GB balancing changes - discussion thread

[DeletedUser12153]

Yes defense gb's needed an adjustment as the lack of an attacking bonus made them rather crappy and i'm pretty sure that if you would have changed them from 0/10 per level to 5/5 per level and left the attacking gb's unchanged noone would have complained about it. I'm pretty sure people would have even appreciated such a change. However by nerfing the gb's by 40% of their value combined with the unchanged value of the monastery and watchfires the defenders advantage appears to become rather big. Attacking an entire neighbourhood is gonna take ages as it's probably not a good idea anymore to autoattack with the stupidity of the ai. And i'm pretty sure most of the very active pvpers won't appreciate having to spend 5 times as much time on reaching the same amount of tower points they get now.
If you want to have the gb's have less effect on gvg why not make them 50% effective in gvg or disable their bonus completely so it's a fair battle where all guilds have an equal chance so it becomes a matter of skill instead of who has the biggest gb boost. Yes there might be a chance that people complain about it but isn't gvg more fun for everyone if everyone fights under the same conditions.

 

[DeletedUser6872]

Quess were going of topic again.... But i remain with my opinion that this is the worst 'improvment' ever! Now it will be impossible to defeat the players with all those watchtowers......

 

[DeletedUser99218]

or each GB with two boosts, we have for example, the two boosts adding up to 100%
so if 60% is military boost, then the other 40% is coins for example
if a new value for military boost is 55%, then coins would be increased respectively to 45% of the 100% total value.

I may be quite wrong, since I've not seen the original context of this statement (as opposed to its quotation more than once in this thread), but I strongly suspect it does not mean what many people seem to be taking it to mean. At the very least, the meaning strikes me as ambiguous.

What I think it probably means is that someone who previously considered the coin boost from a Cathedral of Aachen to be 40% of its value might now consider the very same coin boost to be 45% of its value, since the military boost has been reduced. This is like saying that if someone had been giving you 60 oranges and 40 apples a day, and then reduced it to 50 oranges and 40 apples, the apples would then constitute a higher proportion (in this case 44.44% instead of 40%) of the fruit you were being given. This is not the same as saying you are going to be given to be more apples to compensate for the reduction in the number of oranges.

Quite apart from the fact that this seems to me to be the most natural reading of the words quoted, it is hard to see how the putative compensation would work for GBs other than the Cathedral of Aachen. As has been pointed out, the Statue of Zeus has no other benefit to boost, and a fractional boost to the number of FPs a Castel del Monte gives out is a little hard to imagine (although it could conceivably give out one extra FP at higher levels).

Does anyone know if this interpretation is incorrect?

 

[DeletedUser7719]

Kinda of, but I'm pretty sure if a EMA GB is worth 100%, the coin bonus does factor to a specific part of that percentage, so you would subtract that from 100% and there's your military bonus percentage, now multiply that by 2/5 and that would be the percentage that will be added unto the coin bonus again if I'm understanding this correctly.

 

[DeletedUser96901]

if you ask the people who build the cathedrale of aachen all would say they build it 100% because of the attack bonus and 0% because of the coins

would be interesting how InnoGames define the percentage of attack bonus and coins when both added together is 100%

and one changed building is the Castel del Monte:
I like increasing the second bonus: more daily FPs

 

[DeletedUser99218]

Kinda of, but I'm pretty sure if a EMA GB is worth 100%, the coin bonus does factor to a specific part of that percentage, so you would subtract that from 100% and there's your military bonus percentage, now multiply that by 2/5 and that would be the percentage that will be added unto the coin bonus again if I'm understanding this correctly.

Yes, I think that's precisely how the quote I tried to analyse has been understood, but I'm not at all sure that's what it actually means. I think it could well mean that precisely the same coin bonus constitutes a higher proportion of the (now smaller) whole once the attack bonus has been reduced, not that the coin bonus is going to be increased to compensate (but I'm in danger of simply repeating myself).

A level 1 Castel del Monte gives 1 FP per day. Surely the 40% reduction in 5/5 attack bonus to 3/3 is not going to be compensated by increasing this to 1.4 FPs a day!

