Feedback Guild Battlegrounds

[qaccy]

I am in HMA with 114/61% (Zeus and Aachen).
Against 160/160% units I am stuck at 22/40.
In trading I finished 40/40 (with 10 diamonds).
At my level, we can actually go much further by negotiating, it may be different in SAM with 400% ?.

Fighting has a pretty clearly defined difficulty to it because at least one of your units is required to survive the battle in order to win, and diamonds cannot be used to get around this. Knowing this, there can definitely be 'impossible' battles where you simply can't defeat the enemy before they defeat you.

With negotiations, nothing is really 'impossible' because diamonds can always be used to get around both the resource costs and the limited attempts. However, most players are not looking to spend a ton of diamonds negotiating, or even running out of goods, so attrition does still limit negotiation about as well as it does fighting. It's just harder to notice when players have huge stockpiles of goods...until those goods run out because they performed too many expensive negotiations. The amount of goods you're able to produce to negotiate with will determine how much progress you can make, just like your military bonuses determine how many battles you can do.

 

[Prom d Exolandia]

Spoiler: Msg

I'm on that guild for month and month... i like your humor !

 

[DeletedUser10021]

How to know the contribution of each player in the guild?

 

[Alex M]

Correct, if you join a guild after the battleground has already started, you will need to wait for the next battleground to be able to participate.

There is no required number of members to participate. One-member guilds can also play.

The same applies if a partner investigates military tactics, after the battleground begins?

 

[DeletedUser10047]

The same applies if a partner investigates military tactics, after the battleground begins?

I investigated Military Tactics after Battlegrounds had already begun and gained immediate access to the feature.

 

[SergeB1]

The screenshot you posted shows your attrition at 46. Can you get that up to 100? Every day? Without running out of goods?

You didn't get the idea again. At 46 I can easily negotiate but couldn't fight with 300% bonus, even at live server with my 500% bonus it would be very difficult to fight against 660% bot's bonus. The Battlefield is not balanced between fighting / negotiating!

 

[SergeB1]

the atrition of fighting atl level 46. by then you start negotiating an than de atrition of negotiating starts to go up. one doesn't affect the other. click on the menu and you see both have diferrent levels

Unfortunately, you are wrong, attritions for fighting and negotiation are rising simultaneously, no matter what are you using, but again and again: for fighting is rising faster than for negotiating.

 

[DeletedUser9297]

Having played today, I don't think either the opposing troops resistance or the negotiation amounts are properly balanced. The toll on resources is too great.

 

[DeletedUser10244]

Good job what you did so far with the Guild battlegrounds
Some additions:

I want to defend my provinces. Right now another guild is attacking our province, gets 70 wins and the province is blocked for 4h. Guild attacks next sector and we can do nothing against it.
Just an Idea: Maybe we can counterattack, if other guild is attacking, we can attack our province as well and gain flags. province isnt blocked if more than 35 flags are taken by defending guild.

 

[Dan 77]

@Dan 77 The bigger question here is whether Inno should continue to develop new features as if the Arc doesn't exist, or develop new features as if it does. Currently, they don't, which is why guild treasury costs are so low compared to what most guilds have, especially for AF and above. However, if they instead start to factor in the thousands of goods coming in per day from this one GB, that's going to require adjusting every treasury cost currently in the game. Take a look at how many goods are in your guild's treasury for these 'useless' ages. Now, if GvG is not a place to spend these goods, how high would costs for GE and Battlegrounds need to be for these goods to feel 'useful' to you? Now, take those numbers and apply them to all other ages where these goods CAN be used in GvG, because they all have to be equal. Would you prefer that to how things are now?

My opinion? Inno should keep designing things the way they currently are, without factoring in the Arc. It's caused enough damage to the game as it is.

I don't really reguire to GBG have huge costs, I only reguire to GBG have some costs of post-Future goods. I wrote about big costs for GvG to illustrate that GE costs don't count so much and that there is no utilization (if not in GvG) - which is always bad! Maybe there is an origin of your potential misinterpretation.
What means some here for me? The only costs are the small in GE (so almost none). I neither require low costs in GBG as in GE, only adequate - as I wrote that we'll see which and how many goods will cost the province buildings. In GBG you can pay only for the province buildings - and this is optional! You won't need build them to participate GBG. And every guild could have a choice which province building to build or from which goods. Many guilds already have Arcs 80+ and guilds with the most goods in treasury to pay for province buildings should have better chance to dominate the diamond league. Or do you disagree with that? It's like if you rejected to increase maximal guild level - why would anyone reject it?? That's kind of in-game communism.

Damage? Ok, but...

