-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
gbg
- Thread starter thathurts
- Start date
Darkest.Knight
Well-Known Member
All the complaining about a minor change makes me think some players have put together real "crapper" towns, if they get rid of the battleground buildings it wouldn't bother me at all. Having used more SC's last cycle than ever before I can appreciate that the marginal players really need the extra stuff, but for myself the time isn't worth the effort. At about 3000 fights I couldn't really force myself to do more, just a bit too repetitive for my liking.
The complainers keep suggesting that so many freebies lead to extra spending on diamonds, for me that's probably backwards. Why would players spend more when the need less? Sounds like some real pretzel logic to me.
The complainers keep suggesting that so many freebies lead to extra spending on diamonds, for me that's probably backwards. Why would players spend more when the need less? Sounds like some real pretzel logic to me.
-Chen-
Active Member
Lol, don't worry, I'll still be around, I didn't let Agents condescension and general obnoxiousness on here chase me away the last 2 years, so this sure won't do it. I just don't come on here nearly as much as I did when I was new, cuz I'm in a great guild with many outstanding players to talk about the game with and bounce ideas off of.
Besides, it will never get passed anyway, at least not with those numbers listed, so it's all a moot point anyway.
Johnny B. Goode
Well-Known Member
"Get passed"? It doesn't have to "get passed". Inno just has to decide if it fixes what they think is wrong with GBG. If they do, then it will be implemented on the live servers. If they don't, it won't. All this negative feedback may actually be backfiring. If I was Inno, and I thought that the farming was the problem with GBG, then all the farmers complaining about the change would make me think it was the right solution. Especially when those who don't exclusively farm GBG seem to be fine with the change. (As are at least some of the farmers, too, from what I've read.)
Darkest.Knight
Well-Known Member
lol, it was obvious what u meant.By "get passed" I was referring to the people at Inno who have to give the final green light to any changes like that before they are implemented, as to the rest of that.....if you say so
-Chen-
Active Member
I thought so too, but apparently not, lol
Johnny B. Goode
Well-Known Member
It says something that @Darkest.Knight is the one that understood what you were trying to say. LOL
DreadfulCadillac
Well-Known Member
To be fair Stephen, it is kind of obvious what they meant.
DevaCat
Well-Known Member
I went to beta and read all (at the time) 46 pages. Jubal’s message about the reason for the “rebalance” is interesting. First is that it’s “necessary for long term sustainability and viability of the feature.” There is no further elaboration or explanation of that statement. No one posting here has definite knowledge of Inno’s reason (or works for them and can’t divulge), and frankly this could mean almost anything. There is no mention of diamonds, or op rewards or greed. None.
A bit farther down in Jubal’s message he says that stacking scs and wts was too powerful, creating “significant balancing issues between different guilds and players.”
Now my personal opinion is that this latter statement has greater weight, as in if the rewards are too op, why let things run along for a couple of years? If it was broken, why wait so long to fix?
Aside from the usual histrionics from some players swearing to quit the game, I read fairly well-reasoned complaints and assessments of the “rebalancing” from the 70-odd percent who dislike it.
On the other hand, it seemed to me that the 30-some percent who like the change (led largely by DEADPOOL and jovada in attitudes) are the ones who are the whining greedy bunch. They talk about the “right to fight” of the smaller guilds and how “unfair” it is for the 2 big bad “greedy” guilds to block the 6 smaller guilds by “leaving flags at 159/160 exploiting attrition.” They talk about “selfish” guilds forcing the others to spend 2 weeks watching and not playing. They want “equality” for players who only come to play for a few minutes after work and can’t find anything to hit. And they label anyone who disagrees with their point of view “greedy.” Note that their concern is really all about their ability to stay in Diamond league and get those goodies too. I saw little concern about the rebalancing effects on less powerful players in Platinum and below.
One poster wrote about “black envy” - “I don’t have it, so I don’t want anyone else to have it either.” Good point.
Snowflakes.
The real problem is and has been since the start with league ranking and matching - and the beta changes do nothing to address it.
A bit farther down in Jubal’s message he says that stacking scs and wts was too powerful, creating “significant balancing issues between different guilds and players.”
Now my personal opinion is that this latter statement has greater weight, as in if the rewards are too op, why let things run along for a couple of years? If it was broken, why wait so long to fix?
Aside from the usual histrionics from some players swearing to quit the game, I read fairly well-reasoned complaints and assessments of the “rebalancing” from the 70-odd percent who dislike it.
