• 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 in to 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:
    Apply
  • Winter Event 2021


    It's Wintertime! Learn all about our Winter Event 2021 here!
  • Try out Guild Perks on Beta!


    Guild Perks is a brand-new feature in which your Guild must work together to unlock and activate Perks. Each of which carries its own tradeoff, and when used correctly, could turn the tide of battle! However, currently, the feature is still being shaped on Beta, and we need your ideas to help us do so! Please check out the full details here!
  • Forum Contests

    Do you want to win great prizes? Don't forget to check out the current contest here.
  • The Castle System is now open


    Kings and Queens, you now have your very own castle for your city. Learn all about our newest feature here!

GBG IS BROKEN

Paladiac the Pure

Lieutenant Colonel
One siege camp is a good idea but not realistic. More siege camps means more diamonds spent and profit for Inno which is perfectly fine. They need to make money to provide this service. A better solution would be changing the attrition system. Attrirtion increase should be based on the number of players in a guild similar to GE.
Absolutely a bad idea. Not everyone in a guild is going to be playing GbG, and some will play at the beginning of each restart, some at the end, some in the middle, and some play a bit here and there throughout the daily session. Your idea is just going to sabatoge those who do not participate at the start of each reset each day. Since attrition is 'player' based, not 'guild' based (as GE is). Last thing anyone wants, as problematic as GbG is right now, is more problems added to it.
If guilds do not truly belong in the Diamond league, then they should go back down a league that they can play in. They want to stubbornly refuse to play the league that they are able to play in, then they can stay in Diamond and just watch the other guild(s) continue to dominate the underpeforming and underserving guilds.
 

Emberguard

Legend
One siege camp is a good idea but not realistic. More siege camps means more diamonds spent and profit for Inno which is perfectly fine. They need to make money to provide this service. A better solution would be changing the attrition system. Attrirtion increase should be based on the number of players in a guild similar to GE.
GE bases the final score on relative work done by number of players, not the attrition. It’d be like adjusting the VP output or total advances to take the province based on guild size, not the actual attrition to take the province.
 

Pish1

Private
GE bases the final score on relative work done by number of players, not the attrition. It’d be like adjusting the VP output or total advances to take the province based on guild size, not the actual attrition to take the province.
GE bases the final score on relative work done by number of players, not the attrition. It’d be like adjusting the VP output or total advances to take the province based on guild size, not the actual attrition to take the province.
What is the difference?
Relative attrition would give smaller guilds a chance to participate, unless this GBG is suppose to be an exclusive club for members only.
 

Pish1

Private
Absolutely a bad idea. Not everyone in a guild is going to be playing GbG, and some will play at the beginning of each restart, some at the end, some in the middle, and some play a bit here and there throughout the daily session. Your idea is just going to sabatoge those who do not participate at the start of each reset each day. Since attrition is 'player' based, not 'guild' based (as GE is). Last thing anyone wants, as problematic as GbG is right now, is more problems added to it.
If guilds do not truly belong in the Diamond league, then they should go back down a league that they can play in. They want to stubbornly refuse to play the league that they are able to play in, then they can stay in Diamond and just watch the other guild(s) continue to dominate the underpeforming and underserving guilds.
Absolutely not, It doesn't matter when you play. For example a guild with 80 members get 10% attrition increase for each fight and a guild with 40 members get 5% attrition increase. I understand most people in super guild do not like this idea because that would interrupt the endless farming.
 

Paladiac the Pure

Lieutenant Colonel
Absolutely not, It doesn't matter when you play. For example a guild with 80 members get 10% attrition increase for each fight and a guild with 40 members get 5% attrition increase. I understand most people in super guild do not like this idea because that would interrupt the endless farming.
If you cannot compete, you do not belong. Drop down a league or two if you want to play. If you are unable to play, it is because you should not be there in the first place. No matter what happens, the 'super' guilds will always outmuscle the weak guilds. Whether they get double, triple or quadruple attrition. Those guilds have the players that have the GBs and other buildings that have 'superfied' their combat stats. Your whole 'idea' does not do anything except hurt other players, who are in bigger guilds, which is what makes it such a poor suggestion.
You do realize that some of these 'super' guilds as you like to call it, can even have just 5 or 10 players in them ... and some of the more open guilds, that permit less experienced players in their guilds can have 40, 50 or even 80 players in it. This is why your idea is so poor - it does nothing to stop the upper echelon of players, and just punishes those who are in larger guilds - active or not.
So, again, if you are not able to compete - the problem is not Inno or the GbG system, so much as the problem is that you are advanced in a league that you obviously do not belong in.
 

