New Content Guild Battlegrounds (concept)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lady Marlena

FoE Team
Community Manager
Here are my two cents about this new GBG feature:

1) Make the league feature be a server wide competition. If you limit it to be one world only then the same guilds will compete against each other every time and it will become boring very quick.

2) Attrition needs to have a gradual cooldown rather than a reset time, in order to prevent the well known reset time issues.

3) Negotiation need to be limited by a attrition-like system as well (make them more expensive for each one you win) or they will be balanced really poorly.

4) Please dont discontinue GvG - I know you claim that this is not the intended purpose, but I am a bit worried to be honest.

Other than that I am already really excited to play the new feature soon.

Thank you :) A number of players have noted the same, and they've been included as part of our player feedback.
 

xmen14

Private
how about increasing the amount of points for the ranking i do alot of gvg but seem to get little in points
 

Emberguard

Overlord
how about increasing the amount of points for the ranking i do alot of gvg but seem to get little in points
Which ages are you fighting in?

Given GBG will be current age of player the points should increase in comparison to GvG if you’re not already fighting your current age. Fighting points are determined by units faced. Increasing it one area would increase it in all areas unless they can code a modifier specifically for GvG. So the highest GvG points would be The Future hexes or NPC hexes in AA (or if a guild places something higher then future in a defence army - but most use stick men)
 
Last edited:

TheKingOfKool

Major-General
If they Kill GvG - They Kill this Game - Glad I stopped buying diamonds a couple years ago- of course it didn't take being clairvoyant to see where the game has been heading!
 

KDS-33

Corporal
they already stated a few times this won't be replacing GVG
They should get it run properly.
Then GvG needs higher rewards, not only for Guild but for player. Only 5% are playing it says. Give players for let's say 10 GvG fights one extra FP - you will see how many start early age/era to jump on the GvG train. Or goods rewards - hell, the game designers should crack their head not me.
But they seem to be instructed not to - what GvG concerns.
 

bradype

Emperor
They should get it run properly.
Then GvG needs higher rewards, not only for Guild but for player. Only 5% are playing it says. Give players for let's say 10 GvG fights one extra FP - you will see how many start early age/era to jump on the GvG train. Or goods rewards - hell, the game designers should crack their head not me.
But they seem to be instructed not to - what GvG concerns.
I had a thought about it wich was GvG sectors could give helmets to all guild members then helmets could be used to buy stuff in a GvG shop. Things bought there could of course be FPs and goods but mostly special military buildings and buildings that give fighting boosts (such as carrousel or watchfire). Unfortunately a reward system can't be implemented because GvG is not on mobile. GvG can't be implemented to mobile because it doesn't have enough players. There can't be many people playing GvG because there are no rewards. So, that leaves two options: A break the wheel and improve GvG no matter if; B terminate GvG. Keeping it as it is is probably the worst thing to do. And those battlegrounds will mean GvG will stay but will stay like a few years ago.
 

Boorg

Lieutenant
read corectly he's saying same thing as you lol
INNO never stated they would not kill treasure hut
( not ) being key word here
in his frase he used won't wich also negates

I am only referring to Treasure Hunt because the posts I replied to regard Treasure Hunt.

In fact if I remember correctly Inno had stated that they were considering terminating Treasure Hunt.
.
And what I am saying is ……


who knows

incidents and daily challenge killed treasure hunt

1. Incidents and Daily Challenge did not kill Treasure Hunt because the removal of Treasure Hunt was planned well before Incidents and Daily Challenge were introduced. Also the removal of Treasure Hunt was made known several months before it’s removal.


But they never said they wont kill treasure hut :P

2. On the contrary Inno said that Treasure Hunt was going to be removed.

.
 
Last edited:

Michael K.

Major-General
' . . . . Unfortunately a reward system can't be implemented because GvG is not on mobile. GvG can't be implemented to mobile because it doesn't have enough players . . . '
Nope.
According to the development team on the live QA last week, GvG won't be on mobile because of the bandwidth required to implement it on mobile.
. . . . mk
 

Michael K.

Major-General
Is there anyplace the Q & A session of 22 May is video posted? I have checked YouTube and Facebook, but have not been successful in locating it. (probably I messed up).
Thank you,
. . . mk
 

Test Ament

Overlord
1. Incidents and Daily Challenge did not kill Treasure Hunt because the removal of Treasure Hunt was planned well before Incidents and Daily Challenge were introduced. Also the removal of Treasure Hunt was made known several months before it’s removal.
but Incidents and Daily Challenge were planned long before the end of Treasure Hunt was planned :rolleyes:

and as result of those features TH was removed

so it is true:
Incidents and Daily Challenge did kill Treasure Hunt

because without those two features Treasure Hunt would still be available :rolleyes:

and btw: do you know when TH was removed ?
with the same update that removed the -1 from DC

so can it really be that the removal of TH was planned before DC was planned ?
and if so why did it take longer to remove TH than implementing DC and even improving it with removing the -1 when failing a day
 
Last edited:

Cubs Fan 628

Private
I like the concept that is being put forward, not that I'm likely to use it as I don't use GvG (haven't for a long time) and barely use GE. As a time starved player these features that require daily game play don't do much for me. But it seems that this will provide another platform for guilds to compete while addressing some of the things that have been big issues of GvG for a while. There are only two things that I really want to bring up:

1. I'm guessing there is going to be a check box or something to enter the battlegrounds feature? It'd be nice to see a bit more detail on the proposed entry mechanic as it will be important that all participating guilds in the battleground will actively compete (unlike in GE currently where sometimes you are matched with guilds that do barely any of it and 25% can get you first place...).

2. Ranking and recognition. Currently it is easier to see which guilds are doing good in GvG thanks to the guild rankings, but guilds doing well in GE is less visible. Yes there is recognition but guild ranking points aren't doing a good job of showing people which guilds are great at winning GE comps. Adding in this third guild competition then provides a third activity a guild could specialize in and another set of recognition for effort. I think it's going to be very important (especially when people are looking for a guild to join) to have rankings that can make it easier to visually recognize the best guilds in all three features separately, something that means when you look at "Guild X" you can see they are the worlds 300th best GvG guild, 5th best GE guild and 150th best GBg guild.
I like your idea of the different rankings per the different modes. In Brisgard our GE record is nice at 109/31/1 and I'd be interested at how it stacks up.
 

HRC

Monarch
138 /5 /0 in EN1 Arvahall suspect thats the top score. We can remember every one of those 5 and in 4 we got a perfect 100% of the guild doing all 64 but got there after the other guild did all 64, so got 2nd
 

Trerro

Private
The new feature, while welcome, is the addition of individual efforts to reach a collective score (like GE). It is different to successful gvg which often requires several players to plan and co-ordinate their efforts at the same time. Regarding gvg if it really is too difficult to add gvg maps for eras not currently covered then I suggest it will be necessary to change the way the All Ages map works. At present players can lay siege at little risk/cost by places Iron Age troops and then attacking with whatever age they choose. If they are spotted attacks can be terminated at little cost. It should be a requirement to attack with the same age (+/- one) troops as the Siege Army laid. This would ensure that the cost/risk of attacking is more balanced with the cost of defending
Isn't this a self-balancing issue though? Sure, you can walk away when they see your attack, but if you win, you just wasted a defense slot on stuff that can be killed with a fly swatter. Also, if they see the attack late, they can click the first few current age units they see, spam auto-attack, and break your 80% complete seige in under a minute, solo. It seems to me like there's a pretty clear risk vs. reward thing going here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.