Boycott Superguilds from regular GBG

[The Lady Redneck]

We have a wide range of members in a guild I am in. It has 70+ members Some like discord, some do not, some are in other countries So our battle calls go out via discord, Text and Whatsapp. A tile can be taken in 30 seconds and everyone shares attrition so no cost, no cheating. We like to share the map with smaller guilds. so that everyone gets fights and the chance of rewards. But in a season where we are not just farming, but are up against a strong enemy it is not always possible to hang back waiting on the small slow guilds taking an hour or more to raise a tile.

 

[Henrik the Seer]

That would be a nice wrinkle....
When GBG season starts any guild can drop out and leave the map within the first hour....

Either way, opt-ins or opt-outs, I like the idea of dropping out totally from a map in the 1st hour. If Inno can't create additional maps for the dropping-outs, it might be better just to totally skip the season for those 10 days. But I do like my idea of Diamond+ or Diamond- Leagues, and giving a choice to Guilds beforehand which they would rather play in. Clearly, a Diamond+ League would have more prestige associated with it for there to be an incentive to those Guilds doing it for the Guild standings and their own egos. lol

 

[Henrik the Seer]

A further point. My Sister, The Lady Redneck, reminds me of. She belongs to a guild called Event Horizon (EH) in East-Nagach. Event Horizon has a number of satellite guilds that are incestuously related to EH, e.g. Lacedaemon. The underlying assumption of Battlegrounds "competition" is that each guild is a stand-alone entity, when this is very much not the case.
Guilds should self-identify their affiliates, and other guilds should be able to report affiliations to Inno, and Battlegrounds Season assignments should exclude Guilds and their affiliates being in the same group of guilds on any given map.

 

[Sledgie]

A further point. My Sister, The Lady Redneck, reminds me of. She belongs to a guild called Event Horizon (EH) in East-Nagach. Event Horizon has a number of satellite guilds that are incestuously related to EH, e.g. Lacedaemon. The underlying assumption of Battlegrounds "competition" is that each guild is a stand-alone entity, when this is very much not the case.
Guilds should self-identify their affiliates, and other guilds should be able to report affiliations to Inno, and Battlegrounds Season assignments should exclude Guilds and their affiliates being in the same group of guilds on any given map.

On my main whether or not a guild is affiliated has little bearing on whether or not they work together in GBG. If our sister guild ends up on our map, they stay on the beach, swapping 4s and farming 3s while we swap with another guild of similar strength to us.

 

[Henrik the Seer]

On my main whether or not a guild is affiliated has little bearing on whether or not they work together in GBG. If our sister guild ends up on our map, they stay on the beach, swapping 4s and farming 3s while we swap with another guild of similar strength to us.

The potential for unfairness is too prevalent. I'll take your word for it Shalimar. But, that is not the case in East-Nagach. The sister guilds are strong enough to serve as de facto partners. Perhaps the whole idea of Battlegrounds should be tubed. Every way one looks at it, it is not a competition, and not fair before the Seasons ever start if viewed from a farming/rewards perspective.

 

[The Lady Redneck]

I have played this game for a number of year and a lot of that time I spend world hopping. I have been a member/leader of all different sizes, types and levels of guilds. East-Nagach is no different than any other world. Nothing is set in stone saying you must play the game in one way only. And there will never be a time when everything in the game makes everybody happy. Every player in every world plays the game as he/she sees fit. If they can adapt to changes and find ways do deal with aspects they do not like, and still have fun, then great. If not they should try another game. As individuals we (for the most part) can play the game with everyone else quite amicably. A few people we become real friends with and a few we can come to dislike. No different from real live. And as this game has a war aspect to it. You can apply the old saying "all is fair in Love and war"

The game, by nature and design is very fluid. guilds in every world build friendships with each other. They can also make enemies with each other. Some of these friendships are long term. And bonds of loyalty are formed. That does not mean to say they are in each others pockets. I know that guilds can form affiliations. But that is not the ideal. As it can lead to a weaker guild remaining weaker and becoming over reliant on the stronger guild. A friendly alliance between strong but independent guilds is what works best. There is nothing unfair about it when friends come to the aid of friends. Or choose to work with friends. It is also mutually advantageous to work with smaller guilds to encourage them. As that can lead to future friendships. But nothing says you have to work with any guild of any size when they start whining about wanting more than they are capable of delivering. Or start demanding that you do not help another guild because they do not like them. Yes in GBG when there are 2 or 3 strong friendly guilds, they will get control of the map. that is common in every world. But that is usually because they are strong independent guilds in their own right.

But of course what it all comes down to depends on each persons view of what is going on. Their experiences, and how the game is being played out from their perspective. The above is just how the game is for me.

 

[Angry.Blanket]

What is the definition of "Super Guild" = a larger group of more active players than my guild.
Definition of a "Greedy player" = a player that has put in more time and tried harder than me.

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

How many threads about GbG can there be? LOL

 

[MKPapa]

Boycott is a bad idea, obviously.

I do not play on beta server, and do not know what adjustments are being tested there currently, but have few ideas that might be worth considering:

1. Increase attrition not only on how many battles you played personally, but also on how many provinces the guild currently holds.

2. Make the province lockdown time for the next province taken dependent on how many provinces the guild already holds.
Say, if you hold 4 provinces or less, the next taken province lockdown is set to 4 hrs.
If you own 5+ provinces, then the next taken province lockdown gets reduced to 2hrs.
Own 10+ - 1hr.
15+ - no lockdown at all, which can mean that the owner may get no reward at all if the province is taken from them right away.

