-
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:
GbG, good new addition to game or mockery full of flaws???
- Thread starter Ceban
- Start date
Ceban
Brigadier-General
http://prntscr.com/t68qnc
i know it aint a lot of battles since morning, 5 hours passed already and only 364 but it will be better when we set up map for exchanging...
i know it aint a lot of battles since morning, 5 hours passed already and only 364 but it will be better when we set up map for exchanging...
cyllan
Corporal
1-be in a better guild
2-fight more and you will get it too, dont nerf the game
3-people is tired of fighting always the same guild , when there is only 1 league it is always the top 6 every week....more leagues is better,
also it takes a long time to be logged in each day for the sieges.... it is time consuming.....
cyllan
Corporal
about time too....
have you seen the horrible soccer event.....? totally pay to win.......well we need the GBG diamonds
DESYPETE
Lieutenant
i will never call being a cheat being smart.
Powe
Brigadier-General
And I will never call being smart a cheat.
potatoskunk
Master Corporal
As currently implemented, the optimal strategy in GbG is to aim to finish in the top 3-4 spots with large numbers of low-attrition battles. Arrangements with the other guilds can make it better for everyone.
If it's changed to minimise the individual battle rewards and instead maximise the guild rewards and the place finishing rewards, it will be a totally different animal. Then the goal will be to win for the guild, rather than to fight lots of battles and maximise personal rewards.
Whether that would be a good change... I'm not sure. I think the personal rewards should be kept about the same, but a shift in focus from battle rewards to place finishing rewards might be OK.
If it's changed to minimise the individual battle rewards and instead maximise the guild rewards and the place finishing rewards, it will be a totally different animal. Then the goal will be to win for the guild, rather than to fight lots of battles and maximise personal rewards.
Whether that would be a good change... I'm not sure. I think the personal rewards should be kept about the same, but a shift in focus from battle rewards to place finishing rewards might be OK.
Ceban
Brigadier-General
you are totaly right, i gave few sugestions how to resolve it, if all my are bad i am more than happy to hear some others, on those ones like one who posted below you i wont waste time cause those are exploiters which cry and beg that GbG dont get changed... i hope something will change soon cause how it works now is insanity and good just for useless players who cant play for team and not good enough to contribute to guild... you can see which one are those, those which complain the most on my sugestions.
Knight of ICE
Anyone can give suggestions. You are not the one to determine what changes have to be made. Stop trying to insult others that do not see it your way.
potatoskunk
Master Corporal
I do get what you're talking about, though. When it's time for those zero-attrition battles, lots of people show up to farm those battle rewards. But when you have a high-attrition slog, nobody really wants to step forward. A change in emphasis from battle/negotiation rewards to place finishing rewards would change that.
It would also change the view of deleting supply camps and building traps. Right now, building traps is seen as aggressive or even toxic behaviour. You're limiting the number of battles people can fight, and therefore limiting the number of personal rewards they get. You are therefore slowing their city development. That's a bit of an unpleasant move. But if the emphasis of the rewards is not on the battles but on the guild's position at the end of the round, the trap is targeted at the guild rather than the individual, and is just part of helping your guild stay ahead.
One would need to figure out how to balance it properly, especially since it doesn't seem right for someone who doesn't participate in GbG to get the same reward as a fellow guild member who wins 500 battles, but a switch of emphasis on the rewards to being based on where your guild finishes in that round's ranking table might be interesting.
It would also change the view of deleting supply camps and building traps. Right now, building traps is seen as aggressive or even toxic behaviour. You're limiting the number of battles people can fight, and therefore limiting the number of personal rewards they get. You are therefore slowing their city development. That's a bit of an unpleasant move. But if the emphasis of the rewards is not on the battles but on the guild's position at the end of the round, the trap is targeted at the guild rather than the individual, and is just part of helping your guild stay ahead.
One would need to figure out how to balance it properly, especially since it doesn't seem right for someone who doesn't participate in GbG to get the same reward as a fellow guild member who wins 500 battles, but a switch of emphasis on the rewards to being based on where your guild finishes in that round's ranking table might be interesting.
klods hans
Tsar
Is it? And so what, if it is?
War is aggressive and toxic. Nothing wrong with building traps to limit your opponents.
potatoskunk
Master Corporal
I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong.
But a trap is targeted not just towards the guild, but very heavily towards the individual people that would be fighting through the attrition. That makes it personal in a way that something targeted towards the guild would be. You cost them personally FPs and other battle rewards.
