Rejected Reorganize GBG

[SlytherinAttack]

Reason

Only few guild members participate and stepping up their guild leagues in many guild as per my understanding. It is not a mistake, but at the same time not an appropriate behavior collectively from a guild point of view in the battleground. To avoid this, bringing guild member contribution logic when attempting to place GBG buildings to reduce attrition. Contribution logic make sure guild league progress with maximum guild members support.

Details

Siege camps, Traps, Watch Tower (GBG buildings) etc are to be placed by guild leader, but the timer will start after every guild member contribution. Shocking? But what to contribute is, new item called "GBG medals". It will rewarded to each member contributing in the GBG battles like random rewards. "GBG medals" will be appended with GBG random rewards list. 1 medal is the default amount when rewarded every time. So Guild members need to do more battles to collect more medals.

Whenever Guild Leader opted to place GBG buildings, every guild member gets notified in the guild thread automatically with sector details and GBG building details.
no support of adding multiple building at a time because one building timer initiated then only other can get placed.
Guild members and leaders should be very active to get there 66.6% attrition level by contributing quickly with the medal to place the building
(100% attrition free golden days are gone already).

One member has more medals and other member has more medal will be a fact, but for GBG buildings, guild members should contribute 1 medal without fail, it is the major checkpoint in the entire idea. Now the Guild league comes into the picture, where the total members to contribute medals will get vary based on the guild leagues. For example, the mandatory member contribution count of guild leagues to be listed like,
diamond 60 members,
sapphire (new league) 65 members,
platinum 70 members and
crown (new league) all members contribution mandatory.

Please see the attached images to know how GBG buildings represent with guild member contribution,
- GBG building with red circle displaying the remaining contribution count
- GBG building with green circle displaying tick mark denotes that mandatory contribution met
( Guild leaders need to be notified with the details of mandatory contribution met on the GBG building in the respective sector )

So, when GBG season get over, all remaining medals will be reset to zero!!!! This is the final check point!!

What will happen when members count didn't match with the mandatory contribution count?
Simple, GBG buildings Siege camps, Traps, Watch Tower etc will be in a waiting queue till the mandatory count meet the expectation.

How members will contribute to the GBG buildings?
Each member should go the sector/province which is notified to them in the guild thread with sector/province and newly added building details

Are you supporting smaller guilds?
No, because the frequency or percentage of receiving GBG medals needs to be scheduled higher to top most guild leagues.
But the smaller guild here understood like smaller guild league where mandatory count is less, and their medal receiving chances also less.

Are you trying to make GBG worst of all?
It is guild battle ground, so including maximum amount of guild members to contribute and support the guild progress.

Balance

Idea will make sure maximum of guild members participation according to their leagues and maintains balance better than before.

Abuse Prevention

No abuse since it considers everything collectively as a guild and does not target any individuals.

Summary

I don't know, how many negative votes going to be seen here, but IMO, it will be the most balanced logic. Guild leaders, Please don't scold me, it will take time to settle the entire guild with this approach, once it is done, you will see the smooth ride. Believe Me!!

My Personal Note (not related to the idea): If I remember correctly, After Aid All feature released myself back to game last month only. Big gap due to myself entering into shocked mind state because of witnessing death of my elders. Back to normal life and started to give a small touch base to my favorite game. I wanted to inform everyone when started again using forum account, but felt little guilty and shame to inform everyone. Hope everything goes smooth for everyone in all aspects!!

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

Not suggested before!!

Introducing new logic in the GBG to have extra GBG Leagues (sapphire and crown league) and "GBG medal" items which are closely tied up with each or maximum guild member contribution and support.

GBG Building with mandatory guild member contribution successfully met


GBG Building with remaining mandatory guild member contribution count

 

[All Free Now]

Faced lot of suffering from GBG, feels like this is new suffering to me But I wish to see how it will be handled, because while reading the idea many assumptions happened in mind and in the end all the assumptions gone away.

 

[UBERhelp1]

So what happens if your guild doesn't have 80 players and you literally don't have the players to meet the placement requirements? This idea fails in every circumstance where you have a large guild going against a smaller one, even if they have the same fighting prowess to get matched together.

 

[Ironrooster]

So, this is only for a small number of players in a small number of very large guilds.

It adds complexity with no benefit other than attempting to force guild members to participate. I suppose those guild members who fail to contribute get booted out.

I don't see why Inno should waste time on this.

