jovada
Regent
Can you please for once read and cite me correctly???
It is an example of how a smaller guild maybe can counter , not the other way around
-
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
Can you please for once read and cite me correctly???
It is an example of how a smaller guild maybe can counter , not the other way around
Beta King
Viceroy
The problem is not it's "us against INNO or FOE" its "me against every other player in my world" and "My guild against every other guild in my world" I dont want you or your guild to do good that's counter productive to mine and my guilds progress. It's called competition and it is healthy as it promotes players to grow and gives INNO more money so they can do it.
Last edited:
jovada
Regent
And now there can be no more competition and tactics ????? If i understand you well there can only be a competition and tactic when there is 0 attrition ???
knarre sbeat
Merchant
Firstable, lets start with you and me.
i dont know why you contra re balance guys always use the word We and us.
Its you and your opinion not everyones.
There are no competition and tactics in the current GbG form. Its Chessboard for the 2 strongest. wheres the competition?
King Flush
Marquis
taking away a huge part of it for sure, tell me one way that this nerf promotes competition? these guilds that sit on the sidelines don't want to be competitive or if they do why don't they do something? no it's not because they can't. I'll tell you a little secret even the top guilds usually only have a handful of players on at any given time, sure we can mobilise numbers when we need to but the guilds on the perimeter have an advantage they can get their guild members together to spring an attack, we won't know when this is so it's actually very easy to get involved in the battle and do some damage, sure it might be short lived and will likely get pushed back but then they are weaker that's how it should be but to say they are trapped it is down to themm to untrap themselves, but they want a written invitation.
King Flush
Marquis
you clearly do not understand much of the dynamics of GBG in it's current form
jovada
Regent
Again assumptions and nonsens just to justify why not making changes.
First don't tell me that guilds don't want to be competitive , they not reached 1000LP doing nothing, Second it makes a difference if there is 0 1 or 2 slots in front of your HQ with 0 or 1 the two guilds working together maybe let you have the sector , with 2 slots they often will take it to use it to build up their 0 attrition. Third two guilds almost never ask to the smaller to jump in , they only ask it if they are the only big guild on the map, and then i ask you why should they jump in to please you at that moment only so you can do more fights? No wonder they show you a middlefinger then.
Last edited:
Pericles the Lion
Emperor
I think we all understand the dynamics of GBG. It's farming for rewards. Perhaps a very small percentage of players think it's about competition between guilds for bragging rights but, the vast majority of active GBG participants are in it for the rewards. If anything else was closer to the truth there would be no need for "checkerboards". I play on 5 worlds on the US server. Every GBG battleground is a checkerboard, some more elegant than others but all checkerboards. Anybody putting in 8K+ battles per season that claims this is about "competition" isn't smelling what he's shovelling.
It promotes competition by highlighting another resource to manage: attrition. Which currently only serves as a limiter to cutoff guilds that struggle to breakout. Now it'll apply to everyone to some degree, and you'll have to make strategic choices how to use it - do you still go all-out from the start? Some will be able to, others will not. Or do you need to hold back some so that you have something left in the tank at the end of the day?
You will still have your races often enough if you get a "war season" that your guild's mass-clicking ability still does have relevance. But sometimes it might be worth ignoring a sector or two on the grounds of it not changing much tactically, but costing attrition (where currently you'd just take it anyways).
You'll still benefit from your ability to use your treasury - siege camps are still worth having. And maybe occasionally other buildings might have a point now too.
You may not be able to rely on your designated-farming-buddy-guild to give you all the fights you want because the strength gap between them and you will actually show with both guilds gaining attrition. So there may be more interest in not locking down the entire competition.
King Flush
Marquis
when no one gives competition what else is there to do? I can tell you last three campaigns we have had the biggest factor has been having a war with one of the other guilds, for sure we may have swapped a few sectors as well but this was jusr secondary to the goal of the campaign.
King Flush
Marquis
It won't promote competition. will just leave it all the points to counter what you suggest have said numerous times already.
