• 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

Do you like the changes done to the Siege Camp and Watchtower?

  • Yes

    Votes: 34 30.9%
  • No

    Votes: 74 67.3%
  • Undecided (please post why)

    Votes: 2 1.8%

  • Total voters
    110
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rebalancing SCs will not make things much worse for strong guilds. They will still control the map, their attrition limit is high enough.

Active medium guilds that can remain in the center of the map right now due to some "free" sectors will be literally killed. They will not be able to move far away from the base due to the attrition limit and will be returned to the base every day. This ruins GBG fun for such guilds. No more fights, no more races, just 50-100 battles per day for a regular player. Players will start leaving those guilds and joining stronger ones. Or just leave the game.

And things will not be better for weak guilds. They are simply not interested in GBG. Or want to swap sectors in a lower league with other weak guilds.

In addition, right now the majority of guilds want to swap sectors and not fight. Even enemies often make arrangements and participate in swaps. 2 or 3 or 4 guilds share the map and they're happy. Others just wait for the next round in a lower league to swap sectors there. Fight seasons are not fun for players anymore, but something that consumes too much time and energy. That's why guilds make arrangements instead of fighting. That is not how GBG was designed, but that is how players want to use it.

Do not ruin GBG for the majority of players.
 
Last edited:

CrazyMary

Farmer
I've heard many fighters complain in my number 1 guild about the new changes. Personally I have little understanding about the dynamics of how it works either way, yet, except the fighting, following and winning parts. Being said and even so, the new changes SOUND like a good plan for the guilds who have had less opportunity to compete against stronger and more knowledgeable guilds, such as mine in Y world. I have much to learn but the changes seem to open the doors and possibilities for many others to have better game play w/o the bigger and more capable guilds totally dominating the maps; although, as stated, I'm not sure, but overall it certainly seems and sounds like a good change, especially for smaller guilds. Time will tell...
 
Last edited:

PP Nyx

Farmer
I think a different league for the Top 10/20 guilds would be more effective and fair. An elite league for example.
 

Rickster911

Farmer
I understand why the changes were made (endless fighting/farming)but 66.6% seems a little low. 75% chance not to gain attrition would be a good compromise. You could be working on your next great building with one of the bonuses being a .01% chance increase per level or something like that,then 66.6% would make sense. I see a lot of guilds full of alternate accounts being set up with these changes just to get the wins. Thanks for listening to this daily player of almost 7 years.
 

plotus

Farmer
SCs are built by only the top 3-5% of guilds, the other 95-97% are unaffected by this proposed change and still disenfranchised from GBG. The best way to make GBG more attractive (and bypass all the issues that led to this proposed change) is to give the same rewards regardless of the league, just as in GE. Being in diamond still conveys guild pride but if platinum offers the same rewards then dropping a league is not such a penalty and incentivises guilds that do not have the treasury and/or firepower to reap rewards in a more relaxed fairer environment. It is a win-win for all guilds. This proposed change makes GBG worse for everyone and whilst that levels the playing field it is never a good idea to make the field a lot less attractive just to make it level. Why not raise the field for everyone and broaden the attraction of GBG? More guilds playing GBG is better for the game.
 
I've been playing for nearly 2 years. During this time, I have been a beneficiary of zero attrition battles in GBG. The rewards provided from GBG have accelerated the growth of my city but acceleration is not that big of a deal for me. I enjoy playing and, if a slower pace is a result of the planned changes to SC/WT, I will not be upset. In all honesty, I fight a lot in GBG not because I enjoy auto-battling but because high-ranked players do it. Unless I participate in GBG "farming" I will be unable to maintain a pace that would enable me to improve my player ranking and, perhaps, rise in the player ranking. If zero attrition is eliminated it will impact all of the top GBG fighters uniformly and I will look forward to that. Some players have suggested that the cap be adjusted upward from 66.6%. I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or another. As long as the cap is set to a percentage lower than 100% I will be pleased. Thank you for your time. Thank you for FOE.
 
