• 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:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

New Content Guild Battlegrounds Update 2023 Feedback Thread

Malynn

Malynn

Corporal
I know this has been mentioned already in this thread. But one thing which GbG would really benefit from is if players were able to donate diamonds to the guild treasury so that the same individual players in a guild weren’t the ones using their diamonds all the time to instantly build buildings. I am kinda surprised Inno haven’t already thought of this and implemented it.
 

Deleted member 127677

Sacahari3l said:
I am also in SAT, our guild currently occupies 1st spot, having several hundred fights over a thousand meta so anything else to brag about
Click to expand...
So where is the issue? You’re fighting, you’re clearly making progress, and the map is alive? For my part, the only way in which my comment was intended was to refute your claim that a guild needs to play in a certain way to the detriment of others to achieve rank on the Gbg board. This is nonsense. You just fight through, see what comes. Some maps will be more competitive than others. None of us know. I do, however, still maintain that there are changes needed to the way the current building times and sector locks have been implemented, so those definitely need to be fine tuned.
 

Sacahari3l

Private
Arch1e said:
So where is the issue? You’re fighting, you’re clearly making progress, and the map is alive? For my part, the only way in which my comment was intended was to refute your claim that a guild needs to play in a certain way to the detriment of others to achieve rank on the Gbg board. This is nonsense. You just fight through, see what comes. Some maps will be more competitive than others. None of us know. I do, however, still maintain that there are changes needed to the way the current building times and sector locks have been implemented, so those definitely need to be fine tuned.
Click to expand...
In case you didn't get it the first time:
1. Fewer fights available to make across the day, due to the attrition reduction cap being lowered to only 80%
2. Increased cost of goods for support structures
3. Increased cost of diamonds to finish support structures
Which results in slower progress, less rewards but increased costs

You gain victory points from sectors you hold, amount of victory points directly affects your placement in the ranking. So the more you deny other guilds from taking sectors you hold the more victory points you get, but if your sectors are not taken there are inevitably going to be fewer fights available... It's not rocket science... If you think it's only about taking what you can and hoping for the best you don't understand the new ranking system.

I agree there are changes needed, put back the old attrition system, buildings, and costs, other changes can stay they are not harmful...
 

Deleted member 127677

Sacahari3l said:
In case you didn't get it the first time:
1. Fewer fights available to make across the day, due to the attrition reduction cap being lowered to only 80%
2. Increased cost of goods for support structures
3. Increased cost of diamonds to finish support structures
Which results in slower progress, less rewards but increased costs

You gain victory points from sectors you hold, amount of victory points directly affects your placement in the ranking. So the more you deny other guilds from taking sectors you hold the more victory points you get, but if your sectors are not taken there are inevitably going to be fewer fights available... It's not rocket science... If you think it's only about taking what you can and hoping for the best you don't understand the new ranking system.

I agree there are changes needed, put back the old attrition system, buildings, and costs, other changes can stay they are not harmful...
Click to expand...
I honestly don’t see why you need to adopt the tone you do. Of course I get it, I just don’t agree that there is an issue. You are fixated on rewards, I am focused on fights and the battle. But as I already said, I hope, the only people for whom there are fewer fights are those who farmed the map. People who maybe spent the same time as a farmer, but did so directing fighting instead, are quite likely not seeing a reduction, and may even see more fights since there are more available now for everyone, given that the 4-campers cannot be around taking them all.
 

Knight of ICE

May I remind everyone that this is a feedback thread, not a discussion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You do not have to agree with how the other person sees it, but most of all, you do not have to convince that person that he/she is wrong and you are right. Feedback is gathered and forwarded to the devs. Don't snow useful feedback under just so you can make your point.
 

papashakes

Corporal
Knight of ICE said:
May I remind everyone that this is a feedback thread, not a discussion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You do not have to agree with how the other person sees it, but most of all, yo do not have to convince that person that he/she is wrong and you are right. Feedback is gathered and forwarded to the devs. Don't snow useful feedback under just so you can make your point.
Click to expand...
well start us up a discussion thread then please good sir :)
 

*Neo

Private
one good thing is it decreases a little time needed to play GBG
but i would say that forward to that direction it really would help to change timings with the same idea and make sectors for example on this 220 map equal to 440 hits and 6 hours autolocking.
there is another very big issue players who used to farm and do daily 2k or 5k fights complaining about rewards:
a)Free hitting allowed those players masively increase the number of fights so invest in events heavily diamonds or real money had some sense back then as from my point of vew i kind of see that inno has cutted the branch with was giving them money.
b) As alternative perhaps rewards had to be scaled somehow by the attrition or number of fights each player pushing individually.
 
