• 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

We started a new GBG season yesterday and the opening round was as it always seems to be. 8 L1000 Diamond guilds at the start. Four raced towards the center while the remaining 4 didn't attempt a single encounter. I wonder if the leadership lined up their fighters, took a look at the competition, then threw up their hands and said "better luck next time guildies". This isn't a one-off example. The same thing happens every season. While I appreciate the feelings about the 159/160 and SC "exploits" the fact remains that, at the start, all 8 guilds begin at zero and must take territory in order for the "exploits" to become relevant. The 4 guilds that charged to the center will swap for the season while the remaining 4 will get only scraps. TBH, I don't have a problem with that.
 

iPenguinPat

Squire
Just a quick note on increasing building cost based on the number of buildings built and/or sectors owned similar to gvg - The perfect time to implement and test would be right after a new age comes out.

Many high-end GBG guilds are top heavy with many players that have been sitting in the highest age for extended periods of time and have extensive treasury resources built up such that cost increases would hardly be noticeable. With a new age, the treasury isn't build up, so immediate increases to treasury costs will have a much stronger effect on how a guild must budget treasury spending.

For guilds that aren't stacked in the highest age, they'll end up feeling the pinch as their players age up which will accomplish the same goal.

Separate suggestion (likely to be unpopular but increasingly necessary) - Put a max-age on the units a player can use based on the age they are currently in. Maybe only allow units same age or lower. Or maybe 1 age up max. Indy/PE players fighting with hover tanks/turtles is absolutely broken. Players being able to fight to well over 100 attrition with minimal or no losses should never happen. Even players with 3000%+attack end up starting to bleed units in those high attrition ranges.

Advanced units fighting in early ages rewards camping and discourages players from advancing through the game and experiencing everything Forge has to offer. There's already enough issue with power creep, and players have access to advanced age GBs anytime they want. It makes players using this strategy far more effective and powerful for fighting than players with 2-3x their fighting and seems completely unintended. Before gbg, this was really only an issue with respect to neighborhood fighting. Now it has a dramatic impact on player progression and general competitive balance. (i.e. I could start a new city and in less than 9 months be more effective in gbg than another competitive (and fully optimized) player that's been playing for 4+ years)
 
Separate suggestion (likely to be unpopular but increasingly necessary) - Put a max-age on the units a player can use based on the age they are currently in. Maybe only allow units same age or lower. Or maybe 1 age up max. Indy/PE players fighting with hover tanks/turtles is absolutely broken. Players being able to fight to well over 100 attrition with minimal or no losses should never happen. Even players with 3000%+attack end up starting to bleed units in those high attrition ranges.

Advanced units fighting in early ages rewards camping and discourages players from advancing through the game and experiencing everything Forge has to offer. There's already enough issue with power creep, and players have access to advanced age GBs anytime they want. It makes players using this strategy far more effective and powerful for fighting than players with 2-3x their fighting and seems completely unintended. Before gbg, this was really only an issue with respect to neighborhood fighting. Now it has a dramatic impact on player progression and general competitive balance. (i.e. I could start a new city and in less than 9 months be more effective in gbg than another competitive (and fully optimized) player that's been playing for 4+ years)
I followed the guide and obtained four Hover Tanks when I was in Indy. At the time my A/D was about 650/400. Initially, I felt like I was in tall cotton but the thrill quickly wore off. Sure, I was able to kill anything served up by a defending army but my options were very limited. In GBG I could only auto-battle about 20 encounters before needing to spend diamonds to heal the 4 Hovers or switch to Indy units (and I was spending a lot of diamonds). I suppose that I could have battled manually but that's not my thing. After a month, or two, of fighting in Indy with the Hovers I aged up to FE and did much better fighting the same-age units. IMO, having FE units in Indy was overrrated.
 

Yekk

Viceroy
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.
Last league we had 6 platinum guilds and one diamond light guild against us. All at 1K. 4 of the platinum and the diamond light asked for tiles and flips. 2 choose not to fight. We setup 2 of the slower platinum against each other. 2 we did flips in their area and the diamond light we ran 1/2 the map with. That said will my guild stuff a guild that can not or will not fight? Yes as they need to move back down to where their comfort level is. 6 guilds saw an excellent league.