Emberguard

Legend
What is the difference?
Relative attrition would give smaller guilds a chance to participate, unless this GBG is suppose to be an exclusive club for members only.
It’s a gigantic difference. Relative attrition means guaranteed higher costs. Relative change in advances doesn’t automatically increase cost except in starting positions / no siege camp scenarios, only the total amount of effort required increases meaning races might be tighter even if the larger guild has more people online to fight

Relative changes in VP only means a bigger guild needs more provinces to get the upper hand (which is exactly the same as GE: more encounters needed to be completed on bigger guilds to match a smaller guilds efforts, but at the same difficulty as the smaller guild)

Still an unrealistic change given not everyone is online during each fight and we already have the leagues to pair guilds up against each other
 

Emberguard

Legend
You do realize that some of these 'super' guilds as you like to call it, can even have just 5 or 10 players in them ... and some of the more open guilds, that permit less experienced players in their guilds can have 40, 50 or even 80 players in it.
Yeah that’s the biggest problem with any ideas that scale GBG based on number of players while retaining leagues. It’d be very easy to rig the system by splitting into highly specialised small groups of players that are in the same age as each other. Something some groups already do to reduce treasury strain.
 

Vesiger

Monarch
The problem is not large guilds, or even strong guilds.
The problem is guilds being able to trade off sectors to one another with zero attrition.
 

Pish1

Private
It iss not about com
If you cannot compete, you do not belong. Drop down a league or two if you want to play. If you are unable to play, it is because you should not be there in the first place. No matter what happens, the 'super' guilds will always outmuscle the weak guilds. Whether they get double, triple or quadruple attrition. Those guilds have the players that have the GBs and other buildings that have 'superfied' their combat stats. Your whole 'idea' does not do anything except hurt other players, who are in bigger guilds, which is what makes it such a poor suggestion.
You do realize that some of these 'super' guilds as you like to call it, can even have just 5 or 10 players in them ... and some of the more open guilds, that permit less experienced players in their guilds can have 40, 50 or even 80 players in it. This is why your idea is so poor - it does nothing to stop the upper echelon of players, and just punishes those who are in larger guilds - active or not.
So, again, if you are not able to compete - the problem is not Inno or the GbG system, so much as the problem is that you are advanced in a league that you obviously do not belong in.
If the super guild can outmuscle the smaller ones then there is no problem with changing the system. Yes, my idea will interrupt the farming which would be a great step forward.
 

Pish1

Private
The problem is not large guilds, or even strong guilds.
The problem is guilds being able to trade off sectors to one another with zero attrition.
This is very true. The game is not flawed or needs modifying just because the weak cannot compete with the strong.
40 against 160 is a very nice competition especially when they team up and trade sectors. There is no competition here it is trading sectors and farming
 

Paladiac the Pure

Lieutenant Colonel
It iss not about com

If the super guild can outmuscle the smaller ones then there is no problem with changing the system. Yes, my idea will interrupt the farming which would be a great step forward.
Your 'idea' will not interrupt the farming system at all. The only thing it will do is punish the guilds that have more members in them. Maybe you need to first understand the game before you come up with such a foolish idea.
 
".... If guilds do not truly belong in the Diamond league, then they should go back down a league that they can play in. They want to stubbornly refuse to play the league that they are able to play in, then they can stay in Diamond and just watch the other guild(s) continue to dominate the underpeforming and underserving guilds.
That's a ridiculous statement, as guilds don't choose their league, they are promoted or relegated based on performance. We are a guild of 11 that dominates platinum so we get promoted to Diamond to face the giant bully guilds who checkerboard the map and swap every 4 hours. We do what we can but are in no position to compete against their sheer numbers of players. Not even sure why they call it Guild Battle Grounds, it should be Large Guild Farming Grounds or 2 Guilds Swapping Grounds.
I don't understand Inno's logic of allowing small guilds to face large guilds in GbG, yet don't match us up against them in GE, why? because it's not fair to them as we can finish and win alot easier? A bit biased isn't it?
I think they should either run GbG like they do GE, based on relative Guild size or their needs to be another tier in between Diamond and Platinum. As it stands now it's not working.
 

