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.
As the founder of an averagely strong guild, I say No to change. The reason is simple Strong players or strong guilds probably don't earn that much anymore, But weaker guilds and the weakest and new players don't earn at all.
GBG is for a beginner or a weak player who is starting to navigate the game and is an Active Player. The fastest way to move
God, just build ARC to 80 at the beginning and get plans for it, it would be more or less work for more than half a year without GBG.
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.
The tooltip for the siege camps and watchtowers only says something like "the more such buildings are adjacent to a sector, the less powerful they are". This is very ambiguous. You should make it clear and easy to determine exactly what chance there is for our attrition not to go up, for each sector. Before, since it was a static number always, we could calculate it ourselves (1 SC - 24%, 2 SCs - 48% and so on). But with these new changes, I haven't found any way to either calculate it myself or to see it automatically calculated in the game.
Besides this, I don't think this is a good idea overall. Yes, people can exploit the 5 SCs thing to get no attrition, but not always. It depends what kind of opponents you get. And let's not forget that SCs ultimately cost guild goods. You can't build an infinite amount of SCs, because you'll run out of goods.
And something that will affect Inno's bottom line: if you do this change in production, you will see less diamond spending. People won't rush building SCs that much anymore. This means less income for you.
FoE has this aforementioned problem in more places, TBH. There are these unwritten rules or hidden chances in more places. For example the chances for the Wishing Well are not displayed. That is not transparency. Another example is the unwritten rule that CF boost doesn't affect FP packs (I think it also doesn't affect units, but idk because there's nothing to say this -- you see the problem?).
I did vote yes the first time, but no the second, because for smaller players with little attack power and not much troops, this is a huge penalty. It would be better to limit the fights and/or negotiations per day.
The changes are for the power guilds and powerful, high aged players. It makes the powerful more powerful. Nothing for a new or young player to achieve except set in the corner a few years and hope for change.
Why would a new or young player want to only get 5 - 10 hits per day in a GBG session?
Being a small guild of 3 we don't have the treasury yet to build SCs so really we do see the changes. We just go until we are out of attrition and then wait till reset.
I'm not a huge fan of the changes personally. Besides being complicated, it doesn't really help guilds whose treasury resources might be a little more limited compete with other guilds. I would suggest a slightly different approach. Set the cap to 72% no matter how many SC are adjacent to a sector. For instance, if a sector has 3 SC adjacent, it has a 72% chance of not giving attrition, but even if it has 10 SC adjacent to it, it is still just 72%. This will help smaller guilds, while larger guilds will still accumulate attrition and need to eventually slow down for the day. It also prevents smaller guilds from having to use tons of resources building SCs just to reach the 66.6 cap. I don't know your code, but it should be a difficult adjustment, something like:
if ( adjacentSiegeCamp >= 3 || adjacentWatchtower >= 9) {
chanceOfNoAttrition = 72.0;
}
Of course, it will have to be played with to adjust for cases where there is a mix of SC and Watchtowers, but it demonstrates the concept.
I just don't get where this is supposed to help anyone. Our tiny guild placed 2nd on a map that went at least 1/3 untouched. The only challenge to the whole round was how fast I ran out of attr with the 66%. We had to claw our way off the beach and finally got to the 2nd tier where we had one sector with the coveted 3 camps. We spent 10 days working in a circle around that sector. That was it. The extent of one very boring, unchallenging and not very profitable GBG round. For our troubles, we will now be tossed into Diamond league where a 60 man guild can keep us away from that one, 3 camp sector that we could actually put to use. How is this helping anything? As the only large acct in my guild, I use any and every FP I can get hold of to help my junior members grow so they too can now look forward to MAYBE being able to get 100 battles a day (less than1 sector in platinum) and hold onto that one good sector. Not all of us want the drama and control that comes with being in a large guild. You're penalizing the crap out of us for being a small group. That doesn't even taker into account the thousands of dollars in the last 2 yrs that I alone have sunk into making my city able to compete and be fun in GBG. It's like a giant middle finger to tons of your customers. It's insulting and demoralizing.
In the most recent Guild Battlegrounds, my guild was the only one who played We did not use siege camps. By the end of the season, we won because none of the other guilds tried at all, none took back the tiles we took, so the map was filled with uncontested tiles. My guild only got to fight as much as taking a tile once allowed us. It was not fun nor competitive.
this GBG nerf is bad for players, there is nothing to like it. Its more like how difficult is it to tolerate this bad change. It is just slowing down the players. Big leagues and top players will continue to dominate. lower leagues and players who anyway did not take interest will not bother. This change negatively affects middle level guilds and middle level players. Till now they had chance to make a big push at least occasionally ob favorable map but that possibility is now blunted.
So overall bad change for players. Players will reduce time spent in FoE.
I am glad to see this restriction put into place, for those who have been here too long you will remember the complaints about point farming in GvG etc and the points system being revamped, well since the introduction of GbG this has been the largest corruption of the points system this game has ever seen and seriously needs addressing.
Plus due to the 0 attrition fights the amount of cheating has increased in the game to, and this in turn has spilled over in to other elements of the game spoiling the game for many, and I would add at this point, the ban times for those caught is shocking and needs to be increased up to a total ban if they persist.
If the idea of 'Rebalancing' was to help smaller Guilds compete against high level Guilds ... it has failed.
