Cheating in GBG

[Alpha Persei]

GBG was iintroduced in the game with an idea that smaller players and guild who are not able to compete in GVG can also enjoy fights in the game but all this idea is of no use. In GBG few big guilds are teaming up and making alliances. They take over whole map rotate tiles among themselves and not allowing smaller guilds to fight. They hold tiles at 150-159 fights and take as they see other guilds hitting that tile. Also they use each others siege camps so that they have to spend less of diamonds and goods. Now smaller guilds don't want to try for higher leagues as they won't be able to fight with these alliances of bigger guilds. Bigger guilds are becoming more bigger as active players of smaller guilds leaving those guilds to join those big guilds so that they can play games. In the end all this thing is not making smaller players to enjoy the game and lossing their interest in game so this issue must be taken care of ASAP

dude it's not cheating. i know it's not fair and all ,but if push comes to shove you start over in a new battle and wait again . and maybe join a better guild that's willing to fight and support and maybe bigger( not that size matter, it's the players that matter).

 

[DeletedUser24719]

Call the so called Guild dance what you will, the fact of the matter smaller less powerful guilds are constantly shut out and this can occur in the diamond leagues also when alliances are created, sieges shared and sectors rotated between them! Its still creates an unfair situation. Fact is GBG was poorly thought out, not sufficiently tested, costs far too much in goods and the seasons are far too long! but INNO did this with 2 things in mind killing GVG because they could never get it to work properly and second to generate money for their bottom line! Its that simple! Complain all you want it aint gonna ever be better. When these people think change the first thing in mind is how can we bleed the players to death!

 

[DeletedUser24719]

Want GVG to work. Have 2 resets daily, Implement rewards and allow some buildings to be build! Then lets see what happens.

 

[Nicholas002]

Well this season, my diamond league guild made a deal where we basically "danced" with ALL the other guilds. The deal was, we would hold the inner 4 sectors for the entire season. No one else touches them, or they get driven back to their base. That way, we never had to rebuild siege camps on those provinces. Then we flipped the second ring of provinces with all the other guilds, back and forth all season.

I personally love the farming... cheap FPs, diamonds, etc.... but I do think it is bad for the game.
I know that for every 100 battles I do, some whale is doing 1,000 battles, and for every 100 FPs I get, they are getting 1,000.

Unfortunately, GbG has turned into a rich-get-richer feature.

 

[DeletedUser11427]

The game should have some "handicap" built in to allow newer players or guilds to compete, and have an option besides being forced to join a "power guild" My guild deals with the current reality as best we can, but the the way it is doesn't encourage newer players

 

[Agent327]

The game should have some "handicap" built in to allow newer players or guilds to compete, and have an option besides being forced to join a "power guild" My guild deals with the current reality as best we can, but the the way it is doesn't encourage newer players

The leagues are the "handicap".

 

[-Sebastian-]

The leagues are the "handicap".

And we also fight units from our own age. Imagine how long a SAAB player could fight against the Iron Age units that I face in my 2nd city. That's a "handicap", but we don't notice it because we're used to it.

 

[Olympia 575 the Just]

This is a radical thought. I like it! Now divide the winnings up equally among all guild members and see how fast fingers are pointing to those accused of not doing or paying their share and guilds booting or members leaving. This would make the game so much more enjoyable as all the drama plays out.

If Im understanding you correctly you are saying that all members in the guild should get equal rewards despite their contribution? If so Idont see how thats fair at all. Especially considering that the person who did more encounters has likely used more resources (troops,goods,and diamonds) to do so. This isnt counting time and energy. I mean if everyones a winner and all share everything equally why even try? What's the point of competing?

 

[Earl Underfish Grayvase]

To solve the problem, you have to pluck out the root of the problem and remove the personal rewards.

Seems as though this, again, is your opinion not based in factual evidence. Your "morality" is more effectual in real life than it could ever be in a gaming situation. Play the way you enjoy the most, I certainly would not entertain the idea of suggesting otherwise to anyone. However, basing a solution to a perceived problem by some players solely in your real life "morality" loses quantitative impact because there are players who do not ascribe to the notion that playing a game require equitable treatment or "fairness". Personal rewards aside; fighters fight, period, because the element of the game most appealing to them is the fighting.
The internal conflict with which you constantly insist on instilling into your comments and reactions through the various threads in the forum might just be the sort of thing you want to see about in real life. Being unable to compartmentalize the vast differences between real life and the gaming world can have a devastatingly negative effect on one's psyche.
Something allowed by the game developers cannot, by definition be cheating.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Fighters fight, period, because the element of the game most appealing to them is the fighting.

If this is true, then it wouldn't matter if the personal rewards were removed and moved to the chest. However, doing so would restore GBG to it original intent, playing for territory and the highest chest rewards possible, and eliminate the unintended consequence of reward farming.

Something allowed by the game developers cannot, by definition be cheating.

I never said it was cheating. I've said repeatedly that the reward farming dance is something that I'm sure Inno never intended. I think it's had a negative impact on GBG, on guilds, and on the game as a whole. I don't like how the dance has turned once collaborative helpful guild mates into selfish pigs.

As to the rest of your screed, I can compartmentalize just as well as you can rationalize, and my psyche is just fine.

 

[UnStopaBull]

If inno allows for it , it must be as they intended so quit whining. Just like when they required us to use 1 of the 5 saab goods 90% of the time they must of intended it to cause issue for us or making us have to reach 133% in GE in 24hrs 3 weeks in a row must of also be what inno intended.

see issues can go both ways ..get over it

 

[Earl Underfish Grayvase]

However, doing so would restore GBG to it original intent

And now you are a developer at INNO? How arrogant of you to presume you know what the "original intent" of the developers for GbG was. And equally as arrogant to assume the developers didn't fully presume that the players of their game wouldn't do exactly as many have done.

