Feedback Guild Battlegrounds

[Emberguard]

I didn't say deleting was wrong. I said there was no strategy because it was obviously right and low risk putting it off because you can do it anytime before the province is taken and that it'd be best if there was something to make that less obvious or higher risk.

There's already a high risk in putting it off. You can't see how many are sieging the province. All it'd take is the enemy getting multiple fighters on at the end and you won't have time to react to delete the building. And that's without any timer present

 

[xivarmy]

There's already a high risk in putting it off. You can't see how many are sieging the province. All it'd take is the enemy getting multiple fighters on at the end and you won't have time to react to delete the building.

You can see the rate it's going at. If it's super-slow and 1 person sure there's a risk that at the last minute 2 encounters come in at once. But if it's not moving super-fast you can be fairly safe deleting it at say 125/130 - deleting being an instantaneous action where battling or negotiating takes some setup. If it's faster than that, do the deletion a little earlier. It's still instantaneous. And the difference between those that delete and those that don't isn't strategic genius - it's willingness to stare at a map until something starts happening.

 

[Emberguard]

There's nothing stopping a guild from having one member doing the bulk and have 5 on the wings only starting negotiations when it would take the province by surprise

 

[xivarmy]

It's highly unlikely though. Guilds are herded cats (especially large ones). What you could theoretically do if they were your perfectly controlled appendages and what actually happens are very different things. Also if that's your guild's modus operandi, it'll work against an opponent paying attention exactly once (if that). Perhaps you'll convince yourself it's working more than that - but more likely your 'deception' just went unnoticed and noone was waiting to delete it anyways because they just didn't care to put that effort in.

 

[Emberguard]

In which case it's still strategic to try it once as then my enemy will be deleting earlier and therefore we'll acquire provinces easier in the long term. Either outcome is desirable if it results in getting buildings from a guild that always deletes normally, or results in them deleting it that much earlier

 

[xivarmy]

We're obviously not going to agree on this and have said our pieces.

You feel short-term interactions that involve large time investment but no game investment are strategy. I do not.

I feel some sort of time cost on deconstruction would discourage real-life destructive behaviors of staring at a map for hours on end and that it wouldn't take away from the option of building a building that you only intend to keep while it's safe to do so. I feel it'd also add to the richness of choosing which sectors to target next because as the season goes on instead of all the early buildings just being torn down, some would be sticking around and adding character to different sectors.

 

[1BFA]

Should be VP awarded every 15mins or 30 mins instead of top the hour? Doesn't make much sense to take a tile 1min before top of the hour to get the points for holding the province only for 1 min

 

[CrashBoom]

Should be VP awarded every 15mins or 30 mins instead of top the hour? Doesn't make much sense to take a tile 1min before top of the hour to get the points for holding the province only for 1 min

does 15 or 30 mins change anything ?

no
guilds would still take it 1 min before the points are added

and the result: you get the points for holding the province only for 1 min

 

[Emberguard]

Well, 15-30 mins instead of an hr would change whether I delete the building now or hold on for another calculation

But other then that it probably wouldn’t change much

 

[talamanta]

I have a question
if I claim a province
together with another guild
and I have 60 points of victory - with negotiations and battles -
when the other guild conquered it

lost the duplication of negotiations?
and the absolute number of attempts remains ?
that is 30?
'or there is an bug ?

Sorry for the English
is from automatic translation
the text in Greek

Eχω μια ερωτηση
εαν διεκδικω μια επαρχια
μαζι με μια αλλη συντεχνια
και εχω 60 σημεια νικης- με διαπραγματευσεις και μαχες -
οταν την κατακτα η αλλη συντεχνια

χανονται οι προσπαθειες των διπλων σημειων των διαπραγματευσεων?
και μενει ο απολυτος αριθμος των προσπαθειων?
δηλαδη 30?
'η υπαρχει σφαλμα

 

[CrashBoom]

I have a question
if I claim a province
together with another guild
and I have 60 points of victory - with negotiations and battles -
when the other guild conquered it

lost the duplication of negotiations?
and the absolute number of attempts remains ?
that is 30?
'or there is an bug ?

doesn't matter if fight or negotiate

if another guild is faster then half of the advances of your guild counts

60 done -> remain 30

not a bug

 

[1BFA]

I have a question
if I claim a province
together with another guild
and I have 60 points of victory - with negotiations and battles -
when the other guild conquered it

lost the duplication of negotiations?
and the absolute number of attempts remains ?
that is 30?
'or there is an bug ?

