Is GBG attrition on a given sector be limited to 67%?

[Ebeondi Asi]

"Guild Raids" something new around the corner.. A video mentions something vaguely similar in Evenar. So probably really coming to Foe

 

[Dominator - X]

Which only heightens the challenge and enjoyment.

Well, you know what they say:

Whatever displaces enough water to keep you buoyant.

 

[Jackshat]

Well, you know what they say:

Whatever displaces enough water to keep you buoyant.

Indeed. Now, if only those who fail the buoyancy test would stop whining about it.

 

[True592]

You're in a fighting guild by your own choice. We just had a very successful GbG season with 5 participants and 1 guild that went out on their own and still did well. The vast majority of spending is done to increase the players fighting ability and your solution is to remove 1/3 of the fighting incentive from the game ? You're not a business owner I take it ?

We are not on a business here. Well, at least a sizable part is. 67% cap would stop a couple of top guilds trading sectors back and forth, while keeping other guilds on the beach.

 

[True592]

You make a lot of sense. I agree that, all things being equal, it is difficult for weak guilds to close the gap between them and the top guilds when it comes to attack boosts. However, it is important remember that the only time that absolute guild strength is important is during the opening hour of each GBG season. During this time, the ability to endure high attrition is critical. This is where the top guilds generally excel. However, attrition is shared. So, if a weaker guild is able to show up on opening day in sufficient numbers they will be able to overcome any handicap they may have due to lower attack boosts of their members. After opening day, attack boosts don't matter as much because most of the fights are at zero, or low, attrition. During this time, the "weaker" guild just needs to show up with enough members to make the swaps move quickly. In summary, while attack boosts play an important role, sheer numbers, with modest boosts, should be able to carry the day. The weaker guild probably won't dominate but that's not the goal. The goal is capturing enough sectors on opening day to get a seat at the swap table.

The issue is, it is one huge "IF". If all people were nice to each other, if we all do what we say... etc.
We can try to conquer laziness, sluggishness, disorganization, business in the real life, improve cities to match top guilds.... or, we can put a cap, to let all those underachievers to have some fun on the map.

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

We are not on a business here. Well, at least a sizable part is. 67% cap would stop a couple of top guilds trading sectors back and forth, while keeping other guilds on the beach.

The top Guilds would still have little problem doing the same thing they do now with a 67% cap. The only possible problem would be for big Guilds with only a few on at night. But other than that.. (I guess all the little beached Guilds could try to take over late night, to get beached again every morning LoL)
And that fact** is why i think Inno did not bother implementing in in the main Worlds. They discovered what I wrote is true in Beta.
**Fact is a stretch. I have no inside knowledge.. But it writes out so nice.

 

[xivarmy]

The top Guilds would still have little problem doing the same thing they do now with a 67% cap. The only possible problem would be for big Guilds with only a few on at night. But other than that.. (I guess all the little beached Guilds could try to take over late night, to get beached again every morning LoL)
And that fact** is why i think Inno did not bother implementing in in the main Worlds. They discovered what I wrote is true in Beta.
**Fact is a stretch. I have no inside knowledge.. But it writes out so nice.

But the part that keeps the guilds beached is not 1 guild being stronger than them - 1 guild can't lockdown anyone - they take the sector and then just have to wait for someone to take back.

It's 1 guild being stronger and having allies cooperating to take it back with siege support that the beached do not have. And many of those allies would at least be challenged to some extent by attrition - they're often no stronger than the beached, they just whine enough to be in the club

 

[Dominator - X]

The issue is, it is one huge "IF". If all people were nice to each other, if we all do what we say... etc.
We can try to conquer laziness, sluggishness, disorganization, business in the real life, improve cities to match top guilds.... or, we can put a cap, to let all those underachievers to have some fun on the map.

Putting a cap on would not change the outcome on the map. It would just create another issue, by being less rewarding for those who have built their cities to be GBG-centric. It would also shift the complaining and disapproval from just the weak members and weak guilds to everyone. It would not solve the whining about GBG, it would invite more.

In a moment of weakness, INNO actually listened to it's customers and opted to can it. Though it was a terrible idea from its inception. I am just glad it never went live.

 

[True592]

The top Guilds would still have little problem doing the same thing they do now with a 67% cap.

Says who?
Top guilds trade sectors back and forth 24/7. Attrition would add up quickly.
It would make top guilds 1. Pull away from sectors where the attrition is even lower (only 2 SC); 2. Give weaker guilds better chances beating tops.

If beta testing "showed" a little difference with 67% cap, I would highly question that conclusion. A lot of things could have screwed up the result.

 

[True592]

Putting a cap on would not change the outcome on the map.

Yes, it would. I would bet my real money on that.

