Dravenstar
New Member
If only people could follow directions. They made GbG strategy, right? But if people can't follow directions what strategy is there? Making a stop sign literally restrict hitting a sector would help this along.
-
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:
Kranyar the Mysterious
Well-Known Member
It's up to you to get your guild members to behave properly. Besides, some guilds I'm in don't use the stop sign for the same purpose you do. That symbol means whatever your leadership decides to have it mean, the meaning is not set in stone.
Nicholas002
Well-Known Member
Yep. In my guild the target symbol means take sector, the stop symbol means take to 155/160 but don’t flip, and no marking means do not attack.
Giving guild leaders the power to control directly where you can and can’t attack is going too far.
Salsuero
Well-Known Member
This.
Exactly.
There are times where we will mark territories as "do not attack" but use that to mean "do not take". No need to stop people from hitting them as long as they don't get finished off. It's a good way to give folks something to do while limiting points accumulation or timing the taking of areas of the map.
Lancer2
New Member
I acknowledge military guilds are well-organized for GBG and have an edge regardless. The issue is related to whether the edge is based upon the ability of the guild or a loophole in the game feature's construct. We cannot do anything about early risers in early time zones. However, what can be done is to level the playing field in light of the fact we cannot do anything about them or how the Earth turns relative to the Sun. They will retain that edge, but my proposal clips the edge like trimming fingernails but not removing them.
Lancer2
New Member
Misspoken on my part. It is 10 and not 8; but that there is a cap is fact.
Lancer2
New Member
I look at the effect of today's GBG parameters and it isn't balanced. It's exploited by a few guilds who successfully choke off gameplay for most other guilds on the GBG map. When you talk of earning personal rewards, I understand the incentive; but when one guild is choking off all of the other guilds' players' opportunities, especially unrealistically, then something has to give. The map isn't infinite and it is designed to induce conflict and guilds preying upon other guilds. That won't change under my suggestion unless every guild on the map stands pat on what they have. Do you really think that will happen? I don't. My suggestions limit the advantage of early risers, not ends it, and caps guilds in terms of victory point flows. Any guild organized to do so is still able to attain a dominant position on the map. The percentage cap suggested was 30%. It can be higher if the developers decide to make it higher.
Lancer2
New Member
In Real Life military, indeed you should. This game is in part a simulation. Being able to salt-n-pepper the map, which is a kind of miniaturized continent and not an island, is unrealistic in terms of real military logistics. As I said, history is replete with examples from Antiquity to modern eras of invading armies having to retreat or perish after having their supply lines cut off. However, in recognition of the unfairness of an immediate cut-off, I already suggested that the cut-off not occur until after 48-72 game hours have passed. If a military guild cannot re-establish its logistic channel in 48-72 hours, well beyond a province's 4-hour lock out, then it's a military guild in name only. There's always the early time zone advantage available to those guilds organized to take advantage of it in order to rectify a logistics cut-off.
Lancer2
New Member
The likelihood of all 7 opposing guilds attacking at the same time is nil. GBG has never seen any such degree of cooperation. It is barely likely two guilds will coordinate attacks at the same time, unless they are two military guilds on the same map, which then in turn eat up the map denying access to the other guilds. On an unusual day, maybe there are three, one of which is typically a satellite guild to a military guild. I think it necessary that if a guild successfully organizes itself into a dominant military guild, the challenge to it should be elevated accordingly, not minimalized for its continuing aggrandizement at the expense of other guilds. This is an unbalanced reward situation that currently hands an overly enhanced benefit to those guilds who have gone the military game route, and currently to an extent is punishing to those guilds which have chosen to play differently. At the core of the issue is gameplay parameters that should be as realistic as possible. GBG is not realistic where it can theoretically be realistic.
Lancer2
New Member
Isn't that precisely what the salt-n-pepper strategy wielded by a military guild is doing to all of the other guilds on the map once it gains advantage? Turn about should be fair play in GBG; but at this time there is no real fair play when a military guild gains advantage on the map. My suggestions rebalance gameplay and put increasing pressure as its dominance grows on any guild that tries to play GBG like it's a game of RISK.
Salsuero
Well-Known Member
Yes. I've been on maps where that has happened. It does now and would certainly do so in the future.
This isn't real life. GBg doesn't reflect real life, whether your suggestions were implemented or not. To use it as your justification would open you up to have to justify other aspects that you do like. And one could argue that America has a current "salt and pepper" dominance globally. We have bases dotting the map everywhere and could launch an offensive in most places on a dime.
It's not zero. It's low. But certainly possible, especially if one guild is dominant and your suggestion were implemented.
