Discussion Replacement of GbG+QI

[Mor-Rioghain]

A problem with a multiplier (e,g,10X) is that players will blow through any "stops" that guild leadership put up. A simpler solution would be to reduce the amount of advances necessary to close a sector (e.g. instead of 340 only 34). It would be interesting to learn how many players would be in favor of 10X less work for 10X less rewards. I predict not many.

lol If I understand you correctly you are stating that the total advances on a sector should be reduced to ... 34? And you think that's preferable in terms of a multiplier as it relates to blowing through stops? Wow! Even our slowest fighters could blow through 34 fights in seconds. It would just happen faster!

 

[planetofthehumans2]

Maybe the solution is the multiplier can only be used on sectors with the target symbol, although whoevers watching that sector may still have a hell of a time swapping the target out in time before it closes.

 

[Markus Stormrider]

Maybe the solution is the multiplier can only be used on sectors with the target symbol, although whoevers watching that sector may still have a hell of a time swapping the target out in time before it closes.

maybe a better idea could be a maximum # of players of one guild fighting in the same sector at the same time... the rest can then spread over other sectors, or wait until one drops out and leaves a space open it may help with the lag at least probably

 

[drakenridder]

The "problems" presented seem to be multilayered. First of all players feeling GbG is too time demanding in 1kLP league. A lowering of requirements x10, attrition penalties multiplied x10 and rewards multiplied x10 is somewhat decent. Would reduce daily fights for example from 1k to just 100. Still I'm not convinced this will satisfy those who don't like the GbG mechanics to begin with. So, just skip the x10 multiplier and start with x20. This will translate into instead of 1k daily 50 fights. Still pretty sure 50 "clicks" will be called over time too "many" clicks. To me it's a time saver though. Whatever multiplier and reduction would be applied. Turn GbG into a 0-player game won't solve anything either. Instead of arguments of too "many" clicks, you'll hear too "little" engagement or lack of strategy.
Further more the 4h locks. I'm playing for a long while in a 1kLP guild. We use timers and alarms whenever IRL and attrition allows it, most happily join into the feeding frenzy. Frequently multiple slots expire in quick succession. So, most quickly reach their attrition cap. To me it seems more a luxury problem of not hitting this cap. Perhaps too much internal competition is at play. Similar to QI used to be. Lowering requirements by any multiplier in combination with multiplied attrition won't take this internal competition away. It'll just intensify. Lowering the guild cap does but probably gets much backlash. Even though it would cut off internal competition. Neither seem to be a suitable solution. As it's either those who don't like the time demands or suffering from fears internal competition or both.

From what I understand from Desire's proposal isn't really aimed at solving GbG or QI as presented above. Rather a better feature with better mechanics. Better is in this proposal subjective. I'd like however to mention GbG is a vast improvement over GvG and has seen plenty QoL improvements, imo. For example GvG grew stale with the entire map locked, limited to 75% bonus for defence, browser only, the only rewards being points and prestige. GbG has routinely new rounds. Breaking open the map each round for all guilds. Is a guild too weak for their competition? They'll stop until they're strong enough. Rewards are very generous. Chess boards' swap exploit got mainly countered through GbG champion's buildings. Unsure if the 1kLP league will change this in some servers. For the server I'm playing fears competition is normal at the top.
Taking this entire context into account. I'm with Desire's POV. GbG and QI ain't perfect as is. A better successor could be developed. Much like how GbG became the GvG successor (in my eyes). However I'm doubtful MTG see the need for this and is willing to invest heavily into that development. Judging from their community outreach regarding GbG and QI tweaks its most likely they just want to improve upon what's already here. I'm yet to see them discontinuing GbG and QI updates. On top of stopping with GbG/QI specific bonuses on EB's. Maybe the presumed GE successor is a feature like Desire brought up as a successor of GbG, only when it releases we'll know.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

lol If I understand you correctly you are stating that the total advances on a sector should be reduced to ... 34? And you think that's preferable in terms of a multiplier as it relates to blowing through stops? Wow! Even our slowest fighters could blow through 34 fights in seconds. It would just happen faster!

You didn't think this through before responding. If this is a change that everyone wants, players using a 10X multiplier on a 340 advance sector will close the sector at precisely the same speed as players using no multiplier on a 34 advance sector. I said that reducing the amount of advances would be a "simpler" solution not that it would reduce blowing through stops. My point was that reducing the required advances would reduce the amount of time needed to play GBG (which seems to be the goal of the multiplier). I'm not in favor of either option. I just brought it up as an alternative.

 

[Mor-Rioghain]

You didn't think this through before responding. If this is a change that everyone wants, players using a 10X multiplier on a 340 advance sector will close the sector at precisely the same speed as players using no multiplier on a 34 advance sector.

