Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[MATR]

I think Inno can already control the amount of attrition by the way it distributes camps. Currently, I see less 3 building sectors than in the past and there is far fewer in the center with 3 building slots than in the past.
The concept of limiting attrition with an artificial throttle of 66% is lame. It seems like a knee jerk reaction without much thought. It sure hasn't added any excitement to gbg for me.
Here's some ideas to provide some excitement for GBG rather than making it less thrilling:
Make all sectors have at least a single building slot. - gives the guilds stuck on the edge something of value to use to try and get off the edge.
Make edge sectors have multiple building slots and Have center sectors with NO building slots. Having the center sectors with the most slots makes charging to the center for the big farmer guilds important plus it provides the opportunity for zero attrition. Eliminating building slots in the center will reduce zero attrition opportunities. Having more slots on the edge will give all guilds a better chance of having a sector they can use to get out of home base,
Make the map bigger, much bigger, then add more guilds. 20 guilds with several hundred sectors. Put guild base camps towards the middle of the field (1 or 2 sectors) instead of all at the edge. Sectors behind your home base are much less likely to be controlled by the swapping farmers. Put the strongest guild at one end of the map and group the weaker guilds at the other end. Could even have a DMZ across the middle with two rows of sectors with zero slots.
If you want everyone to have fights just add 2 rings of sectors behind home base with zero building slots.
Make lock-down last 8 hours instead of 4 and make it take twice as many ( or 5 times as many) fights to conquer a sector. Would reduce the 4 hour rush and reduce the need for the constant management, that causes burn-out in many gbg leaders. Would also give the slow fighters extra time to get in some fights before the heavy hitters finish filling the sector (takes less than 2 minutes in my home guild before sector is filled, sometimes less than 1 minute). I'm lucky to get in 5 or 6 rights before the sectors is filled. I have to set an alarm clock or I'm left out.
Only allow a player 50 fights per sector, resets once it is locked.
Provide all home bases with no attrition equal to 2 siege camps.
Change it up every season so no one has the chance to "learn" the best strategy for farming.
Do any of these but don't make max attrition 66% no matter how many sc your guild managed to string together.

Finally: it would be nice to show the attrition reduction for each sector, as it is now I have to figure out how many sc we got, see if the sectors has traps, then do a calculation based on a multiplicative thing which I don't even understand. So, I don't bother. We now report attrition by the number of sc we got and leave it to the players to try and figure out.

 

[jovada]

It is just like GVG during reset, if people do not show up to fight, then your success will be limited.
I am not faulting your logic, just that penalizing good players/Guilds does not encourage more participation from lesser ones.
It only allows weaker Guilds to achieve PITY points, because they are not worth fighting for.

The Stronger Guilds are expected to decimate the map. the weaker ones will quiver in the corners. That is the way it should be.
The current Nerf is very similar to Eastern European conflict. The weaker country has absolutely no chance of winning, but the west (like INNO) keep pumping in more help to the weaker country to try to delay the inevitable.
It is inevitable that weaker Guilds will fail until they put in a concerted effort to be better.
Once they become better, the stronger Guilds would in fact welcome them to the competition and help them along.
The poison for good Guilds is to be in a season with other Guilds that do not even try to compete.

That has all nothing to do with the "nerf" but only with matchmaking.
You controlled everything before and you control everything after the "nerf"
The "nerf" only prevents you to do endless fights with the abuse of 0 attrition and done mostly by the same 2-5 players from a guild every season.

And you are wrong with your theory of helping the weaker guilds , it's more that they took the illegal weapon away from the guilds

 

[mintbunnies]

That has all nothing to do with the "nerf" but only with matchmaking.
You controlled everything before and you control everything after the "nerf"
The "nerf" only prevents you to do endless fights with the abuse of 0 attrition and done mostly by the same 2-5 players from a guild every season.

And you are wrong with your theory of helping the weaker guilds , it's more that they took the illegal weapon away from the guilds

"illegal"?? looool maybe OP but really, stick to facts instead of exaggeration.

And I haven't seen anything that the nerf has helped weaker guilds in a way that better matchmaking without a nerf could have solved. Therefore if you are saying the fault is matchmaking, then you are agreeing that the nerf hasn't helped.

Our guild in live had 142k fights last season and 24 out of 65 members had 2k+ fights. I don't know what extreme guild you are thinking of but trying to make a point using an unrealistic example doesn't solve the problem.

 

[kawada]

I like the test results. There are fewer and fewer votes with each round. They need to spend a couple more rounds to reduce the number of votes to zero. And then they will be able to send it to the living. They will be able to tell players are used to

	Total	Like	Dislike
Initial Feedback and first round:​	466​	153​	319​	not included yet​
Second round:​	323​	114​	207​	2​
Third round:​	201​	66​	134​	1​

Though, percentage remains almost the same

 

[Yekk]

My point, many, many, players had the chance to pitch in and do something, and this is something that they would not be able to do. Before that, only 10 players in 2 guilds would benefit from the GBG.

They would have that same chance if their guild was not forced to be in a league higher than their ability...

 

[Yekk]

So your pleasure comes down to being strong and confronting the weak for fun?
Because what bothers you is being confronted again and again with the same adversaries?
As you are talking more about force-feeding and not competition, Inno is right to have implemented this nerf!