On the other hand, it seemed to me that the 30-some percent who like the change (led largely by DEADPOOL and jovada in attitudes) are the ones who are the whining greedy bunch. They talk about the “right to fight” of the smaller guilds and how “unfair” it is for the 2 big bad “greedy” guilds to block the 6 smaller guilds by “leaving flags at 159/160 exploiting attrition.” They talk about “selfish” guilds forcing the others to spend 2 weeks watching and not playing. They want “equality” for players who only come to play for a few minutes after work and can’t find anything to hit. And they label anyone who disagrees with their point of view “greedy.” Note that their concern is really all about their ability to stay in Diamond league and get those goodies too. I saw little concern about the rebalancing effects on less powerful players in Platinum and below.
One poster wrote about “black envy” - “I don’t have it, so I don’t want anyone else to have it either.” Good point.
Snowflakes.
The real problem is and has been since the start with league ranking and matching - and the beta changes do nothing to address it.
Pericles the Lion
Well-Known Member
The first part of this message is factual. The 5th paragraph is mostly fiction. The fact is that @Deadpool and @Jovada (and me, amongst a few others) admittedly voted in favor of INNO's changes to GBG on the Beta server insofar as we should put them to the test and provide honest, unbiased, feedback. I'll wager that you disapprove of the changes, otherwise you would have outed a few of the naysayers that are serving up prophesies of imminent doom and gloom while threatening to quit if they don't get their way (as if we haven't heard that before).
DevaCat
Well-Known Member
T
I have not come out against the changes yet because it’s early days still - I want to hear more honest and unbiased feedback. Which is why I did not cite you in the 5th paragraph, which is not fiction and which I stand by. I do not have posting privileges in that forum or I would have responded to them directly. I instead wrote down what they posted; the words in quotation marks are theirs, not my interpretation of what they said. If anyone doubts my veracity they are welcome to wade through that thread as I did.
What I do find dishonest is the suggestion that I am creating fiction. Their words are there for anyone to see. What I do find distasteful is the attitude their words and viewpoints convey. You are welcome to disagree.
To the contrary, I did mention the histrionics of those who threaten to quit. If they want to quit because “they don’t get their way”, that’s on them. Some may well quit because they have spent real money and don’t like the possible nerf’s effects - that has happened in other games. Again, that’s on them and I’m not judging them. And I’m not necessarily agreeing with them.
I have not come out against the changes yet because it’s early days still - I want to hear more honest and unbiased feedback. Which is why I did not cite you in the 5th paragraph, which is not fiction and which I stand by. I do not have posting privileges in that forum or I would have responded to them directly. I instead wrote down what they posted; the words in quotation marks are theirs, not my interpretation of what they said. If anyone doubts my veracity they are welcome to wade through that thread as I did.
What I do find dishonest is the suggestion that I am creating fiction. Their words are there for anyone to see. What I do find distasteful is the attitude their words and viewpoints convey. You are welcome to disagree.
-Chen-
Active Member
Great post! The term "rebalance" cracks me up, cuz what they tried in beta won't balance anything, the strongest guilds will still dominate the map, because they not only have the most players that can fight fast, but that also can fight to the highest attrition. Lol, I mean, how far is your typical mid-level 40-50 person guild with a lot more less experienced/weaker players on their roster going to be able to get with that setup? So, I'm not surprised that there was no elaboration or explanation of that aspect.
The weaker guilds not only wouldn't be able to gain ground on the stronger ones, but they would then have no reason or motivation left to purposely drop down to lower diamond or platinum while they rest and rebuild their treasury so they have a chance to farm the next season, because they won't be able to farm anyway. Which means not only less time spent on the game farming, but less interest/motivation to spend time (and money) making their cities stronger
The stronger guilds would just be slowed down a bit, and would have to focus on clearly defined "shifts" more so than they already do, just by different people having different schedules and time zones. You also could end up with many of the stronger players on those mid tier guilds that don't just throw their arms up and look for a different game end up moving to the stronger guilds so they can at least farm once a day, rather than not at all.
Bottom line is that the weaker guilds that they are supposedly trying to help by "rebalancing" things will end up having even less. Now, in that scenario, it seems reasonable to me that a lot of those players left will lose a lot of their motivation and interest in spending time on the game
CDmark
Well-Known Member
I have read all of he beta feedback (snuck up to 58 pages on me, I was on 48, must have missed a game breaking item....NOT..lol). But the one player I am following is -NinjAlin-. He is posting his personal results and also the guild. He is providing the real time data which is great. He isn't complaining or promoting the change, just data for all to see. This is good feedback. From what I gather, he does about 300 fights a day and gets to 100+ attrition
Johnny B. Goode
Well-Known Member
First of all, why do you assume the "rebalancing" things is supposed to help weaker guilds? Maybe guilds that should not be able to compete are helped by the current mechanism, and the rebalancing is so that they won't be able to use SCs to compete with bigger, stronger guilds. There are so many assumptions in this discussion, and most are slanted by the posting player's viewpoint.