Spoiler: continuation

... just accept that the game changed and adapt to it. If you complain about Arc and its influence to game, you should also complain about all GBs (especially Frontenac, Alcatraz, Himeji, combat GBs, InnoTower, Habitat, Dynamic Tower) because they weren't the part of the game initially, but from about 2012/2013 (when Colonial age was implemented as a first additional age) and later with new ages as well.

Are you at least in AF or even in SAM? I thing that developpers count with bigger income of goods, coins, supplies etc. for research and definitely with the huge attack bonus to beat defences in GE lvl 4 (bonuses increase from age to age). They also sometimes know what is popular in game for players and they implement better and better special buildings in events.

So if there already is the Arc (or something else, e.g. Observatory for GvG), developpers should count with it and see the game as a living organism - and not to initially add Virgo as an ultimate weapon usable agains neighbours (many of them have great defense bonus) and also as a useless/inefective building in greater scales like in GvG or mere GE. The same mistake as not to take into account existing features when adding a new is GBG now...

... @The Envoy @thephantom

 

[qaccy]

@Dan 77 There is a case to be made that perhaps Inno should start considering the Arc since it's indeed a significant part of the game now, however I think its impact on the game is far more significant than any other GB, possibly even all other GBs combined. You need look no further than what GB levels look like across the board now compared to prior to the release of FE for evidence of that. Every single player in my 71-member guild has an Arc built, and over half of them have it at level 80 or higher (mine's at 110). It's become such a core part of the game itself that Inno may as well start new players out with one, it's that essential compared to anything else (but they make a ton of money from players simply buying them with diamonds, especially on new servers). Anyway, that went off on a tangent that's not really related to this topic.

Getting back on-subject, I suppose accounting for the Arc in particular and treasury GBs in general wouldn't be much different from Inno expecting players to have a given military boost for each age. However, I do have to wonder - why do some folks want to spend every good in their guild's treasury? Players usually want to stockpile as much of everything as possible; even though they never plan to spend all of it, they like knowing that they have it 'in case they need it'. Why is there a different attitude towards treasury goods that people want to be at or as close to empty as possible with them? Is it because they don't belong to anyone in particular so they're seen as more disposable? I really don't understand.

 

[Dan 77]

I really miss the play together as a guild part. This is more like GE, everybody for themselves, with no need for working together, beyond giving someone some goods. But then, anything in this game that doesn't require chat communication will fail in bringing guilds really together. GE did, this will as well. We need more real group play. So I call this a very big fat missed opportunity

I've been talking from the beginning (when the very first announcement of GBG concept has been released) that it won't be anything like GvG, although GvG was named as a pattern for a new GBG, the area where to fight and negotiatem in mobile app. Two separate maps and features, nor removing GvG nor spreading GvG to mobile app, but identificating GBG as being similar to GvG. I would call it "buttering up" or "stringing along". And it worked! Many player thought for a long time this will be something like GvG (athough immediately in the next announcement it was specified as something a bit similar to GE), as I can see and as I read everywhere... But for what reason that bluffing?
Compare:

I'm not sure the intent is to entirely replace GvG, since GvG isn't being removed. Rather, it's an additional area to fight/negotiate in and also is something available to mobile players.

___________________________________________

Or the Statue of Honor could just not produce guild goods at all. Then there would be no complaints about the goods it produces.

Or one could just ignore that it produces guild goods and evaluate it based on the more useful rewards it produces.

So how it should be?
Which other useful rewards does it produce??? Many buildings provides more than Statue of Honor at 3×4 with less effort (e.g. finishing the event).

I am in HMA with 114/61% (Zeus and Aachen).
Against 160/160% units I am stuck at 22/40.
In trading I finished 40/40 (with 10 diamonds).
At my level, we can actually go much further by negotiating, it may be different in SAM with 400% ?.

Yeah, for every age should be different bonuses of defenders. This is very unbalanced I think. Maybe it's to prevent that players from lower ages will fight as much as SAM players. Attrition would limit SAM players to wait for the rest and more it will limit lower age players. In all cases, the greater attack bonus, the better for GBG participation.

 

[Natalia1]

How to know the contribution of each player in the guild?

This would be very useful.

 

[Dan 77]

@Dan 77 There is a case to be made that perhaps Inno should start considering the Arc since it's indeed a significant part of the game now, however I think its impact on the game is far more significant than any other GB, possibly even all other GBs combined. You need look no further than what GB levels look like across the board now compared to prior to the release of FE for evidence of that. Every single player in my 71-member guild has an Arc built, and over half of them have it at level 80 or higher (mine's at 110). It's become such a core part of the game itself that Inno may as well start new players out with one, it's that essential compared to anything else (but they make a ton of money from players simply buying them with diamonds, especially on new servers). Anyway, that went off on a tangent that's not really related to this topic.

