Guild Battlegrounds

Discussion in 'Announcement Discussions' started by Lady Marlena, May 20, 2019.

  1. Klissena

    Klissena Private

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2014
    Hi. my main concerns with the new feature outlined would be:

    1) imbalance of the speed of contributions as autobattle will always be faster than negotiating, unless an "auto negotiate" option would be added which would be more expensive but jsut as fast, just like auto battle is often more taxing on troops, but faster, or, remove auto battle option and make it manual only

    2) imbalance between battles having attiration and negotiations not, if one has so should the other.

    3) the imbalance of contributions of any age being exactly same value, meaning a player who stays back in low ages but pushes their gbs is MUCH more valuable than someone who invests in era progression. some recognition should be there even if small one, ie like in ge, for championship only amount of completed encounters counts for winning it but higher age players earn more guild points. perhaps somethign like that can be added or, for example have the amount fo points each action offers be influenced slightly by player age, especially since the last few eras are alot more demanding on troops to fight in as it is. for example like a province needs 100 points and iron age player cntributes 1, ema 2, hma 3 per encounter solved etc. or if thats too big a difference say, 1000 points needed to claim and then iron age value is 11, ema 12, hma 13 etc(much smaller difference but still some at least). the worst is, if they are exactly the same value, and especially wwiht no attiration for lower age players, higher players are better off to downtrade their goods and hand to lower players in their guild for better further progression, rather than do the negotiations themselves, as they are THOUSANDS times more valuable traded down, if amount stays same(think its something like 1 space age trades for over 16k iron age or somehting liek that, yet the negotation value per iron age good is same as spage age good so..ummm...i understand all contributions are meant to be valuable but how on earth does that make any sense??!!:S). and even if cannot be asked to deal with trading, then for example the unrefined gotten from gbs are MORE valuable used in unrefined state by the respective era member than going through the effort to refining to ones own age to use yourself....??? somehow does not seem right at all.......

    4) how would the cost of the buildings be calculated? so far ive seen mentioned it jsut looks at what the highest era player level is and then randomly done from that which doesnt make sense if it were a guidl where only 1 player is high era and rest noobies be exacly same as one where over 50% is in the last 3 eras. perhaps should be somethign liek the ge level unlocking is calculater, ie cost is x goods of each guildies era, or era below, etc? that way goods cost would be better balanced to the guildies ages. i.e 1 of the buildings cost could be 1 good of the era every guildie is in, the other maybe 2 good of lower era per player, etc..? that would then also account for guild size etc..

    5)attiration having a set 24h clock which can be sort of similar effect to a clock. it would be best if there wasnt a certain "reset" time , so like some said, perhaps gradual decrease may be way to go or, 24h from the first attiration of the day accumulated, or some other ways to stagger it to a non-set time as such....

    I am happy that somethign gvg related is finaly brought to the ever growing mobile platform, but the concept does seem massively flawed as on now......hopefully still be adjusted further by time it comes out:)
     
    7777777a8 likes this.
  2. Klissena

    Klissena Private

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2014
    and i also agree it be more interesting if were cross worlds like ge, surely if people can contribute there cross platforms it could be possible cross worlds too? if there is issue with the imbalance between the older worlds and brand new ones, why not group a smaller amount of worlds together instead. ie split in two, 50% to older worlds n 50% newer worlds with each their own league, or, if thats too broad, perhaps 25% worlds in each sub group. ie i think en server has 16 worlds, so that would be 4 worlds grouped together in one league system perhaps...? though i appreciate it was mentioned being a much more complaicated setup than ge in this case ofc.
     
  3. KDS-33

    KDS-33 Corporal

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2015
    Cirgard is a different story - so maybe not knowing about that history difficult to make such comment.
    There is half a dozen players that constantly used BOTS in GvG for siege and attacks. It was on numerous occasions reported to Inno and even proof provided. However, Inno claimed that they would not be able to rectify the usage of Bots so it went on with the 3PS cheating on Cirgard. Since no way to fairly fight Bots most fighters joined 3PS and the rest gave it a dam* or left server. It was actually Inno that killed it off and created that situation on Cirgard by just not rigorously examining the Bots usage and taking action against it.
     
  4. KDS-33

    KDS-33 Corporal

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2015
    I am 99% positive that this statement hits the nail on the head.
     
  5. shad23

    shad23 Tsar

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2015
    it's unfortunate but probobly true lol
     
  6. JoanTheLovingOne

    JoanTheLovingOne Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2018
    if you scroll down the list of the 4 806 guilds in Arvahaal you probably (have no idea) find that 95% of the guilds have 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1 members which most probably don't play GvG because they are too small, which in this case ties up perfectly with 5% everyone is talking about that play GvG, so to cut a long story short the 5% that play should be considered extremely important as an important part of FoE. We don't play GvG in my 3 guilds but this GvG issue is a good example illustrating that Inno don't really care about most players needs, they are very narrow minded in the decisions they make, most probably taking the opinions of only a few players which requirements suit Inno to the "T".
     
    KDS-33 and bradype like this.
  7. Heath00int

    Heath00int Private

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    The biggest problem a lot of players are experiencing is that the servers
    are getting slower and slower with all these new features been added ; especially during recalc (reset) in GvG.
    This gives some players more advantage than others, depending on where one situated in the world

    Will Inno be looking into these problems ?
    Battlefields is going to make things much worse than things are at the present moment.
     
  8. Emberguard

    Emberguard FoE Team Senior Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2017
    If there were manual only fights then I'm pretty confident negotiations would be faster then manual fighting. Which if I'm right would simply transfer the same problem from one area to another. This is assuming the majority of fights won't be using Virgo Project.

    Auto negotiate sounds like it'd be a similar thing to the continent map negotiations.

