• 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:
    Apply

Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

  • Thread starter DeletedUser4770
  • Start date

DeletedUser40996

This has pulled in a lot of people who were not or rarely doing GvG for whatever reason. It's started with a bang, but has some issues.

Just like in GvG, sometimes a siege starts on a sector we don't want sieged. In GvG, we can control who can lay a siege and we can kill a siege. I suggest we need the same control on GbG.

Now before people get all semantic on me, by siege, I mean laying the first battle that causes a banner to appear. People just look for banners and hit them. Getting them to stop can sometimes be a chore and people start to get heated. Our core GvG players are used to regular communication channels, but we have many more involved now.

I suggest 3 things:
1. create a permission that can be given to allow laying the siege (first battle)
2. allow people with that permission or leader or something to be able to kill a siege - this means losing all battles gained so far in that sector
3. show logs of who is hitting a sector. Not sure if this one is feasible since there are so many battles lol
No no no and HELL NO . What if those "players" with the permissions aren't online when sector x gets taken it just stops everyone from participating until they do get on . You want the cooperation then TEACH YOUR GUILDMATES COMMUNICATION SKILLS instead .
 

DeletedUser33052

, when crossworld GbG starts, it will be very interesting like GE is now.
 

DeletedUser

If you cannot enjoy the process and your whole factor of fun is on whether you win or lose, then why even bother playing the game?
It's not about winning or losing, it's about being worthwhile. GE is worthwhile because if your guild is active, no matter the size, it benefits both the player and the guild. Seems to me that GBG is going to fail to live up to that. It is geared towards the players with hyper-leveled GBs, just like most of the game anymore. And that sucks. Because if you don't choose to adopt the hyper-leveling playstyle, you're out in the cold for too many of the game features. All of which comes back to the Arc. Again.
 

DeletedUser29726

It's not about winning or losing, it's about being worthwhile. GE is worthwhile because if your guild is active, no matter the size, it benefits both the player and the guild. Seems to me that GBG is going to fail to live up to that. It is geared towards the players with hyper-leveled GBs, just like most of the game anymore. And that sucks. Because if you don't choose to adopt the hyper-leveling playstyle, you're out in the cold for too many of the game features. All of which comes back to the Arc. Again.

1) It is very much worthwhile.
Even if your guild only does a minimum of participation it's a lot of crowns.
The Statue of Honor is an amazing individual building with guild benefits (6 FP in 12 squares + a HoF and an observatory built in basically). Depending how well you do you can get them faster or slower but as long as you're participating you will get some. You also get them faster if you're the one pulling the guild along.
You also can use it to convert some amount of excess troops or goods into other things (goods, troops, FP, diamonds) via individual rewards.

2) You're a very worthwhile contributor even *without* hyper-leveled buildings BECAUSE of attrition. The higher attrition gets the more expensive it is for the power player to "do more". The cost of your 10-20 encounters is comparable to him doing just 1 or 2 more. While I can't rule out the possibility that someone on some server is capable of doing it all on their own sustainably (i.e. they're not just blowing a year's worth of stockpiled goods in one week and will be doing much less next), that's not something any old "top player" is going to be able to do.
 

lemur

Well-Known Member
Where are the detailed instructions for how to play the Battlegrounds? The announcement falls way short. After winning hundreds of battles and negotiations, I can clearly see that this feature involves a blizzard of details. I have searched and found nothing from InnoGames about the details of the scoring and management of Battlegrounds.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
Where are the detailed instructions for how to play the Battlegrounds? The announcement falls way short. After winning hundreds of battles and negotiations, I can clearly see that this feature involves a blizzard of details. I have searched and found nothing from InnoGames about the details of the scoring and management of Battlegrounds.
Anything specific you want to know about?
 

Raymora

Member
No no no and HELL NO . What if those "players" with the permissions aren't online when sector x gets taken it just stops everyone from participating until they do get on . You want the cooperation then TEACH YOUR GUILDMATES COMMUNICATION SKILLS instead .

