Feedback Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance

[Panthera]

hello
no for the change in the functionality of the siege camps
this would be a big penalty for small guilds who have invested.
deleting the camps would amount to the same thing

in the principle that the points depend on the number of guilds, wouldn't it be better to price camps based on the number of players in the guild?

I don't really understand the intention of this change, one thing is certain, regardless of the complainants, it is diplomacy and agreements between guilds that reign fans in the common interest on the battlefield in the same way as on the GVG.
obviously if certain guilds are excluded from the diplomatic circle, they rarely have the possibility of expressing themselves
It's been a long time since the battlefields are no longer battlefields but a field of convenience.

players think first of the gains it brings them
transfer the gains to the guild battleground and put them on the GvG and your camp problem will be definitively settled

When setting up the Guild battleground, guilds started to merge for tresory flow reasons.
by restricting the camps, you will cause a disproportion of guilds with guilds only constitute big fighters
young players will be penalized even more

 

[Grisu*]

Please: change it!!!!

Here is an example of the round on the live servers:

2 strong GG guilds

=> divide the map and change sectors every 4 hours

When they come into a competition with a third guild, they always have 4 or more BL, the others max 3!

Result:

The final placement was fixed on Friday (day 2) at 5:00 p.m. - no chance to change anything about it!

1. 368k

2. 346k

3. 55k

4. 43k

5. 36k

6. 32k

7. 28k

8. 25k

 

[senecaone]

I'm in favor of making changes that improve the game experience for the majority, and keep play in balance.

reducing the power of camps and towers without also changing traps and decoys will not work, in my considered opinion.

 

[lacsapgaah]

Hello, I don't think the beta is suitable for testing these changes.
These changes should be implemented as soon as possible on the live servers to better test them.
Cordially,

 

[IronMaiden666]

This change is realy killing for GBG, the now very active players will be discouraged and probably not even realy bother anymore, since the rewards for being active are cut back enormously. It will also lead to more traps being used and players even being able to do less, traps will be overpowered this way and guilds can hold on to what they own much more easily and it will lead to less active teams being pinned down to their base even more. The question should be, what are you trying to solve? You are trying to let more people play by making it easier for them because people that are already active get nerfed and lose interest. Keep it the way it was or add more siegecamps closer to the outer ring, so smaller guilds have an easier way getting on the map. A base of a guild could be 2 siegecamps for instance, allways allows for guilds to get back on the map more easily.

Been waiting for approval of this message since the 25th of july.....

 

[Iokasta the Fearless 468]

The reason for me voting no is that I have finally found a guild where fighting the GBG map has become a lot of fun, and a means to grow more quickly. I have been playing for nearly 2 years and for the first 18 month it was very slow going. If GBG had been like this from the start it would of course have been ok, but to have it snatched away now feels wrong.

 

[Catness]

Please, please, please flip this change again, the whole game is ruined!

 

[crabbyoldman]

It's obvious this isn't the answer for balance in GbG. It just gives large guilds an even larger advantage over the small guilds. What is needed is a different way of matching up guilds in the leagues. But we have been saying this for months. None of us really expect to be listened to concerning this issue. Inno is cutting it's own financial throat with this change. On live servers, when my guild can compete, I spend a lot of diamonds building my camps instantly. As do others. If we can't play, we won't be spending diamonds

 

[Yekk]

Still at 2 for 1 against Juber... The numbers follow what is seen on the discussion page which show most want other changes. Gaming the forum system has not worked well for you has it?

 

[Nansoon]

Opinion unchanged.

 

[Flo0Fil2L0]

Hello,

In all games you have to set limits, CBGs have no limits, the strongest guilds are able to fight all day and block weaker guilds.
In my opinion, you are not going far enough to rebalance this functionality.

 

[CrazyKokonut]

Hello!
What for "round 3,4,,x"?

 

[Mauro Pena Forte]

I think that if FoE doesn't want guilds to have attrition zero, they could create a way to reduce attrition individually, so those who like the GBG modality can have better results.
An option would be to enable (as in expedition) one more extra turn in the tavern shop and or even more interestingly, create a GB that provided attrition reduction (Level 80 -90% reduction like arc), which would somehow become a barrier for guilds to lock the field with sector changes (which I think not be bad but strategy) but allow the player to have the benefit of fighting with zero friction.

 

[MATR]

Finished my 3rd season with the change, still hate it. It now amounts to another task each day to complete my attrition- I can reach about 33 before I start loosing too many troops to continue. Depending on sc, this is about 30 to 75 fights. The guild is no longer interested in trying to add camps or make much of any kind of strategy to take sectors. It has crushed the few fighters we have and since we have players from around the world there is never more than several on at the same time. We effectively can't make much progress nor will we ever. In the past, before the change, at least we had a chance of racking up a group of sc and getting several hundred fights every now and then before our attrition stopped us. We have never been very strong in gbg but the change has made us even weaker.