 

[nice2haveu]

At first, shocked to read this as a idea. Listed out everything in a clear manner but forgot about "time" factor. Active participation is needed and recommended but what time guild leader adds the GBG building is also matters. Can argue like, both guild leaders and members should be active but you truly know it won't work out like that.

Different time zones, guild leaders and guild members in a particular guild have a collision with this idea. Your point is let them collaborate when some action needed (right now only GbG leader do it). But why to push them that much hard (even no one asked guild leaders to do it forcefully), here all are forced to get a good progress in GBG guild league. Game is for fun, not to force them.

For example, instead of forcing guild members, having a mechanism to support the guild leaders collecting mandatory medals from required members in a different approach like, each guild member contribute the medals which they receive to a new medal storage box in the guild treasury. It won't be given like total count of medal but to be represented with count of required member medal set which means if it show number 2, then it will be consider like guild leader can attempt to place two GBG buildings.

Moreover, this is hard to follow. Maybe first time, guild leaders will go away from GBG.

 

[SlytherinAttack]

fails in every circumstance where you have a large guild going against a smaller one, even if they have the same fighting prowess to get matched together.

Guild match up is not the constraint of this idea. How the GBG buildings getting placed without the knowledge of guild member is one of the factor here.
Reaching the top guild league what to be proud of. Few members don't do anything but they also can claim that they are in top league. Reaching top league means all their hard work needs to be given out.

this is only for a small number of players in a small number of very large guilds.

completely wrong. this applicable to all sort of guilds.

adds complexity with no benefit other than attempting to force guild members to participate. I suppose those guild members who fail to contribute get booted out.

People joined the guild for some benefits rite, let them return the favor to the guild when asked for. what is wrong in it? Just by joining the guild, we are donating FPs in their GBs, any special deal we made. nothing rite. Goal is to make 100% required mandatory contribution, still few can be left out based on the guild league expected mandatory count. so, it is not like forcing everyone. Who wish to get rewards from GBG, please contribute without fail. That's all.

if your guild doesn't have 80 players and you literally don't have the players to meet the placement requirements?

It is guild admin and guild leader responsibility to find the players to meet the placement requirements. If you are not able to meet, you are not fit to be in the top guild league (collectively as a guild) is what I am suggesting in this idea. For example, in volley ball match, 3 players perform good and 3 players simply standing and don't do anything but as a team they reach the top position means it is not a good game. Chances of getting top position may be all 6 people/players from opposition team might be simply standing and don't do anything.

 

[SlytherinAttack]

At first, shocked to read this as a idea. Listed out everything in a clear manner but forgot about "time" factor. Active participation is needed and recommended but what time guild leader adds the GBG building is also matters. Can argue like, both guild leaders and members should be active but you truly know it won't work out like that.

Different time zones, guild leaders and guild members in a particular guild have a collision with this idea. Your point is let them collaborate when some action needed (right now only GbG leader do it). But why to push them that much hard (even no one asked guild leaders to do it forcefully), here all are forced to get a good progress in GBG guild league. Game is for fun, not to force them.

For example, instead of forcing guild members, having a mechanism to support the guild leaders collecting mandatory medals from required members in a different approach like, each guild member contribute the medals which they receive to a new medal storage box in the guild treasury. It won't be given like total count of medal but to be represented with count of required member medal set which means if it show number 2, then it will be consider like guild leader can attempt to place two GBG buildings.

Moreover, this is hard to follow. Maybe first time, guild leaders will go away from GBG.

I didn't miss the time factor, guild member contribution indirectly dealing with the time factor.
Assume, you gone to sleep(regular sleep time). Different time zone, guild leader placed some GBG building in a newly unlocked sector. Without this idea, you have any knowledge what they did. Nothing. But they made the surrounding sectors are unified to meet the 66.6% and they did fights however they want. Next day morning, you entered into GBG map and many sectors got locked by your guild and you don't have anyways to do single battle. Here, what i am saying is, let them enjoy the battles without you but not without your contribution. That's the team work which am referring collectively as a guild.

And medal storage box which you mentioned, once the placement count is available, guild members don't have a chance to see when and where it has placed, because guild leaders can use it any time. so I don't want to repeat that mistake.

