Rejected Province Building(GBG), which increases the time of blocking the province after capture.

[Owl II]

Reason

GBG are currently designed in such a way require excessive effort and time to play successfully. The rebalance of the attrition does not solve this problem. Regardless of how much time each player can spend on GBG individually, GBG is a team game. And the team target remains the same: you must capture and hold a certain number of provinces to not fly away to the HQ. And you must be able to continue moving to the map after your provinces are blocked. This means, in fact, that someone must be in the game continuously, and since this is a team feature, it must be a team, not a single player.

Which leads us to a load that the average healthy and unencumbered person in real life is not able to endure on a regular basis. And this is basically unacceptable for adults with a family and a job.

An example of good design in this context: The Guild met once a day (maybe twice a day or three times a week). We completed all the tasks within an hour or two, participated in a direct clash with other guilds, talked in a voice chat, discussed the game, gossiped and dispersed. An example of bad design: the game forces you to continuously monitor the map. And you have to constantly pull your guild members so that they hit something and run somewhere.

Details

Guilds boycott the continuous activity of GBG in primitive ways. They hit the provinces so that there are 1-2 fights left before closing and leave them indefinitely. Treaties and temporary alliances are flourishing. Give us a legal and reliable tool to achieve this goal.

Balance

This will not affect the balance of the game directly. It will simply allow us to use standard tools instead of artificial locks

Abuse Prevention

This will not lead to any "abuses" other than those that already exist.

Summary

I think the time of additional locks may require testing to select the optimal parameters. The cost of such buildings should correspond to the cost of barracks and command posts. This buildings can also become a strategic tool.

Have you looked to see if this has already been suggested?

This is often discussed in feedback threads, but I haven't seen any suggestions. I would vote for such a proposal with all my limbs;)

Add a building that increases the blocking time to 6, 8, or 12 hours (+2, +4 and +8 hours from the base) on level 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Let's call it a Ravelin. Improvised, forward and fortified guild Ravelin.

 

[The Lady Ann]

I like the idea of racing to X1 (which we always do and win it 99.99% of the time, on live world there is only 1 guild that can live with us) then placing my 12 hour Ravelin and watching the VP's rack up so no one can catch us

as much as I love the idea I do think it would be very overpowered in some guilds hands

 

[Emberguard]

Add a building that increases the blocking time to 6, 8, or 12 hours (+2, +4 and +8 hours from the base) on level 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

Are you saying the center tile would get +2, and the outer rim would get +8?

Or outer rim get +2, and center get +8?

'Cause if the Center tile gets +8, that would make whoever gets to the center first completely untouchable for at least 14 hours. Whereas if it's the outer rim that gets the additional time, it may allow a weaker Guild to hang around a bit longer before being kicked off.

 

[Owl II]

I like the idea of racing to X1 (which we always do and win it 99.99% of the time, on live world there is only 1 guild that can live with us) then placing my 12 hour Ravelin and watching the VP's rack up so no one can catch us

as much as I love the idea I do think it would be very overpowered in some guilds hands

Don't tell me you've never seen two guilds block the map with flags for any time they like
I didn't think about it in that context, but why not? If you won the race. And even if you lose, X1X will be yours for the next 6-8 to 12 hours if you use your opportunities correctly. As it is now

 

[Owl II]

Actually, the original idea was to suggest increasing the province lockdown time to at least 6 hours. But then it seemed to me that buildings would be a much more flexible tool.

 

[Owl II]

Are you saying the center tile would get +2, and the outer rim would get +8?

Or outer rim get +2, and center get +8?

'Cause if the Center tile gets +8, that would make whoever gets to the center first completely untouchable for at least 14 hours. Whereas if it's the outer rim that gets the additional time, it may allow a weaker Guild to hang around a bit longer before being kicked off.

Well, I didn't think about giving the weak guilds another crutch. We have already seen that no crutches will help them. The idea was to make easier
GBG monitoring, in short

 

[angelgail]

some of us are not weak we just thrown in with the top guild that have more players .than us .like being punished for being active ,not saying we the best cause we not by any means

 

[planetofthehumans2]

Pretty sure inno made the block time only 4 hours to keep gbg active at all times because the #1 complaint on gvg is that it was only active for 10 minutes every 24 hours.

As well, you get an overall loss of activity because then it's that much slower to turn over sectors.

 

[Owl II]

Pretty sure inno made the block time only 4 hours to keep gbg active at all times because the #1 complaint on gvg is that it was only active for 10 minutes every 24 hours.

As well, you get an overall loss of activity because then it's that much slower to turn over sectors.

I will remind those who complained that the GvG takes only 15 minutes a day: Inno once made recalc every 8 hours in test mode on beta and on an international server. It's been three months of moaning and crying from the players. You can read feedback for general understanding. At the end of the test period, the recalc was returned to the mode 1 time per day.

 

[Owl II]

some of us are not weak we just thrown in with the top guild that have more players .than us .like being punished for being active ,not saying we the best cause we not by any means

Everything is relative, absolutely invincible does not exist. Or at least it shouldn't be. Unfortunately, there are much fewer players in the FOE than there are guilds. Players who want to play GBG and win join guilds that know how to do it now. The composition of my guild has never exceeded 60 players, and I considered it optimal. Now we have gained almost the maximum number of participants. But the intensity of the gameplay is so high that few people can withstand it on a regular basis. I'm sure: there will be a championship or two, people will take the coveted tower and go to their nice old swamps, where you don't have to run all day on the alarm game and wake up at night to catch the race for X1X

 

[Owl II]

We have already experienced this once, when GBG was just introduced. Back then, only the top 5 guilds were in the diamond, and for half a year it was a massacre and a competition for strength. The smartest ones left the game back then. The most stubborn survived. Those who are not ready to leave, but have a sufficient share of prudence, have made a sluggish farm out of GBG. Used to say history repeats itself twice. The first time in the form of a tragedy, the second time in the form of a farce. It's our second time now

 

[drakenridder]

Isn't this on the DNSL? As it's either making yourself richer or making the game easier. It'll make it much easier to manage lock downs. Which makes winning much easier and yourself richer (easy win = easy champ. tower).
Due to the lack of abuse prevention, the guild can build for example the fortified one. Destroy it and rebuild it after 7,5h. Using diamonds to instantly complete the build. Doing this for a few days around the provinces around other's HQ's and lock downs 24/7. Since it's extending protection time by Xh. When the base 4h has expired, it's 0h +Xh from the building. Since there's no abuse prevention applied, this'll work.

 

[Markus Stormrider]

this idea makes GBG somewhat more like GvG (regarding fight times at least). -1 for me.