 

[moideux]

If this was rebalancing would hate to see what it would look like if you actually balanced GbG. My suggestion would be to leave the camps and towers as they were, but provide better rewards for capturing the outside rings. In this way the rwards go both ways and smaller guilds do not need to challenge the larger guilds to get a small piece of the pie. This could be done in multiple ways, one way would be to assign a value to each guilds based upon their membership size and military skills. The more powerful guilds (top 4) do not get the better rewards on the outside rings as their objective remains the same, owning the majority of the sectors....

 

[Phanas the Phoenix]

GBG nerf is reducing GBG activity and amount of time players spend in game... if that is what Inno wants

 

[just daby]

Hating this new system. Guild participation is down, people are losing interest. I sincerely hope it doesnt get extended to the main servers

 

[mintbunnies]

As with this 3rd season I can see people slowly getting into a new normal. There is less outrage, and instead just a passive disapproval. Just as the anger about the pop-up ads have been replaced with a frustration that INNO doesn't care about their users. People give up on the game and are likely to drop beta since it is boring. They login once per day and fight then sign off. We are more organized about GBG now, we know how much camps to build and how fast people fill sectors. It is slow and boring as heck but it saves us goods. We don't have to build too many camps now after 3 seasons.

Also I've been chatting with misguided people in live servers that seem to think that this change helps the smaller guilds, especially those that don't build camps. This isn't true on our map anyways, the 3 smaller guilds on our map are still locked into their base and only taking the edges. The smaller guilds barely can make it out of their base before they are retaken.

There seems to be a belief that 66% attrition is a great equalizer. And I have to say this is false. The bottom members aren't getting any more fights than they used to in the old system. The change brings down the top without lifting up the bottom.

In the old system, the 100% free attrition stuff would be taken quickly by the top fighters and there is only stuff with 2 camps along the edges remaining for the casual players. 2 camps = 48% attrition. How are these casual guildies better off in the new system? The 2 camps in the old system (48%) aren't much better than the best sectors 4 camps (66%) in the new system. In fact we don't always build 4 camps anyways because it's not worth the goods. We will do 3 camps and maybe a tower.

The casual players are basically getting the same or worse attrition than they used to. Mostly the top fighters are affected. Ones that have spend so much time, effort, and diamonds to build their city. Only to have it all wiped away, it's so upsetting.

The change only hurts players, and it doesn't help players. Yes I agree GBG could use modification. But if the goal is to make GBG equal then this change is a failure.

 

[Fenix]

One more time: Yes,I like it but only the cap is needed.

 

[Hilary Briss]

I can only provide direct feedback based on my small 5 person Guild on Beta.

First off, rebalancing the fights people get within the Guild is not a concern as we are small and all get to their attrition limit daily.

Prior to the change, we were able to have running battles with other Guilds when they were not too strong, and break out and at least fight to some degree when those opposing Guilds were stronger, because we had the possibility to have free or lower attrition gain fights, and timed the spending of goods and Diamonds to maximise this approach. Now, our ability to do either as a small Guild has been significantly curtailed. This third round for instance we just had to sit on our doorstep as it was not possible to make enough gains to not be wiped out as soon as the locks came off. In the end we played for demotion to stand a chance of more activity next season.

On the plus side, we have saved a lot of Guild goods and spent hardly any diamonds as it is simply not worth it or necessary, and spend far less time playing the game as usually a single GBG session is all that is possible per person.

As I play in a number of live Guilds which have a variety of play styles and capability, I can try to extrapolate into those Guilds.

I have not heard a single complaint about lack of ability to play due to map sharing from any Guild member. Some people play a lot, some don't, and good Guild keep people informed. Maybe the issues that you have picked up on are really for people being in the wrong Guild ?

Several of the Guilds I am in who are capable of dominating a map have to do swaps regularly to at least have some degree of activity due to the lack of enough quality opposition Guilds, and will just be really frustrated and annoyed by this change as they have worked hard to get to where they are, and all would readily accept better opposition to battle against rather than share, and to still be able to continue to compete throughout each whole day per Season. This won't happen with just reducing the amount of fights people can have.

The smaller Guilds I am a member of who do currently map share a portion of the map regularly due to their size will not be able to continue as is, and will probably fold or give up on GBG as people who play GBG leave for larger Guilds that can complete.

A couple of Guilds do not make any real effort to organise GBG and take whatever they can when the opposition is not too strong. They will get fewer fights in the easy Seasons and will still be pinned back in the harder ones, but probably won't complain all that much.

I agree with many posters in the original thread about sorting out the league system as a much better way of achieving a rebalance. If this was done in a thoughtful manner, you could far more regularly pitch teams of equal capability against each other whilst incentivising them to compete rather than share by changing the points rewarded to encourage them to not settle for lower positions in the league without penalty, s is the case now. It is possible to do very little in a Season and still maintain 1000 points, which makes no sense.

Just a single top tier league with reducing points for each position would affect their Guild ranking and make them have to complete to maintain their Guilds rank, whilst incentivising Guilds in the lower ranks to complete for promotion again based on final league position, and one or two Guilds per world able to achieve the maximum. The top league with at least 6 competing Guilds would mean no map sharing whilst maintaining the ability to get some but fewer free fights for most, and the second tier league(s) should end up with more competitive Guilds than promotion positions, again discouraging cooperation, or possibly two or more groups working against others like you see in GvG.