• 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

Raymora

Member
I was referring to, if a guild has some of the center and another guild cuts off their HQ such as swinging around on the 2 level of the map, they should loose those disconnected zones in the center or anywhere on the map
Honestly, I think that would give way too much advantage to top guilds and I'm in one. If it were designed that way, I would take advantage, but I wouldn't suggest it.
 

Raymora

Member
Just a thought:

There should be an option to delete a building. If that building is deleted, you get 50% of the goods back.

Here's the kicker: Take a sector with building on it, you can delete it and pocket half the goods. Someone wants to use diamonds to fast built a a building seconds before it is conquered. then there is a potential transfer to the conquering guild of not just the building (50% chance), but also the goods themselves (if torn down).
Most of the time, we delete buildings just before if we're going to lose a province. For us to get the goods back wouldn't be fair to the attacking guild. We would pay for palaces probably and already forced them to need far more advancements. We got what we paid for. Again, I would love to take advantage if INNO adds this, but I don't thinks it's fair to the guilds fighting their way up the ladder.
 

plinker2

Well-Known Member
Once again the thread is for feedback ONLY. If they are arguing or off topic, we WILL remove the post. We encourage feedback and their comments, we discourage bickering.
 

DeletedUser40577

I deleted your post because we've already had pages and pages of discussion on that particular point, and it has already been beaten to death and crowded out any other potential feedback. There is no benefit to having 50 pages of discussion on one or two points in a feedback thread. Most people want more comprehensive logs and some people want stricter guild controls on players' actions while most don't.

You may contact me directly if you have further questions, or contact Panacea or Sovereign if you wish to complain about my actions to my superiors. I am okay with either avenue should you choose to pursue this further.

Now if anyone has feedback on something other than logs or guild controls, please feel free to share it.
Proposal: Allow GbG Coordinators to "signal" a sector. That is, make it highlight, or have fireworks flying off of it for all I care. Perhaps even make this cost something -- but having an indication which presents the strategic intentions of coordinators being visible on the map would be nice (and feels like a compromise for the two violent torrential viewpoints) This doesn't stop anyone from attacking wherever they want, nor does it make it "confusing" ... it certainly removes a degree of ignorance.
 

Raymora

Member
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is a suggestion to reset the troops you face after a successful negotiation. When attrition gets high and the troops you face are more difficult, you get stuck to continue negotiation. If the troops reset, you may be able to fight next round and back to negotiations when you hit the next tough one.
 

Super Catanian

Well-Known Member
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is a suggestion to reset the troops you face after a successful negotiation. When attrition gets high and the troops you face are more difficult, you get stuck to continue negotiation. If the troops reset, you may be able to fight next round and back to negotiations when you hit the next tough one.
That might be to maintain balance, but I hate it as well. Definitely a good suggestion, though...
 

DeletedUser

I have deleted a bunch more off topic and argumentative (lacking actual feedback) posts. Do not post any more about logs or guild controls. Those have dominated this thread and other feedback needs to have the chance to be seen.
 

Robbenn

Member
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is a suggestion to reset the troops you face after a successful negotiation. When attrition gets high and the troops you face are more difficult, you get stuck to continue negotiation. If the troops reset, you may be able to fight next round and back to negotiations when you hit the next tough one.

Good suggestion. After a certain point, if you're unlucky enough to get a tough combination, you're stuck, even though you might be able to go much further when facing any other troop types. The ability to reset the troops you face, even if it has a cost to it, would be a nice addition.
 

DeletedUser30791

Good suggestion. After a certain point, if you're unlucky enough to get a tough combination, you're stuck, even though you might be able to go much further when facing any other troop types. The ability to reset the troops you face, even if it has a cost to it, would be a nice addition.
You can actually do this now indirectly. Every time you win a battle, all the province opponents get updates. So if the main target has a troop mix I don't want to face, I'll look at the secondary sieges or even start a siege on a province to get the opponents that I want. I'll jump back to the main siege when it has a good troop mix. The same can be done with negotiations to get better negotiations. However a successful negotiation doesn't change the troop mix and a successful battle doesn't change the negotiations.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
I would suggest linking the fight/negotiations in such a way that if a fight is too difficult, be able to negotiate the turn to reset the troops that you must face and vice versa.
Right now, nothing resets until you defeat it.
 

Bob the gapper

New Member
I was discussing this with the guild this morning, and sharing it here.

We are a top 10 guild because we play GvG, but the number of players that play GvG is a small part of the guild—many cannot because they are on mobile or are not interested. We cannot do that in GBG, because the way it is setup, strong players can contribute, but they are limited in how much. If GvG were setup similarly to GBG, we would not be a top 10 guild, but rather top 20.

it is going to change how the game is played. When a quest is ongoing, active players' time is going to be sucked up even more than it was before, which was already quite time consuming. If a player is active in GvG, GE, quests, and normal game play, you can already find yourself playing much of the day, even without GB.

So I think a lot of players who have focused on fighting are going to be frustrated by this, because it diminishes the effort that I've put into building my city attack, which has been mostly what I have done. It will also encourage others to abuse their stores of goods, eventually those large amount of goods will disappear, and the speed at which players will advance will decrease rapidly, which is the ultimate goal of INNO in creating the GBG, I believe—they are tired of trying to create new worlds. GB is sort of the "anti-Arc." Players will, in general, use up their goods faster than they gain them.

It changes the focus from getting FPs to move ahead, by raising GBs and advancing, to getting goods. Fewer FPs means folks will not move forward nearly as quickly. For example, I have 20 terrace farms, which I use to make 100 fps a day. I could switch them over to goods, which is 600 goods/day (or 120 goods of each kind/day). I could suck up that many goods with 10 negotiations in GBG after I can no longer fight. For the lower level players, it could be quite intimidating.

After this round of GBG is done, we need to assess what we have gotten for the huge effort it requires. Of course, we play to have fun, and if it is fun, that is one thing, but we also play to advance, and I wonder how much benefit the guild will get in the end.

And as an aside, fighting is not free. it also drains our fighting units—for advanced players, with high arcs, it can rapidly deplete rogue numbers.

In a month or two, I might end up just harvesting my daily fps in some do-nothing guild—having active players stop will end up weakening the entire platform.
 
Last edited:
Top