Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

[Salsuero]

Actually you can on desktop but it can only be viewed on desktop (the guild forums allow you to copy a guild into a thread)

Not our guild... I was referring to messaging another guild directly as a guild in order to form an alliance, rather than having to message individual members and hope that you reach the "right" person to set something up.

Some fight for 2nd or to overtake the guild closest in strength to them.

Is that the goal from the start or the resulting goal throughout the tournament as things shake out?

Not really, some guilds don't care.

We're only referring to the ones that do. Obviously guilds that don't care don't apply to a discussion about a fight they aren't fighting.

For a very small pool of players sure. Already nearing the end of Round 3 we've faced just about every top guild for our world and they've all decided it's between my guild and one other. Every other guild either doesn't have the resources to compete or doesn't have the co-ordination and motivation to care/ They all know it and have stated it. Everyone else is competing against the other guilds. They're not even competing for top 2 and I'm talking about an established world that's been around since early 2015

That only applies to the very top guilds that your world determines are "impossible" to beat -- and even then, those tippy top guilds probably still want to beat each other, whether they can or not. That will happen eventually -- for the top-most league(s). So, yes... those guilds may not be fighting for 1st place during the weeks they are up against you and the other couple top guilds. But that's going to be rare if ever for most guilds in the game. I don't expect our guild will ever be up against the top guilds in our world. I'm proud of my guild's accomplishments thus far, but I'm not ignorant of our strengths and weaknesses vs. the top guilds.

 

[DeletedUser]

Not our guild... I was referring to messaging another guild directly as a guild in order to form an alliance, rather than having to message individual members and hope that you reach the "right" person to set something up.

@Emberguard was referring to sharing a thread/topic in the Guild Forum with another guild. Meaning that the members of the other guild who have access to their own Guild Forum would be able to see it. Guild Forums are only accessible on the browser version, and this is a little known feature of them.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

We created an alliance with another guild. After the deal was struck, I created a group thread giving the other guild's representative admin rights on the thread. Both leaders were then able to add members as we saw fit.

I then posted a message on the internal thread to keep all GBG chatter on our internal thread and to only use the alliance thread to specifically coordinate with the other guild and to please keep all information shared with them, "need to know". There's been minimal chatter on the alliance thread since, everyone is keeping to the terms of the treaty. We don't advertise our moves, they don't advertise theirs, We're each doing our own thing, leaving each other alone.

It's worked well so far. The combined thread was the other guild's suggestion, but I'm definitely adding it to my bag of tricks.

 

[Salsuero]

@Emberguard was referring to sharing a thread/topic in the Guild Forum with another guild. Meaning that the members of the other guild who have access to their own Guild Forum would be able to see it. Guild Forums are only accessible on the browser version, and this is a little known feature of them.

Spoiler: Original Message Chain Regarding Direct Messages & Alliances

They did give us to tools to facilitate alliances.
...
They gave us messages to be able to contact and facilitate relationships.

An example of a tool would be some way to directly connect with a guild and to negotiate alliances from within GBg. There is no way of knowing who to contact (unless they tell you in their member note or guild description) and no way to directly mark an alliance on the map so all members clearly know who you are allied with. See the difference?

Directly connect with a guild? It sounds like you're describing a message or a thread... A message that can be used to negotiate alliances amongst guilds. As the system that is currently in place allows us to do... oh wait. I bet you mean the kind of messaging system that is used in GVG to facilitate alliances?

Can we directly message A GUILD? No. We can message members. But not the guild.

Actually you can on desktop but it can only be viewed on desktop (the guild forums allow you to copy a guild into a thread)

Not our guild... I was referring to messaging another guild directly as a guild in order to form an alliance, rather than having to message individual members and hope that you reach the "right" person to set something up.

Ok, but the original message chain was about messaging other guilds "directly" in order to set up alliances as a "tool" that Inno has given us, so that's why I was confused and responded the way I did. It wasn't about covertly sharing a message/thread in a forum that no one really uses, and with no guarantee that the people who actually need to see it ever will -- or can (if they are mobile only). Setting up a message and sharing it from within the guild forum system is not the same as directly messaging a guild in my opinion. It's passive. I mean... if we're considering just any method of contact to be something Inno gave us to facilitate alliances and therefore should be considered the reason alliances are something Inno wished for us to make happen, we can say it's possible to set up a thread for them here on the forums, but that doesn't mean it'll be seen... or seen by the right people... and certainly doesn't guarantee it will be seen quickly enough to be acted upon. My point was that they could've actually made alliances a feature if that was what they intended. I'm sure it wasn't an original idea after the fact that they never thought of or was never conveyed to them, especially after a lengthy beta presence. If they wanted to make them something we should be doing without effort, they would've come up with a way to do so. I'm not saying alliances can't be done or aren't a way to play the game. I was refuting the supposition that they are something that Inno wants us to do specifically, which lends to the opinion that we should have the logs to be able to kick people out of the guild who don't play the game according to the alliances that have been set up. If alliances were supposed to be followed -- do or die -- I believe Inno would've made that more of a feature of GBg, which is why I don't believe that this particular argument in favor of the logs carries weight.

