• 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

DeletedUser29788

Negotiate extra turn boost has no effect for me in Guild Battlegrounds. Attack boost works fine in GbG. Is this an individual problem ( of mine ) or a planned feature ?
 

DeletedUser29788

Guild members' GbG feedback: this takes way too many goods for me to negotiate ( I know this player prefers to negotiate through all of GE ). If the negotiated encounter were just a single advance, then could we have a Tavern boost for extra turn ? The touted benefit for this added Battleground was to include and encourage Mobile players in Guild v/s effort. ( Mobile battle is more difficult - manual battle ) So I understand the preference for negotiate. Can I get a Great Building that gives a positive Negotiate Boost ?
 

saknika

Active Member
With this latest Battleground I've noticed something that is a bit of a hindrance, and it's the color selection for the various guilds. Some of the colors are extremely close to each other in hue and it can make it very difficult to tell who has what, and who I might be attacking. I don't particularly care about this for diplomacy (though some might), but I do use the color to help dictate to my guild mates which sector to focus on. I usually specify the coordinate, name, and then color of the sector. With some of them being hard to see that can make it tricky. And if I, someone who does not have major colorblind or similar issues, is having some struggles with differentiating, then I imagine someone who is more visually impaired would be having a far worse time of it. Is there a chance we could either get it so the colors are definitely and obviously different (and thus even shades should be obvious), or could we somehow add symbols in with the colors for a secondary visualization (kind of like the XBox or Playstation controllers, the symbols are for the colorblind).
 

DeletedUser29788

Yes, the owning Guilds' Avatar should / could be on every province owned :)
 

DeletedUser40604

Need battle logs, who is doing on sector.... like GvG. Someone not reading instraction and and fighting ad-hoc now. Need to stop and identify ppl. Any way to get the details????
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Algona

Well-Known Member
Pretty spot on, if you ask me.

Quoting defintions = as lame as intarw3v arguing gets.

But it makes a nice distraction from you being wrong.

Every Guild makes choices, and while your Guild has doubtlessly been smug in its successful GECing now you get to pay the price fir being a small Guild.

Saying its not fair has the same hollow ting as those whining about being in a hood with players with big cities.

Your choice. Now the game has added a new feature. You can whine about it, accept your lot as a lower tier Guild ,or do something about it.

Let me know how the whining works out for you.
 

DeletedUser33052

Yes, the owning Guilds' Avatar should / could be on every province owned :)
Guilds may have same "Avatar", but its true that colors are really close each other so sometimes it is hard see who is who before click sector.

Feedback.

Batleground lags and sometimes sectors are conqurred before screen updates . Sometimes we try build "fortress" so we get more time cut enemy connection to "kill siege"(this is not gvg but some tactics are same) and this works quite well if guildies want play "spenders game".
 

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
Quoting defintions = as lame as intarw3v arguing gets.

Uh huh. And arguing with that person isn't?

But it makes a nice distraction from you being wrong.

And that's a nice way of refuting someone by saying they're distracting. Saying something isn't "deserved" is subjective and therefore an opinion. That's all there is to it.

doubtlessly been smug

Another opinion.

Saying its not fair has the same hollow ting as those whining about being in a hood with players with big cities.

Not at all the same thing, but ok.

Your choice. Now the game has added a new feature. You can whine about it, accept your lot as a lower tier Guild ,or do something about it.

Uh huh. I'm doing something about it. I'm providing requested feedback, even though you think it's your job to police that feedback.

Let me know how the whining works out for you.

I'm sure you'll find out when the rest of us do.
 

sirblu

Active Member
Does anyone know what the player points are that are awarded for negotiations in GbG? I know the player points are calculated the same when you battle but have yet to see any player points awarded for negotiations.
 

sirblu

Active Member
I'm not interested in your evaluation of who I am. Putting a 20-member guild that participates hard against an 80-member guild that may or may not participate equally as hard is an unfair matchup. You don't agree. I don't really care.
I totally agree with this - our second round and already our little Guild of 13 is put up against 2 huge Guilds of 80 and 57 respectively. Also in our grouping are Guilds of 1 and 4 respectively - How is this even close to equitable?
 

Ctik

Member
Of all the requested things people asked here, we need at least a battle log! From that we can concur where the problem lies and fix or remove it.
 

