Feedback Guild Battlegrounds

[DeletedUser3885]

Even more anecdotal, it's being in a gold league and playing against 80 members guilds. Surreal ! And I play alone ! And even more when there are guilds in the gold league with members of only 4/8 members. Since when does size not matter? If Inno cuts your salaries, won't you complain? Have sense, be smarts. don't kill the game....

 

[Nessie]

LK is in Platimum which is simply a big joke. Many times asked for! Let us see the stats!!!!

 

[DeletedUser10047]

LK is in Platimum which is simply a big joke. Many times asked for! Let us see the stats!!!!

Why is it a joke for LK to be in platinum?

 

[linuxgeek]

Great job devs!!! ...it's time to play tetris because this game is getting "better and better".

 

[LastWarrior]

Its going to take time to get guilds in the right leagues, eventually you will have guilds nearer your standard.

 

[DeletedUser10047]

Because of MMR, there will be quite a bit of mixing going on from season to season. Guilds that finish 4th or 5th won't see too much difference in their level of competition from season to season*, but guilds that finish 1st or 8th are going to see pretty major differences. A guild that finishes 1st will have its MMR adjusted upward by 175. And a guild that finishes 8th will have its MMR adjusted downward by 175.

Take a guild that has an MMR of 250. Solidly in Silver league. It wins a close battle and takes 1st. Now its MMR is 425 - Gold league. But who is it facing? A guild that was at MMR of 600 (not too far away from platinum league) but did terrible and took 8th place so its MMR is now 425. These two guilds were 350 MMR apart from each other the previous season and now facing each other. For one, it will be a huge challenge. For the other, it might be a piece of cake.

The intent of the MMR system is not to match up guilds that are close in abilities week after week. If a guild does well, it will be facing tougher competition. If a guild does poorly, it will be facing easier competition. From season to season, the standings get scrambled up quite a bit. This will provide almost constant variety.

*And how about those guilds that finish 4th or 5th? Well, they aren't just matched with other guilds that finish 4th or 5th. A guild that was at 400 and finishes 4th is now at 425 and on the same battlefield as those earlier two guilds. Similarly, a guild that was at 450 and finishes 5th will also be at 425 and on the same battlefield. Any battlefield will contain a wide mix of guilds, some that did well, some that did poorly, and some that did so-so.

 

[DeletedUser4133]

One thing is certain, after recent update to GBG, certainly made me rethink and come to decision not to invest any money into this game anymore. Had been playing for over 6 years and after spending thousands of dollars what just happened in recent days was just "not cool". Perfect Business Plan INNO!!

 

[DeletedUser8902]

- 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 leaders or battle commanders to place a new "siege"

 

[Nessie]

let us see the stats! Requested many times ...

 

[DeletedUser6015]

what is this ???????????

we reported this, and the only thing the administrator said is that they can't do anything to mislead the season and passed the problem to the developers.

Guess what? they conquered that with only a few battles ....

now what?

we are harmed and they can´t do nothing

 

[DeletedUser8946]

I have a different problem with BG.

There are 5 guilds with 5 different colours.
and I'm colour blind. and I have to click on each sector to see who's holding it.
My friends say that there's a white and blue colour; those two are completely same.
Red and orange... same.
yellow I'm told...

Proposition:
either have a colour-blind mode
or have the sectors named according to the guild that's holding them..
or have the sectors named like they are in GvG....

 

[HossamAly]

or have the sectors named according to the guild that's holding them..

If you click on a sector, there's an 'owner' slot telling you who it belongs to. There's also information on who's currently sieging and how far the siege went. It's not ideal of course because you have to click on each sector

 

[qaccy]

Still hoping Siege Camps/Watchtowers can be rebalanced or adjusted. That, or make an addition to the member activity tab to show each guild member's current attrition level. Aside from the two aforementioned buildings allowing players to mitigate or completely ignore the attrition mechanic, it's also leading to 'selfish' behavior where players will only participate in sectors that have no or very little attrition gain, making it that much harder to acquire sectors where that isn't the case. Even low-value sectors are taken in minutes if they have no attrition gain, whereas high-value sectors in the middle can sit for an hour or more because many of the bigger fighters simply won't contribute because they want to wait for the easy fights instead.

@Dudettas I don't know if this thread is even being looked at anymore since we're well into the live release now, but I'm hoping something can be done about this or at least some sort of response!

