-
Dear forum reader,
To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can REGISTER HERE!
Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
Feedback Guild Battlegrounds Watchtower and Siege Camp Ability Re-balance
- Thread starter Juber
- Start date
- Status
ArianX
Merchant
Like many said in discussion thread, would like to see it tested on live servers, those are more active and would show real impact on gbg rounds.
Idea of a cap for camps is not bad, many guilds complain about people who only hit att free sectors and have ridiculous amounts of fights but not on sectors needed for guild rank and are 1 camp or 0 camps, not sure 66% is a good amount seems a bit low for me, again impact needs to be seen on live server guilds, which are more active in gbg, and see if smaller guilds are still blocked.
Some said adding an amount of fights (that would hurt guilds with less members so no for cap on #fights)
Also 1 post said, sector next to hq, having the hability to build for hq owner only, ensuring you get some advantage even if 2 guilds take whole map. small guilds or not so active guilds, really struggle to move when 2 guilds take whole map and trap sectors making it really difficult to not get blocked.
Also think traps should have a cap, sameway camps do, or you can still keep guilds out with not much effort.
Idea of a cap for camps is not bad, many guilds complain about people who only hit att free sectors and have ridiculous amounts of fights but not on sectors needed for guild rank and are 1 camp or 0 camps, not sure 66% is a good amount seems a bit low for me, again impact needs to be seen on live server guilds, which are more active in gbg, and see if smaller guilds are still blocked.
Some said adding an amount of fights (that would hurt guilds with less members so no for cap on #fights)
Also 1 post said, sector next to hq, having the hability to build for hq owner only, ensuring you get some advantage even if 2 guilds take whole map. small guilds or not so active guilds, really struggle to move when 2 guilds take whole map and trap sectors making it really difficult to not get blocked.
Also think traps should have a cap, sameway camps do, or you can still keep guilds out with not much effort.
Beta Eta
Farmer
Seems like we are in another round, yes again to the change. In HH, you know the saying "vom Wiegen wird die Sau nicht fetter".
To the main points of the general feedback:
- Step in the right direction: Yes, and please reconsider the 1000-league-points-cap.
- Change too late: Yes, earlier would have been even better - but better late than never, so please bring it on to the live servers soon.
- No more 0 attrition fights: Not really a problem, this affects each player, so you have to consider new strategies with limited ressources (possible number of fights)
- Positive changes: I don't need compensation, no need for "mimimi"...
- 66.6 % is too low: That's okay for me, please don't remove the cap (this would mean "leave the situation as it is"), and 75 % is only a few more fights
- GBG felt too grindy: Yes!
To the main points of the general feedback:
- Step in the right direction: Yes, and please reconsider the 1000-league-points-cap.
- Change too late: Yes, earlier would have been even better - but better late than never, so please bring it on to the live servers soon.
- No more 0 attrition fights: Not really a problem, this affects each player, so you have to consider new strategies with limited ressources (possible number of fights)
- Positive changes: I don't need compensation, no need for "mimimi"...
- 66.6 % is too low: That's okay for me, please don't remove the cap (this would mean "leave the situation as it is"), and 75 % is only a few more fights
- GBG felt too grindy: Yes!
mintbunnies
Farmer
In US C-world, Top diamond league, seven 1000 LP guilds.
2 guilds managed to take 1 sector each in 12hrs.
In 24hrs, 2 guilds managed to take 3 sectors each.
We are sitting in an entirely white map bored out of our brains.
WHY are these guilds in diamond?
Obviously the problem is matchups and not camps or attrition. This 66% camp nerf would have made the situation incredibly worse if it had been implemented in live right now.
This experiment in beta has lasted long enough. The smaller guilds are still unable to do much. They take 1 sector twice a day, and are immediately retaken again. It hasn't helped our casual players, and it hasn't helped the lower guilds.
2 guilds managed to take 1 sector each in 12hrs.
In 24hrs, 2 guilds managed to take 3 sectors each.
We are sitting in an entirely white map bored out of our brains.
WHY are these guilds in diamond?
Obviously the problem is matchups and not camps or attrition. This 66% camp nerf would have made the situation incredibly worse if it had been implemented in live right now.
This experiment in beta has lasted long enough. The smaller guilds are still unable to do much. They take 1 sector twice a day, and are immediately retaken again. It hasn't helped our casual players, and it hasn't helped the lower guilds.
