jaymoney23456
Well-Known Member
Yes, the bots are infiltrating GbG more these days I have heard.
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
Feedback for the GvG shutdown and the Guild Raids
- Thread starter LeCron
- Start date
jaymoney23456
Well-Known Member
I doubt that you have 55 players who are able to consistently be on at GbG start. If you do it must be all retired people with nothing ever to do and who are able/willing to always get up Thursday morning for GbG start.
Apteryx
New Member
Okay, I am late to this party. I don't care about gbg. It's deathly dull and requires no thinking. I've been playing for 10 years, and I enjoyed the challenge of gvg. It required a lot of communication within my guild and with other guilds. Now there is little communication required. I have an inventory chock full of special buildings, but I have no idea what my goal is. There is nothing to attack or defend. I don't need goods, and with all my gb's over 100, I really don't need fp. I feel I have no goal or direction with the game. I'm just treading water for now, waiting for FOE to come up with something to replace gvg. Right now it's just like playing solitaire - just a mile distraction from reality. Sure hope something happens soon.
Ebeondi Asi
Well-Known Member
That is an assumption. Thus Tueday we had
Top Guilds in every World have 50 to 60 players on at GbG opening. it's no mystery. People who like to play Foe get into the top Guilds in each World. Slackers get booted.
First you claim no one. then you make some lame excuse why they could have 53 players.
Your trying to insult players with your comment about retired is about as cheap a shot as you can make. Proves you have nothing valid to say.
PJS299
Well-Known Member
We're not the same person
(You quoted me and Jay, two quotes by two different people)
Ebeondi Asi
Well-Known Member
The quote has the authors name attached
WillyTwoShoes
Active Member
Please don't consider this a put down of top GBG guilds but I'd like to differ with that statement in two respects.
a. Players who have established themselves and enjoy GBG may be considered for membership by top fighting guilds.
b. I've said it before but it bears repeating. Top fighting guilds do nothing to bring new players into foe.
.
Ebeondi Asi
Well-Known Member
I say no Guilds bring new players into foe. Real life friends, and maybe the sometimes advertising bring new players into foe.
Guilds are a collection of relatively like minded people with a goal or set of goals. If the Guild leaders were mainly interested in helping new players, all the Type A fighters would leave and go where they can engage in top level fighting. The Guilds are a sum of the players.
Like start in trying to tell them: "Hey you all should be helping new players"... Yeah right bug off.
Though I would hope at least a few long time players who half retire might choose to run Guilds raising new players up, at least until doing so drove them crazy...
Why would anyone not playing look at Guilds? they really can't look at any Guilds until they actually join a world. and then they are already playing, (yes I am hacking your statement with semantics. i do know what you actually meant)
If you meant helping new players learn about Foe and how to play. That could be a job of any players who wants to do so. That most top Guilds have no interest in new players is not their problem. There are Guilds (really founders and main players) in Guilds that may have an interest in helping new players.
Then all those dead Guilds the new players join and have no clue that they are hanging onto a corpse. Which IMO is the saddest thing for new players to get trapped in. They fail to see the dustbin they are in is trap, and think that is what Guilds are supposed to be like.
Last edited:
jaymoney23456
Well-Known Member
I have seen your guild at gbg start and you may have 50 or 60 players but you aren't taking the center tile in 10 seconds or 20 tiles in 11 min like was claimed that guilds have been doing.
firefly3141
New Member
okay perhaps silly q uestion. right at the moment I have 47 percent attrition and I am wondering if that is good. for just about maybe 45 minutes of play today. Does this also reset at midnight? Okay thanks....
PJS299
Well-Known Member
Attrition doesn't come from the amount of time you spend, it comes from the amount of fights/negos you have done. How many hits have you done in GBG in the last 45 minutes? I think on max reduction, you could do around 200, maybe more, hits…?
Yes, attrition resets at midnight.
Mor-Rioghain
Well-Known Member
Face, meet egg.
You seem to be confusing the attrition cap with the number of possible advances allowable per battlegrounds buildings. They are two separate things. The highest possible number of possible advances is only limited by two factors: one, number of build slots in adjacent sectors and two, whether or not the sieging guild owns those sectors. If the sieging guild advances on a sector and owns all 6 of the surrounding sectors (highest possible number of adjacent sectors on both maps, if I'm not mistaken) with all 6 having 3 building slots, the maximum possible number of advances could equal 560 on the Volcano Archipelago map (200 base advances per sector) and 616 on the Waterfall Archipelago map (220 base advances per sector).
30% of 200 = 60, 60x6=240, 240+200=440 advances
30% of 220=66, 66x6=396, 220+396=616 advances
Once again you've confused "it's not probable so that makes it impossible" with "it's not probable so it's highly unlikely."
Nope, you were pretty clear:
**Passing over the napkin dispenser**
BEFORE we get into the "WHY would anyone do that with attrition caps in place!?!?-argument, let me say that when you are busting Heck Bent for Leather on Opening Day, yeah, you build and you build big. Why? VICTORY POINTS. If you've swarmed the island, you are gonna bank the VPs so, yeah, you build big. Why bank VPs? Well, they are the proverbial tie-breaker -- BUT -- all of that is really a totally different topic, isn't it?
Please feel free to use as many napkins as you like to wipe the egg off of your face.
