Feedback Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[Juber]

Dear Kings and Queens,
On Thursday, July 14th, the second season with the rebalanced Siege Camps and Watch Towers started.

We appreciate your feedback! Please note, that in this forum, no other player can see your feedback. We will make sure to forward it to the developers!

Please write your feedback in a factual and constructive way and stay on topic.

So that we can pass your feedback on to the developers, the following points would be important to note:

• Feedback that only contains one sentence like "I can't do maths" is not helpful. Please make sure to include reasons for your opinion.
• The same goes for positive feedback. We are happy about it of course, but describing what exactly you like is always very helpful!
• Limit your feedback to the actual content. Feedback like "You should improve X" is not helpful.

If you want to discuss it with other players, please visit the Discussion Thread!

Thank you very much and have fun!

Sincerely,
Your Forge of Empires Team

Spoiler: Poll results

Round	Voters	Likes	Dislikes	Undecided
Initial Feedback and 1	466	153	319	not included yet
2	323	114	207	2
3	301	104	194	3
4	236	79	152	5
5	92	39	52	1
6	64	22	42	0
7	63	26	37	0
8	48	14	34	0
9	50	12	36	2

 

[Devilsangel]

I am all for the change, but
a) maybe change the limit to a bit higher, somewhere between the 3 and 4 SC as they were before (around 80%)
b) consider changing the decoys and and traps to match the SC change, otherwise they are overpowered

 

[DEADP00L]

First, I want to thank Inno for trying to fix GbG. I just hope this is just the beginning and that other aspects of the game will follow the same path. I'd rather see improvements to the Tavern and the Antiquarian before we lay out yet another novelty.

Then, it is necessary to give back to attrition its importance so that the players do not switch to excess, limit the advantage of a weakness.
But we must also review the locations of the sectors, because the randomness is as bad as the checkerboard generated by 2 large guilds.

And we must review the groupings in GbG.
Either by blowing up the 1,000 LP ceiling and removing 10% from each guild at the start of each GbG, or by limiting access to a higher league by the number of encounters made during the previous X GbGs.

For the 66.6% SC stack, it would be good if you adjusted the attack and defense % of the attrition table.
I'll take 100 attrition as a benchmark by being achievable, but hard, with an average player attack of 800%. Thus those who have worked to reach 1500% attack should hardly reach 120 attrition and those who have an attack of 400% should start blocking towards 40 attrition.
The difference between the % of the players does not follow the same curve as the % of attack of the attrition, it can demotivate to make efforts.
Currently, with 66.6% max, the difference between a player who has not optimized his city and another of the same age who has focused on the attack is barely 30 fights. Which is not logical.

BUT NEVER RETURN TO ZERO ATTRITION POSSIBLE ON HUNDREDS OF COMBAT!

 

[MJ Artisan of War]

Since we don't know what INNO is attempting to re-balance here is my feedback...
This change does severely limit individual participation... If the re-balance means bore me into doing something other than FoE then it is working.
This change does nothing to prevent strong guilds from totally dominating the map, it actually makes it much easier because the weaker guilds run out of attrition faster...
In summary I am totally against this change.

 

[GateKeeper]

Great change to attrition so far.

Next changes:

1. Lower amount of wins to capture a sector, i.e Diamond 140 points. each league is also fine to reduce by 10-20 wins. This will lower attrition build up as well. This is also diminish the time that Guilds that swap sectors have to "prep" and "hold" sectors. A 3rd guild could push the sector closure sooner.
2. Rid of the "old map", go with new map, and you can still rotate the different rewards types.
3. and finally on the "new map" you have to re-balance the buildings per sector now, its only fair to each Guild's starting sectors. This will also help with lesser 66% attrition to be fair for guilds to progress across maps.

 

[Thunderdome]

Okay, since we are going to see it after it's done and gone so I will go ahead and post something:

This change is affecting those of us who are medium and small players in limiting fights that will help us grow. Those of us had relied on 100% zero attrition increases as to save our troop counts so we can participate and feel worthy alongside a large player. This change will not slow down those who have a decent amount of attack army percentages... it'll probably deny them a good set of fights, but they can still get to 100-150 attrition. The low player can get up to 5-10 attrition before calling it a day. I can get to 43-45 before I hang up my guns.