Mysty.

Mysty.

Private
I play and have led many GBG rounds, fighting and farming. My preference is always to fight but over the last year, too often we found ourselves on a map where there wasn't another guild strong enough to fight so we resorted to holding sectors to helps other guilds so that at least there was some movement on the map. we would swap or fight depending on who is on the map, we used to leave sectors for the other guilds so they didn't end up pinned into their HQ. Now that VP is key in the championship there is no room to be lenient on the smaller guilds. The combination of the attrition cap and the extra fights required per sector means there are fights available but taking more than 1 sector seem to be a struggle.

There are many aspect of this change that I like, the attrition cap is fine (makes the whole guild need to fight but might need some tweaking), the buildings provide ample choice across a range of goods, every guild should be able to build some support. Seeing everyone's attrition is good as well as showing % chance of attrition per sector is great, Diamond cost seems high, but I guess this is a business.

I have 2 complaints
1. the ability to get into the 1000lp is too easy, coming 4th with min fights moves you up, too many guilds struggle and have learnt to sit the round out so they can drop out again, which makes for too many dead rounds. This needs to be looked at
2. with the high number of fights now needed per sector it takes awhile to load. For a SAT player, where the troop loss is off the chart, it is unsustainable. If this isn't looked at and tweaked somehow It wont be attrition which stops us playing but the inability to keep enough troops to enjoy all aspect of the game
 
Last edited:
Malynn

Malynn

Corporal
Knight of ICE said:
May I remind everyone that this is a feedback thread, not a discussion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You do not have to agree with how the other person sees it, but most of all, yo do not have to convince that person that he/she is wrong and you are right. Feedback is gathered and forwarded to the devs. Don't snow useful feedback under just so you can make your point.
Click to expand...

OK. Feedback:

So far I’m liking the changes made to GbG, and they appear to be a move in the right direction towards making GbG fairer and more balanced. But more needs to be done. The changes haven’t prevented the really strong guilds with almost 80 players from totally dominating the map, which I thought was one of the aims of the changes to GbG. As I wrote on this forum some weeks ago and had probably been mentioned in the past by other players. Allowing guilds to have 80 players is far too many. Inno need to look at the size of all the guilds and determine what the average size is. I would say the average is much lower than 80. A guild size of around 40-50 is more reasonable. Until Inno addresses the size of guilds, there is no chance that GbG will be anywhere near balanced.
It doesn’t take a genius to work out that a guild of 80 players is going to totally dominate a guild of 40 players. They have twice the number of possible fights/negs, twice the attrition, highly likely to have twice the amount of treasury resources for building. It’s a no brainer!

One thing which GbG would really benefit from as I’ve mentioned, is if players were able to donate diamonds to the guild treasury so that the cost of instantly building was more fairly shared within the guild instead of the same individual players in a guild using their diamonds all the time to instantly build buildings.

These changes to GbG are all about making GbG more balanced, so Inno need to keep that in mind and make more changes towards making GbG more balanced.
Balance the number of players in a guild.
Balance the use of diamonds within a guild to instantly complete a building.

It’s still too early to pass final judgement on the changes until the end of the 12 week championship or at least until a couple more campaigns have been fought.
 
Last edited:

Kev-

Private
Malynn said:
OK. Feedback:

So far I’m liking the changes made to GbG, and they appear to be a move in the right direction towards making GbG fairer and more balanced. But more needs to be done. The changes haven’t prevented the really strong guilds with almost 80 players from totally dominating the map, which I thought was one of the aims of the changes to GbG. As I wrote on this forum some weeks ago and had probably been mentioned in the past by other players. Allowing guilds to have 80 players is far too many. Inno need to look at the size of all the guilds and determine what the average size is. I would say the average is much lower than 80. A guild size of around 40-50 is more reasonable. Until Inno addresses the size of guilds, there is no chance that GbG will be anywhere near balanced.
It doesn’t take a genius to work out that a guild of 80 players is going to totally dominate a guild of 40 players. They have twice the number of possible fights/negs, twice the attrition, highly likely to have twice the amount of treasury resources for building. It’s a no brainer!

One thing which GbG would really benefit from as I’ve mentioned, is if players were able to donate diamonds to the guild treasury so that the cost of instantly building was more fairly shared within the guild instead of the same individual players in a guild using their diamonds all the time to instantly build buildings.

These changes to GbG are all about making GbG more balanced, so Inno need to keep that in mind and make more changes towards making GbG more balanced.
Balance the number of players in a guild.
Balance the use of diamonds within a guild to instantly complete a building.

