Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[Pericles the Lion]

THIS!
This is what I had been saying. The He-Mans and She-Ras of the FoE world won't be affected as much as a player who is either starting out or trying to build up attacking power. Those who have level 80+ GBs and are seasoned players by doing events really don't care about the change as it won't affect them as much.

You must be joking. If this were the case, this thread wouldn't be at 1440+ posts.

 

[Beta King]

Tell me on which server and which world you play (and your name), I'll check what you call "young players".
Because I don't know of big GbG guilds with a lot of young players.


How much FP do you call "decent"?


On my FR world, I'm not part of the big guilds, we are only 18, a small family yet my GMs are not so ridiculous without the GbGs:

Who I am is irrelevant you can go troll someone else in the game. Take US3 #2 ranked guild Skull & Bones has 57 members and has 9 that are <10.5 million 3 of those have less than a level 10 arc and one of them doesn't even have an arc! US13 Wounded Warriors 3rd ranked guild has 31 players and 9 are <10 million that's well over 15%. US15 Rogue Machine 3rd ranked guild 29 players and 7 are <10.1 million. If you look you will find many strong guilds willing to take on young players and help them grow. A decent amount of FPs is how much you get depending on how much work and time you are willing to put into the game based on the precedent that has already been set for 2.5 years in GBG.

 

[Thunderdome]

You must be joking. If this were the case, this thread wouldn't be at 1440+ posts.

Am I now? Somehow I have a feeling that our feedback doesn't matter. If it's against Inno and its minions ideals then it is not heard. If it is for Inno's half baked plans and its minions' ideals, a round of applause is given. Right about now, Inno should get their keisters over here and provide us with some answers to the questions that were asked instead of dallying around with us.

Be fortunate that it has reached 73 pages thus far and over 1143 posts, but soon, it will be like everything else in this forum: cast off to the side in its stagnant state with no reply from Inno.

 

[Fenix]

I wrote this in my guild: "in the past, switching sectors between guilds was not only possible, but less than a dozen active players were enough to do it. Now, it's still possible, but it has to involve almost the entire the guild, almost all of its members must participate."

This is true. It's an abuse (and always has been) to be able to do infinite battles with infinite rewards, the brake should have been put right at the beginning, it wasn't and now players complain.

Better late than never, these changes are useful globally.

Of course inno had to overcompensate, just cap 66.6, no need to complicate things. KISS, remember.

 

[Zuckerberg the Horrid]

Of course inno had to overcompensate, just cap 66.6, no need to complicate things. KISS, remember.

on that note, if they had kept it additive rather than multiplicative, and even merged the attrition boost with the one for traps and decoys (so that 1 trap is countered by 2 siege camps to net a 1x multiplier on the attrition) I would have been much more for it - though in the current form I'm happy with them being separate obviously, with this change it makes much more sense to have them modify each other.

instead, it's "simple" - not overcompensation - they did the bare minimum change to accomplish that 66% cap with no understanding of how it's going to affect the strategy and gameplay. This is a two week long game, a small change makes a HUGE FRIKKEN DIFFERENCE. I'm not talking about encounters, I'm talking about the strategy of how top guilds will fight each other. It will not be more inclusive to small guilds, it will be significantly more hostile to everyone. I can visualize this kind of crap easily as an autistic person that's been running strategy in this game for years.

On another note, stop with the stupid randomness for attrition, if the multiplier is 0.52 (two siege camps no traps) then give 0.52 attrition per sector and round it for display and/or defence boost determination, so that every 3 hits equals roughly 2 attrition in reality. Inno's RNG is messed up, everyone who plays knows that, and I don't care if over the long run it might actually show statistically to be accurate, RNG functions in games are intended to be smoothed out rather than true random (and I don't think this is true random)

roughly:

   attrition =
        1 - (count(neighbouring siege camps) * 0.24) + (count(neighbouring traps) * 0.48)
   attrition = min(attrition, 2) // if the attrition multiplier was > 2, set it to 2
   attrition = max(attrition, 0.335) // if the attrition multiplier was < 0.335, set it to 0.335
   player.attrition += 1 * attrition

and if I may, add to that, if it's a decimal, count fights as /= 2 so that there isn't the imbalance with negotiators being able to do more encounters per point of attrition. It made sense to double the encounters per negotiation, but not to allow them to use half the attrition. So either divide the number from above by 2 if it's a fight, or multiply it by 2 if it's a negotiation (one or the other, but not both!)

