My understanding is that Guild Battlegrounds if Guild versus Guild and that all Forge of Empires players can participate. Is this not correct?
Because I read these comments and see 60 to 70 battles, during a single reset period I assume. I see another where 15 - 20 battles was considered reasonable. Well, I don't have a never ending supply of rogues. I don't have a reasonable supply of goods. I have a level 10 Statue of Zeus. I have a Cathedral of Aachen on one world about level 6. I have no supply of any unattached troops, other than GE might be considered a regular supply. I have a Tower of Babel on each world and a Lighthouse on one. I do have a complete set of blueprints for other GBs, but space is an issue for them. I "visit" my neighbors each day to aid them. I visit my guild mates regularly. And those on my friend's list. And what do I see? I see that I have way more than most of them have. As I go up the ranks, and the neighborhood changes, I would expect to see more capable cities, that's not the point though.
The point is, each of these are FoE players as well, and they need to be able to contribute to a guild. They need to be able to play FoE, else they quit and play something else. And that is Inno's bottom line being affected. If they don't have the troops, they can't do even one battle in the battleground. If they don't have the goods, they can't successfully perform even one negotiation. Never mind doing 15 to 20 battles, or 60 to 70 battles. Or doing 50 negotiations in a reset period. They are excluded. A lot of the fault is on the player themselves. They need to be patient at first, learn the game, and put into practice what they learn. But it is also on the other players to provide them with the knowledge they need, the resources they need, and to make sure they can play and contribute to a guild, and to get the reward of "satisfaction" from being able to accomplish something.
But they are not to be shoved into a guild battleground and expected to do something on their own. The battleground is guild versus guild. It is not the player who does 60 to 70 battles in a reset period. It is not the player that does 25 negotiations. Those numbers don't matter. They are part of a whole, and the whole is what the "guild" does, not what an individual does.
Guild versus Guild! 25 members of which 13 made some contribution. 61 members of which 17 made some contribution, 3 of which only did one encounter. 112 negotiations & 16 attacks; 86 negotiations & 39 attacks......340 negotiations and 257 attacks for the season for 17 people. 601 negotiations and 448 attacks in total for 13 people. Right off the bat, I see a huge problem. Finally, 110 negotiations and 24 attacks for ONE player (actually for one player out of 6 guilds). And the problem is now magnitudes greater. One player out of 6 guilds! These are numbers that matter!
Guild versus Guild! 340 negotiations and 257 attacks for a total 617 encounters. 3 guilds did nothing. This guild finished last, or in 5th place, with 0 sectors conquered. Collected 17,744 Victory Points. Did we deserve last place? No, we were definitely over-matched by a single guild. Am I complaining? No, we have been told repeatedly the first few seasons will establish where a guild truly belongs. Am I unhappy with the guild results? Quite contrary, I'm very happy! Do I think we will do better next season? Maybe. We should be better matched, but goods available for negotiations took a huge hit, and improving combat readiness is a slow process at best.
Guild versus Guild! 601 negotiations and 448 attacks for a total of 1,049 encounters. All 8 guilds did something, we finished second. 169,815 victory points. We were much better matched here, won a hard 2nd place victory. Unfortunately, I don't believe this guild will perform nearly as well next season. It went to the Silver League and our goods were pretty wiped out.
Guild versus Guild! 110 negotiations and 24 attacks for a total of 134 encounters. Only guild, 54,600 victory points. Performance, not applicable. Expectations for next season, going to get my * handed to me on a silver platter, especially as I earned a Silver League placement, which I really shouldn't have.
Guild versus Guild! To the player wanting to do more than 200 battles. Give me a break! I'm not allowed to say my reaction to that. Change anything to allow you to do more just means your adversaries can do more. This isn't about you, its about your guild. To the player of 60-70 battles per reset. My visceral reaction is not as strong, but still! Do your 60 to 70 battles, then switch to negotiations, and call it a day! Obviously, we are talking about a never ending supply of troops here, which the rest of us DON'T have. We will one day. That's fine, I'm happy that you have progressed that far, I don't hold it against any of you. You've earned it. Nevertheless, efforts should and have to have a cost. Inno doesn't want you to play for free, they want you to buy diamonds. So pay the costs and be happy that you can, and that you were able to make such a contribution to your guild. Because it is about the guild, not the player. To the negotiators. You want to make it cost less to negotiate so you can do more negotiations. You would make it so it costs less for a player such as myself to negotiate, thus I would be able to do more negotiations. Net change: 0! Change the attrition so you can do more? Then you change the attrition so I can do more. Net change: 0! 5/6 goods negotiations? Well, I did 5 goods negotiations daily, usually all the way through 5 to the level 6. I didn't even think this was worth commenting on here. Yes, I did it for personal gain. But I mostly did it because my guild needed me to do it. Because by doing so, it offered my guild a strategic or tactical advantage in gaining a province and getting a defensive building started sooner. Even though paying the costs hurt my own gameplay, I payed the costs without second thought, because in my opinion, my guild needed me to do that. That is what the Guild Battlegrounds is about, Guild versus Guild. Do I need to say that again?