It is not all stuff in 1K anymore. Guilds get stronger and can start to compete. The randomization of how guilds are chosen has made for some very diverse groups. Very early in GBG my guild was stuffed by 2 weaker guilds only to break out when one guild did not have leaders on. Invulnerability is over rated. 30 players hitting a tile then a second works for the strong. The 2 guilds saw that stuff back fire and both decided it was easier to work us into the mix.

It just will not work for a weaker guild that is not 1K in ability. But those guilds need to be platinum or diamond light.
 

JhonnyBn

Merchant
I'm very late to this party, but I LOVED all of the suggestions. Please explore those ideas

Caution with "Don't increase attrition for provinces next to your starting province.": this would create a lot of 1-player guilds doing these sectors for free and then waiting for bigger guilds to clear the provinces and repeat exchange sectors
 

trayk

Steward
:) FOE is a model of our society. Our game is what we made. Maybe that's the only reason we love it. We don't need to demand Inno protect us from greedy farmers or lazy dependents. Only we can do it ourselves.
Yes, many in rl work to build wealth, and then the more “social” thinking types want what they deem as their “share”. GbG started out and our guild fought all maps as a war map situation. Then the swapping Started. We refused to swap. Eventually the Whale guilds had us hq’d everytime we hit high diamond. We bounced to platinum a lot. Several years ago I started working to recruit and train. When we got hq’d everyone just relaxed, conserved assets, and continued building their cities and attack boosts. Slowly we got strong and stronger. We finally could participate with some of the friendlier diamond folks while still occasionally hitting seasons of hq life. We continued building. Now WE are one of the whales, but we had to give in and learn to swap. Anyone can build and achieve, it just takes planning and effort. Just like in real life. No one is entitled. That’s what I see a lot of In the last few hours of reading this thread… entitlement attitude. Waaah, they are getting stuff I am deserving to get but don’t want to put in the effort, nerf them, so I can have my “share” that I deserve!! Do the work, the rewards will come.
 

beelzebob666

Overlord
Pathfinder
Spoiler Poster
As I have started another GBG discussion on the de forums... here my personal set of changes I came up during that:

0) per guild track a guild strength index (GSI)
GSI = sum of all the members' daily attrition values before they are reset)
- for the current season, the previous seasons GSI is valid

1) Get rid of the "leagues"
- the amount of guild power given and other rewards at the end of the season may scale with the maximum LP of the battleground
- all battlegrounds give rewards per battle/negotiation according to the current diamond league reward scheme (having different reward schemes did not make sense from the first day anyway)
- the progress needed to take over a province could scale according to the average GSI of the battleground (maybe going up to 300 or 400 per province, so the large (80 member) guilds have something to do, even when meeting multiple other large guilds)

2) better LP distribution (currently -175 to +175) in the final ranking rewards
- give LP according to victory points (VP)
- the total amount of LP redistributed between guilds could depend on the difference between the most VP and the least VP (maybe in relation to the most VP)
- e.g. when the difference is 100k, a total of 400LP are redistributed (as is currently), when the difference is only 20k, maybe only 50LP are redistributed in total - this allows for a finer spread and also reduces pile-up at 1000 LP​
- the amount of LP given/deducted from the guild is proportional to the difference of their achieved VP to the average VP
- this way, e.g. when two guilds totally dominate the battleground, these two guilds get about the same amount of LP, while all other guilds lose about the same amount of LP (with slight variation)​

3) reduce impact of siegecamps
- make them act independently (multiplicative) - as was also in jubers suggestion list
- give HQ some base chance to not attain attrition when fighting from HQ - Juber suggested 100%, I personally would go for 50%

4) maybes:
- Juber's soft cap could be used if 2) is not enough to reduce pile up at 1000
- reduce number of guilds in the higher LP ranges if the increase of province progress needed mentioned in 1) is not enough similar to jubers list
- EDIT: as I suggested in this thread before, a system where the player has a chance to get rewards for when guildmates crate progress - the chance beeig proportional to their current attrition level and indirectly proportional to the number of guild members - in this case, reducing the personal rewards to platinum level would probably be fair