I'd still much rather see 75% or 80% (0.25 or 0.20 instead of the above 0.335)

 

[knarre sbeat]

on that note, if they had kept it additive rather than multiplicative, and even merged the attrition boost with the one for traps and decoys (so that 1 trap is countered by 2 siege camps to net a 1x multiplier on the attrition) I would have been much more for it - though in the current form I'm happy with them being separate obviously, with this change it makes much more sense to have them modify each other.

I think thats an interessting point. So you mean, If there are 2 traps -90% on 1 Sector, surrounded by 7SC. 168% (66.6 cap)
It should result in 168% minus 90% from traps=78% decreased to cap 66.6?
Resulting in attacking with 66 cap instead of - 23%.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Who I am is irrelevant you can go troll someone else in the game. Take US3 #2 ranked guild Skull & Bones has 57 members and has 9 that are <10.5 million 3 of those have less than a level 10 arc and one of them doesn't even have an arc! US13 Wounded Warriors 3rd ranked guild has 31 players and 9 are <10 million that's well over 15%. US15 Rogue Machine 3rd ranked guild 29 players and 7 are <10.1 million. If you look you will find many strong guilds willing to take on young players and help them grow. A decent amount of FPs is how much you get depending on how much work and time you are willing to put into the game based on the precedent that has already been set for 2.5 years in GBG.

I agree that some top level guilds open their doors to lower level players. However, you should peel this onion a bit more. With the exception of 1-2 players, all of the sub-10MM players that you refer to average fewer than 200 battles per week from all battle arenas, not just GBG. Obviously, they are not taking advantage of zero attrition sectors now so the SC/WT change will not reduce their fight count from current levels. For the few low level fighters in top guilds there are other ways that the guild can assist them besides spoon feeding them zero attrition battles.

 

[DEADP00L]

US3 #2 ranked guild Skull & Bones has 57 members and has 9 that are <10.5 million

Only 2 real beginners!
away from your numbers.

US13 Wounded Warriors 3rd ranked guild has 31 players and 9 are <10 million

Guild not found on this world.

US15 Rogue Machine 3rd ranked guild 29 players and 7 are <10.1 million

5 players within 10,000 fights.

I don't think the points reflect a player's value or activity, whereas the number of fights is more meaningful when it comes to GbG.

Beyond the fact that you do not assume your words by not wanting to identify your guild whose merits of solidarity and diversity you praise, it is not by citing 3 or 4 guilds on a server that you demonstrate a majority of players or guilds.

Going back to the GbG test, I no longer see complaints of guilds being stuck at HQ because of others (I don't take into account guilds that do nothing, not knowing what the new system can allow them after 2 years of martyrdom).

 

[Yekk]

Only 2 real beginners!
away from your numbers.


Guild not found on this world.


5 players within 10,000 fights.

I don't think the points reflect a player's value or activity, whereas the number of fights is more meaningful when it comes to GbG.

Beyond the fact that you do not assume your words by not wanting to identify your guild whose merits of solidarity and diversity you praise, it is not by citing 3 or 4 guilds on a server that you demonstrate a majority of players or guilds.

Going back to the GbG test, I no longer see complaints of guilds being stuck at HQ because of others (I don't take into account guilds that do nothing, not knowing what the new system can allow them after 2 years of martyrdom).

I easily confirmed what McBrister put up. Wounded Warriors are just where he says they are. Now beginners do not stay beginners once in a top guild do they?

The proposed change does not fix what is broken in GBG. It does not address how treasury problems affect recruiting players. Treasuries need to have HMA goods if you have a HMA player. That HMA goods are impossible to get for most players... For this reason many guilds have a minimum age for applicants. This proposed change will not change that.


What is hilarious is from Juber's GBG thread they picked the one change that causes the most drama and does the very least possible to fix what is wrong with GBG. Across this server players are already avoiding GBG... There were many reasons guilds universally stopped warring and went to cooperating in GBG. The best was war was not fun.

 

[Owl II]

Not for the thousands of players who never had 4 or more camps.

