• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can
    REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.

Discussion Juber's gbg suggestions

Juber

Overlord
Community Manager
As this topic came up here: https://forum.beta.forgeofempires.c...ding-recent-feedback.15456/page-9#post-133853
I wanted to create a separate thread to discuss this.
I will also share the other suggestions I made for gbg and you can write, what you think.
These "Problems" are just what I personally observed. They have no official value and are just things I as a player noticed.

ProblemSolution
Currently League points have a hard cap of 1000 points and guilds always receive the same amount of points for the same places. Many guilds reach this and get randomly assigned enemy guilds. I think this is not optimal, because this will lead to 1-3 very strong guilds dominating the map and the others have no chance.
Also, guild rankings are currently determined by GvG only, because most guilds at the top have 1000 LP and get the same amount of prestige.
Have a soft cap. This means, instead of gaining 175 points for P1 you get progressively less points, the more you currently have. You also loose more points then. The 1000 cap will be removed. This could look like that:

Current pointsP1 gainP2 gainP3 gainP4 gainP5 gainP6 gainP7 gainP8 gain
11111-5-17-33-55-77-99-111
1000100-10-20-40-60-80-100
924285-5-12-34-54-72-92
9003050-10-30-50-70-90
7008040100-10-30-50-70
5001006030100-10-30-50
2001501007040100-10-20
0200160100604020100

It will push most active guilds from 1000 LP down to around 500 and the very best will get more league points, while not so good current 1000 LP guilds, will have progressively less points. It also gives a bigger motivation to stay on top, but very much limits how much you can achieve.
As you may have also noticed, I also decreased the amount of points you receive/loose. This is because I think you get through the leagues way too fast currently. Forge is a long term game so going to the top leagues should also take a while.

This should solve most or even all issues regarding matchmaking, guilds, that can't do anything on their battleground, too random matchmaking and guild rankings.

This would also result in guilds playing against the same ones more often. But this is not as big as a problem, as they are now better matched against others, that are just as strong.
If this could be a problem, there could be a bit of variation added in terms of what guild will play against what guild. This means, instead of always following the same pattern of sorting them by LP and assigning the battleground, some guilds with less/more LP could be shuffled in the order, but not much.
Having 5 camps makes it possible to do fights without attrition. This leads to many battles done by players and giving them way too many resources.Always have at least 1% chance to gain attrition. This change will not decrease the amount a lot, but is a limiter, that can't be broken by full guild treasuries.

Another solution from other players is, instead of adding the percentages, multiplicate them. In this case, the attrition reduction could also be increased to make it easier for smaller guilds. This would lead to this:
Campsold attrition chancenew attrition chancenew with 30% attrition reductionnew with 40% attrition reductionnew with 50% attrition reduction
176%76%70%60%50%
252%58%49%36%25%
328%44%34%21%13%
44%33%24%13%6%
50%25%17%8%3%
60%19%12%5%2%
70%15%8%3%1%
80%11%6%2%0%
In higher leagues, there is not enough space for 8 active guilds to have a fair fight. In lower leagues, most of the map goes untouched for a whole season.Have less guilds in higher leagues and more in lower leagues on one map. Proposal:
Leagueguilds on map
Diamond4
Platinum6
Gold8
Silver12
Copper16
Guilds in Diamond leagues need a change and motivation to get to the top.Have a "Masters" league. There, only the best 4? guilds will participate. There will only be one battleground in this league. It gives special rewards, like exclusive units/barracks, goods from player defined age and building vouchers for gbg buildings.
The 2 week rhythm is too long/short for players.Have changing battleground lengths. A season could be extended to 3 weeks. A season is divided into active phase and off time. The active time can be between 10 days and 18 days, while the off time is between 11 days and 3 days. This time is random and is the same for the current battleground, but not all battlegrounds during one season.
Smaller guilds have problems getting away from their starting province, because they have to fight with full attrition.Don't increase attrition for provinces next to your starting province.
Battlegrounds is very repetitive. The 2 maps are too similar.Introduce a couple new maps with many differences. These can include:
  • different amount of guilds on one map
  • exclusive new buildings on that map
  • removal/change of certain buildings on this map
  • other province lock times
  • longer/shorter seasons
  • new grid patterns
Popups are annoying, when doing fights.Don't display popups while you are on the gbg map and show all rewards you got in the new window introduced for the Castle System, when you leave the map.
Guilds block sectors by having them at 159/160 fights.Reduce the amount of needed progress on a province by X (or X%) every hour. This would make it very hard to plan a sector locking and would also make it easier for smaller guilds to get provinces. Provinces will have a min. amount of progress this can go down to (maybe half).
Having max League Points does not provide a big appeal to get a higher place.Instead of randomly giving rewards, give out 1 token for every attack and 2 token for every negotiation. add a multiplier to it at the end of the season.
Example:
PlaceMultiplier
1x2
2x1.8
3x1.5
4x1.2
5x0.9
6x0.7
7x0.6
8x0.5
After a season ended, the token will be converted into random rewards and delivered daily over the next 2 weeks.

And there we have it, all my ideas, that when combined (in one way or another) would fix the issues most are concerned about. But please tell me what you think. Did I miss anything, do you think the ideas are good? What ideas are not good and what would you change?

I would like to se a combination of these ideas especially:
Soft Cap
Having multiplicative Camps/Watchtowers and increase values to 30% and 15%
no attrition for fights next to HQ
Token reward

Here is the reasoning:
Soft Cap: This is the major change and what everything else expands on. It will lead to way better balanced battlegrounds. However this will lead to some problems. Firstly, stronger and weaker guilds will be separated more, leading to more intense battles for stronger guilds and more boring ones for weaker ones. However, this might already fix itself, because less guilds will be in higher leagues (hopefully) and therefor the amount of needed progress per sector will be fitting. So there is just one major issue to fix for weaker ones: Getting started.
No attrition for fights next to HQ: To help guilds getting started on a map, they will gain no attrition when fighting on sectors next to their HQ. We have to consider 2 things here: Weaker guilds will be in smaller leagues, meaning that they will have less progress per sector, so they can do 3-4 sectors per season with maybe 70 or 100 fights per sector. Maybe these sectors will get taken by other guilds, but seeing the activity in lower leagues, that will not happen often. Also, since other guilds can't build many Camps near the HQs, switching sectors will not be profitable. But how does it affect stronger guilds? Firstly, they already do a lot of fights. Having these additional ones will not have a major influence. Farming will not be profitable for the same reasons as for the weaker ones. In addition, one change will also make it more difficult:
Having multiplicative Camps/Watchtowers and increase values to 30% and 15%: We are currently having something similar and it has some positive and negative effects. Positive is, that it is way more balanced and almost endless farming is no longer possible. That are the changes we want, considering the general game balancing. However, there are also negative effects: The activity on the map decreased in general, especially for bigger guilds. To combat this, the Soft Cap change will bring more activity to stronger guilds. Also, increasing the boost slightly will balance things out even more. The activity will be a bit less in general, however this is fine.
Now to the final change: Token rewards. This is actually a big one. It would be very broken with the current Battlegrounds, where you can farm this much. However, with all the previous changes, it is a major point to fight for a higher place. let's say for now 2 token equal 1 random reward (you previously had). If you get to 50 attrition and do fights with an average of 75% attrition reduction, you get 200 token (100 rewards). That is not that far off from before, but still not overpowered. Now you might think, why the token? Because they give a lot of options. Firstly, they fix the problem with the popups. The token can simply be displayed as a resource next to your attrition. Now, there are multiple options, that can happen with the token:
  1. They can be automatically converted into random rewards depending on the map.
    1. You could receive all rewards at once, once the season is over and the multiplier is applied.
    2. You could get a box you can activate whenever you want.
    3. Rewards can be given out over time.
  2. You can create a shop, so you can spend the token on whatever you want.
    1. The shop can have some set rewards.
      1. The reward prices can increase the more you buy of one type.
    2. It can also have random rewards you can only buy a limited amount of. (resets daily, every season).
  3. You can create a Lootbox/Gacha system, where you spend a bigger amount at once to get a random reward.
    1. You can do a lot with that
    2. Rewards:
      1. Avatars
      2. Battleground Buildings
      3. GE Buildings
      4. Resources
    3. Open multiple Boxes/Gachas at once
  4. You can make the token buy-able with diamonds (to add another source of income (InnoGames needs to make money and that would be a great point to add another income to finance all these changes made))
  5. You can include other guild features as well
    1. Give token for doing encounters in Guild Expeditions
    2. Give token for placing higher ranks in Guild Championships
    3. Give token for higher guild level (production in Town Hall)
I would love to see your comments.
Please also note, that this is just a discussion. These are just my personal ideas and nothing that will/can be implemented. If you want any official information, look at the announcements.
 
Last edited:

Dessire

Regent
I want to destroy this and say "GvG and GbG should be deleted and a mix of both should be created instead".

both modes have their pros and cons, both modes have boring things and things which gives you enjoy.

A high % of players doesn't play the first one and the 2nd one requires from a guild and members certain amount of time and effort that in many cases are enough to make them say "I will not play this thing". the proof? almost all guilds don't do enough or don't care about reach above gold and a lot less reach diamond league.

The perfect mode should be good enough to make at least 80% of active players say " I really should participate in it". And with "active" I am talking about those players who atleast enters to their cities 2 times or more per day, without taking in consideration the quantity of minutes spent in each sesion/login.

I always said: GvG is a big failure in many aspects and GbG too and I can't understand how Innogames haven't done anything to see that.

there are a lot of mobile games with cool GvG systems (1vs1, 2vs2,. . . 5vs5, 1vs2 with the 1 having an extra bonus enough to compete against the 2 guilds, etc), and despite that, Innogames preffers ignore that. oouuh but when we talk about other games of the company for sure it don't have problems copying other mobile games which a gameplay more than saturated and boring with more than 100 games using the same idea XD.
 

Thunderdome

Emperor
I had started to play this GbG to see what the hub-bub was all about. In my playthrough (in a 1-player guild nonetheless), I managed to spend up to 40 attrition (I got enough to keep me going) in negotiations to secure two provinces at a time until I felt comfortable in securing the lead (just 1 province secured is all it takes to get the ball rolling and get a reward) in the bronze league. Three days later (and after my #1 lead win), I am placed into the silver league with different guilds that have mostly 1-player members in them. Right now, I am just neck to neck with another 1-player guild while there are two other guilds that only secured 1 province. In this league, I can only secure 1 province a day (with up to 35 attrition and saving on my resources since negotiating gives 2 points and battling only gives 1). If I make it to the next league (gold), I have no plans other than to secure 1 province (doesn't matter if I go up or down) in order to get the rewards (1 province is all that takes to get the points rolling).

That's just my journey.

Now, let's talk about what you got going there.

• On the cap issue, you shouldn't have to remove such. If the highest is the Diamond league, you should keep the 2 at the top while demoting the other two, so it will have two fresh guilds, but there's a twist, those two guilds that remained should be randomly matched with other guilds of the similar league (as I know there are quite a few diamond tourneys going about). The remaining tiers should be 25% promoted, 50% remain in same tier, 25% demoted... all randomly matched within the same tier system for each.

• On attrition, I get 1 per successful decision (fighting or negotiation). However, it seems that when you negotiate, you get two points. You get 1 point for fighting. Thus, one can have a rise in attrition levels much faster when fighting than negotiating. So for a 40 point province, you can get 40 attrition if you do the fighting... 20 if you just do the negotiating. And, that's without the special factors (or buildings) that would prevent such. I need to play more to see what you're trying to say here, I guess.

• Another one that doesn't need tweaking is the division numbers of guilds. 8 seems to be enough. To put in any more isn't going to make it better and they will have to redesign the map to fit those more than the 8 featured in one map.

• Again, I don't know about having this one. There are too many guilds in the diamond league that made it this far through whatever process they had going. It's already broken, and to restart the feature by having all guilds compete at the lowest tier and work their way to the top is a dumpster fire waiting to happen.

• The timing should be about six days (just like GE) with a day of rest. Having it long like 2 weeks is just monotonous. Having it longer like 3 weeks is pure idiotic. Those that are in large guilds will have no problem in securing provinces. Those in smaller guilds will not have that problem either. Are we going to make them wait until it's done? I don't know.

• This one, I might like. It should get everyone on the board at the very least that the only thing is holding are units and goods/resources.

• This will take time in programming in what you're suggesting, compadre. Something that Inno is no longer well known for these days. If they had everything working and balanced, we would not be having this conversation.

• Really hated pop ups. However, I am open to having a rewards window (within the province conquered status) that lists the rewards obtained in a trip that we should have the option to delete/clear.

• Again, this is asking for that dumpster fire to happen. Most guilds had figured on how to effectively take provinces. Are we going to punish them for doing such? Remember other guilds are competing for that province.

Just putting forth my dos centavos in this...
 

CrashBoom

Legend
my favorite is the "attrition multiply"
with 35%

makes the first 2 SC better (76%-->65%, 52%-->42%) which helps the small, middle guilds more
the third is almost the same (28% --> 27%) so doesn't change anything

and then they lose their effect (4% --> 18% and the 0% with 5+ --> 12%, 8%, 5%, 3%, 2%, 1%)

because top guilds player (the ones with thousands of fights) don't fight with less than 3 camps
AND it would force those top guilds to spend more goods for more SC because now they only need a max of 5 camps (and 4 is already very good) around an attacked sector, but then they would prefer to fight with 6 or more siege camps

and it would be an easy to implement change

Smaller guilds have problems getting away from their starting province, because they have to fight with full attrition.Don't increase attrition for provinces next to your starting province.
zero attrition would be too good
my suggestion: starting province has 1 siege camp (which would work together with other SC around the attacked province)

easier to get out but no free fights
 
Last edited:

Amdira

Baronet
You cannot change the behaviour of greedy players by changing features. Bad habits or character of players isn't Inno's job.
 

DEADP00L

Emperor
Perk Creator
Reduce the amount of needed progress on a province by X (or X%) every hour. This would make it very hard to plan a sector locking and would also make it easier for smaller guilds to get provinces. Provinces will have a min. amount of progress this can go down to (maybe half).
Guilds will use this principle to type with 4 camps on the same sector all day.
You will recreate an imbalance.

Have less guilds in higher leagues and more in lower leagues on one map.
4 guilds in diamonds is still a source of intensive cultivation.
6 guilds per map would be the solution, if we return the letters of nobility to the guilds. Since when is a 1 player guild a guild?
As for expeditions, limit guilds with only 1 member to the copper league so as not to unbalance the other leagues even more.
I think for my part that the leagues must integrate the number of members of a guild or their number of fights / negotiations made in the preceding GbG.

Don't increase attrition for provinces next to your starting province.
Also remember to make the number of slots at the exit of HQ fair, it makes such a difference.
There's already too much randomness in a strategy game.
Otherwise rename the GbG to LGvsG (Lucky Guilds vs Guilds).
 

beelzebob666

Overlord
Pathfinder
Spoiler Poster
Don't increase attrition for provinces next to your starting province.
0 attrition would be nice, but I feel that is too much - 50% would seem more appropriate
Have a soft cap. This means, instead of gaining 175 points for P1 you get progressively less points, the more you currently have. You also loose more points then. The 1000 cap will be removed. This could look like that:
I am fine with the concept, but the values you provided seem off - loss in points are way too high in the upper ranks for it to be a balanced system
 

Juber

Overlord
Community Manager
I am fine with the concept, but the values you provided seem off - loss in points are way too high in the upper ranks for it to be a balanced system
This is actually intended, because most guilds should not be that high. If they are very good, they should be at around 700-800 points.
Sure, the numbers can be tweaked, but with that I did want to change the 1000 hard cap to a 1000 soft cap. You can go higher, but you will lose more and more points, if you fail.
 

Juber

Overlord
Community Manager
zero attrition would be too good
my suggestion: starting province has 1 siege camp (which would work together with other SC around the attacked province)

easier to get out but no free fights
0 attrition would be nice, but I feel that is too much - 50% would seem more appropriate
In the first moment, yes it sounds op, but let me explain why I chose it.
Firstly, having no attrition increase just sounds way better than having 50% or 1-2 camps. Remember that this change is aimed at smaller and weaker guilds, that are mostly not completely good with the whole gbg concept. So if we say they just don't get any attrition, this would be easily understandable for them.
The other reason is: no attrition is not that bad as it sounds. Remember, that it is only next to your starting provinces. Lets look at this from different perspectives:
Big guilds: Will enjoy this change, because many don't want to give up their attrition for the first provinces. It will only change the start making it more fun.
Medium guilds: Similar to big guilds, may happen more often but in return makes it easier for them to get more battles done and compete.
Small guilds: Currently have major problems getting out against big guilds. This change will give them a stepping stone, but is not that op, that they have a major advantage. They just gwt bumped into the right direction.
 

Juber

Overlord
Community Manager
Guilds will use this principle to type with 4 camps on the same sector all day.
You will recreate an imbalance.
This comment I don't really understand. If your concern is fighting with 4 camps, what does it change? The only change is, that it would be worse, because you can do less fights.
Also, what I forgot to note is, that this will of course reset once the province is taken.
 

