Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[kawada]

Don't you think it makes sense to ask for feedback after experiencing a whole season with the changes? I think it does.

I apologise in advance, I am new for the forum. But is it a regular thing than moderators are being passive aggressive to customers?

 

[Fire Witch]

I apologise in advance, I am new for the forum. But is it a regular thing than moderators are being passive aggressive to customers?

How is my post passive-aggressive? Sorry, really was not meant that way.

 

[PackCat]

I can survive with this, but I will have to stick to 270-300 fights/day and lower attrition everyday, I lost more units currently than I produced to achieve 120 attrition on weaker days and 149 in that "top" day ...

Okay, as the top performer in my Guild this season with 2760 VP (251 VP per day at 11 calendar days)

Even with 1500% attack bonus, I had to regularly switch to negotiations at 80 attrition. (auto-battles)
I went through an average of 1K of each current good per day. (attr. 81+)
It cost about 200 diamonds per day to play the 4th negotiation attempt on many encounters that were just shy.
It probably cost a good 250-500 units a day as well. It required a few alternate unit matchups so I did not bring my useful units to critical low.
I could probably tweak efficiency, but this was the raw first opportunity.

I can honestly say: With these changes, There is NO way GBG can be sustainable for continuous seasons for Guilds or Players.
If INNO wants to kill GBG so badly, then just remove it from the game and let the chips fall where they decide.

 

[CrashBoom]

that really needs live testing

will players also spend diamonds there for 4th negotiation attempt
or is it only for beta testing and because of regular free diamonds here

and for more than 1 season

for example:
how will it develop after players spend more units per day then they produce (now they have too much, but in 5 season ?)

will people really leave the game ?
will they still pay for instant finish of the siege camps

so much information one season on a limited beta world can't give

 

[mintbunnies]

I've been reading this thread for the past hour and still haven't caught up with it since it has doubled in size. But I want to comment if the point hasn't been hammered yet is that GBG is not the only part of FoE that has suffered this season.

Our 1.9 thread is down, our swaps are down, people burnout for the day and don't have a reason to sign back online. Whereas previously, GBG gave people a reason to sign online continuously in the day and even set a timer to it.

How can this be a successful game model? Can you imagine any other game that you are timed out of your app after 1hr of gameplay? And a popup notification comes on your screen "You've played 1hr of Candy Crush! Now go out into the real world and stop playing on apps!" Really??? Is there any other game that does this? Can anyone think of another game that will lock a player out on purpose?

I know it has been said repeatedly that if the problem is with the matchups, then yes! Please fix that!

 

[Pericles the Lion]

I can honestly say: With these changes, There is NO way GBG can be sustainable for continuous seasons for Guilds or Players.
If INNO wants to kill GBG so badly, then just remove it from the game and let the chips fall where they decide.

I think that you are incorrect and that further testing will prove this. Players will figure out how to maximize rewards following this paradigm shift and GBG will find a new equilibrium. The battles will be fewer, likewise the rewards, and this is INNO's plan. But, if you find that GBG is not sustainable, for you, there's no requirement that you continue to participate in it. INNO doesn't need to kill it.

 

[CrashBoom]

or they could remove only the diamond league
the leagues below will just run almost like before the change

and just wondering
why not also deleting GEx: there players can only make 64 fights PER WEEK there

 

[Owl II]

I was at 136.4k units at the beggining of this round.
This morning after collecting 122 units I was at 134.6k units, 1.8k+the ones collected during the round, 122 units each 16 hours...
Are many to count anyway and too morning for me.
Around 3k of them I think on a average, or maybe a bit more.

Thanks. My experience this season suggests that I rather be able to save units after the nerf camps compared to my game in the live world. I have to do a lot fights with high attrition sometimes, where 3-4 units are lost in each battle in live world. Here it's only 40-50 fights after a free move, and the wall becomes impenetrable. Hello, additional barracks, hello, additional rouge dens. Hello, recruitment boost at the tavern

 

[DEADP00L]

I have to do a lot fights with high attrition sometimes, where 3-4 units are lost in each battle.