If they implement the changes, YOU have control. If you find it better to give permission to all, you're free to do so. In the long I would plan to give permission to many. For now, we have enough leaders to be on most all parts of the day. We have a plan and set sieges as needed or ensure someone will be on. You might think YOURS is the ONLY/BEST way. Your arrogance precedes you.
 

lemur

Well-Known Member
Anything specific you want to know about?

1. Does a successful negotiation count for twice as much as a battle victory? If so, why didn't InnoGames tell us that?

2. What is the exact formula for a guild's total victory points?

3. When are victory points accrued? Continuously? At the top of the hour? When?

4. What formula is used to determine the placement of members on the Member Activity chart?

5. How many building slots are on each province? If the number varies, then what is the probability of each possible number?

6. Can the number of building slots be increased? If so, then how?

7. Can the removal of a building immediately complete the siege of an opponent?

That's what I have at the top of my head. In addition, I have a more general question:

8. If the business model of InnoGames is solely dependent on diamond sales, then why do they chronically fail to provide detailed game instructions that would facilitate the use of diamonds? It seems to me that they are sabotaging their own business that way.
 

DeletedUser25042

I most definitely agree that permissions should apply with starting the first attack. We have the same thing for GvG. Trusted Rights. We have that for a reason.
Also, I have not been able to see in the Treasury where the goods are being recorded for what was spent in GbG. I know I spent them and when but it's not showing up in the logs.

As Founders, we need to see who started those battles because I am needing to kick people from my guild already for not following orders. I can't instill the rules if I can't enforce them. I've been playing in Beta for weeks and the same problems were happening there. I had assumed the problem would have been resolved before going to the regular servers. People cannot be trusted to confess therefore we need to have some control as Founders. As a top ten guild in my world we have spy problems no matter how well we screen them.
 

DeletedUser29726

1. Does a successful negotiation count for twice as much as a battle victory? If so, why didn't InnoGames tell us that?

2. What is the exact formula for a guild's total victory points?

3. When are victory points accrued? Continuously? At the top of the hour? When?

4. What formula is used to determine the placement of members on the Member Activity chart?

5. How many building slots are on each province? If the number varies, then what is the probability of each possible number?

6. Can the number of building slots be increased? If so, then how?

7. Can the removal of a building immediately complete the siege of an opponent?

That's what I have at the top of my head. In addition, I have a more general question:

8. If the business model of InnoGames is solely dependent on diamond sales, then why do they chronically fail to provide detailed game instructions that would facilitate the use of diamonds? It seems to me that they are sabotaging their own business that way.

1) It does. They might've told us somewhere, but perhaps not in the FAQ where it belongs.
2) each hour VP = VP + VP/hr. VP/hr being determined by the provinces you hold when the hour turns and any buildings influencing their value. it's a simple accumulator.
3) Top of the hour.
4) "Advances" = 2 * negotiations + fights
5) 0-3. Probabilities seem even. Edit: small correction on this, probabilities for higher building slot numbers seem to be higher towards the center, and lower towards the outside but overall the spread is pretty even.
6) No
7) Yes
 

Graviton

Well-Known Member
If they implement the changes, YOU have control. If you find it better to give permission to all, you're free to do so. In the long I would plan to give permission to many. For now, we have enough leaders to be on most all parts of the day. We have a plan and set sieges as needed or ensure someone will be on. You might think YOURS is the ONLY/BEST way. Your arrogance precedes you.

Perhaps your guild has enough leaders on at all times of the day. It's quite the presumption to believe that most other guilds do as well. I think the accusation of arrogance was misplaced.

It's designed specifically so that any guild member can start a siege. If you've got all these leaders on all the time then it's no great feat to have them coordinate your attacks via standard communication. There's no need to give your guild leaders exclusive powers, let alone advocate that every other guild be forced into that mold.
 

lemur

Well-Known Member
1) It does. They might've told us somewhere, but perhaps not in the FAQ where it belongs.
2) each hour VP = VP + VP/hr. VP/hr being determined by the provinces you hold when the hour turns and any buildings influencing their value. it's a simple accumulator.
3) Top of the hour.
4) "Advances" = 2 * negotiations + fights
5) 0-3. Probabilities seem even. Edit: small correction on this, probabilities for higher building slot numbers seem to be higher towards the center, and lower towards the outside but overall the spread is pretty even.
6) No
7) Yes

Thank you for offering answers. But my overall question remains: How are we supposed to know these things? What the hell is wrong with these people? The game is great, but their management of it continually makes me shake my head.

