Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[xivarmy]

Simple solution. Cap number of VP to 500 a day per player. (max ~6K VP per season)
If 1 player takes 3.125 sectors for a single rotation, they are is finished for the day, and everyone else can still fight. You can reasonably have up to 5-12 swap sectors at 4-5 rotations in a day, (~10K points) so there plenty of points to share around. The end result is the same as attrition, but you don't feel like your wallet got jacked, your armies depleted as well as your goods and treasury. It might be helpful to encourage unblocked sectors immediate from HQ.

The difference is attrition encourages you to get stronger - you could do more, if only your stats were better.

A fight cap with free attrition can be exploited fully at ludicrously low development. Join the right guild, show up as soon as locks break, do your daily clicks against low-boosted armies with say 200% boost and a middling traz.

Attrition was created for a reason. I expect they hoped that the cost of siege camps or the clash of egos would prevent what GBG has devolved into. It didn't - the profit incentive was too high. But they never wanted it to be a fight-all-day activity (individually) - originally 100 attrition was the cap and quite plausible to develop yourself to beat - but a couple seasons in they jacked it to 150 that short of a few mechanically winnable fights is not reasonable to expect to beat. I wasn't too happy about that change at the time, but I do understand the reason for it better now.

As for the attrition-free fights, it probably should've been fixed sooner, before quite so many players were used to it. But they were scared. For them to change it now, some of their internal numbers must be showing serious issues. You can't both say they "never listen" and say it's the fault of people complaining that a change you dislike is now coming about.

So perhaps a better focus given that "attrition matters" is a core principle they want to restore, is what do you want instead of free fights?

Example:
Transfer some of the lost rewards to the end-of-round prizes.

One thought: A lumpsum FP reward to each member based on placement, with a sufficient gradient to reward those who continue to win in higher leagues. Say diamond could offer:
1st - 3000 FP each
2nd - 2000 FP each
3rd - 1500 FP each
4th - 1250 FP each
5th to 8th - 1000 FP each (fighting to avoid relegation to a league with worse prizes)

then platinum could offer a similar distribution with a smaller range - 1000 FP for 1st down to 300 FP for lower places. gold could offer 300 for 1st down to 100 for lower places.

This would shift some of the focus to caring more about winning than farming.

 

[DEADP00L]

or a gain in FP proportional to the sum of the attritions obtained during a whole GbG.
Thus, a player doing 50 attrition each day would earn more than one who does 20 attrition, regardless of their number of fights with camps.

 

[HunZ95]

Is it an habit of you to always misquote answers and turn them the other way?????

I never condemmed a player because he plays only one world if a player has only time and will only make the effort for one world that is his good right,
Second if that player creates other worlds to exploit his main world , that is another thing , that makes a big difference with the player that plays only one world right ???
And again i don't condemme a player who plays only one world , i condemme the fact that you say that other players are weak and not active because they don't play the whale in one world.

You're also misreading it. I'm still not criticizing the players, but the guilds because they're not organized. And in order to generate a minimum number of battles, they do not need to sit in front of a computer all day.
And I still find it ridiculous that you think the best solution is for these small guilds to be able to compete equally with the best organized top guilds in the same map.
I would still see more sense if the top guilds were locked into 1 league, then the reward reduction you so much expected would also occur, and there would be no talk of greed, the small guilds could occupy the sectors in the lowe leagues for days, because no one would bother them.
It would generate at least a small challenge for the top guilds, which would also require activity because otherwise they would be pushed off the map.

 

[DEADP00L]

Stop attacking the writings (wrongly or well interpreted), argue intelligently to make Inno understand that you are right.
Thanks.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

Simple solution. Cap number of VP to 500 a day per player. (max ~6K VP per season)
If 1 player takes 3.125 sectors for a single rotation, they are is finished for the day, and everyone else can still fight. You can reasonably have up to 5-12 swap sectors at 4-5 rotations in a day, (~10K points) so there are plenty of points to share around. The end result is the same as attrition, but you don't feel like your wallet got jacked, your armies depleted as well as your goods and treasury. It might be helpful to encourage unblocked sectors immediate from HQ.

If there is a limited number of fights, top 50 will remain as it is, without chaning the positions of the players and that means also, that there will be not conpetition and the game loose sense

 

[jovada]

And I still find it ridiculous that you think the best solution is for these small guilds to be able to compete equally with the best organized top guilds in the same map.

You see ? another misquote, i never said that small guilds must equally compete with the big guilds , i always said big guilds will still rule and that is their merite of good organition or have many good fighters to dominate , but only that smaller guilds will have a little more opportunity to have also some fun, and that is a thing that only the future will show us , but at least it is a try to involve more fun for everyone.

 

[Owl II]

How boring it is with you... You don't see anything but the FP. And who is greedy in the end? who plays this game the way it is implemented, or who sees only the FP? The timer hasn't gone anywhere. No one canceled the lock for 4 hours. If you don't see it in the first season after the changes, then you will definitely see in a couple of months. The mechanics have not changed. The guilds will find a way to hang this lock if it has to hang there.

 

[jovada]

The mechanics have not changed

So if the mechanics did'nt change why are you always yelling and negative


How boring it is with you...... hahaha me defending the changes and wanting more fun for everyone is boring ???? You always coming with negative comments is not boring then ????

I suggest you look a little bit more at yourself , an owl should be wise i read in many faerietales

 

[HunZ95]

You see ? another misquote, i never said that small guilds must equally compete with the big guilds , i always said big guilds will still rule and that is their merite of good organition or have many good fighters to dominate , but only that smaller guilds will have a little more opportunity to have also some fun, and that is a thing that only the future will show us , but at least it is a try to involve more fun for everyone.

But why should they have fun on the map of the top guilds? Wouldn't it be better to classify everyone in a league according to their own strengths?

 

[DEADP00L]

But why should they have fun on the map of the top guilds? Wouldn't it be better to classify everyone in a league according to their own strengths?

This is what 90% of guilds want.
But are you ready to stay against the same GbG guilds after GbG?
In short, as before when the big guilds complained that it was boring to always have the same opponents.

 

[xivarmy]

But why should they have fun on the map of the top guilds? Wouldn't it be better to classify everyone in a league according to their own strengths?

To some degree that may be an unsolvable problem. If you for instance adjust rating formulas to have a shrunk diamond, the current weak guilds would no longer show up there, which is good. But that would ultimately just lead to a redefinition of what constitutes a weak diamond guild. Your 3rds and 4ths that show fealty to the 1sts and 2nds would now be 5ths through 8ths that 1sts and 2nds don't care about. Unhappy with their new lot in life they now become more guilds trying to avoid diamond.

Hence to some extent even the losers of a diamond group need to feel it's better that they're there than throwing rounds in a division below. So it is important that whoever those "weak" guilds are that they get to either have some degree of fun, or enough rewards just for being there that it's not worth avoiding.

(Which isn't to say I think the current ranking system is fine - i don't; just that I'm willing to give them a pass on "maybe there's not that much better they can do")

 

[jovada]

But why should they have fun on the map of the top guilds? Wouldn't it be better to classify everyone in a league according to their own strengths?

That has been said many times before also , but imagine 8 topguildes together, how will they divide the map , that is also cutting your fights in half and more troubles in guild because half of them are not able to fight when they come to have a look , just like the smaller guilds have the same problem now when they come and have a look.

 

[Owl II]

Hence to some extent even the losers of a diamond group need to feel it's better that they're there than throwing rounds in a division below. So it is important that whoever those "weak" guilds are that they get to either have some degree of fun, or enough rewards just for being there that it's not worth avoiding.

Right. I wrote 2 years ago that guilds need a reason to strive for the "club of the best". After 2 years, they flooded the "club of the best" with sludge and cut the SC

 

[HunZ95]

This is what 90% of guilds want.
But are you ready to stay against the same GbG guilds after GbG?
In short, as before when the big guilds complained that it was boring to always have the same opponents.

2 top guild groups would be created, so there would be minimal rotation in the groups. By the way, the "opponents" are almost always the same now, there are top guilds that we haven't met in a long time.

 

[Macha]

i would love to see the big guilds together season after season, i wonder how many SCs they'd be building when they werent keeping hold of the sector long enough to use them, just like whats happening to the lower guilds now, they are being criticised for not building SCs but whats the point when they aren't getting much benefit from them

 

[jovada]

Right. I wrote 2 years ago that guilds need a reason to strive for the "club of the best"

yes 2 years ago i wrote also that there should be only 1 slot in each sector to make an equal competition and a reason to strive to be one of the best.

After 2 years, they flooded the "club of the best" with sludge and cut the SC

So being one of the best can only be achieved with SC ??

 

[Owl II]

i would love to see the big guilds together season after season, i wonder how many SCs they'd be building when they werent keeping hold of the sector long enough to use them, just like whats happening to the lower guilds now, they are being criticised for not building SCs but whats the point when they aren't getting much benefit from them

Everyone would like that. Alas, small guilds have no incentive and reason to develop. But they can easily dilute groups and serve as placeholders in groups

 

[HunZ95]

That has been said many times before also , but imagine 8 topguildes together, how will they divide the map , that is also cutting your fights in half and more troubles in guild because half of them are not able to fight when they come to have a look , just like the smaller guilds have the same problem now when they come and have a look.

it is also possible to find the ideal number of guilds, which is neither too many or too few.
I don't understand the other part to your post, in the top guild there is organization and communication between the members, so such problems do not arise.

 

[DEADP00L]

Another solution would be to limit to 40 members per guild.
Thus the groupings that have allowed certain guilds to crush everything in their path would be completely called into question.
And none of the current weak or medium guilds would advance to the Diamond league.

Another solution would be to restrict access to certain leagues according to the number of members.

I'm not saying that these solutions are good, but you can't have butter and butter's money. How far are you willing to make concessions?

 

[Ted the huge]

why so complicated ?

just change the current trap from multipy with 2 to add 1 attrition

because actually the trap is already the opposite of the camp
one should increase where the other decrease

unfortunately it was designed poorly:
instead of neutralizing each other one (SC) always beats the other

The important thing is a new building could be a solution. Yes adding one instead of doubling would make traps more effective.
The reason for the more complicated power sceme was to address the issue of guilds locking people into their base. It should be harder to lock somebody in IMHO.