Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[Pericles the Lion]

I agree. He misses how the rebalance is anything but that. This thread is about how the nerf might/may/will affect players on live. Without Inno's input we can only guess at their reasoning on why it is needed but how it will play is another thing all together.

I'm not missing anything. The stated intent of the SC/WT change is to eliminate zero attrition. Nothing more, nothing less. If INNO has another agenda, they have not shared it with players and any comments made by players regarding another agenda are pure speculation. If, and when, INNO communicates that they do have further plans I will be happy to participate in that discussion.

 

[Beta King]

In my absence, the guild I am a part of had done their GBg. Some weeks they had it good; others they had it rough. It's pretty much a numbers game as well as how much strength they have as well to be able to capture sectors the fastest before the attrition gets to the max point.

Would I say this nerf changed the game, from my point of view? Yes, it did because without any SC/WT, my attrition would be maxed after 50 fights (which is 1/3 of the progress bar of 160). With only 66.6%, it's just a relative 50% chance of having attrition rise up or just stay the same (that's the way I see it in my eyes); I would get about 60-80 fights in. At full 100%, it would have been smooth sailing at no attrition increase; or "sky's the limit" runnings.

Here's my thing, though. How could anyone attain thousands of fights each day via normal means? It takes me about a 15-20 second run to auto a battle because I have to check on my troops to replace the ones that needed to be swapped out as well as going to the rogues department and doing the same. In 50 fights, I would have gone through 10 to 15 minutes of my time by clicking buttons and boxes and swapping troops before I get tired and get out of GBg to do something else. To even get one thousand fights, you would have to spend 3.5 to 5 hours just on GBg alone if there were not any sectors to be locked up.

Again, I will mention that the rewards do not come each time (I wish it did so it will make doing such under this new change much more rewarding for those who have limited max attrition values) so "farming" of such is irrelevant.

For those that can "farm" thousands of fights before this nerf happened, they are running a bot or some script, which is something that Inno should have focused on and not throwing a monkey wrench into something that everyone else wants to partake in, especially the lower ages who are in good guilds that are in the diamond league.

I foresee a day where I will be released from the guild I am in as I am pretty much working for a well known company in the world and had placed my emphasis on working hard and making a great deal of money. For now, I will do as much as I can when able to.

It must be the age you are in, atk/def you have, or the way you are fighting but in say SAM with all sents(saab 3+ fights with all nail storms) and 0-10 attrition you can fight 5+ fights at a time before having to change any troops and not really risk loosing any if you have decent atk/def like 2k/1k so you dont have to do anything but click auto twice(2 wave) close twice(if you won something) and click on attack again and do it over maybe 2 seconds per fight and stop for a few extra seconds every 4-8 fights to change out some troops. I wouldn't say "thousands" of fights per day but its very easy if you catch 4 flips and there are 4-5 people hitting to get 250 fights per flip so 1k is doable with all the SCs the map can take for support.

 

[Thunderdome]

It must be the age you are in, atk/def you have, or the way you are fighting but in say SAM with all sents(saab 3+ fights with all nail storms) and 0-10 attrition you can fight 5+ fights at a time before having to change any troops and not really risk loosing any if you have decent atk/def like 2k/1k so you dont have to do anything but click auto twice(2 wave) close twice(if you won something) and click on attack again and do it over maybe 2 seconds per fight and stop for a few extra seconds every 4-8 fights to change out some troops. I wouldn't say "thousands" of fights per day but its very easy if you catch 4 flips and there are 4-5 people hitting to get 250 fights per flip so 1k is doable with all the SCs the map can take for support.

Aye, I am in TE (map into Artic Future) with at least 500% Attacking Army attack and using TE units for GBg that I often change after attaining the following attrition values: 1 unit + 7 rogues for up to 20 attrition, 2 units + 6 rogues for up to 30 attrition, 3 units + 5 rogues for up to 40 attrition, and 4/5 units + 3/4 rogues if I am feeling froggy to 50 attrition (can get to 45 with just 4 units and 4 rogues). It's a toss between using Combat Drones (fast flying units) and Stealth Tanks for my battles. I hardly switch from sector to sector looking for single fights, so I take them as they are (2 wave fights in the mix) just to get them out of the way.