 

[DeletedUser15432]

It still appears that the original questions asked in the first (deleted, cleaned and reinstated) thread have not been answered

Viz: - will those players who have spent considerable effort getting there offensive great buildings to maximum level be compensated for the reduction of 40% in the effectiveness of the great buildings
Viz: - why was this not tried on beta first
Viz: - would it not have been more effective to just add a 3% defence boost to each of the levels of the defensive great buildings
Viz: - sector defence bonuses, in some case the map bonuses are as much as 125%, what will be done with regards to this

Useful information for all those who feel extremely strongly regarding this proposed revision to great buildings

Innogames Management - go to contact page and select "Customer Relations", direct your valid grievances to this address and maybe a change of position will be forthcoming

 

[DeletedUser96867]

I may be quite wrong, since I've not seen the original context of this statement (as opposed to its quotation more than once in this thread), but I strongly suspect it does not mean what many people seem to be taking it to mean. At the very least, the meaning strikes me as ambiguous. is that someone who previously considered the coin boost from a Cathedral of Aachen to be 40% of its value might now consider the very same

Does anyone know if this interpretation is incorrect?

How this came up in discussion is the different info in the GB change announcement between servers. The US server posted this in the announcement:

Applies to: St. Basil, Deal Castle
.......
For each building, the "second" bonus for the building will also be increased.


Applies to: Aachen Cathedral, Castel del Monte, Statue of Zeus
.......
Where the building has an additional bonus, this will also be increased.

I know that other servers are not supposed to be discussed here, but it seems the exact wording is important in this case.

 

[DeletedUser276]

It still appears that the original questions asked in the first (deleted, cleaned and reinstated) thread have not been answered

I have actually answered some of these in different points in the forum.

Viz: - will those players who have spent considerable effort getting there offensive great buildings to maximum level be compensated for the reduction of 40% in the effectiveness of the great buildings

No as I would have to go through each and every account on our servers to see who upgraded what and is at what level and then appoint the proper "compensation". The stats of the building remain the same type. The values are just altered.

Viz: - why was this not tried on beta first

I have answered this in many posts today. The beta server is for new coding and testing the coding interaction. Not the testing of existing coding. Players seem to think the Beta server is an actual play server and forget its a coding test server.

Viz: - would it not have been more effective to just add a 3% defence boost to each of the levels of the defensive great buildings

No as that will interfere with upcoming new updates with new content and again destabilize the balance to certain aspects to the game.

Viz: - sector defence bonuses, in some case the map bonuses are as much as 125%, what will be done with regards to this

Nothing as you can still defeat said sectors with a little planning and strategy.

 

[DeletedUser]

My concern is not that ' you can still defeat said sectors with a little planning and strategy'. That's the case now. So that's just a duck on the question. It's the fact that now you are going to lose 5-7 troops trying to take that sector as opposed to 1-2 before with good planning. The same applies to the PvP stuff. You may not have any offensive bonuses Remorce, and that's fine. You come around my city with no bonuses and your not going to be there very long. I'm not even sure you're going to kill off a unit before you are defeated. My issue is that with the new merges (which aren't all the great either) that I'm getting more and more lumped in with a group of players with high defensive bonuses. Thus I'm going to lose more troops than I already do to accomplish the same goal. And not just a 'few' more troops. Tons more. To the point where half of the players are not going to be worth attacking. We only have so many units in our cities. And no one really wants to lose the 'unattached' units because they are trying to save them up for this GvG launch that keeps being promised to us.

I was all for beefing up the defenders a little bit. I, too, got tired of of simply rolling through someone with a 328% defensive bonus with no losses on my part. But now that person will be untouchable. You are driving the game towards people simply beefing up there defenses so that no one will attack in the PvP anymore. Or if they do, it will be so costly, that a plunder is inevitable just to compensate for the losses one will surely take.

If FOE's intentions are to steer everyone away from PvP and towards GvG when it arrives just send out an announcement that that is what you want. Close down the attack feature for neighbors and be done with it.....

 

[Praeceptor]

Unbanned and unbowed.

Firstly, thank you to the Countess for her intervention and getting (most of) the previous thread reinstated.

