Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[Emberguard]

And you are flat wrong about the motivation. GBG is popular because of the personal rewards. Why do you think GvG is dying?

GvG is dying primarily because it is not on mobile (personally, GvG is way more fun that GBG...

Guild Battlegrounds only got created because GvG was popular but inaccessible to mobile. It's like remaking the same movie half a dozen times and then asking why the fanbase is into one particular version but not the other. They're competing against each other due to being so similar. If Guild Battlegrounds hadn't been created and GvG merely ported over with any tweaks necessary for mobile, then GvG would be the popular feature now.

You're right Guild Battlegrounds is popular on the reward side of things. But it was also never given a opportunity to be popular without rewards due to it being there since introduction

 

[Panoramix]

Your proposal to limit the reduction of attrition is not a happy one, especially for young players (beginners) and those who will be in the Arctic or Oceanic Future eras, where It seams that they will find it difficult to go through these eras, by limiting the fights taken and the bonuses occurred from those fight.

At the same time, if you do continue to pursue with this ideea of reducing the bonus for reducing the attrition for the two buildings, you have to come up with a complement to the game, namely the establishment of a legendary or building within the events with the role of reducing attrition per player, to increase the percentage of reduction. of attrition per level (for GB) / per era (for event buildings).

 

[Juber]

@Juber May want to check the voting system.
The double vote appears to be effecting the percentage data, currently.
The Vote looks like it counts the number of different people who have voted.
The Yes and No appear to show how many have selected that option.
While the Yes over Vote figure and the No over Vote figure are a correct reflection.
The issue is that the total of Yes & No responses are more than the Vote number.
Thus the percentage is coming out in excess of 100%

I don't see where this is a problem. Currently 35.9% of all people that voted like it and 66.2% don't. Since you can vote for both, both are counted. The fact that this exceeds 100% does not change the results.

 

[Eleanor VII]

Or perhaps there should be a new 1000 LP+ Jasper league or lapis lazuli or whatever league, where you can implement all proposed balancing changes for those who are bored to death from endless farming to enjoy

 

[6zeva9]

I don't see where this is a problem. Currently 35.9% of all people that voted like it and 66.2% don't. Since you can vote for both, both are counted. The fact that this exceeds 100% does not change the results.

While it may not effect the outcome of the vote. The vote percentage should reflect the percentage of the total number of votes and not that of the number of voters, as you have allowed people to vote for both options if they wanted to vote but were in the middle on the issue.

 

[rontom]

The fact is that GBG should have been re-balanced a long time ago, that it wasn't has allowed players to get used to lots of rewards for over 2 years, i dont think there would have been anything like the outcry if it had been addressed earlier.
I can see the issue from the perspective of a player in FE (beta) and as an end-gamer (live) and have reached the decision to vote for the changes. In my opinion the almost unlimited rewards available to a few have devalued fp's and vitually removed what little challenge remains in the game for end-gamers, FOE has always been a marathon not a sprint but GBG has skewed the game, now its a case of the bigger you are the more you get, the bigger guilds sew up the map and those guild are dominated by the big hitters. The end result is that lower ranked players often open the map and are faced with using their attrition on scraps, none of this is the fault of players, the blame lies with whoever allowed the exploitation to go on for so long.

 

[Owl II]

I don't see where this is a problem. Currently 35.9% of all people that voted like it and 66.2% don't. Since you can vote for both, both are counted. The fact that this exceeds 100% does not change the results.

Why not just add a third option for the smart and beautiful?

 

[Boo...]

The developer decided to punish active players, as well as passive ones. Punish everyone.
Guys, you are at fault. You won't get dessert for dinner. Everyone.
Apparently we should become hungry, and try even harder.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

The fact is that GBG should have been re-balanced a long time ago, that it wasn't has allowed players to get used to lots of rewards for over 2 years, i dont think there would have been anything like the outcry if it had been addressed earlier.

I'm not sure about this. Give a child a lolly-pop. Take it away in a minute, or ten minutes, the result will be the same. In the child's (FOE players) mind, the lolly-pop (colossal GBG rewards) are his/hers the moment the lolly-pop (rewards) is conveyed. BTW, this is merely an illustration, I am not suggesting that FOE players are childern.

 

[-Alin-]

Spoiler: A normal GbG map

Now we wait for other players to come online and see what we can take )
It will be ultra boring.

I did 90 fights with 56% support from 3 camps and got 40 atrition.

Spoiler: .

Another sector and 85 fights more at 66.6%.