One of current GBG problems that I do not see an easy solution yet, is that dominant guild alliances allow for a very efficient map control thanks to the chessboard pattern. It has to be broken somehow.

 

[MJ Artisan of War]

The "beta test" is to limit attrition reduction to 66.6%... So even if there are 10 SC's supporting a sector You still have a 33.3% chance at attrition...
The only thing limited are Your personal rewards based on how many attrition You can eat.
GBG only takes 10-15 minutes per day per player.... Then You can return to RL until tomorrow...

 

[Angry.Blanket]

The "beta test" is to limit attrition reduction to 66.6%... So even if there are 10 SC's supporting a sector You still have a 33.3% chance at attrition...
The only thing limited are Your personal rewards based on how many attrition You can eat.
GBG only takes 10-15 minutes per day per player.... Then You can return to RL until tomorrow...

This is my biggest concern about the nerf, 10-15 minutes is not worth logging on for.

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

Players have to learn how to take attrition. So many (even in more than a few) big Guilds fear attrition. and will not fight on 3 or two SC sector. Other player are not bothered, and just fight.
So the 66% is going to be a bloodbath for those who fear attrition, and no problem for those who take it in stride. Period.
It is true the top players who can take 100+ attrition will gain the most from the change.
And players who can negotiate to the 60** goods per fight max will have a total field day. There are players who get to 250 attrition negotiating. They will rule.
** I am going by what I remember others saying. That there is a 60 Goods per try max no matter how high the attrition is.. But I do know players who get to 250 attrition Negotiating..
So all in all, the big guns win... the little guys lose. HAH HAh hah ha Just like it was before. has always been and should be LOL

 

[MJ Artisan of War]

Oh... and yes Virginia... The big GBG guilds still rule the map...
Little dogs stay on the porch... every single season...

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Players have to learn how to take attrition. So many (even in more than a few) big Guilds fear attrition. and will not fight on 3 or two SC sector. Other player are not bothered, and just fight.
So the 66% is going to be a bloodbath for those who fear attrition, and no problem for those who take it in stride. Period.
It is true the top players who can take 100+ attrition will gain the most from the change.
And players who can negotiate to the 60** goods per fight max will have a total field day. There are players who get to 250 attrition negotiating. They will rule.
** I am going by what I remember others saying. That there is a 60 Goods per try max no matter how high the attrition is.. But I do know players who get to 250 attrition Negotiating..
So all in all, the big guns win... the little guys lose. HAH HAh hah ha Just like it was before. has always been and should be LOL

I haven't tabulated any data on negotiating but it occurs to me that 60 goods per try will be extremely costly. Perhaps 500 goods per encounter? Could this be remotely sustainable? Unless my logic is flawed, at 60 goods per try, simply going from 150 attrition to 250 would require something like 50000 goods.

 

[Jackshat]

So all in all, the big guns win... the little guys lose. HAH HAh hah ha Just like it was before. has always been and should be LOL

We're planning to upset the GBG power structure to prove the little guys can compete with the kraken guilds. No need to boycott anything, nor look for parity.

Think: 1980 U.S. Olympic Hockey Team vs The Soviet Union! I don't even like hockey, but it was our amateurs vs Soviet professionals. I went nuts watching our boys best the mighty Soviets!

So, we're pursuing our "Miracle in GBG"! No malice against the big guilds, but if you don't like attrition...

 

[Jackshat]

I haven't tabulated any data on negotiating but it occurs to me that 60 goods per try will be extremely costly. Perhaps 500 goods per encounter? Could this be remotely sustainable? Unless my logic is flawed, at 60 goods per try, simply going from 150 attrition to 250 would require something like 50000 goods.

We have.

 

[Jackshat]

I am in SAJM with only 79 attrition and have 14 of each good per try or 70 goods total until some get solved.

And, that's 70 goods minimum (if only goods are being offered) just in the first round of the negotiation.

Assuming a negotiator will not continue beyond the third round into diamond rounds, at 14x multiplier, one should expect to use between 70 and 210 goods--success or failure.

 

[Sheldor the Destroyer]

I am sure that we have all seen the battlegrounds emaciated by so-called Superguilds taking control of our Guild Battlegrounds. I say we just Boycott this part of the game until the programmers can get off their collective asses and notice what is happening under their very noses!

What IS happening under their noses? You and your 4-person guild getting spanked by an actual guild that tries? You know, there is such a thing, it's called diamond league. Can't survive there? Don't go there. It's quite simple, right?

 

[The Lady Redneck]

I cannot understand the love of throwing goods away on negotiatons. I have an SC which gives me 9 chances a day of a reward from a negotiation. so I have it timed to collect first thing and those are the only negs I do in GBG and each neg only takes 1 good for each spot. Then I fight auto until all my guys start getting killed en mass, then I turn to manual fights. OK if you want to throw goods away fine ... go for it. I have better uses for mine.

 

[Frodo the ???]

Last season my guild was destroyed in GBG. We were taking two to three sectors and losing as soon as the timer was done. The guild in question was a Level-100 guild & 70+ Members 50 million points and above. It was ridiculous they never had less than 25 sectors at any time. This is an issue that I absolutely think needs to be resolved.