Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[Yekk]

The fights individually still have the same value. And a large guild controlling the map has a lot of members to share fights that if they really shut everyone down they're missing out on quite a bit. 200-300 fights a day is still ~400 FP a day each that you won't get if you shut everyone down and they decide not to struggle.

Realities please...with limited fights available stuffing a guild works. Saves fighting for real foes. Swat the weak is still a viable strategy.. AGAIN nothing has changed except the strong guilds have less fights. Oh... and the weak ones too

 

[DEADP00L]

AGAIN nothing has changed...

So why so much protest?

To grumble when you haven't tested at least twice on each map (volcano and waterfalls) is a total lack of discernment.

Before saying that the modification is great or that it sucks, let's test and bring Inno some concrete arguments. This is how we will have a chance to move things in the direction we want.

 

[Markus2720]

Other games: We would like to achive that the players play so long as possible
InnoGames: We don't do this here

 

[CrashBoom]

Realities please...with limited fights available stuffing a guild works. Saves fighting for real foes. Swat the weak is still a viable strategy.. AGAIN nothing has changed except the strong guilds have less fights. Oh... and the weak ones too

that are good news
because if all get less fights than it is fair

if only the strong would get less fight then it would be an unfair change

 

[Pericles the Lion]

So why so much protest?

To grumble when you haven't tested at least twice on each map (volcano and waterfalls) is a total lack of discernment.

Before saying that the modification is great or that it sucks, let's test and bring Inno some concrete arguments. This is how we will have a chance to move things in the direction we want.

I agree 100%. On a separate note, I've noticed that many of the contributors to this thread who provide highly critical feedback have been participating in GBG at very low levels. They don't have a solid basis for comparison even if they do bother to give the new GBG a proper trial. Full disclosure, I do not do GBG on Beta, only on live.

 

[Yekk]

that are good news
because if all get less fights than it is fair

if only the strong would get less fight then it would be an unfair change

the poll is overwhelmingly against the change... "starving" everyone is never fair.

 

[CrashBoom]

the poll is overwhelmingly against the change

would it still be that way if we remove all votes of people who signed up in the forum after the change was introduced ?

 

[jovada]

The poll could be also

A: do you want a more fair game for everyone
B: do you still want a lot of free fights and rewards for players who can fight all day long with minimum of attrition

I guess the outcome of the poll would be the same as now

 

[-Sushi-]

I think Inno makes an assumption that unfortunately doesn´t hold, that is, that there is a true incentive to win the GBG beside ego. The incentive for active players in majority are the personal rewards to achieve , not to win GbG. Limiting the possible number of fights per day will limit the personal benefits and thus the overall incentive to play GbG. Inno would have to place a new and appealing incentive to win a GBG.

 

[CrashBoom]

Limiting the possible number of fights per day will limit the personal benefits

like they limited the number of quests per day

Other games: We would like to achive that the players play so long as possible
InnoGames: We don't do this here

again
like the quests limit

people who did quests all day long suddenly couldn't do that anymore

 

[HunZ95]

that are good news
because if all get less fights than it is fair

if only the strong would get less fight then it would be an unfair change

And then why do you support the change? Why is it a problem if someone can fight a lot? So far, the arguments have been that the change is happening so that others will fight more. But according to them, everyone will hit less. You contradict yourself with each post, and it's clear that you're only demanding change out of envy, because someone who has more free time makes more progress than someone who jumps into the game only once a day.
But why do you want to dictate other people's playing time?
Except for the guild game modes, all content is available 24 hours a day, why do you regret this from active players.
In all existing online games, the time invested in the games is an advantage, you can watch any of them, you will not find many exceptions.

 

[Amdira]

I agree 100%. On a separate note, I've noticed that many of the contributors to this thread who provide highly critical feedback have been participating in GBG at very low levels. They don't have a solid basis for comparison even if they do bother to give the new GBG a proper trial. Full disclosure, I do not do GBG on Beta, only on live.

How will you know this? There is more than the current position of some players. I've been playing in top guilds on beta when gbg came out and I left when farming took overhand. Same for my mainin world on live. Just because I'm now in a one-woman-guild, doesn't mean I don't nothing bout gbg in high level guilds. . I'm just tired of some bs going on there - I started a new world, where I'm in PE now and I can clearly see me struggling with those changes there, too. (I tried my attrition on a sector with only 3 camps - 72%) and I can exactly tell what impact a 66% cap will have on players in a building up phase. It won't just be worth anymore to enter GbG for them at all. No, I don't want and need attrition free fights all the time, but I also don't want and can't afford 66& attrition all the time.
I would happily agree to a fight cap or just extending swap time to 6 or 8 hours, but the current solution is just punishing the wrong ones.

 

[Beta King]

A colleague from my guild came to the conclusion that these changes make the boots irrelevant, it doesn't solve the problem of the boots, but it makes things much fairer for me (I didn't use them, now whoever uses them can't do more than me ). I had already voted yes, this one reinforced my opinion.

What is the "boots"? Do you mean scripts or something?