 

[DeletedUser40197]

Ok, but the original message chain was about messaging other guilds "directly" in order to set up alliances as a "tool" that Inno has given us, so that's why I was confused and responded the way I did. It wasn't about covertly sharing a message/thread in a forum that no one really uses, and with no guarantee that the people who actually need to see it ever will -- or can (if they are mobile only). Setting up a message and sharing it from within the guild forum system is not the same as directly messaging a guild in my opinion. It's passive. I mean... if we're considering just any method of contact to be something Inno gave us to facilitate alliances and therefore should be considered the reason alliances are something Inno wished for us to make happen, we can say it's possible to set up a thread for them here on the forums, but that doesn't mean it'll be seen... or seen by the right people... and certainly doesn't guarantee it will be seen quickly enough to be acted upon. My point was that they could've actually made alliances a feature if that was what they intended. I'm sure it wasn't an original idea after the fact that they never thought of or was never conveyed to them, especially after a lengthy beta presence. If they wanted to make them something we should be doing without effort, they would've come up with a way to do so. I'm not saying alliances can't be done or aren't a way to play the game. I was refuting the supposition that they are something that Inno wants us to do specifically, which lends to the opinion that we should have the logs to be able to kick people out of the guild who don't play the game according to the alliances that have been set up. If alliances were supposed to be followed -- do or die -- I believe Inno would've made that more of a feature of GBg, which is why I don't believe that this particular argument in favor of the logs carries weight.

Never once did I insinuate that inno wants us to be forming alliances. I don't assume to know innos intentions, unless they state it clearly. But I do say it is absolutely acceptable to form alliances for GBG. And if inno did not want it done it is likely they would have implemented something to prevent it.
The current message system for FOE is all you need. I had mentioned the message system in GVG that they use to form alliances. That was intentional, as there is not one. Guilds form alliances for GVG using the message system in FOE. But let me guess Inno never intended for there to be alliances im GVG? You are repeatedly saying Inno did not intend for there to be alliances. How do you know that? Where did they say, there will be no alliances in GBG? I haven't seen that. If you could point me to it, I would love to see it. And as far as you saying it should be available without effort? That also makes no sense to me (like about 80% of what you post) as I put a ton of effort into most of what I do in the game. Like the settlements for example. It's not all suppose to be easy.

 

[Emberguard]

Ok, but the original message chain was about messaging other guilds "directly" in order to set up alliances as a "tool" that Inno has given us, so that's why I was confused and responded the way I did. It wasn't about covertly sharing a message/thread in a forum that no one really uses, and with no guarantee that the people who actually need to see it ever will -- or can (if they are mobile only).

@Salsuero ok. My point was there is already a very easy and quick way to message an entire guild if they’re on the same platform as you.

It’s also possible to use the message centre in the same way. But it’d take a lot more work to update, or only be suited to smaller Guilds (max 100 participants) or be a handful from each guild only.

My point was that they could've actually made alliances a feature if that was what they intended. I'm sure it wasn't an original idea after the fact that they never thought of or was never conveyed to them, especially after a lengthy beta presence.

oh sure. Great. Pair up the guilds in twos and then if an alliance is struck outside the system you’re versing 4 instead of 2

Based on the design I’d assume inno intended us to use strategy on as even a footing as possible. Alliances are strategy.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

One of the few things that disappoints me about GBG is that the SoH is only 5 levels. So far in both of my cities, I've added a level each round. Taking into account a skipped level here and there, that's still 8 SoH's in my city this time next year, 20 in 2 years. While a sea of SoH's will be a badge of honor, I'm not looking forward to having my city filled with one type of building.

Their power guarantees they'll be replacing Terrace Farms, Cider Mills, and dozens of SoKs. Even a number of event buildings will now find their way back into inventory and onto the AD. That disappoints me. For space reasons alone, I'd like to see a few more levels added.

I'm also now disappointed about the paltry amount of medals awarded by the PvP towers. Since the roll out of GBG, I've been annihilating the towers, so far in 1st it's not funny. It surprises me I'm so far ahead, it makes me wonder what the supposed digital bad ass fighters have been doing all these years. With my Arc, I get plenty of medals, but with the medals you get from a tower so small, winning a tower is now little more than bragging rights.

