• 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

True592

Member
My proposition is simple. When guild is taking another guild's porch (a sector right in front of the base), make it double attrition -- regardless of adjacent Buildings.
I think Inno would appreciate some more competition on GBG map.
Yet, it doesn't prohibit other guilds from taking that sector. Just, if you like shutting down other guilds, do it at double price.
 

CaptainKirk1234

Active Member
Most good players can only keep going cause of sieges and traz, if you do 20 battles you're already at 40 attrition and close to maxing out. You can just place a trap if you are so adament about the "IDEA." 8 players would have to do 20 battles and bring there attrition up to 40. They will be wasted for the rest of the day.
You have a level 86 traz, why are you complaining? Is it cause of all the dead weight in your guild?
 

True592

Member
Most good players can only keep going cause of sieges and traz, if you do 20 battles you're already at 40 attrition and close to maxing out. You can just place a trap if you are so adament about the "IDEA." 8 players would have to do 20 battles and bring there attrition up to 40. They will be wasted for the rest of the day.
You have a level 86 traz, why are you complaining?
Re: Traps. In our "U" world, there is an agreement for Diamond leagues: only SC and WT are allowed (and no breaking them down, intentionally).
I think it is actually a good idea (and that rule is supported by the vast majorities of guilds too)

Wouldn't it be the opposite question, why are you concerned? That proposition would affect only one sector, right in front of other's base. The whole map is unaffected.
 

True592

Member
78M ranking points, and that is what you are complaining about?????
Why refer to it as a complaint? I am considering it to be an improvement.

I have an example from real life.
You all probably know a three-seconds rule in basketball.
Game is played by millions (and watched by billions).
Rule is made for the same purpose: prevent camping at the other team's porch.
 

CaptainKirk1234

Active Member
Re: Traps. In our "U" world, there is an agreement for Diamond leagues: only SC and WT are allowed (and no breaking them down, intentionally).
I think it is actually a good idea (and that rule is supported by the vast majorities of guilds too)

Wouldn't it be the opposite question, why are you concerned? That proposition would affect only one sector, right in front of other's base. The whole map is unaffected.
It would affect 3 sectors. Yes, I know that there are guild treaties and that most guilds have them, rarely are the sectors so close to home taken except when guilds are forced against there, so they can not advance, I realize this idea is to prevent that, but guilds got to learn to deal with it, or just move down a league to less competition.
 

True592

Member
It would affect 3 sectors. Yes, I know that there are guild treaties and that most guilds have them, rarely are the sectors so close to home taken except when guilds are forced against there, so they can not advance, I realize this idea is to prevent that, but guilds got to learn to deal with it, or just move down a league to less competition.
It is for 1 sector. Right in front of the home base. In Diamonds leagues, those sectors are taken in one day.
As for now, it is "deal or leave". I believe this situation is worth improving.
 

CommanderCool1234

Active Member
I think it would be a good idea to add something on the pop-up when you clicked on a sector in GbG that told you how many siege camps were on a certain sector or it could tell you the % of not raising attrition.
Here are two quick examples I made...
Screenshot 2021-01-14 at 9.42.21 PM.pngScreenshot 2021-01-14 at 9.41.33 PM.png
 
GbG log needs to be upgraded to include player name credit for tile conquered events.
The mutual respect between game player and game developer seems to have gone out the window on this one.
 
GbG log needs to be upgraded to include player name credit for tile conquered events.
That's a double-edged sword. Sometimes a guild member will take a sector which the GBG leaders want left for strategic reasons. Revealing the identity of the culprit will not result in them getting credit, but rather a reprimand! Perhaps that's a good thing, perhaps not.
 
Am I the only person who LIKES GBG? In one world where I play I'm in a Diamond league guild, but we're not at the top of our game and usually get thrashed by the top guilds. Its quite invigorating to watch a sector unlock and their flag pop up immediately, and to flash non-stop for 30 seconds as they capture the sector before I can even finish a single negotiation. I do wonder, however, whether an additional league is required as there seems to be a bottle-neck at the top leading to a great deal of unplesantness.
 

wolfhoundtoo

Well-Known Member
As noted earlier in this thread, a new additional league would only move the 'unpleasantness' to the new league more or less. There are several basic problems that people disagree upon (from my perspective) but mostly it comes down to people thinking that alliances are wrong, that the GBG should be a battle system and not a farming system and how those 2 perspectives interact with the system as it is now.

Interestingly enough there have been a couple of people that apparently think now that they'd gotten all real gain that they can get out of the system now they want it to be a battle system because farming is work or boring. :rolleyes:
 
It is the goal. To I’d the person. That’s the point. There’s no double edge.
My interview with the facts on this issue is incomplete? My background with the game includes being in probably 10 guilds over almost 36 months. The more organized guilds play GbG hard, and quite effectively when in cooperation with other guilds. Estimated conservatively, this can equate to 400 players cooperating essentially with each other to honor simple guidelines established by whatever leaders lay out for the season. Based on what I just described, any GbG season will have dozens of groups of around 400 customers contributing to a team effort. Invariably, there will arise a player that brings a soiled diaper into the group equation, by prematurely conquering GbG tiles. I don’t pretend to know how much money other players have spent on their game play, but as for me, It’s very likely in excess of $4000. So yes, to me, I think it’s accurate to consider it disrespectful; what seems to be a flat out denial to meet the request that has been discussed ad nauseam. I was politely directed here to these forums by a FoE tech ticket person. I’m here. I don’t see ad nauseam discussion on the topic. Upon arrival here, I do see the subject has been classified under “Do Not Suggest” - in the most unambiguously highlighted format of any here. So that’s where I’m at, and that’s more or less where the vast majority of others are left. And still nobody in this mess is any better off now or ahead, without knowing the member that flipped a tile prematurely. So definitely if its being clarified here that the developer won’t address an improvement which thousands of customers consider quite essential, I do find that disrespectful. I don’t take it personally, but it is a thorn in the ass of customers that pay one way or another for this game. I do not speak on behalf of any particular guild, but rather of probably every active player that’s been irked with the situation. It detracts severely from the social aspect of the game to not have this info. It creates hard feelings, distrust, suspicion, anger, and wastes the time of leadership. A guild and its members deserve, need, want, request, demand, agree, and dare to dream that the players name be logged.