New Content Guild Battlegrounds Update 2023 Feedback Thread

[Sir. Kevin of Bagelot]

The way I see it with these changes, the only way to climb up the rankings now is by spending money. The people who spend the most money will climb up the rankings faster. It used to be with 0 attrition battles, players who spent more time on the game got more rewards. Now it's not about how much time you spend on the game, it's about how much money you spend on the game. It used to be that a medium size guild could get into diamond league and stay in diamond league with some hard work of a few people. 5 or 10 people working hard could carry the guild. Now those few people have to work even harder, and even longer hours coordinating, maxing attrition, doing negotiations, begging guildmates to do some battles and participate to keep things going. Unless your guild has 100% participation, a guild with 35-50 people doesn't stand much of a chance.

Buildings cost a lot more diamonds, and guild goods to build. When you win diamonds, you get more (45 instead of 25), but you get them a lot less frequently, so you have the mirage of getting more diamonds, but you're really getting less and spending a lot more. The drop from 100% attrition reduction to 80% is way too big of a change. 95% would have been a huge enough change for a lot of people.

The one thing I like is that you can build on your home base and get 80% attrition reduction from the start, which is good for small/medium guilds, and when you're on the beach for a season you can still get decent battles. The costs are high, but comparatively, not that high. 75000 goods for a building that lasts the entire season is pretty good. In the old system, if you had a sector with 2 SC's costs 6000 goods. If you swap 4 times per day and have to replace them 50% of the time, that's 4 SC's per day = 12000 goods, X 10 days is 120,000 goods.

Overall, this is all about more money and rewarding players for spending money rather than time on the game.

 

[Knight of ICE]

When you win diamonds, you get more (45 instead of 25), but you get them a lot less frequently, so you have the mirage of getting more diamonds, but you're really getting less and spending a lot more. The drop from 100% attrition reduction to 80% is way too big of a change. 95% would have been a huge enough change for a lot of people.

You don't get more diamonds. You got 50, now you get 45. You only get more if you have always been in Platinum League and are in Diamond for the first time.

Beats me how you can say that you get diamonds a lot less frequently. Season is only on it's first run and even if you have kept track of the numbers, which I seriously doubt, it is impossible to have enough data to come to any conclusion like you are doing now.

 

[Deleted member 127677]

You don't get more diamonds. You got 50, now you get 45. You only get more if you have always been in Platinum League and are in Diamond for the first time.

Beats me how you can say that you get diamonds a lot less frequently. Season is only on it's first run and even if you have kept track of the numbers, which I seriously doubt, it is impossible to have enough data to come to any conclusion like you are doing now.

You got 25. Nevertheless, it may have been more frequently, and therefore felt like you got more. I reckon I have had just under 0.2 dimes per fight this season, I may be wrong, but I think it’s marginally less than the perceived number per fight before.

 

[Sir. Kevin of Bagelot]

You don't get more diamonds. You got 50, now you get 45. You only get more if you have always been in Platinum League and are in Diamond for the first time.

Beats me how you can say that you get diamonds a lot less frequently. Season is only on it's first run and even if you have kept track of the numbers, which I seriously doubt, it is impossible to have enough data to come to any conclusion like you are doing now.

In diamond league you used to get 25 diamonds, not 50. Now you get 45, which is more than 25, but it seems to me that it's much less frequent. Of course I don't have enough data to come to a definitive conclusion, but it seems that way. I could collect data for 5 years and it wouldn't be enough for foe.

 

[Vesiger]

I definitely got a unexpectedly large diamond award this season - and yes, it did overall feel like fewer diamonds anecdotally, but as I haven't spent any it is still a net profit

the lack of treasury and inability to sustain it (even with 150K daily income in a era like LoW has) will again, kill all competition in GBG, will over-all make less money for Inno as people won't compete, and won't spend diamonds to win because they know their treasury can't afford it,

I don't think it will kill all competition. I think it will deal with the assumption that everybody will build the maximum number of attrition-reducing structures on every sector and spend diamonds to complete them instantly.
Whether the levels have been set appropriately to achieve this or whether players who are prepared to pour real money into the game will simply increase their spending instead remains as yet to be seen..

 

[Knight of ICE]

In diamond league you used to get 25 diamonds, not 50. Now you get 45, which is more than 25, but it seems to me that it's much less frequent. Of course I don't have enough data to come to a definitive conclusion, but it seems that way. I could collect data for 5 years and it wouldn't be enough for foe.

