Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

[DeletedUser32973]

It feels odd to me that negotiating gives more advancement than fighting in something called Guild Battlegrounds. I know some people hate to fight and negotiating is the solution for them, but why is negotiating (in what sounded to me like a fighting feature) worth more? I guess the general strategy is to negotiate until attrition makes goods cost too high then switch to fighting? I have mixed feelings about it tbh.

 

[ODragon]

It feels odd to me that negotiating gives more advancement than fighting in something called Guild Battlegrounds. I know some people hate to fight and negotiating is the solution for them, but why is negotiating (in what sounded to me like a fighting feature) worth more? I guess the general strategy is to negotiate until attrition makes goods cost too high then switch to fighting? I have mixed feelings about it tbh.

Funny, I've been going the other way, fighting until I can't, then negotiate until it gets too expensive (18-20x). I get a couple of hundred or more goods in a given day while troops is only about 75. Even at 400 A/D boost, my troops can destroyed pretty quickly as they enemy boost is A/D plus can be two rounds.

Battles hit a point where, at least on auto, become unwinnable no matter how strong and smart you are. Negotiating just becomes more costly, it doesn't actually get harder. Plus, if you want to use 10 diamonds on a guaranteed win with negotiating, you can. I don't think there is a save me diamond option for battles.

 

[DeletedUser29726]

It feels odd to me that negotiating gives more advancement than fighting in something called Guild Battlegrounds. I know some people hate to fight and negotiating is the solution for them, but why is negotiating (in what sounded to me like a fighting feature) worth more? I guess the general strategy is to negotiate until attrition makes goods cost too high then switch to fighting? I have mixed feelings about it tbh.

Negotiating is worth 2 instead of 1 because in a race for a sector it's slower and the x2 is to help it catch up a bit in that regard.

If negotiating was also 2 attrition I think it'd be fine as 'fight til you can't and then negotiate if you want to do more' would be a viable strategy. Right now that strategy costs more than negotiating from the start because you miss out on 2 progress per 1 attrition with cheap x1 good negotiations and then have to catch up to the same level of progress at higher levels of attrition with 6x or 7x multiplier on the negotiations.

One of my worlds I do however do 'negotiate while it's cheap, and then fight til I can't' in order to take advantage of the super-cheap initial negotiations and extra progress before hitting my fight cap (above which i don't want to negotiate there because i don't have the full goods support i'd need to do so). That world however is in a special situation where I can fight to the low 50s in attrition at least. For many people by the time they've negotiated past the point where it's cheap there's not really many more fights they can handle.

 

[Algona]

I am a high level player and a founder and am saying officially I and my guild will not play such rapacious addition to the game.

Really wise, lol

The problem with epigrams and adages is that even when true, folk dismiss them instead of think about them

You're one of the best players in the game, but GBG is new to you and you haven't figured it out. Yet.

So instead of trying to learn it, you're going to have your Guild not try. Is that because you are worried your 33 person Guild is gonna get whupped by the 80 Member Guilds or you just can;t be troubled to try to learn?

Some of the Guilds you are battling in GvG for highest Guild Ranking will learn and excel at GBG.

Come back in six months and let us know how much your Guild Ranking slipped and how many of your Guildies defected to Guilds that do GvG and GBG.

 

[ODragon]

Negotiating is worth 2 instead of 1 because in a race for a sector it's slower and the x2 is to help it catch up a bit in that regard.

At least later on, and on mobile, I find replacing wounded troops to be just as long or longer than negotiating. The troop page is a joke and needs a redesign badly. Where I am, having to go through age before to get to rogues is stupid. Might make sense later on but in PE or earlier, just doesn't seem worth it.

 

[saknika]

Negotiating is worth 2 instead of 1 because in a race for a sector it's slower and the x2 is to help it catch up a bit in that regard.

I'm pretty sure it's also worth 2 because you will always spend the goods, whereas someone who is fighting might only injure their troops, not murder them. So someone who is negotiating always has to give something up, but a fighter does not.

 

[DeletedUser29726]

At least later on, and on mobile, I find replacing wounded troops to be just as long or longer than negotiating. The troop page is a joke and needs a redesign badly. Where I am, having to go through age before to get to rogues is stupid. Might make sense later on but in PE or earlier, just doesn't seem worth it.

