GB balancing changes - discussion thread

[DeletedUser96867]

why not just boost the defense of GvG sector, leave our contentment map and hoods unchanged ?

The defense boosts in gvg sectors are already to high. Currently the HQ sector has a 75% boost, and the rest have up to a 50% boost depending on the combined total of the guilds military GB boosts, based on some calculation i don't know. The defending armies must be defeated up to 80 times to take a sector. On the other hand the siege army with 0% boost has to be defeated only 10 times. Reducing the attack bonus by 40% will have little to no effect on how easily siege armies are wiped out in minutes, but make it that much harder to take a guild held sector. As far as i know in 2.5 months of Gvg no LMA, CA, IndA, or PE sector held by a guild has been attacked successfully. Decreasing attack boosts will only make it even harder.

Just took a fast look at gvg in beta. Currently of the about 200 sectors in each age there are 2 guild held sectors under attack in LMA, 1 in CA, 0 in IndA, and 0 in PE. Each of the sectors being attacked is a coastline sector likely begin attacked by a guild which has no sectors, and none are even remotely close to being taken.

 

[DeletedUser101034]

Game Balancing

This is a discussion thread for the announcement here

While I understand your need to nerf, I think it is somewhat nasty to give a gift and then take 40% back. And that is only for the attacking Gbs. A massive 60% for defensive GBs is totally outrageous in fact it is preposterous to present such a tactic. There are 3 attacking GBs and only 2 defensive, we know how weak the defence is with the current 10%, with a weak AI, you are in fact making the weak, weaker thus creating a larger imbalance.
You nerf the power and not the size? and the cost in goods and FP? In doing so you also nerf the players desire to want to play. Maybe you should look at what you are doing in a different light, I will take your vehicles steering away, would you be happy? and there is a discussion? No
So although your intentions are to balance the game in actual fact it is becoming an unbalancing act or maybe that is your actual intention.
I am sure with enough forethought an alternative method could be found, or maybe a discussion with all the guild founders? I find your lack of discussion with founders and leading players could prevent many cost and time wasting nerfs and game changes.
as for your comments about a discussion thread, it seems that there is no discussion, you - Inno have decided to nerf and that's the way it will be , end of discussion. I am not aware of any consultation with any of the founders or leading players of your intentions so that we may respond prior to your announcement of the intended nerf of the Gbs.
Simple solution, nerf them all to 3% but have all 5 GBs for attack and defence, instead of having them separate.
I am hoping this will be of value to your future attempts of game imbalancing
Regards
Jax
Founder of Hellborn

 

[DeletedUser]

I read all the thread, it is useless WITHOUT proper formula in calculation.
May be it did't change anything , u still have to face 75% military boost defend army because u did't know the actual formula,
Maybe the reduction in GB power already exceed maximum boost allowed, only Inno stuff can answer further confusion.

 

[DeletedUser101034]

If attacking was so easy, why nerf defence GBs? Why unbalance the game when GvG can be fought with no advantage to either side ie no GBs

 

[DeletedUser]

they actually buffed defense GBs dramatically

 

[DeletedUser7719]

Actually, it did decrease (there was a statistic on the previous thread that was removed), but attacking GBs we nerfed more. If you include watchfires/monastery, however, defense does increase when it comes to hood battles

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually, it did decrease (there was a statistic on the previous thread that was removed), but attacking GBs we nerfed more. If you include watchfires/monastery, however, defense does increase when it comes to hood battles

sorry, I meant that this change makes it a lot easier to defend

 

[DeletedUser96695]

The defense boosts in gvg sectors are already to high. Currently the HQ sector has a 75% boost, and the rest have up to a 50% boost depending on the combined total of the guilds military GB boosts, based on some calculation i don't know. The defending armies must be defeated up to 80 times to take a sector. On the other hand the siege army with 0% boost has to be defeated only 10 times. Reducing the attack bonus by 40% will have little to no effect on how easily siege armies are wiped out in minutes, but make it that much harder to take a guild held sector. As far as i know in 2.5 months of Gvg no LMA, CA, IndA, or PE sector held by a guild has been attacked successfully. Decreasing attack boosts will only make it even harder.

