Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

[DeletedUser40996]

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.

Too bad I can only like your post instead of ❤ it

 

[DeletedUser11427]

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.

I cannot find any GbG log. someone did say it was on mobile devices, but i can't find it on desktop.

 

[DeletedUser40996]

A bug in the system TLDR:

No need to post the same thing 5 gazillion times

 

[DeletedUser37581]

I cannot find any GbG log. someone did say it was on mobile devices, but i can't find it on desktop.

It's a slide-out on the left side of the GBG window.

 

[DeletedUser11427]

I am very disappointed with two different aspects of the Battleground which have many of my guild members (mostly mobile players who are supposed to be the target audience of the BG) voicing their intent to avoid or only minimally engage in the Battleground.

First, although we are a very active and successful guild in the GE and were consequently placed in the Gold League, we only have a total 11 members. However, we are paired against guilds that are 3 to 5 time larger than our guild which provides them with a distinct advantage (see comment below regarding attrition). Although this may eventually "work itself out" as guilds will be reassigned based on performance, it seems that the postings related to this issue in beta are still ongoing (I remember how long it took for Innogames to realign the neighborhoods a number of years ago). The future match-ups in the BG should be based on guild size (similar to the GE) so that each guild has relatively the same number participants.

Second, since the number of battles needed to conquer a province are relatively fix (unless a guild adds a special building), combined with "attrition," this tends to place smaller guilds at an extreme disadvantage even fighting against larger, less active guilds. It simply becomes a question of math: 100 battles per sector divided by (the number of guild members x ~40 fights/negotiation per member). The only real variable in this equation is the size of the guild (assuming guilds have the same percentage of active participants). Unless Innogames realigns the leagues based on size (and then activity of the guild), and/or eliminates attrition so that smaller guilds can leverage their very active members, the BG is really geared toward large guilds.

BTW, this is only the second or third time I felt compelled to post a comment to the Forum in almost five years (next month) of playing FoE across multiple worlds.

Yes, smaller guilds are definitely at a disadvantage. I didn't think of that until you mentioned it. also like any size guilds, not all are "battle active"

 

[DeletedUser11427]

It's a slide-out on the left side of the GBG window.

Thanks. I wish you had a name, so I could thank you.
They do need to mention specific member goods expenditures though.

 

[Triopoly Champion]

Too bad I can only like your post instead of ❤ it

This is the insight, Inno game developers want every player to spend more of their troops fighting, so they have way less rogues left, Consider if the current trend keep going, average top player will have to lose at least 50-60 rogues daily to maintain their reputation, perhaps even more.

I like this particularly because I haven't lost 1 single rogue yet since fighting GBG, must admit that several of my #1 real Colonial Champions fell down.

 

[Kranyar the Mysterious]

This is the insight, Inno game developers want every player to spend more of their troops fighting, so they have way less rogues left, Consider if the current trend keep going, average top player will have to lose at least 50-60 rogues daily to maintain their reputation, perhaps even more.

I like this particularly because I haven't lost 1 single rogue yet since fighting GBG, must admit that several of my #1 real Colonial Champions fell down.

LOL, I lost 7 rogues today when my Champion forgot to show up right before hitting auto-battle.

 

[Triopoly Champion]

LOL, I lost 7 rogues today when my Champion forgot to show up right before hitting auto-battle.

Play GBG during the middle of a night is fun because few opponents will try to stop my progress, so I have enough time to determine which unit I want to lose or get damaged.

I never ever hit the "Auto Button" at the beginning of a war with 1 Champion + 7 Rogues unless the enemy army = 2 spearmen.

Also the common mistakes of having 7 rogues or 8 rogues troop combinations are only for non-manual-battle players either in GvG or GBG.

Yes, I've always pushed my "Auto Button" during the middle of a battle after my Colonial Champions are located on the center of the battle fields, so I already knew their fates if finished by the dumb AI.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

So far, I am liking the personal rewards. Extra FPs always useful, goods and units go right back into more BGs, I also like the number and frequency of the statue fragments. Because of my individual contribution to this week's BG, I've already received more fragments than each guild member will receive at the end of the round.

At this rate, there are guild members far more advanced than me who will have a Statue of Honor that lags far behind mine, which I'll be building weeks ahead of them. I like that. It makes individual performance weigh greater than the performance of the guild as a whole.

Oh, did I mention diamonds? Gotta love free diamonds.

 

[Algona]

(I hope that is politically correct enough)

Ain't about political correctness, it;s about saying what you mean. Don;t like an opinion, say so. Got a reason? Say that. Just saying you're 'shocked' twice doesn't mean a lot. You might even go so far as to ask why someone feels the way they do, but that seems obvious in this case.

 

[UBERhelp1]

Ok, with 5ish days left of the first season, here are my observations, from experiencing GBG in two very different environments: a top 10, large guild, and a lower level, small guild.

1. In a large guild, GBG is very easy. Numbers will always win.
2. Due to how attrition and advances are structured, you can go farther (and faster) with goods and negotiating than fighting. Nearly everyone I see playing GBG has at least twice as many negotiations completed as fights.
3. It is nice not having to have a special right to fight or start a siege strike. Most of those in my guild see where people left off previously (in our GBG thread) and continue onward. This allows us to fluidly change our plan and strategy, without having to ask for strikes to be started. Additionally, we found that alliances do work and that they can be pretty powerful. We took over a good portion of the map with an ally.

Now we get to the feedback.

1. Attrition and advances are skewed towards the goods-producing city. Since the attack bonus increases so fast with attrition, you become more powerful in GBG by using goods. You advance twice as far for half the attrition. If anything, that attack boost should increase slower to be more on par with negotiating.
2. I know this will be controversial, but I think that if you are cut off from one of your provinces, you should not be able to strike from it.
3. Support pool could affect the advances needed to take a sector, with these advances decreasing the further you get from your home province.
4. There should be a leaderboard for daily advances.

