potatoskunk
Master Corporal
Yeah, I think every guild is different. We see a lot of teamwork too, but we also see a lot more enthusiasm about the zero-attrition sectors than those with higher attrition.
-
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
DESYPETE
Lieutenant
i would suggest a couple of thngs that might help gbg become a bit more of a serious addition.
1. remove the auto battle feature and force players to have to work for there points doing manual fights, ( lets see how good they really are ? )
2. remove sc support will also make the game more playable and cut down on the game fiddling that we all know goes on.
3. bring in goods costs to be able to attack sectors which increase the more sectors you have ? like in gvg
1. remove the auto battle feature and force players to have to work for there points doing manual fights, ( lets see how good they really are ? )
2. remove sc support will also make the game more playable and cut down on the game fiddling that we all know goes on.
3. bring in goods costs to be able to attack sectors which increase the more sectors you have ? like in gvg
Emberguard
Legend
Oh no..... 160 battles on manual!?
klods hans
Tsar
Say, 1 minute per manual battle, that's only 2h + 40m for 160 battles.
If you are really fast though and can do a manual battle in 10-15 sec, it's only about 25-30 minutes for 160 battles
With 10 really fast manual fighters, 16 battles each, you could take a province in maybe 2-3 minutes.
On average though, if you don't have 10 really fast manual fighters available, but maybe only 2-3 semi-fast manual fighters, and you have to change units a few times, and attrition is going up because SC's are not an option, you would need maybe 10-15 minutes to take a province.
I wouldn't make a big difference though. The strong fighter guilds would still dominate the map and squeeze the weaklings.
Last edited:
Emberguard
Legend
Oh totally. But it'd destroy those in the lower leagues who barely make the minimum 40 advances on auto
Also can we go into the battle, press auto and results?
Also can we go into the battle, press auto and results?
klods hans
Tsar
Full manual all the way through, I guess, the suggestion is.
Emberguard
Legend
RIP all side worlds
potatoskunk
Master Corporal
The game as a whole is (intentionally) a time sink, which is my least favourite part of the game. GbG is a big part of it. Eliminating auto-battle would make that much, much worse. Terrible idea.
TheKingOfKool
General
Agreed, That's something I suggested many moons ago on another thread( GbG content).
I called it The Diamond League Champions of Champions ► This league would be the best of the best from ALL Servers competing in a single league group.
To hold it - You must rank: Show, Place, Win - all other slots force a drop back to the "in world" Standard Leagues.
r21r
Major-General
just put Rogues in the Defence Armies..
thats a reasonable idea !
Xeon of Camelot
Major
Here is my penny's worth: once you know how the sectors are defended, very important to follow your leader and use guild co-ordination. Do not attack a sector that breaks the chain. Lots of strategies involved including timing, GBG is a very good addition to the game. GJ Inno!
DESYPETE
Lieutenant
but thats the point who in there right mind is going to even try to do that many fights in manual ? answer, only the best fighters around would be determind enough, all those who enjoy racking up 1000s of fights thanks to sc and auto battle would soon give up and go back to farming lol
klods hans
Tsar
They may not be able to do 1000s of fights, but they will surely not give up, and they will still perform a lot better than the weaker players. It wouldn't change anything other than the overall amount of fights from all players would drop. Strong, active fighters win, weak slackers lose, no matter what the conditions of the battles are.
Last edited:
DESYPETE
Lieutenant
well i think it would pan out like this, if you did 100 fights i would try to do 110 if you did 300 fights i would not stop till i did 400, someone will have to give in or get worn down, that is the art of fighting in this game, not sitting in gvg racking up 1000s of points with self filled sectors, or controling gbg with sc support to amass 100s of fps and points on auto battle and of course keeping the other players out of it, not by any kind of skill i might add but by being able to manipulate the maps, if anyone wants to a real honest fight then i dont see the problem the only ones who cry are those who know they would lose all there easy pickings and there not going to be happy about that, the very idea of a fair fight is not in there make up.
Emberguard
Legend
If someone has the time and motivation already to do thousands of fights then they’re already going to hold out longer than most.
Honest fight is fine. But if it’s manual then the amount of advances needed should reflect the time taken for that
Honest fight is fine. But if it’s manual then the amount of advances needed should reflect the time taken for that
Madmire
Private
I think forcing manual combat is a bit drastic, the real problem is the developers added a 'governor' to prevent runaway battling with the attrition system, then promptly broke it with the current Siege Camp mechanic. At the same time they managed to make most other buildings relatively unimportant by making SC's so very very important. The problem with siege camps is their effect is exponential rather than linear.
I'll use a player who would normally do 100 battles (100 attrition) to keep the math straightforward.
1 siege camp allows 131 battles (+31 extra battkes)
2 siege camps allows 192 battles (+92 extra battles)
3 siege camps allows 357 battles (+257 extra battles)
4 siege camps allows 2500 battles (+2400 extra battles)
5+ siege camps allows infinite battles
The effect of MULTIPLE siege camps should be drastically decreased:
1 siege camp =24% (131 battles)
2 siege camp = 38% (162 battles)
3 siege camp = 48% (193 battles)
4 siege camp = 55% (224 battles)
5 siege camps = 61% (255 battles)
and so on.
The idea behind this is to change the siege camp effect to a linear effect. Each siege camp will effectively stretch the number of battles you can do by 31%.
I'll use a player who would normally do 100 battles (100 attrition) to keep the math straightforward.
1 siege camp allows 131 battles (+31 extra battkes)
2 siege camps allows 192 battles (+92 extra battles)
3 siege camps allows 357 battles (+257 extra battles)
4 siege camps allows 2500 battles (+2400 extra battles)
5+ siege camps allows infinite battles
The effect of MULTIPLE siege camps should be drastically decreased:
1 siege camp =24% (131 battles)
2 siege camp = 38% (162 battles)
3 siege camp = 48% (193 battles)
4 siege camp = 55% (224 battles)
5 siege camps = 61% (255 battles)
and so on.
The idea behind this is to change the siege camp effect to a linear effect. Each siege camp will effectively stretch the number of battles you can do by 31%.
DESYPETE
Lieutenant
i like your thinking good idea i must say, i know forcing manual fights would be so drastic i only pointed that out as an option as i know so well how the other players would react, lol the very idea of manual fighting would kill there game off, but also it just shows how silly its all getting with the auto button going into overdrive,
i just wonder if the game should get rid of the attrition that way all players can fight all day long if they wish ? no need for sc just make it a free for all then at least no one can be accused of rigging the system and players might be able to pull of good wins against the odds ?
Ceban
Brigadier-General
perfect idea, great sugestion, and i think they should remove shields from sectors, you can take it back instantly after you lose it, default bonus of enemy armies should be -50% cause its shame that we must swap wounded troops every 10 battles, that is simply to much job... i think that is best solution... how i didnt got that idea...
potatoskunk
Master Corporal
Getting rid of or nerfing SCs would actually favour the big guilds even more. The biggest guilds can run over the entire map without building SCs, since they have so many high-level players that can fight until extremely high levels of attrition. The only way smaller guilds can compete is through the use of SCs. If you're a smaller guild with a small number of high-level players and/or a larger number of lower-level players, SCs let you compete with the big boys on a more even footing if you get your tactics right.