Just took a fast look at gvg in beta. Currently of the about 200 sectors in each age there are 2 guild held sectors under attack in LMA, 1 in CA, 0 in IndA, and 0 in PE. Each of the sectors being attacked is a coastline sector likely begin attacked by a guild which has no sectors, and none are even remotely close to being taken.

yes, defense bonus is too high in GvG
but game developer make it more interesting

game develope rlower your attacking bonus (e.g. reduce zeus from 5% to 3% attack )
In past, when "zeus level + aachen level + del monte level" add up to level 10, u can have attack bonus 50% vs sector defense bonus 50%

now, u need "zeus level + aachen level + del monte level" add up to level 17, then u will have attack bonus 51% vs sector defense bonus 50%

This methods, also affect, our contentential map and hoods

the next amendment will affect our normal contential map and GvG contential map

That is i say
I rather they increase defense bonus of GvG sector leaving our nomal contential map and hoods un-touched
It is not a easy task for us to fight in our contential map and hoods, we need our GB attack bonus to help
But they lower it
I think it is the worst direction of amendment i ever seen in this game
they should keep GB attack bonus unchange, change in GvG sector, so it only affect GvG player
for those non-GvG player ( those w/o high level GB ) play comfortabley

 

[Surge]

Personally I think the attack GB's are as good as if they don't exist. Think about this for a moment: We'll have max attacks and max defense buildings, so that'll be 90%+ on 90%+. This doesn't change the damage values at all, so it's the same thing as if these GB's don't exist. The problem, however, presented is that you basically will win just because you have the GB in hand. It's analogous to medieval societal thinking, in the sense that, "Oh. You're a serf. You don't deserve an education because you're a filthy peasant." And then, "Oh, you're the son of the lord. Here, have my gold. Eat some caviar and relax yourself on the silk rug and rich everything..." It just doesn't seem all that fair that you're pretty much automatically giving someone the victory card just because they happen to have a great building that you don't happen to possess or is underleveled.

Also, I would really appreciate it if the devs actually said that your def. GB's will get a buff in defense in the future, because GvG was in the making for A WHOLE DARN YEAR! I deleted my Lv. 10 DC about a month ago, and now we're shooting flare guns up in the air celebrating that now, ONLY NOW, did we come up with a use for this GB. It was against my own belief to support someone elses Basil or DC because they were absolutely useless, unless you're looking for medals.

And yes, this is me discussing on how the system seems a tad bit unfair.

 

[DeletedUser15014]

There is a psychologic problem with the way this is being done. If you were to give something to people's GBs, like an attack bonus for St. B and Deal (say, 5%) and not take away anything from the other military GBs, people would be grateful.

But taking away ones GBs capabilities makes the player feel robbed. I'm sure there is a way to balance without taking away.

 

[DeletedUser]

just don't forget to rebalance the map as well
there were provinces with 100%+ boost. i had 80% at that time, which with the new balance would have been just 48%

 

[DeletedUser14576]

There is a psychologic problem with the way this is being done.

Right.

You are going to tell us that everything we know about GBs is going to change. But you don't tell us who it will balance out. No wonder Remorce closed the other thread when it reached 16 pages in 6 hrs! You just told EVERYONE that you are killing the sacred cow, that is GBs, no longer exists and offered no evidence of how this will balance out. It's like telling someone to leave their house and be homeless untill you tell us the who, what, and where!

No wonder people are freaking out. Did you not expect that?


You are really messing with players right now. Managers telling players that they should just quit if they don't like what going on!?!

Talking down to players? I pay you!!!! So lets not get it twisted here. Give us Army management filters before GvG. I mean HOW HARD can it be to add a filter????

I do admire all the people that make this happen. Cheers!!! But....

K.

 

[DeletedUser]

Managers telling players that they should just quit if they don't like what going on!?!

No way... Did that really happen?

 

[DeletedUser99705]

I will begin with an apology for going on a bit here but I have never posted to the forum nor do I spend much time here at all. Unfortunately, this latest action has me infuriated!

I never complained about being plundered by the stronger players when I started. I built myself up to withstand the attacks and timed my collections so I did not leave anything hanging out there to be taken.

I didn’t complain when you took me out of my hood where I grew to the point of competing for the top position. I went from top five or ten in the four worlds I play in to being the middle of the pack (or worse) amongst players far more advanced than I and who attacked mercilessly…with a few plundering regularly. I had one guy who didn’t even have one single production building in his city…he gains all goods from his GB’s and by plundering.

I didn’t complain when it took me about 15 attempts of trading two for one BP’s to acquire the Zeus on one of my worlds. It seems to me that after a certain amount of trades that the odds of getting the final BP should increase after trading over and over and over.

I have never complained about the advantage that diamond players gain over the rest of us for a very good reason. I don’t have the money to spend for diamonds, but I do not begrudge those who do. My philosophy on this is simple: this is a free game that I am not playing for…so someone has to. Complaining about the ones who make it possible for me to play…or any of the rest of us…would be ridiculous. If they get a slight advantage over me…so be it. If anyone has a problem with that…tell them that’s too bad and to get over it!

