Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[PackCat]

The thing that intrigues me the most is this, the biggest guild with the best activity will win the round, they go for middle sectors in front of all guilds, fill the outer sectors with traps, decoys, whatever, fill the other sectors with palaces and voila, they need less than 24 hours out of 11 days to secure the 1st place, no struggle, nothing, just few activity and goods at the beggining then nothing, "winner winner chicken dinner".

Other than signature... the problem with your logic, is it is counter to the themed argument here. Good Guilds want to score points, not sit on sectors the entire season. The worst thing for a scoring Guild is to not have any competition. Strong Guilds do not have time for traps, unless it is an arch enemy who has given them grief outside of GBG.

No team in sports, wants to play without an opponent,

 

[Hilary Briss]

It is a shame that we are not being presented with a way to encourage rather than force us to play Battle Grounds in the way that was intended rather than the Farming Grounds it predominantly is now.

The league system has been mentioned many times as one of the main gripes with GBG with various proposals for solutions. From my perspective, it could be done along the 'real life sport leagues' lines of promotion/demotion based on league position, with a fixed number leagues for all but the lower tier and points based on final league position rather than the current positive and negative points.

Guilds of equivalent performance should be more often matched against each other. The lower performance Guilds would have a better chance of a more open map but with lower rewards and the higher performance Guilds would need to compete with each other to maintain their 1000 GBG points. If 4 Guilds could be demoted per season, and all of them don't want that, there will be less farming and more competition.

You would then not need to introduce artificial caps and annoy a large proportion of the players with a change 2.5 years into feature as it would help limit the amount of free fights available due to more active participants in an individual map and fewer adjoining sectors each whilst maintaining interest throughout the day.

No doubt many on here will criticise, have alternatives, already have suggested the above, and people will find ways to farm it again. I am not a game designer, but 2 years have elapsed when actual game designers have been seeing reported 'unfairness' issues and farming, and could have thought of something more customer focused than what is perceived by a good number of players as a huge nerf.

 

[jovada]

The thing that intrigues me the most is this, the biggest guild with the best activity will win the round, they go for middle sectors in front of all guilds, fill the outer sectors with traps, decoys, whatever, fill the other sectors with palaces and voila, they need less than 24 hours out of 11 days to secure the 1st place, no struggle, nothing, just few activity and goods at the beggining then nothing, "winner winner chicken dinner".

That makes no difference , the same happened before also , in less then 24h the entire map was secured and full with 159/160 flags and ready to switch with other guild. Traps and decoys? The small guild can do the same every time they take a sector , but now instead to make a trap ridiculous when countered by 5 camps they will be more usefull and also big guilds will think twice if they put traps on the outher side because they can have the return from smaller guilds also.

 

[CrashBoom]

We had a discussion in our guild and if this comes to live servers, the only way to secure #1 is to have as many people as possible when the map begins and rush for the center.

will that really the best strategy ?

guild A:
takes the sectors at the beginning. uses all his attrition.

guild B:
takes the sectors 4 hours later.

guild A can't take it back on the same day

so who has it longer and makes more points ?

 

[-Alin-]

Other than signature... the problem with your logic, is it is counter to the themed argument here. Good Guilds want to score points, not sit on sectors the entire season. The worst thing for a scoring Guild is to not have any competition. Strong Guilds do not have time for traps, unless it is an arch enemy who has given them grief outside of GBG.

No team in sports, wants to play without an opponent,

What makes You think guilds will still want to team up and try to swap if they cant do more than 300 fights a day per player and 2 sectors are 320 fights in diamond? )

If this is going live, it will transform the players thinking similar to the very beggining, when all they did, was to spend atrition in GbG, few goods here and there and that's all for the day, people will lose their enthusiasm just for 200-300 fights a day, and will prefer to sit with the sectors or quit, just because there are 3-4 "hyped players" and ultra active for fps/diamonds in a guild it will not change something too much, just the first swap of sectors in a day )

Another aspect that will increase hate between guildmates will be the share of atrition at the beggining, I wonder how many will sacrifice for the other players in the guild to use the maximum of 66.6%, everyone will want that )
But time will tell.

 

[PackCat]

I can only approve the change.

66% of no attrition you still can do a lot of fights but not endless farming thats positive.

I read that a lot of players will not investe in %att/def anymore , why not ? the higher you have the more attrition you can handel so leveling att/def is still good.

