• 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 into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

Anyone seen the new announcement about GBG in beta?

HenryHiggens

Private
There definately needs to be some balancing in GBG but this is not the solution. This will just result in the GBG map becoming a ghost town for most of the day as players will burn their attrition, and having done that, they won't be back until reset. Goods won't be as sort after as not as many support buildings will be constructed and hence, players will be less active looking for goods.

Where balance in GBG is required is in the matching of guilds in the different leagues. At the moment, it is far too easy for smaller, weaker guilds to get into Diamond League. Diamond league should be just that, the level for the strongest guilds. If only the strongest guilds made it to Diamond League, they would have to fight to win rather than resorting to a swap meet to gain maximum rewards. Yes, their total fight numbers would be down, but they would have to earn the win which is how it should be.

The current grading system is flawed as you can bounce from Platinum League up to Diamond League, be completely dominated, then get relegated back to Platinum League. There needs to be a system where it takes a reasonable amount of wins in Platinum League before you advance. Once relegated down from Diamond League, the guild would have to earn the right to advance once again. To be able to bounce back and forth every round at the moment shows that it is simply too easy to advance to the highest level and allows guilds of vastly different capabilities to be matched together.

Guilds should be of similar strengths to be in the same league. This is where the problem lies within the GBG.
 
GbG.jpg

GvG - Total one guild domination in a day. (live)

This guild does not need attritian bonus for fast total map domination
 
Last edited:

romeo-rainy

Corporal
Guilds should be of similar strengths to be in the same league. This is where the problem lies within the GBG.
I agree.
So if we put guilds of similar strengths in similar leagues we can split it into 5 ranks:
1. Crazy whole map in 1 day guilds, CRAZY swapping.
2. Decent guilds who can so some swapping.
3. Guilds who can take a handful of sectors a day.
4. Guilds with a few small hitters or one hitter.
5. Guilds who do 40-100 fights or negotiations per round.
Rank 1 would be in Diamond League and rank 2 would be in plat. The problem comes from the bottom ranks. Ranks 3-5 can not be seperated. If rank 3 and 4 take gold and silver, then those guilds who can fight but very less would be stuck with guilds with 1 IA 3k point members or guilds with all members unactive, which is boring even to them.
I think a qualifying league (maybe 10 attacks/ 5 negotiations) to prove guilds are active can be added at the very bottom.
And in another game, a thing similar to GBG that has leagues have this: after each season there is a short period that only the bottom of lets say diamond and the top of platnium leagues fight. If the diamond league guilds win (usually), they stay in diamond. If the platnium league guilds win, they go to diamond.
GvG - Total one guild domination in a day. (live)

This guild does not need attritian bonus for fast total map domination
I know a leader of a top guild, she says that her guild refuses to fight sectors with less than 3 SC, sometimes even 4 SC.
 

Timer X7

Private
View attachment 24372
GvG - Total one guild domination in a day. (live)

This guild does not need attritian bonus for fast total map domination
The changes didn't go live, I just took a whole sector by myself. It's kinda funny that people think this will screw over smaller guilds when most of them spend 99% of time with 1 or 2 sectors and everything else is locked 24/7. The bigger guilds are not using free attrition to fight each other, on every single server hated enemies use it to farm all day together and screw over smaller guilds
 

Timer X7

Private
This update will just be a huge pain for big guilds and an almost unnoticiable hit to smaller guilds. I don't think this is a good way to balance.
It's a pretty drastic change, but the original idea was so flawed. For instance siege camps were supposed to counteract traps. I haven't seen a trap in years.
Someone has to come up with an idea to force the big guilds to fight each other instead of cooperating.
 

romeo-rainy

Corporal
It's a pretty drastic change, but the original idea was so flawed. For instance siege camps were supposed to counteract traps. I haven't seen a trap in years.
Someone has to come up with an idea to force the big guilds to fight each other instead of cooperating.
Smaller guild uses traps a lot. If they put all the big guilds into one arena they might start fighting because they have too less sectors to swap and then maybe cause war?
 

Ariana Erosaire

Chief Warrant Officer
Free attrition is what "ruined" the game and made GBG meaningless. That and the overly generous rewards that make personal gains much bigger than any team/guild gains every season. Who cares if your guild places 3rd as long as you get the all you can eat fp/points/troops/goods/diamonds buffet? and you'll still be "stuck" in diamond league regardless. My guild applies more strategy to place 5th sometimes just for a change of scenery than we do in trying to "win" anything, winning doesn't matter, just getting to sectors with lots of camp slots to farm does.

No one should have ever been able to sit on the map every 4 hours doing thousands of fights per day. It hasn't been guild battlegrounds since May 2020 (about 6 months into the release) when everyone figured out fighting doesn't matter, we're all stuck in diamond league, and all we can reasonably do is farm.