Jarekexe
Farmer
If this gets introduced to main servers, I suggest you increase the rewards. Otherwise players who's been working hard to get att/deff high, will be penalized. The've been doing so only to get more FPs from GBG
From what I see in my guild, the points gained in GBG have decreased by ~66% (top players were getting 6-8k, now they getting 2-3k)
So increase from 10FPs to 30FPs might solve the problem
Cheers
From what I see in my guild, the points gained in GBG have decreased by ~66% (top players were getting 6-8k, now they getting 2-3k)
So increase from 10FPs to 30FPs might solve the problem
Cheers
Avshar
Farmer
Hello Beta...
i'm general of best GBG guild in O world (from beggining of GBG we never lost), so you understand that i'm not "some" newbie from nowhere.
I really must smile how people think that this will help anything, seems like tons of you never did anything in GBG.
1) SC nerf > Small guild will suffer even more, for example now we swap with 1k daimond guild which have 10-15 players (we have 70 heavy hitters)... so what does this change bring those small guilds ? Because now at least once we set pattern with them, they have tons of fights. If unable to do anythingt, we will just storm whole island and small guilds will get even less than now... congratulation! If this should help small/weak guil, then it will completely miss target.
2) Matchmaking > Inno picked the last problem, because on the top should be GBG matchmaking. We have 70 players (many just can do 100+ attrition by autoattack) and instead we face strong guilds, we just get 1 per month only guilds with 20 players, even if we let them free path into center, it will take 12 hours to take 1 sector. This is not fun for us, this is not fun for those small guilds. What about to think how change this? I don't talk about same numbers as GE, but right now with all those medals and statistics from 2 years of GBG there should be some change.
3) Maps > We had GBG for 2 years and what we got... new map? If i work like that i will be fired from job, because i think many of us can create hex design and then some art-work can be done. So far huge dissapointment, that there is not pool like 10-15 maps. Why not use map that there are ways into some central arena, you should not connect everything with everything.
4) Leagues > Maybe this is even worse issue than MM (number 2). 1k diamonds league should be for competition guilds, if you play relax, no problem but maximum golden should be enough. Now there is problem that bronze-golden are completely empy and most ACTIVE guilds are between platinum-diamond. I spoken with some smaller guilds and they just like to stay in platinum, but they cannot, then they face top guilds and for them it's 14 days of nothing. Even they admit they cannot compete with us.
5) Cheaters > This will not help anything against cheaters which we have some as any other worlds. GVG and GBG is same, 10 fights per 5-6 seconds with 1 player. Nerf should denied it ? Can someone explain me how? If i'm on attriton 0 have 2 SC i can on my own conquer sector. Don't try argue, that this person will need to wait until reset, what if it's important sector and then another one appear and take 2-3 like this? Until Inno start care about players and punish cheaters those are just useless changes.
Avshar - General of CAE
i'm general of best GBG guild in O world (from beggining of GBG we never lost), so you understand that i'm not "some" newbie from nowhere.
I really must smile how people think that this will help anything, seems like tons of you never did anything in GBG.
1) SC nerf > Small guild will suffer even more, for example now we swap with 1k daimond guild which have 10-15 players (we have 70 heavy hitters)... so what does this change bring those small guilds ? Because now at least once we set pattern with them, they have tons of fights. If unable to do anythingt, we will just storm whole island and small guilds will get even less than now... congratulation! If this should help small/weak guil, then it will completely miss target.
2) Matchmaking > Inno picked the last problem, because on the top should be GBG matchmaking. We have 70 players (many just can do 100+ attrition by autoattack) and instead we face strong guilds, we just get 1 per month only guilds with 20 players, even if we let them free path into center, it will take 12 hours to take 1 sector. This is not fun for us, this is not fun for those small guilds. What about to think how change this? I don't talk about same numbers as GE, but right now with all those medals and statistics from 2 years of GBG there should be some change.
3) Maps > We had GBG for 2 years and what we got... new map? If i work like that i will be fired from job, because i think many of us can create hex design and then some art-work can be done. So far huge dissapointment, that there is not pool like 10-15 maps. Why not use map that there are ways into some central arena, you should not connect everything with everything.