The mobile troop interface is indeed horrid. And perhaps this will motivate them to finally fix it so you can just tap troops in and out rather than have to drag them around and get to the troops you want faster. But on PC you can autobattle 4 or so with complete troop replacements before finishing 1 negotiation.

 

[DeletedUser29726]

I'm pretty sure it's also worth 2 because you will always spend the goods, whereas someone who is fighting might only injure their troops, not murder them. So someone who is negotiating always has to give something up, but a fighter does not.

The dev did post that as another one of the reasons for the difference, yes.

 

[saknika]

So far my team is loving GBG. The mobile players are very excited (as they're getting the update and can play) to have something they can really take part in. We are by far the smallest guild in our match-up at 39 members (of which 37 can participate, one joined after GBG started and one hasn't unlocked Military Tactics just yet), but through teamwork and strategy we're in top position. Had to climb our way up (for a little bit we were battling for 4/5), but we did it. We're up against some active GvG guilds too, so I know they can fight. Our trick has just been getting a thread started for announcing targets, and then focusing in. Working really well so far. If we were just paired against guilds of our own size we would probably own most of the map if they weren't as active as we are. And no one is being asked to be on at all hours of the day, or stay up way too late, or anything of the sort. We're figuring out as well who is on when, and trying to plan ahead. The strategy to it is definitely subtle, but I like that. I foresee we're going to be one of the small guilds that's fighting against bigger guilds regularly, simply because our activity level is there. Attrition is a pain in the butt, but if it weren't there I think that many guilds wouldn't have a chance against the large GvG guilds (and I say this knowing that despite being in a small guild, I'm powered up more like a GvG guild and I'd be an unfair force without attrition). It definitely evens the playing field by limiting how much any player can do, and challenging what they're willing to do. There are many fighters who have too much pride to negotiate (or who focus so much on having a fighting city they don't have the goods to spare), so that's on them. GBG is definitely going to shake up some strategy on city building, and I'm okay with this. It's given some new life to our team, and I think it's going to help even the playing field for guilds who are mobile friendly to compete with GvG guilds as far as earning GP and placing in the overall rankings.

It'll be nice to see the MMR work itself out over time, because I'm really interested to know where we end up in the next few months.

 

[DeletedUser]

I foresee we're going to be one of the small guilds that's fighting against bigger guilds regularly, simply because our activity level is there.

And here is the answer to those who say, "it will be better after things shake out." No, it won't. Small guilds who compete well will be bouncing back and forth between the higher leagues, which will be dominated by bigger guilds, and the lower leagues. They'll do well against same size guilds, which will bump them up to the higher leagues where they will be unable to compete just due to sheer numbers. And so they'll drop to the lower leagues again. Over and over. Sounds like great fun. Not.

 

[Super Catanian]

The dev did post that as another one of the reasons for the difference, yes.

It's kind of like the GE, right? You supposedly get more Expedition Points from a negotiation.

 

[DeletedUser29726]

And here is the answer to those who say, "it will be better after things shake out." No, it won't. Small guilds who compete well will be bouncing back and forth between the higher leagues, which will be dominated by bigger guilds, and the lower leagues. They'll do well against same size guilds, which will bump them up to the higher leagues where they will be unable to compete just due to sheer numbers. And so they'll drop to the lower leagues again. Over and over. Sounds like great fun. Not.

It's not like there's only two options, high or low. There's eventually 5 total leagues. And the matchmaking rating can break that down further within a league (it takes multiple weeks of winning in a league to promote to the next higher league).

Also when you move up and find yourself outclassed, you may be able to avoid being bumped down by playing conservatively and making what you can do count. It doesn't have to be about 'winning every week'.

Is there enough room for the system to eventually work itself out to a fun place for everyone? No clue, it's estimated to take months for the system to start to stabilize.

