Rejected Recapture your tile in battle grounds

[Marbles]

Reason

Battle grounds is very one sided and without the ability to defend or recapture a tile there isn't a level playing field.

Details

Options for Implementation

Assuming:
A tile takes 220 hits to capture
Rewards still earned for successful fights / negotiations

Option 1

Tile owner (defenders) has to hit 220 times to relock the tile for another 4 hours
Attackers have to hit the tile 220 times to capture the tile
Both attackers and defenders will earn attrition (defenders should earn attrition at a better rate then the attackers as they already won the tile)

Option 2

Every successful fight the defenders can either remove 1 (2 for negotiations) from the attackers fight count(s) or add 1 (2 for negotiations) to the total fight count needed to capture (which ever is easier to program).
Both attackers and defenders will earn attrition (defenders should earn attrition at a better rate then the attackers as they already won the tile)
If the tile owner successfully defends for X amount of minutes the tile is relocked and the tile owner maintains the tile for another 4 hours.

Balance

It shouldn't impact any other game feature.

Abuse Prevention

There should be no additional abuse potential. If anything there would be less as it would increase the number of hits per player in a day. Scripting / botting are naturally limited by attrition / troops / goods therefore use with the increased number of fights / negotiations would render them useless quickly again leveling the playing field.

Summary

I believe this would be an easy upgrade to battle grounds that would be welcomed by the masses it will also draw more players as it will draw not only those looking for a city building game but a war game as well.

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

I searched recapturing tiles in battle grounds and defending tiles in battle grounds ... The idea of defending has been suggested but not in the manor i have proposed. I have no idea what the DNSL is let alone where to find it.

Currently Guild Battle Grounds is very one sided meaning that once you own a tile and it unlocks there is nothing you can do but watch it get taken away. Currently there is no way to defend a tile or relock it . Which under values battle grounds. Making a tile defendable / recapturable adds a real war aspect to battle grounds and helps level the playing field, making the battle more meaningful and more competitive. It will have a positive impact on the guilds regardless of size as attrition management as well as time management will play a much bigger part as now players will be attacking and defending and using attrition on both ends. It will also help maintain players who play for the war aspect of the game vs the city building aspect.

Options for Implementation

Assuming:
A tile takes 220 hits to capture
Rewards still earned for successful fights / negotiations

Option 1

Tile owner (defenders) has to hit 220 times to relock the tile for another 4 hours
Attackers have to hit the tile 220 times to capture the tile
Both attackers and defenders will earn attrition (defenders should earn attrition at a better rate then the attackers as they already won the tile)

Option 2

Every successful fight the defenders (tile owner) can either remove 1 (2 for negotiations) from the attackers fight count(s) or add 1 (2 for negotiations) to the total fight count needed to capture (which ever is easier to program).
Both attackers and defenders will earn attrition (defenders should earn attrition at a better rate then the attackers as they already won the tile)
If the tile owner successfully defends for X amount of minutes the tile is relocked and the tile owner maintains the tile for another 4 hours.

 

[Fury the Avenger]

This can be abused to box weaker guild in.
The current system can be used to box in but it require at least 2 guilds working together. The idea above would allow a single guild to do it all by itself.
The lower attrition for defenders would make it cheaper to lock without a colaboration from another guild.

Not addressed (option 2): A guild could have some progress on a locked province. From the idea it seems the defender could reduce the accumulated progress while the province is still locked and the attacker cannot do anything.

DNSL is the second pinned thread in this forum Ideas & Suggestions (DNSL=Do not suggest list)

 

[CrashBoom]

and for that the defending army stats are used
some buildings already give GBG defenders boosts

 

[Marbles]

This can be abused to box weaker guild in.
The current system can be used to box in but it require at least 2 guilds working together. The idea above would allow a single guild to do it all by itself.
The lower attrition for defenders would make it cheaper to lock without a colaboration from another guild.

Not addressed (option 2): A guild could have some progress on a locked province. From the idea it seems the defender could reduce the accumulated progress while the province is still locked and the attacker cannot do anything.