This change is 2 years late. I know lots of people who already quit because of the free attrition and greed that turned brother against brother, turned enemies into farm-loving tractor drivers, and created more competition within a guild for "free fight" sectors than it ever did between guilds to actually compete. Battlegrounds turned a perfectly nice strategy game into an IDLE CLICKER game. Go ahead and look through the Battlegrounds feedback thread and see how many times people asked for something to be done about siege camp abuse and bad league system - again, for 2 years.

I don't know if this will make GBG relevant again or just piss everyone off. I'm for it and I'm still pissed off because it took more than 2 years to get it on the list for changes. And now that free attrition has been allowed to "spoil" a whole generation of players for more than 2 years, all of them will be pissed off for getting their easy rewards yanked away. Oh what a tangled web we weave when we don't listen to player feedback and react in a timely manner.
 

Emberguard

Legend
It's a pretty drastic change, but the original idea was so flawed. For instance siege camps were supposed to counteract traps. I haven't seen a trap in years.
Someone has to come up with an idea to force the big guilds to fight each other instead of cooperating.
For that to happen you'd have to change the reward system.

Rewards dictate the player behaviour. As long as the rewards are based on amount of fights (ie, losing a sector generates more rewards) then there won't be proper war. The rewards would have to be in gaining and then retaining sectors. Only then will Guilds have to fight each other for the space.

However, early on the biggest Guilds worked out it's cheaper on the treasury to ignore their biggest opponent if that opponent does the same (unspoken mutual respect) and only focus on the smaller Guilds.

Even if the rewards system changes, you'd still have the problem of the opponent understanding that it's cheaper to ignore the strongest Guild on the field if it's reciprocated. That amplifies any power dynamic problems between Guild strengths, one that (ironically) farming was partially alleviating once it got to involving more partners into the checkerboard.

So if you really want war, you'd need to make sure each tier of strength has a equal to fight against, and that they're actually fighting each other not teaming up against all the weak Guilds.

Strategy wise it makes the most sense for the strongest Guilds to team up as then no one can stop them. Fun wise it's detrimental to any games health when that happens

Even if you changed it so only #1 got rewards, that on its own wouldn't fix the problem as #1 and #2 could still team up and swap each season which one of them wins. (Not to mention that'd likely make everyone else quit playing anyway)
 

Timer X7

Private
For that to happen you'd have to change the reward system.

Rewards dictate the player behaviour. As long as the rewards are based on amount of fights (ie, losing a sector generates more rewards) then there won't be proper war. The rewards would have to be in gaining and then retaining sectors. Only then will Guilds have to fight each other for the space.

However, early on the biggest Guilds worked out it's cheaper on the treasury to ignore their biggest opponent if that opponent does the same (unspoken mutual respect) and only focus on the smaller Guilds.

Even if the rewards system changes, you'd still have the problem of the opponent understanding that it's cheaper to ignore the strongest Guild on the field if it's reciprocated. That amplifies any power dynamic problems between Guild strengths, one that (ironically) farming was partially alleviating once it got to involving more partners into the checkerboard.

So if you really want war, you'd need to make sure each tier of strength has a equal to fight against, and that they're actually fighting each other not teaming up against all the weak Guilds.

Strategy wise it makes the most sense for the strongest Guilds to team up as then no one can stop them. Fun wise it's detrimental to any games health when that happens

Even if you changed it so only #1 got rewards, that on its own wouldn't fix the problem as #1 and #2 could still team up and swap each season which one of them wins. (Not to mention that'd likely make everyone else quit playing anyway)
I've been gaming for a while and I've seen this happen before. For instance in the early days of WoW BGs were fun, but at the very top you had politicking about the personal ranking spots from 1 to 10 on a weekly basis. Because those rankings were so important you had elite groups that farmed 24/7 and ruined the game for the casual player. This did not have a solution because the populations on individual servers dropped and there wasn't much competition.

We're in the same situation - 3-4 strong guilds per server, 5-10 minion guilds that have been trained to follow basic instructions, but wouldn't be able to enforce a checkerboard without a strong guild, and the rest are casual.

Years later they came up with a solution in WoW - cross-server battlegrounds. That wasn't great either.. you had elites farming the casuals but from different servers. So this alone wouldn't work here because what's to stop someone from making another town on the other server and coordinating with a strong guild on that side

When matchmaking rating was introduced things got a little better. We kinda have that here but it's not working because you need way more stronger guilds to balance things out.

