Feedback Regarding Recent Feedback

[Juber]

But about gameplay and balancing GbG for example never an answer

For Guild Battleground I can tell you, that this is something we CMs have forwarded quite often. The thing is: GbG is not unbalanced. Before you begin to shout out, listen. This is only "in general". The only part where it is unbalanced is in the top league. Players are able to do thousands of battles there. This is only possible because of high arcs, very high attack boosts and many goods. If you would begin on a new world, where not every better player has a high level arc, then it would be very well balanced for everyone. Only the part of the players, that is active the most and make up the majority of forum users is affected. This next part is only personal speculation. This is probably the reason for why it was not addressed yet. But we will of course continue to push it and improvements may come. But I can't promise anything of course.

Also, not changing something is also a decision made" ok, but telling us why is (we don't need to know every detail) what we understand with transparency and communication.

This is something, that will be handled by one of the projects we plan

 

[drakenridder]

For Guild Battleground I can tell you, that this is something we CMs have forwarded quite often. The thing is: GbG is not unbalanced. Before you begin to shout out, listen. This is only "in general". The only part where it is unbalanced is in the top league. Players are able to do thousands of battles there. This is only possible because of high arcs, very high attack boosts and many goods. If you would begin on a new world, where not every better player has a high level arc, then it would be very well balanced for everyone. Only the part of the players, that is active the most and make up the majority of forum users is affected. This next part is only personal speculation. This is probably the reason for why it was not addressed yet. But we will of course continue to push it and improvements may come. But I can't promise anything of course.

Attrition was an intended limitation to force strategy upon GbG. As to naturally limit the options for guilds and their members to choose wisely what to do with their daily action. Simultaneously rewarding progress in stacking up buffs, which wasn’t officially mentioned but defiantly an factor. However regarding balancing SC completely bypassed this and enables practically limitless offences only halted by 4h protection and the numbered provinces. Thus removing the balance.

 

[jovada]

If you would begin on a new world, where not every better player has a high level arc, then it would be very well balanced for everyone

That is also utopic because within a week players with different worlds falsen the new world with cross deals between worlds outplaying new players

 

[Juber]

SC completely bypassed this and enables practically limitless offences

Yes, but only, if you have the needed goods for it. And they are very difficult to get, if not everyone in your guild has a high level arc and other guild GBs. This is what I meant by "balanced in general".
A "normal" guild can not afford to always place camps everywhere.

 

[drakenridder]

@Juber I see, it’s really well balanced. Judging from the forums it’s also very effective way of balancing.
This reminds me of an satirical YouTuber who plays games creatively and manages to bypasses significant bottlenecks and intended hurtles like attrition in GbG. He also always says “[insert game he plays] is a perfectly balanced game with no exploits.”

 

[Juber]

This reminds me of an satirical YouTuber who plays games creatively and manages to bypasses significant bottlenecks and intended hurtles like attrition in GbG. He also always says “[insert game he plays] is a perfectly balanced game with no exploits.”

I like his video where he got a lot of land in Scotland? for free.

But this also shows quite well, that a game can be balanced, while a feature or even only a small section of this feature is unbalanced/bugged.

 

[xivarmy]

Yes, but only, if you have the needed goods for it. And they are very difficult to get, if not everyone in your guild has a high level arc and other guild GBs. This is what I meant by "balanced in general".
A "normal" guild can not afford to always place camps everywhere.

But by the same standards, that normal guild also wouldn't miss much if say attrition reduction from siege camps was capped at 75% instead of 100%. They don't get to 100% anyways because they can't afford to build as many camps; while attrition in the top groups becomes more meaningful.

 

[Juber]

But by the same standards, that normal guild also wouldn't miss much if say attrition reduction from siege camps was capped at 75% instead of 100%. They don't get to 100% anyways because they can't afford to build as many camps; while attrition in the top groups becomes more meaningful.

