• 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:
    Apply

Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

  • Thread starter DeletedUser4770
  • Start date

DeletedUser40858

Well, I obviously don't know why all 95% don't participate (saying they "never play it" is inaccurate), but I know that many of us have played GvG and don't do it now because we know that we don't like it. Incidentally, when Inno shared the 5% GvG participation rate, they also stated that 75% of players are on mobile. So even if you include only PC players, the GvG participation rate is only 20%.
So at least 75% no nothing about gvg so its impossible for the majority to give an. Accurate opinion on what parts of gvg would or would not be good attributes to add to gbg. It seems that gvg players actually will have the most accurate assessment of how it would work better.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
So at least 75% no nothing about gvg so its impossible for the majority to give an. Accurate opinion on what parts of gvg would or would not be good attributes to add to gbg. It seems that gvg players actually will have the most accurate assessment of how it would work better.
The only perspective you can add is how it will work more like GvG, not how GBG will work better. If those attributes were so great, Inno would have added them, but they chose not to. Why? Maybe they wanted a system like what they introduced, not what they mothballed.
 

Stephen Longshanks

why is the feedback here being deleted? apparently "looking forward for your feedback" actually means we're looking forward to have you waste your time formulating an argument about a controversial subject, just to delete it when we feel like it . It's a controversial subject, obviously it's gonna generate a lot of discussions, from which you can gather up valuable feedback. If you don't feel like it brings anything valuable to the table, the obvious choice would be to ignore it, but deleting it after specifically asking for it it's just disrespectful towards the players in my opinion. I'm talking to the mod who deleted my post.
I deleted your post because we've already had pages and pages of discussion on that particular point, and it has already been beaten to death and crowded out any other potential feedback. There is no benefit to having 50 pages of discussion on one or two points in a feedback thread. Most people want more comprehensive logs and some people want stricter guild controls on players' actions while most don't.

You may contact me directly if you have further questions, or contact Panacea or Sovereign if you wish to complain about my actions to my superiors. I am okay with either avenue should you choose to pursue this further.

Now if anyone has feedback on something other than logs or guild controls, please feel free to share it.
 

Stephen Longshanks

So at least 75% no nothing about gvg so its impossible for the majority to give an. Accurate opinion on what parts of gvg would or would not be good attributes to add to gbg. It seems that gvg players actually will have the most accurate assessment of how it would work better.
I'm pretty sure that the majority of posters here play on PC much of the time, and your comment is irrelevant if those of us posting are not part of that 75%. Now let's get back on topic, please.
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
5. Too expensive. Part of this is long term effort and troops needed to go the full distance. Ties in with #1.

It's fun when you're making progress, but the endless-back-and-forth fight for sectors is a huge turn off- way more than initial fun. There's a ton of fun games out there completing for time, and the slog isn't worth it.
If you can't buy a mansion, is it too expense or are you buying outside of your budget? Straining wallets means you are out of your league, and you can just as easily be out-classed by attack/defense boosts as you can a guilds wallet, meaning that if you are having trouble, you'll likely have to operate in a lower league.

Also...this is the first game and so I don't think many people realize they will have to do this over and over and over again. I might have underestimated peoples abilities to produce resources, but if not, I think that negotiations will cease to be a primary method of pushing GbG when people begin to go broke. It's largely because of the demand for previous-age goods- which I feel the Star Gazer is inadequate to supply. People will burn through their hoarded stock and then...we'll see. If that is true, the game will go through two major phases of categorizing guilds in leagues- the initial phase we are seeing, and the one where sober recognition of the long term costs see those guilds who cannot maintain their rank without mass-negotiations diminish in rank and so the sifting process may be a little longer than expected.

I think it is the long run that will determine the future of the game. This is the first run and it being brand new, it has it's highest participation rating. But it is pretty intense. Activity and enthusiasm seem to be relatively high over a higher portion of the day rather than with GvG where things rev up around recalc. No matter what you say, the best thing about it is that you will generally find yourself operating against people of a similar caliber as yourself and while you might not always be the grand winner, no one who participates loses. Even discounting the final reward, there are pretty good rewards simply for fighting. You get fp, troops, a chance for diamonds... I make 350 fp a day and still find it pretty useful to get that occasional fp reward from fighting every once in a while.

In the end I actually like it and I think there's still things left to discover in this feature that will keep people interested for some time.
 

Sheriff Of Rottingham

Active Member
Ok I've given GBG a number of days before thinking about and submitting my feedback. Here goes:
  1. I'm a 7 year player in an established, but relaxed guild. We dont GVG because of this stance. I was looking forward to GBG because it was a competitive team activity that didn't require mega guild status or all the politicing of gvg, and reset on a recurring basis.
  2. This first round of GBG is different from all following rounds. So some complaints are invalid. In the future GBG will not be like it is this week. So wait until next month to really see what you think.
  3. Three guild alliances I believe are going to dominate GBG. One alpha, and two beta guilds will control 90% of provinces by the 5th day. Two alpha guilds might occasionally clash with whoever convinces the 3rd strongest to their side will win. This will be much more common in higher tiers.
  4. GBG is not GVG 2.0. Guild leaders don't need total control. It's part of what makes the two game modes different. It's supposed to be a chaotic free for all. The only reason it isn't is because of the human dream of control in a chaotic world. Those requesting changes to make GBG more like GVG are missing the point and doing themselves and everyone else a disservice by asking for GVG features.
  5. GBG will end up with a much larger percentage of player based participating than gvg because it is different. It is more accessible to all players, and attrition prevents the "rich get richer" side effect of long term games like FoE.
  6. The only change I see as reasonable is an activity log. However, it prevents the "sabotage" strategy. I don't know how I feel about that. I think it's an interesting wrinkle to the game, but irritating in lower levels.
 