Yes, they don't care

 

[Owl II]

Because I don't know of big GbG guilds with a lot of young players.

Right. Big guilds are preparing replacements in their training guilds. This is the only way it can be done without damage to the main guild and without stress for beginners who cannot withstand the frenzied rhythm of the big boys' game

 

[Owl II]

What is hilarious is from Juber's GBG thread they picked the one change that causes the most drama and does the very least possible to fix what is wrong with GBG.

I can imagine how it was. "Well, let's see. Which point will take the least programming effort and will not affect the gameplay as a whole in any way? Oh, there he is! 5 minutes of coding - and everything is ready. Great, let's go!"

 

[talamanta]

I'm late to write my review
because I wanted to see
in practice the new system and parallel
and to read
the opinions of other players
I honestly would have been 100% positive about these changes if they had been implemented from the start
because some have already won too much compared to the
It's a common secret that some have turned the Guild Battlegrouds into individual reservoirs of quick profits and personal account growth
Let me remind everyone that the Guild Battlegrouds and GvG
concern the concept of guild
and not individual gain or individual prominence
There are other parts of FOE that pertain to individual players
I personally didn't like to see any players
with zero friction to win multiple gifts battles etc
and increase "running" their account effortless
essentially on the "back" of the other players
I do not like on the Guild Battlegrouds to exist
(almost everytime) only 1-2 colors all over the map
and the rest of the guilds ΄΄stuck΄΄ in the best case in the field in front of headquarters
With the new system , at least, it cannot be closed from the first hours
all over the map no one
so any undetectable illegal programs will not be able to be used
Because their use will automatically be betrayed - from the result
I don't want battlefields to become like GvG
I'm so sorry because the younger players will never live
the moments of fun and tension that all the older players experienced within our guilds
because of the GvG

Sorry for the english, it's from an automatic translation
the text in Greek

Άργησα να γράψω την αποψη μου
γιατί ήθελα να δω
στην πράξη το νέο σύστημα και παράλληλα
και να διαβάσω τις γνώμες των υπολοίπων παικτών
Ειλικρινα θα ήμουν 100% θετικη σε αυτες τις αλλαγές αν είχαν εφαρμοστεί από την αρχή
γιατί πλεον κάποιοι έχουν ήδη κερδίσει πάρα πολλά σε σχεση με τους υπολοιπους
Είναι κοινο μυστικο ότι καποιοι εχουν μετατρέψει τα Πεδία Μαχών Συντεχνιων σε ατομικές δεξαμενές γρήγορων κερδών και αύξησης του ατομικού τους λογαριασμού
Να υπενθυμίσω σε ολους ότι τα ΠΜΣ και ο Σ ε Σ
αφορούν την έννοια της συντεχνίας
και όχι το ατομικό κέρδος ή την ατομική προβολή
Υπαρχουν αλλα τμηματα του ΦΟΕ που αφορουν ατομικα τους παιχτες
Προσωπικά δεν μου άρεσε να βλέπω καποιους παιχτες
με 0 τριβη να κερδιζουν πολλαπλασια δωρα μαχες κλπ
και να αυξανουν ''τρεχοντας'' τον λογαριασμο τους χωρις κοπο
ουσιαστικα στην '' πλάτη '' των αλλων παιχτων
Δεν μου αρεσει στα ΠΜΣ να υπαρχουν (σχεδον παντα )
μόνο 1-2 χρώματα σε όλο τον χάρτη
και οι υπολοιπες συντεχνίες ΄΄κολλημένες ΄΄ -στην καλύτερη περίπτωση-
στον τομέα μπροστά από το αρχηγείο
Με το νέο συστημα τουλαχιστον δεν μπορει να κλεισει από τις πρωτες ωρες
ολο τον χαρτη κανενας
ετσι καποια μη ανιχνευσιμα παρανομα προγραμματα δεν θα μπορουν να χρησιμοποιηθουν
Γιατι αυτοματα θα προδιδεται - εκ του αποτελεσματος - η χρηση τους
Δεν θέλω τα ΠΜΣ να καταντισουν να γίνουν οπως ο Σ ε Σ
Λυπάμαι πολύ γιατί οι νεότεροι παίκτες δεν θα ζήσουν ποτέ
τις στιγμές διασκεδασης και έντασης που βίωσαν όλοι οι παλαιότεροι παίκτες μεσα στις συντεχνιες μας
εξ αιτιας του ΣεΣ

 

[jovada]

What i see is that the negatives almost never react to proposals of fair game.

