New Content Guild Battlegrounds

[Giskler]

yea right execute strategy but how long will strategy last if your guildys don't folow instructions and attack guilds you have agreement with , no alliances will stand without control over your guildys

That's you and your guilds problem. I'm sure most guilds have their share of people who either won't or can't follow instructions.

 

[Shad23]

I'm sure most guilds have their share of people who either won't or can't follow instructions.

yea and how do you expect strategy to work if they don't follow instructions + you can't kick em for not listening cause you don't know who the hell placed the dam flag
if they fix the dam flag problem then yea then it might be possible to execute a strategy

 

[klods hans]

i love strategy games and i ain't a noob but eaven with your explanation from discord i fail to see where the strategy is in GBG especialy with fact there is no right for flag or a way to know who placed that dam flag so we can explain to player who do not folow instructions why we want it in the way guild strategy for the map is

Yes, like in GvG, we need some kind of restrictions on who can set sieges/place flags - or at least a way to withdraw flags if they are placed wrongly (in an unstrategic way).
The naming of the provinces is confusing…. - Attack D3... Nono, damnit, not that D3...

 

[Shad23]

- Attack D3... Nono, damnit, not that D3...

that's a totaly diferent problem , INNO still has a lot of tweeking to do IMHO on this GBG feature

 

[klods hans]

yea and how do you expect strategy to work if they don't follow instructions + you can't kick em for not listening cause you don't know who the hell placed the dam flag
if they fix the dam flag problem then yea then it might be possible to execute a strategy

It's been mentioned here a few times now. The log sucks. We need a way to see who is currently fighting and where.
We regularly run into situations like this:
- Who is fighting in B2?
- Don't know, but that wasn't the plan

 

[klods hans]

Wish we didn't have to click on the provinces to see the name and the stats. A small popup with the most important info when hovering over the provinces would be useful.

 

[LastWarrior]

Why do you have to have agreements, cant you just do it on your own, as for controlling guildies you just have to keep trying.

 

[Crazy Biker]

I’m not sure that GbG is sustainable.
I’ve used so many resources for very little rewards.
Eventually everyone will run dry

 

[Shad23]

Why do you have to have agreements, cant you just do it on your own, as for controlling guildies you just have to keep trying.

we need agreements for following reason :

I’m not sure that GbG is sustainable.
I’ve used so many resources for very little rewards.
Eventually everyone will run dry

we need to balance goods so we don't run out and having agreements with other guilds help you not to run out of goods to fast cause guild you have agreement with if agreement can be controled by controling who places flag will make sure you won't get hit on that side of map

 

[Blitz Epidemic]

Come in 1st or come in dead last, you'll still win in GBG. Only a few diehard guilds will fight for 1st al the time, they'll spend years and lots of RL cash to get to L100....Then Inno will introduce L200 guilds.

 

[Shad23]

Come in 1st or come in dead last, you'll still win in GBG.

not if they do 0 GBG there is a minimum to be done if you want a reward
if hole guild does 0 then hole guild will get no rewards

 

[thelegend88]

I must say GBG was very fun for me so far as it managed to bring app only players with browser players under one feature and everyone in my guild could participate and contribute to the team and that aspect is something I really like. But after a few days it comes down to huge investments of both goods and troops and I'm concerned that my members will get depleted as it's easy to get carried away (but even without that) especially newer players who don't have a good stock of goods or unit pool. It's turning into a resource drain for not so great rewards and slows overall advancement and it seems to me it should be the other way round since we constantly get new eras added to the game. It seems it needs a lot more balance in terms of battles, negotiation, rewards but also duration and attrition in that case.

 

[Vesiger]

One thing that puzzles me is the progression of fight difficulty - what controls whether you get a one-wave or two-wave battle? To start off with it's always only one wave, then you hit two waves later, which is what I'd expect. But then you get a lot more one-wave battles after winning against two waves.
Not that I'm complaining, but it seems random...

 

[Agent327]

One thing that puzzles me is the progression of fight difficulty - what controls whether you get a one-wave or two-wave battle? To start off with it's always only one wave, then you hit two waves later, which is what I'd expect. But then you get a lot more one-wave battles after winning against two waves.
Not that I'm complaining, but it seems random...

It either is random, or changes back to one wave when attrition is getting high.

 

[DeletedUser118161]

I’m not sure that GbG is sustainable.
I’ve used so many resources for very little rewards.
Eventually everyone will run dry

You're supposed to manage your resources and moderate yourself. Of course some players find it hard to moderate themselves, or only choose not to, and spend a lot of money on a game that's actually free to play. Yet did InnoGames decide to make moderation a key element in GBG - those who spend too many resources too fast and too soon will likely lose. I'm impressed by InnoGame's design choice, because if GBG cannot teach a player to play with moderation what else will?!

What I also like about GBG is that one can become successful very early, unlike GvG where the most significant fights are done with Space Age Mars units and >500% attack bonuses, which takes years to get to. In GBG can anyone become an important team member and play on the same map as everyone else only through the use of a lot of goods production buildings and as early as the Iron Age.

And while attacking and plundering your neighbours gets frowned upon by many will it become important for GBG. Being able to gather more goods for GBG is great, but being able to take goods away from a member of a competing guild is brilliant. Many players who so far have only frowned upon plundering will need to rethink here when they enjoy GBG, but also want to remain competitive.

So I'll disagree with you and say GBG is great and will do a lot for the game. It only isn't for everyone, just like ice cream isn't.

 

[kingrobert111]

So far we have

Rights for placing and removing flags
Player logs for activity
Being able to see who is attacking
Attrition costs are high
Being able to see who a sector belongs to without clicking on it
The ability to highlight a sector/flag to focus attacks
Extra turns from tavern for negotiation

What else

give a guild leader(founder) rights to stop members taking part

 

[DeletedUser111693]

In my opinion there is two things that need to change about the new battlegrounds feature to make it enjoyable in the long run:

1. We need to make this a server wide competition. In the world I play in there is only three really competitive guilds - which got matched together of course. Problem is that in all probability we will face the same enemies next season and also the one after that. Which will become boring and stale. Make it like GE, where we compete against guilds from other worlds and this wont be an issue any longer.

2. I have two seperate issues with the way sector buildings work as of right now:
a) Being able to instantly complete buildings with a player's own diamonds gives battlegrounds too much of a pay-to-win feeling for my taste. Sure it is possible to win without buildings at all. But right now our best strategy is to conquer the middle sectors and put 3 palaces in each sector instantly so that we can collect the vp from it as often as possible.
b) Being able to delete buildings defeats the purpose of having a chance to claim the buildings of the other guilds, as we always delete our buildings shortly before they conquer the sector. Sure we can only delete one of our 3 palaces because they claim the sector the moment we remove the building, but still - this isnt the case for other buildings like traps or siege camps. So in my opinion, deleting buildings should not be possible at all - or taking over buildings from the enemy shouldnt be possible at all. One of these two things would be good for the long time enjoyment of the new feature.

As always, this is just my opinion, and you are welcome to disagree.

 

[kingrobert111]

i find GE boring because you dont know the guilds you face they just as well be numbers,only do it for the relics

 

[Ceban]

is it so hard to create correct log wich will show us players name and who hit what or give us some tool to place sieges/flags only by certain peoples??? (i prefer option number 1, best solution would be both things) 99% of complaining is cause of that, can you do this so that it stop be clicking fest for idiots and become real tactical thing???

 

[DeletedUser113110]

We at our guild is rapidly exhausting our resources. Proposal: Change this to one week on/one week off.