 

[Owl II]

Realities please...with limited fights available stuffing a guild works. Saves fighting for real foes. Swat the weak is still a viable strategy.. AGAIN nothing has changed except the strong guilds have less fights. Oh... and the weak ones too

Here are the realities:. 200 or 300 fights is great in every way. This is a decent reward with minimal effort. This is the dream of any player, including me. The problem is different. The problem is that it will be more difficult to organize these 200 fights than before. The mechanics are implemented in such a way that it is impossible to be "a little pregnant". Either yes or no. Either you control the map, or you will be thrown out in 6-8 hours maximum. If they want limit fights or limit rewards, it would be possible to achieve the same results without knocking the ground out from under the feet of the guilds. Normal guilds who have accepted this gameplay in full, and not just as an opportunity to steal a couple of FP from there. But these are the devs of Inno. This is the "heal all" button.

 

[CrashBoom]

And then why do you support the change? Why is it a problem if someone can fight a lot? So far, the arguments have been that the change is happening so that others will fight more. But according to them, everyone will hit less. You contradict yourself with each post, and it's clear that you're only demanding change out of envy, because someone who has more free time makes more progress than someone who jumps into the game only once a day.
But why do you want to dictate other people's playing time?
Except for the guild game modes, all content is available 24 hours a day, why do you regret this from active players.
In all existing online games, the time invested in the games is an advantage, you can watch any of them, you will not find many exceptions.

I can't remember seeing you when there was the protest against the quest limit

you are only here because this affects you

the last time you didn't care because it didn't affect you

 

[DEADP00L]

It's been 2 years that selfish guilds make fun of other guilds who suffer as a spectator without being able to leave the HQ and who could not do anything not to end up in a higher league.

I propose that we test this new principle of camps for 2 years as well and that if it does not please, we will put back the old system of camps.

For 2 years, guilds have been asking to play a little and your only answer is "you just have to adapt to what Inno offers you!".
So instead of using your wits to leave them at least one sector free, you get 2 years of complaints.

And stop believing that small guilds envy your winnings, they just want to play and not spend 2 weeks watching you.

Whether inno implemented this novelty to lighten the servers or to fight cheaters or to respond to 2 years of complaints, it is not our problem. We are asked to provide objective feedback. And the more you will cry without bringing real arguments by starting from bad starting assumptions, the more the justified counter-arguments will be heard by the designers.

 

[-Alin-]

Small players complaining that it will be death etc.
This is an evolution game, if it's hard, try to improve the city to make it a little easier, that's the challenge.
When i started playing Foe GB's didn't even exist, doing more than 50fp a day was unthinkable...
You don't know what's difficult, you want everything as easy as possible.

30 fps/day, to reach 50 fps you could do only after the half of 2013, end of 2014 when you could gather more coins and buy them, after you reached the last age which was Industrial
Hagia sophia was a thing also back then on level 10, maximum at that time.

 

[HunZ95]

It's been 2 years that selfish guilds make fun of other guilds who suffer as a spectator without being able to leave the HQ and who could not do anything not to end up in a higher league.

I propose that we test this new principle of camps for 2 years as well and that if it does not please, we will put back the old system of camps.

For 2 years, guilds have been asking to play a little and your only answer is "you just have to adapt to what Inno offers you!".
So instead of using your wits to leave them at least one sector free, you get 2 years of complaints.

And stop believing that small guilds envy your winnings, they just want to play and not spend 2 weeks watching you.

Whether inno implemented this novelty to lighten the servers or to fight cheaters or to respond to 2 years of complaints, it is not our problem. We are asked to provide objective feedback. And the more you will cry without bringing real arguments by starting from bad starting assumptions, the more the justified counter-arguments will be heard by the designers.

It's been 2 years that selfish guilds make fun of other guilds who suffer as a spectator without being able to leave the HQ and who could not do anything not to end up in a higher league.

I propose that we test this new principle of camps for 2 years as well and that if it does not please, we will put back the old system of camps.

For 2 years, guilds have been asking to play a little and your only answer is "you just have to adapt to what Inno offers you!".
So instead of using your wits to leave them at least one sector free, you get 2 years of complaints.

And stop believing that small guilds envy your winnings, they just want to play and not spend 2 weeks watching you.

Whether inno implemented this novelty to lighten the servers or to fight cheaters or to respond to 2 years of complaints, it is not our problem. We are asked to provide objective feedback. And the more you will cry without bringing real arguments by starting from bad starting assumptions, the more the justified counter-arguments will be heard by the designers.

Live server In the current GBG game, except for the 2 top guilds, every small guild has 1 sector with a camp. And what happened? out of the 5 small guilds, 1 guild took the opportunity, they already have 4 sectors, the others are sitting on that 1 sector, doing nothing, even though they would also have the opportunity to join, a minimum compromise would be required. to appear, and it is not even expected that they will come every 4 hours, because there is a sector change every part of the day.
Those who are so incapable, why would they want more opportunities?
So, on average, big guilds are not greedy, even though they are set up like that here. The big guilds also give the opportunity to others if they request it, of course they don't hand over half of the map, but I don't think this is expected of them either

 

[-Alin-]

Spoiler: Third day

People begin to show for fights, which is kinda nice, but units loss is a big issue.

 

[Yekk]

would it still be that way if we remove all votes of people who signed up in the forum after the change was introduced ?

Yes, the percentages would not change. On some servers Inno has the ability to make in game polls. Inno could test the changes there with such a poll. I have no doubts no matter where they test this nerf it would have a 2 to 1 against percentage.