gbg

[Pericles the Lion]

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.

I don't doubt that this is your experience but it's an example of selection bias. You center your game around GBG and probably joined a guild with similarly minded players. As a result, the majority of players that your encounter share game styles. However, parsing the player base shows that the majority of players do not center their game around GBG. Otherwise, there would not be so many players in leagues below L1000.

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

I wouldn't make that bet. There is one player contributing real time data on the Beta forum. Another 20, or so, have been voicing outrage but haven't bothered to share actual data. The remainder of the entire international player base either doesn't care or, at most, doesn't care enough to take the small amount of time required to set up an account in Beta. IMO, the absence if feedback is feedback.

 

[-Chen-]

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.

If you say so
I guess we'll see, really doesn't bother me much anyway, I don't do nearly as much GBG coordinating as I used to, and am one of the ones strong enough to still get a good amount of fights no matter what [shrugs]
My concern is mostly based on the overall health of the game, and Inno not shooting themselves in the foot just cuz they want to try and put the lid back on Pandora's Box
And in the interest of saving myself time, that can serve as my form reply to any other responses to my feedback

 

[-Chen-]

I don't doubt that this is your experience but it's an example of selection bias. You center your game around GBG and probably joined a guild with similarly minded players. As a result, the majority of players that your encounter share game styles. However, parsing the player base shows that the majority of players do not center their game around GBG. Otherwise, there would not be so many players in leagues below L1000.


I wouldn't make that bet. There is one player contributing real time data on the Beta forum. Another 20, or so, have been voicing outrage but haven't bothered to share actual data. The remainder of the entire international player base either doesn't care or, at most, doesn't care enough to take the small amount of time required to set up an account in Beta. IMO, the absence if feedback is feedback.

Totally respect your opinion, just don't share it, I have met many people in my time in game, not just those in my guild or other strong GBG guilds. As to the feedback, the vast majority of people percentage wise don't come to these forums at all, and a big percentage of those that do just lurk, so not getting a high volume of feedback is not an indicator of anything, when Inno or anyone else looks at feedback and poll results, they are mostly looking at the percentage of the different feed back they do get per 100, or 1000, whatever the sample group number is.

The most important number (but not only for sure) is 70% to 30% negative to the change they tested.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

The most important number (but not only for sure) is 70% to 30% negative to the change they tested.

I agree. But, please note the CM's response regarding the 70/30 mix:

"Please note, that it is just natural that there are more negative than positive comments here and also votes. Most people only visit the forum to complain and not to say that they like something. I am actually surprised to see it is not more negative votes, I expected way more."

 

[RazorbackPirate]

My concern is mostly based on the overall health of the game, and Inno not shooting themselves in the foot just cuz they want to try and put the lid back on Pandora's Box

As Inno has stated, the rebalance is "necessary for the long term sustainability and viability of the feature." I also know they're basing their decisions on hard data we'll never have access to. It's the hard data they'll base their decisions on, not the polling or feedback. The 70/30 polling is an interesting data point, but as always, the decision will happen based on actual usage/behavioral numbers you and I will never see.

The fact that this went to Beta at all indicates they have already modeled this rebalance to death. Now they're looking to see if Beta behaves in accordance with the model. Percentages of the stack may change a bit before going to the live servers, but this rebalance is coming to the live servers. 100%.

Inno also didn't need to put up a poll to know the overwhelming response would be negative. Sounds like the only surprise is the poll is not as negative as they thought it would be, making it 1 data point in favor of the change.

 

[-Chen-]

I agree. But, please note the CM's response regarding the 70/30 mix:

"Please note, that it is just natural that there are more negative than positive comments here and also votes. Most people only visit the forum to complain and not to say that they like something. I am actually surprised to see it is not more negative votes, I expected way more."

The semantics aside, since everyone could go back and forth on those all day, the most likely result of this first beta test is that they go back and tweak the numbers and try again, until they get numbers from those in the sample group to a point they find is acceptable.

As I understand the way these Inno beta tests work, is they take the feedback, see what the majority felt and why they felt that way, and then act accordingly. If the majority say they didn't like something about an event, they tweak whatever that was before it gets released, it happens all the time with the buildings offered, mechanics of the mini game, etc.
In this case they look and see, alright, half of those 70% negative votes said the numbers were too low, and they would probably vote in favor if those were adjusted. Just an example, but that's why I've been careful to always say "at those numbers" when I say it isn't going to get passed. The only way it goes through at those numbers is if Inno in it's desire to try and put GBG farming back in the box ignores the responses and numbers and pushes it through anyway, which is where my comment about being concerned that Inno would shoot themselves in the foot if they pushed it through anyway.

Oh, and I'll also add that when they tweak the numbers, let's just say to 80% from the 60-something percent they tested, it's gotta be a true 80%, not like the bogus 72% they have with 3 campers now, which is most often closer to 50%, lol....but that's just a personal pet peeve of mine!