DNSL is the second pinned thread in this forum Ideas & Suggestions (DNSL=Do not suggest list)

no, no one could reduce anything unless the tile was open to be attacked. option 1 is a straight up re fight

 

[Fury the Avenger]

no, no one could reduce anything unless the tile was open to be attacked. option 1 is a straight up re fight

That would solve the issue in part.

An unintended, I suppose, consequence is that guild can do endless fight without an alliance with other guild, with lower attrition, and reusing the building added without the current risk of the builing being destroyed when swapping.

I play is non competitive guilds, so I think this idea is bad. But for competitive guilds it would reduce complexity (no alliance required) and guild good consumption.

 

[Thunderdome]

"Friendly fire is not..."
-Some dude in G-Police (PS1 Game)

This is open for all sorts of abuse. The stronger guild can box in the smaller, weaker guilds indefinitely, thus not giving a chance to break out of HQ. Guilds that utilize bots can do this at a faster rate.

Might as well file it with the one that they wanted 12h to lock in tiles so they can get more VP.

From this bloke, a sounding NO (just 'NO") resonance.

DNSL: Making the game easier for a player or group of players that presents an unfair advantage to the rest of the player base.

 

[RKinG]

In GBG we need fights/negotiations The demand from my guild is huge. By taking each province and as quickly as possible we have less than we need. However, the limit is high. If it brings more fights/negotiations I am for it

 

[werwulfich]

I support this idea. I believe that it would be correct to leave the calculation of fatigue for neighboring provinces. And in the case of recapture, leave the same chance for the demolition of existing buildings as if the province had been captured by the enemy.

 

[jtrucker]

An unintended, I suppose, consequence is that guild can do endless fight without an alliance with other guild, with lower attrition, and reusing the building added without the current risk of the builing being destroyed when swapping.

I actually oppose this addition as well (not that it matters ), but this "reusing buildings with lower attrition" I do not understand.

For fighting, to lower the attrition increase, you need buildings in the neighboring province, not in the one you fight. So if the defender has just the one province they try to defend and nothing more around it, their attrition would rise rather quickly and the defense would be near impossible (would need at least 3 players to make 220 fights and after 4 hours the lock ends and it would need ANOTHER 3 players wince the first ones would be out of the fight until midnight). So actually small guilds would at severe disadvantage with this feature. That's why I oppose it.

 

[Emberguard]

I actually oppose this addition as well (not that it matters ), but this "reusing buildings with lower attrition" I do not understand.

[...] you need buildings in the neighboring province, not in the one you fight [...]

I think that's sort of the point being made. Defend the province without buildings, and have that province touching a province with the buildings required to receive maximum attrition reduction.

Because you're attacking a sector without buildings there's no buildings to be destroyed from successfully defending

Also from the idea:

Both attackers and defenders will earn attrition (defenders should earn attrition at a better rate then the attackers as they already won the tile)

Doesn't say how they intend that to be implemented.

For the sake of having something to work with let's say it automatically gets a 5% reduction on top of the 80% reduction, and that the 5% overrides the max attrition reduction cap. Now you have a lower attrition.

Maybe they meant something else, who knows. But that's what it sounds like

 

[The Lady Redneck]

I thought they were working on adding a defence element in GBG. Or has that been scrapped? Something along this lines might be a part of that. IF it goes ahead at some point.

 

[Emberguard]

I thought they were working on adding a defence element in GBG. Or has that been scrapped? Something along this lines might be a part of that. IF it goes ahead at some point.

We don't know what they're working on aside from blue boosts coming to Guild Battlegrounds at some point. They haven't said what for

 

[Norde]

"recapture your tile in gbg" -> and GvG reborn

 

[Markus Stormrider]

fighting away an enemy's banner would be fun and would earn my +1 for this idea. but, what if there are multiple enemies fighting? i'd want to be able to focus on one enemy only, and your idea does not explain how we could do that. so, no vote from me for/against the idea right now.

 

[Marbles]

fighting away an enemy's banner would be fun and would earn my +1 for this idea. but, what if there are multiple enemies fighting? i'd want to be able to focus on one enemy only, and your idea does not explain how we could do that. so, no vote from me for/against the idea right now.

i see it as fighting off all banners equally.