You are right. You got 25 and needed to pay 50 to finish a building. I usually got that 50 back, so that made me think it was 50

That it seems less frequent is a common comment when you seem to have less luck, but luck is all it is. I have gotten several times 3x45 diamonds when conquering a province. That does not mean it has become more frequent. It just means I have been lucky. Collecting data for 5 years could at least give an indication. Now the only thing you have is a feeling. Same as I have, but mine is way more positive and in the end we are both probably wrong.

 

[Knight of ICE]

is it better that 5% of your guild gets all the benefit? or that the entire guild shares the benefit?

Maybe it would not be a bad idea to change all individual rewards to Guild rewards. Gather everything players win during the season and divide that under the members that participated at the end of the season.

So let's say, if all players of a Guild of 20 gather 900 diamonds during the season each get 45. That way, the high active selfish players that wait for the easy opportunities to score, will share with the other players that create those opportunities for them

 

[klods hans]

Maybe it would not be a bad idea to change all individual rewards to Guild rewards. Gather everything players win during the season and divide that under the members that participated at the end of the season.

So let's say, if all players of a Guild of 20 gather 900 diamonds during the season each get 45. That way, the high active selfish players that wait for the easy opportunities to score, will share with the other players that create those opportunities for them

That's a brilliant idea

 

[Sir. Kevin of Bagelot]

Maybe it would not be a bad idea to change all individual rewards to Guild rewards. Gather everything players win during the season and divide that under the members that participated at the end of the season.

So let's say, if all players of a Guild of 20 gather 900 diamonds during the season each get 45. That way, the high active selfish players that wait for the easy opportunities to score, will share with the other players that create those opportunities for them

So the guild member who spends 15 minutes / week gets as much as the guildmember that spends 20 hours / week. Seems incredibly unfair to me. It also seems pretty unfair to call the people who spend the most time playing the game "selfish". While there are some people that "wait for the easy opportunities", that's a pretty bold assumption to put that label on everyone who does well at GbG. The players who are at the top for GbG battles overwhelmingly are the players who put in the most time and effort into the game! I find it pretty insulting that you would call those players selfish.

 

[Knight of ICE]

So the guild member who spends 15 minutes / week gets as much as the guildmember that spends 20 hours / week. Seems incredibly unfair to me. It also seems pretty unfair to call the people who spend the most time playing the game "selfish". While there are some people that "wait for the easy opportunities", that's a pretty bold assumption to put that label on everyone who does well at GbG. The players who are at the top for GbG battles overwhelmingly are the players who put in the most time and effort into the game! I find it pretty insulting that you would call those players selfish.

It is Guild Battlegrounds, not Individual Battlegrounds. What's wrong with sharing? If that is what is bothering you, you can always put in less time, so others get the chance to put in more. Apart from that you need to see what I say in perspective to the comment that I react to. I did not label those players as selfish, even when they are.

 

[Deleted member 127677]

Maybe it would not be a bad idea to change all individual rewards to Guild rewards. Gather everything players win during the season and divide that under the members that participated at the end of the season.

So let's say, if all players of a Guild of 20 gather 900 diamonds during the season each get 45. That way, the high active selfish players that wait for the easy opportunities to score, will share with the other players that create those opportunities for them

I like this thought but it’s what should have happened from the beginning. Many guilds tried ‘taxing’ or voluntary sharing of benefits (fps, obviously), to grow their weaker members, but for perfect fairness, it could only ever work if it had been made into shared rewards that would have been divided at the end of the season between all guild members. A pool, if you wish, of all the fps, diamonds and goods collected by everyone. Like others, I am seeing a much better division of fight counts between guild members now, and it is great. Please keep this format.

 

[Deleted member 127677]

So the guild member who spends 15 minutes / week gets as much as the guildmember that spends 20 hours / week. Seems incredibly unfair to me. It also seems pretty unfair to call the people who spend the most time playing the game "selfish". While there are some people that "wait for the easy opportunities", that's a pretty bold assumption to put that label on everyone who does well at GbG. The players who are at the top for GbG battles overwhelmingly are the players who put in the most time and effort into the game! I find it pretty insulting that you would call those players selfish.

