Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

[DeletedUser14168]

I have no doubts others have posted this somewhere, but trusted access should apply here in terms of being able to start/kill sieges. In my guild, as with many others, this is like trying to herd cats! We have a thread called GBG Target where instructions are posted about which provinces/guilds should (& should NOT) be hit, but have no way to figure out who the culprit(s) are who keep ignoring these posts.

Great feature, but SERIOUSLY frustrating at times!

 

[DeletedUser30312]

We find that guilds are spending diamonds in large amounts to unbalance the game. We are just over 2 hours into this new round and the dominate guild has already instantly built 13 seige towers and 2 palaces; paying diamonds to instantly complete them.

That's why the top league is called Diamond league. *snerk*

Seriously though, eventually guilds that do this will be in the top league and be fighting each other. There's only so much this can be sustained anyway depending on how much a player has or is willing to spend. I wouldn't throw diamonds at building construction any more than I would at completing negotiations. If someone is willing to do this all the time and has the deep pockets to manange it comfortably, well they're the type that will hang out in the strongest guilds anyway, they're not going to be satisfied with weaker options. Anyway, Inno isn't going to see anything that drives the sale of diamonds as a problem.

 

[mamboking053]

First look up how Support Pool works. Once you know you might stop wondering. Arc has nothing to do with Support Pool, so what do you want to recalibrate?

I meant Observatory and all those types. Oops.

 

[Darth Mole]

Round 3 and the same 5 Guilds that fought it out 1st time round. So far in 3 rounds of GbG we've had a total of 7 Guilds involved. Starting to get dull and predictable.
There's some feedback for you.

 

[qaccy]

The thing that's bugging me almost as much as how overpowered Siege Camps are is how guilds want to somehow treat it as if all GvG relationships should transfer over to Battlegrounds as well. I just don't see how that can work out when the map is focused on attacking and where sectors are designed to change hands frequently. Instead, GvG rules are being applied along with all the drama and personal feelings that come with it and I just don't think that the two features are compatible like that.

 

[DeletedUser38368]

Overall, my experience with GBG has been positive. It has caused me to change my perspective on certain aspects of the game (primarily with goods) which keeps things fresh and interesting.

The SoH is an interesting building. This is the first building (that I've seen) which has a collection that can directly satisfy "donate X goods to your guild treasury" quests. It does however make me question why GBs like the Observatory do not function the same way.

My one criticism of GBG echoes what others have said; the focus on goods production outweighing fighting. I understand the devs are tweaking things as we go along. I am hoping where they land won't be in a place that superior goods generation continues to have a far greater impact on GBG than superior fighting capability.

Being new to the forum and not wanting to ruffle too many feathers just yet, I'll refrain from getting into how I favor some sort of attack logs. I'll refrain even though I feel some players just don't know how to follow instructions and you can't always catch them in the act via the screenshot method. Logs would help immensely with all of that. You wouldn't need to control who can start a siege as the "remove from guild" button works just fine as an unwanted siege killer and it would be greatly enabled with attack logs. Anyway, I'm not going to get into all of that...


That's all for now. Thanks for reading my random musings

 

[DeletedUser]

Once again, the match up system is horribly balanced, to the point I wonder if any thought was put into it.

As in my previous post, one huge group dominates everything, while everyone else scrabbles for scraps. This is the 2nd day in.

 

[qaccy]

Once again, the match up system is horribly balanced, to the point I wonder if any thought was put into it.

As in my previous post, one huge group dominates everything, while everyone else scrabbles for scraps. This is the 2nd day in.

There's absolutely nothing stopping any other guild from doing the same thing, you know. This isn't at all like GvG.

 

[DeletedUser38222]

So when is there going to be restrictions allowing founders to control/ see who in the guild is attacking what sectors, or restrict everyone`s ability to siege whomever they like, or even be able to delete a siege? The thoughtlessness of this new attraction is insulting to those of us who have to be able to enforce control over ones guild. I understand its easy to say `control your own members`. In this new attraction foe has not given us the least bit of control or information to keep members in check. In my eyes you've created a giant pain that undermines leadership of guilds.

 

[DeletedUser]

So when is there going to be restrictions allowing founders to control/ see who in the guild is attacking what sectors, or restrict everyone`s ability to siege whomever they like, or even be able to delete a siege?

Hopefully never. This isn't GvG. (Logs would be okay, but control of other player's actions or ability to delete their actions would not be okay.)

The thoughtlessness of this new attraction is insulting to those of us who have to be able to enforce control over ones guild.

If you have to "enforce" control, it's not a guild.

In this new attraction foe has not given us the least bit of control or information to keep members in check.

You don't need artificial controls if you have leadership.

In my eyes you've created a giant pain that undermines leadership of guilds.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[DeletedUser38222]

Oh ok, one bad apple ruins it for everyone, and that makes me clueless about leadership? Just as I thought foe does things without thinking about unintended consequences, and you blame and insult the player when brought to your attention? Yes I DO know what leadership is. Good thing we have people like you to help us in getting OBVIOUS oversights taken care of. Instead of acknowledging there is a problem, just tell people they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Oh ok, one bad apple ruins it for everyone, and that makes me clueless about leadership? Just as I thought foe does things without thinking about unintended consequences, and you blame and insult the player when brought to your attention? Yes I DO know what leadership is. Good thing we have people like you to help us in getting OBVIOUS oversights taken care of. Instead of acknowledging there is a problem, just tell people they don't know what they are talking about.

But it's not an obvious oversight and it's not an unintended consequence. Inno has stated that they want GBG to be accessible to all players with no restrictions. Even those restrictions that might be imposed on the leaders of a guild.

