• 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

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
The more organized guilds play GbG hard, and quite effectively when in cooperation with other guilds.
This simple sentence articulates exactly what is wrong and why it should be called Guild FarmGround instead of Guild BattleGround. At least in GvG the top guilds do fight each other. This is nothing more than RQ looping in another form. Maybe Inno needs to implement an advance limit on individual players?
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
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.
Thankyou for your feedback. It is appreciated. No disrespect intended, there are a lot of different playstyles and different priorities from players within the game. Naturally not everyone is going to agree on every point made. The reason this particular point has been discussed ad nauseam is not everyone among the players agree that those particular types of logs would be beneficial.
 

Graviton

Well-Known Member
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.
The implication here is that "respect" would mean implementing everything any player requests on the forum. That's...odd and unworkable.

I’m here. I don’t see ad nauseam discussion on the topic.
I suggest you search the forums, you'll find it.

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.
Thousands? Where'd that number come from? Wasn't from this forum, as you claimed you've seen no discussion of it. So...name them!

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.
If you look up previous discussions about this, you'll find that your statement is a bit of an exaggeration. Just as many, if not more, players objected to this kind of micromanagement of GBG, which is exactly why it's not been implemented and exactly why all subsequent proposals about it end up in the dust bin.
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
I'm against logging individual Advances for 2 reasons.

Soft locking is a player invention. I don't see any reason why INNO should change the game to support a play style not used by most players of the game.

Personally, my last two fiamond Guilds (two different worlds) haven't had problems with members flipping because Guild Leadership works with players to make sure we all understood not to flip Provinces.

Instead of asking INNO to change the game, ask your Guild Leadership to do their job.

Meanwhile in a completely unrelated topic, one of my favorite trick questions for job interviews was to ask where they saw themself five years from now. Meanwhile back on topic:

My background with the game includes being in probably 10 guilds over almost 36 months.
Of your ten cities 8 appear to be Diamond Farms. The ninth doesn;t appear to get much attention.

The 10th is a fine city started about two years ago.

Regarding the job interview question? The best answer is something that shows personal growth but strongly suggests still being with the company. 'Cause breaking in new Guildies, err, I mean, training new employees is a pain in the ass.

I never hired anyone who planned on leaving in weeks. Or padded their resumes.

Maybe that wasn't so off topic?
 
Last edited:

Agent327

FOE Team
Forum Moderator
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.
You arrived late to the party. I suggest you read the entire thread, not just your own contribution.

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.
That is just your opinion, not a fact. If I state there are probably more than that number that do not consider it essential, or do not care, I am more likely to be right than you are. That you pay to play is not relevant at all.

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.
The moment players start to think they speak for eveyone in the game, their argument becomes very weak and takes away the focus on what they try to do. You do not speak for me and judging from the reactions this proposal gets every time, many others. Being a paying customer does not give you any more rights than other customers and it absolutely does not make you the spokesperson of all players.
 
At least in GvG the top guilds do fight each other. This is nothing more than RQ looping in another form. Maybe Inno needs to implement an advance limit on individual players?
An individual player advance limit in a battleground? Isn’t that currently called attrition? Implement that and watch every top player in every world quit. Also, there are some worlds where guilds actually do still battle each other quite fiercely - when we actually get into a round with other top guilds. The issue is with how guilds are matched up, not in limiting guilds who actually put a lot of time and effort into building up their guilds and cities to fight.
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
An individual player advance limit in a battleground? Isn’t that currently called attrition?
Well, it would be if there weren't a GBG mechanism for reducing or eliminating it altogether. And the proliferation of hyper leveled Arcs in top guilds means that it isn't out of the realm of possibility to face little to no attrition for much of the 11 day GBG round.
Implement that and watch every top player in every world quit.
Again with the "we'll quit" garbage? And you speak for every top player in every world? How come I've never heard of you if you're that influential?
Also, there are some worlds where guilds actually do still battle each other quite fiercely - when we actually get into a round with other top guilds.
Oh, I'm sure that does happen occasionally. By the way, I only see you having 3 cities, and only one that seems seriously active. How could you possibly know about "some worlds" and their top guilds?
The issue is with how guilds are matched up, not in limiting guilds who actually put a lot of time and effort into building up their guilds and cities to fight.
No, the issue with GBG is alliances, pure and simple. If Inno were to somehow remove the possibility of alliances, GBG might be more than just reward farming.
 
Well, it would be if there weren't a GBG mechanism for reducing or eliminating it altogether. And the proliferation of hyper leveled Arcs in top guilds means that it isn't out of the realm of possibility to face little to no attrition for much of the 11 day GBG round.
What about building up arcs, obs and atoms in your guild to take advantage of the the tools given in GbG to get more free sectors? When GbG first started, we had less than a handful of lvl 80 arcs, and began in silver league with a measly 288 MMR, so we created programs and focused on getting all our members to 80. Then had obs challenges and now focusing on atoms. We also encouraged cities to age out of weak treasury ages. It’s manageable if you have a long term plan.