 

[Vger]

I'm also now disappointed about the paltry amount of medals awarded by the PvP towers. Since the roll out of GBG, I've been annihilating the towers, so far in 1st it's not funny. It surprises me I'm so far ahead, it makes me wonder what the supposed digital bad ass fighters have been doing all these years. With my Arc, I get plenty of medals, but with the medals you get from a tower so small, winning a tower is now little more than bragging rights.

Totally agree with that. Probably almost warrants a proposal, except probably already proposed before, and likely DNSL anyway.
I'm accidentally 1'st on the CA tower in my LMA city. 1 Grenadier + 7 rogue is my best friend in GBG this season.
I could get bumped to 2'nd before it's over. Do I care? Would I put much effort into getting back into 1'st? Mah...300 medals vs. 150 medals. I can make that up taking 5'th on a low level arc using my low level arc.
It would be fun to see PvP towers become fun again.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Totally agree with that. Probably almost warrants a proposal, except probably already proposed before, and likely DNSL anyway.
I'm accidentally 1'st on the CA tower in my LMA city. 1 Grenadier + 7 rogue is my best friend in GBG this season.
I could get bumped to 2nd before it's over. Do I care? Would I put much effort into getting back into 1'st? Mah...300 medals vs. 150 medals. I can make that up taking 5'th on a low level arc using my low level arc.
It would be fun to see PvP towers become fun again.

I'm hoping with GBG live, Foe is finally at the 'fit and finish' stage of development. It seems that within the current framework, for Inno, FoE is now about adding new content vs. adding new features. The last year alone has given us:

• Off-World Ages - This solved a couple of issues that have plagued late era cities, a city flooded with special buildings with little room for age specific tech tree buildings. Like Settlements, this allows a more immersive environment in that age. In hindsight, too bad Inno didn't figure it out sooner, AF, OF, and VF would have been better served up in such an environment.
• Settlements - The same engine solved the problem of ages/cultures not explored in the main game. Settlements now allow Inno to add an unlimited number of new ages/cultures. Combining the city building of the main game with historical questlines, settlements replace the limited timed event with what is essentially historical questlines on demand with much more immersive play.
• GBG - A GvG environment for everyone. The biggest hole with GvG's lack of new ages and PC only operation.

Along with GE and DC, I can't think of any more holes. I think it;s now about continuing to add new content, and hopefully reworking/improving some of the existing content.

I'd love to see anything and everything that reduces server traffic and mouse clicks. Similar to eliminating the tavern pop-up, I'd like to see Inno work on streamlining play to reduce the number of mouse clicks for routine tasks. Particularly high on my list is streamlining the RQ process, especially with negotiations in GBG.

Like the medal rewards in the PvP towers, a lot of the rewards could be re-balanced to be more in line with the current power level of the game. Even more than the PvP medal rewards is a refresh of both GE and DC rewards. DC items like the Maypole should be retired to the AD and replaced with items more recent/powerful.

The GE specific prizes could also use some updating. I'd like to see the existing buildings remain, but add upgrade and shrink kit prizes. Maybe FoY and TF shrink kits, upgrade to add levels to TSs, and lvl 2 Faces and Gates that boost happy, adds coins, and a FP. I don't think it would take much to make the GE buildings relevant again for later age players. These could then become rare rewards from GE IV and refreshed/rebalanced relic rewards.

Anyway, that's my hope. No new features, just ongoing new content and a bit of ongoing spit an polish.

 

[Salsuero]

You are repeatedly saying Inno did not intend for there to be alliances.

I don't believe it was "intended" -- you are correct. However, I don't think they care if you do it either.

Where did they say, there will be no alliances in GBG?

I don't think they did say that. I also don't think they said "form alliances... that's our hope for you." Neither situation is what I think is true.

And as far as you saying it should be available without effort? That also makes no sense to me (like about 80% of what you post) as I put a ton of effort into most of what I do in the game.

Great. So, no logs then? I'm in agreement.

 

[Salsuero]

Alliances are strategy.

Yes, they are. But Inno didn't design GBg around alliances. That's just one of many strategies. I don't think we need logs. You can have an alliance without them, but having them gives forming alliances a boost. I'm fine with the way it is currently set up. If you want to form an alliance and a rogue member screws that up, that's your guild's problem... not the game's.

 

[Emberguard]

Ok, but what tools would help a guild work better as a group? You’re either working as a group or as a bunch of individuals that happen to be in the same guild. A guilds strength is in how well it can function as a whole.

Logs that give an idea of who's responsible for what would allow for accountability for a players actions which is necessary if a guild is to work together. Better communication would also help. Can’t communicate to players while they’re in a battle or negotiation. This would be both with and without alliances. For a guild that's full any member that's not working towards the shared goal is a member that's taking a spot that could have gone to someone that would work with the guild instead of against it.

