Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

[Silvysa]

Should you have any comments or questions, please check our FAQ below the Announcement or just let us know! We're looking forward for your feedback here!

Sincerely,
Your Forge of Empires Team


Announcement: https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/guild-battlegrounds.27487/

There seems to be a very vocal minority in here that are against any kind of requested controls. Answers like "hell no!", "go back to gvg", "we have comments from a top ten guild again" are not useful. If your goal is to stifle us, then you're simply trolling.

The goal of this thread is for INNO to get comments from players as the game goes active on production servers. We can discuss the merits from our point of view in a reasonable fashion or we might as well close the thread.

I keep hearing the argument that we should communicate with our guild mates. In fact, this is what we're trying to do. Communication is the transfer of an idea from 1 person to another. Part of the communication process is feedback. It's used to verify the idea was transferred and understood correctly. As any guild leader knows, it's often hard to get feedback from some members. If we are in a guild that wants to win, we apply strategy and we work together. When something is done that doesn't follow the plan like:
- someone still fighting when we've given the signal to stop
- someone starts hitting province that we do not intend to take etc
we have only one avenue for communication. Talk to the whole guild asking "who's still fighting, please stop", "who started a battle on xx" etc. When no feedback is given, people sometimes get heated. All caps come out. Comments become sharp. The whole guild is affected.

With logs that have been asked for, we can find out who and talk to them in private. We can work on the communication and ensure the idea is transferred effectively. We can post in the main thread "I'm talking to so and so right now" if needed. It would make for a more pleasant time for all guild members in a guild that wants to win.

That's what this is - a game. Battlegrounds have winners and losers. I hear a lot of arguments from the few vocal people here complaining about top 10 guiilds. Face the facts. There are leaderboards for players and guilds. There is a leaderboard for a season in Battlegrounds and each battle has a winner and a loser.

That's what the game is.

If you choose not to use the requested logs, it doesn't affect you. Some of us would like permissions to allow guildies to set the first battle on a province. The argument was that others did not want to have to give out those permissions. That's a valid argument, although it could have been made in a more reasonable way. That would be up to INNO to decide.

If INNO decided not to implement that change, that would be fine, but I did mention 1 other. Allow us the ability to kill a siege or, if you don't like me calling it a siege, maybe call it remove the banner. If anyone can start taking a province, we need to be able to stop one that has been started in the wrong place. We're the only ones that lose. We've wasted attacks, gained attrition and gained nothing else.

Let's try this again to have a reasonable discussion.

I agree completely Raymora!

 

[Silvysa]

What's so challenging about it ??? Just make a thread titled appropriately and add the members to it . If your "MEMBERS" don't understand something so simple the you need to step up as a leader and lead .

With 80 members and no way to tell who is doing what on the GBG or who is reading the messages... It’s not that simple at all.

 

[Silvysa]

Seriously, what is the issue with this? It literally costs the guild nothing. Period. End of story. In GvG it costs the guild goods, but THIS ISN'T GVG. It costs the guild nothing and the player can get rewards from it, so why should the guild have any control over it? Just because it doesn't fit your "strategy" is a poor reason because, again, this isn't GvG. It doesn't work the same way, guild strategies are fine, but they don't have to be as restrictive as in GvG because the dynamics are completely...completely... different. Players fighting/negotiating where they want has absolutely no effect on other members or on the guild as a whole.

So what? It doesn't cost you anything! And it doesn't have anything to do with being a top ten guild, it has to do with trying to bring the GvG controlling mindset to GBG. I don't know how many times it has to be said, but GBG is not GvG. One of the things I like about GBG is that if I'm in a guild and want to participate, I don't have to follow the guild leaders' rigid rules about what can and cannot be done. At least half the time when I found myself in a GvG guild, I couldn't participate even though I wanted to, simply because you were only allowed to fight when and where the leaders said. And the when was never convenient, and their control over who could start a siege (which is appropriate there) meant I couldn't meant the where was irrelevant because I couldn't fight even when I could be online. If most of the guild listens to you, what difference does it make if one or two do their own thing? None. And if most of the guild doesn't listen to you, then your problem isn't control, it's leadership.

This is called “Guild Battlegrounds” not “Individual Player Battlegrounds.” It only makes sense that guilds should have the ability to set strategy and harness their guild’s efforts in certain directions. If guilds want to let it be a free for all, they can just give every player all the rights in whatever controls options Inno will hopefully implement. That way, each guild can approach GBG in their chosen manner.

