Fixing GbG Siege Camps abuse

[DeletedUser111608]

This might be a bit of an unpopular idea, but I'm trying to look at this in a purely objective and rational way, and I ask that you do the same.
I'm one of the top 10 players in L world, so as expected, I know my way around gvg and gbg. Lately, I've seen many friends leave this game due to small features that this game has decided to implement, and I don't know how much time I will last myself if no changes are made.

The current system is making gbg all about rewards. Guilds that were once at war in gvg, have now stopped gvg all together in exchange for unlimited farming in gbg. For those that do not know what I am talking about, every diamond gbg season is now a place where 2 guilds come together, building siege camps in all the sectors they can get their hands on, whilst blocking the other guilds together every 4 hours, while they farm sectors upon sectors, in the center with multiple siege camps that make it so your attrition suffers no increase, giving you hundreds and hundreds of battles per day.
I do not know about you guys, but in my opinion, incentivising guilds to farm sectors upon sectors for personal gain should not be the main goal for this game. Here are several PROBLEMS with the current gbg system:
- No focus on wars between guilds. I thought the goal of gbg was to bring a competitive battleground to the game, similar to what gvg offers but for mobile players too. However, what we see, is that the game is now purely about farming, which is the main reason many high-level players are leaving the game altogether. The people that used to selflessly spend thousands of troops and goods in gvg for the greater good of the guild, are now seeing all their dedication being buried by this wave of selfish fighters that care purely about their personal gain from the rewards gbg offers.
- In-fighting due to siege camps. Look at what the game is incentivising players to do... You have people now letting their own teammates get the dirty work in on the sectors without siege camps, letting them increase their attrition, while they sit back in their chair, waiting for sectors with multiple siege camps so that they can get dozens of fights in without increasing their own attrition level. Do you see what this causes? you have players trying to beat other players inside their own guilds. what kind of game wants to incentivise this behaviour?
- Quick and easy blocking. The current system allows for a permanent block from 2 guilds working together. One of the guilds blocks the path towards the center from other guilds, blocking it for 4 hours. The other guild can then do 159 quick battles with all their Siege camps and leave the flag at 159 battles. The guild being blocked has then to spend their battles fighting against a hopeless sector that just needs 1 more battle to be finished off. Once the guild with the 159 battles finishes it, they have it blocked for 4 more hours, and thus restarts the cycle, over and over again.
- The 50% chance of keeping buildings is once again incentivising this behaviour. Not only do you have all the problems described above, but now the guilds are incentivised to work together, because if they don't destroy the buildings in their sectors, they have a 50% chance of keeping them and saving goods, once again going completely against what this game should try to achieve: active competitive fighting between guilds.


I now offer a few SUGGESTIONS that could help to solve these issues.
- Make gbg multi-world. I know you've said before that due to a lot of live data needing to be transferred between servers, that you aren't thinking about this yet. However, this would be the best solution to the whole situation. Putting powerful guilds against other powerful guilds they don't know about, is a way to make it harder for guilds to work together. This wouldn't solve the problem completely as you'd still have players inside both guilds that might know each other and still make deals, but I think it would make it more fun whilst reducing this pathetic farming fest that this game has turned into.
- Remove Siege Camps all together. This is more of a drastic approach but I don't see the need of allowing players inside a guild to do 300 battles in a day while others are limited at 70 by their attrition. When the developers were talking about gbg before it came out, they said they wanted a system where players could log in, get their fights in, and leave knowing they had done their part for the guild, while still limiting the number of battles each player could do. This is light-years away from the current system. Why not simply remove these buildings that allow for this kind of abuse. Our guild recently tried a no siege camp season and we had a lot more fun, as there was no competition between members and people didn't feel like they should wait to get their battles in, in hopes of fighting with more siege camps later, because there would be no siege camps. They simply got to fighting whenever they wanted or whenever was necessary.
- Implement features that penalise alliances. I haven't given much thought to this one but there are a few things you could do to make guilds fight each other, like giving more attack bonuses to guilds towards the bottom of the season's ranking, or making buildings more expensive for the guilds towards the top of the season's ranking, etc.


