Owl II
Emperor
I am not a native speaker either. But the oblige to enjoy is forcing in any language, I think
-
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
jovada
Regent
I am not a native speaker either. But the oblige to enjoy is forcing in any language, I think
I corrected in more understandable
I think you totally missed my point why I created this post in the first place. These are my personal thoughts, what problems I see and how I wold solve them.
What you are writing is also exactly a point I made previously: You can't satisfy everyone. Every change will be loved by some and hated by others. I made my suggestions in order to make the feature more enjoyable in general, specifically for players that don't enjoy it.
And regarding, that players will quit: Yes, there will certainly be some. But how many players are currently unsatisfied with the feature, that would spend diamonds, if it were better? As I aim to improve it in general, this would lead to more bought diamonds.
That there should be less guilds in one battleground for higher leagues I suggested. The option to stay in a league is not good in my eyes. Firstly, it is a strange way to say: Hey, while you are in league X to Y, you progress automatically, but if you would get to league Z, this totally changes. Consistency is very important, not just for consistency sake, but also to not confuse players. Having special results under certain conditions is too confusing in most cases.
Also, this idea would lead to so many edge cases and exploits, it is not doable.
Well, my system is exactly this: The longer you are better, the more points you have. If you are suddenly not as good, you will lose points. This will in result rank you to a place, where others experience the same. Yes, it will be unbalanced for some weeks/months, but after that it should work out very well.
And you want to match depending on the guild treasury? This is also a very bad idea in my eyes, because it once again has way too many edge cases. Players would want to have their treasury as empty as possible. Older inactive guilds with a very high stock remaining will be matched against very active newer guilds. This is even worse than doing it completely random. It is also a factor you can't see. You don't know how many goods your enemies have. Introducing more uncertainties is exactly the oüposite of what most feedback was until now.
Who said, I want to remove anything? as I said, these are just ideas to make it more enjoyable in general. And changes are always done and necessary. Just think about where we would be, if no changes were ever done to the game? We would all be stuck in Late Middle Age and could not even access the game, because it would still run on flash.
@Juber : I think you totally missed the point of our comments.
Personne ne remet en cause votre implication mais à travers vous nous essayons d'obtenir des réponses d'Innogames après 10 ans de fidélité.
Kranyar is right in the idea of his intervention:
Personne ne remet en cause votre implication mais à travers vous nous essayons d'obtenir des réponses d'Innogames après 10 ans de fidélité.
Kranyar is right in the idea of his intervention:
jovada
Regent
Yes Juber's exercise is a mixt of what we proposed in the past and some personal idea's , but what is wrong with that?
What i see is that this is the first time that we really can discuss and have an open conversation with mods and more important that they understand us.
So maybe this combination can have a bigger impact on the developers to do something about it.
It is mostly a rehash of things various players have suggested. It was spun off in an effort to not have the discussion take over the "we're so disappointed in our players" recent feedback thread
jovada
Regent
It is mostly a rehash of things various players have suggested. It was spun off in an effort to not have the discussion take over the "we're so disappointed in our players" recent feedback thread
Everybody who follows the forum knows i'm one of the first to yell and shout for the lack of communication, in fact it was mostly my post that started a reaction from Juber. https://forum.beta.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/regarding-recent-feedback.15456/page-8
But beïng often first to yell and shout does not mean i can't approve the effort Juber is making here 1 for communication and 2 for thinking and have an open mind to discuss with us.
So i can only hope this will continue in the future and i really believe it's the only way to get things done. And if developers don't react (by fixing or explain why not) it only means that they want FOE to have a silent dead and only do a few things as long it is still making money.
napodavout
Merchant
good evening
the beta is good for testing, so let's try
personally i am for
*************************
bonsoir
la béta sert bien a tester , alors essayons
perso je suis pour
the beta is good for testing, so let's try
personally i am for
*************************
bonsoir
la béta sert bien a tester , alors essayons
perso je suis pour
Yekk
Regent
My way works.., yours has no chance of ever making it live
planetofthehumans2
Emperor
I didn't read all the replies but putting the task manager in GBG screen so if we have a task "do fights"/"defeat units" then we can see when the task is complete without having to go back to the town. Also with bonus from sc/hc ???