DeletedUser29726

Does anyone know what the player points are that are awarded for negotiations in GbG? I know the player points are calculated the same when you battle but have yet to see any player points awarded for negotiations.

The usual amounts of points for spending goods. Just tried a 1x negotiation in mars and got about 300 points from it for spending 8 goods.
 

Darth Mole

Well-Known Member
I totally agree with this - our second round and already our little Guild of 13 is put up against 2 huge Guilds of 80 and 57 respectively. Also in our grouping are Guilds of 1 and 4 respectively - How is this even close to equitable?
I'm expecting that this will be an ongoing issue. Whatever algorithm Inno employ to allocate guilds into comps is bound to have flaws. Theoretically as the weeks progress it should get better but will probably never be perfect. (Like Hoods)
just do your best.
Grumbling on here won't solve it unfortunately
 

qaccy

Well-Known Member
After playing with battlegrounds, I have to say even this early that I think siege camps are too powerful and should probably be adjusted or have their effect changed completely. I know this opinion isn't going to be very popular with any players who read this, but I think it's a problem that one can look at the map and see pretty much every sector on it filled up with exclusively siege camps because bypassing the primary limiter for GbG participation is simply the best building benefit compared to anything else.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
After playing with battlegrounds, I have to say even this early that I think siege camps are too powerful and should probably be adjusted or have their effect changed completely. I know this opinion isn't going to be very popular with any players who read this, but I think it's a problem that one can look at the map and see pretty much every sector on it filled up with exclusively siege camps because bypassing the primary limiter for GbG participation is simply the best building benefit compared to anything else.
As everyone has equal access to Siege Camps, how is this a problem? It's also only the second round. Last week everyone was speed building palaces. In my battlefields, I've also seen a large number of traps and fortresses. Again, second week. Folks are exploring strategies. The question is also, what is sustainable over the long term? Even with a guild filled with Arcs, guild goods are not infinite.
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
I'm providing requested feedback, even though you think it's your job to police that feedback.

No, you're whining, saying 'It;s not fair' without offering reasonable alternatives.

Damn straight I 'police' whining. It's a negative mindset that never produces positive results, just cloudy thinking, because the whiner isn't focusing on the real problem.
 

DeletedUser37581

Give it up, @Algona . What these people want isn't to fight against a guild that is about equal strength. It's to fight against a small subset of all guilds wherein they have a chance of dominating season after season.

The way it currently works is that anytime a guild does well, it will face stronger foes (which may incidentally be a guild with more members). And after the easy victory, it's just "not fair" that they are now against stronger foes and can't maintain an easy victory (or even a hard fought victory) season after season.

The only guilds that will have the ability to win season after season are the top two or three guilds in each world. EVERY OTHER guild is going to get bounced around from season to season, facing harder foes (of no particular size) after winning and facing easier foes (of no particular size) after losing. That is the concept that they are railing against - that there is no way for them to win season after season.
 

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
No, you're whining, saying 'It;s not fair' without offering reasonable alternatives.

That's your opinion.

Guilds should be grouped into similar membership levels, just like GE does it.

In fact, I did offer a reasonable alternative. You just didn't like it and proceeded to start an argument based on you thinking we don't deserve a balanced system.

I 'police' whining. It's a negative mindset that never produces positive results

It's neither your job, nor what you're actually doing. Feedback isn't always positive. We have every right to disagree with how things are. You don't get to choose what feedback you think is positive and therefore allowed. I offered my opinion as feedback, as requested by Inno, and provided a means to address it. Thanks for making that such a positive experience.

What these people want isn't to fight against a guild that is about equal strength. It's to fight against a small subset of all guilds wherein they have a chance of dominating season after season.

I'm fine fighting against a better guild that has equal numbers. It doesn't matter how good you are when you're dramatically outnumbered. Unless you have superpowers, you're doomed from the start. Speaking for myself, I'd like to see "balanced" tournaments, where you are fighting against equal numbers and if you have the stronger will, collective, and strategy, that is what puts you at the top. We don't have all golds in GE. We have many silvers and bronzes. The golds come when we're better than our opponents. That's not always the case and, although we fight to win, we aren't always successful. We accept that as "fair".
 
Top