I also hope these types of logs are never implemented. The ability of guild leaders to wrangle their members should be one of the differentiating factors in a guild's success. Instead of trying to find out which members aren't following your lead, you might want to find out why your members aren't following your lead.

 

[DeletedUser]

Oh ok, one bad apple ruins it for everyone, and that makes me clueless about leadership? Just as I thought foe does things without thinking about unintended consequences, and you blame and insult the player when brought to your attention? Yes I DO know what leadership is. Good thing we have people like you to help us in getting OBVIOUS oversights taken care of. Instead of acknowledging there is a problem, just tell people they don't know what they are talking about.

Go back and read the first several pages of this thread. There were many posts arguing back and forth on the issue of guild control. It has been beaten to death. There is no need to thrash it out again. To sum it up, however, GBG is meant to be different from GvG, not the same. And one of the things many of us didn't like about GvG was guild control of what we could or could not do. I can't tell you how many times I've joined GvG guilds over the last 5 years only to find myself frustrated at leadership's dos and don'ts. Times we could attack. Where we could attack. I wasted so much time and energy, not to mention resources, building up for GvG only to have "leadership" change their minds about what they were doing. Spent a week one time completely reworking my city (long before Reconstruction Mode) for a concerted attack on a specific GvG map. Trained hundreds of troops. Built up attack boost. Ready for our offensive on the date they had told us. On that day, however, we got a message from "leadership". "Nevermind", they said. "We have decided to just hold tight on that map and concentrate on another for the next several weeks," they said. Since I was not one of the trusted members who could start a siege, it meant that my whole week's work was absolutely wasted. I can't repeat what I said, but suffice it to say I was out of that guild as fast as I could click. And that was not an isolated incident. Every single GvG guild I was ever in (and I was in many) had so many constraints on members' actions that I finally started avoiding any guild whose profile said they were "serious" about GvG.

So if you want to get your nose out of joint, go right ahead. But the majority of players who have commented do not want guild controls instituted in GBG. Logs would be fine with most who have commented.

 

[Volodya]

So when is there going to be restrictions allowing founders to control/ see who in the guild is attacking what sectors, or restrict everyone`s ability to siege whomever they like, or even be able to delete a siege? The thoughtlessness of this new attraction is insulting to those of us who have to be able to enforce control over ones guild. I understand its easy to say `control your own members`. In this new attraction foe has not given us the least bit of control or information to keep members in check. In my eyes you've created a giant pain that undermines leadership of guilds.

Control your own members.

You're right, that was easy to say. It's quite satisfying to watch the little authoritarians here gnash their teeth in frustration and in vain.

 

[DeletedUser30935]

What is the reasoning for not allowing battleground constructors the ability to delete a siege?

 

[Graviton]

What is the reasoning for not allowing battleground constructors the ability to delete a siege?

I don't speak for Inno but I think the thought is that starting a seige doesn't cost the guild anything, and guild leaders can utilize the message center to direct strategy.

 

[DeletedUser]

What is the reasoning for not allowing battleground constructors the ability to delete a siege?

Ummm, because that would not be constructing?

The very real and excellent reason is that there is no game reason to do so. It is a GvG feature that makes no sense in GBG. In GvG there is a cost to the guild for a siege. In GBG there is none. The only excuse for it would be due to alliances, which is a player construct, not a game feature. You could say that GBG is closer to reality than GvG in this regard, though. In reality, alliances can be ignored by individuals at their discretion, just like in GBG. There is no real world equivalent to the GvG level of guild control over players' actions.

To sum up, guilds in GvG are used to the player construct of alliances. GvG has guild control features that give guild leaders complete control over their members' ability to attack sectors, thereby enabling the player construct of alliances. Since there is no game feature marking guilds as allied (and it has been proposed from time to time), it seems clear that Inno is not interested in giving further alliance-enforcing tools to guilds. The fact that GBG has no such controls bears this out.

 

[DeletedUser14168]

Control your own members.

You're right, that was easy to say. It's quite satisfying to watch the little authoritarians here gnash their teeth in frustration and in vain.

So, you've got so much control over ur own, bright guy. How do u do it? Tell us, oh wise one, what ur secret is. We're DYING to know.

 

[Volodya]

So, you've got so much control over ur own, bright guy. How do u do it? Tell us, oh wise one, what ur secret is. We're DYING to know.

I don't do it at all. I play this game for enjoyment, not to act out some petty fantasy of power and control.

 

[DeletedUser14168]

Ummm, because that would not be constructing?

The very real and excellent reason is that there is no game reason to do so. It is a GvG feature that makes no sense in GBG. In GvG there is a cost to the guild for a siege. In GBG there is none. The only excuse for it would be due to alliances, which is a player construct, not a game feature. You could say that GBG is closer to reality than GvG in this regard, though. In reality, alliances can be ignored by individuals at their discretion, just like in GBG. There is no real world equivalent to the GvG level of guild control over players' actions.

To sum up, guilds in GvG are used to the player construct of alliances. GvG has guild control features that give guild leaders complete control over their members' ability to attack sectors, thereby enabling the player construct of alliances. Since there is no game feature marking guilds as allied (and it has been proposed from time to time), it seems clear that Inno is not interested in giving further alliance-enforcing tools to guilds. The fact that GBG has no such controls bears this out.

So, bottom line: They don't know how to add the access rights. Rumor has it that's the reason GBG instead of GvG for device. One or more of the team that designed GvG is gone & those that are there don't know how it was designed so cant fix it.