Basically, there are other things that can be considered to fix what was supposedly wrong. They are within the "discussion" we got going as most of them are solid and could help fix this problem and make GBg worthwhile to play and participate in. There's already a lot of players who opposed on the change, so I don't know why a second poll is needed.

Take a learning lesson from the time PVP Arena was first introduced and then went over our heads to the EN server that ultimately got put on the shelf for a time until you folks went and re-introduce it again. You keep this going and I am sure players will stop playing or spending money, whichever the case may be.

 

[PackCat]

All my remarks are regarding GBG "Re-balance"!!! The Attrition issue is just one small part of the over all problem. Thank you.

I believe GVG requires 3 or more players in a Guild to participate. I have been corrected, it is one.
By restricting GBG to 5+ players, INNO can remove half the Guilds from the season lineup from the start.
Trying to schedule 1/2 the number of Guilds has to be a lot easier than the entire world.
I do not know if restricting GBG participation to the top 100 Guilds or some arbitrary number would be beneficial, but something to think about.
There could be a qualify league to participate in the actual rated leagues.

If Guild Prestige Ratings are recalibrated (re-balance), then GBG could have more meaning in determining a Guild's value, and therefore the rankings and make it easier to match similar abilities. The Ranking vs Matchup would more mirror each other. If a Guild is in the top 10 and a dud in GBG, it is on them to increase their Guild abilities in other areas than just GVG... or drop in the rankings. (it should not be just mostly about how many provinces in GVG you own)

The function is Guild Battlegrounds, not Guild Playgrounds. If players do not have the skill or association to compete, maybe they can stay in PvP Arena, where everyone fights against their own strengths without interference from other members.

The things the Attrition (Nerf) has highlighted. Just like before, Guilds with large participation from the start have a better advantage. Guilds with strong leaders are going to be more decisive in strategy. Stronger Guilds will still be able to capture the entire map and put other Guilds in their bases. Guilds will still be able to partner and limit sharing the map. None of those things this change has accomplished and why it should be immediately rescinded. It simply punishes skill, determination, and Guild cooperation. It does not go after the root of the problem. (see below)

It seems the Nerf has not resolved the core issue of Guild frustration (envy). Some are mad because others farm. Some are mad because others take all the sectors. It doesn't help that the seasonal matchups are still not fair or equitable in Guild size or savvy.
It has to be one of the other, it cannot be both ways. Any points your Guild earns, takes away from the possible earnings for myself and my Guild.
This modification to the game structure is mostly a decoy, to distract members from the real problem of players using bots, macros, and scripts. If INNO attacked those issues first, I think you would find most other problems would be manageable. Even currently, there exists a bug in the Questline that INNO refuses to fix for a month, because it is easier to frustrate fast players, than to stop fraud.

Thank you again for your time.

 

[Markus Stormrider]

If you increase the 66.6% siege camp limit to 95%, maybe i will change my vote to yes. But for now it continues to be "No".

 

[Nessie]

I'd very much appreciate if someone finally describes the exact problem the devs are trying to address.
What does reducing strong player capabilities got to do with balancing?

Furthermore, I do not understand why a second vote is necessary when the first vote was an overwhelming rejection.
Did InnoGames find more people with 10 fights and 800 points to vote "YES, I love your changes"? I believe that InnoGames is capable of something like this - but that does not change the result if players who have invested money so far do not do so anymore or leave the game

 

[Shalimar the Brave]

I feel that changing SC to multiplicative AND adding a 66.6% attrition reduction cap will not effectively rebalance GBG, or adequately address the problems of long-term sustainability of GBG or balance between players and guilds.

Based on my experience with playing GBG in nearly all its permutations, I believe that if this change were to go live in its present form it would exacerbate the imbalance between the very strong guilds and everyone else. This change does not affect the root causes of why guilds farm GBG – the main one being leader burn out from fighting seasons. Guilds will adapt and continue to farm. We are likely to see strong guilds consolidate and remove members who cannot or will not handle high attrition but continue to swap and dominate the maps – likely to a greater extent than they do currently. Weak guilds who rarely fight with full support anyway will only be minimally affected, and likely will not perform any better than they already do. The guilds that this change will affect most are the moderate strength guilds who can be quite competitive in platinum or lower diamond. These guilds tend to have smaller players than the big guilds and cannot handle as much attrition as the players in the big guilds. Because of guild consolidation they will likely see their best players move to strong guilds, and the rest of their players will have fewer rewards.

