Feedback Guild Battlegrounds

[Hiep Lin]

my guilds are really happy to start playing farm of empire!

It's just an argument that is just a copy / paste of what you made them write.

It remains that in a guild, all members need to participate.
If 2 or 3 players ensure the victory alone, the others feel useless

 

[Scorpion Elite]

It's just an argument that is just a copy / paste of what you made them write.

It remains that in a guild, all members need to participate.
If 2 or 3 players ensure the victory alone, the others feel useless

are you kidding whit me?

the guilds have their own brains
they don't do what I say ..
mine is a guild of warriors and not peasants!
like you apparently

 

[Hiep Lin]

are you kidding whit me?

the guilds have their own brains
they don't do what I say ..
mine is a guild of warriors and not peasants!
like you apparently

If they are all big warriors, then you will win all the GB, without needing to exceed 100 fights per player and per day.

I am neither warrior nor farmer, I am an average player. I am looking for the best solution adapted to the game. I do not ask Inno to adapt the game according to my city.

 

[Scorpion Elite]

I'm asking to be consistent with the game.
I adapted to what they made us play with ...
you don't change the rules from today to tomorrow just to make the players who can't ...

 

[HossamAly]

I do wonder, if max attrition wasn't meant to be beaten all along, why was the 1750% introduced in the first place? Did the Devs really think this is an unbeatable number? Or were we enticed to spend diamonds on attack buildings in the last 6 months since the announcement only for inno to change the rules afterwards? It really does look like the latter!

 

[Hiep Lin]

Initially the maximum attrition was too low.
I pointed it out: (The beta world is made for that)

I think this limit (1,750%) is too low.

It seems that some players can fight without limit (several hundred fights the same day). The only limit may be the number of units, depending on the number of deaths.
As the bonuses of the attackers still rise the current attrition will not be enough.

You wanted to enjoy it.
The defect is rectified, it's a good thing.

 

[DeletedUser10047]

are you kidding whit me?

the guilds have their own brains
they don't do what I say ..
mine is a guild of warriors and not peasants!
like you apparently

Warriors. Good analogy. And when the general says, "Salute", they salute.

 

[HossamAly]

The defect is rectified, it's a good thing.

The only way this could've been unintentional and that the Devs genuinely thought that 1750% is unbeatable is if none of them actually plays the game. This isn't really a small point that could've been overlooked, especially if they put that much though into how attrition scales.
So, no, doesn't look like a "good thing". The Devs are either clueless about the fighting aspect of the game they're developing, or were intentionally deceptive

 

[energycrys]

today a 50% diamonds offer has arrived .. and this is because tomorrow a wagon arrives that gives 4% attack .. now I answer you considering that you implement this update .. you can use the little trains to look for players who have spent so far money, and that, surely after this update will not spend more 'and will no longer need these events because increase the attack will only serve' to make 2 more battles' ... reflect developers .. who in this game who pays you the salary is we who spend diamonds

 

[DeletedUser9833]

i won't buy any event buildings anymore... there is no need to increase attack.
the only way to play this game is building a chateau up to 180 and trade through the whole guild trades

 

[Ian Santa Claus]

I approve of the update.
Right from the start this was meant to be a feature where everybody could contribute without the few really big hitters totally dominating.
They made a mistake thinking 1750% would be enough to stop everybody so they've corrected it to make sure everybody hits a wall eventually.
This change allows my smaller guildmates to do more fights which means they get to participate more.
For every player who can do less fights due to the change I'm sure that there will be over a hundred who can now do more.
As to the complaints that the negotiating costs are now going up quicker, have people forgotten already that this forum was filled with complaints about being able to negotiate far more than fight?
Seems that Inno have listened to those complaints and acted on them!

 

[Scorpion Elite]

sure .. to the next olympics we also give a medal to all ... so they deserve it true?
this is the thought of those who do not know how to reach certain goals
if someone manages to get over the wall, it means he has earned it!

 

[DeletedUser10282]

I approve of the update.
Right from the start this was meant to be a feature where everybody could contribute without the few really big hitters totally dominating.
They made a mistake thinking 1750% would be enough to stop everybody so they've corrected it to make sure everybody hits a wall eventually.
This change allows my smaller guildmates to do more fights which means they get to participate more.
For every player who can do less fights due to the change I'm sure that there will be over a hundred who can now do more.
As to the complaints that the negotiating costs are now going up quicker, have people forgotten already that this forum was filled with complaints about being able to negotiate far more than fight?
Seems that Inno have listened to those complaints and acted on them!

They still will be able to negotiate far more than fight on the high end. There is no equivalent “wall” for negotiating as there is for fighting.

 

[Hiep Lin]

They still will be able to negotiate far more than fight on the high end. There is no equivalent “wall” for negotiating as there is for fighting.

Nobody produces enough goods to trade as much, especially without using diamonds.

 

[DeletedUser10282]

Nobody produces enough goods to trade as much, especially without using diamonds.

You are so mistaken. guilds with high age members trade for goods and then trade down 2:1 over and over for their Iron Age guildmates and give them a huge pile of goods to negotiate with - a big loophole in the system.

