to capping , it is STEAL and ILLEGAL

if Inno think GBG need to adjustment, go other way

1. reduce 24% down to 20% ( say), so it comply "what player spend is what they get"
2. reduce amount of available slot in sector such that guild can not get over 66.6%
...etc, it is Inno design issue, it is just a template of "how many slot in each sector", it is a ridicious adjustment that shows Inno do not do their design works


that is the work of Inno, do not push FoE player like that, that is STEALING

 

[beelzebob666]

Hm... Besides the bull crap in the previous post there is a point that brings up one question:

Will the description of the siegcamp/watchtowrr ingame reflect the new way of calculation?
@Juber

 

[odygrd]

Some players already got their Arcs to 180 from the GbG rewards and now you want to massively nerf the GbG fights? After 2+ years ? This is so unfair.

There were many other ways to rebalance GbG and make it more interesting for smaller guilds instead of limiting everyone’s ability to fight.

GbG is the only reason i log into the game, if this change goes through I’ll completely lose any interest in this game and stop playing

 

[Treyna]

We have saying in Hungary, wich is in word by word translate: "My cow died, so my neighbour's cow must to die too". This 're-balancing' makes me feel to Inno has heard the players who have the same conclusion and would like to use the same solution.

 

[Bestio]

HI everybody! I would like to share with you all my biggest fear related to the change. Unfortunately I will not manage to test it directly in Beta due to different guild situation there, but maybe (hopefully) you may reassure me. I think too that the change will slow down GBG as said by others -maybe will make it a bit closer to GvG?-, but especially: I fear this will be to the disadvantage of medium guilds: those that rely the most on siege camps in order to compete with big guilds. I am actually afraid big guilds will first build camps on sector A to conquer sector B and immediately build traps on sector A and camps on sector B to conquer sector C and so on, leaving all traps behind (= all around the center of the maps). As they will have to spend less for SC, they may start to use the goods for traps. I think with the current balancing: only other big guilds may contrast this strategy, while medium guilds instead will have an even harder time contrasting them (especially if they are also medium in terms of N. of players or N. of fighters) and higher frustration... Hopefully you may test this and see. If this is what is going to happen, then I think additional measures needs to be implemented that may counterbalance this, if the goal is to have a better balance between guilds.

 

[Treyna]

Anyway, if the siegecamps won't give the same advantage, they won't be also on the same price? Or you will pay the same for less?

 

[King Flush]

if competing in GBG will even remain a thing it will be all about the numbers, guilds nearing 80 players regardless of their strength will have a huge advantage over guilds with much fewer numbers, already the bias on guild ranking is heavily on the GVG side and will likely be emphasised by this, I imagine it would become much like GE just something to go on to grab a few rewards without any of the serious battles and tactics that we currently enjoy in GBG.

 

[mintbunnies]

regardless of who personally benefits, i'm looking at how this will affect the game as a whole, from a game balance perspective; 0 attrition fighting was unbalanced for resource and point gain. this will change the way that the game is played, and i'm responding the more obviously nonsensical claims i'm seeing, like "guild treasury will be useless" and "this will hurt new players." of course the people who are grinding out high battle counts will be negatively affected, but those are typically the only ones hurt, and they're the only ones complaining; everyone else (the vast majority of players) will benefit or be unaffected



yes, most guilds will, because as people have mentioned before, what else is there to spend the treasury on? GvG & GbG, and that's about it.



several things:

1) GE is still a part of the game that lots of guilds care about. I couldn't auto GE4 until I got about 750% attack, and I couldn't fight it at all except with Advance Age units and manual fighting until about 400%. Also, attack strength still matters in GvG - I (FE) can fight SAJM in AA map using FE units - albeit with heavy losses, but even being able to fight AA in such a low age is huge.

2) You're right. Attack bonus will become less relevant. Just like when GbG got added, everyone shifted from producing passive FP with their city (either directly, or producing goods to sell for fp) to attack bonus buildings. You'll want high enough attack bonus to take advantage of a reasonable maximum in GbG - something like a few hundred daily battles, which will be a desirable trait which guilds will start to look for - but gameplay in general would shift back to more balanced cities.