 

[xivarmy]

Still hoping Siege Camps/Watchtowers can be rebalanced or adjusted. That, or make an addition to the member activity tab to show each guild member's current attrition level. Aside from the two aforementioned buildings allowing players to mitigate or completely ignore the attrition mechanic, it's also leading to 'selfish' behavior where players will only participate in sectors that have no or very little attrition gain, making it that much harder to acquire sectors where that isn't the case. Even low-value sectors are taken in minutes if they have no attrition gain, whereas high-value sectors in the middle can sit for an hour or more because many of the bigger fighters simply won't contribute because they want to wait for the easy fights instead.

@Dudettas I don't know if this thread is even being looked at anymore since we're well into the live release now, but I'm hoping something can be done about this or at least some sort of response!

Of course low value zero attrition sectors are taken in minutes. If there's two sectors that need taking I'll auto my way through the zero attrition one first no matter what it is provided my attrition is still low enough, and then start on the other. I won't be able to take the other in minutes though because if I tried to auto I'd attrition-out. So instead I have to negotiate from the first advance.

And big value sectors in the middle - unless there's a hugely compelling case to take them, yup they're waiting. I can force one sector capture a day while taking normal amounts of attrition, I'm not about to do it for the first high value sector that's available. I'm going to take cheap sectors or sectors needed for defensive reasons like breaking a siege or try to save my attrition for just before reset if nothing else and then hit a sector to setup after-reset activity (note: i usually don't make it that long).

It's not just selfish behavior, it's smart behavior stretching out your individual contribution for the most important moments.

 

[Dudettas]

I'm still feeding back on this thread as we had the recent attrition changes. I keep an eye on all active threads so we don't miss anything

 

[DeletedUser8030]

There is new problem (maybe same situation is there on beta ....), that there is possibility of shielding the sectors when two guild coop. With limited number of good guilds there will always be the same two who will rule battlefield. No matter if is there attrition limit or not.

At the start i was happy about this GvG system. I wanted something with "action" where i can fight for "whole" day. Not just at 8 pm. In first week it was ok, on second week we formed alliance and just dominated other guilds without much work. And now with attrition rework and shielding of sectors .... it just boring like everything other.

Why isnt attrition still limited but differently for different league. Why there arent some natural dissasters which will for example make progress on the sector to diminsh. It will counter shielding. It could be like tornado going to island with some timer and proability it will hit the island....

Its too flat now and i want to make GvG great again.

 

[qaccy]

@xivarmy Problem I have is, and you know it's true, not everyone is 'noble' nor 'smart'. They only want the easy rewards. Don't care how the battleground turns out, don't care what sector it is, don't care what it means for the guild's advancement or placement in each season, they just want those zero-attrition sectors. To be honest, you do sound like you might be one of them but as long as you're ready to contribute to an important sector when requested and not just lurking for those zero-attrition sectors, I've no beef with you. It's the ones who don't even click on a sector unless it has 4 or more siege camps touching it that I have an issue with. And again, you know these people are out there.

 

[xivarmy]

@xivarmy Problem I have is, and you know it's true, not everyone is 'noble' nor 'smart'. They only want the easy rewards. Don't care how the battleground turns out, don't care what sector it is, don't care what it means for the guild's advancement or placement in each season, they just want those zero-attrition sectors. To be honest, you do sound like you might be one of them but as long as you're ready to contribute to an important sector when requested and not just lurking for those zero-attrition sectors, I've no beef with you. It's the ones who don't even click on a sector unless it has 4 or more siege camps touching it that I have an issue with. And again, you know these people are out there.

We don't even get that many zero attrition sectors because the guilds I'm in are small guilds that can't throw siege camps in every sector without thinking. When one is or will be available though, I call it out and set to work on it - because why wouldn't I? It's zero attrition, as long as I'm still at low enough attrition it's one of the rare times I'm able to fight at all (the other times being just before reset if I have left over attrition or after the battleground is settled) - otherwise I'm negotiating because when attrition is going up, I need to get as many advances in at low attrition as possible.

I'm not opposed to siege camps getting hit with the nerf bat either via a cap or multiplicative stacking instead of additive but there are 2 other changes I'd want to see at the same time:
1) fighting at higher attrition having the boost go up less quickly
2) negotiating costing 2 attrition if it's going to give 2 advances so that it's not wrong to fight before you negotiate. the goods multiplier curve could be adjusted as well if the number of encounters done with the same goods is important. It's just as it stands atm if at low attrition a fight costs me an attrition, and I may be negotiating later, then fighting is a mistake.

 

[DeletedUser3885]

I SUGGESTincreasing the cost (in resources) of the province building to put in the guild battlefield sectors, depending on the number of sectors the guild has. The more sectors you own a guild, the more expensive it is to put buildings on your sectors.
Only then can there be a certain balance between the guilds..

 

[CrashBoom]

the buildings should become cheaper

a guild that only has one sector needs much less buildings than a guild with 10 sectors