This feature provides something I've felt needed for a long long time - a reason why I should care about making my city stronger when it could already do everything in the game prior to this. Yes attrition stops me now from doing everything I could want to do. Yes there's going to be guilds with numbers advantages over me that I'm going to have to work on strategies to overcome. Good! Now I'll have something to work on to make it further

 

[Vger]

Small guilds who compete well will be bouncing back and forth between the higher leagues, which will be dominated by bigger guilds, and the lower leagues. They'll do well against same size guilds, which will bump them up to the higher leagues where they will be unable to compete just due to sheer numbers. And so they'll drop to the lower leagues again. Over and over. Sounds like great fun. Not.

Is that really much different from what happens in GE from week to week? In my DF city, I'm in a better than ho-hum but nowhere near top tier guild that mostly suits my needs. It does OK with GE most weeks. But not always. 5'th this week. 1'st and 2'nd did 133.3%. 3'rd isn't far behind. I think we were 1'st last week. Or maybe it was second. Not 5'th.

In GE there doesn't seem to be much you can do to control who you will be up against the next week. You could be the top dog or the bottom fish. Some people even get there guild to wait a few hours before starting GE because you are less likely to end up in a bad spot. Urban Legend anyone?

GE seems to be random placement. GBG seems to be more like successive approximation. We all know that random creates all sorts of ***UNFAIR RNG SUCKS INNO IS GREEDY*** complaints. Let's give this successive approximation thing a chance and see how it works out.

 

[BruteForceAttack]

It would be nice if the individual prize of units/attack % is given out only when fighting and goods of current/previous age is give out only negotiation.

 

[Vger]

It would be nice if the individual prize of units/attack % is given out only when fighting and goods of current/previous age is give out only negotiation.

Sorry, but why???

 

[saknika]

And here is the answer to those who say, "it will be better after things shake out." No, it won't. Small guilds who compete well will be bouncing back and forth between the higher leagues, which will be dominated by bigger guilds, and the lower leagues. They'll do well against same size guilds, which will bump them up to the higher leagues where they will be unable to compete just due to sheer numbers. And so they'll drop to the lower leagues again. Over and over. Sounds like great fun. Not.

Then don't play if that doesn't sound fun to you. To me it sounds like a welcome challenge. GE is boring because it's the same fights over and over and just a race to get as far as you can the fastest. Yawn. GBG has an unpredictable nature that demands some strategy, but it's not nearly as complicated as GvG for what to do and when. It is however really expensive if you're not careful, both for individual and for treasury. Which I like because again, strategy.

So if our activity level puts us higher in the rankings and then we get a particularly tough GBG, we'll move down a little. It's not the end of the world, it's called a learning experience. The whole point of MMR now is that it will sort guilds into leagues based on actual performance instead of the estimation they used to make initial placements. If my guild is very aggressive and active, it stands to reason that we'll move up and face tougher opponents. It doesn't matter if we're fewer in number, we will have proven ourselves to be capable of rising to that challenge. And if the challenge is too much, we'll float back down. Regardless, we get really good GP out of it, and we have fun in the process.

If you cannot enjoy the process and your whole factor of fun is on whether you win or lose, then why even bother playing the game? I say this of board games, card games, and PC games as well.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

I would also argue that if negotiating a sector counts as 2 encounters, the attrition rate should increase the same. However, it already increases too quickly imo

 

[BruteForceAttack]

Sorry, but why???

If a player only negotiates and doesn't fight prize of Attack boost % is useless for that player.

 

[Vger]

If I negotiate this round, does that mean I don't fight, so I don't need attack boost?
If I fight this round, does that mean I never negotiate, so don't need goods?

 

[Raymora]

This has pulled in a lot of people who were not or rarely doing GvG for whatever reason. It's started with a bang, but has some issues.

Just like in GvG, sometimes a siege starts on a sector we don't want sieged. In GvG, we can control who can lay a siege and we can kill a siege. I suggest we need the same control on GbG.

Now before people get all semantic on me, by siege, I mean laying the first battle that causes a banner to appear. People just look for banners and hit them. Getting them to stop can sometimes be a chore and people start to get heated. Our core GvG players are used to regular communication channels, but we have many more involved now.

I suggest 3 things:
1. create a permission that can be given to allow laying the siege (first battle)
2. allow people with that permission or leader or something to be able to kill a siege - this means losing all battles gained so far in that sector
3. show logs of who is hitting a sector. Not sure if this one is feasible since there are so many battles lol