Yekk
Regent
Without the developers input nothing changes. Juber is not a developer. The very way Inno works is to block player input by isolating the developers from the players using an emissary. That means very early in GBG we brought up the problems Juber tries to undo here but nothing happened. A couple years later guilds have adjusted to the flaws. A complete reworking of GBG is no longer possible. There would be to great a chance of players leaving the game and that cascading. Small changes that help the aggrieved guilds will still work. The greed is here to stay. We can help guilds who are still weak.
jovada
Regent
We are not asking for a complete rework, just a little more balance so more guilds can enjoy GbG
Yekk
Regent
Juber's way though is a complete rework of how GBG is done. I agree changes can be done. The Arc is overpowered in GBG so reduce the FP needed from 1-60 so newer players can "catchup" 61-79 increase the FP needed to keep its cost where it was. Done retroactively. Re age the new SaJM GB to No age. That will give guilds another tool to fill their treasuries. Give founders the ability to stay in an league level in GBG. They get the choice of being stuffed or lesser rewards. Reduce the maximum number of guilds in diamond.
Guilds get stronger over time. The number of guilds that can compete in diamond has increased over the last few years. Major changes such as Juber asks are unneeded and unwise.
Last edited:
jovada
Regent
Juber is not asking that every suggestion would be applied , he is only proposing some possibilities, not everything must be done.
Finkadel
Marquis
Actually, at this point he is only "regular player" opening a discussion between "us players"... So nothing would be done...
I like idea about trimming down camps to lessen their impact on amount of fights. Those playing only on 4-5 camps would have to work around that and harder to make the chessboard on map.
Kranyar the Mysterious
Baronet
I hate the idea of reducing camps. It won't make a difference to top guilds, we already take every available sector no matter how many camps are on it, even zero. GBG is flawed at it's core and reducing fights won't solve the problem, only rematching guilds will.
Slowing down attrition by 25% for each league below diamond might help too, but only if advancing leagues is made harder.
I like the idea of founders having the option to refuse league advancement, but guilds that choose that option should automatically be placed in the top matches for that league.
Similar to GE, maybe only guilds with 3 or more members should be allowed to advance beyond copper league, and solo guilds should be automatically placed together as much as possible.
That's my current thoughts on this.
Slowing down attrition by 25% for each league below diamond might help too, but only if advancing leagues is made harder.
I like the idea of founders having the option to refuse league advancement, but guilds that choose that option should automatically be placed in the top matches for that league.
Similar to GE, maybe only guilds with 3 or more members should be allowed to advance beyond copper league, and solo guilds should be automatically placed together as much as possible.
That's my current thoughts on this.
Regarding matchmaking:
The problem with "refusal to advance" being an option is that there will be guilds that do it not out of necessity but just because they feel like being the big fish in a little pond pushing the same problem as exists in 1000 down to 900 and 650 as well.
Guild size limits to advance also make little sense - some solo guilds are quite capable compared to some bigger guilds; and it's not that being solo is an advantage in GBG (like it would be in GE championship which is why size-matching/restrictions happens there).
The issue is that it's too fast to advance in the top ranks. One should not shoot from an easy platinum round straight to dueling with the best (jumping ~15% of the active guilds in the process); there isn't much parity in those ranks. While the specifics of Juber's solution in this regard may be up for a discussion, it is a suggestion I've made before myself to thin the upper ranks and have better matchmaking/make it more meaningful to be "diamond".
The other issue is more philosophical, but it has to suck less to lose (not because losing should be encouraged, but because of the artificial artifacts caused by guilds that refuse to move up; losing sucking so much actually causes people to try and lose earlier to not wind up there!):
First the why - let's say by some miracle, matchmaking is now perfect if everyone's trying their best. There's still a group (albeit a smaller group) that exists to be food for the top guilds on a rotating basis; someone's gotta lose for someone to win. If this continues to be as pointless as it is now, then they'll sandbag to avoid it putting a less qualified guild up in their place - this problem happens now with some would-be yoyo guilds, and it'd still happen under a better matchmaking system). So it has to be at least tolerable to get stuffed in diamond.
Free fights from HQ as in juber's suggestion is probably too far. It'd do the trick of course, but not in a way that encourages doing anything more than taking the sectors next to your HQ.
But if you get free fights in your weaker group, and full cost fights in the higher group the gap is way too wide encouraging behavior other than trying your best.
The solution is the hybrid of making "free fights" worse by making them not free at all (something like 25% chance of attrition still; or the multiplicative option so that you *can* get closer and closer to free but it takes a *ton* of siege camps to get there - most of the squares in checkerboard setups won't be close) and making being in HQ a little better but not quite as good (say HQ is "2 siege camps"). Then *if* you can get out of HQ you might be able to do better than sitting in HQ but if you can't at least you're not *too much* worse than if you'd sandbagged repeatedly to avoid the bracket in the first place.