Juber

Overlord
Community Manager
In that case, modification of the league limits should be considered as well I guess
Yes, I did not consider this yet, but if there were a soft cap system the leagues should be percentage based, like in events or the needed amounts should be adjusted as well. :)
 

DEADP00L

Emperor
Perk Creator
Sorry for my english if my explanation is not clear.
I think above all of all the scenarios that my guild has encountered.
On some GbGs we can't do anything, 20 active members are no match for guilds of 80 with 5 combat mastodondes.
On other GbGs, we are bored with single member guilds that take at best 1 sector per day.
It would then be easy in this second case, to have an assisted sector of 4 camps, to type up to 150 and to let it go down to retype instead of sometimes waiting 5 days for another guild to take the sector.

I'm not jealous of the big efficient guilds in GbG, I'm confused to see that dozens of guilds (not to say hundreds) are in the case of mine to have to be a spectator one out of two GbGs and shave the card in 2 days on the other GbG while waiting 3-4 days for the others to wake up.

The biggest concern for me in GbG, beyond the lack of fairness in the locations out of HQ, is that to satisfy 5 to 10 guilds per world who were tired of always being confronted Inno penalized hundreds of guilds forgetting what a championship is.

Make the leagues more difficult to climb, reposition the guilds according to several criteria within the leagues and you will greatly reduce the number of complaints.
 

DEADP00L

Emperor
Perk Creator
Except in the case of a new world, do as a football championship (I take this example because it will speak to you more, gentlemen) by imposing a number of guilds per league in order to smooth the capacities of the guilds.

It would shock you if the L1 in England had more clubs than the L4.
As a general rule, a championship has 20 clubs in L1, 20 in L2, then 64 in the lower league, then 128, etc... Take inspiration from this model!
How ? Either by adding a criterion to the LP (such as the number of fights done in the previous GbG) or by removing the LP and only taking into account the results at each GbG.
 

CrashBoom

Legend
Remember, that it is only next to your starting provinces.
remember: there are up to 4 provinces next to the headquarter
in diamond that would be 640 no attrition fights

but guilds with 3 provinces have the disadvantage of having "only" 480

spawn%20points.png



Remember that this change is aimed at smaller and weaker guilds, that are mostly not completely good with the whole gbg concept.
they don't play in highest league :p

my adjustment if you want it easier
siege camps but depend on league

diamond: no SC on headquater.
platinum: 1
gold: 2
siver: 3
bronze: 4 (in the current attrition calculation, not multiply that is near 0%)
 
Last edited:

DEADP00L

Emperor
Perk Creator
Already why would you want to put 8 guilds in a hexagonal system?
It is the basis of the system that proves the lack of thought on the part of the developers.
 

Owl II

Emperor
I didn't understand only one thing: are you discussing here how to make the fight fairer? Or still how to give a chance to feed weak guilds? One suggestion by Juber, which he calls "soft cap", could completely change the meaning of GBG. Even it is one. But who cares...
 

jovada

Regent
Smaller guilds have problems getting away from their starting province, because they have to fight with full attrition.Don't increase attrition for provinces next to your starting province.

This could really help smaller guilds to break out from their HQ every time, in combination of this

Guilds block sectors by having them at 159/160 fights.Reduce the amount of needed progress on a province by X (or X%) every hour. This would make it very hard to plan a sector locking and would also make it easier for smaller guilds to get provinces. Provinces will have a min. amount of progress this can go down to (maybe half).

Because two big guilds can block your HQ and swipe with each other

But that leads me to another question: let us say they loose 50 fights every hour from 159/160 but what if they are in front of my HQ and we have also 124/160 so far, will we both loose fights? And assuming they loose 50 fights every hour (and 1 hour is much to long, should be every 15min) will they be able to do 50 fights to bring it 159/160 again ?
 
Last edited:

napodavout

Merchant
good morning
I find this proposal very interesting, I think to test on beta.
I'm like DESSIRE I'm for a mixture of GVG and GBG, which can be played on all media.
In any case, nice work by JUBER, is super happy to see that our criticisms are finally taken into account THANK YOU
**************************
bonjour
Je trouve cette proposition trés intérréssante , je pense a tester sur béta .
je suis comme DESSIRE je suis pour un mélange GVG et GBG ,qui peut être jouer sur tous supports .
En tous cas joli travail de JUBER ,est super content de voir que nos critiques sont enfin pris en compte MERCI
 
Top