EDIT: further proposition: better ranking

Overall, these suggestions would lead to guilds having similar GSI ending up in the same battleground and GBG would finally be a real tool to determine the top guild(s)
 
Last edited:

.Chris

Baronet
beelzebob666 said:
2) better LP distribution (currently -175 to +175) in the final ranking rewards
- give LP according to victory points (VP)
- the total amount of LP redistributed between guilds could depend on the difference between the most VP and the least VP (maybe in relation to the most VP)
- e.g. when the difference is 100k, a total of 400LP are redistributed (as is currently), when the difference is only 20k, maybe only 50LP are redistributed in total - this allows for a finer spread and also reduces pile-up at 1000 LP
- the amount of LP given/deducted from the guild is proportional to the difference of their achieved VP to the average VP
- this way, e.g. when two guilds totally dominate the battleground, these two guilds get about the same amount of LP, while all other guilds lose about the same amount of LP (with slight variation)

I just stumbled over a Multiplayer ELO-Rating system which might be a better way to group guilds together according to their actual strength.

It is independent of the member count or anything else I could think of.
It has a parameter which allows giving more weight to getting first, second or third place.
 
Last edited:

beelzebob666

Overlord
Pathfinder
Spoiler Poster
A further addition to my list:

5) better ranking (might even work without the other changes)
- currently, only the LP are used to rank the guilds
- instead, the LP before they are capped to 1000 should be used (currently this would lead to the "subleagues" 1000, 1025, 1050, 1075, 1100, 1125, 1150, 1175)
- additionally, the GSI and/or the total amount of progress of the last battleground could be used to further refine the ranking

this way it is less likely that the same guilds end up in a battleground round after round

6) another maybe - allotment of guilds to battlegrounds:
- currently is done by taking the top 8 of the ranking list (ranking list currently is randomized for same LP levels)​
new:​
- guilds are added to to battlegrounds one after the other​
- the first guild will be added to a new battleground​
- every following guild will have a chance of beeing added to a new battleground instead of filling up on of the older open ones.​
- there might be a maximum of open battlegrounds (battlegrounds with less than the desired member count), the chance of being added to the oldest open battleground should be the highest​
not quite sure yet, whether such a thing really is necessary or even useful in view of the other proposed changes​
 
Last edited:

GateKeeper

Baronet
Why not just get rid of Sieges, and say 1.5 and make WatchTowers 12%. as long as a sector can be touched by 8 Watchtowers, there is a chance for attrition.
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).

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.

1st Topic, not totally sure if a "higher" league will be any different than it already is, 2-3 guilds controling the entire map. UNLESS you make the end season rewards winner take all payouts and reduce personal rewards per battle, may you will get some competition.

2nd Topic, Why not just get rid of Sieges, and say make WatchTowers 12% (or reduce Sieges to 12% and remove Watchers. as long as a sector can't be touched by 8 12%buildings, there is a chance for attrition. so remove 3 building sectors to 2 buildings only

3rd Topic, Not sure a 4 guild match would make sense, either map can have a 4 guild rotation easily. with a 4hour lockdown, 4 guild event meaning easily 3 full rotations per day, with minimal guilds goods spent and rake in the rewards for all 4 guilds. so GBG would be renamed, PRB Player Reward Bonanza!

4th Topic. no opinion

5th Topic; actually I would think shorter seasons makes more sense. more guild rotations, instead of a longer season where they get use to each other.

6th Topic: just Make the HQ sectors have 50% no attrition rates, no building needed, easier to code

7th Topic: without Attrition reduced, you can make all the maps you want, same results.

8th Topic: Love this idea and I mentioned in some thread somewhere before ;) but I would go even quicker. Once a sector hits 140/160 (% appropriately per lower leagues) than the clock starts, you have 5 mins to close the sector or all fights wipe out and the sector gets re-captured by the controlling guild AND all buildings are deleted/removed from the attackers sectors. to prevent fraud, take it further, by making that "re-secured" sector now locks for 6 hours.