This discussion has been had time and time again. Players who put in the most time and effort into the game are not necessarily spending that time in Gbg.

5 or 10 people working hard could carry the guild. Now those few people have to work even harder, and even longer hours coordinating, maxing attrition, doing negotiations, begging guildmates to do some battles and participate to keep things going. Unless your guild has 100% participation, a guild with 35-50 people doesn't stand much of a chance

If this is the situation in your guild, you are simply confirming that that guild does not belong on diamond league. 5 people cannot carry a guild, they can max their own fights, off what the guild is creating in terms of treasury. That will no longer necessarily be possible, nor should it be.

 

[Deleted member 127677]

It is Guild Battlegrounds, not Individual Battlegrounds. What's wrong with sharing? If that is what is bothering you, you can always put in less time, so others get the chance to put in more. Apart from that you need to see what I say in perspective to the comment that I react to. I did not label those players as selfish, even when they are.

And this is precisely what is happening. There is more activity, when the constant virtual zero attrition fight fest is no longer possible, there is more to do for everyone else.

 

[Knight of ICE]

This discussion has been had time and time again. Players who put in the most time and effort into the game are not necessarily spending that time in Gbg.

Even if they do, it is supposed to be a Guild effort, not an individual effort. Players complaining they can do less fights really do not get what is all about. You are in a choir. You are not supposed to sing solo and you are absolutely not supposed to demand more solo performances.

 

[Sir. Kevin of Bagelot]

It is Guild Battlegrounds, not Individual Battlegrounds. What's wrong with sharing? If that is what is bothering you, you can always put in less time, so others get the chance to put in more. Apart from that you need to see what I say in perspective to the comment that I react to. I did not label those players as selfish, even when they are.

This is both a team game and an individual game, you get team rewards and you get individual rewards. The players who spend the most time playing the game should get the most rewards and progress the fastest. There is no way that a player who spends 20, 30, 40 hours per week focused on the game should have to share their rewards with players who spend 15 minutes per week playing the game.

I can always put in less time so the other members get the chance to put in more? It doesn't work that way. Did you start playing this game yesterday? You seem to have a very skewed opinion on the game, maybe you've been in some bad guilds. We promote battles and doing battles. Under the old system we promoted 0 attrition battles as much as possible, we called sectors long before they opened, then again right before they open, and while they're opened. We sometimes practically beg for participation. When I fill an entire sector by myself, it's after several attempts of asking for help. We have no requirements for how many battles you put in. We've given out rewards to players who help get to the middle on day 1. We get between 80 and 85% participation, though the top 20% of the players do 80% of the work. The reason why a lot of players don't participate isn't because other players are hogging the low attrition battles, it's because they don't want to participate!

I play in multiple worlds. In my main world I can bring my attrition up to 115 - 120. In other worlds I can get to around 50, and I do less in those worlds for many reasons, but I still do some to help the guild and get a few rewards. I've never been in a guild in any of the worlds I play in where I felt like a few people were hogging all the battles. The players who spend the most time playing the game get the most battles and rewards, and that's how it should be. I've been in guilds where players are kicked out of the guild because they didn't finish GE 64 fast enough...they finished it, but not fast enough, and that seems to be the future of GbG.

"That way, the high active selfish players that wait for the easy opportunities to score, will share with the other players that create those opportunities for them" Again, that's not the case. The people creating the opportunities are the people doing the most work and the people at the top of the scoreboard at the end of the week.

 

[Knight of ICE]

This is both a team game and an individual game, you get team rewards and you get individual rewards. The players who spend the most time playing the game should get the most rewards and progress the fastest. There is no way that a player who spends 20, 30, 40 hours per week focused on the game should have to share their rewards with players who spend 15 minutes per week playing the game.

I can always put in less time so the other members get the chance to put in more? It doesn't work that way. Did you start playing this game yesterday? You seem to have a very skewed opinion on the game, maybe you've been in some bad guilds. We promote battles and doing battles. Under the old system we promoted 0 attrition battles as much as possible, we called sectors long before they opened, then again right before they open, and while they're opened. We sometimes practically beg for participation. When I fill an entire sector by myself, it's after several attempts of asking for help. We have no requirements for how many battles you put in. We've given out rewards to players who help get to the middle on day 1. We get between 80 and 85% participation, though the top 20% of the players do 80% of the work. The reason why a lot of players don't participate isn't because other players are hogging the low attrition battles, it's because they don't want to participate!