If the rewards emphasis was changed to being based on the finishing position of the guild (say, you got a large number of FPs at the end of the round rather than in random packs from winning battles), then you would be expected to promote your own guild's position, and it would feel much less personal if you build a trap. The negative impact on me would also be much less direct. As a result, traps would not be seen as such a toxic, negative thing and would increasingly be seen as a legit tactic.
But a trap is targeted not just towards the guild, but very heavily towards the individual people that would be fighting through the attrition. That makes it personal in a way that something targeted towards the guild would be. You cost them personally FPs and other battle rewards.
If the rewards emphasis was changed to being based on the finishing position of the guild (say, you got a large number of FPs at the end of the round rather than in random packs from winning battles), then you would be expected to promote your own guild's position, and it would feel much less personal if you build a trap. The negative impact on me would also be much less direct. As a result, traps would not be seen as such a toxic, negative thing and would increasingly be seen as a legit tactic.
klods hans
Tsar
Nah, it's not personal. It's targeted towards attacking guilds as a whole. You don't know which guild members are fighting against the traps.
I don't see traps or any other defence buildings as a personal attack against me. Neither do I see it as "toxic". I just see it as a tactic the opponent uses as protection. It's my own choice if I want to attack the defence and increase my attrition or not. The enemy is building "a wall" around their "camp". I can attack it and get wounded, or I can leave it be and keep my strength. My choice. Nothing personal.
Last edited:
Emberguard
Legend
What do you think taking any province on the map is if not denying rewards to other guilds? This is a game. If you have to play the game for everyone else by making sure they don’t get hurt then the game ceases to exist. Nothing toxic about traps. You’re meant to defend your provinces from those you don’t want taking them
Powe
Brigadier-General
Like adding FPs and diamonds to the finishing rewards, removing them and SOH fragments from the rewards after battles and quadrupling the SOH finishing rewards.
potatoskunk
Master Corporal
The thing about traps, at least at the diamond level, is that they don't really protect your sector. They just inflict some pain on the guild members that push through the attrition to take the sector. Pretty much any diamond-level guild is capable of taking it anyway. At lower levels it may actually stop the guild, but not at diamond level.
At diamond level, you can't protect your sectors. You need to protect your presence in the middle by using strong holds, etc., so that your sectors don't all unlock at the same time. But protecting particular sectors is not possible; once they unlock, they're likely to be gone within half an hour and often less.
At diamond level, you can't protect your sectors. You need to protect your presence in the middle by using strong holds, etc., so that your sectors don't all unlock at the same time. But protecting particular sectors is not possible; once they unlock, they're likely to be gone within half an hour and often less.
Paladiac the Pure
Major-General
I find myself very much in agreement with Lugh. Although I have only been playing this particular game for 10 months, I have played other games, some in excess of 10 years, and there is always the constant whiners trying to find ways to make things easier and trying to convince everyone else that their point of view is best for everyone. This game (as with all) were designed by a group who had an idea what they wanted, and implemented it. There will be changes now and then, but I for one want to play the game the way it is - and not with all these constant changes that so many people keep suggesting (especially those people who create multiple accounts so they think they are convincing people that it is different players creating these *ideas*).
If people and players are not happy with the game - then leave. Find something else. Stop trying to change things - let the silent majority enjoy (at whichever level they enjoy) playing the game as it is - with slow changes by the developers.
So many threads constantly being created to whine and make suggestions to change. So frustrating. Getting almost to the point of leaving the forums and just playing the game as it is, so do not have to keep reading all these mostly foolish threads to change things.
If people and players are not happy with the game - then leave. Find something else. Stop trying to change things - let the silent majority enjoy (at whichever level they enjoy) playing the game as it is - with slow changes by the developers.
So many threads constantly being created to whine and make suggestions to change. So frustrating. Getting almost to the point of leaving the forums and just playing the game as it is, so do not have to keep reading all these mostly foolish threads to change things.
potatoskunk
Master Corporal
I'm not objecting to the way it is now; my city really benefits from the current implementation. I'm just suggesting a possible change that - if balanced correctly - might shift people's attitude to GbG towards a more team-focused view. If someone sees the current implementation as a problem, my idea might be a possible starting point for any suggested changes.
klods hans
Tsar
It's funny, because, in my experience, GBG has really brought the guild together and increased the teamwork. We do take advantage of the SC's, of course, and members go for personal rewards too. But all the personal rewards guild members get also help the guild; most fps are shared between guild GB's and most goods are traded within the guild. When guild members prosper, the guild does too,
Last edited: