Yekk
Regent
It is actually Improvise, adapt, overcome.
-
Dear forum reader,
To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can REGISTER HERE!
Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance
- Thread starter Juber
- Start date
Yekk
Regent
The small players lose the most with this change. You do realize they will never move up now? This change is as great as if the Arc were to be removed from the game. Many hated how the Arc made it easy to level GB's once at 80. They were as wrong as you are here... AGAIN this change does not help the weaker guilds. NinjAlin map shows that. Nor is your 2 guild point valid. How GBG is played now basically allows for any guild that can build some access to the map. GBG evolved while you did not...
1) Smaller Players can catch up far enough easy enough without free attrition. On the new world 9 months in with no real diamond expenses and almost no free GBG fights (maybe 2 or 3 provinces since it started) i've got the arc 80 up, a steady FP income, over 500 boost so far. From the second week my average income was already in the hundreds - there are so many sources of income now between Arena, Settlements, exceedingly generous events. Within a year a new city *without* GBG, can absolutely be into the luxury levels of GBs. Which is ridiculously fast compared to what things used to be.
2) The map ninjalin showed shows that they mostly have stable space - that there's something *not worth taking* for the bigger guilds that now need to deal with attrition - which is progress over a lot of maps I've seen (on both sides of the 1000-diamond equation).
3) Whatever the impacts are going to be it's going to take more than 1 season to see. Whether different guilds promote to diamond, whether guilds need to learn whether the new limitations afford them new opportunities, whether the strategies of top guilds will adjust in different ways that may afford more or less opportunity to other guilds.
Cat TB
Farmer
Most GBG leaders - those setting up farming and doing swaps - get burned outno one is forcing you to play in the GBG map every single day or every 4 hour.
Yekk
Regent
1.. You are not a new player, you used your great knowledge AND the network of "whales" every world has now to get where you are. You are not the norm and those whales will go elsewhere soon...
2.. That map has less small guild activity than my live world did this last league. Last place guild there held 5 tiles in that one with every guild having tiles to hit at every unlock. AGAIN...the "2 guilds owns all" statement being used is outdated
3... We can see the impacts now
1) And new players relying on free fights aren't relying on a network of whales to set them up with the basic infrastructure to even be allowed into the guilds where the farming happens? You have to pay a lot more for goods sets on a new world than an established one where you likely might even be given the goods for free.
2) Every world has different political dynamics. I have *never* seen an "every guild's happy" coop group. I've seen it attempted - but it usually winds up with the top guild complaining that little guilds are too demanding, and little guilds complaining that the top guild is a bully. 4-5 guilds with the remaining guilds completely HQed is the closest I've seen to a huge coop group - and how did those HQed guilds feel about the arrangement? Can't imagine it was positive (i was in one of the 5 for the round). It was also *boring as hell* - the closest thing to interesting being tales of "what an idiot this person is" or whatnot.
3) You can see initial reactions. There will be adaptations. The total effect of the changes won't be known for some time.
Yekk
Regent
On 2 the reality is leaders get tired and it is easier to get along than to do a 24/7 map. There are rules but they benifit all. Yes not everyone is happy but with this change no one is happy except a very limited group who actually hurt their own guilds
on 1 and 3 I stay with what I said
on 1 and 3 I stay with what I said
Zuckerberg the Horrid
Squire
someone micromanaging what their guildmates can and can't do rather than providing all their guildmates with some basic strategy training and rules to help them determine what's good to call for attack and providing tools for people to collaborate, is getting burnt out?
sounds like they asked for it themselves.
Owl II
Emperor
You have one size fits again, funny people. How to rise in the ranking from 200 or 100 positions to the top? I did it. I was somewhere on the10 or 15 (maybe lower or higher?) page two years ago . The ranking ceased to interest me the moment I found out what it consists of and how players do it. Now I'm top 7 for a long time. Above me, the old-timers are mainly those who are engaged in the oldest type of farming, farming champs on GvG. Below me there are those whom you describe here. They have as many fights as I do. But 400-500 kk fewer ranking points. Funny, isn't it? Where is the difference? The difference is in tons and tons of goods. These are negotiations at the limit of attrition, when it is necessary to remove the opponent's province before the reset. This is hundreds thousands per season (I'm not exaggerating) of goods from the lower ages , where young players have not yet had time to rebuild guild GB. Oh, wait! This is almost 8 thousand Jupiter goods to the treasury daily at the collection from the city. Only at the gathering from city. The equivalent of 100 GBG fights. I can imagine what a pain this is for some. But does anyone want to repeat it? I don't see a show of hands...
Last edited:
Owl II
Emperor
It's not that simple. Everyone has basic skills and rules. But there are not many willing to take responsibility. This is a game, not a job. It's lucky if there are several leaders in the guild who can replace each other.
PackCat
Squire
Reposted to take out the Trigger words...
cheaters unfair players, or just placating Guilds who are crying the loudest and want the game to be fair in their eyes only.
Players & Guilds who are weak, will continue to be weak. This is not balancing whatsoever, it is re-calibration for participation trophies.
We can forgive the truth, as painful as it may be. Understood by the public as being deception can have an impact on a company's reputation to its customers. When all else fails, try humble honesty.
INNO is punishing players who have studied the game and are using their skills to their advantage. It will not improve the ability of Guilds that do not participate, do not use their Treasuries effectively, or Build SC to lower attrition. It does not change their potential. To blame strong Guilds for the weaker Guilds' inefficiency is completely unfair to everyone. Without strong Guilds, the weaker ones would have to use their own resources to build camps, or fight with no camps, and then this change will have defeated itself and only punish the Good players and Guilds, and still not address the unfair players which is really the scourge of FOE.
