-
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:
Other Dev comments: GBG and its upcoming update - Feedback Thread
- Thread starter Kyrael
- Start date
Xeon of Camelot
Brigadier-General
Inno is working on improving the GbG guild matching which is all very well, however, having recently joined a top guild I was locked out of playing GbG only 20 minutes after it opened at 8am; by 8.20 all the sectors were taken and GbG locked for the mandatory 4 hours for all players.
One large guild with the most active members online at 8am effectively won the 10-day tournament in the first 15 minutes by totally dominating the map. This should not happen so I would propose an initial limit to the number of sectors any one guild can take in the first 4 hours giving other guilds a chance to get established. It's become a battle of which large guilds have the most online or who can click the fastest! Another way could be for Inno to look into ways of reducing the dependence on speed clicking or the amounts of clicks needed to play in GbG.
One large guild with the most active members online at 8am effectively won the 10-day tournament in the first 15 minutes by totally dominating the map. This should not happen so I would propose an initial limit to the number of sectors any one guild can take in the first 4 hours giving other guilds a chance to get established. It's become a battle of which large guilds have the most online or who can click the fastest! Another way could be for Inno to look into ways of reducing the dependence on speed clicking or the amounts of clicks needed to play in GbG.
LA - Free UA
Sergeant
it's supposed to be a battle a war between guilds what you propose would make a mockery
Nidwin
Captain
This reminds me of the Hooray and amazing, best change ever, with the replace units button. Some may have forgotten that this actually helps Number 1 to roll over the map even faster.
On the other hand when you crush it's perfect, I rock, I'm a pro, I'm the best. When you get crushed it's Inno's crap that they needs a fix asap.
Go figure.
Munzekonza
Master Corporal
Is it equality on GBG map to have one guild with 80 members of which 32 have over 1G points and others are not under 100M and all very active and rest of the Guilds with one or none players with over 1G? They dominate the map and you can do nothing. If you succeed to take one sector or two they are very fast overtaken. Such matchmaking in GBG is totally ludicrous!
DESYPETE
Lieutenant
the answer is simple, remove the auto battle button, that will make it only real fighters who are prepared to work hard win, and not the spend spend spend guys who want to auto battle.
remove that 1 single feature and watch how the so called fighters will cry out its not fair !!!!
remove that 1 single feature and watch how the so called fighters will cry out its not fair !!!!
Rann
Private
It would be better if they introduced a handicap system which would allow all guilds on the map to have an equal chance and then effort would just win out.
Pretty sure that it would get more people involved rather than them being beached and becoming despondent thus playing the game less.
Pretty sure that it would get more people involved rather than them being beached and becoming despondent thus playing the game less.
Paladiac the Pure
Major-General
GbG is already a handicap system
Xeon of Camelot
Brigadier-General
It's good to see posters offering suggestions to improve GbG gameplay, with this thread Inno might be searching to know what more they can do.
Any real solution will require thinking outside of the box.
With that in mind, why not introduce a simple method of placing troops to defend owned sectors to complement the existing process of placing buildings using guild goods? This could be a great way of using excess troops and would replace or reduce the mandatory 4-hour cooldown that prevents players from playing when they want. Of course, something like this would take a little time to develop and test but Rome wasn't built in a day and the best improvements are worth waiting for.
Any real solution will require thinking outside of the box.
With that in mind, why not introduce a simple method of placing troops to defend owned sectors to complement the existing process of placing buildings using guild goods? This could be a great way of using excess troops and would replace or reduce the mandatory 4-hour cooldown that prevents players from playing when they want. Of course, something like this would take a little time to develop and test but Rome wasn't built in a day and the best improvements are worth waiting for.
Munzekonza
Master Corporal
What you are suggested we had in GvG which is btw cancelled for the same reason we are complaining abot GBG. Matchmaking and superior Guilds with this matchmaking will always win. No other Guild can do nothing to conquer them.
Agent327
Legend
Are you for real??????
Posters have been offering suggestions to improve GBG here, on other forums, on Discord and probably on social media as well for close to 5 years!!! Only now Inno will know what they can do????
Forwandert
General
Reading the Knowledgebase info there's literally nothing new that has been added that's pretty much not already on the various platforms as responses over the years. The answers where either negative as something not possible or contained the keywords;
Investigating
Considering
Aware
Considering how old some of the queries and comments are it's pretty appalling the company hasn't got past that stage, I would be embarrassed if that was my team and wouldn't have released the announcement.
We've been collecting def boosts for way to long for it to appear that there is no direction on usage, as there was also absolutely no teaser about update.
Investigating
Considering
Aware
Considering how old some of the queries and comments are it's pretty appalling the company hasn't got past that stage, I would be embarrassed if that was my team and wouldn't have released the announcement.
We've been collecting def boosts for way to long for it to appear that there is no direction on usage, as there was also absolutely no teaser about update.
Xeon of Camelot
Brigadier-General
I have quoted my post and answered Shad's version of it in the Vote for Ideas thread.
Malynn
Master Corporal
What we need in GbG is more than just two icons. The target icon and the hand icon are all well and good, but guild/player strategy in GbG has developed and adapted considerably since the changes from the previous GbG system. At least another two icons would help with that developed strategy.
klods hans
Tsar
What exactly should the new icons be?
Droppy
Sergeant
What would help if you stated what icons you want. Just saying two icons could mean anything.
Malynn
Master Corporal
The icons could be anything. A guild could then put its own interpretation/meaning on the icons.
For example some guilds place the hand icon on a sector they own, to indicate a building in the progress of being built needs finishing with diamonds. However using the hand icon, even on your own sectors can be confusing, much better if there was a separate icon. As I said any two extra icons would do and a guild could put their own meaning on them.
Droppy
Sergeant
Wouldn't that just create confusion. Right now there are players that do not even know what the two existing icons mean. Also players can easily ignore them. It might work for the fanatic Guilds where everybody diligently reads all messages, but most Guilds probably can not be bothered by it.