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

As I understand the way these Inno beta tests work, is they take the feedback, see what the majority felt and why they felt that way, and then act accordingly. If the majority say they didn't like something about an event, they tweak whatever that was before it gets released, it happens all the time with the buildings offered, mechanics of the mini game, etc.

Perspective. You may believe it happens that way, but having been a long, long time reader of the Forum I know that it doesn't. Many, many events/features/mechanisms have been added to the game without having been tweaked in response to negative Beta reactions. As @Pericles the Lion quoted, and @RazorbackPirate referenced in his reply, Inno was expecting more of a negative reaction to this change. Which means that the downside to this change is smaller than they expected, which means there is little chance that it will be tweaked to lessen the impact.

See, they're not looking at mere numbers of players who post positively/negatively about a feature or change. They're looking at whether those negative responses are more or less than they expected. They're looking at how many of them are the generic complaints of "I just don't like this change" and how many are genuine "this change is bad for the game because....". They will dismiss the "I don't like this change" complaints, and take into consideration any well thought out genuine objections to aspects of the feature or change. Doesn't mean that they'll act on those, just means that they'll take them into consideration in moving forward. As I said, perspective.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

This

The only way it goes through at those numbers is if Inno in it's desire to try and put GBG farming back in the box ignores the responses and numbers and pushes it through anyway

is what I believe will happen. Because

being concerned that Inno would shoot themselves in the foot if they pushed it through anyway.

is something Inno is not concerned about. Based on their long history and the underlying numbers to support it, they know they will not be "shooting themselves in the foot" with this change. In the short term there may be players who quit in a huff, but they know this. Based on past behavior they've modeled that as well.

Just spit balling about, "Why now?" Maybe because they've now replaced any short term revenue loss with the revenue they're now earning from Ads? Net zero in the short term, only upside from then on.

 

[Angry.Blanket]

My Thoughts
I dislike farming GbG, it should be a battle between guilds always.
What is the imbalance Inno is trying to fix?
How will a Attrition cap not decrease GbG participation?
I have invested heavily in my GbG ability, this will change my ROI substantially to the point I see no reason to invest more.
I hope Inno isnt trying to level the playing field between active and inactive players, and paying players and non paying players.
I have belonged to guilds that couldnt get on the GbG map, it was always because they would not get together and coordinate not because they were not strong enough.
Reading all the input on this thread is starting to sound like people want to reward inactivity.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

I dislike farming GbG, it should be a battle between guilds always.
...
...
I have invested heavily in my GbG ability, this will change my ROI substantially to the point I see no reason to invest more.

You dislike farming GBG, but you're concerned about your ROI? That seems like a contradiction to me.

Reading all the input on this thread is starting to sound like people want to reward inactivity.

Don't know how you get that out of what's been said. Sounds like you're reading things into what others are saying that aren't there. Incidentally, there is a huge mass of players in between inactive and rabid GBG participation.

I hope Inno isnt trying to level the playing field between active and inactive players, and paying players and non paying players.

Also don't know where you got this from. Or are you considering all players who aren't in big, strong GBG-centric guilds as "inactive" and "non-paying"? That isn't true, but even if it was, this change doesn't level the playing field. It actually hurts those who don't have the resources of a large, active GBG guild. It's very interesting the straws that opponents to this change are grasping.

 

[Angry.Blanket]

You dislike farming GBG, but you're concerned about your ROI? That seems like a contradiction to me.

Don't know how you get that out of what's been said. Sounds like you're reading things into what others are saying that aren't there. Incidentally, there is a huge mass of players in between inactive and rabid GBG participation.

Also don't know where you got this from. Or are you considering all players who aren't in big, strong GBG-centric guilds as "inactive" and "non-paying"? That isn't true, but even if it was, this change doesn't level the playing field. It actually hurts those who don't have the resources of a large, active GBG guild. It's very interesting the straws that opponents to this change are grasping.

I didnt say i dont like rewards from GbG, I said I dont like farming.
I can get 10,000 or more fights in when we are doing all out war.
Inactivity,= when you cant get 20 or 30 members out of bed at 8:00Am thursday morning to gain a foot hold on the GbG map.
When you cant be bothered to keep up with the map and show up when needed for races.
If you are not involved in GbG and or GvG competitively.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

I didnt say i dont like rewards from GbG, I said I dont like farming.
I can get 10,000 or more fights in when we are doing all out war.
Inactivity,= when you cant get 20 or 30 members out of bed at 8:00Am thursday morning to gain a foot hold on the GbG map.
When you cant be bothered to keep up with the map and show up when needed for races.
If you are not involved in GbG and or GvG competitively.

If you are getting more than 5000 fights per season then you are in a farming guild. My fights competitively without SC support is 3000-3500 per season and that is maxing out my attrition at 119 each day in SAJM.

