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.
Problem | Solution |
---|
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 points | P1 gain | P2 gain | P3 gain | P4 gain | P5 gain | P6 gain | P7 gain | P8 gain |
---|
1111 | 1 | -5 | -17 | -33 | -55 | -77 | -99 | -111 | 1000 | 10 | 0 | -10 | -20 | -40 | -60 | -80 | -100 | 924 | 28 | 5 | -5 | -12 | -34 | -54 | -72 | -92 | 900 | 30 | 5 | 0 | -10 | -30 | -50 | -70 | -90 | 700 | 80 | 40 | 10 | 0 | -10 | -30 | -50 | -70 | 500 | 100 | 60 | 30 | 10 | 0 | -10 | -30 | -50 | 200 | 150 | 100 | 70 | 40 | 10 | 0 | -10 | -20 | 0 | 200 | 160 | 100 | 60 | 40 | 20 | 10 | 0 |
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:
Camps | old attrition chance | new attrition chance | new with 30% attrition reduction | new with 40% attrition reduction | new with 50% attrition reduction |
---|
1 | 76% | 76% | 70% | 60% | 50% | 2 | 52% | 58% | 49% | 36% | 25% | 3 | 28% | 44% | 34% | 21% | 13% | 4 | 4% | 33% | 24% | 13% | 6% | 5 | 0% | 25% | 17% | 8% | 3% | 6 | 0% | 19% | 12% | 5% | 2% | 7 | 0% | 15% | 8% | 3% | 1% | 8 | 0% | 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:
League | guilds on map |
---|
Diamond | 4 | Platinum | 6 | Gold | 8 | Silver | 12 | Copper | 16 |
|
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). |
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 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.
Lots of good ideas and points here. Main missing issues:
1) Several of the ideas would lead to farming fights in an abusive way. Of course, reducing SC effectiveness will dramatically help that.
2) Still not enough real incentive to "win.' Even if it means you get a few more LP or whatever, without some sort of significant incentive to be first, guild will continue to farm regardless of SC/attrition rules.
3) Leading is too time-consuming. 4hr locks are just too short. semi noted already.
4) If SCs are nerfed and attrition does start to stack, large guilds will start to have an even bigger attrition advantage over smaller guilds. Things like traps vs. small guild will be absolutely crushing without siege camps. There needs to be some sort of weight division to level the playing field.
--- proposed solution would be to implement a cross-server gbg and use a proper elo system instead of the current rank point system in place. One challenge with your point system is that it will push too many mediocre guilds into groups with stronger guilds - perhaps even more so than now. With everything pushing hard toward 500, weaker guilds will run into stronger guilds at a lower league level much more often. They might move right back up. A proper elo where the rank of the guilds that finish in front of you or behind you would do a better job of keeping strong guilds and weak guilds where they belong.
Strong guilds should be able to advance more quickly by beating the harder competition, and/or should not get sent spiraling back to the lower leagues because the top 2 guilds team up and trap them. When 2 strong guilds get together, they can basically push another guild to the bottom and allow everyone else to pass the targeted guild.
the 159/160 issue is hard to fix because there are so many ways it can be abused for more fights. It seems to me the best way to reduce soft locks would be to 1) add extra incentive to have a higher score such that guilds would prefer not to allow other guilds to hold sectors forever. and 2) give guilds more reason to fight each other instead of team-up. 3) add more risk to priming/soft locking sectors.
Right now, there is risk of someone else stealing it and/or getting cut off. Usually, the guild with the soft lock holds all the cards. If the guild in a defensive position tries to make a rush to either steal or cut off the guild soft locking, They risk failing and being blown out on attrition for the rest of the day with no real benefit or means to counterattack. --- Adding some sort of way to bypass a soft lock to force the controlling guild to flip could help. For example, a building that allowed a guild to attack and/or stay connected 2 sectors away instead of just 1.or maybe give the HQ extra "attack" range to help bypass front door soft locks.
Another option that could be cool would be a tower/buff that keeps a sector locked longer, BUT it cannot be deleted once built and would be destroyed as soon as the sector opened (to prevent guilds from deleting to build siege camps and/or allow a friendly guild to take it while the other guild(s) arent watching.)
An issue not mentioned is treasury imbalance. The way costs are calculated makes it so that a ban requirement for a single good can totally wreck a guild's treasury. This is especially a problem for guilds trying to recruit early age players. Treasury in early ages tends to not be well developed and early age player do not tend to make a ton of guild goods (or their own goods to donate). That means it makes more sense for GBG-focused guilds to reject all early-age players. This means the rich get richer and early age players don't get the benefit of being in a strong guild. (this might be inno's goal since having proper support replaces a lot of the things that players spend diamonds on.).
anyhow, cool that you're throwing out ideas as a player. It's cool that at least 1 person at innogames seems to care about something other than the bottom line.