Second, I thought the problem was that the "big dogs" were going to quit spending and maybe quit the game. Now you're concerned that the "small to middling dogs" might play less? I think you all need to make up your minds. This change can't affect both big dogs and little dogs the same, can it? Or can it. Maybe that's the point. Maybe the rebalancing isn't really between guilds or players, maybe they're rebalancing the game itself because of the excessive rewards with the current mechanism. That seems way more likely to me.
DevaCat
Well-Known Member
Except than Jubal’s explanation contains nothing about excessive rewards, while it specifically mentions “significant balancing issues between different guilds and players.” Given that, your bias seems to be slanted towards believing it’s about the rewards. Could be both of course, no reason why not. But if we’re going to speculate I think it’s fair to consider that since smaller weaker guilds have been complaining since Gbg’s inception, maybe a large part of the rebalancing is an effort to address that. After all, why do different guilds need to be “balanced” or different players need to be “balanced”?
I’m still holding out for more unbiased reporting of actual beta results. So far what seems clear is that the sc/wt adjustments have increased attrition so that fewer fights per day can occur even for the well-boosted players. What this will mean for different guilds and players is still “to be determined.”
Johnny B. Goode
Well-Known Member
Well, first off the balancing issues between different guilds and players could be interpreted as their relative ability to farm rewards. Second, I don't have a bias towards believing that it's about rewards. I think it's equally likely that it's about small to middling guilds being able to compete with larger guilds because of the lack of attrition due to Siege Camps. In fact, I think it's most likely that they are addressing both issues with this change. I seriously doubt that it is to enable the small to middling guilds to compete more equally, that is the exact opposite of game balance.
-Chen-
Active Member
I'm not going to get into a circular argument here, mostly because I find them to be tedious and pointless, I gave my feedback here because I have no interest in joining beta just so I can give it there. I spend too much time on this game as it is, lol.
That said, if you're going to attribute statements to me, you should at least try to be accurate, this is my exact quote from my feedback:
"As to my feedback, if Inno wants to lose half (at least) of their customer base (both paying and free, but especially the paying ones) then this is a great idea. If that's not the objective, then I highly suggest they go back to the drawing board, and maybe spend time looking for ways to expand and improve the game, to attract new customers as well as keeping the long time ones happy, not ways to annoy and lose a VERY large portion of them. GBG farming and play is what most people I've met in game over the last 2+ years spend so much time in game (and in many cases spend real money) growing their cities for."
Nowhere in there did I say the "big dogs" were the ones who would stop playing, I used the general term "customer base, both paying and free" and I have that opinion because of the fact that the vast majority of the many players I have met in the last 2 years center their game and their time in game around GBG, and they do that because they know it's the most efficient way to advance and build their cities. In the post you quoted I simply expanded on that, and added my thoughts on "rebalancing." IMO this all boils down to Inno trying to walk back and significantly reduce farming, and the point of this test wasn't just to try out the mechanics of it, but just as much (if not more) to guage the blowback it would receive, which is why non beta players were encouraged in the regular update log to look at it and chime in.
In the end though, as I also said, I think this is all a moot point anyway, because it will never "get passed" At least not with those numbers used in Beta
-Chen-
Active Member
Yea, that sounds about right with the attrition percentages they went with, which for the stronger players would knock them down to about 3000 fights per farming season. I'm about at the same strength as him, and currently average about 5000 to 7000 per season, depending on my time available that season. I could go higher, but simply don't want or feel the need to, but many strong players do, especially the ones that are able to be on for 3 rounds or more per day. Those players would take a big hit, and the mid level players would feel it as well with no 4 camps or better sectors to keep their attrition down early in the round, I won't even get into the weaker players. What would knock the totals down the most for every player not in a strong guild is the lack of any opportunity to farm at all.
RazorbackPirate
Well-Known Member
Let's see how these two statements age. I suspect not well.
Inno encourages regular players to log in to Beta to see what's going on almost every update. Something along the lines of we're working on the next event/update/feature, log into Beta to participate in the discussion. There is nothing special happening with feedback on this particular topic. Same as it ever was.