    Sort of yes and no to that. A player in lower ages who pushes their GBs has less resources then a player in a higher age that pushes their GBs due to more space available (and usually more play time for getting event buildings)

    So while there may be a potential imbalance of contributions between ages in theory the lower players shouldn't be able to get as far as the higher ages simply due to the space restraints without also putting in a lot more work (outside of tech tree) then the higher players to build up what they have.

    I like your thinking though in regards to points being determined by age
    16k Iron Age goods trading down is from Virtual Future. Trading down from Sam would be 32k Iron Age goods. However, you've still got to actually have access to the goods in the game to do that. If everyones trying it then there'll be a shortage. Especially if it creates more campers with the goal of trying that. It doesn't increase the goods present, just increases your own stock and shifts where it's all being stored or used

    (1) 1 - SAM
    (2) 2 - VF
    (3) 4 - OF
    (4) 8 - AF
    (5) 16 - TF
    (6) 32 - TE
    (7) 64 - Con E
    (8) 128 - P-ME
    (9) 256 - ME
    (10) 512 - PE
    (12) 1,024 - Ind E
    (13) 2,048 - Col A
    (14) 4,096 - LMA
    (15) 8,192 - HMA
    (16) 16,384 - EMA
    (17) 32,768 - Ir A
    (18) 65,536 - BA

    Agreed gradual decrease would be a good alternative to 24 hr
     
  9. Galerius the Cruel 51

    Galerius the Cruel 51 Private

    Joined:
    May 30, 2015
    Attiration on a 23hr clock would be far more interesting and only once every 24 days match up with GvG. But not convinced that the Rolling over of the clock will be such a big issue as GvG, If a sector is protected for only a few hrs that means that if one guild gets in quick you can simply wait for them to finish and fight back before roll over and still have your sectors protected during that period, So there are lots of strategic options to be considered,

    No guild is going to be able to lock down sectors all day long, Think that is part of the thinking by inno.
     
    Emberguard likes this.
  10. lastwarrior1955

    lastwarrior1955 Warrant Officer

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2014
    Because of corruption and bugs I still think you would be better off totally binning GvG and concentrating on this new GbG, it is an awesome idea and is the way ahead, why hang onto a bugged system?
    It will also need some sort of results for the guild or even leaders and above to see just who is not doing their bit as in GE.
    Bring it on
    A great idea, lets have it
    Warrior
     
    Emberguard and Cursedveggie like this.
  11. shad23

    shad23 Tsar

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2015
    if your in iron age and want to do that you'll also need good friends who will take your trades
     
    Emberguard likes this.
  12. Ceban

    Ceban Chief Warrant Officer

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2017
    or why they wouldnt shut down all this events and GE and animations and gbg then GvG would work a lot better when developers would give more time to improve it and when servers capacity wouldnt be used for this dumb events every week another one... we can talk that way also...
     
  13. Ceban

    Ceban Chief Warrant Officer

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2017
    still, you think solution is to delete GvG on all servers cause of that???
     
  14. Lugh Longarm

    Lugh Longarm Master Corporal

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Fix the Bugs in GvG before GBG gets released, treat the Fighters fairly before pandering to the Negotiation wimps. If it's to be a Battleground then let's battle; regardless of Era, size or strength, learn to fight peeps, anyone can Trade. Attrition, attrition, we all fall down.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2019
  15. Iron Mask Warrior

    Iron Mask Warrior Private

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    I am a bit late with the response, but here are some thoughts:

    1. The idea sounds great. I am excited to play it.
    2. I was wondering if there may be any incentive for negative play. For example, let's say two guilds are looking to take a sector and both are on 400+ encounters out of 500. For argument's sake, let us suppose that it is 10 hours before the end; and once you take a sector, you can hold it for 4 hours before it is opened. Option 1: Take it as quickly as possible and hold it for at least 4 hours or until it is taken away. Option 2: Let the other guild take it. You lose half your encounters, but that still leaves you within striking distance once the 4 hours are up. After the 4 hours you take the sector and hold it for 6 hours instead of 4. (This is a hypothetical to illustrate the type of thing that might happen. Obviously this specific example has some flaws and ways to overcome, but players can be even more creative than this.)
    3. One thing I like in GvG (the little that I play it) is that you can go back and play with units from earlier ages. I would like it if you could make it possible for players to set various "maximum ages" and that attrition works for each age separately (or a general attrition that grows slowly and an age specific attrition that grows quickly relative to the age that get added together for your attrition on a given encounter). Then someone can do 20 encounters in Virtual Future, 40 in Oceanic, 30 in Arctic, etc.
     
  16. Emberguard

    Emberguard FoE Team Senior Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2017
    @Iron Mask Warrior
    I like the idea of being able to pick the age.

    However to make it a even playing field you’d basically have to ask how far a player could go in each age if they had unlimited resources. For this reason if they did allow swapping ages I’d expect attrition to be based on total battles not battles for that age. Otherwise Mars could fit in a run x16 or 17 while Iron Age could only do Iron Age and if they include Bronze then bronze as well
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2019
  17. Test Ament

    Test Ament Overlord

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    the base idea is: everybody fights (negotiates) in his age

    so I am against discrimination of lower age players
    and let players fight in more than one age

    because then:
    bronze age players can in one age
    but mars age players in 18 ages (or how many ages are available ?)
     
    Emberguard and Migraine of Ord like this.
  18. H4MMER

    H4MMER Private

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2018
    hi.. i might of missed it but will this new feature be available on the app or just pc..thanks
     
  19. BruteForceAttack

    BruteForceAttack Master Corporal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Both app and pc
     
  20. Agent327

    Agent327 Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2017
    How could you miss the announcement????.
     

Top