Yes, that is very much true and I personally would like to see the min. attrition capped (at least at 1% always for example). Problem is, what happens, if you do this now. Many players will get angry, because they suddenly can't do as many fights anymore and everyone, that did a lot of fights will have a permanent advantage.
This is the same reason the arc can not be nerfed, it is simply too late now.
My idea to cap the attrition gain to always >1% would be a small, but effective change I think. But this is for Game Design to decide.

 

[drakenridder]

The only part where it is unbalanced is in the top league. Players are able to do thousands of battles there. This is only possible because of high arcs, very high attack boosts and many goods.

Because it’s ineffective in higher leagues it’s okay to leave those leagues “unbalanced” or it’s okay to leave this out of the response regarding recent feedback because it’s only for the top? I might be missing something but doesn’t the top tiers exist of highly active player bases.
This is objectively btw, I try to understand the point. As to me it’s impossible to understand why it’s okay to leave it unfixed while it could be addressed easily with specific balance changes. E.G. less building slots, less effective SC, capped SC or other parameters to make it more balanced and sold as more challenging maps for top leagues.

I like his video where he got a lot of land in Scotland? for free.

But this also shows quite well, that a game can be balanced, while a feature or even only a small section of this feature is unbalanced/bugged.

Me too he’s awesome to bring in an light hearted way balance issues to the light by pushing those through extremes. You’re post of calling an unbalanced feature balanced reminded me of him but jokes a side, the unbalanced situation is posing serious issues as beyond developing through the copy paste space ages there’s only the unbalanced GbG for the top league players. Kinda weird from my perspective to be dismissive towards the issue. Unless something big is in the making to make GbG irrelevant in the future for end game players…

 

[drakenridder]

Yes, that is very much true and I personally would like to see the min. attrition capped (at least at 1% always for example). Problem is, what happens, if you do this now. Many players will get angry, because they suddenly can't do as many fights anymore and everyone, that did a lot of fights will have a permanent advantage.

Solution can be to create a few additional leagues with proper balance. Sold as extra difficult leagues for the real top only. Where additional parameters come into play to keep the balance.
On the very top of the line an exclusive league where only the highest top can confront each other. Which is often suggested an league where guilds will be kicked from if they don’t beat all other’s and taking the #1spot.
This prevents anger over the number of fights they can do. As this is something new. Also if concerns are regarding such anger, keen eye would’ve been made something of the past in SAJM. As it does also influences what someone can do regarding daily fights.

 

[Juber]

Because it’s ineffective in higher leagues it’s okay to leave those leagues “unbalanced” or it’s okay to leave this out of the response regarding recent feedback because it’s only for the top? I might be missing something but doesn’t the top tiers exist of highly active player bases.
This is objectively btw, I try to understand the point. As to me it’s impossible to understand why it’s okay to leave it unfixed while it could be addressed easily with specific balance changes. E.G. less building slots, less effective SC, capped SC or other parameters to make it more balanced and sold as more challenging maps for top leagues.


Me too he’s awesome to bring in an light hearted way balance issues to the light by pushing those through extremes. You’re post of calling an unbalanced feature balanced reminded me of him but jokes a side, the unbalanced situation is posing serious issues as beyond developing through the copy paste space ages there’s only the unbalanced GbG for the top league players. Kinda weird from my perspective to be dismissive towards the issue. Unless something big is in the making to make GbG irrelevant in the future for end game players…

I think you missed my point. I wanted to make clear, that gbg is not as unbalanced, as many think. In general, it is very well balanced, but not in the top leagues. Of course it is exactly this area where most forum users are. I did not want to "devalue" you as forum users or something else, just to show, that it is not as unbalanced, as most think.

And of course, it is still very much a hot topic among us CMs and we forward it very often. This does not change. Just shining a bit of sunlight into the dark "unbalanced" room

 

[Juber]

Solution can be to create a few additional leagues with proper balance. Sold as extra difficult leagues for the real top only. Where additional parameters come into play to keep the balance.
On the very top of the line an exclusive league where only the highest top can confront each other. Which is often suggested an league where guilds will be kicked from if they don’t beat all other’s and taking the #1spot.
This prevents anger over the number of fights they can do. As this is something new. Also if concerns are regarding such anger, keen eye would’ve been made something of the past in SAJM. As it does also influences what someone can do regarding daily fights.

