Discussion Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[King Flush]

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.



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.

fair point, however if it's about diamonds I strongly think it will not work, I've bought diamonds before to help get more from events to boost attack, basically to be more competitive in GBG most others I know who have purchased diamonds have been for the same reason, no way would I have done this if GBG was as proposed with the nerf, what's the point when only a handful of fights are on offer? only person I know who buys diamonds for more general use is a guild member who often spends helping the guild by rushing SC's. No or little races post nerf so no need to rush SC's I imagine their diamond spending would drop also. there seems to be far too much opportunities for getting many buildings through events now and the amount of events is crazy, this in itself will be one of the reasons that Inno may be suffering with diamond sales there's no point buying like I did as it's just too damn easy to fill your city with decent attack buildings now, simple solution, reduce events and reduce amount of buildings that can typically be won, then it may be worth spending to gain more but only if GBG is still worth it.

 

[DEADP00L]

Sorry, but I don't understand your concern about spending on diamonds.
Are you shareholders at Innogames so that this becomes your number 1 argument?
Just like those who say players will be less connected to the game with this nerf, what can it do to you?
I thought, perhaps stupidly, that the main thing was to have fun, not to like Innogames or not, or to be connected 24/7.

There are two camps that have remained opposed since June 24 (date of the announcement of this nerf): those who will win less individually and those who will finally be able to type without having to watch the map all day. And nothing changes or evolves the debate!

Innogames made a serious mistake, simply to have taken more than 2 years to adapt the camps, but it made another mistake without modifying anything despite almost 200 pages of comments or even testing it in full size on at least one live server!

 

[Beta King]

Maybe if we can squeeze out another 100 pages of comments it will help Inno make a decision!

 

[Pericles the Lion]

The dozen players (give or take) regularly contributing to this thread said everything that they needed to say in the first 20 pages. All that followed is "rinse and repeat" and did not motivate INNO to respond. Another 100 pages will not make an iota of difference. We just need to wait for INNO to take their next step.

 

[King Flush]

Sorry, but I don't understand your concern about spending on diamonds.
Are you shareholders at Innogames so that this becomes your number 1 argument?
Just like those who say players will be less connected to the game with this nerf, what can it do to you?
I thought, perhaps stupidly, that the main thing was to have fun, not to like Innogames or not, or to be connected 24/7.

There are two camps that have remained opposed since June 24 (date of the announcement of this nerf): those who will win less individually and those who will finally be able to type without having to watch the map all day. And nothing changes or evolves the debate!

Innogames made a serious mistake, simply to have taken more than 2 years to adapt the camps, but it made another mistake without modifying anything despite almost 200 pages of comments or even testing it in full size on at least one live server!

I don't have to have a concern to have an opinion do I? but in any case it has relevance if this is the reason Inno are doing it as think they'll find they'll lose out, better for me if nerf comes in on a personal level, but to play devils advocate I still see it being very bad for the game.

You say they made a mistake for taking more than 2 years to 'adapt the camps' (whatever that means) but whilst I'm sure GBG could have been better with better matchmaking or a better concept overall what we've had for 2+ years is for sure FAR better than it will be in a post nerf enviroment.

 

[CrashBoom]

tomorrow new season on live
no announcement yet

 

[mcbluefire]

Come on, my friends, we can't let this thread stagnate now..... we need 7 more pages.

For Inno, I highly recommend backing this nonsense nerf off beta and utilizing the feedback that most of us agree on....fixing matchmaking. I have no agreement on any SC nerf, not even the idea of going multiplicative without a max. Over 2 years is too long to consider changing what should have been done within the first few months. The risk is too much to gain so very little.

We get our opinions. I believe my opinion will prevent a major negative event for FOE. Even if it is only 1% of players who quit and have a negative reaction it could divide this community permanently and seal the fate of the game's future. I'm pretty sure we all agree it will be more then 1%. What if it's 5%? Isn't that what GvG participation was reported at? If GvG couldn't be sunset with that small of a following...probably wouldn't want that kind of lashback over a poorly considered nerf. Getting into more real world territory it's likely between 10 and 25% of players who will quit and/or become vocally negative about losing out on zero attrition at least at some point in GbG. And what if I'm wrong and it's more than that? Yuck!

Thanks for your time. (Yeah, I'll post this in the hidden thread as well and I'm all good with my friends on here who disagree.)

 

[CrashBoom]

announcement in german forum

Spoiler: ...

a new world starts next Thursday

 

[Emberguard]

Come on, my friends, we can't let this thread stagnate now..... we need 7 more pages.