 

[Silvysa]

There is absolutely no point in doing this.

Yeah, this isn't GvG. And again, there is no point to such actions in GBG. Why would you suggest deleting progress that won't disappear? If you want to break off the attack and then resume it later, why not resume it later without having lost the original progress? Honestly, some of these "suggestions" make no sense in GBG. Let me repeat: This isn't GvG.

You’re a moderator. Please try and be more polite.

 

[DeletedUser30312]

Well, the guilds I'm in on Jaims and Parkog are not control freaks. The Parkog guild in particular doesn't enforce rules to give the players a certain amount of freedom, and it's still a fairly active guild with a high rank. Both guilds however, have quickly learned to coordinate efforts because if players attack wherever, their effort is wasted to some degree. There is a certain amount of strategy involved, and if a player attacks a province that is of little strategic use to the guild, then it doesn't help the guild's ranking. That will cost the player later in the form of reduced awards. Anyway, in both guilds some players want to know where the guild is planning to advance, and some of them have been reluctant to act if they don't know where the guild wants to go. Attrition hits pretty hard, so teamwork is kind of important here.

 

[barra370804]

Is there any advantage to placing 2 or more of the same building in one province?

Yes, 3 palaces would be completely overowered, but unacceptably expensive

 

[barra370804]

You’re a moderator. Please try and be more polite.

@Stephen Longshanks was speaking as a player in this post, not as a moderator. As long as it is within the rules, he may say what he wants. He has not broken any rules, please new people, leave him alone.

 

[DeletedUser40996]

This is called “Guild Battlegrounds” not “Individual Player Battlegrounds.” It only makes sense that guilds should have the ability to set strategy and harness their guild’s efforts in certain directions. If guilds want to let it be a free for all, they can just give every player all the rights in whatever controls options Inno will hopefully implement. That way, each guild can approach GBG in their chosen manner.

Then learn how to actually lead and coordinate instead of making GbG exactly like GvG

 

[DeletedUser40996]

@Stephen Longshanks was speaking as a player in this post, not as a moderator. As long as it is within the rules, he may say what he wants. He has not broken any rules, please new people, leave him alone.

Funny how many "new" people are coming out of the woodwork since battlegrounds release

 

[Kranyar the Mysterious]

We've had a number of players post on here and elsewhere specifically saying that they want these logs that a lot of people are requesting so they can kick players who don't do exactly what they are told. This is just one of the reasons I am adamantly against INNO adding them. I am a founder of a top 25 guild, and I really don't see any need to have that additional information unless you are trying to control your guild with an iron fist.

Another reason I don't want them is because of the extra lag it would add to servers. I recall reading somewhere that this reason was one of INNO's reasons for not adding more comprehensive logs as well. Originally GBG didn't have any logs, and it was at the request of Beta players that INNO even added the ones we got.

 

[DeletedUser40577]

Yes, 3 palaces would be completely overowered, but unacceptably expensive

I totally wish that was 100% the case. We're facing a guild who insta-builds 3 palaces on every 1/2 ring sector upon conquest. I'm sure you can imagine how our strategy shifted to "annoyance" rather than trying to "beat" anyone with this amount of diamonds in hand... We're just hoping we agitate them into emptying the wallet. Happy with 2nd in this case. It does add some irony to the "Diamond League" term in this circumstance...

 

[barra370804]

Funny how many "new" people are coming out of the woodwork since battlegrounds release

No joke

 

[WinterAlora]

The new Guild BattleGrounds (GBG) feature allows active players in forge more opportunity to contribute to a guild’s success. This includes active players in all ages and active players with various approaches to the game (military vs. goods production approach). Due to the ability for all players to equally participate (one advancement point counts the same for someone in IA as for someone in SAM), I believe GBG should get weight in guild ranking in addition to Guild Versus Guild (GVG). GVG currently favors established players in SAM by giving them more prestige points on the AA map. SAM fighters can also fight down to any other map so dominate GVG and guild rankings. To encourage newer players to get more involved and active in Forge, Inno should make GBG a larger component to guild ranking. Thank you for the new GBG feature and I look forward to it contributing primarily to guild ranking!

