Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[xivarmy]

Nothing is being done to make city building a priority, all that is happening is a hammer is coming down on free hits, but in a completely unbalanced fashion. Now there is no counter to traps and they will likely reign supreme until that is addressed a couple more years from now.

Siege camps are still a counter to traps. Just not to the extent that "why did you bother building a trap?".

Normal Sector: 100% attrition.
Fully Trapped Sector: 200% attrition.
Fully Sieged Sector: 33% attrition.
Fully Trapped and Sieged Sector: 66% attrition.

If anything this balances out the (potential) usage of traps and sieges as opposed to only sieges.

 

[Demeter7]

you really don't understand the point, because you wasn't in a top guild yet. you don't improve the attack power primarily to be able to attack by 2-3 more, the amount is so small that it's not even worth it.

There is no way that you can define military strength as 2-3 more attacks due to improving attack power. There are many, many sources for A/D boosts, and there is a big difference between 200/200 and 1200/1200. Also, add a high level AO, Kraken, TA, CdM, Zeus, CoA. Attack power keeps growing exponentially.

 

[xivarmy]

These are all complete contradictions.
Firstly, the GBG is a team game, a lone wolf has nothing to gain here, and secondly, the complaints of the smaller ones relate to the competitive situation, but how do they solve the 232 demoralization to stay competitive? And I'm still only talking about 1 sector.

If 1 player can handle that 1 sector (and I could easily via negotiation), surely a guild can do more

Also there's often only 1 (or now sometimes none) for building slots on that first sector - so the chance that it's fully trapped and fortressed (and that someone's bothering to actually do that to a guild they can just put back in their hole in 4 hours) is really not that high.

The dynamic of the entire map flipping every 4 hours is more of an obstacle than any amount of trapping.

 

[PackCat]

So you are saying the buildings were equal before and none has been used more than others?

No, I think he meant it was more rock, paper, scissors
There was a correlation.
1 trap vs 0 camps = disaster.
2 traps vs 4 camps = traps are ignored.

The changes lean towards the disaster side of the equation, and there will become outright mortal Guild enemies created, as it will be easier to defend than to go on offense. Maybe if INNO spent more time dealing with cheaters, the whales problem would be less of an issue and they wouldn't have to meter normal players.
Take for example another self-inflicted error INNO created in the Questline yesterday, by trying to tackle another exploit, and instead of lagging mouse clicks to every .5 seconds, some developer, probably his first week on the job, moved a decimal point, and now you have to wait 5 seconds on a Quest entry, or it drops out of the list and leaves you with 2.

I consider it a bug, but FOE support considers it a feature in their response to my query, by saying "there is no guarantee that this will be adopted into the game".

 

[jovada]

Now there is no counter to traps and they will likely reign supreme until that is addressed a couple more years from now.

Woaw i did'nt know there are no siegecamps at all now, or can you still counter a trap with 3 camps?
Ah you mean perhaps that like before traps must be obsolete and countered with 5 camps no attrition so that it remains a big joke.

 

[MJ Artisan of War]

My favorite theory for the "why" of this is that they are trying to cap bot users.... since they are too lazy to catch them and kick them....
Just like the did with the RQ limit.... Punish the many for the sins of the few...

 

[mcbluefire]

Siege camps are still a counter to traps. Just not to the extent that "why did you bother building a trap?".

Normal Sector: 100% attrition.
Fully Trapped Sector: 200% attrition.
Fully Sieged Sector: 33% attrition.
Fully Trapped and Sieged Sector: 66% attrition.

If anything this balances out the (potential) usage of traps and sieges as opposed to only sieges.

Woaw i did'nt know there are no siegecamps at all now, or can you still counter a trap with 3 camps?
Ah you mean perhaps that like before traps must be obsolete and countered with 5 camps no attrition so that it remains a big joke.

A sector with 3 traps is only 200% attrition? 100%+45%+45%+45% = 200? I thought it was 235%
With the new formula you'll be able to get 66% attrition reduction no matter how many SCs are around the sector. Am I missing how that doesn't calculate to 168.4% attrition for a fully trapped and 4+ SC surrounded sector?

Please share. Thanks!

 

[PackCat]

My favorite theory for the "why" of this is that they are trying to cap bot users.... since they are too lazy to catch them and kick them....
Just like the did with the RQ limit.... Punish the many for the sins of the few...

Oh, I got one... It is like taking guns away from law abiding citizens because there are a few nut-jobs out there with stolen weapons performing FF operations on schools for self-serving political reasons.

 

[Fenix]

@Juber , help please

Could you please revise the following? Thanks.
Full support fights will be given by (under revision):
- 4 sc
- 3 sc + 2 wt
- 2 sc + 6? wt
- 1 c + 9? wt
- 12? wt

 

[HunZ95]

There is no way that you can define military strength as 2-3 more attacks due to improving attack power. There are many, many sources for A/D boosts, and there is a big difference between 200/200 and 1200/1200. Also, add a high level AO, Kraken, TA, CdM, Zeus, CoA. Attack power keeps growing exponentially.

the primary consideration in increasing attack power is to reduce losses and require fewer unit exchanges.
The difference between 200 and 1200 is very big, but what about 1200 and 1250? With 80 or 100 atr nothing appreciable changes, but how many events do you have to go through for +50%?

 

[PackCat]

Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance​

I think this header was misrepresented.
I think the proper header should be:

Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-calibrated!​

There is no balance to this change.

 

[xivarmy]

A sector with 3 traps is only 200% attrition? 100%+45%+45%+45% = 200? I thought it was 235%
With the new formula you'll be able to get 66% attrition reduction no matter how many SCs are around the sector. Am I missing how that doesn't calculate to 168.4% attrition for a fully trapped and 4+ SC surrounded sector?