It’s still too early to pass final judgement on the changes until the end of the 12 week championship or at least until a couple more campaigns have been fo
Click to expand...
So your answer to countering those Guilds and individuals that have worked hard to progress is to dumb them down to the levels of those that can't be bothered............. No wonder the world is in such a state. Surely its much better to show some aspiration get your finger out and put the effort in and try to better yourself and Guild to match the levels of those that have aspired to better themselves.
Essentially all this tinkering and thats all it is by Inno is just a fudge rather than sorting the root problem which is they are matching Guilds and guys such as yourself that can't be arsed with Guilds that have some aspiration and are trying to better themselves and have raised the level of there gameplay.
If evolution worked as in your scenario we'd of left our caves and gone back to being a bunch of chemicals in a pond somewhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gizmo8648

Private
Smaller guilds with very few players have no chance to compete in this new GBG system, also when you have members that are in your guild as a second or third city and use it for farming kills any chance to battle.

In our case half of our members don't even have a GB yet as they are new players and can not fight, we have one member that is in Titan, but the support building required for our HQ needs Titan goods of which we have zero. I expect the few fighters in our guild will leave for a larger guild causing smaller guilds like ours to go away.

In my opinion the tournament either should be for Diamond League or the requirements for the lower leagues should change to make it more competitive to include the smaller guilds.
 

angry hamster

Private
I used to love the gbg, fighting a lot, keep setting alarm, and seeing how many I could do
This new thing !!!
Again Inno have done us over again, 1st removing most diamond rewards from GE 4. I
Then this rubbish....

Look at it this way !!
Why would you spend your hard earned money on this game, as it could be fundamentally changed, removing what you paid for !!!
It's lost all credibility, you don't throw your money down a drain, as that would be stupid, more stupid to buy anything in game, as it could be changed, at least you know a drain is there !!!!
Inno are insulting our intelligence, wanting us to bend over, and thank them for it !!!!
A game needs credibility, for people to want to play, and give money, and this game needs established players, to run guild's, for new player's to inspire to !!
Everyone has had enough, no motivation to play... ....
 

Gedrog

Private
I have done several rounds now in Beta 2 rounds in a weak 80 member Guild and then got an invite to join the No.3 Guild in Beta with 60 members
I don't think I have seen any complaints here that have not being raised in Beta, prior to this abortion there was the nightmare of 60% attrition cap

This change does not benefit the weaker Guilds it only makes them even less competitive, however you can have an 80 member Guild and still be on the fringes, but this is a whole topic best left for a discussion thread, time to look at the Guild you are in and decide if it is time to call it quits and find a Guild that is more aligned with your aspirations, no point sticking around in a Guild where only 20% is doing the heavy lifting.

So one thing that has not being raised here is the adjustment for existing GB's to meat the increased requirements
If you can reach Even Level 100 attrition by the time you get there you are burning more troops than what the TRAZ can generate and with the nerfed rewards and less chances to win troops I see this as a huge challenge, I haven't seen this many TRAZ's being levelled up as I see now.
Moving up an age is going to be a huge challenge
Guild Goods OBS,Atom,AI-Core and ARC will have to be built However the goods volumes per age need to be Adjusted see attached the first time it was launched charged 57K jewels either you have a lot of Iron Age players or you have a handful with just these GB's in their City at level 100 totally unrealistic


What is super obvious from this and GE 5 is that Inno has lost touch with reality they are financially not doing well or not meeting targets so they set difficult targets for Players in order to get them to spend money, by offering event buildings on steroids
 

Attachments

  • New GBG.jpg
    New GBG.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 64

Deleted member 127677

After 72 hours:

- Fantastic that we can see what is happening on other guilds’ boards by following the changes in the scores.
- At least in my guild, we appreciate that the default ranking shows true activity and capacity.
- Members who have commented say they are getting more fps, see it as a challenge to manage troops and attrition and what they need to do to develop.
- Tourney Grounds building is an objective for many. Good addition and appreciated.
- The HQ building is a brilliant feature, no panic about potentially getting down to just those sectors it seems, even if it seems unlikely that any moderately strong guild will be beached completely in this new format.
- For leaders, being able to follow who is spending attrition and who is not (but could) is helpful.
- The different building options and options to manage treasury that way are great. Still work in progress to understand whether we are spending less or more but it will be something to assess after a couple of seasons.
- Please split the diamond cost for speeding up the building times into fractions so that members can contribute some, if not all. It would also make it possible to speed up the building a bit, if not completely.
- In my personal experience, I have gotten roughly the same amount of diamonds per fight as I would in a normal season. It may have dropped some, but that is negligible. However, combined with the increased cost for dimeing buildings in the first place, I would really like to see a better way of sharing those costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top