 

[DeletedUser12240]

One feature our guild would find incredibly helpful is some sort of action log. Whether it be a list of every successful attempt on a given province on a new tab in the Battlegrounds log, a bracketed increase in the Member Activity log beside each amount that reflects how many negotiations/fights they succeeded since the last glance or time frame, or even an individual drop-down for each and every member.
Just something that'd tell us who did what and when. A feature like this would really help to correlate advancement.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Woah. That’s really hostile. We have a strong guild leadership team, but with 80 guild members and a challenging FoE messaging interface system, there’s no way to make sure everyone sees every message. The reason people are asking for these controls is that it’s currently a problem. Please take our concerns seriously.

No. It's you wanting to have and maintain an unreasonable level of control over your guild and guild members. Give me clear directions, tell me the benefits to me and the guild of following your clear directions, tell me where to go to find your clear directions, then let me alone to follow your clear directions.

Also, when your clear directions are in opposition to my ability to play Battlegrounds, I will ignore your clear directions and play Battlegrounds. I will not have my personal rewards from Battlegrounds held ransom by a dictator. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Dictators be damned.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

This is called “Guild Battlegrounds” not “Individual Player Battlegrounds.” It only makes sense that guilds should have the ability to set strategy and harness their guild’s efforts in certain directions. If guilds want to let it be a free for all, they can just give every player all the rights in whatever controls options Inno will hopefully implement. That way, each guild can approach GBG in their chosen manner.

This is far beyond you wanting the ability to set a strategy. It;s about you wanting to enforce the strategy you've set and reprimand those who might fall out of line. This Then certainly is not Guild Battlegrounds, it's Guild Leader's Battlegrounds. You playing Battlegrounds exactly the way yo want to with everyone else marching in lock step to your demands or not participating at all. That's not leadership, that's dictatorship. Your way or no way.

Yeah, No way!

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Well, the guilds I'm in on Jaims and Parkog are not control freaks. The Parkog guild in particular doesn't enforce rules to give the players a certain amount of freedom, and it's still a fairly active guild with a high rank. Both guilds however, have quickly learned to coordinate efforts because if players attack wherever, their effort is wasted to some degree. There is a certain amount of strategy involved, and if a player attacks a province that is of little strategic use to the guild, then it doesn't help the guild's ranking. That will cost the player later in the form of reduced awards. Anyway, in both guilds some players want to know where the guild is planning to advance, and some of them have been reluctant to act if they don't know where the guild wants to go. Attrition hits pretty hard, so teamwork is kind of important here.

I agree with all of this. And the great guilds will excel at this type of planning and teamwork in order to excel in Battlegrounds. Those who can't muster this level of organization and leadership will be left behind. As it should be and why we don't need no stinkin' controls.

 

[DeletedUser11427]

A bug in the system seems to be, determining the goods spent by players who purchase buildings as well as who spent them. Every other guild expenditure, such as unlocking levels in GE, placing a siege, or unlocking slots in GvG sectors is shown down to the player who spent the goods, and the exact number of Goods spent by that player.

 

[Triopoly Champion]

This is far beyond you wanting the ability to set a strategy. It;s about you wanting to enforce the strategy you've set and reprimand those who might fall out of line. This Then certainly is not Guild Battlegrounds, it's Guild Leader's Battlegrounds. You playing Battlegrounds exactly the way yo want to with everyone else marching in lock step to your demands or not participating at all. That's not leadership, that's dictatorship. Your way or no way.

Yeah, No way!

Guild Battleground should be different than GvG, but too many players want it to be GvG 2.0 because of the traditions of the many established guild leaderships, some can call it dictatorship as some believe the guild leaders should be able to control how everyone else fights,

There are much higher participation because of the new freedom granted in GBG, consider only the top players and their followers actively play GvG.

I like the new way, so more gray areas are up for the in-guild debating.

 

[DeletedUser37581]

A bug in the system seems to be, determining the goods spent by players who purchase buildings as well as who spent them. Every other guild expenditure, such as unlocking levels in GE, placing a siege, or unlocking slots in GvG sectors is shown down to the player who spent the goods, and the exact number of Goods spent by that player.

You can know who spent goods on buildings because that is in the Battlegrounds Log. Unfortunately that log doesn't include information on which specific goods were used or the amounts. I suspect the information will be added to Guild Treasury Contributions, but they might be thinking of ways to re-design that information as it is already swamped.