You don't seem to understand my point so I will try again.

People are currently willing to spend diamonds in order to create a powerful town. I can get to 85 attrition on my main server and 65 attrition here in beta.

What benefit does 20 attrition get me? 20 more fights per day? 33 more fights per day? Why would I bother increasing my attack bonus to be comparable in live for 33 more fights per day?

Sure a hard core guild will spend goods for rankings and prestige. But you are really missing the mark if you think that all guilds won't be affected, INNOs bottom line won't be affected, and that massive changes like this without listening to the players that spend diamonds won't affect you.

 

[Yekk]

Anyway, if the siegecamps won't give the same advantage, they won't be also on the same price? Or you will pay the same for less?

Using both SC's and WT's will allow lesser/weaker guilds to reduce attrition at a greatly reduced cost to their treasuries. That said small guilds still will lose as they do not have the number of players to compete. Big guilds can and will wall off some guilds using traps and forts. Tactics will change but the end result remains the same. The same players and guilds will still bellyache that GBG is not fair to them. Biggest change though will be there will be little reason to use diamonds...

 

[Markus2720]

So under that circumstances the goods effort will drop drasticly. So best solution for big guilds to deal with that problem is bomb the map full with traps and forts. Problem solved Competition destoryed and the best thing is InnoGames would be we very happy with that i assumed.^^

 

[Beta567]

Of course it will not be 100% reduction anymore, but 66.6% is worth the 4 Camps in my eyes.

As I understood correctly, the formula now looks like this:
1 - (1 - 0.24) ^ n, where n is the number of siege camps.
What if there was no limit?

1​ Siege Camp	2​ Siege Camps	3​ Siege Camps	4​ Siege Camps	5​ Siege Camps	6​ Siege Camps	7​ Siege Camps	8​ Siege Camps	9​ Siege Camps	10​ Siege Camps
24%	42,24%	56,1%	66,64%	74,64%	80,73%	85,35%	88,87%	91,54%	93,57%

Now let's look at the costs that have to be spent and how the percentages increase

3000 Goods	6000 Goods	9000 Goods	12000 Goods	15000 Goods	18000 Goods	21000 Goods	24000 Goods	27000 Goods	30000 Goods
24%	18,24%	13,86%	10,54%	8%	6,09%	4,62%	3,52%	2,67%	2,03%

As for me the limit should be increased to 85%. Above this value the percentage increases are very small. If someone wants to spend so much goods it should not be so punished.

And so you have realized a little too late that there should be no situation where there is a 100% chance of no attrition.

There is no 100% reduction anymore. Read post #4.

 

[BarraG]

if competing in GBG will even remain a thing it will be all about the numbers, guilds nearing 80 players regardless of their strength will have a huge advantage over guilds with much fewer numbers, already the bias on guild ranking is heavily on the GVG side and will likely be emphasised by this, I imagine it would become much like GE just something to go on to grab a few rewards without any of the serious battles and tactics that we currently enjoy in GBG.

Maybe balance by selecting random guilds base on size of guild and last performance rather than adjusting SC % attrition reduction ?

 

[woodchuck321]

You don't seem to understand my point so I will try again.

People are currently willing to spend diamonds in order to create a powerful town. I can get to 85 attrition on my main server and 65 attrition here in beta.

What benefit does 20 attrition get me? 20 more fights per day? 33 more fights per day? Why would I bother increasing my attack bonus to be comparable in live for 33 more fights per day?

I do understand. Attack boost will become less valuable. I agree. As I said, just as passive FP/Goods production used to be king but was replaced by Attack, now Attack will be replaced by something else.

I also believe this will be a positive change for game balance as a whole, as I explained before; it will hurt top players (maybe the top 5-10%), but will help or otherwise not affect everyone else (the other 90-95%).

The rewards are still there; everybody still does GE, many people still do GvG, even though the rewards are much smaller. SoH & Elephant are still excellent buildings, and 100-200 battles per day is still enough fp to boost daily income considerably.