Whether we get either we'll see with time

 

[Algona]

The subject of logs keeps resurfacing. . Kinda reminiscent of one of those hydrodynamic pieces of dooky that no matter how many times you flush never goes away.

With apologies to Whammo and J Kricfalusi.

Hey kids!

What plops on stairs alone or in pairs?
Smells like a week dead doc?
What's left from a snack, spews out of your back?
It's log, log, LOG!

It's lo-og, it's lo-og! It's big its heavy it's brown,
It's lo-og, it's lo-og! You;re gonna have a big frown
as long it still swirls aroun', so use the plunger to make it go down.

From Burrito!

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Ok, but what tools would help a guild work better as a group? You’re either working as a group or as a bunch of individuals that happen to be in the same guild. A guilds strength is in how well it can function as a whole.

Logs that give an idea of who's responsible for what would allow for accountability for a players actions which is necessary if a guild is to work together. Better communication would also help. Can’t communicate to players while they’re in a battle or negotiation. This would be both with and without alliances. For a guild that's full any member that's not working towards the shared goal is a member that's taking a spot that could have gone to someone that would work with the guild instead of against it.

Whether we get either we'll see with time

Most guilds are perfectly capable of working together as a group. We have all the tools we need, message center. Additional logs and tools might make it easier for a guilds unable to work together to identify which members might be kicking against the goads, but it would also create an additional burden onto guilds that don't have those issues.

Regardless, Inno has shown no support for additional tools. Moving into the 4th round on live they've been silent on the issue, even on beta. I believe no more tools are coming. The sooner guild leaders deal with that, the better off we'll all be.

 

[Emberguard]

but it would also create an additional burden onto guilds that don't have those issues.

?

Wouldn’t those who dont need logs not use the logs?

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Wouldn’t those who don't need logs not use the logs?

No. The mere existence of the logs will ensure their use. If not by the leaders, than by members in the guild. This has no other outcome but to create additional strife where it exists and create strife where it doesn't. There's also no point in creating them only to limit their use only to leaders.

Effective leaders don't need logs to lead effectively. The issues are not about who, but about why. Stop worrying about the who and work on the why. Solve the why, and the who won't matter.

 

[Emberguard]

Why - the only reason why is accountability. Can’t be held accountable if there’s no record of it happening

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Why - accountability. Can’t be held accountable if there’s no record of it happening

You misunderstood. I know why you want the log, you want to find out who is not following direction. Who it is doesn't matter.

There's either a leadership environment that's been created inside the guild that members are rebelling against or they simply lack direction, understanding, or clarity. Sorry, but nobody wakes up in the morning and says, "Let's see how I can screw over my guild mates today and f'up GBG for us." Seriously.

Why are members either in open rebellion to leadership's direction, or what is the source of member's confusion that they can't or don't know how to find or effectively follow directions? It doesn't matter who's rebelling or who's confused.

Logs will tell you who, but the who doesn't matter. <Insert Name Here> The problem exists. Why? Fix the why.

Once the why is fixed, The who will fall in line. As such, finding out the who doesn't mater. Solve the why.

 

[DeletedUser40197]

I don't think they did say that. I also don't think they said "form alliances... that's our hope for you." Neither situation is what I think is true.

I have never quoted Inno as saying there needs to be alliances. But it is true that they have done nothing to prevent alliances being formed. Play it which ever way you want.

Great. So, no logs then? I'm in agreement.

Idk who you are in agreement with on that point, because I never said that. I have never advocated for 'logs'. What I have, very clearly, said is that is up to Inno. Not you and not me, or anyone else. If the game developers choose to implement great, if not, also great.

 

[Graviton]

Why would I support adding tools for you which make it easier for you to overcome your handicap and remove that advantage for my the guilds I'm in?

This is the only real argument against logs: "My guild doesn't need them so the lack of logs is advantageous to us". All this other stuff about what makes good leadership and how leadership is supposed to behave and how Inno would be wasting resources is all a facade pasted over that one argument just for the sake of continuing the argument.

There's nothing wrong with opining against something for selfish reasons, I've done it myself on a couple of proposals in the past. But let's not pretend that the integrity of the game is at stake or that we're really concerned about how the game designers disseminate work, or that every other guild that's not as good as mine should just figure out how to be better. None of us has done a cost-benefit analysis, nobody here is really concerned about proper game design, and no one here is arguing from an objective standpoint. All the rest of these posts for and against logs are the real waste of time and effort. You either support logs to identify members who aren't toeing the line, or you don't want logs 'cause you want those other guilds to continue having trouble so you can beat them more easily. There really aren't any other arguments.

If we were truly concerned about how Inno spends its time then we'd stop filling up this feedback thread with the same arguments back and forth. Feedback threads are to state your opinion, not to try to convince everybody else they're wrong. Both sides of the issue have been established well enough by now.