 

[UBERhelp1]

It is guild admin and guild leader responsibility to find the players to meet the placement requirements. If you are not able to meet, you are not fit to be in the top guild league (collectively as a guild) is what I am suggesting in this idea. For example, in volley ball match, 3 players perform good and 3 players simply standing and don't do anything but as a team they reach the top position means it is not a good game. Chances of getting top position may be all 6 people/players from opposition team might be simply standing and don't do anything.

This isn't volleyball. There's no team size requirement. If a small guild can compete in GBG, and gets a high rank, then they should be matched against similarly skilled guilds regardless of size.

To go back to the sports metaphor, this idea is the equivalent of having two basketball teams in a championship game. The first team is all tall and have won their games for the most part because of that. The second team is made up of short players, but their skill is high enough that they are a fair rival to the first team. Your idea says that the second team can't compete because they aren't tall enough.

 

[nice2haveu]

This isn't volleyball. There's no team size requirement. If a small guild can compete in GBG, and gets a high rank, then they should be matched against similarly skilled guilds regardless of size.

To go back to the sports metaphor, this idea is the equivalent of having two basketball teams in a championship game. The first team is all tall and have won their games for the most part because of that. The second team is made up of short players, but their skill is high enough that they are a fair rival to the first team. Your idea says that the second team can't compete because they aren't tall enough.

I think, you are comparing the idea with guild match up logic with the guild league position. The OP didn't mention anything about guild match up with lower or upper guild. OP points out only on the guild member participation only. It doesn't need to compare with other guilds.

The sports example also points out, 100% participation of the team (guild members participation) only. I understood like, guild league position are given out without many guild members participation. So OP mentioned second guild who has done nothing means, other guild stays on top of guild league by default. OP wants to prevent it. I feel like, There is no match up related concept explained here.

Maybe myself also wrong in the understanding, better let the OP explain it in detail.

 

[UBERhelp1]

I think, you are comparing the idea with guild match up logic with the guild league position. The OP didn't mention anything about guild match up with lower or upper guild. OP points out only on the guild member participation only. It doesn't need to compare with other guilds.

The sports example also points out, 100% participation of the team (guild members participation) only. I understood like, guild league position are given out without many guild members participation. So OP mentioned second guild who has done nothing means, other guild stays on top of guild league by default. OP wants to prevent it. I feel like, There is no match up related concept explained here.

Maybe myself also wrong in the understanding, better let the OP explain it in detail.

I was going off when they said this:

One member has more medals and other member has more medal will be a fact, but for GBG buildings, guild members should contribute 1 medal without fail, it is the major checkpoint in the entire idea. Now the Guild league comes into the picture, where the total members to contribute medals will get vary based on the guild leagues. For example, the mandatory member contribution count of guild leagues to be listed like,
diamond 60 members,
sapphire (new league) 65 members,
platinum 70 members and
crown (new league) all members contribution mandatory.

And then later, this:

It is guild admin and guild leader responsibility to find the players to meet the placement requirements.

I could be wrong here, but I interpreted that as you need a set amount of players to place buildings. Whether or not though, I still see the entire point as moot, as you can just give the battlegrounds rights to players you trust to be on. I don't get why you need the entire guild to build a building?

Additionally, if this is built on participation for fighting in GBG, then this only makes top guilds dominate the maps even more. If they lock down the map to prevent other guilds from being able to do much in terms of fights, then those other guilds are already disadvantaged as they can't even place any buildings. It makes it even harder for smaller or non-allianced guilds to be competitive.

 

[Deleted User - 241425]

What is the point of making suggestions regarding GbG which is undergoing a major overhaul according to Inno?
We don't know where they want to take us and some (who think they have THE absolute solution) will add parameters that may be the opposite of what Inno is concocting for us, without discussing it on the threads already open.

 

[Deleted User - 244520]

This is the idea section, there is really no reason not to share ideas. It's very unlikely they'll be implemented, but the purpose of this part of the forum to share ideas anyway, and the chance of Inno using ideas as hints isn't 0 either.

 

[planetofthehumans2]

They already had a guild contribution to a pot feature that got promptly shut down. It gave boosts to guild mates that the leaders bought like increased attack/defense, increased coin/supply productions. The idea was fine, but the timing and the requirements were ludicrous that it didn't make sense to put down contributions that couldn't be well utilized and there was a diamond option of course...

 

[SlytherinAttack]

I don't get why you need the entire guild to build a building?