I don't like how the dance has turned once collaborative helpful guild mates into selfish pigs

...and more arrogance and opinion.

you can rationalize

I haven't rationalized anything; it's a game that you continue to insist your misguided morality should have an impact for the rest of us as to how we play. Name calling is bullying and reveals more about your character than how someone plays a game.

 

[Emberguard]

Only way I could see the Siege camp use be nerfed would be instead of the SCs accumulating first that the total SC percentage amount be reduced by total decoy or trap amount placed and the leftover amount be the attrition chance. Example at the moment is you can place 4-5 SCs and never worry about any traps placed. Nerfed way of 4 camps giving 96 going against 3 traps giving 135 percent double attrition should be no chance at not gaining attrition, 39% chance at double and 61% at normal attrition. I could see that as a way to possibly balance the whiners but I do like the current set up as I eat like a pig in GBG.

That I could see working as long as it's both ways so whichever building bonus is larger (attrition reduction or double attrition) gets the subtraction. Because both building types can go above 100%

 

[RazorbackPirate]

And now you are a developer at INNO? How arrogant of you to presume you know what the "original intent" of the developers for GbG was. And equally as arrogant to assume the developers didn't fully presume that the players of their game wouldn't do exactly as many have done.

...and more arrogance and opinion.

I haven't rationalized anything; it's a game that you continue to insist your misguided morality should have an impact for the rest of us as to how we play. Name calling is bullying and reveals more about your character than how someone plays a game.

Blah, blah, blah.

 

[The Prince Visigoth]

That I could see working as long as it's both ways so whichever building bonus is larger (attrition reduction or double attrition) gets the subtraction. Because both building types can go above 100%

That is exactly what I mean. Whichever one has an excess after 100 either more or less either gets that percent chance at no attrition and that percent chance at double respectively.

 

[DeletedUser17367]

things are never meant to be equal even in a game.if you want to win something maybe one the top guilds will let join. only thing a little confuse about is the cap at 1000 for LP but that way inno does it. if not most active guild like unstopabull guild shoot for 4th place & stay out 1000 point ranking level. & aim for 901 to 999 is what the game is suggesting for a less active guild or can always join the best guild like Mike & leave your other guild to the dust when start losing something

 

[K--O]

While not cheating it's GBG is certainly not balanced. 2 guilds can control all the inner 4 and most of the next level of the ring. And 3 guilds teaming together can control both inner rings such that no other guild can get in.

They do this using 2 tools. Siege camps so they can fight infinitely and soft locks (having 150 our of 160 and sitting their until all your allies are ready to swap sectors).

Solutions:
1. Get rid of siege camps. It's total abuse leading to this farming and dancing partnerships. With no siege camps you can't ignore attrition so no individuals can fight forever and suck up all the rewards and maintain the dance.
2. Don't get rid of the other guild's points/progress when a sector in conquered by another guild. This will allow guilds not partnered to get close and keep their progress instead of having another guild take the sector and knock them back to 0.

 

[-Sebastian-]

2. Don't get rid of the other guild's points/progress when a sector in conquered by another guild. This will allow guilds not partnered to get close and keep their progress instead of having another guild take the sector and knock them back to 0.

Hm. I think that might work out OK, as long as we still kept the "lose all progress if you're cut off" rule. It'd still be possible for dominant guilds to hold the middle and take outer ring tiles to cut off guilds that had made progress, but they can do that now. And it's not like losing a race doesn't come with plenty of built-in downsides already, like missing out on the points, and opportunities for expansion, and risking getting your progress cut off.

 

[DeletedUser40894]

Point deterioration actually is an interesting thought. that could benefit both the group holding at 150 and the group gunning for that tile. Allow me to explain, The holding group benefit is obvious, they can farm more fights. The benefit for the other group is a little less obvious, but it would allow for that group to time an attack for when the hour would be up and deterioration would occur. For example a team could bring a holding tile up to 75-100 or whatever, when point deterioration occurs and the other groups attacks fall down to 50 (used as an example), they could have a head start to race for the finish line. Obviously, if the other group is much better it won't matter, but could make for an interesting concept.

 

[Plain Red Justice]

1. Make Fortresses 5x more expensive in goods while buffing its progress upgrade by 100x (making Diamond provinces take 16000 advances to conquer) so smaller guilds would actually have a motivation to actually fight tooth and nail for key sectors that could sprout from anywhere on the map instead of spending a large portion of a guild's meager goods to gain 4 hours to """farm""" peanut advances from 4 camps at best

2. Nerf province locks from 4 hours to 2 hours

3. Remove the ability to delete buildings.

4. Remove Watchtowers

5. Make a code so that only one or two sectors on the map is 4-5 campable. Remove the guaranteed 3 slots on the middle making them only good for Victory points, adjust the ratios of 3 slots, 2 slots and 1 slot proportionately. Preferrably removing 3 slots altogether

6. Make a GBG champion buff. Every time a 1k LP Diamond guild gets first place:

a. They would receive 3 FP bonus per proc on their earnings on the next season.
b. If they get first again, they would earn 3 more FP (Making the total 16 FP) and 1 more SoH frag per proc.
c. The next 1st place would give them the ability to farm Road to victory frags.
d. For subsequent victories, go back to letter a

This would hopefully stop the degeneracy of intentionally losing LP, make alliances a more intuitive and sincere choice instead of being a no brainer and convince people to actually compete and spend/earn guild goods more aggressively allowing for a more colorful competition in FoE