Feedback Guild Battlegrounds

[justMDZ]

Sur Eosh AithmirashSur Eosh AimtakarSur Eosh Aikmet;
Nor Eosh Akmarishta, Nor Eosh Akoshmer, Nor Eosh Akmand;
Nor Wach Atmeriston, Nor Wach Atmantor, Nor Wach Atmaru;
Sur Wach Archipelis, Sur Wach Arthres, Sur Wach Armari.

This creates confusion.
Solution:
1 central ring (Names with A)
2 ring (Name with initial from C to F)
3 ring (Names starting from L to N)
4 ring (Names with initial from R to Z)
Leave the suffix you've decided, you don't have to throw anything away, but just don't make an intuitive scheme.

 

[Teak]

Spoiler

http://prntscr.com/pdqupy

@The Envoy
Here you go...It's just a throwup but it should enable finding sectors quickly without getting a stroke typing "focus on Boğazlıyan".
You can still give them an immersive name- but hovering them should show the abreviation

Keep it clean guys

 

[zlobnyj bot]

Spoiler

http://prntscr.com/pdqupy

@The Envoy
Here you go...It's just a throwup but it should enable finding a sector quickly without getting a stroke typing "focus on Boğazlıyan".
You can still give them an immersive name- but hovering them should show the abreviation

Keep it clean guys

I fully support. Moreover, after translation into 125 languages, meaningless names will fall apart as ideological content.

 

[LastWarrior]

still do not quite understand the problem here...

In contrast to GE it does not matter if you kick players that do not contribute to the GBG for any member count below 80. The only way to get better in GBG (besides increasing the personal strength of any member) is by adding new members that participate - as long as you do not have 80 members and have other players in line to replace them, kicking guild members will not increase your performance...

This is the main reason why, if such a feature is implemented, I would rather like to see it being possible to get disabled for all/for non guild lead to reduce the possibility of unnecessary strife over "non-participation"

Its not a problem anybody not doing it is gone simple.

 

[Teak]

Its not a problem anybody not doing it is gone simple.

You will never implement a feature 80, 90 or even 100% of the active players use.
How often does it happen that you find yourself in a gex, where there is 133.3, 29.4, 5.9, 1.2 ... 0.3% on Monday morning?
Or gamers who aren’t able / don’t want to finish an event....
fighting in FoE requires a lot of effort and so does having a decent stock of goods.

I bet Inno already calculates with 30-50% of its playerbase not even playing the battlegrounds regularly.
But the lower the complexity of a new feature the more players will at least try it- not being able to progress or exploit it as much as a player who is miles ahead of you is another topic ... but that’s called proper balancing if you ask me.

 

[Nessie]

Just give them numbers from 1 to x, directly on the map.
Shouldn't be that hard to implement.

Sometimes usability is just more important than immersion.

Don't strain your fantasy, just give them numbers instead of another nonsense like Sur bla, Nor bla LOL

 

[Hiep Lin]

The display of evolution in the leagues would be nice.

Copper being the minimum is not useful.

 

[DeletedUser9613]

Hi Inno Team,
I studied the forum but did not found any question like this:
Do you want to implement any permission model for the guild fights?
At the moment nobody has any influence on the sectors your guild members are attacking at the moment.
A structured proceedure is nearly impossible without that.

For the first step a message window (opens after entering the guild fights filed) will be helpful.
So everybody from the guild can get the latest informations in a simple way.

 

[DeletedUser10047]

Copper being the minimum is not useful.

Considering that a guild might not participate in Battlegrounds at all for a period of time, copper is useful.

 

[DeletedUser10047]

I still do not quite understand the problem here...

In contrast to GE it does not matter if you kick players that do not contribute to the GBG for any member count below 80. The only way to get better in GBG (besides increasing the personal strength of any member) is by adding new members that participate - as long as you do not have 80 members and have other players in line to replace them, kicking guild members will not increase your performance...

This is the main reason why, if such a feature is implemented, I would rather like to see it being possible to get disabled for all/for non guild lead to reduce the possibility of unnecessary strife over "non-participation"

I agree that it will take a competitive 75+ member guild to do well in Diamond League. On the live server, I am in such a guild. We do 133.3% in GE whenever the competition warrants it. Laid-back guilds may find a status of player participation to be not-meaningful. But competitive guilds will find a use for such information that goes beyond kicking non-participants - such as being able to plan how many advancements the guild can generate on any given day.