Getting back on-subject, I suppose accounting for the Arc in particular and treasury GBs in general wouldn't be much different from Inno expecting players to have a given military boost for each age. However, I do have to wonder - why do some folks want to spend every good in their guild's treasury? Players usually want to stockpile as much of everything as possible; even though they never plan to spend all of it, they like knowing that they have it 'in case they need it'. Why is there a different attitude towards treasury goods that people want to be at or as close to empty as possible with them? Is it because they don't belong to anyone in particular so they're seen as more disposable? I really don't understand.

I know that impact of Arc is the greatest, but especially Frontenac, Alcatraz, Himeji, combat GBs, InnoTower, Habitat, Dynamic Tower and other buildings have a great impact too - we don't need build common buildings from the research tree and the game is much easier than before, but there is more interesting stuff to do (building GBs etc.) than only getting harvest and building 30 barracks to fight with neigbours or in just new GvG (no rogues, then no attacking bonus, then no Alcatraz, then everything from that). Maaaany things which weren't suddenly became the core of game later. Game completely changed from these times and there is no reason not to count with often used Arcs.

Main topic:
1. People are different.
2. I also like to have as much stockpile as possible - and if there is way too much, I want use it somehow in GvG as like as Antigue dealer is late implemented for our inventories.
3. There is a huge difference between having a stockpile of goods usable if a veeery long war in GvG for territories will begin (real scenario, we fought with some guilds for half a year constantly for many territories at all maps) and having a stockpile of extremely useless goods with NO real utilization for more than 3 years (from the times when AF have been released).
It's worse than having bilions of coins, supplies and medals, because they CAN be sometimes used for something (FPs, research, expensive expansions+AA map+GE attempts). How can you use milions of goods from Arcs etc.? Noway. There is no way how to do that. So why do we have bonus of Arc, Observatory, Atomium and now Statue of Honor when players passed from FE to AF? Who knows... Maybe developpers could cancel this bonus for these players and the effect would be the same...

 

[DeletedUser10047]

My apologies if I missed the question/answer, but does anyone know if Battleground fights work with Himeji Castle? I already know there's a problem with quests which is being addressed.

 

[DeletedUser9826]

Since this still in development, would it be out of the question to add defender boosts to the defense bonus of the units?

It would be nice to be able to use the defender boost, which right now is almost useless because you can not predict when some one will attack your city. It would also be nice if watch towers boost was added to the defense bonuses.

Would it be too technical difficult to only apply this Guild Battlefield or would the designer think it would unbalance the feature?

 

[DeletedUser6001]

I had problems when using Guild Chat in the battlegrounds. When I went back to my city I couldn't see what was typed in Guild Chat during my time on the battleground screen. I had to refresh the game to see the conversation.

 

[Teak]

@The Envoy
You should consider to nerf trading. In my opinion it is way to cheap.

If you compare the effort you have to take to fight against attrition level 40 or beyond it is massive: Aachen, Zeus, cdm, TA, AO and Alca up on Level 70 and some Event buildings - getting to this state takes effort, time and a lot of FPs.
Trading on this level requires you to have 1 GB: the chateau at lvl 100 and you’re good to go
Even a trade which costs 15 per try per good is a joke. And you even get more progress done than a fighter, who will have to have a committed city for those kind of enemy %.

The initial attrition impact seems fine, but it should rise quicker for trading and should maybe hit the hardcap for trading costs ( 20 per good per try) at level 40 to 50.

At its current state these aren’t battlegrounds, they are trade wars

 

[LastWarrior]

I quite agree with the above and I know you want us to spend diamonds on trading but it has to be a better level on trading.
Also you HAVE to make sure the guild leaders can see what everybody is actually doing on GbG, this is a must so do not leave it out and please confirm this will happen>
THX
Warrior

 

[DeletedUser9523]

About the whole balancing of fighting vs. trading:

It is a very difficult topic, because the feature has to work for so vastly different types of players and levels of progression.
And at the same time, the system should be simple to understand and not constantly change its parameters i.e. just because you changed age, got new boosts etc.

Ideally we want a good mix between fighting and trading actions, and none of them should be strongly in favor over the other.
With that said, we will look at the statistics of this first season of Battlegrounds and draw conclusions from it.
If we see that trading was heavily in favor, then we can rebalance the attrition levels so that fighting becomes more feasible.

---

About a list of contributions from single guild members:

In fact, this type of guild-internal leaderboard was on our "nice-to-have" list from the very beginning.
So we know that some players would love it, but there can be no promises made when we can implement it.