From the beginning the game was not intended for endless farming, but developers forgot that players always try to find a way to take max profit, now the other buildings will maybe make more sense to.

Diamonds will not make a big difference for inno, even the one greedy player that waits for his mates to reach the middle and then pays 5 camps (250 diamonds) and take two sectors by his own 320 fights has the chance to recover most of his investment and if like often they agreed with other guild to leave the camps even can make a win if the camps are still there.

I agree but 66% is a little too strict. I would feel more comfortable with the cap at 3 camps.
3 camps allows you to get around 28 attrition on 100 hits.
A workaround for this is to negotiate, which seems to give you an extra camp in theory and also 2 pts.
This would give you around 20 attrition on 100 hits.
I hope I did not give any secrets away.

It may be better if INNO reworked the calculation and determined the total number of battles they are trying to limit, and set the cap accordingly.
If they are trying to set a ceiling goal of 400 VP, then 72% seems like the sweet spot for most fighters.

 

[Yekk]

That makes no difference , the same happened before also , in less then 24h the entire map was secured and full with 159/160 flags and ready to switch with other guild. Traps and decoys? The small guild can do the same every time they take a sector , but now instead to make a trap ridiculous when countered by 5 camps they will be more usefull and also big guilds will think twice if they put traps on the outher side because they can have the return from smaller guilds also.

wrong... economics say the big guild can afford to trap with its endless treasury and larger pool of players whereas the small guild will go broke and be stopped by attrition gain.

 

[-Alin-]

will that really the best strategy ?

guild A:
takes the sectors at the beginning. uses all his attrition.

guild B:
takes the sectors 4 hours later.

guild A can't take it back on the same day

so who has it longer and makes more points ?

The other guild will not succeed in taking all sectors of the first guild If they continue to have traps there, their atrition will be hurt badly, even negotiating and the stronger guild will continue to push and force other small players to advance to the other sectors, the second day they(first guild) will continue to push even harder.

 

[Owl II]

Inno seems to believe this change will bring war back into GBG. The players will make that determination. My guess is that considering how distasteful war was in the first months of GBG most will not participate. It was not fun to be trapped. Guilds just quit fighting

That's the main problem. There is no reason to fight. As soon as everyone reached the LP limit, the meaning of the competition was lost. No one is going to return it. The only point for GBG popularity was farm. I don't mind there will be less the farm. But what will remain if you remove the farm?. It would be great if coordination took less time. But I think it's more likely to be the opposite. If earlier the guild asset could solve tactical tasks without involving the entire staff, now it will be necessary to demand a high level of participation from all team members

 

[jovada]

wrong... economics say the big guild can afford to trap with its endless treasury and larger pool of players whereas the small guild will go broke and be stopped by attrition gain.

I don't speak of treasury but if they also are countered with traps if they put them on the outer side they won't be happy to loose more attrition so that is what i mean it can work both ways, and who says that smaller guilds don't have treasury? Maybe they just were not able to use their treasury when countered by two big guilds.

 

[jovada]

If earlier the guild asset could solve tactical tasks without involving the entire staff, now it will be necessary to demand a high level of participation from all team members

And is that wrong ? it is after all GUILDbattlegrounds.

 

[conqueror9]

I think the diamond league should be more restrictive and mean something. Maybe only the top 10 Guilds or top 1% of "active" Guilds. Meaning scoring more than 200K+ VP each season. Currently, you always have 1 or 2 good Guilds, and the rest just sit on the sidelines.

The placement system should be season to season, not just score 1st place one season and ride for free the next 3 seasons (6 weeks)
The bottom Guild should drop down to the next league, and the top of the next league can move up.

Example of 10 Guilds in Diamond, could be (2) five Guild competition in a season.
It would guarantee good competition in the Diamond league contests.
The lazy Guilds could just flounder with themselves in lower leagues.

And yes, the poor Guilds piggyback on the good Guilds by hoping & poaching to retain camps if they capture a sector.
Rarely do I see those Guilds spending any of their own resources to make the map better for everyone.