Mor-Rioghain
Well-Known Member
Believe it or not. If I actually remember, I'll happily post a screenshot of the leaderboard next season. There are many, many players who do far more. As I said, I'm rather slow and my attk/attk-d doesn't compare to those who are top-ranked on my main city's server. I have other factors that contribute to my "slowness" outside of slow mouse clicks - I play on a laptog with WiFi (or worse, a HotSpot), I use a cordless mouse (more WiFi), and I am quite certain that I have an absolutely dreadful bandwidth based on a very confusing (but enlightening nevertheless) conversation a techie friend. Sure - this makes it sound like I must bot - and that's a large part of why I'm so skeptical of those keep screaming about it - is that I'm consistent. I stay at it and I also spend a great number of hours playing on the first day. After opening - with a good draw for us when we really only facing 1 guild who's also running (splitting the map), I have well over 400 of those advances before the next "round (around 10 a.m.)," so, YES, I am skeptical. If "I" can do that, I have no doubt whatsoever that folks who spend a lot of money on their gaming equipment can do ever so much more.
Last edited:
Pericles the Lion
Well-Known Member
You may want to hold onto your napkins. On the Waterfall map, the maximum number of advances is 380. On the Volcano map it is 418. The buildings on the sector being attacked are what can add to the number of required advances and the maximum number of building slots is three. Buildings on adjacent sectors do not increase the required advances on adjacent sectors. So the math becomes:
Waterfall map: 200 + 3((200(0.3)) = 200 + 180 = 380
Volcano map: 220 + 3((220(0.3) = 220 + 198 = 418
Mor-Rioghain
Well-Known Member
You were absolutely correct about my "oopsie" on the position of advances. (I think I'm half asleep). However, I was only in error on the total number of possible advances based on the pivot sector. (Point of entry eliminates one of "my 6," so I've adjusted accordingly).
On the large (Waterfall) map:
If XIX and all but 1 sector were owned by the same guild and all of the T2’s were maxed built (with 3 slots in each), that would be 5x66=330 (increased advances) + 220 (base advances) for a total of 550 advances for XIX. So, yes, you are correct on the increased number of advances but not necessarily correct on the total possible number if it were max build/max slots on all adjacents excepting your entry point to XIX.
On the small (Volcano) map:
Example, Targeted Sector C2S.
C2S + C1, C2T, C3Y, C3X, and C3V are owned by one guild. Sieging guild owns B2T, and sieges C2S. 3 slots each at max build in 5 sectors equals 300 + 220 base advances = 520 total possible advances.
**nudges the napkin dispenser back into the center of table**
Last edited:
Pericles the Lion
Well-Known Member
Drink more coffee and pull back the napkins. ONLY the buildings placed on the sector that is being attacked matter in calculating the number of required advances. In your example, if X1X has three Fortified Guild Command Posts (30% more advances for each) and five of the #2 ring sectors (owned by the same guild as X1X) are also built to the max with FGCPs, the number of required advances to capture X1X is 380 (on the waterfall map, 418 on the Volcano). The FGCPs on the sectors adjacent to X1X do not impact the number of required advances on X1X. Only the ones on X1X do.You were absolutely correct about my "oopsie" on the position of advances. (I think I'm half asleep). However, I was only in error on the total number of possible advances based on the pivot sector. (Point of entry eliminates one of "my 6," so I've adjusted accordingly).
On the large (Waterfall) map:
If XIX and all but 1 sector were owned by the same guild and all of the T2’s were maxed built (with 3 slots in each), that would be 5x66=330 (increased advances) + 220 (base advances) for a total of 550 advances for XIX. So, yes, you are correct on the increased number of advances but not necessarily correct on the total possible number if it were max build/max slots on all adjacents excepting your entry point to XIX.
On the small (Volcano) map:
Example, Targeted Sector C2S.
C2S + C1, C2T, C3Y, C3X, and C3V are owned by one guild. Sieging guild owns B2T, and sieges C2S. 3 slots each at max build in 5 sectors equals 300 + 220 base advances = 520 total possible advances.
**nudges the napkin dispenser back into the center of table**
Mor-Rioghain
Well-Known Member
You're making my brain hurt!
I'm back to that dratted map & my calculator. I *know* there are more possibles - I've been on the map and fighting when it's happened! Grrr! I just haven't figured out how to explain it. <grumble, grumble>
Pericles the Lion
Well-Known Member
I don't know why you're wrestling with this. There is nothing to explain. You're misremembering. The official Wiki has not been updated so here is what it says on the unofficial wiki:You're making my brain hurt!
I'm back to that dratted map & my calculator. I *know* there are more possibles - I've been on the map and fighting when it's happened! Grrr! I just haven't figured out how to explain it. <grumble, grumble>
Attrition protection is on adjacent provinces. The increases in advances (and the increase in VP) is on the province where the building is located.
jaymoney23456
Well-Known Member
There are not many players who do 1k fights or more in GbG per day. A very few that camp in PE with higher age units or who advance many ages in a single GbG round can hit 200 attrition which is what is needed about to get 1k hits in a day. Players in the high ages could not do this except if they used black potions or put in a lot of daunting towers for a day.
jaymoney23456
Well-Known Member
There is not any way where it would take more than 418 advances to take a sector in GbG no matter what camps you put on which sectors that touch each other or any other thing that could happen.You were absolutely correct about my "oopsie" on the position of advances. (I think I'm half asleep). However, I was only in error on the total number of possible advances based on the pivot sector. (Point of entry eliminates one of "my 6," so I've adjusted accordingly).
On the large (Waterfall) map:
If XIX and all but 1 sector were owned by the same guild and all of the T2’s were maxed built (with 3 slots in each), that would be 5x66=330 (increased advances) + 220 (base advances) for a total of 550 advances for XIX. So, yes, you are correct on the increased number of advances but not necessarily correct on the total possible number if it were max build/max slots on all adjacents excepting your entry point to XIX.
On the small (Volcano) map:
Example, Targeted Sector C2S.
C2S + C1, C2T, C3Y, C3X, and C3V are owned by one guild. Sieging guild owns B2T, and sieges C2S. 3 slots each at max build in 5 sectors equals 300 + 220 base advances = 520 total possible advances.
**nudges the napkin dispenser back into the center of table**