For the record, the current GBG system has ruined the game with way too high players rewards and manipulation by 2-3 guilds loading up on player rewards each season, and has nothing to do with Guild Battle Grounds except that it costs guild goods to buy sieges. Enemy guilds from GVG even work together in GBG lol.
Sadly the two older systems, GE and GVG are the only Guild v Guild games.
 

beelzebob666

Overlord
Pathfinder
Spoiler Poster
Once a sector hits 140/160 (% appropriately per lower leagues) than the clock starts, you have 5 mins to close the sector or all fights wipe out and the sector gets re-captured by the controlling guild AND all buildings are deleted/removed from the attackers sectors. to prevent fraud, take it further, by making that "re-secured" sector now locks for 6 hours.
that goes way too far... Although that may make sense in a battle between top level guilds, that does absolutely make no sense in the lower brackets.

For example, currently I can with my 75 attrition get about 140 progress on a 2 siege province... But we are a rather small guild - so if nobody else is online at that time that could finish of the attack, all progress would be lost.

Personally I am no quite sure, that "locking" is a real issue - sure, it may be cowardly, but the locking guild may very well lose (all) progress if they lose attention for a moment and the attacked guild continues to get VP - but there probably are some aspects of locking that I am currently not aware of...
 

Owl II

Emperor
I don't know why you care so much about unfinished progress. If you don't like it, there are many ways to force the rival to close the province. Again, the whole discussion goes into some minor details, while there are only two global problems here: the huge amount of weak guilds in the diamond league and the lack of incentive for competitions.
 

Gindi4711

Steward
Here is my feedback:

1.) League points:
This is really a good idea. This solves multiple problems
a) I agree that there should be less points won/lost as currently you are often alternating between 1000LP getting guilds you cant beat and going down to platinum where you are easy number 1
b) Having a soft cap will motivate good guilds to actually fight each other instead of just swapping sectors for loot
c) Currently it is too easy to get in top leagues because there are for example 100 guilds in bronze but also 100 guilds in diamond. But guild distribution is different. We dont have 20% elite guilds and 20% inactives. We have 50% inactives and 1% elite guilds.
So we should also have league distribution that way using a pyramid layout. Something like: 400 in bronze, 200 in silver, 100 in gold, 50 in platinum and 25 in diamond. This is achieved by having higher leagues loosing more points than they get. So each season 1 guild is going up, 2 are going down.

I think the exact point distribution needs a simulation how this will end up after some time to make sure it has no negative impact on the average league so we dont have 99% ending up in sub silver. I have troubles giving a good suggestion here because I only have limited data about guild activity. Maybe some smart data analysts from Inno can help here ;-)

Also when changing the system some guilds will end up in a lower league than before. Maybe it is a better idea to instead create a new league on top so the better guilds climb up one step.

2.) Attrition changes:
I vote for the multiplication combined with 40%. This should solve the problems:
.) Having some guilds abusing the system to keep fighting forever
.) If traps are using multiplication as well they can be used to counter siege camps which makes it a valid defense option again.
.) It will make it easier for weaker guilds coming from the outside having only 1 or 2 siege camps while those guilds doing sector swapping inside have it harder

3.) Number of guilds: I think it is better to do the other changes first and look how it impacts the game. If the meta moves more during defense 4 guilds might be too few even in diamond.

4.) Masters league: Good idea, but I strongly suggest taking a sharp looks on those guilds if they all following game rules. Last thing we want is having a bot match.

5.) Changing lengths: I am not sure this is a good idea. Those guilds that currently have an interesting round will always complain it ended too early and those that thrown into a round of 2 stronger guilds doing sector swapping will always want it to end sooner.
I dont think it is a bad idea, but I doubt it will solve much.

6.) Getting away from your starting province:
I dont think that no attrition is a good idea.
Instead I suggest 2-3 siege camps on the starting province.
In addition I think there should be more building slots on the outside ring so it is easier to push inside if you already have some sectors on the outer ring.

7.) More variation:
I think grid layout is not the main problem. I think that the new grid is much better from a balancing standpoint.
The other things are a good idea to try out different things. But I think it should not be every time. Maybe have 1 standard seasons followed by a shorter one with special rules and collect feedback from the players which seasons they liked more.