 

[Triopoly Champion]

It is nice not having to have a special right to fight or start a siege strike.

How about say "start an Onslaught".

 

[DeletedUser12240]

How about say "start an Onslaught".

I believe UBER meant a more neutral term for both negotiating and fighting. I've been using "advance(ment)". *shrug*

I also agree with you UBER on most points. though, our competitors and us included, not everyone participates, so numbers only win if the majority do play it. I personally don't feel advancement is balanced toward negotiation, although it can be easier if you master your methods. I only ever negotiate, so I do everything I can to reduce my costs. but it can get very expensive very quickly if you don't succeed most of the time.

I knew it wouldn't be everyone's kind of thing before it was even beta tested, so we never made it an absolute requirement; I didn't even think I'd care for it, but it is actually very fun for me. I am an incredibly fast learner, but I don't play beta, so it was a fun challenge to learn and adapt as it goes on. We don't participate at all in GvG, but have embraced Battlegrounds because it is very much more open to everyone's abilities and preferences.
I also do feel that some semblance of tracking were available on advancement details regarding members. We're doing it manually for now, and have found it really helpful to help our fellow members learn and understand better how to coalesce our efforts into one accord. It makes a massive difference compared to guilds that may just allow their members to run rampant.

 

[Raymora]

I'm not against a "LOG" I'm against needing a leader / founder to start the next sector once the current sector gets conquered . I'm not on 24/7 and I'm sometimes on at all different hours of the night . I shouldn't need a leader or founder to start a new advancement/sector as long as it's been communicated to the members where to go

Where do you see a suggestion that people want only a leader/founder to be able to do this? Anyone I've talked to requesting this is looking to give the permission to a large group, probably 20 plus initially and up to the majority of guild members by the time the first season has ended. I'm saying this to push the point again, but I wonder if there is confusion in what was asked for.

 

[DeletedUser40996]

Where do you see a suggestion that people want only a leader/founder to be able to do this? Anyone I've talked to requesting this is looking to give the permission to a large group, probably 20 plus initially and up to the majority of guild members by the time the first season has ended. I'm saying this to push the point again, but I wonder if there is confusion in what was asked for.

No confusion . It's about making GbG into an EXACT DAMN COPY of GvG which I'm ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED to . As I've pointed out I can be in game on any of my cities at weird times . If I want to do a couple of GbG fights or Negotiations I want to be able to (And I won't be able to if there's no flag planted and nobody around to plant one)

 

[Kranyar the Mysterious]

Where do you see a suggestion that people want only a leader/founder to be able to do this? Anyone I've talked to requesting this is looking to give the permission to a large group, probably 20 plus initially and up to the majority of guild members by the time the first season has ended. I'm saying this to push the point again, but I wonder if there is confusion in what was asked for.

The way this game is set up all permissions start with founders and leaders, they are only given to others (if possible to do so) by those people. In most of the guilds that exist that means that ONLY founders and leaders would ever end up with those rights, which is what INNO stated on beta that they did not want to have happen. This also means that most players would never be able to play GBG ever, unless they change guilds.

GBG was designed with the intent for it to be open for anyone to play at any time, and that means that anyone can attack any available province at any time. Making it so founders or leaders or others with permission have to set a province with a flag before anyone could attack it is 180 degrees from the design of this game, and (rightfully in my opinion) won't happen.

Besides, we don't set flags on provinces, a flag showing progress is DISPLAYED (INNO's own word) once someone completes a successful advance. This differs from setting a flag in advance (as in GvG).

 

[Harbinger963]

I'm going to post one last thing on this. I know a few names on this thread and I think I can pretty much say that just because it says "new member" against my name does not mean that I am a new player. It means that I feel strongly enough to post a comment.

It clear that everyone wants logs. I presume that this thread was set up for players to provide feedback,. If the moderators want to provide feedback, then take "moderator" off your name or set up your own thread called "moderator feedback". But seeing moderators slamming such requests or using straw-man arguments about the person making such a request is a control freak, has a Napoleon complex, or some other negative attribute is both wrong and counter to the purpose of this thread.

Please collect opinion and provide that feedback to Inno - and thank the people that have taken the time and effort to provide feedback,

 

[Kranyar the Mysterious]

I'm going to post one last thing on this. I know a few names on this thread and I think I can pretty much say that just because it says "new member" against my name does not mean that I am a new player. It means that I feel strongly enough to post a comment.

It clear that everyone wants logs. I presume that this thread was set up for players to provide feedback,. If the moderators want to provide feedback, then take "moderator" off your name or set up your own thread called "moderator feedback". But seeing moderators slamming or using straw-man arguments about a request is a control freak, has a Napoleon complex, or some other negative attribute is both wrong and counter to the purpose of this thread.

Please collect opinion and provide that feedback to Inno - and thank the people that have taken the time and effort to provide feedback,

Moderators can not remove the tag from their names when they post privately. The way I understand it is that the tag is added automatically when they receive the "privilege", and will be removed automatically when it is rescinded. Once a moderator is no longer a moderator, there is no way to tell from their posts that they ever were one.

Moderators are players who volunteer their time to help keep these forums running smoothly. If you have an issue with them, report them and it will be looked at by someone who actually works for InnoGames. Otherwise just knock it off, because you are the one who is coming off as abusive.

 

[DeletedUser40577]

I know...this is silly... but, can the Grey color representing a guild be removed? Its harder to see on all 4 of the displays ive looked at GbG on than any of the other colors. I know that seems like nitpicking.. but if you never ask right?