New Idea: GBG minimum attrition increase to 40%

[Agent327]

Anything I might suggest is for the intended benefit of all and this thread is about attrition, to everyone else it's clear that I posted an amended way of applying defense attrition so very much on the topic.

This thread is about minimum attrition increase to 40% and absolutely not about defending. There even is no such thing as defense attrition.

 

[Xeon of Camelot]

This thread is about minimum attrition increase to 40% and absolutely not about defending. There even is no such thing as defense attrition.

So you pick on me like a moderator which you are not, when all I was doing was responding to a defensive comment by Nidwin.
You are acting like a forum terrorist; you know a lot of posters here don't like you.
If you insist on being a moderator, do it in a fair way to make the community manager proud of you.

 

[Forwandert]

Don't get the impression Agent cares what CM thinks of them tbh.

 

[Agent327]

So you pick on me like a moderator which you are not, when all I was doing was responding to a defensive comment by Nidwin.

You did not respond to his comment. You responded to part of his comment. The part that suited you best to bring up your defensive troops again. His comment was about large guilds and isn't your idea supposed to help small guilds? Your commewnt has nothing to do with the OP, can not be voted on and is only leading the discussion away from the OP. You have already started a topic on defensive troops. Don't polute others with it.

 

[Xeon of Camelot]

your moderator posts are even more worthless to the thread, get a life agent.

 

[thelegend88]

You do understand that change will apply to you too, you will also get increased attrition. Or you just do not care because you are not doing any GBG anways so you just want to spoil it for everyone else?

Small guilds are now cornered because of how rankings work, to win championships you need VPs and they accumulate over seasons during one championship. And to get VPs you need to possess as many sectors as possible which makes those, as you call them top teams, take as many as they can. That is how devs made it, not those guilds.

 

[jorroalbg]

I do gbg regularly, but I'm getting bored of the long time zombie clicking needed to actually compete. Therefore is my suggestion to cut it in half.
And small guilds will actually benefit from that, as it will be no longer possible for larger guilds to swipe the maps every 4 hours - they would need double the attrition capability they need to do so now. Therefore smaller guilds will have way better chances to go out of the base and do fights and VP.
The point is that currently the competition is mostly depending on how many players in a guild are ready to sacrafice 45-90 min. solely into boring clicking. While reducing the fights in half will make it less dependant on time spent, and more dependant on tactics, strategy and players cities sthrenght in terms of Attack and Defense. Therefore making it more interesting.

 

[Agent327]

I do gbg regularly, but I'm getting bored of the long time zombie clicking needed to actually compete.

If you get bored the easy solution would be that you quit doing it. Not having Inno make changes.

And small guilds will actually benefit from that, as it will be no longer possible for larger guilds to swipe the maps every 4 hours - they would need double the attrition capability they need to do so now.

To start with they do not need to double the attrition capability, cause the change would only be 20%. Furthermore this applies to everybody, not just the larger strong guilds. Even with 60% chance of not getting attrition those large strong guilds will have no problem taking the map. For the small guilds however it will be harder to fight back. You are making it harder for everyone. For the strong that will be not that big a problem. For the weaker however it will be a big problem. They will reach their max attrition with less fights, so how are they supposed to benefit?

 

[NoblePaul17]

I keep seeing people complaining that small guilds need the most help as the big guilds , which have in all essence put in the time to get that size, are boxing in the small guilds to there HQ's in GbG, being bullies, not allowing the small guilds to play.
So just to make sure that I understand, .... What actually constitutes a small guild,
Is it the actual number of members within the guild.
Is it the size of the members that make up that guild
Is it that the membership has a majority of low era membership
I play on 3 worlds,
My main world I'm in one of the top guilds, we have some of the highest ranking players, we play the game for all it is, often battleing each other so as to get our max attrition, here I often see guilds that cant even be bothered to play, and its in our intrest that they do, if they play we get to retake there sectors and thus increase our attrition and gain greater rewards.
My 2nd world I am in a more relaxed less membership guild, thats only got a few with over 1billion PP, here we at times get knocked back to our HQ by bigger guilds, we sure as hell dont moan about it, we fight harder.
my 3rd world, well its not played that much i'm in a guild where there's only 2 of us and i'm the only one playing , yet I often beat guilds with many members, go figure ??.
So the question is what constitutes a small guild, and why in the hell should they be given so much credence , just because they are smaller than the big guilds.