8.) Popups: Yes good idea.

9.) Guilds blocking sectors: I have another idea for this:

Have a feature "defend sector" where you can do an attack/negotiation to bring enemies flags down by 1/2 points.
If used on your own sector attrition should be based on number of traps. When used on an enemy provice attrition should be based on siege camps.

This way a stronger guild can always take the flag away from the one single guy waiting to turn the 159 flag.
 

.Chris

Baronet
Regarding starting provinces:
I think it should not be just free siege camps; instead maybe they could have to be build at the normal cost and only last 24 hours or something
 

Gindi4711

Steward
I dont think this is a good idea as long as good costs are random. Guilds that have siege camps on their start sector costing 3K iron age goods will have a real disadvantage.
 

nice2haveu

Baronet
May be out of sync but wished to share (crazy rules which I like)

- guild which has every guild member completed level 4 guild expedition, can be allowed to use sc or traps etc.

- if one guild locked the province, other guild should have an option to unlock by making trade request with victory/league points to them.

- each member should get a chance to decide attrition concept, which is like either to play with fixed attrition or regular attrition approach. Fixed attrition can be bought with diamonds which is to be done after every reset if player wants to use fixed attrition.
20 attrition - 75 diamonds
10 attrition - 150 diamonds
05 attrition - 300 diamonds
 

Thunderdome

Emperor
- guild which has every guild member completed level 4 guild expedition, can be allowed to use sc or traps etc.
That will eat up treasury resources really quick if everyone who completes level 4 can set up traps/SCs. Also, it will probably be a recipe for disaster since there will be one who will set up a trap/SC at the wrong sector or the wrong time.
- if one guild locked the province, other guild should have an option to unlock by making trade request with victory/league points to them.
The very definition of "Farmville" if this happens. It'll take one guild to take a sector by attack/nego and everyone else trading with points. It'll deprive many out of fights/negos for rewards once all guilds are situated towards the end.
- each member should get a chance to decide attrition concept, which is like either to play with fixed attrition or regular attrition approach. Fixed attrition can be bought with diamonds which is to be done after every reset if player wants to use fixed attrition.
20 attrition - 75 diamonds
10 attrition - 150 diamonds
05 attrition - 300 diamonds
So, basically, you're telling us that we can purchase a fixed attrition of say 5 for 300 diamonds. Would this be until reset happens (yeah, you get only 5 attrition all the way)? Or, would there be a time limit for which it can be used (say for instance, 4 hours)? You might have to elaborate on this a little more.
 

SlytherinAttack

Viceroy
Baking Sudoku Master
making trade request with victory/league points
To support allies, it will be a good one. It is like accepting trade to increase the rank and letting the people inside province fight and die (to meet their hunger of rewards).

Other two options seems fine, but GE level 4 concept you brought to support your fixed attrition logic I feel. Anyways, good thinking!!
Cannot say very surely, how much it will benefit or destroy GbG.
 

nice2haveu

Baronet
That will eat up treasury resources really quick if everyone who completes level 4 can set up traps/SCs. Also, it will probably be a recipe for disaster since there will be one who will set up a trap/SC at the wrong sector or the wrong time.

The very definition of "Farmville" if this happens. It'll take one guild to take a sector by attack/nego and everyone else trading with points. It'll deprive many out of fights/negos for rewards once all guilds are situated towards the end.

So, basically, you're telling us that we can purchase a fixed attrition of say 5 for 300 diamonds. Would this be until reset happens (yeah, you get only 5 attrition all the way)? Or, would there be a time limit for which it can be used (say for instance, 4 hours)? You might have to elaborate on this a little more.
You misunderstood most of them i feel.

- Not everyone can make SC or traps. Guild leader can place SC or traps or other, only when entire guild completes level 4 GE.

- sector is locked already, not sure what you say about farmville. To unlock, making a special Trade request to start fight or nego on the province which can be done only by the guild leaders.

- each day reset, attrition points to zero. So, every day if user wants fixed attrition, they need to spend diamonds.

Hope you got clear now!!
 
Top