In a moment of weakness, INNO actually listened to it's customers and opted to can it. Though it was a terrible idea from its inception. I am just glad it never went live.

Inno's issue historically was (and probably is) they rely on beta testers and active members of the forum. Should they be smarter a bit, they would have realized that they are drawing conclusions based on top 1%.

 

[Angry.Blanket]

Says who?
Top guilds trade sectors back and forth 24/7. Attrition would add up quickly.
It would make top guilds 1. Pull away from sectors where the attrition is even lower (only 2 SC); 2. Give weaker guilds better chances beating tops.

If beta testing "showed" a little difference with 67% cap, I would highly question that conclusion. A lot of things could have screwed up the result.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "weak Guild " Only inactive guilds with players that don't want to try.

 

[Dominator - X]

Yes, it would. I would bet my real money on that.



Inno's issue historically was (and probably is) they rely on beta testers and active members of the forum. Should they be smarter a bit, they would have realized that they are drawing conclusions based on top 1%.

Not only are your conclusions wrong, and would lead to you losing real money, your knowledge of INNO's habit of ignoring the majority of BETA testers opinions (whether right or wrong), is also lacking.

 

[Angry.Blanket]

Get rich or die tryin.... The game is about growing a city and obtaining the things to do that There is no master list in this game about accomplishments from bragging rights, that rolls up across all servers. I've suggested that for years - because it adds a small measure of additional competitiveness that rounds out the city building goals.

Farming came into existence in this game because it makes economic sense to partner for easy mutual rewards, vs fight for none by just holding land and saying you're the best.

Economic game theory stuff (undergrad, and some Master's courses...)


There are now (visible to everyone) fatal flaws in what GBG is, and how it works, that were exploited early on and are still being exploited. This November, starts GbG's 5th year, and the basic design is the same - we've been there and done that. Participation is near the low, and yes - it's boring. Yes, the rewards have been watered down, and it needs a refresh badly - in both design and execution.

Let's see what they come up with.

I disagree with this, The game is about growing a city for fighting GBG and fighting GvG and Fighting PVP and winning GE championships..
With out GbG ,GvG there is no reason to grow a city,

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

I disagree with this, The game is about growing a city for fighting GBG and fighting GvG and Fighting PVP and winning GE championships..
With out GbG ,GvG there is no reason to grow a city,

Summed up in a nutshell that says it all. We build our cities and spend our money for competing in GbG/GvG /PvP and GE not to play Sim City.

 

[True592]

Not only are your conclusions wrong, and would lead to you losing real money, your knowledge of INNO's habit of ignoring the majority of BETA testers opinions (whether right or wrong), is also lacking.

And how did you figure that my thoughts are wrong? Put it to the real test, just take a world that is not too old (where intermediate guilds might have given up by now) and not too new. Our "U" world would be a good test. Just do it for couple weeks, when limited beta testing leads to results that conflict with a common knowledge based on a "real world" experience -- the prime suspect is testing.
As for who leads a way -- think about "Approval" thread. Top 1% decides if proposal can go, then top 1% decides where it would go.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

And how did you figure that my thoughts are wrong? Put it to the real test, just take a world that is not too old (where intermediate guilds might have given up by now) and not too new. Our "U" world would be a good test. Just do it for couple weeks, when limited beta testing leads to results that conflict with a common knowledge based on a "real world" experience -- the prime suspect is testing.
As for who leads a way -- think about "Approval" thread. Top 1% decides if proposal can go, then top 1% decides where it would go.

People paid real money and a lot of it to play this game over the years. You don't test with other people's money , go play something else if you don't like the game.

 

[True592]

One other note. 67% is not like a God-given number. Tune it up, for a desired result.
Make 50, or even make it just 24.
There is goal: limit top guilds from trading sectors back and forth between themselves -- yet having enough attrition to pin other guilds down to the beach.

 

[True592]

People paid real money and a lot of it to play this game over the years. You don't test with other people's money , go play something else if you don't like the game.

I did play over years. Put some money too. How do you know that people would mind such a test for couple sessions?
By telling me where to go, you show 1. Your arrogance, 2. Contradicting Dominator - X's statement about who's deciding Inno's moves.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

I did play over years. Put some money too. How do you know that people would mind such a test for couple sessions?
By telling me where to go, you show 1. Your arrogance, 2. Contradicting Dominator - X's statement about who's deciding Inno's moves.

I have spent over 12,000 on the game and one of my guildmates has spent 53,000 on it. We are not a test , we are customers and want to be treated like customers. It's a capitalist world , live with it.

 

[Emberguard]

How do you know that people would mind such a test for couple sessions?

Because a lot of people stated over various platforms outside of Beta that they would mind the change back when it was first announced on Beta