4) Leagues > Maybe this is even worse issue than MM (number 2). 1k diamonds league should be for competition guilds, if you play relax, no problem but maximum golden should be enough. Now there is problem that bronze-golden are completely empy and most ACTIVE guilds are between platinum-diamond. I spoken with some smaller guilds and they just like to stay in platinum, but they cannot, then they face top guilds and for them it's 14 days of nothing. Even they admit they cannot compete with us.
5) Cheaters > This will not help anything against cheaters which we have some as any other worlds. GVG and GBG is same, 10 fights per 5-6 seconds with 1 player. Nerf should denied it ? Can someone explain me how? If i'm on attriton 0 have 2 SC i can on my own conquer sector. Don't try argue, that this person will need to wait until reset, what if it's important sector and then another one appear and take 2-3 like this? Until Inno start care about players and punish cheaters those are just useless changes.
Avshar - General of CAE
Yekk
Regent
The three strong guilds not only controlled the map but one guild stuffed the little guilds as needed to move forward on the map. My guild ended with more VP than the other 7 combined. poll is 2 to 1 against still. Much more jabber on the discussion thread on league makeups. ALL AGAINST INNO...
Fenix
Viceroy
Aerendil
Squire
Our last GbG was pretty boring. In beta you can have boring battlegrounds even at 1000 points. On live servers that happens usually below 1000 point. The few people who want to fight have less fight available => not helpful at all
Other improvements to GbG are more helpful like 3 Siege camps at starting sector ( which have to be build, and every competetive guild will use diamonds for these at the start)
Other improvements to GbG are more helpful like 3 Siege camps at starting sector ( which have to be build, and every competetive guild will use diamonds for these at the start)
mcbluefire
Baronet
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!
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!
Yekk
Regent
The best way to see clear data is to do multiple different tests on servers that match live. Beta is not in anyway a normal server. Its international flavor with many languages, its use by hardcore players to test/investigate new content, its "free diamonds" all make it less than useful for such testing. It does best at finding poor coding/bugs...It does best at making good suggestions that should be considered.
Many such suggestions have been done here. Many that would need very few hours to code. You want to see which work? Then do so correctly on live where the data is relevant. Test different attrition percentages. Test different server matchups. Test better VP methods.
Want to know what I would have liked to nerf instead of this camp restriction?
100 battles max per day per guild member.
Thus there will be a maximum of 8,000 fights to be carried out in a single day for a guild of 80 members, with the principle of first come, first served.
In this way, the concerns of sharing fights on a map would no longer be between guilds but within the same guild.
An advantage remains profitable to the most populated guilds.
100 battles max per day per guild member.
Thus there will be a maximum of 8,000 fights to be carried out in a single day for a guild of 80 members, with the principle of first come, first served.
In this way, the concerns of sharing fights on a map would no longer be between guilds but within the same guild.
An advantage remains profitable to the most populated guilds.
Nick Banned
Merchant
How long you want to do these polls? Reset the f#ck#ng changes as most of the people wants.
I'm really tired to run against walls every season because of our tiny guild. Remove it!
I'm really tired to run against walls every season because of our tiny guild. Remove it!
A better solution was suggested through the regular discussion feed;
1.) Degrade LP every season by 5-10%
2.) Raise the LP limit up to 1.750 lp
Through this losing #1 position, means missing out on a lot of lp, or even losing some LP and thus prestige and thus risking to drop in the guild's rank, an example for the established 1k diamond league:
1.000 lp - start season (all example guilds):
#1.) 1.000lp - 10% (100) = 900lp + 175lp = 1.075 lp (+75lp change)
#2.) 1.000lp - 10% (100) = 900lp + 125lp = 1.025lp (+25lp change)
#3.) 1.000lp - 10% (100) = 900lp + 75lp = 975lp (-25lp change)
#4.) 1.000lp - 10% (100) = 900lp + 25lp = 925lp (-75lp change)
#5.) 1.000lp - 10% (100) = 900lp -25lp = 875lp (-125lp change)
#6.) 1.000lp - 10% (100) = 900lp -75lp = 825lp (-175lp change)
#7.) 1.000lp - 10% (100) = 900lp -125lp = 775lp (-225lp change)
#8.) 1.000lp - 10% (100) = 900lp - 175lp = 725lp (-275lp change)
#2.) 1.000lp - 10% (100) = 900lp + 125lp = 1.025lp (+25lp change)
#3.) 1.000lp - 10% (100) = 900lp + 75lp = 975lp (-25lp change)
#4.) 1.000lp - 10% (100) = 900lp + 25lp = 925lp (-75lp change)
#5.) 1.000lp - 10% (100) = 900lp -25lp = 875lp (-125lp change)
#6.) 1.000lp - 10% (100) = 900lp -75lp = 825lp (-175lp change)
#7.) 1.000lp - 10% (100) = 900lp -125lp = 775lp (-225lp change)
#8.) 1.000lp - 10% (100) = 900lp - 175lp = 725lp (-275lp change)
An example with a hypothetical league filled with 500lp guilds:
#1.) 500lp -10% (50) = 450lp + 175lp = 625lp (+125lp change)
#2.) 500lp -10% (50) = 450lp + 125lp = 575lp (+75lp change)
#3.) 500lp -10% (50) = 450lp + 75lp = 525lp (+25lp change)
#4.) 500lp -10% (50) = 450lp + 25lp = 475lp (-25lp change)
#5.) 500lp -10% (50) = 450lp -25lp = 425lp (-75lp change)
#6.) 500lp -10% (50) = 450lp - 75lp = 375lp (-125lp change)
#7.) 500lp -10% (50) = 450lp - 125lp = 325lp (-175lp change)
#8.) 500lp -10% (50) = 450lp - 175lp = 275lp (-225lp change)
#2.) 500lp -10% (50) = 450lp + 125lp = 575lp (+75lp change)
#3.) 500lp -10% (50) = 450lp + 75lp = 525lp (+25lp change)
#4.) 500lp -10% (50) = 450lp + 25lp = 475lp (-25lp change)
#5.) 500lp -10% (50) = 450lp -25lp = 425lp (-75lp change)
#6.) 500lp -10% (50) = 450lp - 75lp = 375lp (-125lp change)
#7.) 500lp -10% (50) = 450lp - 125lp = 325lp (-175lp change)
#8.) 500lp -10% (50) = 450lp - 175lp = 275lp (-225lp change)
As demonstrated the consequences for not being part of the top2 are escalating rapidly. Which has a noticeable influence on the guild ranking. Naturally it'll be possible that in the first couple of seasons guilds might team up to secure the top2, however as demonstrated the losing guilds will drop down, as their lp is reduced. Resulting in a situation where eventually guilds that secured the top2 through diplomacy are ending up with each other. It's probable that some alliances are forged but it's unlikely that 6 guilds will be sidelined. As they might consist of other alliances trying to fight to saving their LP and with it, their guild's prestige.
Generally speaking across the board guilds will drop harder with more lp and less rapidly with less lp. Eventually it should stabilise into a situation in which guilds of roughly equal strength facing each other. Thus potentially solving the GbG problems regarding ranking and subtlety encouraging competition between guilds within GbG.
After 4 months of testing, I still approve of the nerf but I think it's not enough.
Matchmaking must be reviewed so that the strongest guilds face each other. Currently 2 to 3 guilds martyr each GbG 4 to 5 others.
Building locations should be more homogeneous. Some guilds benefit from the release of the HQ tiles with several locations while others must perform 160 or even 320 fights before benefiting from it.
By reducing everyone's combat capacities, the number of encounters to be carried out in diamond sectors must also be reduced.
Finally, it is unfortunate that the % of units directly related to attrition are not proportional but logarythmic. I think if 100 max attrition were to be the basis for a player with 1000% attack, a member with 1500 shouldn't be stuck at 102 attrition.
However, I would have preferred that the % of the camps were not so blocking, by keeping the old system but by making the camps effective for 20 fights per member on the same sector, abuse would be blocked while restoring a soul to a game collaborative.
Matchmaking must be reviewed so that the strongest guilds face each other. Currently 2 to 3 guilds martyr each GbG 4 to 5 others.
Building locations should be more homogeneous. Some guilds benefit from the release of the HQ tiles with several locations while others must perform 160 or even 320 fights before benefiting from it.
By reducing everyone's combat capacities, the number of encounters to be carried out in diamond sectors must also be reduced.
Finally, it is unfortunate that the % of units directly related to attrition are not proportional but logarythmic. I think if 100 max attrition were to be the basis for a player with 1000% attack, a member with 1500 shouldn't be stuck at 102 attrition.
However, I would have preferred that the % of the camps were not so blocking, by keeping the old system but by making the camps effective for 20 fights per member on the same sector, abuse would be blocked while restoring a soul to a game collaborative.
- Status