I'm interested in seeing the opinions from the rest of the community, as i feel like many loyal players will quit this game if things stay the way they are. The game incentivises alliances instead of competitiveness. The game incentivises competition between guildmates. This is not the game i fell in love with two and a half years ago. Thanks for reading

 

[DeletedUser112668]

well said Naitchimarii

 

[Cursedveggie]

As much as I like farming endless fp with lots of seige camps I do agree that it ruins the fun with alliances and endless sector swaps. It would severly curtail the amount I could fight but I think removing them altogether would be a good thing, this could maybe be balanced a little by reducing the rate attrition increases.

 

[Agent327]

How about you first learn how you are supposed to present an idea and what rules it should follow?

 

[DeletedUser96901]

first:
learn what the word abuse means

this is intended behavior

and if the others are better and/or smarter than you
you obviously don't belong in diamond league

- Make gbg multi-world.

and limit it to one diamond league for each available world
so if there are 20 worlds then there would be no more than 20 diamond leagues

and remove the MMR limit. a guild winning 20 times deserve to have much more than 1000.
and because the amount of diamond leagues will be limited there won't be a minimum of points (currently 901) that gives a guild automatic participation in diamond.
the guilds with the most MMR qualify. the rest is simply not good enough for diamond (even if they would have: let's say 1500 MMR)

diamond is for the best of the best
not for average 2nd league material

- Implement features that penalise alliances.

the game doesn't know alliances
how can it punish something that doesn't exist for the game

 

[DreadfulCadillac]

This might be a bit of an unpopular idea, but I'm trying to look at this in a purely objective and rational way, and I ask that you do the same.
I'm one of the top 10 players in L world, so as expected, I know my way around gvg and gbg. Lately, I've seen many friends leave this game due to small features that this game has decided to implement, and I don't know how much time I will last myself if no changes are made.

The current system is making gbg all about rewards. Guilds that were once at war in gvg, have now stopped gvg all together in exchange for unlimited farming in gbg. For those that do not know what I am talking about, every diamond gbg season is now a place where 2 guilds come together, building siege camps in all the sectors they can get their hands on, whilst blocking the other guilds together every 4 hours, while they farm sectors upon sectors, in the center with multiple siege camps that make it so your attrition suffers no increase, giving you hundreds and hundreds of battles per day.
I do not know about you guys, but in my opinion, incentivising guilds to farm sectors upon sectors for personal gain should not be the main goal for this game. Here are several PROBLEMS with the current gbg system:
- No focus on wars between guilds. I thought the goal of gbg was to bring a competitive battleground to the game, similar to what gvg offers but for mobile players too. However, what we see, is that the game is now purely about farming, which is the main reason many high-level players are leaving the game altogether. The people that used to selflessly spend thousands of troops and goods in gvg for the greater good of the guild, are now seeing all their dedication being buried by this wave of selfish fighters that care purely about their personal gain from the rewards gbg offers.
- In-fighting due to siege camps. Look at what the game is incentivising players to do... You have people now letting their own teammates get the dirty work in on the sectors without siege camps, letting them increase their attrition, while they sit back in their chair, waiting for sectors with multiple siege camps so that they can get dozens of fights in without increasing their own attrition level. Do you see what this causes? you have players trying to beat other players inside their own guilds. what kind of game wants to incentivise this behaviour?
- Quick and easy blocking. The current system allows for a permanent block from 2 guilds working together. One of the guilds blocks the path towards the center from other guilds, blocking it for 4 hours. The other guild can then do 159 quick battles with all their Siege camps and leave the flag at 159 battles. The guild being blocked has then to spend their battles fighting against a hopeless sector that just needs 1 more battle to be finished off. Once the guild with the 159 battles finishes it, they have it blocked for 4 more hours, and thus restarts the cycle, over and over again.
- The 50% chance of keeping buildings is once again incentivising this behaviour. Not only do you have all the problems described above, but now the guilds are incentivised to work together, because if they don't destroy the buildings in their sectors, they have a 50% chance of keeping them and saving goods, once again going completely against what this game should try to achieve: active competitive fighting between guilds.