Yes, I think they do need to be better responsive to we their stakeholders. We who participate and pay our REAL money to keep the game going. Especially in beta. where we have volunteered our time and services to help them test and evaluate new features. We the beta testing environment have spoken. We think their new idea is really really bad and attacks the wrong groups of players!!!
FOE latest change to GBG (beta) is like taking the fastest runners in an Olympic marathon and breaking their legs, so people in wheelchairs can compete. We have a special Olympics for those who cannot compete at the highest level, and INNO should find a way to support weak Guilds that doesn't require disabling Guilds that CAN compete.
Today's conspiracy theory is tomorrow's conspiracy fact!
That doesn't make much sense without context and a detailed explanation? Who is the "we"? Is it salaried employees in Germany? I think member subscribers have a financial interest in knowing whether this change is compelled by a technical server/bandwidth issue, revenue interest, inability to circumvent
Players & Guilds who are weak, will continue to be weak. This is not balancing whatsoever, it is re-calibration for participation trophies.
We can forgive the truth, as painful as it may be. Understood by the public as being deception can have an impact on a company's reputation to its customers. When all else fails, try humble honesty.
INNO is punishing players who have studied the game and are using their skills to their advantage. It will not improve the ability of Guilds that do not participate, do not use their Treasuries effectively, or Build SC to lower attrition. It does not change their potential. To blame strong Guilds for the weaker Guilds' inefficiency is completely unfair to everyone. Without strong Guilds, the weaker ones would have to use their own resources to build camps, or fight with no camps, and then this change will have defeated itself and only punish the Good players and Guilds, and still not address the unfair players which is really the scourge of FOE.
Yes, I think they do need to be better responsive to we their stakeholders. We who participate and pay our REAL money to keep the game going. Especially in beta. where we have volunteered our time and services to help them test and evaluate new features. We the beta testing environment have spoken. We think their new idea is really really bad and attacks the wrong groups of players!!!
FOE latest change to GBG (beta) is like taking the fastest runners in an Olympic marathon and breaking their legs, so people in wheelchairs can compete. We have a special Olympics for those who cannot compete at the highest level, and INNO should find a way to support weak Guilds that doesn't require disabling Guilds that CAN compete.
planetofthehumans2
Emperor
Have you dropped traps on those guilds, how sad is that map
-Alin-
Emperor
No traps, only camps and noone is deleting them, we let them for everyone and viceversa.
Publius Cornelius Scipio
Marquis
After 7 days I can just say, that GBG is boring and uninteressting. I`m at the fisrt place on the ranking of my guild, but I don`t find no longer sense to play it.
Knight Roland
Squire
what a stupid change. the voting is clear: two thirds of the player base dont want it
CrashBoom
Legend
two thirds of the player that have voted
many of them just signed up in the forum to vote no
but I doubt anybody signed up to vote yes
Knight Roland
Squire
maybe because the playerbase doesnt want this change?
i would think im done with FoE if it goes live
PackCat
Squire
You mean like Netflix and CNN+ ?
It would create a mass exodus and then all the weak Guilds could have the place to themselves.
If there was an analysis on the revenue stream, I bet it would show 90% of the diamond purchases come from the better Guild members.
It is not cheap to build fast camps and other buildings in GBG. It has been proven that more activity does not result in a even return on investment.
It also requires humongous Treasury goods and they come from hard work, not from thin air. I would rather they give cheap buildings to weaker Guilds, than deprive the others' ability to navigate the map and play according to their abilities. FOE could delete the lower half of its members and not have an impact on the game or revenue. Redefine groupings. Make being a diamond Guild mean something. When there are 7 Guilds in a season and 5 of them sit idle in their bases, (not blocked) they do not deserve to be in diamond. There should be a metric to determine a Guild's effort. If they do not participate, then they should not be in a group of other Guilds who do wish to participate. GBG should not be an automatic. Guilds should need to qualify to play GBG or at least be grouped with other Guilds with the same interest/abilities. Before INNO went with this test idea, they should have experimented by putting the strongest Guilds in matchups with their peers, and put weaker Guilds in a groups by themselves.
The #1 reason weaker Guilds are locked out of a competing map, is because they bring no value to the map. You let them have a few sectors, and they do not build camps, only get in the way, and complain when they are captured again in 4 hours. They have no understanding of renting sectors in 4-hour increments and think they should be able to just sit on them ALL DAY! Instead of limiting the ability of fighting Guilds, weaker Guild members need to understand GBG is like a Merry-go-round. You pay your ticket and ride for the length of the song. When the song is over, you must get off or buy another ticket.
The entire incentive of GBG is to capture and exchange sectors. Now, because a few Guilds have figured out a way to maximize this ability, they want to shut it down completely.
Our Guild strategy this season was to let weaker Guilds participate and hold sectors as long as they built camps and attack adjoining sectors.
If they do not build camps, they do not show interest of expanding, and the order has been given to recapture them as soon as possible. Use it or lose it.
I understand the concept to make the game fairer, (only to weak Guilds) but I think there are many other ways to balance that do not punish success.
Better Season matchups would help, limiting the number of Guilds to 5 in a contest would be better, better spreading of building slots, (especially closer to base) Giving 0 attrition on launching attacks from base. There are many ways to make the game more interesting, that doesn't single out one group of successful members, who are successful because they understand all facets of the game and how to balance their cities to make their fighting experiences better.
HunZ95
Squire
Approx. how long did it take to complete 300 battles?