• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can     REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.

Rejected Skip that attrition cap GBG

Status
Not open for further replies.
bornempire

bornempire

Steward
Reason
GBG is dying due to the attrition cap, just like GvG is dying because the incentives are taken away
Details
The attrition cap makes it unattractive to play on beta. you can be here for like 30 minutes and burn all for the rest of the day. This cap puts an incentive on laziness
Balance
The balance is in: this cap will not work on other servers and not here. Because it is not a balanced introduction. That it is still not introduced on other servers makes me feel they just want to chase players away from beta to spent more on other servers. but from game perspective beta will dy on inactivity if not lifted this cap.
Abuse Prevention
The abuse guild is still there. Top guilds have still the power to do an unfair season and bring down strong guilds to lower opponents. Even easier, because the willing guilds have less capacity to take many fights daily.

So the abuse continues. both in GBG and GVG, from a few top guilds, they just abuse and there is a stronger chance for them to abuse all other guilds.
Summary
Remove the attrtion cap in GBG, so that (new arriving) top fighters on beta feel really respected and enjoy taking thousands of fights per day and make their guild win.
Have you looked to see if this has already been suggested?
no, and no need. This is an experience after one year where you see fights declining. The cap has the wrong result.
Remove that attrition cap and let people fight for it.
So here is the story: about one year ago INNO launched on beta the 'attrition cap' on beta world. Bringing back the max attrition reduction back to 66 % no matter how much camps you had on adjacent sectors. The reasoning they gave was:

So that smaller/lower guilds have a better chance to participate in GBG.

Feedback was really negative. And it is not introduced on other servers. So here we are: It is Tuesday now and Arctic Sunrise, a strong, but not top 10 guild is totally stuck in GBG. We face this season 7 opponents in Diamond League, where 3 of them have only 1 or 2 members. We rule the map and although the tournament will last for 6 days more we will be able to take all sectors in next hours. Nobody fights back. Why would they? This concept of 'capping fights for high end fighters' to give inactive people a higher chance to win only has as result at the end the inactive players are still inactive. And high end players can't fight anymore.

Here is our map:



So the bottom line should be: remove the cap on GBG attrition. Let fighters fight

First we had the issue of that you could attack neighbors. Then inactive players started to complain they got attacked and plundered too much. Yes, active players did that, it was part of the setup of the game.

The solution of Inno: Introduce Galata Tower!
That was so 'succesfull' It removed the incentive to attack neighbors for active players! Hardly anyone attacks neighbors anymore and the Galata has become pointless.

After a while active players also didn't see the need to place defensive items in town. They al focussed on attack power, needed for GBG.

There was no need to have defensive stuff for GvG too, because Inno has decided they will not do any new updates on GVG. So sell it.

The solution of Inno: Introduce GE level V! Where all the attack bonus is pointless! Make the defense bonus of the GE V virtual opponent so high that you can't beat it with attack bonus!

The result of that: very active and competitive players are encouraged to leave their willingness to compete. Sell your attack stuff, replace it by defensive stuff.

And then: does that help for a competive environment on GBG? No. The complainers did not improve their cities. They had their Galata, they were lesss attacked. And most guilds lower then top 40 didn't do GE level IV anyway. So why speed up? No need. Inno made sure they were no longer under pressure.

They could just sit and watch and do one daily visit to beta. After all. it is 'only beta' isnt' it?

I say: no: Beta has to be a competitive world as well as other worlds. Inno should put all incentives on making all players from all servers make beta a place where you want to be! To be together with many topleaders around the world to show the best of the whole Forge of Empires spirit. Not: pushing you down to be inactive.
No. Create new incentives to encourage all beta players to do even more.
 
Upvote -4 Downvote
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
Battle Tomcat

Battle Tomcat

Baronet
Hiep Lin said:
I've seen records at over 33,000 fights for one session and for a single player. (in a medium sized guild)
Over 11 days, it's more than 3,000 fights per day per player.
This is only possible with 0 attrition and agreements between 2 guilds which exchange sectors several times a day.

GB was not created for this.
The change is necessary because of player abuse.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with this. On my live server I know players who even have over 35k fights per season. Reducing camp support is the only way to even minimally reduce such abuse. In addition, guilds should be selected in a more balanced way to make it a real competition and not the domination of one or two guilds with, for example, 70 - 80 members opposite a guild with a dozen members. The sheer difference in the number of members precludes any meaningful competition regardless of the individual stastistics of individual players.
This, however, would require changes in league scoring, which is unlikely to be expected, or at least not soon.
 
DEADP00L

DEADP00L

Emperor
Perk Creator
It is not the number of members of a guild that makes the difference but the sum of their abilities.
If guilds with 10-20 members make it to the top of the diamond league, it's because they've cleared all the milestones.
It's too easy for guilds of average ability to climb to the top and then find themselves in a vortex that places them as spectators half the time and as arch-dominators the other time.
Before the principle of regrouping guilds in 1,000 LP which systematically penalizes 6 guilds for the comfort of 2, it is Inno's calculation method which needs to be reviewed.
Why bring the guilds that are at 1.1175 to 1.000 LP BEFORE doing the consolidations?
The nerve of the camps is a first step but if we must group the guilds according to the number of their members as much to put this restriction for the access to certain leagues.
The diamond league could in this case be accessible from 60 members, platinum with 30 but this would be very restrictive for guilds that do better with fewer members.

Conclusion: personally, I'm waiting for the nerve on the live server and I would like more sensible groupings as well as a better distribution of locations on the sectors instead of the current lottery.
 
Battle Tomcat

Battle Tomcat

Baronet
DEADP00L said:
It is not the number of members of a guild that makes the difference but the sum of their abilities.
Click to expand...
I disagree.
Let's say, a guild of 20 members vs a guild of 70 members with everyone in the smaller one having the same stats as the top 20 in the larger one. Let's say those 20 from one and the other do 100 fights each, which gives us 2000 fights vs 2000 fights. Let's have the other 50 from the larger guild do only an average of 20 fights each, this gives us an additional 1000 fights of the larger guild, so we have 3000 vs 2000, so the size of the larger guild wins.

However, I am far from grouping guilds by number of members, that would not have a good effect on GBG. I believe that only the number of league points should determine the matchup. That, however, would require either expanding the leagues or league scoring.
 
CrashBoom

CrashBoom

Legend
Battle Tomcat said:
I disagree.
Let's say, a guild of 20 members vs a guild of 70 members with everyone in the smaller one having the same stats as the top 20 in the larger one. Let's say those 20 from one and the other do 100 fights each, which gives us 2000 fights vs 2000 fights. Let's have the other 50 from the larger guild do only an average of 20 fights each, this gives us an additional 1000 fights of the larger guild, so we have 3000 vs 2000, so the size of the larger guild wins.

However, I am far from grouping guilds by number of members, that would not have a good effect on GBG. I believe that only the number of league points should determine the matchup. That, however, would require either expanding the leagues or league scoring.
Click to expand...
but in your example the sum of ability is not equal :rolleyes:
 
Battle Tomcat

Battle Tomcat

Baronet
My point was that number of members does make a difference.
Even with the same abilities, it still makes a difference. A larger guild can simply make more fights.
Only when a small guild has a huge superiority in abilities over a larger guild can the fight be equal or won by the smaller guild.
I myself had such a situation that after starting a new guild with few players, we hit a single player's guild on GBG, but his supremacy was so huge that he was able to take the whole map by himself.
An extreme example: a guild of 10 players vs a guild of 11 players. They are all able to do 100 fights each, and they all do that much. Who will win?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top