 

[beelzebob666]

Do you want to implement any permission model for the guild fights?

was said some posts back - there will be a new right/position in the guild that will allow the building/deletion of the Province buildings as they require guild goods

At the moment nobody has any influence on the sectors your guild members are attacking at the moment.
A structured proceedure is nearly impossible without that.

Just open a Group-message especially for GBG... anything besides that would probably be overkill...

 

[beelzebob666]

such as being able to plan how many advancements the guild can generate on any given day.

That is probably the only valid reason for such an overview I heard so far.... The "finding of weak points and helping the players to correct those" as Teak said is an OK reason, but you can find those weak spots already with the GE-overview...

But as I said, i am not against such a feature, I just see its potential for blame and shame... And as players only have some FP as personal gain in GBG in contrast to the Diamonds in GE I expect the general willingness to participate to be lower in the "less competitive guilds" - especially for side world players.

 

[Beatrice III]

Hello everyone!

After our "systemic" name scheme seems to be too hard to read, we discussed a new name scheme. We were talking about your great suggestions and will rename the provinces again.

The provinces will now start with a specific combination of one letter and one number. The letter will display the direction of the province and the letter will inform you about the ring number. In the outermost ring you can even additionally orient with the very first letter of the province name. The provinces are listed clockwise.

For example:

“A4: Aithmirash”​

• A is the letter for all northeast provinces.
• 4 is the fourth ring, the outermost ring.
• “Aithmirash” can additionally be used to get the information that this must be the first province of the ring because A is the first letter of the alphabet.

 

[DeletedUser7107]

I like it.

 

[DeletedUser10047]

“A4: Aithmirash”

Much nicer. And can be even further abbreviated for those so inclined = "A4A"

 

[Teak]

Hello everyone!
For example:

“A4: Aithmirash”​

• A is the letter for all northeast provinces.
• 4 is the fourth ring, the outermost ring.
• “Aithmirash” can additionally be used to get the information that this must be the first province of the ring because A is the first letter of the alphabet.

Just one thing... There are 6 (8 with starting sectors) provinces in the northeast of the 4th ring- are all of those A4?
If that's the case, pls switch A (-> Ring number) and the numbers for the sectors
Otherwise the communication is unclear: A4 are 6 (8) provinces | A3 4 | A2 2 territories

-> A1-A8 would be outer ring north east (from 12 to 3 o'clock) A9-A16 outer Southeast ring (3-6o'clock)
-> B1-B4 2nd outer ring northeast | B5-B8 2nd outer ring southeast

Pls expect us to be bonobos...

 

[DeletedUser9017]

Only thing I have to say about gbg is that only participants must be rewarded, not tha whole guild, if only 4 of 40 members are very active... a few are decently active and another 10 or so only perform about 10 meetings in the whole league... there are still 20 with no participation and get rewarded for doing nothing...

For the rest keep up the good work!

Ps. I like some ideas for example reducing meetings in the Outher rings as also an activity log

 

[justMDZ]

I want to propose improvements (at least in my opinion)
Different number of battles for each territory (in order to make even the external territories appealing) - it will also make the strategy more interesting.

 

[DeletedUser10244]

We will actually be renaming all provinces to have a "systemic" name scheme.
The idea is that the name indicates the direction, i.e. northwest, southwest etc. and the length of the name indicates how close the province is going to be towards the center. The shorter the name, the more "outward" it's gonna be.

Should already work with the next season.

I liked the old names. "Nor Eosh Akoshmer" please no. I only takes a few words to say "counterattack on bana, inner circle top right, take it before they take yyy".
With "Counterattack on Nor Eosh Akoshmer" we save 2 word, but everybody is asking himself where is NE Akoshmer.

 

[DeletedUser10244]

Hello everyone!

After our "systemic" name scheme seems to be too hard to read, we discussed a new name scheme. We were talking about your great suggestions and will rename the provinces again.

The provinces will now start with a specific combination of one letter and one number. The letter will display the direction of the province and the letter will inform you about the ring number. In the outermost ring you can even additionally orient with the very first letter of the province name. The provinces are listed clockwise.

For example:

“A4: Aithmirash”​

• A is the letter for all northeast provinces.
• 4 is the fourth ring, the outermost ring.
• “Aithmirash” can additionally be used to get the information that this must be the first province of the ring because A is the first letter of the alphabet.

Better, but now too technical. Whats wrong with "Bana". After three Battlegrounds everbody knows where Bana is.