Evidently you've given no thought at all to the reasons behind why people blow through stop signs. I'd have to hazard a guess that it has everything to do with people's desire to grab as many of the fights that are possible before everyone else on that sector does. I get what you mean on the proportionate time, I just think that people will be far more inclined to click all that much faster and cap willy nilly because they're in panic-mode right from the get-go with only 34 advances available.

I said that reducing the amount of advances would be a "simpler" solution not that it would reduce blowing through stops.

It's only simpler on paper. This solution doesn't factor in the human equation at all for the above stated reason.

My point was that reducing the required advances would reduce the amount of time needed to play GBG (which seems to be the goal of the multiplier).

You have a point but since we've been seeing the advances going up, not down, and the individual attrition caps also going up, that's highly unlikely that Inno's going to do anything to reduce that at this late date. It's my opinion that the primary reason for all of this raising is to actually wear people out and "make them" stop fighting so that others can join in rather than any real effort to "spread the wealth" with the whole guild.

 

[Mor-Rioghain]

Maybe the solution is the multiplier can only be used on sectors with the target symbol, although whoevers watching that sector may still have a hell of a time swapping the target out in time before it closes.

hah!! I think that deserves the "Understatement of the Year" award!!

 

[planetofthehumans2]

maybe a better idea could be a maximum # of players of one guild fighting in the same sector at the same time... the rest can then spread over other sectors, or wait until one drops out and leaves a space open it may help with the lag at least probably

Sounds like a lot of work on innos part. Although tbh the distribution of fights between the top group and the bottom can still be pretty outstanding. 10k vs 1k in this last gbg over the holidays. I'm over here fighting for scraps at 4k!

 

[Hedning1390]

I think you failed to explain the most important thing: What problem your alternative is solving and how. How it is different?
As far as I can see you still just fight and donate. In gvg we did something very similar where the enemy put up a defending army and the attacking guild attacked it. And as far as I can see I would prefer gvg as it was once per day while you are suggesting once every 2 hours. So does that mean you have to wake up 2am and 4am to be competitive? Again you're not hitting on the important parts, spending all time and effort on more or less pointless details.

This is how you should present solutions (this is an example, not an actual suggestion):
Problem: Battleground is too tedious:
Solution: Mass auto-battle
How it works: -insert all details-
How it solves the problem: By clicking once instead of 5000 times you save a lot of tedium.

Notice how by using the word "instead" i directly contrast it with the current problem, to highlight the key difference that makes it better.

You have no such comparison in your post. You complain about the current state, you offer a system you think would be more fun, but do not explain how anything in your new system fit with any of the problems you have laid out. This may be obvious to you, but not to the reader. Certainly not to me.

Also on a completely different note I disagree that QI is the same city over and over. You get different tiles with obstacles, so if you aim to build for free you have different shapes of your city. You also start with different starting resources due to different amount of ascended buildings, meaning your start will be different every time. I build different cities every time. It is also a system that is highly strategic, more so than any other guild activity ever in this game. Teaching our guild members how to build their cities so they have enough decorations on the final days have been such a nice change from just whipping them to fight more in gbg. QI is in fact the system you asked for, which is not tedious and rewards strategy over activity. Even manual fighting. There is a very notable skill difference in what people can accomplish in manual battles.

 

[Dessire]

I think you failed to explain the most important thing: What problem your alternative is solving and how. How it is different?
As far as I can see you still just fight and donate. In gvg we did something very similar where the enemy put up a defending army and the attacking guild attacked it. And as far as I can see I would prefer gvg as it was once per day while you are suggesting once every 2 hours. So does that mean you have to wake up 2am and 4am to be competitive? Again you're not hitting on the important parts, spending all time and effort on more or less pointless details.

This is how you should present solutions (this is an example, not an actual suggestion):
Problem: Battleground is too tedious:
Solution: Mass auto-battle
How it works: -insert all details-
How it solves the problem: By clicking once instead of 5000 times you save a lot of tedium.

Notice how by using the word "instead" i directly contrast it with the current problem, to highlight the key difference that makes it better.

You have no such comparison in your post. You complain about the current state, you offer a system you think would be more fun, but do not explain how anything in your new system fit with any of the problems you have laid out. This may be obvious to you, but not to the reader. Certainly not to me.

Also on a completely different note I disagree that QI is the same city over and over. You get different tiles with obstacles, so if you aim to build for free you have different shapes of your city. You also start with different starting resources due to different amount of ascended buildings, meaning your start will be different every time. I build different cities every time. It is also a system that is highly strategic, more so than any other guild activity ever in this game. Teaching our guild members how to build their cities so they have enough decorations on the final days have been such a nice change from just whipping them to fight more in gbg. QI is in fact the system you asked for, which is not tedious and rewards strategy over activity. Even manual fighting. There is a very notable skill difference in what people can accomplish in manual battles.