Okay, let me elaborate. Having tons of treasury good, currently guild leaders can place GbG buildings as their wish. But treasury goods are open to entire guild. When they applied it on sector, until guild leader specifically adds the message in the guild thread, no one comes to know without opening the sector. Why thus secrecy from the game mechanics. Also, guild leader can place any choice of building as per the wish. No approval or request or concern or clarification. Members should just accept it. As a fact, If the guild leaders found less treasury goods, they give big shout to entire guild to contribute goods to the treasury. Why they force or request, entire guild to contribute treasury goods. Guild leaders do their job perfectly in this case, if they have goods they add up to the treasury and place the GBG building and if they don't have they raise the alarm. Also, guild leader wipe out the treasury goods as per thier wish to make the battles easy, which is no where to be questioned or controlled by guild members. My idea is just taking out the free form of adding GBG building by guild leaders, where they can add but completion of GBG buildings will be done with the support of entire guild members according to their guild league. I do not need to depend on wise guild leader or worst guild leader at any chance. Game mechanics should prevent like suggested the idea.

GBG leagues matchup with large guild or small guild, I don't bother because only time can let the smaller guild overcome the GBG miseries from the larger guilds. It is no where the intention of my idea. But why guild league myself consider it because, every member contribution is to meet the guild league size criteria too. Guild league should not be based on guild performance alone. Guild size and performance should need to be combined and illustrate the guild league listing. So here, just by size, still the old problem of only few members in the guild can push it. To avoid it, introducing guild member contribution where the total count gets vary to every guild league level. So size and performance both should be considered to measure the guild league listings.

I know all will be angry on forcing guild member contribution, if you are top guild, be proud that all my guild members support to reach the top league. If you are small guild, build your guild size based on the guild league you appointed to place the GBG buildings for your battles. If you are in the top league and don't meet your guild league mandatory count in any season, your battle performance can be made without the GBG buildings. Even for the smaller guilds same trouble. That's all!!

 

[nice2haveu]

all will be angry on forcing guild member contribution,

Not angry. Totally upset to see another GBG trouble.

Taking out guild leader responsibility is little harsh, but if you have adjusted your member contribution comparing with guild league to 50% or 75%, I could have not said anything even though it hurts somewhere. 100% contribution count based on guild league size limit is distrubing the mind very much.

As a case, If Diamond league 60 members limit but mandatory contribution count should be 30 (50%) or 45(75%) means okay to be consider with heavy heart but still the approach may disappoint lot GBG players.

 

[UBERhelp1]

Okay, let me elaborate. Having tons of treasury good, currently guild leaders can place GbG buildings as their wish. But treasury goods are open to entire guild. When they applied it on sector, until guild leader specifically adds the message in the guild thread, no one comes to know without opening the sector. Why thus secrecy from the game mechanics. Also, guild leader can place any choice of building as per the wish. No approval or request or concern or clarification. Members should just accept it. As a fact, If the guild leaders found less treasury goods, they give big shout to entire guild to contribute goods to the treasury. Why they force or request, entire guild to contribute treasury goods. Guild leaders do their job perfectly in this case, if they have goods they add up to the treasury and place the GBG building and if they don't have they raise the alarm. Also, guild leader wipe out the treasury goods as per thier wish to make the battles easy, which is no where to be questioned or controlled by guild members. My idea is just taking out the free form of adding GBG building by guild leaders, where they can add but completion of GBG buildings will be done with the support of entire guild members according to their guild league. I do not need to depend on wise guild leader or worst guild leader at any chance. Game mechanics should prevent like suggested the idea.

GBG leagues matchup with large guild or small guild, I don't bother because only time can let the smaller guild overcome the GBG miseries from the larger guilds. It is no where the intention of my idea. But why guild league myself consider it because, every member contribution is to meet the guild league size criteria too. Guild league should not be based on guild performance alone. Guild size and performance should need to be combined and illustrate the guild league listing. So here, just by size, still the old problem of only few members in the guild can push it. To avoid it, introducing guild member contribution where the total count gets vary to every guild league level. So size and performance both should be considered to measure the guild league listings.

I know all will be angry on forcing guild member contribution, if you are top guild, be proud that all my guild members support to reach the top league. If you are small guild, build your guild size based on the guild league you appointed to place the GBG buildings for your battles. If you are in the top league and don't meet your guild league mandatory count in any season, your battle performance can be made without the GBG buildings. Even for the smaller guilds same trouble. That's all!!