Right. That might be because there's no incentive in it like the one you suggest. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it wouldn't if the game changed enough to make it worth doing.
Yes, and so why should I support the same thing in reverse? You're advocating for a rose of a different color... even though it's still just a rose.
So your impetus is revenge. Because it's not fair to simply turn the tables in a way that would create an opposite imbalance.
Rebalancing, but not balancing. Your idea of balance would simply tip the scale the other way, not equalize it.
Last edited:
jesika5
New Member
In GBG, a number of players in guilds who are founders or leaders choose to attack at times that are convenient for them, and also the power of the players in this section is completely ignored because the number of battles is not calculated.
Players who have fought for years and earn points are easily obtained for other players with less experience and less power, and this is not true at all with the effort and the amount of power and experience of the players. At GBG, there is only room for opportunism, so the situation is not the same for everyone.
Players who have fought for years and earn points are easily obtained for other players with less experience and less power, and this is not true at all with the effort and the amount of power and experience of the players. At GBG, there is only room for opportunism, so the situation is not the same for everyone.
travelbydadd
New Member
I'd like to get feedback on the following idea. Just as FoE introduced the activity tracking feature after GBG started, I think they should also introduce a sector conquer tracking feature for guilds to identify who conquered the most recent X number of sectors. This would be an informational feature only and in no way affect other guilds since you could only see the most recent X number of sectors conquered by members of your own guild. It would give guild leaders and GBG generals the ability to identify rogue players that conquer sectors in violation of current guild strategy. Since FoE introduced the member activity feature for GBG so guilds can track who is participating I think it's a natural evolution in GBG for guilds to also be able to identify members who conquer sectors as well.
Algona
Well-Known Member
Your idea was first brought up shortly after GBG started, suggested repeatedly, argued about repeatedly in this thread, other threads, idea threads.
You could go back and read all the previous arguments on this or rehash all the arguments or accept that INNO knows that some players want this and has not acted on it in a year.
You could go back and read all the previous arguments on this or rehash all the arguments or accept that INNO knows that some players want this and has not acted on it in a year.
travelbydadd
New Member
Yes Algona, I realize you have your own opinions and this has been brought up before but I would appreciate other opinions as well as this seems to be a consistent theme so obviously some of us think this is a wise feature request. I was told this is the forum for open discussion so I hope we can actually have that conversation vs. being summarily dismissed like you did in the ideas forum.
RazorbackPirate
Well-Known Member
As @Algona said,
Do this, then come back. Here's the TL/DR. All arguments for and against this have been made. Everyone has had their say, and in doing so, has found the camp where they now reside. There is nothing new to say that will make anyone who's found a camp, change camps. Which matters not anyway. Because, as @Algona has explained,
Again, all arguments for and against this have been made. Based on those arguments, Inno has made their ruling. They're not going to do anything about it.
Why? IMHO, it's because Inno also feels that it's your guild's problem to solve, as many guilds have, long, long, ago. Here's a counter proposal, why don't you make a thread asking others how their guild has solved this issue. You might get further toward solving the issue than waiting for Inno to solve it for you.
Algona is right. It has been brought up and discussed numerous times. Not just before, but numerous times. If you want to know the feedback on your idea and other opinions start reading back. You are not the first to come up with this. This has already been discussed so many times that not many will be willing to go down this road once again.
travelbydadd
New Member
Here's another idea, forums exist for a reason. So let's have an updated debate about a topic that obviously resonates with people who are allegedly in each camp as you say. Isn't that what this forum is for in the first place? Otherwise it's just a few players like you and @Algona summarily dismissing opinions as if your word is law and other opinions don't matter. I'll take a world and active forum of reasonable and legitimate debate any day over that.
The debate is updated. You are just very late to enter the debate. Does that mean everybody should voice their opinion once again. Why shouldn't it be acceptable to ask from you to read back?
Aren't you now not making your word law?
RazorbackPirate
Well-Known Member
No one is summarily dismissing opinions. What we are saying is that what you're saying is nothing new. Go back, read what's already been said, then, if you have something new and unique to add, come back and add that. Something new and unique would be worthy of debate.
But right now, there's nothing new to debate. Everyone on this forum is aware that some guilds have this problem. That your guild is having this problem is nothing new. That you want this information is nothing new. The reasons you want this, are nothing new. There is nothing to be gained by having an updated debate on this topic when you don't even know what the old debate was.
The only word that is law is Inno's word, and Inno's word is after a year of hearing all the arguments for and against is, they're not going to expend the time, or money to create this tool. How do we know this is their decision? Because after a year of hearing all the argument for and against this, Inno has not spent the time or money to implement this feature.