We only must read a few lines in your answer to know you have not really read my post.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

I think you failed to explain the most important thing: What problem your alternative is solving and how. How it is different?
As far as I can see you still just fight and donate. In gvg we did something very similar where the enemy put up a defending army and the attacking guild attacked it. And as far as I can see I would prefer gvg as it was once per day while you are suggesting once every 2 hours. So does that mean you have to wake up 2am and 4am to be competitive? Again you're not hitting on the important parts, spending all time and effort on more or less pointless details.

This is how you should present solutions (this is an example, not an actual suggestion):
Problem: Battleground is too tedious:
Solution: Mass auto-battle
How it works: -insert all details-
How it solves the problem: By clicking once instead of 5000 times you save a lot of tedium.

Notice how by using the word "instead" i directly contrast it with the current problem, to highlight the key difference that makes it better.

You have no such comparison in your post. You complain about the current state, you offer a system you think would be more fun, but do not explain how anything in your new system fit with any of the problems you have laid out. This may be obvious to you, but not to the reader. Certainly not to me.

Also on a completely different note I disagree that QI is the same city over and over. You get different tiles with obstacles, so if you aim to build for free you have different shapes of your city. You also start with different starting resources due to different amount of ascended buildings, meaning your start will be different every time. I build different cities every time. It is also a system that is highly strategic, more so than any other guild activity ever in this game. Teaching our guild members how to build their cities so they have enough decorations on the final days have been such a nice change from just whipping them to fight more in gbg. QI is in fact the system you asked for, which is not tedious and rewards strategy over activity. Even manual fighting. There is a very notable skill difference in what people can accomplish in manual battles.

Very well said.

On the latter point, I completely agree with you.

 

[Hedning1390]

We only must read a few lines in your answer to know you have not really read my post.

How about you attempt an answer instead of dismissing it with a false accusation?
Maybe the real problem here is that you wrote it just to present your idea and have not analyzed it on any level to see if it actually addresses any of the issues you brought up? Even if you think that the connection is obvious you should be able to articulate it. You did not do that in your post.

Presenting something as a solution to specific problems is different to presenting something as a "fun alternative". When you are presenting solutions you should start with the problem and work out the solution from that, not start with what you think may be fun and guess that it also solves the problems.

 

[Mor-Rioghain]

I think you are spot on @Hedning1390.

I like that you mentioned @Dessire 's remark regarding a "fun alternative." Fun is a perception and we each have our own. The diversity of the game isn't even mentioned at all by the OP and how it enables each person who plays it to make choices to increase the Fun Factor.

I also think massive clicking is tedious. I just stop playing the feature when it becomes tedious but the difference is that I don't whine about what rewards I'm not "still getting" like so many players do. If I really want them that badly, I can always go back to mindless clicking.

A whole lot of what happens in games like this is each player finds a solution unique to themselves for 'getting through' the less desirable parts of play to achieve an objective. My take on QI is a pretty good example of this, I think. Some backstory: I completely detest settlements primarily due to the whole 'start over' factor. When QI was introduced, I literally groaned because all I could think of was "This? This is replacing GvG? ARGH! What is Inno thinking!?!?" Then I just decided to tackle it and see if I could make it less annoying. I thought, 'what annoys me the most about settlements?' And that was an easy one -- it was the constant change + tearing down, rebuilding, etc. if I wanted to achieve a chest. QI was similar in that if I wanted to get the best rewards (or so I thought), I'd have to build, tear down, rebuild, rinse, repeat to get more "stuff." (I like stuff. I really, really like stuff!!) I muddled along and was getting more and more frustrated when along comes the upgrade. Hmmm. Now I was really annoyed because of the quantum shard caps. So, I have to reevaluate -- do I still want all of this stuff? Yes. I want those expansions. That alone is worth it to me to rethink this annoying thing. Hmmm. Bottom line is that I build the same settlement every season. No frills and no tearing down and rebuilding. No worries about enthusiasm or anything else. I'm able to play for 8.5 days of the season and I can achieve 4K +/- so I'm able to make decent progress and earn my medals.

Most people I know of consider 4K a very laudable goal to achieve the stuff they like and they're going bonkers trying to build/rebuild/etc over and over again. I guess if they actually like doing that, it's cool. I find that beyond annoying but I'm still able to do it. I'm halfway through the possible medal expansions already so I am happy. My Fun Factor has been satisfied even though I honestly didn't think it would be. And I didn't have to ask the developer to redo the entire feature just to make me happy, imagine that.

 

[planetofthehumans2]

I think you are spot on @Hedning1390.