I think creating more leagues just shifts the problem. Currently, there are too many active guilds in the top league and there is not really a difference between Copper League and Gold League for example. I made many suggestions already on how to combat most balancing issues. And to give myself a pat on the back, they are quite creative and should be very effective. But I am not the one who decides what is done.

But we get a bit off-topic now. ^^

 

[xivarmy]

Yes, that is very much true and I personally would like to see the min. attrition capped (at least at 1% always for example). Problem is, what happens, if you do this now. Many players will get angry, because they suddenly can't do as many fights anymore and everyone, that did a lot of fights will have a permanent advantage.
This is the same reason the arc can not be nerfed, it is simply too late now.
My idea to cap the attrition gain to always >1% would be a small, but effective change I think. But this is for Game Design to decide.

As long as you don't sell it as an unmitigated improvement, the backlash should be no worse than your usual backlash

The last time they tried to nerf GBG by hitting the rewards in platinum/diamond with the road to victory stealing some of their shards there was significant backlash - and heck I was part of it - because it wasn't an improvement; it was a nerf being sold as an improvement. It also created a discontinuity where at the time it seemed like sitting in gold to avoid the nerf and get easier fights might've made some sense for some guilds (of course since then as GBG has stablized, sitting in gold while getting fights seems very far fetched now!)

The uproar was big enough that they rolled it back and stuck the road to victory as only a round-end reward. In hindsight, the nerf would probably have been fine in the long run; but you can't sell a p-o-s building as an improvement when the real intention is to nerf things.

If by some miracle siege camps do get nerfed, it should be sold as such rather than some revolutionary improvement.

"The rewards are over the top and incentivize an unintended playstyle with some players getting 10s of thousands of fights in a season. The time investment required for this is beyond what we want to see from the feature. With this in mind we're reigning in the ability to fight without attrition gain in battlegrounds and we believe this will help to make more interesting rounds in upper leagues. We will revisit whether this has had the desired effect and make adjustments in the future"

As for the amount of attrition, i think it has to be at least 10% on the conservative end to make a difference. 1% = Gaining an average of 1.6 attrition across an entire guild for a diamond league sector is not worth noting (and generally people treat 4 siege camps = 96% reduction as good as free).

 

[Juber]

I choose the 1% for this suggestion because of 2 reasons:
Firstly, I am a bit of a perfectionist. Having something like 2% or 3% would be better, yes, but it would be to difficult to show in a easy way for everyone. You always have to assume there are players, that don't read texts. Having a 1% chance is just shy of 0%, so it makes the most sense.
Secondly, the reason I did not choose something like 5 or 10% is because it would be too much compared to now. I explained it here:

Problem is, what happens, if you do this now. Many players will get angry, because they suddenly can't do as many fights anymore and everyone, that did a lot of fights will have a permanent advantage.

So I though 1% would make sense and is not too much of a difference. Of course it is not good, if it would be the only change. I also suggested several other things. ^^

 

[xivarmy]

I choose the 1% for this suggestion because of 2 reasons:
Firstly, I am a bit of a perfectionist. Having something like 2% or 3% would be better, yes, but it would be to difficult to show in a easy way for everyone. You always have to assume there are players, that don't read texts. Having a 1% chance is just shy of 0%, so it makes the most sense.
Secondly, the reason I did not choose something like 5 or 10% is because it would be too much compared to now. I explained it here:

So I though 1% would make sense and is not too much of a difference. Of course it is not good, if it would be the only change. I also suggested several other things. ^^

Even at 10%, let's say 100 attrition cap = 1000 fights a day * 12 sets of attrition a round = 12000 fights a round. It's in reach to do tons of fights still. And it's safe to say that permanent advantage is there whether or not it's nerfed and is only getting bigger the longer it remains unnerfed.

 

[DEADP00L]

Small word, big difference.

English is not a language that I master, I make efforts to try to express myself and understand you.
So if anyone is wrong to play on words, no matter how small, it's you.