I could be told to use hover tanks but I got only 1 in the count since I kind of missed the guide on getting more (too far up the map maybe, with quests asking for FE to be unlocked or something, heh heh); but she's costly to heal up with diamonds.

I am still leveling up my attacking based GBs but it will take time since I am hardly in the game to check how they are doing.

 

[Mrmjs]

The way in which this thread and the "voting" / communication have been handled is reason enough to quit the game... I love how the moderators say [occasionally] that details from this thread have been forwarded to the devs.. like they even play the game... Why would they is the real question? lol

 

[zookeepers]

I'm not missing anything. The stated intent of the SC/WT change is to eliminate zero attrition. Nothing more, nothing less. If INNO has another agenda, they have not shared it with players and any comments made by players regarding another agenda are pure speculation. If, and when, INNO communicates that they do have further plans I will be happy to participate in that discussion.

You have to think about why guys here are making such a speculation.

In order to eliminate zero attrition, multiplicative stacking is enough. If there were really nothing more than that, there is nowhere that any attrition reduction cap would be needed

There are two possibilities about this. One is that who is in charge of this is stupid and don't understand (or isn't stupid but don't try to understand). The other is that a different intention is hidden behind. (or, both, maybe...)

 

[CrashBoom]

You have to think about why guys here are making such a speculation.

In order to eliminate zero attrition, multiplicative stacking is enough. If there were really nothing more than that, there is nowhere that any attrition reduction cap would be needed

There are two possibilities about this. One is that who is in charge of this is stupid and don't understand (or isn't stupid but don't try to understand). The other is that a different intention is hidden behind. (or, both, maybe...)

the intention is to limit the fights and with that the rewards

and they have decided fights = attrition *3 would the correct factor (4 camps = 66.6% reduction) for them
they could have chosen *4 (5 camps = 75%) or *5 (6 camps = 80%) or even higher

but they have decided for 66.6%
and not testing different caps in the plenty seasons in the past looks like they are not willing to change that factor

 

[drakenridder]

you ignore that it will still be easy to stuff guilds for the guilds that do so now. that will have players leaving.

you ignore that GBG plays a large part in a worlds economy...like the costs of everything right now? supply disruptions are real

unless they fix the other mistakes GBG has we all lose. Which maybe just what Inno wants. If we leave maybe we will go to their new game where we start at scratch and they make more money.

Mughal...Arena...Guild Perks... Inno has shown they are not exceptional at making what players want.

I acknowledged that the GbG farmers will be unhappy and an exodus of such players is likely to happening. However unfortunately for them, they're most likely not the "majority" as you're likely playing with like minded players it's hard to imagine. Though finger pointing and twisting my words around only proves my previous point, either ignorance or just not reading my reasons why it probably won't have such a apocalyptic impact as some like to make others believe.
You don't understand that the fp harvests invested in boost treats are already saved in large fp reserves, in the inventories of those who used it? This simple only has real impact on 1.X boosts with boosters with an arc with an insufficient level (lvl<80), who subsided their lack of a arc buff with GbG fps. Even so, as someone else has proven with evidence rather then speculation, a cut of 30-40% might occurs in GbG harvests but not drying it up. Either way 1.X boosters pre-existed GbG farming and will remain. There's a profit to be made and there are those who are making it. I would rather expect an increase of 1.X boosters rather then a decline in the long run, when such become more profitable again compared to GbG farming.
We don't, those who rely on SC the way they where, yes. Speculating about a secret agenda is just plain a conspiracy theory and likely false. As Inno is a profitable company and FoE has proven to be its most profitable product so far and still is. Despite doomsday claimers long before you guys claimed otherwise for almost a decade.
And yet they thrive. Although I'm not a fan of the Mughals either, enough players do enjoy the settlement, enough players do use and enjoy the PvE arena, as otherwise they would've shut it down like before, perks never came through to the live servers. They've proven to be willing to experiment and not pushing through what doesn't work, bringing it back to the drawing board. If they where as bad as you try to framing them, than once again why is FoE performing so many times better then well established games like Grepolis and Tribal wars? Without any prove or evidence besides the "my play style is reliant on SC as they are, interference of this will bring this to and end and thus the game" is just all I'm reading, rather then a rational analyse with rational arguments with evidence to backing up the claims.