Now you know what those who are not part of the professional guilds have been going through for 2 years.

 

[Owl II]

and currently that is not the case

currently it is a place to collect as many rewards as possible

so remove the siege camp cap and introduce a reward cap after 300 fights

That's what I like

 

[Owl II]

400 votes in the poll and almost 80 pages on this thread and inno is asking everyone on beta to post here?? I think you guys already know by now!

Yes, we know. It doesn't make any value

 

[Owl II]

Now you know what those who are not part of the professional guilds have been going through for 2 years.

You have no idea what I know now and what I knew before. And this is not a topic of discussion.

 

[Gattaca]

For players who only go on 1 or 2 times and are not in the game longer than 30 minutes, it is not a problem. For players who are more active, it's a disaster!
The harvest is done quickly and GBG now too. This will result in far fewer players participating.

 

[Harley beta]

If I take it from the point of view of a player who plays short.
He is interested in playing, he is interested in developing and helping the guild and other smaller players.
Strong players in GbG allow medium players to earn rewards and develop faster, and they can help the weakest players sooner.
(It's about the character of the players and the guild setup, but this should be handled differently by FoE and not across the board)

There was a Proposal for a kind of Super League. This is an excellent idea Let the gluttons beat each other in the blood

You all look at it from the position of strong guilds This is a bad view They don't need anything anymore the game will bore them even if it is full of nude pictures

This change will only slow down the growth of small and medium-sized players and discourage many from playing, as they will never be able to reach the level of the strong ones again.

Sorry for my English

 

[Pericles the Lion]

For players who only go on 1 or 2 times and are not in the game longer than 30 minutes, it is not a problem. For players who are more active, it's a disaster!
The harvest is done quickly and GBG now too. This will result in far fewer players participating.

If 30 minutes is not enough to satisfy the craving, there's PvP where the fights are nearly unlimited for end-game players. Also, start a new city?

 

[PP Nyx]

I think its a good thing although would a better idea be to have a league for all these bigger guilds instead so they can continue to do whatever they want a fairer match up would be preferable but don't know if thats possible. As it stands this idea I suppose stops the endless rotations that stop other smaller guilds getting a shot at anything or does it? I guess I don't know if this works or not lol

 

[Pericles the Lion]

If I take it from the point of view of a player who plays short.
He is interested in playing, he is interested in developing and helping the guild and other smaller players.
Strong players in GbG allow medium players to earn rewards and develop faster, and they can help the weakest players sooner.
(It's about the character of the players and the guild setup, but this should be handled differently by FoE and not across the board)

I think the game would be a better experience if this were the rule rather than the exception. The reality is that GBG is the Pareto Principle at work. 20% of the players get 80% of the fights and, these 20%, are the top ranked players in the Guild.

 

[Leroy Jenkins]

This change affects the mid to smaller level guilds and players, and affects the advanced and elite players and guilds disproportionately. Advanced players and guilds will distribute and absorb attrition whereas smaller level will quit playing because of imbalance.

 

[Peppermike]

If a Guild's goal for GbG is rewards for it's members as well as league placement, then the map needs to keep moving. A stalled map helps no one, it needs to stay active...anything that slows down play is bad... I found myself doing 8x more negotiations (746 vs 94 last season) to keep attrition down while trying to take sectors...what a DRAG. Why are we even considering penalizing Guilds & players who work hard to do well (and earn rewards) in GbG?
Limiting a player's fights to 500-600 a day might help 'level the playing field' but lower level Guilds with inactive players won't do well regardless of how much play is slowed down. Playing is supposed to be fun, when it turns into real 'WORK', with diminishing returns, I'll find something else to do

 

[vikingraider]

if the 66.6% chance to gain attrition was 66.6%, it might not be so bad...