They are only shouting of punishement , why should a "lazy" player have the same possibilities, this will affect smaller players (giving not a single good reason why, just like the possitives says it just will help smaller players, and that only the future will show us), always shouting it will be boring if they can't play without attrition.

It's obvious to me that 90% of the negatives is only interested in exploiting the game but not in a fair gameplay.

 

[thelegend88]

If you really want to change how GBG works, this should be done differently. In that case remove all attrition modifiers (siege camps, watch towers, traps and decoys) and change how attrition works so that strong fighters who were able to reach 100 attrition can now do some 300 fights per day. Easiest way to do it is to make every sector having 33% chance of giving attrition instead of 100%.

That way GBG will still stay dynamic makes a level playing field for everyone without exploiting attrition and people can just fight whenever they are online, which especially helps new players and people who cannot come online when GBG timers dictate...

Instead of attrition modifying buildings add a building which increases a chance to win rewards when hitting adjacent sectors by small percentage...that way you balance rewards as well and treasury goods will still be required in large amounts...

Either that or keep things they were.

 

[Yekk]

What i see is that the negatives almost never react to proposals of fair game.

They are only shouting of punishement , why should a "lazy" player have the same possibilities, this will affect smaller players (giving not a single good reason why, just like the possitives says it just will help smaller players, and that only the future will show us), always shouting it will be boring if they can't play without attrition.

It's obvious to me that 90% of the negatives is only interested in exploiting the game but not in a fair gameplay.

Your problem,,, this does not help small players.

A few pages ago Deadpool put up that 5 guilds could not do a co-op in GBG where players got thousands of fights.


"1 strong guild + 7 weak guilds = the strong guild is bored
2 strong guilds + 6 weak guilds = 2 guilds trade lots of sectors while 6 watch.
3 strong guilds + 5 weak guilds = 3 guilds trade slightly less sectors while 5 watch.
4 strong guilds + 4 weak guilds = 4 guilds trade very few sectors while 4 watch.
from 5 strong guilds = no more people can make thousands of fights"

The league my guild is in on live has 5 exceptionally strong guilds and 3 "platinum" guilds 2 of which have not begun to fight. The last trades it's in tile which is not locked by the others except to retake. 5th place will move to diamond lite but will have 60K in fights and many players with thousands of fights. The system was not broke except if you are in a 15 man rogue guild that continually broke the rules. That guild earns being bubble locked in its home base.

I have seen many suggestion here by those opposed to the change and a few myopic players that offer only ridicule to those. Fair play is not letting a 15 man guild to break what works...

 

[Owl II]

Either that or keep things they were.

Or still make changes to the rating system and the LP system, which should be done first. At the same time, it is not necessary to rebuild both radically. The players have made a lot of suggestions that can have the desired effect on both guild motivation and matchmaking

 

[thelegend88]

Or still make changes to the rating system and the LP system, which should be done first. At the same time, it is not necessary to rebuild both radically. The players have made a lot of suggestions that can have the desired effect on both guild motivation and matchmaking

But I am almost sure this nerf has got other reasons only known by the dev team so highly unlikely it will remain like this with unlimited fights. Such as people starting new accounts and automating them with GBG scripts, ultimately they will make us all suffer.

 

[Owl II]

@Juber, I have a question. Why doesn't Inno want to rebuild matchmaking? Everyone says fair match is needed. Inno completely ignores this and tries to make some poultices. Why?

 

[Owl II]

But I am almost sure this nerf has got other reasons only known by the dev team so highly unlikely it will remain like this with unlimited fights. Such as people starting new accounts and automating them with GBG scripts, ultimately they will make us all suffer.

I am almost sure that the reason for this approach is the low qualification of performers. By the way, scripts do not have such a destructive effect on GBG as on GVG. Because zero attrition is a myth. We see how sometimes races are won thanks to clickers. But once you drive the owners of the auxiliary software ashore, it stops working. This is rare