Great Building changes for 1.20

[DeletedUser2382]

I would like to hear from some of the many players who started the numerous threads asking for a change to make defence stiffer. There have been many threads prior to this announcement complaining that it was impossible to defend a city. Perhaps some feedback from that perspective would shed another light on this coming change.

...of course there were just as many complaints that offensive bonuses were too weak by comparison, which basically suggests dev hit it right on the mark the first try...

Also--let's not forgot the obvious, that most complaints suggesting defense was too weak were largely coming from newer and less active players, while complaints suggesting attack was too weak were largely coming from players on older, more active, and more competitive neighborhoods.

 

[DeletedUser4844]

Try fighting for InA bonus provs with 140% boosted AI and you'll see that this upcoming nerf absolutely blows

I don't think the InA bonus content had any whole provinces at 140%. There might have been two sectors in the hardest province at that because the actual troops in those particular sectors were relatively easy to beat otherwise, but I think most of the hardest province was 110%, or maybe 120%. IN any case, it was very hard to beat until I got progressive age troops, but it is also not part of the regular map. It is bonus content. You can do perfectly well in terms of territories gained, goods deposits, etc, ect, without ever getting any of the bonus content. The regular industrial age map has plenty of stuff to it.

 

[DeletedUser2145]

@batwact. You are only looking at this through the prism of PvP, there is much more to the game. When it comes to the campaign map, the developers are not changing anything. So when fighting on the campaign map, my units will be less effective than they are now when the GBs are nerfed. There is no re-balance there, thus, something is being taken away from the players in that respect.

Yes, but GvG will be added. Which will provide extra opportunity for battles and battle points, and if you're part of a guild and you do not participate in GvG, you could still be reaping on many awesome rewards if others in your guild participate. In my understanding this is why a rebalance was needed. With GvG as an addition, the possible rewards from fights increase, and it was really becoming ridiculous how easy it was to defeat a defense (there were screenshots that I'm too lazy to hunt down of how a 150% offensive bonus won over a 720% defense and walked out with 3 alive units). People are winning over 10 million battle points weekly in ME, that's over 200k ranking points on a weekly basis from PvP. If you add the possibility of a player doing the same, or even more, in GvG, that becomes, simply put, a ridiculous number of points. Let alone the other rewards GvG could provide.

Try fighting for InA bonus provs with 140% boosted AI and you'll see that this upcoming nerf absolutely blows

I believe the bonus only goes up to 120%-125%, and that's at the very ending province. I went through the IndA bonus provinces with a 70% bonus, and a 75% bonus in that last province. I used IndA units myself, and always had at least a few units alive. That is too easy, because those provinces were made to be hard, which is why you can enter the Progressive Era map without completing that area first, and you can go back when you have Progressive Era units. It's meant as a challenge and is supposed to be hard. The change is significant, yes, but it only appears that bad because players (myself included) are used to having it easy and using auto-battle.

 

[DeletedUser2344]

Most of the problem here is perception. The percentage points have been taken away from both offensive and defensive GBs. GBs that people put a lot of time and effort into to have them stripped of a lot of their power. The simplest solution is to just add that attack bonus on to the defensive GBs. Give something, not take it away. It's been stated that it doesn't work in the support pool for GvG but I don't understand that answer.

And if you think making 10 million points from battling the entire hood everyday (which takes a lot of time and effort itself) is a bad thing, beta just started counting the GvG points in the overall point total. I mean, it's tough enough now taking down 80 armies to gain one tower (with no one attacking your siege army) but even though it's going to get tougher, with those added points one might see double or triple that point value per week.

 

[DeletedUser8353]

So from what i have been reading about this is, its pretty much a big slap in the face to your loyal and money paying players!!! This is a horrible idea , I know for a fact that if my GB that i have paid for and worked hard to level, all get knocked down to 3% per level outside of GvG , i will be quiting and taking as many people with as i can. Good way to show appreciation to youR customers THANKS GUYS!!!!

 

[DeletedUser]

Why not just make def GBs +5% to atk/def for defending armies and left atk GBs alone? Then theyd be even like they are now. There could still be pure def boosts for defending armies (so the monastery or watchfires might only add def to defending armies, not atk and def). Then defense would have a slight advantage with numbers (for most players, especially those who don't spend real $) but would still have the disadvantage of being controlled by the AI. Then at least the numbers, based on looking purely at the GBs and comparing atk GBs to def GBs, would be even like theyre about to be and also most people probably wouldn't feel as 'nerfed'. Since in that scenario def GBs would be losing 5% def boost per lv but gaining 5% atk boost per lv. So their defending armies might take a bit more damage but theyd also be able to do more damage. Just seems like that would of made less people complain and still would of made atk and def GBs 'even' (for PvP).

 

[DeletedUser6425]

I started playing in Beta a couple of months ago to learn about Guild Wars. It has been a waste of time. It is like you said " Only the largest most powerful Guilds will have sectors and will become even stronger and there will be no place for smaller less powerful Guilds" I have learned in BETA that a small Guild has no chance to acquire any sectors, that is why we are disbanding our guild and will longer be playing in Beta. I like others have worked very hard to get my GB's and the decrease in attack and defense has impacted my game in Beta (same will apply to Arvahal when changes take affect) to the point that it is no longer fun to play. In my opinion a game should be fun to play not become a job I already have one of those.

 

[DeletedUser]

I started playing in Beta a couple of months ago to learn about Guild Wars. It has been a waste of time. It is like you said " Only the largest most powerful Guilds will have sectors and will become even stronger and there will be no place for smaller less powerful Guilds" I have learned in BETA that a small Guild has no chance to acquire any sectors, that is why we are disbanding our guild and will longer be playing in Beta. I like others have worked very hard to get my GB's and the decrease in attack and defense has impacted my game in Beta (same will apply to Arvahal when changes take affect) to the point that it is no longer fun to play. In my opinion a game should be fun to play not become a job I already have one of those.