And I haven't even addressed the widening disparity between the desktop version and the mobile version — as InnoGames seems to be slowly abandoning their original player base. For example, it was true for several months that mobile players had a tremendous advantage in the speed with which they could contribute to Great Buildings.
 

Graviton

Well-Known Member
Thank you for offering answers. But my overall question remains: How are we supposed to know these things?

Ask questions on the forum?

And I haven't even addressed the widening disparity between the desktop version and the mobile version — as InnoGames seems to be slowly abandoning their original player base. For example, it was true for several months that mobile players had a tremendous advantage in the speed with which they could contribute to Great Buildings.

That would be levelling the playing field, not widening the disparity.
 

DeletedUser40996

If they implement the changes, YOU have control. If you find it better to give permission to all, you're free to do so. In the long I would plan to give permission to many. For now, we have enough leaders to be on most all parts of the day. We have a plan and set sieges as needed or ensure someone will be on. You might think YOURS is the ONLY/BEST way. Your arrogance precedes you.
It might work for your guild if it's big enough but it sure as HELL won't work for the smaller guilds some players prefer and it won't work for newer players . What does work is teaching them how to communicate within the game
 

DeletedUser40996

I most definitely agree that permissions should apply with starting the first attack. We have the same thing for GvG. Trusted Rights. We have that for a reason.
Also, I have not been able to see in the Treasury where the goods are being recorded for what was spent in GbG. I know I spent them and when but it's not showing up in the logs.

As Founders, we need to see who started those battles because I am needing to kick people from my guild already for not following orders. I can't instill the rules if I can't enforce them. I've been playing in Beta for weeks and the same problems were happening there. I had assumed the problem would have been resolved before going to the regular servers. People cannot be trusted to confess therefore we need to have some control as Founders. As a top ten guild in my world we have spy problems no matter how well we screen them.
Well goody for you that you have a top 10 guild . there's literally thousands of guilds on every world and not every player wants to be in the kind of environment a top 10 guild brings with it . What works for guild x won't work for guilds y and z . Teach the guild members how to coordinate attacks and communication or kick everyone and recruit better but don't try and force 1000's into the same box because people are playing a BATTLE game like a BATTLE game .
 

Raymora

Member
It's designed specifically so that any guild member can start a siege. If you've got all these leaders on all the time then it's no great feat to have them coordinate your attacks via standard communication. There's no need to give your guild leaders exclusive powers, let alone advocate that every other guild be forced into that mold.

If implemented, you simply need to give members permission. How exactly is the change I suggested forcing you into some kind of mold? It's simply giving more choice and better ability to control. You might as well argue why GvG requires permission to place sieges.
 

DeletedUser25042

Malice: the intention or desire to do evil; ill will. The definition fits you well.
I didn't ask you to join my guild.
I am pointing out the fact that the Founders need the option to know what is going on in their Treasury and have the ability to dole out responsibility just like they do in Guild vs. Guild fighting.
 

Graviton

Well-Known Member
If implemented, you simply need to give members permission. How exactly is the change I suggested forcing you into some kind of mold?

By making my guild have to pass out permission to each member to start battles. Your idea is an extra and superfluous step in the process: everyone can start battles now, why force guilds to pass out new permissions to every member to get back to where we are now? It's unnecessary. It also doesn't seem to fit the apparent design philosophy, which was to create a guild experience that literally everybody could participate in according to their own schedule and play style. No recal times, no need for all fighters to be on at the exact same time; players in various time zones can play it when they want to. Your suggestion is a step backwards towards GvG design.

EDIT: Why do you two keep insulting Malice?
 
Top