I now offer a few SUGGESTIONS that could help to solve these issues.
- Make gbg multi-world. I know you've said before that due to a lot of live data needing to be transferred between servers, that you aren't thinking about this yet. However, this would be the best solution to the whole situation. Putting powerful guilds against other powerful guilds they don't know about, is a way to make it harder for guilds to work together. This wouldn't solve the problem completely as you'd still have players inside both guilds that might know each other and still make deals, but I think it would make it more fun whilst reducing this pathetic farming fest that this game has turned into.
- Remove Siege Camps all together. This is more of a drastic approach but I don't see the need of allowing players inside a guild to do 300 battles in a day while others are limited at 70 by their attrition. When the developers were talking about gbg before it came out, they said they wanted a system where players could log in, get their fights in, and leave knowing they had done their part for the guild, while still limiting the number of battles each player could do. This is light-years away from the current system. Why not simply remove these buildings that allow for this kind of abuse. Our guild recently tried a no siege camp season and we had a lot more fun, as there was no competition between members and people didn't feel like they should wait to get their battles in, in hopes of fighting with more siege camps later, because there would be no siege camps. They simply got to fighting whenever they wanted or whenever was necessary.
- Implement features that penalise alliances. I haven't given much thought to this one but there are a few things you could do to make guilds fight each other, like giving more attack bonuses to guilds towards the bottom of the season's ranking, or making buildings more expensive for the guilds towards the top of the season's ranking, etc.


I'm interested in seeing the opinions from the rest of the community, as i feel like many loyal players will quit this game if things stay the way they are. The game incentivises alliances instead of competitiveness. The game incentivises competition between guildmates. This is not the game i fell in love with two and a half years ago. Thanks for reading

I like the Make gbg multi world sugestion a lot, the rest are meh.

 

[DeletedUser111000]

the game doesn't know alliances
how can it punish something that doesn't exist for the game

If people can recognise it, it can be coded. Minecraft doesn't know alliances either, but various servers have been coded to recognise the signs and deal with it.

- Make gbg multi-world. I know you've said before that due to a lot of live data needing to be transferred between servers, that you aren't thinking about this yet. However, this would be the best solution to the whole situation. Putting powerful guilds against other powerful guilds they don't know about, is a way to make it harder for guilds to work together.

To make it multi-world, I would think using a different set of servers for gbg would make it easier, as you don't need the high-speed realtime communication between the main world servers. When people go into battlegrounds, their army, bonus and goods status is sent to the gbg servers, and when they leave the update is sent back. The rest is not time critical and can be lazy-updated in the background (e.g. player points, tower status, additional goods from trades being taken, etc). Just a thought.

 

[DeletedUser]

The only problem i see with Battlegrounds is that Guilds get promoded when fighting inactive ones.
This is completely a bug which should be fixed.
The Siege Camps and the Anti-Farmville thing cant be enforced
I dont like it but you cant force a community like this to be <<hardcore>> thats the reality

 

[DeletedUser111608]

How about you first learn how you are supposed to present an idea and what rules it should follow?

Thanks for getting to the bottom of what really matters

first:
learn what the word abuse means

this is intended behavior

Perhaps it is the intended behavior, all I'm saying is that, in my opinion, there is no competitiveness in the game from this. They are encouraging farming instead of fighting to be better than the other guilds. And i'd encourage you to listen to the live streams the developers did regarding gbg before it came out. I'm pretty sure this wasn't what they had in mind. If it is, so be it, I'm just trying to express my thoughts.

and if the others are better and/or smarter than you
you obviously don't belong in diamond league

thanks for staying on topic

the game doesn't know alliances
how can it punish something that doesn't exist for the game

Our guild was created because of alliances. We got tired of no gvg action due to diplomacy taking control of the game instead of actual fighting which is what makes the game fun in my opinion.

I dont like it but you cant force a community like this to be <<hardcore>> thats the reality

The people who want to farm can still get their battles in for their rewards without worrying about the diplomacies going around. I think it is actually more hardcore what these guilds are doing. Coordinating all the siege camps and such requires more dedication than actually fighting for fun.