These changes will lead to a lower activity level in GG as the chances to make points and earn rewards is significantly limited.
Provinces will change hands less frequently and traps will dominate the stategic buildings as they are getting more efficient after rebalancing.
This is demotivating players even more as this is lowering their chances even more.
Consequently GvG will rise again in importance as it will be the more meaningfull way to earn points. But GvG has already failed as a meaningfull tool for Guild activities for a wider community.
For these reasons I believe this rebalance will put FoE comletly out of balance and will make the game far less attractive to players like myself
 

drakenridder

Emperor
Perk Creator
While attempting to rebalance GbG is imo a step in a better GbG future, I think the motivation to become
the #1 guild in diamond league isn't high enough so far. Sure you'll get a bit more rewards and you're guild
more power. Though I think if the stakes are higher for the guild, they'll be motivated to fight over #1 spot
more fearsome. Especially if losing a winning streak means losing more then just missing out on a nice guild
reward. I think prestige can help in this regards. As winning the diamond league would naturally bring a lot
of prestige to the guild, if it was real life. However winning consistently should increase this. For that reason
I suggest for winning the diamond league to reward the #1 guild with 10.000 prestige until the next season's
end. Should the guild however win a 2nd time in a row, this 10.000 prestige should grow with a certain amount
calculated with a multiplier. Imo the multiplier should increase for each victory after the 2nd time by 15%. Ensuring
a steady growth for a winning streak up to the cap of 6. As to not devastate a guild too much, if they suffer
through 1 bad season. Giving them perspective to climb back up. Below an example:
#1 StreakStreak bonus multiplierPrestigePrestige streak gain
11 (0% bonus)10.000-
21,15 (15% bonus)11.5001.500
31,32 (32% bonus)13.2001.700
41,52 (52% bonus)15.2002.000
51,75 (75% bonus)17.5002.300
62,01 (101% bonus)20.1002.600
For the calculations, I've used 10.000 prestige as the baseline and increased the bonus prestige by 15% for each additional
victory. So:

2 victories:
1 (prev. multiplier) * 1,15 (increase/victory in a row) = 1,15
3 victories:
1,15 (prev. multiplier) * 1,15 (increase/victory in a row) = 1,32
4 victories:
1,32 (prev. multiplier) * 1,15 (increase/victory in a row) = 1,52
5 victories:
1,52 (prev. multiplier) * 1,15 (increase/victory in a row) = 1,75
6> victories:
1,75 (prev. multiplier) * 1,15 (increase/victory in a row) = 2,01

Further more guilds should be motivated to fight for the 2nd and 3rd spot as well. For this reason giving them also a fixed
number of prestige for doing so at the end of the GbG season but significantly lower then the #1 spot, should stimulate
guilds in not to negotiate a position in which they will ''trade'' the #1 spot. Below an suggestion:
# diamond league:Prestige:
110.000 + streak bonus
25.000
32.500
While it's certainly a possibility for guilds to team up and accepting a consistent 2nd place, in favour of another
guild keeping their streak, conflict should arise soon enough when rivalling guilds with a winning streak finding
each other in a season. As both or all of them know that losing means not just losing a GbG season but also prestige
and thus dropping in the general guild ranking.

While my proposal is probably not perfect and increase the importance of GbG in the general guild ranking in a evolving
and dynamic way. I feel like this is the most fairest way to give guilds a reason to fight for the real top but also giving them
a perspective and hope to outperform GvG guilds. As you can imagine is highly important for a strong GbG guild with mostly
mobile players. Handing out up to 20k+ prestige is a lot but it is similar to the large effort needed in GvG and holding on to
such a dominant position. Similarly the guild must maintain this by fighting in the very top against other guilds that are
also after this goal. Leading to conflict. Personally I think 20k prestige is for those reasons justified. You need a streak of 6
victories and to maintain it even more.
 

Yekk

Viceroy
The last season had my guild in a 1K matchup with guilds that should never have made it that high. A 3 member guild placed 4th. 5th place tanked the last few days to move down to D-lite. One guild could get to the middle but then ran out of fighters. For my guild and for most of the members of all the other guilds it was incredibly boring. My no vote stays no. If this goes life it will break GBG, dishearten most strong players, hurt the game.

It needs major changes. Attrition at 66% only works if you can reach the middle. Smaller guilds found they are as bad off as before. Matchups need to be addressed. A guild that can only fight one 4 hour period can not be grouped with guilds that can do 24/7...

@Juber Seems the first guild in IK to run the map first day early will always win... that VP and the ability to always have more SC than those trying to get to the middle means even if they lose a few tiles they still get first. Why has there been no changes...
 
Last edited:

Leones

Marquis
Thank you for voting everyone!

The results of season 2 with these changes are as follows:
  • Yes: 114
  • No: 207
  • Undecided: 2

The poll has now been reset for season 3, please cast your vote again with your experience this season and feel free to leave any feedback.
 