Paladiac the Pure

Lieutenant Colonel
That's a ridiculous statement, as guilds don't choose their league, they are promoted or relegated based on performance. We are a guild of 11 that dominates platinum so we get promoted to Diamond to face the giant bully guilds who checkerboard the map and swap every 4 hours. We do what we can but are in no position to compete against their sheer numbers of players. Not even sure why they call it Guild Battle Grounds, it should be Large Guild Farming Grounds or 2 Guilds Swapping Grounds.
I don't understand Inno's logic of allowing small guilds to face large guilds in GbG, yet don't match us up against them in GE, why? because it's not fair to them as we can finish and win alot easier? A bit biased isn't it?
I think they should either run GbG like they do GE, based on relative Guild size or their needs to be another tier in between Diamond and Platinum. As it stands now it's not working.
So, your arguement is because you dominated Platinum, it is not fair that you in turn are getting dominated in Diamond? If you do not belong, you certainly can CHOOSE (or have the choice made for you for the other dominant guilds) to lose enough VP so you are demoted back down a league - where then it is apparently completely acceptable for you to dominate again.
There are guilds of less than 10 players that can control the map in Diamond, and even some single player guilds that can control the map.
If you do not belong - you do not belong. A very simple concept. Just because you do not like it, does not mean you should be allowed in it. The game gave you the opportunity with a promotion, and it is your own guild's problem that you/they have discovered that the promotion was too much for you. So just choose to go back down to where you can play. Don't play the game because you cannot play it. Learn, adapt, or leave. You have so many choices - just because you may not like the choices, does not mean that there are not choices.
 
That's not my argument at all, you've totally missed the point. No you don't CHOOSE, you end up in a cycle of relegation and promotion, and we don't have the choice of refusing a promotion.

As for your other comment/baseless claim, I have yet to see any guild of 10 or less dominate in Diamond, let alone a single player, that is utter nonsense. A guild of 10 or so players cannot out race a large guild for a sector, let alone a single player. I haven't even seen a single player dominate Platimun. Not sure what World you're in, but that would NEVER happen in the one I'm in.

"Don't play the game because you cannot play it. Learn, adapt, or leave." Not even going to respond to this nonsense.
 

Andrew420

Major
We are a guild of 11 that dominates platinum
How are you able to dominate platinum yet cant fight in diamond
What size are the guilds you face in platinum I doubt they are all only 11 players
Or are all the guilds in platinum league only allowed to be 11 or less members

don't understand Inno's logic of allowing small guilds to face large guilds in GbG,
you answered your own question in your 1st sentence
they are promoted or relegated based on performance.
 

r21r

Major-General
Are you suggesting an idea that Innogames implement a nerf of siege camps? :P
nope, they just need to fix the flawed formyla

This is very true. The game is not flawed or needs modifying just because the weak cannot compete with the strong.
then why we have 5 different leagues ? if the weak should be with the strong, let them be 7 weak + 1 strong, so the strong not farms -- and not 7 strong with 1 weak, so the "less" strong remains in diamond ?
 

r21r

Major-General
On the world i play this round, we have 2 maps filled with "top" guilds (but sadly some weaker with them aswell)
if anyone is reading, it brings balance, they cannot "abuse" as the map is overcrowded , and nobody can solo it, keep going on that direction, just stop pulling up weak guilds, you only give advantage to the "lucky" ones
 

Paladiac the Pure

Lieutenant Colonel
Care to elaborate on exactly how you CHOOSE that? What if other guilds CHOOSE to do the same? Sort of a race to the bottom, isn't it?
If CHOOSing to lose as badly as you can is a good strategy, doesn't that suggest that the problem might be with the game, not with the players?
No, the problem remains with the players and the guilds, not with the game. The fact that you are so blind to it is proof in itself that players, like you, are unable to understand how it works - or how to work it.
And so what if other players/guilds CHOOSE to do the same? You cannot have what you want all the time - you get what you get. One battlefield is too tough to participate in, then accept the loss, choose to get yourself demoted or not - regardless of what you CHOOSE, the next battlefield will be a different mix of guilds/teams (now that the wierd matchmaking system via Guild ID#) and the next battlefield either will be one you can choose to participate fully or not in.
 
How are you able to dominate platinum yet cant fight in diamond
What size are the guilds you face in platinum I doubt they are all only 11 players
Or are all the guilds in platinum league only allowed to be 11 or less members
There is no guild size limitation. We find there are larger guilds in Platinum, but generally are filled with weak/low era players who either don't participate or can only do a limited number of fights/negs so it's basically 2-5 strong players. We are 11 strong players who can fight/neg to 75+ attrition, I myself go over 100 attrition daily. We do occasionally face stronger guilds in Platinum, but not to the point we can't compete, we just finish 2nd in those cases and still get promoted back to Diamond.
We have finished 4th in diamond the past 2 seasons and currently 4th now, but it's just from 4th ring sectors and taking the odd 3rd ring when we catch the bullies napping. We just aren't able to race these larger guilds when they have more online than we do, so uncompetitive.
 
Last edited: