Owl II
Emperor
Oh, yeah! it's not our fault, that's for sure.
But you and I use what we have in different ways
-
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
- Thread starter Juber
- Start date
But you and I use what we have in different waysOh, yeah! it's not our fault, that's for sure.
We want different things to some extent
While I've been part of the "serious rebel guild" thing, it ultimately morphed into a "serious farming guild" as it got stronger and the larger guilds stopped trying to lock us in. And was getting to be no fun at all.Mostly these days I try to do the casual guild thing - but platinum's gotten so soft because none of the guilds that get kicked down to platinum want to go back up to diamond. We started out this last round in platinum as the 2nd slowest start in the group. It took us 2 days to even reach the center this time because we had a number of people occupied by real life this round. We're now in 1st because we eventually did go on a (small) run and noone else will take enough to move up in the standings. If we did 0 more fights for the rest of this week we'd still probably end 1st.
So we have no fun in platinum because noone wants to win it; decent farming though if we care. And usually no fun in diamond-1000 because we're just not that kind of guild.
The best competition for fun other than on the new world these days is in *low* platinum where people are trying not to go back to gold and unworried about climbing to a higher platinum group. And to be weak enough to be there, I have to be almost alone.
Hence my view "losing in diamond has to start to feel at least as good as sandbagging in platinum". I want the people in high platinum groups to try to win again. We might still beat them sometimes then and wind up in diamond - but at least we have fun every 2nd round then.
Owl II
Emperor
Do you understand what outrages me in all your proposals? "nerf SC, remove the lock, forbid to leave the progress of fights 159/160"? All these changes will not affect the game of those who offer it in any way. They are not playing GBG now, nor will they start after any changes. But those who play would have to adapt somehow anew. They will do it. But it will take time, strength, nerves...Too much for a simple game.
This is the second thing that outrages me. The first one - I've repeated it a thousand times. Nobody. Neither of you has made a single offer. which would cancel the status of a feeder in GBG and return it to its original purpose
This is the second thing that outrages me. The first one - I've repeated it a thousand times. Nobody. Neither of you has made a single offer. which would cancel the status of a feeder in GBG and return it to its original purpose
Nerf SC would nerf the feed. It's the only way to nerf the feed without gutting it entirely.
There needs to be sufficient reward in some form to get the people there and not have it be as dead as GvG always was. The problem is the reward comes from endless treadmills instead of playing to win. So you limit the treadmill (nerf siege camps), and then people may as well try to win since their fights aren't endless anyways. It wouldn't be an awful idea if round-end rewards were more of the point than per-fight rewards either. But that's not a simple adjustment to make: are you going to hand out 1000s of FP to someone for just being part of the guild's result without doing much of the work? Probably not... So how do you make the round end reward strong enough to sell a nerf to the individual fight rewards?
Yeah you're right, it could be done in silence without changing the description much. Just the inner workings of them. Though for balancing reasons also traps and such should receive the same treatment.
You misunderstand, the aim is to hamper the exploits. Mainly the exploits that enable guilds to locking out other guilds. Which is enabled through the 4h exploit (159/160) and the SC exploit which makes endless no attrition possible. While attrition exist for a balancing reason. Exploits aim to bypass any balance feature should be countered. Farming is just an abusive way of using features though when the SC and protection exploits are countered as a side effect farming will be hampered too.
It's not perse about farmers. Yeah Inno really didn't think things through regarding the balance. If they'll ever gonna make a FoE 2.0 such should be the number 1 requirement: fixing all errors of FoE. In particular balancing.
You are aware that guilds can be locked out and can not participate currently in GbG because of the 159/160 exploit?
I'm curious how can you determine that I'm not playing GbG at the live server? You know what outrages me too? Those who only think about farming and so any change that could throw a range in it trying to discredit both the proposals and ideas. I'm pretty sure that also @iPenguinPat is playing GbG. When proposing the subtle change to gradually increase building costs, it would also slowly hamper farming. In an indirect way you're saying even he isn't playing GbG and wouldn't hit him nor his guild when set proposal manages to getting into GbG. Just saying senses like "you guys don't even play GbG" in an attempt to discredit us is just nonsensical and doesn't contribute a thing to fix the problem.
In anyways I think for Inno to make it easier in summery:
SC must be reviewed to prevent bypassing attrition without any constraints. This can either be done by targeting the costs of SC, which is subtle or their mechanics directly
Ranking, it's laughable how a guild can be losing for 2 matches big time and than with landing only once at #1 propelling themselves into a new league. @Juber 's proposed system should help dramatically with this
4h lock exploit, enables guilds to locking other's out with 159/160. Potential solutions are like @Juber suggested a system that pushes ownership into the hands of guild with the most advancements over time or by gradually reducing the timer depending on how dominent the guild is, leaving them gradually more vulnerable to attacks. If desirable to prevent farm frenzies an cap of daily rewards can be established, like the first 1k fights/negotiations of the day will have a chance for rewards for example. This would hardly affect the current state anyways
Owl II
Emperor
They cannot participate in the GBG not because someone put the flag 159/160 in front of them. They can't participate because they didn't want to get together and take this province faster
And I gave an example yesterday: we do n't capture provinces, we stop at 159 so its owner can capture neighboring provinces from it. We stand and wait for them to finish. We're wasting our time. It's still an exploit. This is in our interests. But if we close, then the owner will not be able to go anywhere. Remove the 4-hour lockdown? Well, maybe players will fall and die there like antechinuses in the mating season. I might even watch it from the sidelines. But I will not participate in it. Add a nerf SC? But how will it help to farm the weak?