 

[Agent327]

Thanks for getting to the bottom of what really matters

Glad you understand, cause in this format it will absolutely go nowhere, but keep trying and responding.

You will feel like a total fool once you see the light.

 

[Goremise]

The thing is, if they wanted GBG to be more competitive they wouldn't have added in buildings in the first place. The buildings exist to drain our resources, that's why they exist. But then they add a building that removes the attrition feature, allowing a never ending fight giving tons of resources, I'm actually surprised by that. Cause I said this the moment I saw GBG, that it would eventually turn into us just farming it with no actual competition, and voila' totally predictable.

But since its been going on already, is it even ok to change things? Just means people who've not been able to do it so far, will never get that advantage while the people who have been doing it are really well off.

Always be rooting for the Cross server idea, fought the same guilds now since GBG began...

 

[DeletedUser]

The people who want to farm can still get their battles in for their rewards without worrying about the diplomacies going around. I think it is actually more hardcore what these guilds are doing. Coordinating all the siege camps and such requires more dedication than actually fighting for fun.

The people will keep wanting being in the best Guild they can, doing the less they can for that Guild...
And thats what pushed those Guilds build those strategies to keep their people in their Guilds and keep being 1st - Top
Yes it needs more Dedication but its easier to have a round with x2-3-4 Siege Camps farm than a round with x2 Traps + x2 Fortresses in front of your Base ...
Did i mentioned Cheaper aswell ? War was always a profitable and expensive sport

 

[DeletedUser]

But since its been going on already, is it even ok to change things?

If you gather 1000 votes it will be ok (but seems hard in a community divided and isolated)

 

[ntnete0]

i ma not sure what to think actually ... it is hard topic and one that will be debated ... the issues are that GbG came a bit late in the game where you for sure have well established guilds with good goods banks and new guilds that find creative ways to bring more goods to bank and in turn be more fruitful for all ...
let's say that this was not intention of inno then they for sure eventually will see it and change the rules or at least try ... but lets take in to account that many times many people spend plenty of diamonds to finish SC and in turn that is profits to Inno ...
and when it comes to Inno and profits ... you all know what happens ... profits first ....

 

[ntnete0]

and not to mention that there could not be a moment where you see more guilds that are on each other side and have good clicks and benefit each from others ... when we have the easy system why not use it to our all benefits rather then other way around lol

 

[DeletedUser]

when we have the easy system why not use it to our all benefits rather then other way around lol

Because its a game with PvP ?
Maybe some people take it more personal and care too much about their <<profit>> which is not the FP's but to have fun around ?
dunno its just my oppinion , but since we have troops in this game why not fight then

 

[DeletedUser116040]

I've been linked this post a few times by people, so feel it needs a response.

I 100% agree and 100% disagree with all you mentioned. So I'm sorry if this sounds like I am pulling it apart, hear me out..

In the real world, a person with a salary of $30k a year who buys a chocolate bar pays $1 for it, a millionaire pays $1 too for the same bar..there is a clear winner...the millionaire.

In a game like this, it doesnt work like the real world, we dont have a 'player level' here like an MMORPG, so lets say your player level is the average level of all your GBs...so the small person pays $1 for their bar (next average GB level), but the millionaire pays $200 for his..

So why am i saying this?

This game releases 'eras', all of these are a small 'patch'. GbG is the first major 'expansion'. If you compare this to an MMORPG like WoW was, this is like the first expansion, and right now theres a lot of people complaining "all the level 70's can run around killing the level 60's in two hits.. its not fair".. the point is, these are short term problems, the 'expansion'is calculated and designed with long term in mind..

So everything you are saying are indeed all completely correct issues from GbG release to this point in time, 100% agree.

But, this gives the opportunity for lower players and guilds to take a lot more FPs and goods than they could before (dont compare themselves to others, they should compare themselves with the past them..). This means they can catch up with the big players and guilds fast (fast in this game is months, not days), because the big guilds may be able to milk the system loads right now...but everything they milk now looks big but is only a fraction of what they need.. but what the small people take looks small but is a large percentage of what they need to 'catch up'.