First Problem: Guilds that did nothing appeared to have gotten rewarded anyways. Dealt with, quickly and without doubt. They don't get rewarded unless they complete 40 encounters. End of story! Hopefully, the next update states this in-game, so that each and every player and guild knows exactly where they stand, and how much they have to do in order to get rewarded. And perhaps a guild should be penalized for non-participation. Might get rid of some of these one person guilds, which aren't really a guild at all, but a single player trying to reap the guild rewards without the work of actually running and leading a guild.
Second Problem: Obviously some guilds were clearly outmatched or under matched. That was dealt with before the first season even began. It will take a few seasons for every guild to find its ranking. There's really no point in belaboring the point, not for at least another 5 seasons. If there's a problem then, then we need to bring it up in this forum.
Third Problem: Not really stated but alluded to previously in this thread - Attrition. Overall, I don't see a problem. If someone is able to do 200 battles in a reset period, well, there is either no problem there at all, or perhaps attrition should be increased at this end to help level out the playing field. I don't have the data, nor does any other player, to have an opinion on that aspect. What I do know is that I wasn't able to do more than 2 battles, sometimes I got to 4, in a single reset period. So I think there does need to be some adjustment there.
Fourth Problem: A fourth hasn't really been mentioned. So I'll mention it now. Player Participation. The numbers I have are presented earlier. Obviously, most players did not participate, not even half, perhaps not even 25%. My data set is limited though, so the FoE team would perhaps know. This problem originates with Inno, and with Forge of Empires, but with the guilds and players mostly. Everyone is responsible to address this issue. I'd like to say the Third Problem was at fault, but I can't. Very few players in my data set completed one encounter. Did they try and fail and then just give up? Possibly. Perhaps even most, I have no way of knowing. The developers need to look at that data. But then, how is it possible to fail at a negotiation with 0 attrition? Nor are the costs high enough to prevent any player from doing a negotiation, or, if it was, then the player is at fault for not providing themselves with the proper goods buildings and trading within the guild to get the rest of the goods needed. Or they just don't know or understand, and yes, this is definitely part of the problem, not just in battlegrounds but throughout game play. And this is a problem that both developers and guilds need to work on, and the players need to be given access to this information in a better manner.
This last problem is the problem I'm trying to work on. The third is an issue I think, but the developers make the rules and I have to play by those rules or choose not to play. To those with attacking issues or negotiation issues, well, the solution is simple. Stop pretending it is a player problem. It is a guild problem. If you need more attacks or more negotiations, you need to get more members involved or even out the contributions each member makes in the battlefield. If the cost of negotiation is high for a single player to achieve some goal, it is not high for another member of the guild. Everyone starts with 0 attrition each day. It is my responsibility, as an executive within the guild where only 17 out of 61 members contributed, to make it so the other 44 members can contribute, or if they won't even if capable, to get rid of them. It is the responsibility of those 44 players to make a contribution to the guild they are in if they wish to continue to receive the guild's support and rewards.
The only contributor to a battlefield on one world. Ranked fourth on a second world. And ranked as the top contributor on my third world. 100,000 point player. Versus 3 million point players. Did I want to do more? Certainly. Is my wanting to do more relevant? Definitely NOT! Seven or eight billion other people want more, and usually for less. Not an unique position to say the least. Certainly not in FoE or any other online game. Totally irrelevant. Do you want me to do more? I sincerely doubt that. Because if I'm already a top contributor, what am I going to be able to do once I can build an Arc and an Alcatraz, or the other great buildings. Or even for that matter, just a Cathedral of Aachen. No, I don't think so. And if they were to change the rules so that you could do more, then the rules are changed for me as well.
Do I want to be able to do more than 2 battles a day? Certainly. It doesn't really matter to me though. But it does seem to be very unequal. And it does have an impact on my guild's performance. Because if they look at the standings and see that I could only do 2 battles successfully and that I have more and larger GBs for battles then they do, they just aren't going to try. For that reason, it does become an issue.
But, before any of that, the real and only issue I can see is the lack of player participation. Not just in my guilds but the lack I see in every city I look at except for the million and higher point players of course. This is my job. And the job of the developers. And the job of every guild in existence. This is what needs to be discussed. Once guild participation levels out a bit, well, quite a bit, then perhaps we will be able to see the real issues, if any for that matter, in the guild battlegrounds. And in the Guild vs Guild (which is hopeless to even look at) or Guild Expeditions which is also sorely lacking, or PvP which is also lacking, critically I think. Once we've identified the real problems, then we can find the real solutions.