Now we have the treasury goods and fighting force to take on the top two GbG guilds who were at the top from the start. And no, we don’t have any monster arcs, unless you call lvl 100 a monster. What you are suggesting negates the efforts put in by guilds playing the game over time. I’m not disputing that in some worlds the intense collaboration between top guilds isn’t a problem - I get that. I just see buildings such as sieges as being more of an equalizer for the guilds that do work hard to play their best game.

Again with the "we'll quit" garbage? And you speak for every top player in every world? How come I've never heard of you if you're that influential?
After having spent part of my day yesterday trying to convince four top players not to quit the game yesterday because of the GbG league matching issues, and know many who have left over the last year specifically because of GbG, I stand by what I said. Players come and go all the time, but this is different.

By the way, I only see you having 3 cities, and only one that seems seriously active. How could you possibly know about "some worlds" and their top guilds?
Talking to friends and guild mates with cities in multiple worlds. How else?

No, the issue with GBG is alliances, pure and simple. If Inno were to somehow remove the possibility of alliances, GBG might be more than just reward farming.
I agree with this to some degree, but will also add the league matching system being at the core of it as well. There was a one person guild that made it to 1000 MMR recently and got matched up with the top GbG guilds... what the heck?! And then not to mention the numerous small guilds barely able to get out of home base even with unlocked sectors at their feet matched with guilds who can wipe the map in minutes. If they weren’t in the same league, then The point of your argument would no longer exist.
 

Taeshire

Member
I would say that something only 5% of active players on a world have would qualify as uncommon. Not rare, but uncommon.
Almost 60% of our guild have level 100+ Arcs, it's good for the guild, great for the player - Most of us are contributing far more than 2,000 goods per day to the treasury through various buildings, then voluntary donations on top of that - but we still have to watch the treasury, not build all the SC's we'd want and cool the jets at the end of the season, occasionally taking easy seasons with reduced spend.

In K world, there are a few GBG monster guilds who've bankrupted their guild in the past, I don't imagine there are any guilds who spend as freely as you suggested in an earlier post, certainly not in the long term anyway, it's unsustainable.
 

Taeshire

Member
But GBG does need fixed, I'm not a fan of it currently -

It shouldn't be a framing machine,
The Rankings need reviewed as a matter of urgency, a lot of the diamond guilds just shouldn't be there.
The other guilds on the map should be anonymous, to turn it into a genuine competition.

It's boring in it's current format(other then the races against other guilds)
 
Yeah, 'cause everybody and their brother has one of those. :rolleyes:
LOL, you don’t need a lvl 100 arc to build up a good treasury for siege camps, it is besides the point. It takes about 3 months to get an arc to lvl 80 with a 190 thread. And once you have a lvl 80 arc, it’s fast and easy to get an Obs to 60. Multiply that by everyone in the guild.
 
In K world, there are a few GBG monster guilds who've bankrupted their guild in the past, I don't imagine there are any guilds who spend as freely as you suggested in an earlier post, certainly not in the long term anyway, it's unsustainable.
Right on! Nice to hear from someone who understands managing a treasury! We have a daily siege budget and a minimum threshold. Plus offer incentives to members to age out of undesirable ages. Add to that an SoH management plan. A year and a half into GbG and never have run out of goods. Now we can many sieges per day and still grow the treasury.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Interesting how folks who've used GBG to raise their GBs to the stratosphere, now find it boring. Now that their GBs are at the level where it takes tons of FPs for a tiny bump in effectiveness, it's boring.

Okay, if you find it boring, don't play. No one is making you, except you.
 

Taeshire

Member
Interesting how folks who've used GBG to raise their GBs to the stratosphere, now find it boring. Now that their GBs are at the level where it takes tons of FPs for a tiny bump in effectiveness, it's boring.

Okay, if you find it boring, don't play. No one is making you, except you.
GBG isn't the reason I have high level GB's - far from it.

There are far more profitable FP gathering enterprises in FOE than GBG. I can (and do) make far more FP's in 5 minutes going through my hood, helping the self levellers on my FL and taking part in 1.9 threads than I'd ever make in an hour on GBG.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
GBG isn't the reason I have high level GB's - far from it.

There are far more profitable FP gathering enterprises in FOE than GBG. I can (and do) make far more FP's in 5 minutes going through my hood, helping the self levellers on my FL and taking part in 1.9 threads than I'd ever make in an hour on GBG.
Then your complaints about it being a farming machine seems a bit misplaced, or they support my proposition. Which is it?