So if you see what big guilds do, they have an abundance of goods to monopolise, the game is introducing methods to increase the abundance of goods, SoH, building in next Archaeology event, mars goods x3, saab goods x6...

So you see what people get upset about is a short term problem when the system is designed for long term. So people feel Inno dont listen, actually they do, they elect to ignore it because it is off the mark.

As the catch-up happens, abundance occurs, small players accelerate up in GBs and through eras (this is their goal here, theres a lot of eras and this gives what small people need to accelerate to Future eras) then more and more SCs etc are afforded by all, big guilds power dilutes, effectiveness of alliances dilutes..so right now big guilds sit a high % over small..it looks bad, but actually their gains dont make them much better they place 30SC a day now, in 3 months they will be placing 32.. so before feeling this is all an unfair system..give it time.. because the small guys placing 5 SC a day will soon be placing 10 then 15,20,25,30..

A well thought out post.. but just give it time. Regarding the 'inter world', completely agree.. but the rest is a plaster for a short term balancing that just needs time

 

[DeletedUser]

But, this gives the opportunity for lower players and guilds to take a lot more FPs and goods than they could before (dont compare themselves to others, they should compare themselves with the past them..). This means they can catch up with the big players and guilds fast (fast in this game is months, not days), because the big guilds may be able to milk the system loads right now...but everything they milk now looks big but is only a fraction of what they need.. but what the small people take looks small but is a large percentage of what they need to 'catch up'.

They always had this opportunity, if small - low level Guilds , work with Teamwork they can achieve extremely fast growth, without Battlegrounds..
The whole <<alliance-freefarm>> Deal is more an excuse from the Big guilds to avoid spending Goods and keep controling the situation.

Nobody forces you to play in a specific game style , you can invent your own BUT as long as it is called PvP and has the <<WAR>> aspect it should be played like one, and not like Politics...

I dont disagree with your post, but PvE is different than PvP !

 

[DeletedUser116040]

They always had this opportunity, if small - low level Guilds , work with Teamwork they can achieve extremely fast growth, without Battlegrounds..
The whole <<alliance-freefarm>> Deal is more an excuse from the Big guilds to avoid spending Goods and keep controling the situation.

Nobody forces you to play in a specific game style , you can invent your own BUT as long as it is called PvP and has the <<WAR>> aspect it should be played like one, and not like Politics...

I dont disagree with your post, but PvE is different than PvP !

Yes i agree, but like i said this is an issue that is vastly exaggerated in the short to medium term. Large guilds sector swapping arent spending less goods, they spent more, those sector swapping without spending loads of goods are on the first rung of the ladder, and will soon begin chucking so many SCs everywhere to monopolise on rewards, but as I noted that these rewards become less and less effective fast in game terms.

To be honest I think most guilds who do swap with others, including us, would much prefer it to be inter-server like GE which is why I completely agree with that. Whilst it is all on one server with guilds that have been around each other for all these years natural alliances will always naturally evolve, even those people 'dead against' alliances will end up subconsciously attacking the ones they hate most and more forgiving towards the ones they dont. And remember most who complain about it are people who were more than happy to have alliances in GvG but now there's direct rewards involved they become hypocrits, GvG also wasnt designed for alliances, there is no 'add alliance tool'. By allying in GvG you go up rank, you attract larger players, they join, you get more rewards and advance quicker indirectly.. so nobody in any guild who allies up in GvG really can be offended by alliances in GbG without being a massive contradiction

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes i agree, but like i said this is an issue that is vastly exaggerated in the short to medium term. Large guilds sector swapping arent spending less goods, they spent more, those sector swapping without spending loads of goods are on the first rung of the ladder, and will soon begin chucking so many SCs everywhere to monopolise on rewards, but as I noted that these rewards become less and less effective fast in game terms.

Thats reason that they are after other things than <<Goods Saving>>

All is fair in Love and War, but this community knows only the 1st side, thats why they criticize the 2nd.

Both Sides are fair though