Owl II
Emperor
It's not that I don't understand. It made me angry too. But I did not write suggestions on the forum. I went and built a guild successfully plays GBG in its current form and no one interferes with it. Now I see how others are trying to repeat it. There are a lot more guilds that can compete with the tops or at least oppose them with anything other than insults in personal mail.
Aerendil
Squire
I think most of the changes are too drastic.
I play in several competitve guilds and we ususally reach P1/P2 in 1000LP. Often enough GBGs are boring because its just exchanging sectors between 2 cooperating guilds and the others remain more or less passive. In the better GBGs 3 or more guild are really fighting each other. I want more of that.
Many of your ideas would lead to less interesting GBGs, because the "loosers" would loose more points and take longer to come back.
E.g. GBG Master league with 4 Guilds - P4 would loose ?150? P and fall to Platinum
Maybe the number of fights/negotiations per guild should be taken in to account as well to balance ranking points,
e.g, every guild below 10000 fights get les positive and above 10000 get less negative points
good ideas
I play in several competitve guilds and we ususally reach P1/P2 in 1000LP. Often enough GBGs are boring because its just exchanging sectors between 2 cooperating guilds and the others remain more or less passive. In the better GBGs 3 or more guild are really fighting each other. I want more of that.
Many of your ideas would lead to less interesting GBGs, because the "loosers" would loose more points and take longer to come back.
E.g. GBG Master league with 4 Guilds - P4 would loose ?150? P and fall to Platinum
Maybe the number of fights/negotiations per guild should be taken in to account as well to balance ranking points,
e.g, every guild below 10000 fights get les positive and above 10000 get less negative points
Yekk
Viceroy
Juber just uses what is broke to break things in a different way... You ask that guilds do not get stuffed. Better to go to an ELO rating system. Juber's is in no way zero sum. It will cause deflation. Zero sum makes true rankings.
Give guilds the ability to say no to a forced move to Diamond. That alone will help platinum. Guilds can and will fight there then.
Make a league between Platinum and Diamond for guilds that are not true 1K guilds. Founders can move up for more rewards or stay where they are for more fights which may actually mean more rewards. Juber's request is difficult to implement. Mine a piece of cake.
FYI, there is currently no zero sum because in Copper you can only earn points, especially since during a first GbG, the points are also increased.
This is also what causes the imbalance in the diamond league since the % of guilds in diamonds is subject to the % of guilds in Copper.
This is also what causes the imbalance in the diamond league since the % of guilds in diamonds is subject to the % of guilds in Copper.
You're missing the point. It's not about farmers. It's about lock 159/160 exploit and the sc exploit which enables the exploit to locking out other guilds. Causing except for 2 guilds to do stuff in in the GbG season, while the other guilds are forced through those exploits to take a vacation.
It should not be forgotten that the 3 to 4 largest guilds active in GbG prefer to meet guilds themselves strong to cultivate a maximum of GbG.
The "average" guilds that rank between 30 and 100 in the direct worlds are often spectators one out of two GbGs.
It's the guilds ranked between 5th and 29th who don't want to fight the strongest and prefer to be matched against weaker guilds.
I note that Inno has simply opted to favor this twenty guild to the detriment of balanced GbG.
The "average" guilds that rank between 30 and 100 in the direct worlds are often spectators one out of two GbGs.
It's the guilds ranked between 5th and 29th who don't want to fight the strongest and prefer to be matched against weaker guilds.
I note that Inno has simply opted to favor this twenty guild to the detriment of balanced GbG.
Yekk
Viceroy
Your problem with that is that exploit does not happen in the leagues those guilds need to be in...Again my way is a solution whereas yours is just complaining.
No need to throwing accusations at me or downplaying a problem, nor attempting to discredit me to uplift yours. Any proposal is equally valid. Regarding the exploits, nothing can justify sideline other guilds through exploits. In particular not just a random player out of thousands of players deciding that those guilds ain't supposed to be in those leagues. If you haven't notice, you're not attacking my proposals but the proposals of @iPenguinPat @Juber among others as in my post that you're referring to, I simple agreed with their proposed solutions.
Would you kindly stick you're opinions and views with the subject and not on the persoon? Thanks in advance for a civilised and grow up discussion regarding solutions for a problem, instead of a childish personal accusation spam.
Yekk
Viceroy
Way back when The Arc was "new" many complained it was destroying FOE. They were wrong too... The game adjusts to how players play. Inno designers will not break what is not broken to help those that can not move forward with their game. Strong guilds win at GBG and weak guilds do not in Diamond.
They weren't wrong. It did destroy an element of strategy in FoE. As did forge of events. Power creep made the ways to play the game less diverse. Instead of choosing which GBs are important and worth investing in, people build all GBs that are any good. And sometimes some that they know aren't very good just for something to do.
While I won't go so far as to say GBG is destroying FoE, because most of the damage was already done, players turning it into a farmground have destroyed any redeeming qualities in GBG. Which would be slightly more tolerable if there were any other aspect of the game that you could say you were farming for - i.e. "yea, GBG is boring and sucks, but it makes me lots of FP so I can (insert some meaningful fun activity here)".
If guilds are achieving invulnerability through exploits, it's not a case of the strong beating the weak. Such problems can be twisted, turned and downplayed as much as anyone likes to do. The facts don't change; no matter how strong and powerful a guild is, they can't touch an invulnerable province. The 4h lock is clearly a mistake carried over from GvG invulnerability from 24h locks until the recount happens. As such different solutions are proposed, either a gradual drop of the timer depending on size or costs to maintain invulnerability like on GvG.