Please share. Thanks!

traps are a "chance to double" rather than "% more attrition", it has no meaning past 100% (just like 8 siege camps pre-nerf did not mean negative attrition on attacking the sector).

So it's:
1 base attrition
* (1+X% chance to double) (max of X is 100% for x2)
* (1-Y% chance to zero) (max of Y is now 66.6% for *0.334 but used to be 100% (for zero no matter how many traps are there))

1*2*.334 = 0.668.

 

[mcbluefire]

traps are a "chance to double" rather than "% more attrition", it has no meaning past 100% (just like 8 siege camps pre-nerf did not mean negative attrition on attacking the sector).

So it's:
1 base attrition
* (1+X% chance to double) (max of X is 100% for x2)
* (1-Y% chance to zero) (max of Y is now 66% but used to be 100%)

Appreciate that, Xivarmy! I focused on the wrong part of the blurb for the trap. 45% chance to DOUBLE attrition per trap.

1*(1+1)*(1-.66)= 0.68 or 68% chance to increase attrition per hit.

My point, however, was that with the SCs being reduced the traps need to be reduced, otherwise the traps gain power - and sure enough they ensure attrition almost every hit regardless of how many SCs are deployed.

 

[Emm55]

I'm unsure how I feel about this specific change. However, I'm VERY grateful that Inno is trying something to fix GBG!! I vote yes for now!

 

[jovada]

These are all complete contradictions.
Firstly, the GBG is a team game, a lone wolf has nothing to gain here, and secondly, the complaints of the smaller ones relate to the competitive situation, but how do they solve the 232 demoralization to stay competitive? And I'm still only talking about 1 sector.

Woaw speaking of contradictions ,
First you assume that big guilds will let the smaller reach the middle cause only there you have 3 slots to reach your 232, second you assume that not one sector surrounding has slots to put a camp in to reduce the effect of the traps, and third you assume that the smaller guild is stupid enough to really want that inner sector haha.

 

[Demeter7]

the primary consideration in increasing attack power is to reduce losses and require fewer unit exchanges.
The difference between 200 and 1200 is very big, but what about 1200 and 1250? With 80 or 100 atr nothing appreciable changes, but how many events do you have to go through for +50%?

The new building in the upcoming event gives up to 22% attack, depending upon your age. The Windmill in the last event gave up to 25% attack, and then add on the extras and you could get +4 or +5 additional for each. But you do know that there are many other sources of A/D boosts in addition to event buildings? Sentinel Outpost level 2 gives you 4% in a 1x1. There are many other buildings that you can get from GE, GBG and Antique Dealer, as well as buildings from events that are not the main event building, that provide boosts. The Settlement buildings are great. You can also use one-time boosts from the Tavern and those in your Inventory. Zeus, CoA, CdM and TA can be leveled up to provide a healthy amount of boost. And you are not mentioning AO and Kraken. Those are not A/D but they help your fighting power. And of course Alcatraz can be leveled high to provide a constant source of units.

 

[speciousLogic]

This is not a rebalance. We spend months and years building militarily powerful cities to reap rewards in GBg -- and now you think that hamstringing us is somehow correct? That removing the ability to reap the rewards we've worked hard for is the right thing? Yes, some Bg tiles end up being "free", and so what? Weak players can fight on those free tiles just as strong ones can.

This is not a rebalance. It is pandering to weak players complaining that they aren't getting all the goodies that stronger players get. By making this change, you remove an incentive to spend time in the game building a stronger city -- why bother when a weak city works fine? Do you really want players spending LESS time in the game?

This is not a rebalance: It is a push for players to click Heal All on 2-wave battles, wasting diamonds and sometimes spending real money.

 

[Beta Eta]

I voted yes: FoE was a build-a-city-game most of its time, and 2.5 years ago, it became more and more a click-to-win-game. I changed my city to this and placed a lot of 3x3 attack buildings (Winners Plaza, Botanical Rotunda, etc.) because earning extra FP in GBG was more important than the harvest from the city itself.
Why not change back again to the original goal? Life is about adaption to new circumstances, and this in not even life itself, it's only a game. No need for me to get upset.

 

[Demeter7]

This is not a rebalance. We spend months and years building militarily powerful cities to reap rewards in GBg -- and now you think that hamstringing us is somehow correct? That removing the ability to reap the rewards we've worked hard for is the right thing? Yes, some Bg tiles end up being "free", and so what? Weak players can fight on those free tiles just as strong ones can.

This is not a rebalance. It is pandering to weak players complaining that they aren't getting all the goodies that stronger players get. By making this change, you remove an incentive to spend time in the game building a stronger city -- why bother when a weak city works fine? Do you really want players spending LESS time in the game?

This is not a rebalance: It is a push for players to click Heal All on 2-wave battles, wasting diamonds and sometimes spending real money.

How do you think that this change is pandering to weak cities? It takes a stronger city to fight when attrition is higher. Have you actually read the description of the change?

 

[speciousLogic]

I voted yes: FoE was a build-a-city-game most of its time, and 2.5 years ago, it became more and more a click-to-win-game. I changed my city to this and placed a lot of 3x3 attack buildings (Winners Plaza, Botanical Rotunda, etc.) because earning extra FP in GBG was more important than the harvest from the city itself.
Why not change back again to the original goal? Life is about adaption to new circumstances, and this in not even life itself, it's only a game. No need for me to get upset.

Why not change back? Why not just leave it alone? Changing "back" will force very large changes for nearly all players -- for what? Every time something is "rebalanced", it is a deviation from original design. This shows that original design -- or anyone's interpretation of design *intent* -- is subject to revision.