I like that you mentioned @Dessire 's remark regarding a "fun alternative." Fun is a perception and we each have our own. The diversity of the game isn't even mentioned at all by the OP and how it enables each person who plays it to make choices to increase the Fun Factor.

I also think massive clicking is tedious. I just stop playing the feature when it becomes tedious but the difference is that I don't whine about what rewards I'm not "still getting" like so many players do. If I really want them that badly, I can always go back to mindless clicking.

A whole lot of what happens in games like this is each player finds a solution unique to themselves for 'getting through' the less desirable parts of play to achieve an objective. My take on QI is a pretty good example of this, I think. Some backstory: I completely detest settlements primarily due to the whole 'start over' factor. When QI was introduced, I literally groaned because all I could think of was "This? This is replacing GvG? ARGH! What is Inno thinking!?!?" Then I just decided to tackle it and see if I could make it less annoying. I thought, 'what annoys me the most about settlements?' And that was an easy one -- it was the constant change + tearing down, rebuilding, etc. if I wanted to achieve a chest. QI was similar in that if I wanted to get the best rewards (or so I thought), I'd have to build, tear down, rebuild, rinse, repeat to get more "stuff." (I like stuff. I really, really like stuff!!) I muddled along and was getting more and more frustrated when along comes the upgrade. Hmmm. Now I was really annoyed because of the quantum shard caps. So, I have to reevaluate -- do I still want all of this stuff? Yes. I want those expansions. That alone is worth it to me to rethink this annoying thing. Hmmm. Bottom line is that I build the same settlement every season. No frills and no tearing down and rebuilding. No worries about enthusiasm or anything else. I'm able to play for 8.5 days of the season and I can achieve 4K +/- so I'm able to make decent progress and earn my medals.

Most people I know of consider 4K a very laudable goal to achieve the stuff they like and they're going bonkers trying to build/rebuild/etc over and over again. I guess if they actually like doing that, it's cool. I find that beyond annoying but I'm still able to do it. I'm halfway through the possible medal expansions already so I am happy. My Fun Factor has been satisfied even though I honestly didn't think it would be. And I didn't have to ask the developer to redo the entire feature just to make me happy, imagine that.

I don't think inno has to honestly do much change to make it a less tedious chore. They already have the framework built, if they combined the elements of the battle sequence into one, then the player is only responsible for pressing attack and going back to the attack screen to attack again. It would still be button mashing, but at least you eliminate 4/5 clicks necessary to get through it. 80% reduction! People have already suggested that they should have automatically refreshed units after every battle, why didn't inno do that originally if they already made the feature? Honestly I don't think anybody over there plays the game at least at a competitive level that the rest of us do.

But the last update really did help at least me out, now all I have to do is button mash on the same area of the screen without moving my mouse. I still have to click 10,000 times and will probably get debilitating carpal tunnel - which is what I want to prevent/delay by reducing clicks necessary. So I think one more big push can correct a lot of the things in the OP.

 

[Zuckerberg the Horrid]

We don't need more things to do, we need the things we have to do to either be replaced with something more fun, or made fun.

The first version of QI was the most fun from a strategic perspective. People were motivated to fight when their selected troop and good configurations came up. Balista nodes were a serious dopamine hit and my guild chose to assign balistas to everyone so they could be shared and assign the other troop to those who were willing to coordinate. Now it's la de dah nobody cares because everyone can fight everything and there's no more need to manual battle any time ever. No reason to pick the horses anymore. No reason to pick the big goods buildings.

GBG attrition gets so high and the sectors take so long to complete that it's a boring do it when you want to burn sort of thing with no strategy and nobody really cares about winning unless they can do it in their sleep.

Adding 3-6 more levels to GE is a chore. QI should have replaced GE, it's clearly an advanced version of the guild expedition that actually brings the guild together. Probably way more in line with what the original designer of GE envisioned. Why have both? GE is a boring clickfest with no challenge and it's just done for the almighty forgotten temple.

 

[Olddude]

Really I think the battle ground is meant to be hard long slug. Personally I think it is fine. If you want a game that does requires little effort then perhaps this game is not for you. I play FOE as i love the battle groud and the GE. I am still getting things going so I can go beyond level 7 in the QI. I am a fighter and this game gives me hours of enjoyment.

The ability to push a button and do 100 fights automatically has no appeal to me at all. I am no way as experienced as some player but I do have over 170,000 fights under by belt recently I managed 700 in on day, I was on holidays so I had time to kill. It would not mean as much if all I had to do was to set the computer to Auto Play the BG.

I am perfectly happy with the BG as it stand right now. The matching could use some tweaking but beyond that I say leave it as it is.

Probably not a popular opinion.