There is no competition now... The strongest guild easily wins. It does not even have to quickly respond as counter attacks can not be sustained. Our league was won on the first day.

 

[CrashBoom]

They would have that same chance if their guild was not forced to be in a league higher than their ability...

that is the Peter principle

The Peter principle is a concept in management theory that people in a hierarchy rise to their level of incompetence.

in other words: people move up until they fail

 

[jovada]

"illegal"?? looool maybe OP but really, stick to facts instead of exaggeration.

It was a reacton at the exaggeration from another player

So read correctly before you react

Our guild in live had 142k fights last season and 24 out of 65 members had 2k+ fights. I don't know what extreme guild you are thinking of but trying to make a point using an unrealistic example doesn't solve the problem.

You just say or prove nothing here , yes 24 of 65 have +2000 that is normal fight , did the 41 other do nothing ? and there is no top players that do 10.000+ ? speaking of an unrealistic example .................

 

[jovada]

And I haven't seen anything that the nerf has helped weaker guilds in a way that better matchmaking without a nerf could have solved. Therefore if you are saying the fault is matchmaking, then you are agreeing that the nerf hasn't helped.

Read some messages from "weak, little, lazy" (thats how smaller guilds are called ) they said they could do more fights , of course the " big, strong, active" guilds will still rule but there is not a single small guild that claimed they had to be equal to the big guilds , no they just don't want to be excluded by to guilds blocking and swapping.

And all that bragging we will stop playing and many will leave and this will be the end of foe or GbG, i think for every 100 players leaving a 1000 others will finaly enjoy GbG also.

 

[jovada]

And what is your point here ? what ar you trying to prove ? this only shows that the last day or night you took everything just to brag, i see the other guilds all have points , do that in the beginning and you shoot in your own feet

 

[Yekk]

And what is your point here ? what ar you trying to prove ? this only shows that the last day or night you took everything just to brag, i see the other guilds all have points , do that in the beginning and you shoot in your own feet

His posts show that match making is the real problem. Tension, where guilds fight equals, makes for enjoyable play. There is no tension in the new GBG. Like in gold league players now just farm their fights till their att is to high if they fight at all.

 

[jovada]

His posts show that match making is the real problem. Tension, where guilds fight equals, makes for enjoyable play. There is no tension in the new GBG. Like in gold league players now just farm their fights till their att is to high if they fight at all.

Not true , there is a guild that has 168k points that is not for doing nothing, you just prove you are stronger then the other "big" guild

 

[CrashBoom]

as we can see: one guild took everything

that means the cap is still to high and should be at 3 SC

 

[plotus]

There is no benefit to anyone, this change by definition makes GBG worse for all. Beta is a poor test for this however it does show conclusively that participation goes down. Making a change which reduces participation isn't usually a good business model. GvG and PvP are under 1% participation. Will Inno risk seeing GBG participation fall to those levels?

 

[MJ Artisan of War]

Next INNOvation will be to make GBG like GE... each player can only have 64 encounters per season.... for fairness sake... lol

 

[Yekk]

Not true , there is a guild that has 168k points that is not for doing nothing, you just prove you are stronger then the other "big" guild

I see all the rest of that leagues guilds except one did nothing. You just do not get it do you? His data shows 2 guilds that are decent, 2 that should be in the next league down and the rest tanking the league to get out of 1K. Not a fun league for any of the guilds. At any point the strongest could and finally did take the full map. Completely boring. That was not a battleground. The worst part is 3rd and 4th are stuck in 1K next league and will see the same results...

 

[-Emperor-]

I'm just wondering when Inno will stop suffering from nonsense and come up with such ideas.. it became clear to everyone that after the first season of GbG, this is a failed idea.. I'm not against changes, but if they're not stupid like this. And how many times will they ask us to comment on the end of the season when there are no comments here anymore.. lol

 

[DEADP00L]

There is no benefit to anyone, this change by definition makes GBG worse for all. Beta is a poor test for this however it does show conclusively that participation goes down. Making a change which reduces participation isn't usually a good business model. GvG and PvP are under 1% participation. Will Inno risk seeing GBG participation fall to those levels?

Typical reaction of a player registered for a month, who has 1,250 total fights but is in an active guidle.
Basically, he was told to come and complain and he does so without even understanding all the workings.
In addition to announcing that there is barely 1% of players who play GvG or arena once again demonstrates the spirit of exaggeration.

 

[Pass Go]

suggestion 1 - put guilds with similar number of members into the same gbg .. not a guild of 1 or 2 against guilds with 40+

suggestion 2 - take out ALL building slots. no extra help for your own guild or hindrance against other guilds

 

[Yekk]

Typical reaction of a player registered for a month, who has 1,250 total fights but is in an active guidle.
Basically, he was told to come and complain and he does so without even understanding all the workings.
In addition to announcing that there is barely 1% of players who play GvG or arena once again demonstrates the spirit of exaggeration.

I am seeing Jan as when this player joined Beta. Numbers on GvG % are correct. Arena % is low but most do the minimum in Arena. Only a very small % actually care about the arena. Your "he was told to come and complain" is uncalled for. This is beta and from his city you can see he is not new to the game.