They almost never give us a timeline for various reasons ranging from believing it steps on their live team's toes to make the live announcement to wanting honest unfiltered feedback not colored by them directing us what they're looking for.
This really could go any direction at this point:
- forced live next season
- limited live to select realms in order to gather more data
- on beta for months on end
- shelved indefinitely after another season or two while they try to come up with a more acceptable alternative.
The feedback that will be most important to them is how people are actually reacting to the changes rather than the circles we go in on the forums. i.e. some Nos might happily play GBG to the extent they can anyways even though they wish it wouldn't happen - and effectively that's as good as a yes. And some yeses might not try much either way, and that's effectively as good as having no say in the matter.
King Flush
Marquis
9 posts deleted wow they really don't want feedback that's against their ideas I wonder how many others posts from the 'against' have also been deleted? makes the discussion a mockery when only one side gets freedom of speech, obviously this will be the 10th message to be deleted
King Flush
Marquis
seems likely will be getting banned now from the forum, never mind only repeating myself over and over so no detriment.
ArklurBeta
Baronet
If "negative feedback" was deleted, this thread would have ~10 pages, not 90. I'm fairly sure messages that were deleted were did for a much better reason than just simply being "negative"...
King Flush
Marquis
I'm sure you must be right after all Inno knows best
@King Flush :
even if you are right in your reasoning, I have two questions to ask you of which a "yes" or a "no" is enough for me:
- do you think all guilds in all worlds of all servers play GbG like yours?
- Do you think that by adding attrition to your usual tactics, the strategy will remain so dull despite we all have a daily limit?
even if you are right in your reasoning, I have two questions to ask you of which a "yes" or a "no" is enough for me:
- do you think all guilds in all worlds of all servers play GbG like yours?
- Do you think that by adding attrition to your usual tactics, the strategy will remain so dull despite we all have a daily limit?
PackCat
Squire
I think your analysis is one-sided. It assumes those Guilds are willing to fight for sectors instead of being handed to them.
I don't like to use GVG comparison, but no one is going to give you any sympathy for not fighting and competing.
I have never seen a track race where the faster sprinters have to slow down or tie weights to their limbs to give the weaker runners a chance to win.
It's a dog eat dog world and the weaker Guilds need to go big or go home.
They need to cultivate their cities and position themselves to compete, not given a handicap like in Golf.
This balancing could be accomplished much better by competition among peer Guilds.
It is not fair to anyone matching a strong Guild with a bunch of lighter ones.
.Chris
Baronet
Finally caught up to the end of the thread
My thoughts on the changes:
I am against this change as it does not tackle the real problem which is imho the matchmaking.
It should be a battle to determine which guild is the most capable/strongest/most organized. This will never be the case with the current system.
It can only be a competition if all of the participants are on the same level of ability. You would not match up Manchester United against a sunday league team (or the LA Rams against your local High School Varsity team).
My thoughts on the changes:
- I do not like the idea of a hard cap. Shouldn't it be possible to find a combination that will reduce attrition to zero with, let's say 6 SC? The probability of sectors having 6 slots round them should be enough to force guilds to fight with attrition.
- Guilds below Diamond will probably feel no impact since the amount of SC built is miniscule compared to 1000 LP.
- 80 member top level guilds will still be able to dominate maps but smaller members might see increased fighting possibilities since even the strongest fighters will have to manage attrition at some point.
- In my estimation the group of guilds beeing affected the most is ambitious GBG guilds with a medium amount of members. If they were part of a CB they would most likely not be able to keep the swaps up all day. If they were trying to break a CB they would run out of steam after a couple of sectors and get locked out again 4h later.
I am against this change as it does not tackle the real problem which is imho the matchmaking.
It should be a battle to determine which guild is the most capable/strongest/most organized. This will never be the case with the current system.
It can only be a competition if all of the participants are on the same level of ability. You would not match up Manchester United against a sunday league team (or the LA Rams against your local High School Varsity team).