Sorry for the English
is from automatic translation
the text in Greek

Eχω μια ερωτηση
εαν διεκδικω μια επαρχια
μαζι με μια αλλη συντεχνια
και εχω 60 σημεια νικης- με διαπραγματευσεις και μαχες -
οταν την κατακτα η αλλη συντεχνια

χανονται οι προσπαθειες των διπλων σημειων των διαπραγματευσεων?
και μενει ο απολυτος αριθμος των προσπαθειων?
δηλαδη 30?
'η υπαρχει σφαλμα

When you lose you get to keep only 50% of your advancement.

 

[1BFA]

does 15 or 30 mins change anything ?

no
guilds would still take it 1 min before the points are added

and the result: you get the points for holding the province only for 1 min

Okay....Should the VP be based on the # of mins the guild "Holds" the province? VP's can still get awarded at top of the hour but only for the time they have held the province.

 

[xivarmy]

an hour is enough granularity. there's over 240 hours in a battleground; it's mostly not going to hinge on who got a couple hundred extra points depending on what side of the hour-mark the province fell.

 

[DaRkBoDoM]

So, here is my feedback after trying Battleground for a few weeks in Beta and "real" worlds:

- This new game is not bad, but it still needs some tuning. The biggest issues are that it is too much pay-per-win and needs to be attended 24/7.
- The ability to add and delete buildings while under "siege" is way too overpowered. The typical scenario is: put 3 palaces once you take the sector, replace palaces with traps once somebody starts to take over the sector, while the enemy advances, keep replacing traps with fortress at will, remove everything just before the sector is taken. Construction/demolition features should be locked during siege.
- Since sectors stay locked for 4 hours only, people willing to play at night have a great advantage by taking lots of sectors while others are sleeping. A few "night shift" people can easily win all the central sectors by using siege camps. A 8 hours lock countdown would allow for a more relaxed gaming experience, or maybe the battlefield should be paused at night.
- Being matched with the same guilds over and over tends to be boring. There should be more randomness in the matchmaking algorithm.
- Since it greatly affects the leaderboard, MMR should be visible.
- I understand the "quadrant" logic behind sector naming, yet having unique sector names would make team management easier.
- There should be a log of player actions just like in the gvg
- To avoid diplomacy issues and wastes, it should be possible to allow only a few members to place a new "siege"
- To avoid people taking sectors at the wrong moment, it should be possible to "lock" a sector, preventing anyone to fight in it

Hope this helps.

 

[Emberguard]

- The ability to add and delete buildings while under "siege" is way too overpowered. The typical scenario is: put 3 palaces once you take the sector, replace palaces with traps once somebody starts to take over the sector, while the enemy advances, keep replacing traps with fortress at will, remove everything just before the sector is taken. Construction/demolition features should be locked during siege.

if they delete everything before the sector is taken then they can’t delete more then one fortress unless the enemy hasn’t yet reached the base amount of the sector. In which case the fortress was never in play even if built

Replacing them with traps is a waste of goods as again then you’ve never actually used the fortress. It’s just there for show if you’re able to delete it without the deletion passing on the sector to the enemy

You’d have to do it in reverse to give any meaningful advantage (start with 3 traps, then replace a trap with a fortress to increase the length of battle)

 

[DeletedUser10047]

- The ability to add and delete buildings while under "siege" is way too overpowered. The typical scenario is: put 3 palaces once you take the sector, replace palaces with traps once somebody starts to take over the sector, while the enemy advances, keep replacing traps with fortress at will, remove everything just before the sector is taken. Construction/demolition features should be locked during siege.

Quite an impressive strategy, for a guild with unlimited pockets. At an average of 2 building slots per province, it requires over 30,000 goods per province and 250 diamonds per province. Take 20 provinces a day, and that's 600,000 goods per day and 5000 diamonds per day. I doubt any guild could sustain that amount of goods drain on an extended basis.

 

[DaRkBoDoM]

Quite an impressive strategy, for a guild with unlimited pockets. At an average of 2 building slots per province, it requires over 30,000 goods per province and 250 diamonds per province. Take 20 provinces a day, and that's 600,000 goods per day and 5000 diamonds per day. I doubt any guild could sustain that amount of goods drain on an extended basis.

According to your estimation, that's about 1-200€ per battlefield. I have no idea for how long people can sustain it, but that's exactly what i meant with the "too much pay-per-win" part.

 

[Velvet Dreams]

From experience on Beta and now on Live, i think this "feature" destroys the game as we now it.

* it requires to much time
* it requires to much resources
* it completely alters the nature of the game

Please, Inno remove the GG before they kill the FoE we know and love.

 

[Gab in Beta]

GbG is great Inno , I will write this every 2-3 days so they dont think all players not liking it
And offcourse players that dont like it will make more comments ahaha !
None of the above said changes are need to be made. Mechanism is fair and same for all.
And something else, if you dont like GbG, dont play GbG, it is not something you SHOULD play or esle your town will lack on any way.
Cheers