 

[Forwandert]

I don't think it is as such a big or small guild thing, you're right you can have gbgs where you're up against guilds with many more players and have a decent run at gbg against them.

I think the whole large guild scenario these days relates to the few guilds on every server that everyone that hardcore wants to play gbg 24/7 has migrated too throughout the years. Plenty of guilds put time and effort into creating large guilds before gbg even started and due to gbg and this constant obsession with merging to try and keep up so many great guilds and communities within declined.

The ones you go FFS whenever the map opens up at the start of gbg, they're on the list and you know playing that round is borderline pointless and a waste of goods if you build anything. Hitting the same 4 sectors for the entirety gets very boring fast.

Some guilds want to play gbg regularly but wont be online 24/7 and tend to have good decent rounds in lower dia, fairly decent battles all round. You can match against the exact same guilds in the rounds with a gbg hardcore guild added and they just don't bother playing or hardly play. It's actually interesting to watch guilds you had a battle with a season or 2 before just not play and then a few weeks in lower be back to fighting again. It's much easier to ignore the round with the hardcore guild in, drop down a little and actually have a fun round later where you feel a little progression in the round.

It's not so much even a balancing issue on size anymore and it's actually way too late to do anything about it. I doubt inno would even want to do anything about it, the guilds are a huge amount of dia being spent each season if they get a little competition so it's not even in Innos interests to do anything, if they could, which they can't. They sat on their hands for 5 years and watched it happen.

 

[Xeon of Camelot]

It's not a good argument to say Inno is only interested in making diamonds so they should do nothing.
It's also a fact that GbG is designed for larger guilds so threads like this will always get voted down because they don't want anything to decrease their chance of winning, especially by a smaller guild so the brain-dead boring click-fest continues...
Inno wants to do something, but it's still unclear if they will do enough to fix it.

 

[Forwandert]

It's not a good argument to say Inno is only interested in making diamonds so they should do nothing.

Who said they shouldn't? I said they wouldn't, huge difference. They have had years to do something and done nothing about it. Reducing daily fights with the attrition adjustments did nothing to solve what constantly gets complained about.

There is no fix when players have different play styles, different directions and outside factors like RL. There will always be guilds that focus more on gbg doing better at it. If they reduce attrition more the guilds that focus on it will still have a max guild where everybody is using attrition up everyday and other guilds where not everybody can/will everyday and less players.

 

[Xeon of Camelot]

Wasn't referring to you but you are right Forwandert, many don't like battles at all, there is a rumor Inno is working on something like GvG for 2025 but I don't personally believe it as it would be very hard to it make work on a mobile. In the meantime, there are ways to improve GbG, perhaps they will surprise everybody by doing it.

 

[Forwandert]

What would another gvg accomplish though? most of the mechanic would be the same repetitive actions as gbg. People are getting bored of that. They need to cherry pick the parts that people liked and incorporate into gbg.

I'd be surprised if that's not what the planned added defence is. Simply having a def level shouldn't have taken this long to develop, I'd also consider it a lazy option with no inspiration to simply add a def only gbg level.

 

[MOD86]

Hello,

I would like to post that idea, as I've already received plenty of positive feedback on it from other players.

Proposal:
GBG minimum attrition limit to be increased to 40% from the present minimum 20%. Said otherwise maximum attrition support limit should be lowered to 60% from the present 80% from attrition support buildings.

Reason:
All players are targeting to improve their cities, which naturally should lead to better performance in gbg and more rewards out of it. However to actually utilize players cities strength into gbg the player needs to also spend more and more time on mechanical and boring clicking auto battles. The increase in the gbg attack and defense features of all buildings introduced in the game recent 1-2 years led to substantial increase of maximum attrition that the majority of player may reach in gbg. Currently many advanced players may easily reach to 200-250 attrition, and intermediate players may still get to above 150 attrition. With an average 3.5 sec. /per auto battle fully utilizing your city strength capable to reach 200 attrition at maximum support results in 1000 fights per day, or over 1 hour auto battling net. In practice, by including the time for targeting sectors, waiting for another sector and other gbg-related activities in practice it requires over 1.5 hours per day at minimum. And that's mostly mechanical and boring clicking.
1.5 hours for gbg only is too much, there are also GE, QI, Continental Map and the Events which are also quite time consuming. Most of the FoE players are grown people with families, jobs and responsibilities, and these are the same players who are capable to spend money and finance the game. And an average player can't spend that much time in the game. So if players don't do that, then basically they don't utilize the strength of their cities, and lose motivation to improve them. Therefore comes some demotivation to play the game at all, or at minimum lack of motivation for getting better buildings as rewards from all game features, and spend money for them (why would you, if you're either way not having that much time to autobattle in gbg to make use of it?).