Guilds with a large number of active GbG players can take the map because the attrition is spread between lots of players. If a small Guild only has a few really active GbG players, but still wants to compete, attrition knocks them out too quickly.
Under the original system, two or three players from a small Guild could attack the map once they managed to take a few sectors to kill attrition. They might not win a race, but not all sectors are taken in races.
The only thing the rebalancing has accomplished is to SLOW DOWN GbG to the point that really active players will spend much less time in the game. I will no longer buy diamonds and probably go relatively inactive in Beta if this continues. If this is to be the 'new' GbG in my Birka world, I may need to find another game to play.
I reflected that with the changes made limited the battles to small players who could aspire to make points and goods.
It is necessary to consider the psychological impact on the player and the increase of the difficulties will lead to an abandonment of the cdb and the game even as it will be more and more difficult to complete the research.
I analyze the issue from the point of view of emerging players,
as for us elephants you have slowed us down but we continue to grind battles and points not only in the CDBs, so I believe that modifying them would only damage the Inno Game in a number of appearances.
Greetings
GGB known by vastly many people since 2020 was wayy too powerfull and broken in that actual condition ...
It could have been nice if the prenerf was doing from the very beggining, not now after 2 Years in which people were transformed in little greedy mosnters sitting nearly all day long even nights to grind every little sector on 96% or 100%, people get used for 2 years on how the GbG went and how powerfull it was, now its gonna be hard teaching them again with less rewards, not to mention the time and things they invested into their cities to get higher stats, thats the main concern of top players, all is in vain now for them, and smaller players will not have the possibility to get so many things regarding their activity in GbG on 0% sectors as others did before the nerf, either way is chosen, a considerable part of players will „suffer” anyway.
After seeing lots of feedacks and discussions how things are going in beta and how long are taking for sectors to be taken, GbG is annoying now but less time consuming as before.
I did my best and all I succeeded in doing this round and previous round was underwhelming compared to what it was in the past, not to mention each day I fought with at least 120 attrition minimum and lost few hundreds of units in all of this time, this is just for me and other top tier players, medium and smaller players aren't able to reach our number of fights no matter how much are they trying.
The only difference I have noticed is we get less fights and more people are pushing their attrition to their limits to gather more ...
Previous round results:
Last round results:
To mention in my results, no one swapped, no coordination, just sectors were taken from each other and we havent deleted any siege camps nor watch tower, we let the chance to everyone and thake sectors from us untill we taken them back before and so on till the end of the round.
So, I have come to the conclusion, Increase the cap from 66.6% to 80%.
Siege Camp:
First camp
Second camp
Third Camp
Fourth Camp
Fifth and last camp
30%
20%
15%
10%
5%
Watchtower:
First Tower
Second Tower
Third Tower
Fourth Tower
8%
6%
4%
2%
Indiferently how many camps and watch towers are being built, the maximum possible it is 80%.
The 30% on the first camp will improve a bit the possibility of other guilds to get less attrition and take the sectors adjanced to their HQ untill the matchmaking will be fixed and improved, if this is going to happen anyway in the near future ...
Now, another thing that is needed to be done, to make the stronger people a bit „happy” and not sad from the nerf and ofcourse their hard work on their stats to be worthy.
Gradually increase in function of attrition the rewards:
Below 60 attrition
After 60 attrition
After 100 attrition
After 130 attrition
No increase, rewards as before.
15% increase in rewards
25% increase in rewards
50% increase in rewards
Calculating now the results and rewards, for 75% average camps for the whole round, a top tier player that will be able to get at 120 attrition every day.
-Rewards for one day will be for one day:
<60 attrition
>60 attirtion
>100 attrition
Total
~240 fights(rewards as usual)
~175 fights(+15% rewards)
~85 fights(+25% rewards)
~500 fights
~420 fps/~61 diamonds
~352 fps/~50 diamonds
~186 fps/~26 diamonds
~958 fps/~137 diamonds
Each fight is roughly 1.75 forge points and .25 diamonds in both archipelago maps.
In this way, people that worked hard to gain higher stats will have roughly 1k fps per day according to their activity and the possibility to fight on at least 75% sectors, 80% being pretty limited and expensive in goods.
And it will not be boring and tedious to be done as before, and it will not give the chance to higher players to get 2-3 thousands fps/day as before with 100% reduction and ofcourse the other players in the guild will have the chance to get something too, not only the 5-10 ultra active players, also ranking points will be drastically reduced too, peope with higher stats will have the most fights in that round according to their activity also, so now the quote from the beggining of GBG in beta it will be eligible „higher the stats better the rewards” ...
This is just my point of view of things right now and the adjustments which are needed to make GbG decent, not powerfull and not broken.
Regarding matchmaking, there were other players that had in mind and posted their ideas on how to fix it, I DO hope all of these feedbacks are taken into account ...
I feel this rebalance hurts the lower players much more then the higher players. I have a lower one here in beta, and a higher one in Angkor. Here, with no attrition sectors, I have the chance to do as many battles as the big cities, but with this attrition limit, I max out WAY under what a bigger player can do. This is also slowing down my growth here. On the flip side, I don't mind missing out on GBG and switching guilds...but i also don't play as much here with this change. Once this change happens on the regular server, it will definitely reduce my playing time..which is just as well. It will also save me money from buying diamonds. LOL
you will remember the complaints about point farming in GvG etc and the points system being revamped, well since the introduction of GbG this has been the largest corruption of the points system this game has ever seen and seriously needs addressing.