If "tier 2" guilds stop thinking to avoid slipping into "tier 1" as food then it becomes less of an issue that "tier 3" guilds wind up there in their place.
Ultimately an attrition floor will also slow *most* guilds down if it's substantial. There may be 3 or 4 guilds on a world that don't even need siege camps that much; but there's not much more than that. And within those 3 or 4 guilds it'll mean you don't have to fight your own guildmates as hard to get the fights that are available because the "topfighters farmers" will wind up attrition capped.
The problem with "refusal to advance" being an option is that there will be guilds that do it not out of necessity but just because they feel like being the big fish in a little pond pushing the same problem as exists in 1000 down to 900 and 650 as well.
Guild size limits to advance also make little sense - some solo guilds are quite capable compared to some bigger guilds; and it's not that being solo is an advantage in GBG (like it would be in GE championship which is why size-matching/restrictions happens there).
The issue is that it's too fast to advance in the top ranks. One should not shoot from an easy platinum round straight to dueling with the best (jumping ~15% of the active guilds in the process); there isn't much parity in those ranks. While the specifics of Juber's solution in this regard may be up for a discussion, it is a suggestion I've made before myself to thin the upper ranks and have better matchmaking/make it more meaningful to be "diamond".
The other issue is more philosophical, but it has to suck less to lose (not because losing should be encouraged, but because of the artificial artifacts caused by guilds that refuse to move up; losing sucking so much actually causes people to try and lose earlier to not wind up there!):
First the why - let's say by some miracle, matchmaking is now perfect if everyone's trying their best. There's still a group (albeit a smaller group) that exists to be food for the top guilds on a rotating basis; someone's gotta lose for someone to win. If this continues to be as pointless as it is now, then they'll sandbag to avoid it putting a less qualified guild up in their place - this problem happens now with some would-be yoyo guilds, and it'd still happen under a better matchmaking system). So it has to be at least tolerable to get stuffed in diamond.
Free fights from HQ as in juber's suggestion is probably too far. It'd do the trick of course, but not in a way that encourages doing anything more than taking the sectors next to your HQ.
But if you get free fights in your weaker group, and full cost fights in the higher group the gap is way too wide encouraging behavior other than trying your best.
The solution is the hybrid of making "free fights" worse by making them not free at all (something like 25% chance of attrition still; or the multiplicative option so that you *can* get closer and closer to free but it takes a *ton* of siege camps to get there - most of the squares in checkerboard setups won't be close) and making being in HQ a little better but not quite as good (say HQ is "2 siege camps"). Then *if* you can get out of HQ you might be able to do better than sitting in HQ but if you can't at least you're not *too much* worse than if you'd sandbagged repeatedly to avoid the bracket in the first place.
If "tier 2" guilds stop thinking to avoid slipping into "tier 1" as food then it becomes less of an issue that "tier 3" guilds wind up there in their place.
Ultimately an attrition floor will also slow *most* guilds down if it's substantial. There may be 3 or 4 guilds on a world that don't even need siege camps that much; but there's not much more than that. And within those 3 or 4 guilds it'll mean you don't have to fight your own guildmates as hard to get the fights that are available because the "top
Last edited:
Yekk
Regent
You very obviously do not play in platinum. In platinum the small guilds want a strong guild to take tiles they can then retake. The strong guild wants the same... 2 guilds teaming up to "own" the map seldom if ever happens. Diamond is just so much better for that.
Right now on live most worlds have between 2 and 4 guilds as you say moved up to fast from platinum to diamond. Guilds that do not want diamond. Even if Juber's point system worked at some point a platinum league will happen where some one has to move to diamond and vise versa. Mismatches would occur anyways. The problem is not those mismatches but the reality 2-4 guilds get stuffed every league in diamond. Juber's point system is not even zero sum. It forces guilds to go down just as the current system forces guilds to go up leagues.
Yekk
Regent
To run well GBG takes a team. removing free fights completely will end GBG.. As I have said many times before it is hard to keep leaders in GBG. Changing how attrition is handled will have most of each worlds major guilds mad at you. Figuring 50 guilds in diamond each league with 25-30 using the flip system generally used that is a lot of players... I completely disagree that GBG is broken. Juber is wrong on that... Completely wrong. It does need tweaking but changing attrition would make it worse not better.