I play in multiple worlds. In my main world I can bring my attrition up to 115 - 120. In other worlds I can get to around 50, and I do less in those worlds for many reasons, but I still do some to help the guild and get a few rewards. I've never been in a guild in any of the worlds I play in where I felt like a few people were hogging all the battles. The players who spend the most time playing the game get the most battles and rewards, and that's how it should be. I've been in guilds where players are kicked out of the guild because they didn't finish GE 64 fast enough...they finished it, but not fast enough, and that seems to be the future of GbG.

"That way, the high active selfish players that wait for the easy opportunities to score, will share with the other players that create those opportunities for them" Again, that's not the case. The people creating the opportunities are the people doing the most work and the people at the top of the scoreboard at the end of the week.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to that, but you are now turning this into an argument. This is a feedback thread. You don't have to explain your feedback to me and I don't have to explain my feedback to you. You do not have to explain how your Guild does it. It is not the standard that deternines the importance of feedback. We do not have to agree to the feedback we give either. You have no idea about how I play the game, or how long I played it, so don't make assumptions. Again, my comment was not directed at you, but at the person I quoted, so let's just stop it here and return to giving feedback.

 

[Sir. Kevin of Bagelot]

That is your opinion and you are entitled to that, but you are now turning this into an argument. This is a feedback thread. You don't have to explain your feedback to me and I don't have to explain my feedback to you. You do not have to explain how your Guild does it. It is not the standard that deternines the importance of feedback. We do not have to agree to the feedback we give either. You have no idea about how I play the game, or how long I played it, so don't make assumptions. Again, my comment was not directed at you, but at the person I quoted, so let's just stop it here and return to giving feedback.

Sorry, you called high active players selfish. It's not true and I'll defend those players all day. Just giving my feedback

 

[Sir. Kevin of Bagelot]

This discussion has been had time and time again. Players who put in the most time and effort into the game are not necessarily spending that time in Gbg.


If this is the situation in your guild, you are simply confirming that that guild does not belong on diamond league. 5 people cannot carry a guild, they can max their own fights, off what the guild is creating in terms of treasury. That will no longer necessarily be possible, nor should it be.

In every guild there are a few generals who coordinate the battles and swapping. It's very difficult to get new generals and keep them because it's a lot of work. When I say 5-10 people, I mean coordinators, not 5-10 people doing all the battles.

 

[Vesiger]

Maybe it would not be a bad idea to change all individual rewards to Guild rewards. Gather everything players win during the season and divide that under the members that participated at the end of the season.

So let's say, if all players of a Guild of 20 gather 900 diamonds during the season each get 45. That way, the high active selfish players that wait for the easy opportunities to score, will share with the other players that create those opportunities for them

That would be a basis for all guilds making GBG activity compulsory, since otherwise players who don't participate at all would profit from those who do. Of course, to a degree they already do, since they benefit from the guild level going up, but the reason for giving individual battle rewards at all in the first place was to encourage players to participate - not everyone is out to get as many battles as humanly possible, and surprisingly enough there are quite a lot of players who simply have no desire to play GBG at all. As you point out, it is not a mandatory or necessarily even a major part of the game.

In my guild at least GBG is a minority pursuit; people who want to play it can, and those who don't are not forced to do so. Difficult as it may be to envision from the perspective of players complaining about losing the right to fight ten thousand battles, a lot of people would rather not fight dozens of battles a day even if there are theoretically rewards to be had - it is just boring, and I'm not going to police and browbeat them into doing it for the sake of a nominal ranking on a guild list...

 

[Deleted member 127677]

I'm not going to police and browbeat them into doing it for the sake of a nominal ranking on a guild list...

This is a refreshing take on what Gbg is about. Because I also found Gvg to be important and an indicator of what the guild as a whole was capable of, when it could be played by more than just a few people in the guild, I think Gbg is important also. After all, there has to be a purpose to all that city building too, if it isn’t to fight for your guild (if you are in one and it wants you to), what is it?

a few generals who coordinate the battles and swapping

Coordinated swaps is in my experience the single most important reason people got fed up with Gbg. Both those who coordinated and guild members who saw no point in doing innumerable pre organised fights. If you win the battle, you win. Leave the field. Check back later if there is something happening again. Don’t try to keep it artificially alive.