Ok, ok xD

I have no agreement on any SC nerf, not even the idea of going multiplicative without a max. Over 2 years is too long to consider changing what should have been done within the first few months. The risk is too much to gain so very little

I agree waiting 2 years to change it is the biggest problem with the nerf: people are used to the current status quo.

Had it been done right at the start, then people would be so used to 5 SC support as they’d still be doing a lot more of their fights with full or partial attrition (which I found was a lot more fun to play with, but would probably be a bit of a shock for those who are used to 5 SC)

I do think regardless of whether or not there’s a SC nerf, adding the ability to place Siege Camps on HQ would be a good idea for balancing. Even if the mechanic were so you have to wait until the first reset of the season to place a HQ Siege Camp, it would help with getting out of HQ

 

[BadOMB]

and it appears that whilst nothing is being said here by Inno they are nerfing the amount of SCs on live servers

 

[King Flush]

Ok, ok xD


I agree waiting 2 years to change it is the biggest problem with the nerf: people are used to the current status quo.

Had it been done right at the start, then people would be so used to 5 SC support as they’d still be doing a lot more of their fights with full or partial attrition (which I found was a lot more fun to play with, but would probably be a bit of a shock for those who are used to 5 SC)

I do think regardless of whether or not there’s a SC nerf, adding the ability to place Siege Camps on HQ would be a good idea for balancing. Even if the mechanic were so you have to wait until the first reset of the season to place a HQ Siege Camp, it would help with getting out of HQ

The only difference If this had been put in place 2 years ago is that FOE would have been a poorer gaming enviroment for that period and Inno would have had no money off me that's for sure. GBG in it's current form has kept a lot of players in the game who would likely have got bored and left a long time ago.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

The only difference If this had been put in place 2 years ago is that FOE would have been a poorer gaming enviroment for that period and Inno would have had no money off me that's for sure. GBG in it's current form has kept a lot of players in the game who would likely have got bored and left a long time ago.

A thing that I find interesting is there are about a dozen frequent contributors to this thread and, maybe, times two that posted once or twice. We're at 193 pages and coming up on 90 days. Where is everybody else? There are over 5000 active players on Beta but only a couple of dozen care enough about the nerf to voice their opinion on the forum. Why so few? On the US server Forum there was an initial flurry of activity when the nerf hit Beta but you can hear crickets on that thread now. IMO, the prophesies of cataclysm are highly exaggerated. Time will tell of course.

 

[Beta King]

and it appears that whilst nothing is being said here by Inno they are nerfing the amount of SCs on live servers

What makes you say this, has GBG started for you on live server already? I think my last season had the normal amount of SCs but dont know for sure.

 

[Emberguard]

Inno would have had no money off me that's for sure

Uh…. Players were spending well before Guilds ever had the Guild Treasury to build and sustain 5 Siege Camps….. and they were also spending before Guild Battlegrounds even existed. There’s no evidence to support that players wouldn’t have spent *any* money on account of Guild Battlegrounds if Siege Camps had a max cap from the start.

Could it have reduced the total spending if it had been like that from the start? Sure. But they still would have made money from it regardless.

 

[MJ Artisan of War]

Now there is a winning business strategy.... Let us find a way to make our product much less profitable......

 

[jovada]

Beta map 1000k today , still a lot of activity, the only thing that changed is that more guilds are involved (and of course no more abuse of 1000 fights a day)
For the doomsayers i can only say that beta is adapting and i have no notion of players leaving the game here on beta because the nerf of GbG

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Now there is a winning business strategy.... Let us find a way to make our product much less profitable......

How, exactly, do you know that the nerf will make their product less profitable?

 

[Owl II]

What would I care about someone else's activity if I'm sitting on the shore anyway? What is the difference between flags 159/160 before nerf and after? This is a great mystery

 

[BadOMB]

What makes you say this, has GBG started for you on live server already? I think my last season had the normal amount of SCs but dont know for sure.

we've been monitoring SC availability on both maps and they been quietly changing them, this round we've noticed no setups that allow for free hits, a couple of 96% and then 72% and 48% are the majority of set ups

 

[Owl II]

we've been monitoring SC availability on both maps and they been quietly changing them, this round we've noticed no setups that allow for free hits, a couple of 96% and then 72% and 48% are the majority of set ups

Do you mean fewer places for buildings? Yes, we noticed it in a couple of seasons too. This is also an a/b test, probably