Details:
So by reducing the max. attrition support limit to 60%, i.e. increasing the minimum attrition to be suffered to 40% you would half the maximum number of battles all players may do in gbg, and correspondingly the time needed to utilize the strength of players cities in half. That's reducing in half the boring mechanical auto battle which every player is doing now. This should result in easier utilization of each player city strength, and higher motivation to actually improve it. Also easier to show it in gbg competition.
This would also slower the gbg dynamic as it is now, and will make the competition more dependent on tactics and strategies, rather than how many hours players spend on boring clicking. Even more, by slowing the dynamics on the map will allow more players from larger guilds who are not able to log in 10 times per day to actually have access to battles on the map.

Visual Aids:

Balance:
Rewards. To balance the rewards each player is currently capable to get out of gbg you should actually double the rewards. I.e. reaching 200 attrition at max. 80% support now with 1000 fights net rewards should be now accessible with 200 attrition at max. 60% support with 500 fights.
GBG buildings. That will lead to less gbg buildings needed to be build on the map to get the maximum 60% attrition support. To balance the guilds goods spent for the lower number of needed buildings (from attrition perspective), you should increase the buildings costs with somewhat of about 30% or so.

Abuse Prevention:
N/A.

Summary:
I know many players which lost love in the game because of the longer and longer time needed to spend in the game in order to maintain competitive. This is one way to substantially reduce one boring part of it, and reduce the risk of losing more players.

You want to play less, good for you, just play less! Why do you want to spoil it for the rest of us that want to play more!?

 

[Agent327]

It's also a fact that GbG is designed for larger guilds so threads like this will always get voted down because they don't want anything to decrease their chance of winning, especially by a smaller guild so the brain-dead boring click-fest continues...

You just don't get it do you? Can you tell who is voting this down? Did you look up what Guilds they are in?

Threads like this do not get voted down because players don't want anything to decrease their chance of winning. They get voted down because they are just not good. It actually is the other way around. Players that come up with a suggestion bring in their guildmembers to vote it up. We all know who is doing that.

Players that vote down an idea do so, because they understand how bad it is. They do not bring in help to support them.

 

[Xeon of Camelot]

Did you look up what Guilds they are in?

No, did you?

Players that vote down an idea do so, because they understand how bad it is.

Tell us Agent; what GbG ideas have you voted up for? You seem to spend a lot of time being critical of others but not having any of your own.

 

[Agent327]

No, did you?

I don't have to. I am not making any statements about who is voting down ideas like this. Does this mean you are admitting that what you are saying is totrally unfounded?

Tell us Agent; what GbG ideas have you voted up for?

The good and useful ones.

You seem to spend a lot of time being critical of others but not having any of your own.

Since when are you obliged to first post some ideas of your own to be able to judge those of others?

 

[Xeon of Camelot]

Does this mean you are admitting that what you are saying is totrally unfounded?

No, it's only you who think that lol

The good and useful ones.

Examples?

Since when are you obliged to first post some ideas of your own to be able to judge those of others?

You are not but to get some forum street-cred it's best you explain why an idea is bad and propose a better one if you can.

I supported the ops idea for at least 20% attrition knowing it was going to get voted down because lots of players in large winning guilds will not support any idea that would make it harder to win. Not so hard to understand agent

 

[Forwandert]

I supported the ops idea for at least 20% attrition knowing it was going to get voted down because lots of players in large winning guilds will not support any idea that would make it harder to win. Not so hard to understand agent

It would just reduce gameplay, the result would be the same just with less fights. That's mainly why people that play gbg actively would downvote. It's not a balancing idea. Just reduction of play idea.