Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[jovada]

Then it's just a coincidence that the punishment % of the camps is the same, not 26% or 31% or anything else, exactly the same

What would you have said if innogames implemented one of the other options like only 1 slot everywhere on the map fair for everyone, not some guilds only 1 slot and 3 nothing around the HQ and some others have a total of 5 slots around the HQ, everything equal , strong guilds will control map because they are better and not only swap with other guild only for the rewards.

 

[PackCat]

They plan to slash the max fights per day to ~250 fights per person in hopes that most the the fighters in the top and second guild get angry and leave the game thus making it much better for the people at the bottom that are whining about getting equal rewards for doing nothing...

Depopulation!

 

[Ted the huge]

It's amazing ! As of Wednesday June 29, we have 20 new members on the forum that we have never seen before.
They say that small guilds will have difficulty with the new rules, but for 2 1/2 years none of them cared about the difficulties of small guilds.
We will have to drastically reduce the personal rewards of the players and replace them with rewards for the guild.
Those who are not happy could go elsewhere and start another game when they are very young.

There are only 20 new members on the forum? What are you complaining about? I figured about one person from each of the top 20 guilds in each world would come voice there opinion on this major new rule change. I joined the forum because I really like battlegrounda the way it is. I don't want a major change that is being advertised as a way to decrease activity of individuals. I welcome change as an alternating round like we do with the two maps now. They aren't even sugar coating the rule change. They haven't even tried to put a positive spin on it. They are saying that want everyone to have more attrition and less fights.

 

[xivarmy]

There are only 20 new members on the forum? What are you complaining about? I figured about one person from each of the top 20 guilds in each world would come voice there opinion on this major new rule change. I joined the forum because I really like battlegrounda the way it is. I don't want a major change that is being advertised as a way to decrease activity of individuals. I welcome change as an alternating round like we do with the two maps now. They aren't even sugar coating the rule change. They haven't even tried to put a positive spin on it. They are saying that want everyone to have more attrition and less fights.

Well I mean sugarcoating it would only increase the outrage. Not only would you have people unhappy with the change up in arms, you'd have people pissed off that they're spinning lies. They've made that mistake many times before. Noone falls for it.

If they're going to nerf things, they should call it that. And they have this time.

 

[PackCat]

DEADP00L said:
Where were you when we discussed this?
It took Inno to decide for us to see you coming to complain.

Probably in the hospital from a Myocardial infarction or being mauled by a dog twice. I've only been active again for the last month or so. And not so much in the forums.
Other than that, I do not remember getting the memo asking for my opinion on nerfing GBG. I only learned of the limitation of Quests 2 weeks ago. Didn't know it was a thing.

 

[Emberguard]

You cannot control what you cannot control. The #1 Guild in Beta is only great because of the "C" word which I am not allowed to say here.
If INNO tackled that other problem, GBG re-calibration would not be needed.

I was referring to what I see outside of Beta.

As for being the best, it should not change. Do as any other Guild would do in that situation and take 2 weeks off.
You are not going to get a situation where a weak Guild is going to get magically better, no matter who they play against.
Quit expecting a level playing field, it is not supposed to happen, or you will lose all of the good Guilds.

So.... if a level playing field isn't supposed to happen.... what was your suggestion trying to achieve?

Outside of scrubbing this entire chaos of an idea, INNO needs to immediately:
1. Match Guilds of equal competition.

 

[HunZ95]

So if you want to cancel this current test, argue by talking about what you are going through, don't worry about others and try to propose a solution that will seem fairer to everyone.

There is no solution that will please everyone.
They can even introduce the change, but they could create it afterwards a game mode for guilds that also uses the guild community and not just the 10 minutes per day GBG and 10 minutes GVG (which by default excludes mobile users) .
Because the current changes will only destroy the communities, and there will be no difference whether you are in a top guild or a smaller one, since there will be no + content.
But in the end, we would get here with the new mode, right?
After a while, we expect the small guilds to get everything in the new mode as well, regardless of the fact that they put much less energy into it.

 

[PackCat]

Well I mean sugarcoating it would only increase the outrage. Not only would you have people unhappy with the change up in arms, you'd have people pissed off that they're spinning lies. They've made that mistake many times before. Noone falls for it.

If they're going to nerf things, they should call it that. And they have this time.

Well indeed they did sugar coat it. They did not give a valid reason for this sudden change out of nowhere that just had to be done without warning or time to gear up for it. They gave a lame excuse such as "save the poor children".

Server limitations, Greed, or Virtual Signaling ??? It has to be one of these.

Most people found out the day before the new season started.
Why not a forum discussion pre-op to find out how people thought about the change.
But then they would have needed to disclose the idea behind the reason for the suggested change.
Meanwhile, 3 years later, cheaters are still cheating, bugs are not being addressed, but INNO has an extremely urgent priority plan to wreck everyone.
This is why most people are upset. Rhymes with "hissed".

 

[DEADP00L]

There is no solution that will please everyone.

I totally agree with you.
But saying as an argument that you don't like this solution because you don't find it balanced or that it only prevents you from doing fights instead of reading the truth penalizes you even more.

If I were in Inno's place, the majority who are against saying that they just want more fights, I will do it again as before but I will make sure that above 300 daily individual fights, there is no no more rewards. This would go in the direction of what the majority demands. What do you say ?

I remain convinced that it is better to calmly explain your frustration without lying or hiding behind another reason.

 

[DEADP00L]

Meanwhile, 3 years later, cheaters are still cheating

Less with this update!

bugs are not being addressed

It's not the same teams that deal with bugs and install new features.


You criticize those who have been active on this forum for a long time while those are the same ones who proposed solutions.
In my country we say: "It's not when you've pooped in the sheets that it's time to squeeze your buttocks."

Propose solutions, let's discuss between us where we all have different visions, encourage your guild members to come and "like" your suggestions. It seems to me that only the number of "likes" on a message is examined by Innogames.

But take into account that a suggestion that only favors one type of guild will never be unanimous. You have to think globally to have a large majority.

 

[jovada]

Well indeed they did sugar coat it. They did not give a valid reason for this sudden change out of nowhere that just had to be done without warning or time to gear up for it. They gave a lame excuse such as "save the poor children"

Out of nowhere ????? I know that the discussion for a more fair , not only for the greedy whales started here more then two years ago, I never saw any reaction at that moment leave it be. where were all these negatifs at that moment.

 

[LastWarrior]

I see the vote to get rid is now 70% for no change, please listen this time

 

[1BFA]

Well the whole point of attrition was to limit endless fighting. Thanks to this change there won't be endless attrition free fighting. Inno please nerf traps and fort as well.

 

[HunZ95]

I totally agree with you.
But saying as an argument that you don't like this solution because you don't find it balanced or that it only prevents you from doing fights instead of reading the truth penalizes you even more.

If I were in Inno's place, the majority who are against saying that they just want more fights, I will do it again as before but I will make sure that above 300 daily individual fights, there is no no more rewards. This would go in the direction of what the majority demands. What do you say ?

I remain convinced that it is better to calmly explain your frustration without lying or hiding behind another reason.

And is that fair? Let's say a player has been building his city for years, the % of attackers is in the thousands, but whoever raised the 3 attacker GB buildings to level 10, already gets into a guild where he can carry out 300 battles.
The main problem with reducing the current camps is that it does not keep the proportions, the difference between 50 and 140 attrition would be 138 battles. And why should a player of a few months be almost as competitive as someone who has been playing for years?
And please don't look at the active players as stupid, they won't participate in the GBG for nothing, then after 300 battles, give the guild something to use, or something that can be used instead of fp. Or would you also regret it from active players?

 

[jovada]

I see the vote to get rid is now 70% for no change, please listen this time

Please listen this time ??.????

That the greedy players come and vote massive no that's not a wonder.

Two years ago i created also a poll for more gameplay and not only greed , guess what it was also rejected by the greedy onces.

And again please listen this time ??? That is what innogames did now finaly after two years for a majority of players that like a fair game , and i say majority because in all the discussions we had during this two years , most of you negatives where not there. You only appeared when they cut your endless free fights and rewards with no attrition to a normal acceptable fights with attrition

 

[DEADP00L]

HunZ95: Again, argue!

Just for whom? There were more players harmed as spectators than players who could benefit.
About ten of us have been talking about the problem for two months. You never came to explain your point of view to us.
In two years, the big guilds have never cared about those who did not want to find themselves so high to be blocked for 2 weeks.

A year and a half ago, the big guilds were complaining about always being among themselves, Inno listened to them and modified them, but that created a very big imbalance.

I'm not sure that by putting the camps back as before BUT by putting the 8 strongest guilds together on the same CBG you will have as many fights.
You don't have the honesty to say you enjoy grinding guilds that should stay platinum or even gold.

I will be the first to vote for your suggestions if you care more about everyone and keep it fair.

Since I read that many will quit, I can only rejoice.
Not that I will do more, but that we don't need so many selfish people on a community game. And good luck finding another game where there's no need to pay to simply play without being systematically crushed by the strongest.

 

[jovada]

The main problem with reducing the current camps is that it does not keep the proportions, the difference between 50 and 140 attrition would be 138 battles. And why should a player of a few months be almost as competitive as someone who has been playing for years?

I don't know how long you play in your world , but your argument is riduculous.
you can as well say why can players catch up with someone playing for years, during years we had to deal with very little fp , GG max level 10, we had to go first progressive and then return to indus map to defeat the second row, it took you a long time to reach even 100% att. Now they can catch up in a couple of months, so don't come with the argument they are not allowed to play in GbG to and be competitive

 

[Harold Nat]

Could someone clarify something about the new GBG mechanics? If I have 6 SCs against 1 trap, will I have 66.6% (capped) from the SCs - 45% from the trap = 21.6%? Or 80.73% from the SCs (not capped) - 45% from the trap = 35.73%?

 

[HunZ95]

Please listen this time ??.????

That the greedy players come and vote massive no that's not a wonder.

Two years ago i created also a poll for more gameplay and not only greed , guess what it was also rejected by the greedy onces.

And again please listen this time ??? That is what innogames did now finaly after two years for a majority of players that like a fair game , and i say majority because in all the discussions we had during this two years , most of you negatives where not there. You only appeared when they cut your endless free fights and rewards with no attrition to a normal acceptable fights with attrition

These indicators make no sense. Then one camp is greed, the other is envy. Here, the reduction of the amount of the reward is still not the main concern of those who voted no, but you do not want to see this, and you are trying to influence everyone by calling it greed. You simply cannot give an answer to what the top guilds spend their time if GBG does not give you the opportunity to play more, because everyone reaches their maximum much sooner. You continue to support only one side, the weaker guilds, so that they have opportunities at all points of the day, but you do not take what you take from the active players and the top guilds.

 

[NandodeMC]

Could someone clarify something about the new GBG mechanics? If I have 6 SCs against 1 trap, will I have 66.6% (capped) from the SCs - 45% from the trap = 21.6%? Or 80.73% from the SCs (not capped) - 45% from the trap = 35.73%?

Traps work same as before. In your example, you have 33.4% of being hit by attrition, and in case you get attrition, there's a 45% chance of getting 2 attrition instead. In short:

66.6% of getting 0 attrition
18.37% of getting 1 attrition
15.03% of getting 2 attrition