It's like Jubber's fine intervention, I understand your position but I wonder if you're not on purpose answering halfway.
I appreciate Jubber for having followed him for years on the German server, but his intervention which was intended to calm things down annoys me even more.
Almost all of his speech that serves as evidence of listening concerns the balancing of events. Not that these balances are not important, but you continue to obscure our main questions about the balances OF THE GAME!

Telling me that we will have surprises in the months to come, that you are working on 2 big projects shows ONCE AGAIN that you are not listening to us. We are not asking for new things, we want you to fix or improve what already exists.

I am as disappointed with your answers as with the results of the 2021 sprint. We definitely don't speak the same language and we don't play the same game.

From now on, I will refrain from intervening constructively until you or Innogames do the same.

 

[DEADP00L]

In general, it is very well balanced, but not in the top leagues.

No need to look for a balancing solution since all the guilds that should remain in platinum are boosted in diamond. That is the problem. We are too easily propelled into a higher league, which creates a real imbalance in a championship that does not even have the name!
Creating other leagues would only postpone the problem.
Review the LP win and loss charts.

 

[jovada]

Problem is, what happens, if you do this now. Many players will get angry, because they suddenly can't do as many fights anymore and everyone, that did a lot of fights will have a permanent advantage.
This is the same reason the arc can not be nerfed, it is simply too late now.

And many players are angry because you favor those players. Not only do several of them 2000 fights a day farming endless points and that is not the worse but also the rewards are there, so most of those players get an extra 1000 fp while a normal active player fighting only makes 100 fp, thus making the gap with the so called elite players bigger and bigger.
You say that everyone that did a lot of fights will have a permanent advantage ? and what do they have now???? they just increase their permanent advantage.

Yes, but only, if you have the needed goods for it. And they are very difficult to get, if not everyone in your guild has a high level arc and other guild GBs. This is what I meant by "balanced in general".

So the solution is to reject all small members, no more guilds that accept new players, no more helping them because we need the goods for SC's. The gameplay changes from guild with loyal players and helping each other (what is the real goal of a guild) into a few fighting clubs.
And normal guilds have to wait every two GbG to drop down a league so they can do some fights.

 

[Juber]

You now can discuss the gbg topic here, if you want: https://forum.beta.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/jubers-gbg-suggestions.15503/
So back to topic now

 

[Thunderdome]

(meaning: human beings)

I identify as a robot.

Some things had to be changed not because of player feedback, but because of the "ominous" source you all refer to: Statistics.

"Statistics" only show the number of people that play a certain world on a server, and sometimes those numbers can be off by a set amount of time (I heard like "5 months" somewhere back in this thread). Player feedback should be the point on anything as we go out and tell our friends, family, guildies, neighbors, and just about everyone in chat (you should drop in sometime). If this was my rodeo, I would focus on that rather than the number of people playing as those are the ones who were trying to wait for change to happen but never came.

When it comes to event planning or putting forth a new feature, one at Inno should keep asking themselves, "what can I do to make this (event/feature) better than the rest?" We've put in our dos centavos/zwei pfenning/two cents when it comes to feedback and we would get like 1% in response. The 99% is often ignored, and with that, the most important things we are still waiting a reply to or we won't get a reply to.

We don't need "gimmicks", we need results. We're the end users, the ones who are trying your product, and the ones who would spread the word so you can get more to try it. By having things that work, and a clear communication between users and developers, I am sure this will get more players to come play and buy. And yes, as a company (and/or representative), you will get natives (as in players) that are restless and would use heavy language (I got no problem in doing so since social media is my weapon and vehicle to convey my message if I have one to send out, that is).

Now, I don't know what happened or where Inno had fell for I know in the first year I had played (and took a vacation) they were doing good in listening to the players that they got awards than any other I had known (and I was going to quit the other game I was playing at the time because that developer was all about trying to push spending base events rather than just listening to the players, and I was told once that they had a source that said otherwise and that's why they were doing the things they were doing that pissed off a lot players and had a mass exodus.

Don't be that company. It's never too late.