 

[DevaCat]

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.

In response to @-Chen- you ask why he assumes the rebalancing is to help smaller weaker guilds, and then go on to suggest that “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.” (Your post#135 to which I was responding). Then your response to my post (above) you repeat this notion. Oh, and adding the fairly obvious observation that rebalancing could be about the relative ability to farm rewards. Well, yeah lol, ya think?

Let’s use a little logic. The big strong guilds don’t need Inno’s help as things stand - they don’t allow small to middling guilds to move far enough into the map to make their siege camps (nerfed or not) an issue. Strong guilds don’t care about the weaker guilds “that should not be able to compete” being on their maps. If they become a nuisance, those weaker guilds are simply porched and business continues. Why would Inno rebalance to help those who are already successful? Answer: Inno won’t.

The only reason to put a thumb on the scales between guilds is to favor one over the other - and logic points to the weaker guilds being the target of some kind of positive rebalancing. But I don’t think nerfing the camps will help the weaker guilds at all - attrition already slows them and the camp/tower nerf being tested only will slow them more. I am in complete agreement that enabling small to middling guilds to compete more equally is the exact opposite of game balance.

Side note: Then there’s “balancing issues” between different players. What is that all about? To reduce the differential between a guild member who does 5k fights a season and one who does 50? If someone’s in a guild where a few at the top grab all the action, the solution is to find a better guild that does not do that. I’m unsure what Inno’s intent is on this point.

 

[Angry.Blanket]

If you are getting more than 5000 fights per season then you are in a farming guild. My fights competitively without SC support is 3000-3500 per season and that is maxing out my attrition at 119 each day in SAJM.

Absolutely not, If you can only get 3000 fights in you either have a larger number of active players in your guild or you are not active enough.
My att max is 137 in PE.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

Absolutely not, If you can only get 3000 fights in you either have a larger number of active players in your guild or you are not active enough.
My att max is 137 in PE.

So someone with a max Att of 119 can get 3000-3500 fights in and 18 more give you 10000+ is what you’re trying to say ? My max fights ever was 12413 but that was in a farming guild.I am now at 2439/1451 unboosted so I don’t think it’s my attack stats even though my defense on attack is too low but certainly not 6500 fights per season too low.

 

[Angry.Blanket]

So someone with a max Att of 119 can get 3000-3500 fights in and 18 more give you 10000+ is what you’re trying to say ? My max fights ever was 12413 but that was in a farming guild.I am now at 2439/1451 unboosted so I don’t think it’s my attack stats even though my defense on attack is too low but certainly not 6500 fights per season too low.

No, Im saying all out war doesnt limit the amount of fights an active player can get

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

Inactivity,= when you cant get 20 or 30 members out of bed at 8:00Am thursday morning to gain a foot hold on the GbG map.
When you cant be bothered to keep up with the map and show up when needed for races.
If you are not involved in GbG and or GvG competitively.

So by your standards about 90% of players that others consider active really aren't. I'm sure that the 5% that do GvG feel the same way. Neither one is correct, but that's where your focus on one feature takes you.

I didnt say i dont like rewards from GbG, I said I dont like farming.

So it's the obvious "I don't like to work, but I like to get paid". Which is really an irrelevant statement because you obviously do it anyway.

I’m unsure what Inno’s intent is on this point.

I'm not. I think their main intent is to cut down on the farming. And secondarily, cut down on guilds getting to Diamond league that "can't compete" without SCs. That's clearly what this change will do, so why look beyond the obvious?

 

[Angry.Blanket]

If you are getting more than 5000 fights per season then you are in a farming guild. My fights competitively without SC support is 3000-3500 per season and that is maxing out my attrition at 119 each day in SAJM.

I just re read this, now I don't know what it means, what is the relevance of how many fights you can get in a competitive season with no SC support have to do with how many I get in a competitive season with SC support ?

 

[Angry.Blanket]

So by your standards about 90% of players that others consider active really aren't. I'm sure that the 5% that do GvG feel the same way. Neither one is correct, but that's where your focus on one feature takes you.

So it's the obvious "I don't like to work, but I like to get paid". Which is really an irrelevant statement because you obviously do it anyway.

I'm not. I think their main intent is to cut down on the farming. And secondarily, cut down on guilds getting to Diamond league that "can't compete" without SCs. That's clearly what this change will do, so why look beyond the obvious?

You may be right, I do consider a very large percentage of FOE players to be inactve.
Not sure on the "I dont like to work" part that would be contradictory to activity. Farming is not active enough, show up every 4hrs and fill a tile.
War means being on and fighting every tile all day long.
I am part of the 5% that do GvG also.
If you take away GbG and GvG FOE is not a game, there is no way to win, it becomes a hobby.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

If you take away GbG and GvG FOE is not a game, there is no way to win, it becomes a hobby.

LOL
There's no way to win now.