BruteForceAttack

Well-Known Member
Please provide an option to turn of the animations for negotiations. i.e. when we click on Pay and negotiate please show instant results. For eg when you win and attrition goes up you see that first then the results. Also make the popups go ways faster.
 

DeletedUser40858

Ok I've given GBG a number of days before thinking about and submitting my feedback. Here goes:
  1. I'm a 7 year player in an established, but relaxed guild. We dont GVG because of this stance. I was looking forward to GBG because it was a competitive team activity that didn't require mega guild status or all the politicing of gvg, and reset on a recurring basis.
  2. This first round of GBG is different from all following rounds. So some complaints are invalid. In the future GBG will not be like it is this week. So wait until next month to really see what you think.
  3. Three guild alliances I believe are going to dominate GBG. One alpha, and two beta guilds will control 90% of provinces by the 5th day. Two alpha guilds might occasionally clash with whoever convinces the 3rd strongest to their side will win. This will be much more common in higher tiers.
  4. GBG is not GVG 2.0. Guild leaders don't need total control. It's part of what makes the two game modes different. It's supposed to be a chaotic free for all. The only reason it isn't is because of the human dream of control in a chaotic world. Those requesting changes to make GBG more like GVG are missing the point and doing themselves and everyone else a disservice by asking for GVG features.
  5. GBG will end up with a much larger percentage of player based participating than gvg because it is different. It is more accessible to all players, and attrition prevents the "rich get richer" side effect of long term games like FoE.
  6. The only change I see as reasonable is an activity log. However, it prevents the "sabotage" strategy. I don't know how I feel about that. I think it's an interesting wrinkle to the game, but irritating in lower levels.
You nailed it on point 3. The rest not so much.
 

Enlight

New Member
I think if any zones are cut off from an HQ they should lose those zones, it would create very exciting play.

And there should be some sort of counter attack against a siege
 

DeletedUser40996

I think if any zones are cut off from an HQ they should lose those zones, it would create very exciting play.

And there should be some sort of counter attack against a siege
There is . Take the adjoining sectors so the attackers are cut off
 

Enlight

New Member
I was referring to, if a guild has some of the center and another guild cuts off their HQ such as swinging around on the 2 level of the map, they should loose those disconnected zones in the center or anywhere on the map
 

BruteForceAttack

Well-Known Member
I was referring to, if a guild has some of the center and another guild cuts off their HQ such as swinging around on the 2 level of the map, they should loose those disconnected zones in the center or anywhere on the map
Since there is no way to defend it is not piratical. Maybe connected provinces can get some points bonus.
 

Harbinger963

New Member
Just a thought:

There should be an option to delete a building. If that building is deleted, you get 50% of the goods back.

Here's the kicker: Take a sector with building on it, you can delete it and pocket half the goods. Someone wants to use diamonds to fast built a a building seconds before it is conquered. then there is a potential transfer to the conquering guild of not just the building (50% chance), but also the goods themselves (if torn down).
 

Sheriff Of Rottingham

Active Member
The more I think about it, the more I think about HOW did innov intend us to play GBG? My assumption is they intended GBG to be a free for all fight, and to be chaotic. With that assumption, what recommendation(s) do I have to achieve that goal and for it to be enjoyable.
  1. Make GBG completely anonymous. No way to tell who the other guilds are. That way, no scheming.
  2. If #1 happened, go ahead and give a log for your guild's actions.
  3. Anyone in your guild can start a fight.
  4. Only authorized players can spend resources on upgrades. Also reduce upgrade costs by about 30%
  5. Make each season 10 days with 4 day rest. So it starts up the same day every two weeks
 

DeletedUser40858

The more I think about it, the more I think about HOW did innov intend us to play GBG? My assumption is they intended GBG to be a free for all fight, and to be chaotic. With that assumption, what recommendation(s) do I have to achieve that goal and for it to be enjoyable.
  1. Make GBG completely anonymous. No way to tell who the other guilds are. That way, no scheming.
  2. If #1 happened, go ahead and give a log for your guild's actions.
  3. Anyone in your guild can start a fight.
  4. Only authorized players can spend resources on upgrades. Also reduce upgrade costs by about 30%
  5. Make each season 10 days with 4 day rest. So it starts up the same day every two weeks
This post is based on your assumption that inno wants it to be chaotic. Did they state this?
 

DeletedUser40996

The more I think about it, the more I think about HOW did innov intend us to play GBG? My assumption is they intended GBG to be a free for all fight, and to be chaotic. With that assumption, what recommendation(s) do I have to achieve that goal and for it to be enjoyable.
  1. Make GBG completely anonymous. No way to tell who the other guilds are. That way, no scheming.
  2. If #1 happened, go ahead and give a log for your guild's actions.
  3. Anyone in your guild can start a fight.
  4. Only authorized players can spend resources on upgrades. Also reduce upgrade costs by about 30%
  5. Make each season 10 days with 4 day rest. So it starts up the same day every two weeks
4 is already a mechanic that only Leaders / Founders / Trusted? Can build buildings
 

Emberguard

Senior Ingame Moderator
I was referring to, if a guild has some of the center and another guild cuts off their HQ such as swinging around on the 2 level of the map, they should loose those disconnected zones in the center or anywhere on the map
Too easy to lose the connection from HQ. There’d be no point in going for the centre