I was all for beefing up the defenders a little bit. I, too, got tired of of simply rolling through someone with a 328% defensive bonus with no losses on my part. But now that person will be untouchable. You are driving the game towards people simply beefing up there defenses so that no one will attack in the PvP anymore. Or if they do, it will be so costly, that a plunder is inevitable just to compensate for the losses one will surely take.

I attack this same player every day, and although it is a challenge to win, it is still possible. With the upcoming changes it will be impossible - he has 27 watchtowers - I will stand no chance.

 

[DeletedUser15432]

With regards to battles, if the aim is to get people to fight battles manually, then something needs to be done to speed up the battle page, quite often it just hangs their for a couple of minutes so people tend to use the auto battle mode otherwise a player might manage a maximum of 12 early age battles in a 1 hour time frame of 3 later age battles due to the slowness of the battle screen

And with regards to being able to sweep through an entire hood in an hour, the only way that this would be possible is if the player had hundreds of units available and then they would still lose 1-2 units per engagement

 

[DeletedUser13082]

I think issues concerning the bad comments of the old thread should be left to lie now. That thread is now closed and there were bad mistakes on the part of staff and community which I assume was the reason for deletion to begin with. There is no point dragging those issues back into this thread as it will simply result in the same outcome. What happened there is done with. If there are questions from that thread that you feel was not answered then ask them again but there is no need to reignite the argument.

 

[DeletedUser12086]

Please refrain from any further discussion of moderation, avoid any further personal attacks, and stay on topic. As I stated earlier, I cleaned last night's thread and restored its visibility however as it is closed there need be no further discussion of it in the public forum.

 

[DeletedUser]

Why restore it then? If no one is allowed to comment on things discussed within it, it might as well not even be there, correct?

 

[DeletedUser12086]

There is no need for further discussion there as a new thread had (this one) has already taken its place as a central discussion point. One thread means less-confused communication.

The point of having it visible is that comments are preserved and posters have not wasted their time expressing their opinion to a black hole of deleted posts.

On a side note, I saw there are some other questions being posed, I will read this thread over in the morning and try to provide a few more responses to those.

 

[Praeceptor]

On a side note, I saw there are some other questions being posed, I will read this thread over in the morning and try to provide a few more responses to those.

Thank you Countess - most appreciated

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not sure it was ever answered, but why were the monastery and watchtowers not reduced in potency as well in this update? If this is all being done in the name of 'balance' then adding attack % to the defensive GB's should have been enough. And if you were going to nerf all the GB's, then add the attack %, why not nerf EVERYTHING associated with attacking/defending? It seems all that was accomplished (in regards to the PvP aspect which is all I am concerned about) is switching from an attack based format to a defensive based format. Now all the talk is going to be how the players that have bought towers over the course of the events have it too easy. It literally solves nothing. In fact it just creates a whole new set of complaints/issues.

 

[DeletedUser]

I've been getting messages regarding the procedure on how to report a moderator so I think I'll elaborate. If you feel that you've been mistreated or mocked or have problems with a particular moderator in any way, the forum policy is to conduct this through private messages. Obviously you don't send a message to the moderator in question since you already have a problem with him / her. But send a message to another moderator or community manager politely asking if he / she is the correct person to contact, and if not, then who would be appropriate to contact.

If nothing is done after that, then there is nothing you can do about it and just accept it. But if enough people puts pressure, maybe the person in charge will reconsider. This way, you do not run the risk of getting banned.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

I'm not sure it was ever answered, but why were the monastery and watchtowers not reduced in potency as well in this update? If this is all being done in the name of 'balance' then adding attack % to the defensive GB's should have been enough. And if you were going to nerf all the GB's, then add the attack %, why not nerf EVERYTHING associated with attacking/defending?

The way they want to put it is this way:
Before: GBs and other buildings only affect PvP
After: GBs loose 2/5's (well for attack, defense is different) of their worth from PvP and add GBs to Guild Wars. Other buildings have no change

Btw Pembar, I see you have repeated yourself quite a few times. I think one of the moderators/managers mentioned that posting the same thing over and over is considered spamming. If I were you, I would add a title to one of your posts and ask people to search for it by clicking on Advanced search and change "Search Entire Posts" to "Search Titles Only"