Spoiler

 

[-Emperor-]

I think that changing GbG in this way is an unwise idea. It would be more reasonable to reduce the percentage of the siege camp, for example, from 24% to 18%. But it is also necessary to lower the price of goods for the camp so that it is fair, and to revise the characteristics for traps. If you run this on live servers, you will lose most of the players due to them losing their last interest in the game...

 

[CrashBoom]

and to revise the characteristics for traps

instead of doubling attrition
gives 1 more attrition

and that would need to change the description of siege camps
from: chance of no attrition
to: chance to gives one attrition less

 

[The Lady Ann]

basically as a lot have already said this is the worst of all solutions possible

I would propose

1 - remove the 1000 cap make a new top tier which is extremely difficult to reach and easy to drop out of, it would be based on winning season after season after season for those of us who do not entertain checkerboard gridding

2 - ring 4 has lots of build slots, ring 3 has a few less than ring 4, ring 2 has 1 slot on each province and the centre has NO building slots

 

[King Flush]

where even is this so called imbalance in GBG? if you look at potential FP's per time invested I'm sure sniping and city collection for many would come out on top the only thing with GBG is those that put effort in get more than those that don't and the one's that don't want to or can't seem to begrudge those that do put the effort in, sour grapes what?
In regards to the lower ranked guilds in Diamond league not getting a look in this is also largely about effort, virtually always I see these guilds hardly building SC's and when sectors are open to them they don't even try for them a lot of the time, either bad leadership or just a general lack of effort by the guild on the whole is all that counts for this.

 

[Fatal Felix]

This is a wonderful change, stick it to the little people, lol. Now the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. Only the big guilds with high cap attrition figthers are going to be able to succeed. You now Trap and Fort (as these will be overpowered) and shut the map down so smaller guilds cannot even get off the beach and by the time they fight their way through they finish one tile and they are spent, lol.

No need for treasury buildings either, go ahead and delete them as reduced need for goods. This is like the Arc, you made it and you opened pandora's box and now you want to put everything back in and close the lid, lol. Good luck!

 

[Treyna]

I don't see where this is a problem. Currently 35.9% of all people that voted like it and 66.2% don't. Since you can vote for both, both are counted. The fact that this exceeds 100% does not change the results.

Now it' 34,4% on yes, 67,5 on no. Total 101,9% (And in time at your post: 35,9+66,2=102,1)

 

[Juber]

Now it' 34,4% on yes, 67,5 on no. Total 101,9%

The percentages are not how many votes there are, but how many people voted on it. This is a difference, since you are able to vote for both. Currently, 3 people voted for both, so this is why there are more votes than voters.
Again, that this leads up to more than 100% is not a problem at all

 

[JosefD]

Just read the introductory text to the changes which contains lines like this: "we believe this re-balance is necessary for the long-term sustainability and viability of the feature." Boys you really get well-versed in using empty word husks. You should venture into politics!

Anyway, Things were fine in the guild battles. There was no need to change anything.

And why did you revert to the old map?

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Just read the introductory text to the changes which contains lines like this: "we believe this re-balance is necessary for the long-term sustainability and viability of the feature." Boys you really get well-versed in using empty word husks. You should venture into politics!

Anyway, Things were fine in the guild battles. There was no need to change anything.

And why did you revert to the old map?

The next sentence in the announcement is "We always envisioned attrition to be an important factor."

On my main world, my best GBG season was just over 10K battles. The rewards were 16,500 FPs, 500 diamonds, and a bunch of other stuff that I don't track. Attrition was not a factor because, except for the opening round, I was fighting with at least 4SC support in most sectors. Life in a L1000 Diamond guild. TBH, I enjoy the rewards but don't think, for a second, that the Devs anticipated this exploit. When this change goes live, my battles will get reduced by about 75% and I will adapt to the new dynamic. It's been too good to be true and I'm not going to get upset about it, much less quit the game. But, y'all do as you wish.

 

[Demeter7]

This is a wonderful change, stick it to the little people, lol. Now the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. Only the big guilds with high cap attrition figthers are going to be able to succeed. You now Trap and Fort (as these will be overpowered) and shut the map down so smaller guilds cannot even get off the beach and by the time they fight their way through they finish one tile and they are spent, lol.

No need for treasury buildings either, go ahead and delete them as reduced need for goods. This is like the Arc, you made it and you opened pandora's box and now you want to put everything back in and close the lid, lol. Good luck!

I wonder how many in those big guilds have been so spoiled by zero attrition that they forget, or never learned, how to fight with attrition. Did they prepare their cities for this? Maybe... but it will be interesting to see what happens.

The guilds that are experienced at fighting with attrition and have built up their cities with the power that is needed will do well. And now there is a reason to build up that fighting power.