• 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
Algona

Algona

Well-Known Member
A general hint for posters on how to get your ideas across.

Make a point, then do not respond to every post that disagrees, especially incessant bickering with the same person.

Instead, if your point is valid others will agree with you and hopefully bring more reasons to support your position.

That carries a hell of a lot more weight then simply repeating yourself.

----------

In this specific case, Havoc and Malice, you guys are doing the silliest thing possible with your back and forth, with only two likely results. Simply galvanizing opposition. Worse, it can lead to so much annoyance that it can cause others to be against your position just because they are more annoyed at you then the other guy.

----------

INNO gets it. Some folk want new features regarding logs and controls, some don't. The reasons supporting both opinions have been stated. Ad nauseum,

Two Mods have asked the discussion stop. Don;t like it? Report the Mods. Privately. Meanwhile, not only has INNO got the feedback pro and con, but so has everyone else.

----------

Interesting idea:

harbinger963 said:
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).
Click to expand...
Initial response, I kinda like it, but not ure about this one. Merits discussion?

First thought, how would the possibility of giving Goods to the enemy effect GBG strategy and using Buildings?
 

Raymora

Member
Enlight said:
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
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think that would give way too much advantage to top guilds and I'm in one. If it were designed that way, I would take advantage, but I wouldn't suggest it.
 

Raymora

Member
harbinger963 said:
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).
Click to expand...
Most of the time, we delete buildings just before if we're going to lose a province. For us to get the goods back wouldn't be fair to the attacking guild. We would pay for palaces probably and already forced them to need far more advancements. We got what we paid for. Again, I would love to take advantage if INNO adds this, but I don't thinks it's fair to the guilds fighting their way up the ladder.
 
plinker2

plinker2

FOE Team
Forum Moderator
Once again the thread is for feedback ONLY. If they are arguing or off topic, we WILL remove the post. We encourage feedback and their comments, we discourage bickering.
 

DeletedUser40577

Stephen Longshanks said:
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.
Click to expand...
Proposal: Allow GbG Coordinators to "signal" a sector. That is, make it highlight, or have fireworks flying off of it for all I care. Perhaps even make this cost something -- but having an indication which presents the strategic intentions of coordinators being visible on the map would be nice (and feels like a compromise for the two violent torrential viewpoints) This doesn't stop anyone from attacking wherever they want, nor does it make it "confusing" ... it certainly removes a degree of ignorance.
 

Raymora

Member
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is a suggestion to reset the troops you face after a successful negotiation. When attrition gets high and the troops you face are more difficult, you get stuck to continue negotiation. If the troops reset, you may be able to fight next round and back to negotiations when you hit the next tough one.
 
Super Catanian

Super Catanian

Well-Known Member
Raymora said:
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is a suggestion to reset the troops you face after a successful negotiation. When attrition gets high and the troops you face are more difficult, you get stuck to continue negotiation. If the troops reset, you may be able to fight next round and back to negotiations when you hit the next tough one.
Click to expand...
That might be to maintain balance, but I hate it as well. Definitely a good suggestion, though...
 

Stephen Longshanks

I have deleted a bunch more off topic and argumentative (lacking actual feedback) posts. Do not post any more about logs or guild controls. Those have dominated this thread and other feedback needs to have the chance to be seen.
 

Robbenn

New Member
Raymora said:
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is a suggestion to reset the troops you face after a successful negotiation. When attrition gets high and the troops you face are more difficult, you get stuck to continue negotiation. If the troops reset, you may be able to fight next round and back to negotiations when you hit the next tough one.
Click to expand...
Good suggestion. After a certain point, if you're unlucky enough to get a tough combination, you're stuck, even though you might be able to go much further when facing any other troop types. The ability to reset the troops you face, even if it has a cost to it, would be a nice addition.
 

DeletedUser30791

Robbenn said:
Good suggestion. After a certain point, if you're unlucky enough to get a tough combination, you're stuck, even though you might be able to go much further when facing any other troop types. The ability to reset the troops you face, even if it has a cost to it, would be a nice addition.
Click to expand...
You can actually do this now indirectly. Every time you win a battle, all the province opponents get updates. So if the main target has a troop mix I don't want to face, I'll look at the secondary sieges or even start a siege on a province to get the opponents that I want. I'll jump back to the main siege when it has a good troop mix. The same can be done with negotiations to get better negotiations. However a successful negotiation doesn't change the troop mix and a successful battle doesn't change the negotiations.
 
Lannister the Rich

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
I would suggest linking the fight/negotiations in such a way that if a fight is too difficult, be able to negotiate the turn to reset the troops that you must face and vice versa.
Right now, nothing resets until you defeat it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.