The biggest issue I see with this change are player engagement and stress on leadership teams. Many players have already stated that if this goes to live servers they plan to spend less time on the game. They will burn their attrition and be done. This in turn is likely to reduce revenue for Inno because they are spending less time engaging with the platform. On the other hand, leadership teams will spend more time and more stress managing the map because in addition to other map dynamics, they will have to manage the attrition for their full team. Additionally, slowing down the pace of sector turnover will mean more time by leadership to manage the map (not the main player base, but leadership who spend many volunteer hours keeping other players engaged). This will lead to leader burnout at a faster rate.

I can understand the need to rebalance GBG to ensure that no sector is fully attrition free. I feel like keeping camps and watchtowers additive and setting the cap at either 88% (3 camps plus 2 watchtowers) or 96% (4 camps) would be sufficient to prevent abuse without causing significant quality of life issues in playing GBG.

 

[beelzebob666]

As I am not active in GBG on beta all I say is purely Speculation:

- I am generally in favor of the changes in general, but I feel the cap is set too low at 66%
- the siegecamps and watchtowers should not be added - they should be "multiplied" / triggered independently

- In the other feedback thread the topic of "boring" GBG came up

- the ranking system should be overhauled such that guilds of similar strength meet more often​

- just because a 2nd placed guild is the best of 7 similarly bad guilds (in comparison to P1), they should not raise in rank just as if they were a contender for 1st place​

- make actual gains/loses of LP dependent on the amount of VP or progress points amassed over the season​

​

 

[DEADP00L]

For the leagues I have already proposed this solution which was not retained by the community:

- 6 Guilds maximum per group
- the Diamond league made up of 4 groups of 6 guilds (i.e. 24 guilds)
- the Platinum league made up of 8 groups of 6 guilds (i.e. 48 guilds)
- the Gold league made up of 16 groups of 6 guilds (i.e. 96 guilds)
- the Silver league made up of 32 groups of 6 guilds (i.e. 192 guilds)
- the Copper league composed of groups of 6 guilds for the rest of the active guilds.
- at each GbG, the last 2 guilds (5th and 6th) descend from the league.
- at each GbG, only the first guild moves up the league.

Thus 360 guilds are divided into leagues from Diamonds to Silver.
The LP were used initially but they demonstrate the limit of the system.

 

[Tanmay11]

yes i like the change,, non stop farming should have never been possible, a lot of players have experienced burnout by being forced to stay on gbg map for long time. this change means we can do our fights and not bother about the map later.

 

[Juan Primero]

I have been waiting for a change for a long time. However the upper limit for attrition would be easier to achieve by reducing the values of SC, Towers (and also for traps) or reducing the available slots. It would be advatageous, especially for smaller guilds, if the number of slots increased from the central sector to th headquarters.

 

[Statue of NinjAlin]

I hate this change because this:

- Destroys any new player: No new players can form quickly as gbg is the ultimate source of fp. Starting a new city and maintaining it is a big issue now
- Fu*ks up guild balance: You donate more treasury goods than you use, so treasury starts to accumulate now. Better change SCs from 3k to 10k goods. That way it will be more competitive.
- Makes you spend less time in foe overall
- No reason to gather attack -> No reason to spend diamonds in event -> No one buys diamonds -> Inno doesnt get paid -> Paid workers start to get sent out -> Company colapses -> FoE shuts down.

I love Inno & FoE pls dont quit

 

[trucidator]

I do not think it is the right solution to the problem, in my opinion more leagues should be made in order to balance the less competitive guilds, you cannot damage players who have carried out their accounts for years and invested time and money to then be reduced their offensive force.
In this way I foresee a big drop in interest in the CDBs,
as it will no longer be a source of points and prizes.
I confirm the above that as they are they are fine and it would be a big mistake to make changes.

 

[kawada]

1st season with revised system I spent in a guild which has both super-active fighters and farmers which don’t participate in GBG at all. Previously, we were building a lot of camps and active fighters could not be happier about GBG flow. During last season, they kept getting maxed in attrition quite fast at the beginning of the day and that’s it. Now, active fighters are frustrated due to fewer number of fights and lack of support from farmers (which was not that noticeable before)

What’s the result of it?