Guilds will be forced to consolidate; small guilds with low numbers of high-power players will no longer be able to maintain diamond league, as they will be outpaced by large guilds of less advanced players. This will encourage guilds to merge and increase teamwork within the game. Impacts of this will probably be felt even in GvG - larger guilds, larger battles, less of the ghosting nonsense that happens on many competitive GvG servers.

People may spend less, but they were definitely willing to spend diamonds before. There was no GbG when someone bought enough diamonds to get nearly 20 full Pirate Ships in a summer event a few years back. There was no GbG when my guild leader in 2017 professed they were "working overtime to pay for more Fire Pagoas in the spring event." Furthermore, Inno must know that this will reduce diamond expenditure; and the fact that they're willing to test it anyway demonstrates that they believe it is good for game balance, despite the inevitable loss of income.

Sure a hard core guild will spend goods for rankings and prestige. But you are really missing the mark if you think that all guilds won't be affected, INNOs bottom line won't be affected, and that massive changes like this without listening to the players that spend diamonds won't affect you.

As for me personally, how it will affect me has very little to do with how I view the change. But since you keep bringing it up, here's how this change will affect me:

I'm in a top guild in my world; we maintain first in GvG, we win nearly every GbG season, we only have a handful of silver GE medals and no bronze. My guild will continue to build maximum SCs regardless; this change will not affect that.

My biggest issue currently is that I there are never any fights left; I don't have the time in my life to sit and wait hours for sectors to open, to be on constantly; I only get fights in when I happen to log on and see a sector opening within 5 minutes. I, and many other players like me who cannot be on for hours on end, will not be hurt, and in fact many will benefit from these changes.

This change will hurt many of the players in my guild who do thousands of battles each season. Might the game lose players because of that? Possibly, but we're not going to dissolve, and other players will step up to join their place. We will still play the game.

The rewards of being in Diamond GbG, while not as broken as they currently are, will be large and desirable. Therefore, because GbG battles will cap at a few hundred per player, larger guilds with many players will be more desirable. Larger guilds with more people contributing to treasury & map control will then be able to provide the battles for their members, allowing for players to maximize their (capped, but still present) rewards. Players will gravitate towards these larger guilds or will fail to gain the rewards.

In my server, my guild is one of maybe five guilds that can consistently run GvG at a high level, and we're constantly at war with two of the others simultaneously. The rest of the guilds combined (beyond these 5ish) can't hope to reach the fighting power to challenge the top five. While a one-man guild can participate in GvG, they can't really hope to provide a real challenge to large guilds. Honestly, GvG is getting annoying when the daily routine is "Alright, make sure nobody landed and broke our shadow in AA... now wipe those smaller guilds that did manage to land... now take whatever we can in goods maps because 6 guilds with 10 people each are ghosting us... anything else? no, ok great gj team thanks." I'm personally hoping this change will encourage larger guilds to form which will provide more interesting wars in GvG.

===

So yeah, this change will change the game. Who'da thunk that changes would change things. It's a nerf to the current top strategy, which will understandably piss off many top players, but just because something is unpopular doesn't mean it's unbalanced. The rest of the players probably won't care, and many of them might even benefit. The game will continue, a new top strategy will be found, and people will abuse that for a while until inno nerfs it. Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

with my stats 1400+/1100+ I can't fight anywhere near the attrition levels that I know some of my guildmates do with advanced age troops and they can get a hell of a lot more fights in that what you suggested you got so unsure as to how your numbers were so low but I'm telling you now it will make this gamestyle much more advantageous than it is currently

It's simply the mechanics of battling in early ages with advanced age units. The earliest that a player can get Hover tanks is Indy. Even at zero attrition, a hit from an Indy unit will result in at least one chit of damage regardless of the player's A/D%. Since only 4 HTs are available to earlier age players you can do the math. With my much lower stats I was able to get to something like 70 attrition using 2 HTs and 6 rogues BUT I had to manually battle and surrender anytime the terrain did not offer a lot of "plains" to hide in. It was more productive auto-battling with same-age units. Point being, I don't think the change in GBG will encourage more Indy players to run the gauntlet and get the Hovers.