 

[Claus20]

You are so mistaken. guilds with high age members trade for goods and then trade down 2:1 over and over for their Iron Age guildmates and give them a huge pile of goods to negotiate with - a big loophole in the system.

It's correct what you say. It would be much fairer if the sectors could be conquered only by fighting like in GVG.

 

[xivarmy]

Nobody produces enough goods to trade as much, especially without using diamonds.

Just like nobody could beat 1750%. (psst - it's way easier to do more than 50 negotiations than it was to beat 1750%. I can do it without much planning for it at all - it just required one age up while leaving all my event buildings in the previous age). Once i've had sufficient time to plan, 100+ attrition negotiations may be feasible. Which is equivalent to 200+ fights - way past what's possible without siege camps (though the siege camps help both the fighting and negotiating options and unless the siege camps are close to 100% effect you're still wasting attrition by fighting instead of negotiating).

Food for thought:
A negotiation takes say ~10*the multiplier goods on average. A level 170 chateau makes 53 goods 5/14 times (I don't have one that high, but I could get one if I put the work in). or about 19 goods per quest. So if you need to negotiate at 20* multiplier, that's simply about 11 quests at 100 attrition. Now let's say you can do 4 quests per minute - that's 3 minutes at 100 attrition; not terribly different than a slow manual fight to win against 1750% boost defenses except that you're now at over twice the advances already by the time that comes up.

Now you might point out that you can't get previous goods from a chateau and you'd be right. But there isn't anything stopping you from building up a *huge* stockpile in your current age, and then simply stepping up an age (unless of course you're already in mars - but you can plan to do so for ceres). You could furthermore have a city full of good-producing event buildings left in the previous age to slow down how fast you run out your huge stockpile. As well as take advantage of trade to the extent possible to gain previous age goods (though assuming 1:2 as others have seems unlikely to me if you're going to try and make these trades in any sort of volume).

As such, 3 minutes per 100 attrition negotiation you want to do is in fact a reasonable supposition.

Edit: corrected math as dontwanna pointed out my mental arithmetic on how many goods a level 170 chateau puts out was wrong

 

[DeletedUser10047]

Just like nobody could beat 1750%. (psst - it's way easier to do more than 50 negotiations than it was to beat 1750%. I can do it without much planning for it at all - it just required one age up while leaving all my event buildings in the previous age). Once i've had sufficient time to plan, 100+ attrition negotiations may be feasible. Which is equivalent to 200+ fights - way past what's possible without siege camps (though the siege camps help both the fighting and negotiating options and unless the siege camps are close to 100% effect you're still wasting attrition by fighting instead of negotiating).

Food for thought:
A negotiation takes say ~10*the multiplier goods on average. A level 170 chateau makes 38 goods 5/14 times (I don't have one that high, but I could get one if I put the work in). or about 14 goods per quest. So if you need to negotiate at 20* multiplier, that's simply about 14 quests at 100 attrition. Now let's say you can do 4 quests per minute - that's 3.5 minutes at 100 attrition; not terribly different than a slow manual fight to win against 1750% boost defenses except that you're now at over twice the advances already by the time that comes up.

Now you might point out that you can't get previous goods from a chateau and you'd be right. But there isn't anything stopping you from building up a *huge* stockpile in your current age, and then simply stepping up an age (unless of course you're already in mars - but you can plan to do so for ceres). You could furthermore have a city full of good-producing event buildings left in the previous age to slow down how fast you run out your huge stockpile. As well as take advantage of trade to the extent possible to gain previous age goods (though assuming 1:2 as others have seems unlikely to me if you're going to try and make these trades in any sort of volume).

As such, 3.5 minutes per 100 attrition negotiation you want to do is in fact a reasonable supposition.

I always appreciate your well-thought-out posts (even if I don't always agree with them).

I don't have the numbers for a level 170 Chateau, but my level 118 Chateau gives me 40 goods each time I hit, so I imagine a level 170 would give up 53 goods each hit.

I use about 18 resources per successful negotiation, but that includes supplies/coins.

If negotiations start running as wild as fights were, it is reasonable to suppose that negotiations will suffer a further attrition re-balance. (And then all those people who spent thousands of FPs leveling up their Chateaux can gripe and moan).

 

[xivarmy]

And then people can powerlevel their atomiums and observatories for more siege camps. And those will get nerfed too. And then we'll just have the second coming of GE where any well developed player is already ready for the approved maximum amount of activity, and there's zero motivation for such a player to keep improving.

Or they could just walk back the attrition rebalance to make it more pleasant for fighters to keep developing, and accept that there will be the odd case of a person who's put in a lot of work who will do enough to make the little player in the same guild as them feel insignificant. And it'll be up to the guild to stress that that player can't make up for the 20 advances the little guy isn't doing because he's already doing as much as he can.

 

[DeletedUser10047]

And then people can powerlevel their atomiums and observatories for more siege camps. And those will get nerfed too.

I suspect that a plan to deal with Siege Camps is already in the works.