• No change for farmers who are quite non-active gamers anyway
• Frustration cause unhappy / conflicting environment in the guilds because fighters need support from farmers, and farmers are not going to change their game style
• active fighters run out army units quite fast which reduce their activity too
• Activity decrease for previously active players: now they log in to get max attrition (which doesn’t take long and require one single log in) and gather FPs. for example, I came back to play my live account again
• Active fighters will rotate between more active guilds which will lead to polarisation (active vs non active GBG participants) and fewer number of actively fighting guilds

2nd season - I am In a very active guild With lots of fighters. But our GBG rivals are much smaller guilds. So after day 1 we took the whole map and people can barely use their attrition, because those smaller guilds can take only 3-4 sectors a day Due to maxed attrition of the key players. Awesome diamond league…

 

[Donna a Macskabolond]

My vote is No.
My reasons:
- The first and most important is: the cap is very demotivating for the guilds and players because without the personal rewards (global point escepially and forge points) there is nothing to fight for. GBG doesn't add anything to the guild (no prestige points) and 2-300 fights is not motivating enough to the players. For most players the GBG will mean a place where they can do the necessary fights for events and himeji nothing more. The diamond league will be the same as platinum now.
- Medium sized fighter guilds will slowly die because they don't have any member to spread the attrition effectively. Now they matter in the group, after the cap they won't. This change polarize the guilds even more - there will be big, powerful fighter guilds - a very big IF they found something to fight for - and small ineffective non-fighters who are mostly will be beached.
- The cap means about 15-30 minutes play time for a player and they not encouraged to log in more times a day. It will mean the guild social life will decrease, the 1.9 threads will getting slower. The players will log in once a day, because after their attrition maxed out and the collection is done there will be no reason to come back to the game.
- The GBG leaders either leave the map alone because they won't have attrition after the second tile or coerced to babysit the map without the ability to fight.
- The GBG will be very slow, boring. There will be no races for sectors, nothing exciting. People come, do their fights, leave. There will be no teamwork.
- The third and fourth siege camps price too high for the additional effect what they means. Won't worth build it escepially with the algorith how INNO calculates percents...
- The cap won't solve any problem, the big guilds will adapt if they want and remain powerful enough to controll the map, the small remain small and beached, the medium sized fighter guilds will die because the members either drift away from the game or leave to a big guild.
- The change is very late if INNO never wanted to allow low attrition fights. After 2.5 half years this change is unreasonable, break trust and unfair. No one would have batted an eyelash if you do this after the first couple of season.

I don't support any change BEFORE the matchmaking and league system is fixed. If the real problems are solved and after that SC cap or any other changes seems necessary then it's okay.

 

[Pafton]

Well to be honest I don't really like these changes that much, but I am still kinda hinging towards the neutral. In principle, I agree that having attrition-free fights was kind of counterproductive and could be hugely exploited. So in that sense, I support having a cap. But, please understand 66.6% is too low! It means every third fight will still give you attrition, despite having four siege camps. Most small and medium sized guilds just don't build four SCs. They just play with two, and in the best of cases: three. So you can see that the attrition is actually less than half.

I have two solutions for this. The first solution is to just remove a hard cap at 66.6% and make it give diminutive results, so automatically it stops becoming profitable after a point. I haven't thought what values could be assigned, but probably something that will make SCs beyond five pretty worthless. I don't know how much attrition the fifth SC will provide, but somewhere around 75% could be the sweet spot.

And the second solution, well just cap it at 75 or 80%. That is still not ideal, but at least better than the current arrangement. Players with a moderate level of activity will not be handicapped, and the endless farming will also stop.

(Also as an aside, good job with creating a private thread. There is a pack of wolves on both sides (pro/anti) waiting to dissect every critical or unfavourable response. And they seem to relish going after the neutral players )

 

[blueskydwg]

I'm undecided.
In Beta, where I am a mid level player in a large guild the change has proved beneficial to me and I don't see that it has negatively impacted the guild - but I know it has limited the fights by our bigger players. Which has made it possible for me to get in more fights since I can now access the map at various times during the day and some supported fights are almost always available. In the past, all supported fights were quickly taken by our "whales" leaving little for the small guys.

On the other hand, in my main world I'm a large player in a small guild. I can see that it will limit my fights when we are in diamond lite, but it's unclear what will be the impact when we are in a full diamond battleground with limited access to the map because of larger guilds with many whales. It's possible that I can get more fights then if the big guilds max out their attrition early. Won't know that until I get actual results.