Either way the real top will push away the phantom "top" guilds. Filled with "top" fighters who don't have the resources or firepower to conquer as much with some attrition. The real top guilds will remain on top and purging the 1kD league. Sure, the phantom "top" guilds likely fall apart due to this as their "top" players getting a rude awakening that they ain't a part of the "top" players. That point you've proven excellently among the others who advocate that this will hurt the weak guilds. This is however just not the majority anyways, it might even help FoE to become more profitable again as event buildings becoming even more important then they already are.
Unless you're coming with rational arguments with evidence to backing up you're claims and stop resorting to finger pointing, I'll just copy you're lead: putting players on ignore who only listen to a echo chamber. It has no use trying to disprove conspiracy theorists and phantom "top" fighters that the impact of the rebalance will more then likely be vastly less severe at the entire game compared to their phantom "top" guilds and rouge high scores. Much like the situation once was when GvG infinite point farming exploit was patched and PME double fight infinite point exploit has been patched, the game will just move on with those who adapt. The real top will claim their rightful thrown, the phantoms either adapt and become real top players or they vanish in the game's history.

 

[King Flush]

the intention is to limit the fights and with that the rewards

and they have decided fights = attrition *3 would the correct factor (4 camps = 66.6% reduction) for them
they could have chosen *4 (5 camps = 75%) or *5 (6 camps = 80%) or even higher

but they have decided for 66.6%
and not testing different caps in the plenty seasons in the past looks like they are not willing to change that factor

if this was the real reason then why? as it's no more out of balance than rewards that can be had from sniping or Arc profiteering with high level Arc less so I'd say

 

[Owl II]

- Boy, why did you cut the dog's tail?
- I cut the dog's tail.
- Why did you do that?
- To cut the tail.

Nerf is not the goal. Nerf is a method for achieving a goal. What are they trying to achieve with this method? Well, they wrote. They want to achieve "long-term sustainability and viability" of the function. As if almost three years is not a long-term. And the nerf works perfectly, there is no need to test it for so long. However, it is obvious that Inno did not achieve their goal with the nerf, whatever it was.

 

[Owl II]

I agree. He misses how the rebalance is anything but that. This thread is about how the nerf might/may/will affect players on live. Without Inno's input we can only guess at their reasoning on why it is needed but how it will play is another thing all together.

Does it allow every guild on a map in 1K to get tiles? No, 2 strong guilds can easily stuff the ones they see as undesirable.
Does it give more fights to most players? No, as most players do not do GBG. Even in top guilds some are just farmers.
It does not help the economy of a world. Absolutely not. Total rewards go down not up. A reality of less fights.

Uber-arcs help the economy very well in terms of FP.

I wrote a couple of seasons ago that we came across a map with a minimum number of slots for the buildings in the center. This can be considered a prototype of the nerf. It was hard to play, but we still controlled the map. The same map, with the same small number of slots for buildings, was found last season by another group in our world (whom I know). There were three relatively strong guilds in the group. The strongest won. 4-8 spent this season away from the slots under the buildings, on the shore. The same will happen after the nerf. But how does this differ from the current situation?

 

[Pericles the Lion]

You have to think about why guys here are making such a speculation.