So what you're saying is you don't like the guild leaders... leading? In my guilds, we trust each other and our leaders to make the right decisions. That's why they're the leaders. If a leader wastes treasury goods, they aren't going to be a leader much longer. And if the guild members don't like the leaders, then they can find a new guild where they feel that they are better catered to.

For a guild with crappy leaders? This proposal could be useful. But if the leaders can't be trusted to do well with the power of just placing GBG buildings, then you'd be best served finding a new guild.

 

[SlytherinAttack]

So what you're saying is you don't like the guild leaders... leading? In my guilds, we trust each other and our leaders to make the right decisions. That's why they're the leaders. If a leader wastes treasury goods, they aren't going to be a leader much longer. And if the guild members don't like the leaders, then they can find a new guild where they feel that they are better catered to.

For a guild with crappy leaders? This proposal could be useful. But if the leaders can't be trusted to do well with the power of just placing GBG buildings, then you'd be best served finding a new guild.

No no. I like the guild leaders leading but my point is why to have less member participation from the guild is happening on the GBG (many guilds I can say roughly).

I am asking to make the guild leader encourage the guild members to contribute for GBG building. So collectively as a guild will move forward in the guild performance step by step.

I am a king and asked my solider to battle for me, but few participate and few didn't participate is not an empire material. By making them contribute, will make them also battle for me without any excuse because the medal which they earned is usable only on the current season. If this change implemented to all guilds, they cannot go anywhere to sit free on guild who does GBG as a main thing.

 

[Deleted User - 244520]

When they applied it on sector, until guild leader specifically adds the message in the guild thread, no one comes to know without opening the sector. Why thus secrecy from the game mechanics.

Do you mean when those who have GBG rights placing SCs but not letting the others know that there are sectors that can be hit?
If yes, then that's an issue with the person, because that's clearly being selfish on their part and leadership should know about it and handle it. It should be the minimum for an active guild to never hit a sector without announcing it.

Wish the UI would somewhat help players to know if sectors are opening, sectors are being hit. Don't know what would be the best without making it annoying, obviously don't want popups in my main city for every hit.

Another possibility would be if people with rights could make "announcements", "in your face" ones. Sometimes messages can be easy to miss, but a popup-like announcement would be hard to miss. I see it could be abused a bit, but in the right hands...hm. Maybe I'll make an idea about this later .

 

[SlytherinAttack]

Do you mean when those who have GBG rights placing SCs but not letting the others know that there are sectors that can be hit?
If yes, then that's an issue with the person, because that's clearly being selfish on their part and leadership should know about it and handle it. It should be the minimum for an active guild to never hit a sector without announcing it.

Wish the UI would somewhat help players to know if sectors are opening, sectors are being hit. Don't know what would be the best without making it annoying, obviously don't want popups in my main city for every hit.

Another possibility would be if people with rights could make "announcements", "in your face" ones. Sometimes messages can be easy to miss, but a popup-like announcement would be hard to miss. I see it could be abused a bit, but in the right hands...hm. Maybe I'll make an idea about this later .

Exactly, what I tried to convey is making guild leaders just focus on the map, rest game mechanics will do the job by informing guild members.

Also GBG log is not helpful if the players doesn't enter into GBG map, and no push notifications on GBG because it will create the server issues to send messages to all guild member and thought about like it will be annoying for sure.

So to reduce the annoying level and making visible of when sector getting a GBG building, mentioned the member contribution logic. Actually, I was strongly knowing, idea will not get positive votes, but the secrecy needs to be removed. No communication ever, until manually asked or shared or noticed. So keeping that in mind, suggested this idea by referring as mandatory action from members instead of saying annoying approach for guild leaders to deal with members for GBG progress.

FoE team can think of any mechanics to make the GBG more user friendly and fun-filled one. Hope to see some changes by the end of second quarter of this year.

 

[nice2haveu]

No need to worry about the server issue, since every guild has a guild thread. Adding an automated message to a guild thread is not a big problem on whatsoever action on GBG and they can highlight those messages.

If in case of multiple messages due to performing action on different sectors, those can be grouped into single message box and can display like expand/collapse inside the guild thread. Also this can be removed, when season gets reset or always kept as "GBG actions" message box inside the guild thread and gets active only when GBG season starts. Also push notifications can be listed separately in game settings only for that message box related GBG actions performed.

I'll make an idea about this

I will be waiting to upvote for it