It will be hell from an engineering standpoint, but here's the solution:
Introduce X-server BGs
Add an elite division above diamond with a set number of guilds. The number can't be too big because you don't want regular diamond guilds randomly getting in there, the top guilds should be fighting to get in.
Add GBG specific ranking for each server and revamp the current MMR system - it can't have a cap of 1000 because you can't tell who's actually #1, 2, 3, 4 etc

Honestly you could livestream it if you could get the #1 guild from 8 servers on the same map.

Of course cooperation would still be possible, but at least they'd be doing it to each other and not to the small guilds.
...and of course limiting the number of attacks per day by introducing attrition and having people display their individual strength and strategy is the much simpler solution, but what do I know, I've only been gaming for 25 years :D
 
Last edited:

Paladiac the Pure

Major-General
Honestly you could livestream it if you could get the #1 guild from 8 servers on the same map.
Livestream it? What for? So a bunch of basement dwelling no-lifers can spend hours sitting around watching another group of no-lifers? Just what is needed, another gimmick for a bunch of addicted people who really need more mental health in life, instead of having something else for these addicts to try to improve lives, rather than keep impoverishing them. Of course, these same addicts are about the only ones that cannot see their addictions, or the problems that addictions are causing their lives or loved ones.
 
Livestream it? What for? So a bunch of basement dwelling no-lifers can spend hours sitting around watching another group of no-lifers? Just what is needed, another gimmick for a bunch of addicted people who really need more mental health in life, instead of having something else for these addicts to try to improve lives, rather than keep impoverishing them. Of course, these same addicts are about the only ones that cannot see their addictions, or the problems that addictions are causing their lives or loved ones.
Isn't the whole point of game development to make players addicted?
 

Timer X7

Private
Livestream it? What for? So a bunch of basement dwelling no-lifers can spend hours sitting around watching another group of no-lifers? Just what is needed, another gimmick for a bunch of addicted people who really need more mental health in life, instead of having something else for these addicts to try to improve lives, rather than keep impoverishing them. Of course, these same addicts are about the only ones that cannot see their addictions, or the problems that addictions are causing their lives or loved ones.
By that logic why would anyone watch sports on TV? A bunch of lazy folks watching athletes compete instead of going out there and playing sports themselves?
E-sports have been a thing for 20+ years now
 

DESYPETE

Lieutenant
i remember the same outcry, when they cut the gb levels down in attack gbs from 5% down to just 3 % it changed the game for fighters and lots of us quit the game in anger, they were forcing the new gvg onto us and we was all mostly hood only attackers back then. but they didnt listen i stupidly quit the game and told them to delete my account and i was number 2 in the world of fel back then.
they never listen i suggest players stop playing gbg or stop playing the pvp game, as we did that last time with the pvp and they soon listened, so if you really want to show them that the players of the game matter take action which hits them hard or how about everyone just a week off let the numbers crash ?
 

Forwandert

Major-General
Tbh I've been waiting for something like this to happen to GBG for so long that I didn't expect it anymore, Kinda guessed Inno was happy with the huge change it made to things like fp production and wasnt going to do anything about it. It's probably a couple of years overdue. It changed the whole strategy to the game on how to gain fps/goods etc. New players starting are literally told Build Arc, Build traz, Build attack boost buildings and that's all you need.

The problem now is the newer players (when I say new I mean started in the last couple of years) won't know or understand fully how things generally took a little longer previously and fp production was more based on city build So it's going to feel like a huge downgrade on the game and levelling up gbs etc when attrition starts to kick in.

I stopped playing GBG some time ago as you could just end up in an endless loop of tapping sector after sector and it could go on for hours which wasn't really part of my plan for playing the game and due to the window movement on mobile (Sometimes more to the left or right) depending where the sector was it was causing pain in my hands/thumbs with stretching over the screen, so it makes no difference to me anymore. I'm not playing a function that actually causes me health issues. I can see and understand why some won't be happy though but for certain it's an overdue change.
 

rayster001

Private
I REALLY believe that mixing 1000 point guilds with 975 point guilds is very unprofessional, you set the game up one way then you change it on live servers without being tested on bETA .... YES i play on BOTH so i know thatwas NOT tested out on Beta ,.. UNLESS its a BUG of some sort ??.. they should DUMP the round and start with a proper rank game ..
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Emberguard

Legend
I REALLY believe that mixing 1000 point guilds with 975 point guilds is very unprofessional, you set the game up one way then you change it on live servers without being tested on bETA .... YES i play on BOTH so i know thatwas NOT tested out on Beta ,.. UNLESS its a BUG of some sort ??.. they should DUMP the round and start with a proper rank game ..
The game always sorted Guilds like that. Nothing changed. Guilds are sorted by LP from highest to lowest, there’s no rule requiring them to all be the exact LP. The only time you have a 1,000 LP only island is if there’s enough Guilds to have only 1,000 LP Guilds with no leftovers.
 
Top