In order to eliminate zero attrition, multiplicative stacking is enough. If there were really nothing more than that, there is nowhere that any attrition reduction cap would be needed

There are two possibilities about this. One is that who is in charge of this is stupid and don't understand (or isn't stupid but don't try to understand). The other is that a different intention is hidden behind. (or, both, maybe...)

They speculate because they don't grasp the Law of Parsimony. Generally, the solution that requires the fewest number of assumptions is best.

 

[Beta King]

Alright last full waterfall season coming up then we can move this thing to live. Sept. 29th it is. Thank you all for your cooperation in this matter as I had stuff that needed to be accomplished prior to the nerf.

 

[King Flush]

They speculate because they don't grasp the Law of Parsimony. Generally, the solution that requires the fewest number of assumptions is best.

probably not all are quite so gullible to believe everything they are told especially when makes little sense

 

[Pericles the Lion]

probably not all are quite so gullible to believe everything they are told especially when makes little sense

Calculus makes little sense to the vast majority but that fact doesn't mean that its principles are flawed or that the people that do understand it are "gullible". It's by your choice that the nerf does not make sense.

 

[King Flush]

if you take it that what you have said is the reason ie the rewards are too great this doesn't add up as rewards for sniping and Arc profiteering even GE for that matter could be looked at as better certainly for time spent can earn more with any of the above (Arc Level dependant) so no it doesn't make sense in that regard.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

if you take it that what you have said is the reason ie the rewards are too great this doesn't add up as rewards for sniping and Arc profiteering even GE for that matter could be looked at as better certainly for time spent can earn more with any of the above (Arc Level dependant) so no it doesn't make sense in that regard.

INNO said nothing about rewards. You are assuming that the nerf is being implemented to reduce rewards. While that may indeed be part of it, reduced rewards is only one effect of the elimination of zero attrition. As you are well aware, there are several others.

 

[zookeepers]

Re-balancing implies change of distribution of fights performed by players, but in two meanings.

#1 Too many fights by the few fighters within the guild, compared to their guild mates
#2 Too many fights by the 2 or 3 guilds controlling the whole map

For #1, nerf would be effective, but not for #2, imo.

sniping and Arc profiteering even GE for that matter could be looked at as better certainly for time spent can earn more with any of the above (Arc Level dependant) so no it doesn't make sense in that regard.

I don't think Inno have any intention to reduce FP rewards from anywhere.
FP is important in FoE economy, but actually, all you can do by FP is to level your GB if you don't include that researches.
If Inno is thinking anything about reducing rewards, it should be about diamonds,
because, their main profit comes from the diamond sales.

I am pretty sure that Inno do not feel good about diamond farming, because they stopped giving away wishing wells through events.
After the Crow's Nest, no event building have a feature to produce diamonds.
So, The Arc is not a problem, while GE can be a issue.

Production of diamonds through GE is limited. You can't earn more than somewhat amount of diamonds every week though GE.
In contrast, GBG has possibilities of producing unlimited amount of diamonds... well, not really infinite, but a huge number of.

No doubt top fighters tend to be top diamond spenders,
and if so, top fighters monopolizing GBG fights = diamond income, may harm Inno's profit.

== speculation done ==

I would be happier if FoE is profitable for Inno.
So, if it's necessary, I am not very much against SC nerf.

But, I think 66.6% cap have too much negative effects for the regular players.
Making it too easy to be attritioned out would take away their chances enjoy playing.

 

[DEADP00L]

Still no official announcement on the live servers 2 days from the next GbG!
We are therefore going to start a new test season next week, and again without any modification, even slight, after 2 months of feedback.

 

[Thunderdome]

Yet, I am still trying to figure out how this change gets anyone more fights as this affects all across the grid. Maybe to the ones who haven't done GBg yet, perhaps.

 

[Beta King]

Yet, I am still trying to figure out how this change gets anyone more fights as this affects all across the grid. Maybe to the ones who haven't done GBg yet, perhaps.

Yes for all new the players that start the same week that this nerf goes to live will definitely be rewarded with more fights than they have ever have before, that's guaranteed!