It is a matter of Inno design

each league (e.g. diamond ), Inno want lower league can cliam up
so Inno introduce a mechanism that allowing lower league to up from next lower league

then it become war between a game design vs player
player find a way that they use lower amount of player guild and acceleate themself faster to diamond league
to me, player are hijack GBG
so we have diamond league full of lower amount of member's guilds

nowaday, some of them go up and complaint they cannot do what they want (in fact, hijack GBG )
as if that GBG has sufficient good-GBG-Guild, they are drive to corner without any score as they do not get sufficient guild member co-operation

GBG should behave better if it is composed of guild with sufficent member size's Guild
in GBG, it is not strong guild determine the outcome
it is GUILD with sufficient guild member co-operation determine the outcome

take a example...
if a sector is hit by 80 members (even the guild is ranking 99999999), just 2 successful hit by 80 members, it result capture
a strong guild with 40 member hitting, it need 4 successful hit in order to do capture

if u are fully aware this mechanism, you will know ...how to play GBG

if Inno do not group those very few member guild into, GBG should be good

 

[Owl II]

And is that wrong ? it is after all GUILDbattlegrounds.

In what place is this a battle, in your opinion? What are you fighting for?

 

[Yekk]

I don't speak of treasury but if they also are countered with traps if they put them on the outer side they won't be happy to loose more attrition so that is what i mean it can work both ways, and who says that smaller guilds don't have treasury? Maybe they just were not able to use their treasury when countered by two big guilds.

10 man guild with an average limit of 60 att max can do 1800 fights total if att reduction is 66%. BUT that number is greatly reduced by the fact they will go against traps. They will win a few tiles but will run out of att. They are done for the day. 80 man guild still has 70 players left in the same situation... Reality bites huh?

 

[King Flush]

will people even fight anymore or will GBG just become a negotiation battle grounds? guilds doing more neotiations will for sure end up with the most sectors, furthering the waste of space attack buildings will become, looking at most cities I see, the majority focus on attack buildings, this comes in you could very easily get rid of all in favour of FP and goods production and just negotiate in GBG and you will be far better off than those that have spent years upping their attack stats, seem fair? then I suppose you'll get people moaning about those that produce most goods if you don't like people doing better than you improve oneself, we all have the same opportunities.

 

[jovada]

10 man guild with an average limit of 60 att max can do 1800 fights total if att reduction is 66%. BUT that number is greatly reduced by the fact they will go against traps. They will win a few tiles but will run out of att. They are done for the day. 80 man guild still has 70 players left in the same situation... Reality bites huh?

You don't get the point. It's not big guild against small guild that matters , that is the same as before, but if they also are countered with traps it will hurt the farmers who can do less fights and they will not be happy then.

 

[DEADP00L]

10 man guild with an average limit of 60 att max can do 1800 fights total if att reduction is 66%. BUT that number is greatly reduced by the fact they will go against traps. They will win a few tiles but will run out of att. They are done for the day. 80 man guild still has 70 players left in the same situation... Reality bites huh?

Do you think there are a lot of guilds present on FOE who are in the situation you are explaining?
Even if there were 5 per world, would that represent a majority of players?
So worrying about a problem encountered by less than 1% of players is more important than the reality experienced by the majority?

 

[saffe]

Cap at 66% is a terrible idea,
I dont like this at all !

 

[Skywalkerx]

You cant change the complete META of the Game, the new META will be the Arch on lvl 180...
How did they get the Arch on 180? GBG!

Its almost impossible for anyone to get stronger....
The change is simply not Fair to Anyone!

 

[GeniePower]

maybe build your guild up better

the top guilds who do all that map locking have put a tonne of effort
not just diamond spending, but coordination, communication features, things like planning who will wake up at 5am to be on when it opens so that we know there's enough people to win races, and so that we know there's at least one diamond rusher who doesn't mind rushing everything,
lots of planning and execution towards ensuring they have the right number of people and treasury GBs/SOHs in each age
lots of planning and execution towards ensuring they have recruited people who will complete minimums and play fairly with the non-free sectors

like the other player said, black envy is at play here - instead of wanting what others have, you want to take away what other's don't
+ yes I co-opted your message for my 1 and only reply to this thread, because everything's already been said by someone else and Inno's gonna do what Inno's gonna do.

I am in that top guild. And I'm even a leader there. We own the aa map. I get up at 5am for gbg opening. We are on discord (for hours) every reset, every gbg opening and often on other occasions too. I'm regularly in the top 10 for fights on my world. I don't want to drop from 1500+/day to 150, I'm already too often left with nothing to do in the game. Get it?