+1 Rydeck! You hit the nail on the head! I too was playing over in Beta and came to the same conclusion!

 

[DeletedUser9227]

+1 Rydeck! You hit the nail on the head! I too was playing over in Beta and came to the same conclusion!

Is this correct?: One Watchfire will have more defensive bonus then a level 1 St. Basil or Deal in regular PvP? I agree this is getting way too confusing each time the goalposts change.

 

[DeletedUser]

A watch fire does not work with GvG and also does not provide attack boost to your defending units in PvP.

 

[DeletedUser9227]

A watch fire does not work with GvG and also does not provide attack boost to your defending units in PvP.

That I do know. What I asked was; A Watchfire will now have the same DEFENSVIE bonus as St Basil and Deal at level one in PVP? Watchfire +4% Def / St Basil-Deal +3% Def.....is that correct?

 

[DeletedUser2145]

Watchfire = +4% defense;
St Basil = +3% attack and defense;
Deal = +3% attack and defense;

Yes, a watchfire provides 1% more defense than a single level of the defensive GBs.

 

[DeletedUser9227]

Ok. Thanks. Will the GB change happen at the start of GvG? I was under the impression the the GB change was going to happen before GvG started so that players would see and understand the changes. But it now looks as though it will happen at the same time. Is that right?

 

[DeletedUser3556]

My problem with the current changes to the offensive and defensive great buildings is that I believe they were too severe to the offensive great buildings. Given that only the attacking player in pvp can suffer losses, I would have expected that defensive great buildings attack/defense would and should never exceed 50% of the max possible value of all the offensive GB's combined. So if Basil and Deal combined provided 60% att/ 60% def on Defense, then; Zues/Aachen and Castel should be providing 120% att / 120% def on Offense.

Per level scaling could be 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6.

Now just looking at the current scale of 3% per level for the offensive GB's I have a question with regards to The Statue of Zues and bronze age troops. A horseman from the BA has an attack of 8, If my Zues was level 1 would my calculated offensive value be 8.24 or 8. Or would I have to wait till I had a lv 3 Zues for my attack value to be 8.72 and rounded up to 9. In other words can the displayed offense/defense values be less than the actual values used for calculating damage, or does the effect of great buildings only kick in for values x.5 and above with rounding?

Question, Wouldn't the change to Offensive and Defensive values exacerbate the imbalance in pvp between players with Alcatraz and players without, as those with would have no need to ever use the diamond repair feature in the game, since they could just rotate the unlimited amount of bonus troops available to them, while those without Alcatraz would have to pay to repair or fall behind with regards to towers?

Side note, having only 2 watchfires myself, I have no problem with there being players in PvP after this change takes effect being close to Undefeatable on defense in PvP. Watchfires take up space, provide no happiness, and only help in preventing someone from getting plundered which eventually doesn't even matter once you reach the end of the last age anyway.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, it's now apparent that the GB change is no longer an if, it's going to happen on Feb.25. So, everyone just needs to suck it up and move along. I'm sure DeM2 is very tired of our "bitter" comments anyway!

 

[DeletedUser2145]

Ok. Thanks. Will the GB change happen at the start of GvG? I was under the impression the the GB change was going to happen before GvG started so that players would see and understand the changes. But it now looks as though it will happen at the same time. Is that right?

That is right, the two things will come with the same update. The GB changes are done mostly due to the addition of GvG, but were announced in advance because they are changes to existing content and the devs wanted players to be aware of it, as opposed to GvG which is new content so the usual inclusion in the changelog announcement should suffice.

A horseman from the BA has an attack of 8, If my Zues was level 1 would my calculated offensive value be 8.24 or 8. Or would I have to wait till I had a lv 3 Zues for my attack value to be 8.72 and rounded up to 9. In other words can the displayed offense/defense values be less than the actual values used for calculating damage, or does the effect of great buildings only kick in for values x.5 and above with rounding?

Good question. Honestly, I'm not sure, I'll see if the CMs can poke around and see if they can get and answer on that.

Question, Wouldn't the change to Offensive and Defensive values exacerbate the imbalance in pvp between players with Alcatraz and players without, as those with would have no need to ever use the diamond repair feature in the game, since they could just rotate the unlimited amount of bonus troops available to them, while those without Alcatraz would have to pay to repair or fall behind with regards to towers?

I think, this view comes mostly from the fact that players have acquired a lot of unattached units so far, but I think with GvG coming up, those will be used fairly quickly. It truly depends on how one uses the units, even at its highest level Alcatraz provides 8 units per day, which you could lose easily in just a few battles. It does provide some advantage, yes, but then again the Great Building takes up a lot of space and requires lots of effort to construct and level up. I don't think it's an unfair advantage.

 

[DeletedUser4844]

It does provide some advantage, yes, but then again the Great Building takes up a lot of space and requires lots of effort to construct and level up. I don't think it's an unfair advantage.

Well, lots of space to construct. Mine has been surprisingly easy to level up with no effort at all on my part. Apparently tons of people want Alcatraz and will go out of their way to donate toward others' Alcatraz to get one of their own.

 

[DeletedUser2145]

Apparently tons of people want Alcatraz and will go out of their way to donate toward others' Alcatraz to get one of their own.

Send them my way once they're done at your place.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well shucks mine has been stuck on lvl 6 for an eternity now. Send them over to me first!

 

[*Arturis*]

GB level up will be dragging out over time. When Alcatraz first came out, if you are willing to buy all the goods and BP to have it built, you can get it maxed up to level 10 in a week. I agree that those unattached unit will be used up pretty quickly if you don't build the barrack in your city to resupply it.