I will reply to this as a battler on my main world not here on beta as I don't do a lot of battles here. Had this been on the mains now I would be for it. Something had to be done. I think the idea of a guild having the ability to take the whole map in minutes is not how the battle ground should be. Yes maybe I see the argument that they worked and earned the ability to do that. However I don't think that is the way it was intended by INNO to be done. I have no issue having my attrition being maxed at some point in the day. I am a very active player and enjoy the battles but there is more to the game than just GBG. Now as a guild Founder/leader we won't have to do as much.
 

EaCy

Farmer
I stand by my previous quote. You have changed nothing and seem to be waiting for the moment that nobody cares anymore and will then go live.
The people on Beta are not a good representation of the number of people that actually play on the live servers and a lot will quit, when you limit the cap at 66%. Minimum should be 80% and/or limit the fights and/or negotiations per day or smaller players will stand no chance.
 
Last edited:

Fenix

Viceroy
3rd time is a charm.. Yes, but only the cap is needed.
And I do not think the players that answer will ever change minds. 2 years with something that should have been fixed right away is too much. The players got used to the big big (and unfair) amount of rewards obtained in potentially infinite battles.
 

MATR

Squire
The change is unfair to those of us that spent the time, effort and diamonds to build our cities to fight in gbg (several years). Switching the rules means my city is no longer optimized for the game. On my live server( Korch) I don't see people trapped in the corner unless they want to be. Not every player is a fighter. If a player dislikes being in the corner, they are in the wrong guild There are plenty of spots in GBG fighting guilds for people to join. Our guild always has openings for fighters. I don't even like GBG by the way. It is quite boring to auto-battle, reload troops and auto-battle over and over, hundreds of times. However, the change is still unfair.
From a guild standpoint, out biggest issue is having someone "on" every 4 hours around the clock. It is quite taxing. As a suggestion, instead of the proposed change, change the countdown timers to every 8 hours and double the amount required to conquer a province.
 

jovada

Regent
I voted yes again , small guilds are still dominated by big guilds but they also have a bit more opportunity to do some fights.

Quickly rush to the middle by big guilds to where they can build up 5 siege camps to start farming with 0 attrition and swap with other guild is really not a correct gameplay. Whatever excuse they invent to justify it is not correct, you can see it in every farming guild, it's always the same big players that take the profit and often abusing their smaller guildmates because who has to take the first couple of sectors ? Not the big fellows or they are not able to farm or maybe they use double accounts to take the first sectors.

But 66.6% limit attrition is maybe to much and to please the big fighters it's better 75 or 80%
example: first camp 35%, second camp 25%, third camp 15% and forth camp 5% = total 80%
With 35% in first camp also smaller players that can afford less attrition can do some more fights.

I'm still in favor (almost since the start of GbG i plead for it) to put only 1 slot in every sector of the game.
Now sometimes a guild has only 1 slot in front of HQ and surrounding sectors 0 slots while an other guild has 2 slots in front of HQ and sometimes a total of 4 or 5 slots surrounding HQ, this disproportion can decide if you end 3th or 6th or 7th at the end of the season not matter what you fight.

Finaly matchmaking should also be better,
example: group with 8 guilds nr1 +100 points, nr2 +75, nr3 +50, nr4 +25, nr5 -25, nr6 -75, nr7 -125 and nr8 -175

That way if you drop from the diamond 1000LP being last it will take you two seasons as a winner to move to the diamond 1000LP again.
After a couple of seasons automaticaly you will have lesser 1000LP guilds so the strong guilds will be more together.
 

sirblu

Baronet
logo.png

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 player, please visit the Discussion Thread!

Thank you very much and have fun!

Sincerely,
Your Forge of Empires Team

VotersLikesDislikesUndecided
Initial Feedback and first round:466153319not included yet
Second round:3231142072
Well now that I have had the opportunity to really test this change - I am more confused then ever. Following are my results:

SC's Fights Attrition points % Ratio
0 40 40 100%1.1
2201266%1:.66
3351851.4%1:.51
4402767.5%1:.675

I am not really sure what this means but I did not seem to encounter a 66% Cap so I am not sure how these new percentages are working.
 
Last edited:

Kenric

Farmer
Please release this on live. The environment on live is different than it is on beta for this sort of thing, and I don't think you can meaningfully test it on beta.

For the record, I approve of making the SC's multiplicative rather than additive; I think you should do the same with the traps for balance; and I don't think there should be a cap on the reduced attrition, as making it multiplicative already produces much of the desired reduction in effectiveness. But even with these quibbles, the change is long overdue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top