Unfairness of Neg's VS Battle's in GbG

[Knight of ICE]

With siege camps support you can make a 1000 attacks (points) per day (having where to attack ofc) that will cost you absolutely nothing. On the other side, no matter how many camps are there you are always spending goods with negotiations. How that can be even comparable ?

With fights you use units. With negotiations you use goods. Both you can lose no matter how many camps there are. That makes it comparable.

 

[RegV]

With fights you use units. With negotiations you use goods. Both you can lose no matter how many camps there are. That makes it comparable.

Units heal, unless they die. Goods are gone once used. With traz and the trilogy at decent levels, and a guild that can support playing checkers, you can auto GBG for free. So not really comparable in my mind.

If negotiators had access to a GB that gave them nearly unlimited goods in the same way traz gives you nearly unlimited troops then maybe.....Oh, wait...I almost forgot about the CF. 'Cept that got nerfed. Oops.

It might also be comparable if Attrition was an actual thing that matters. Why isn't Attrition an actual thing that matters? That seems wrong.

 

[Emberguard]

You can still run out of troops to play with when fighting with 5 Siege Camps on 0 attrition. Yes they heal. If you run out of full health units you need to wait for those units to heal before you can keep going

 

[RegV]

You can still run out of troops to play with when fighting with 5 Siege Camps on 0 attrition. Yes they heal. If you run out of full health units you need to wait for those units to heal before you can keep going

Of course you can. But after how many encounters? How many rewards did you rack up doing those battles? How long do you have to wait to get back to full to where you started?

And why is 0% chance of attrition even a thing? I've never figured that one out.

 

[Knight of ICE]

Units heal, unless they die. Goods are gone once used. With traz and the trilogy at decent levels, and a guild that can support playing checkers, you can auto GBG for free. So not really comparable in my mind.

If negotiators had access to a GB that gave them nearly unlimited goods in the same way traz gives you nearly unlimited troops then maybe.....Oh, wait...I almost forgot about the CF. 'Cept that got nerfed. Oops.

It might also be comparable if Attrition was an actual thing that matters. Why isn't Attrition an actual thing that matters? That seems wrong.

If you do not fight you do not need those. Don't need Terra as well, barracks. Plenty of room for goods production. Even a nerfed CF gives plenty of goods.

It is Guild Battlegrounds. You are participating for your Guild and negotiating gives two advances.

 

[Emberguard]

Also if you lose a battle you have to start again. If you lose a negotiation you have the option of continuing from where you are.

 

[RegV]

Even a nerfed CF gives plenty of goods.

True. For certain definitions of 'Plenty'.

It is Guild Battlegrounds. You are participating for your Guild...

So if INNO were to remove the personal rewards you get from GBG, people would still play it as much as they do now? For the good of the guild? Really?

Also, to be clear, I'm fine with the way nego's work now, not advocating for any change. Don't really agree with the OP. Or, at least I wouldn't if 0% attrition wasn't a thing. Having that does skew things a bit in the favor of the fighter.

 

[Knight of ICE]

So if INNO were to remove the personal rewards you get from GBG, people would still play it as much as they do now? For the good of the guild? Really?

I seriously doubt that, but that does not mean negotiations need to be made easier, just for personal gain. If you feel you do not get enough out of negotiating, you can aalways start fighting. It is called Battlegrounds, not Negotiatinggrounds. Negotiating is nothing more than an alternative. Nobody is forcing you to do it.