I can’t believe this is the solution you all have come up with to “balance” the game. It seems to me that a better solution would be to add another GB with a defensive bonus, giving us three offensive and three defensive. And if you were really interested in “balance” you would make them all provide us with a 10% attack and 10% defense bonus per level. The problem currently is that the offensive GB’s give 5/5 per level and the defensive GB’s give 10% only to defense and nothing for attack. If they all gave 10/10 it would solve the current disparity. Or…you could simply make the new changes apply only to GW bonuses.

My biggest problem with this move is that you are making some of the GB’s virtually worthless! First of all, since the very first announcement about the GW’s I have been preparing for it. I devoted 100’s upon 100’s of FP’s to the GB’s of others in an attempt to get them myself. I now feel like that was a complete waste of time. Second, now I have these huge GB’s taking up massive amounts of space in my city that you are now castrating. What is the incentive for others to donate to my GB’s now that they are going to be extremely weak? As the number of GB’s has increased, it has become more difficult to get others interested in donating. Now, that will be virtually impossible.

This is an awful, awful, awful idea and I sincerely hope that those in charge carefully reconsider this move. You keep adding these straws and it’s only a matter of time before they break the camel’s back. Seeing the GB’s I worked so hard to obtain and build up go from a 50% bonus to a 15% bonus is extremely discouraging and has me considering quitting the game.

I can only imagine how mad I would be if I had paid real money to gain the advantage from the GB’s only to have the rug pulled out from under me. You’re biting the hand that feeds you in my opinion since diamond players likely have the most to lose depending on how much they have invested in this game.

Please do not continue to dismiss our concerns by saying it is only coming from one person. It is quite obvious from the reactions here that these views are held by many. So many in fact that you deleted the thread and started over. 22 pages of responses in less than 24 hours? I think it is safe to say you have struck a nerve with this one. Besides, you are apparently making these changes to cater to a few whiny individuals complaining about being picked on. Forgive me if I do not shed a tear for them.

I know you are in a position of damned if you do, damned if you don’t…and people are going to complain either way. But I suggest you stop listening to those who are asking you to drastically change the game so they don’t get plundered as much. You have purposely made that a part of the game and changing the rules now is going to have a very negative effect on your otherwise incredible game. If you really want to appease them, discontinue the ability to plunder goods. That frustrates most people more so than having coins or production plundered.

I do not have much interest in the guild wars because of some of the reasons mentioned by others…such as minimal rewards. (Also because I do not have much time for battling lately.) Making a change this drastic for something that many players will not even participate in appears to be a very bad idea. Please reconsider!

 

[DeletedUser]

I really like how this changes PvP aspect of the game. Yes, some defences will be unbeatable, but who says you need to defeat 79 hood members on auto every day?
I don't like how this will effectively shut the majority of players out from GvG (at least in this bare bone state). Yes, it prevents players with maxed out castles to conquer GvG continent in a day, but also prevents most players to even attempt to compete. These bonuses can be balanced left and right there will never be right. IMO removing them completely for GvG and implementing guild wide att/def bonus tied to guild level instead would be a way to go. It would create an equal chance for all to compete right from the beginning.

 

[DeletedUser97045]

I'm telling you. InnoGames has started a war (between us, their customers, and Inno) and is not going to be easy for it to be won.
We shall release the dogs of war.
Let's fight for what we demand! For what was good! For what will affect most players! We have to take a stand and let them know we are not letting them get away with it!!
I salute you, Community Manager never to responde to this.
Good day.

P.S.: Well done Chappy!!!

 

[DeletedUser99263]

"9/10 non contributive posts"
"99% of that thread was not polite."

What a lie!
I'm appaled by the abusive removal of more than 15 pages of OPINIONS in 1 day!

Then, I repeat my opinion:

Very bad news about this GB balancing changes, "race to the bottom/levelling down".
Before, because of my good gestion & strategy, I can defeat troops of 2 ages above mine.
The same to my abilities to defend my village against this players who started the game several months before me.

Now, this is the time for old players and paying players to take their revenge... without honours!
Ironic bravo!


EDIT:
Very relevant comment Chappy!

 

[DeletedUser12086]

Thank you for the feedback so far. I would like to clarify one or two points.

Please understand that in order to allow military boost buildings to be used in GvG, they had to be rebalanced to provide a more even playing field. This is a better alternative than, for example, making the military boost useless in GvG. With attack buildings being so desirable for PvP, and with Guild versus Guild offering so many more PvP options than 'hood farming, it makes sense to allow them to be used in GvG, instead of restricting them to one-off battles.


A: GvG release is imminent, yes.
A: GvG will provide battle points.

 

[DeletedUser15372]

Will Zeus get a secondary bonus?

 

[DeletedUser]

Hi...

Is there any through explanation about how GvG works? Like a well lined explanation? I can only see some pictures and some explanations out of the context and i can't understand them...

I like the idea that Zeus could eventually get a 2nd bonus...