Guild Battlegrounds Feedback

[DeletedUser30312]

Start by opening the entire map up to ALL landing zones. So guilds can attack any hexes on the map. You made it almost impossible to fight guilds that are off in a corner 30 hexes away from a landing zone. Guild have to spend days trying to reach these far off hexes only to get wiped off the map by other guilds surrounding the guild hiding in the corner posting fake sieges filled with Champion troops, to bloat fake rank points. Little guilds DO NOT stand a chance in GvG because they are always limited to having to attack landing zones. Just to get wiped out the next day because they are stuck and limited to where they can attack.
Opening the entire GvG map up would take alot of this fake farming hexes for fake ranking points.

I don't know about putting landing zones everywhere on a map, but everything on the coastline should be a landing zone. I've never understood why it's not like this.

Take away the points Champions give. There should be NO reason Champions are worth so many points when beating them fighting. They are WEAK and usually die in 1 or 2 hits. Make Champions the same rank points as Drummers Color Guards, and rouges. Keep their points the same as the other special units. Champions ARE NOT WORTH the points they give per fight.

Champions scale by age, unlike the other special units, which is why they aren't worth a flat 200 points. They're probably worth a lot because they're conceptually some sort of commander unit, and there's the Call to Arms ability which boosts the other units on death. But because the AI like to risk them possibly to activate the Call to Arms, they do die quick. The early Champions are also Fast units, and the AI tends to get early Fast units killed quickly. Champions should probably worth a little more than the typical Fast unit of each age up to ME, then be worth slightly more than Heavies from PME upwards when their type switches.

Another option for GvG would be to take ALL PERSONAL ranking points away from GvG since Moble players can not use this feature. Not a fair playing ground allowing PC users to fight fake sieges for fake points in GvG an option Moble players do not have. Make GvG a GUILD Reward over all. Anyone fighting in GvG instead of ranking points for personal gain. If you fight in GvG it goes guild bonus to help your guild reach the next level for guild rewards.
GVG was meant to be a guild participation NOT a personal gain rewards. If you fight in GVG all points earned should go towards guild RANK and GUILD LEVELS. NOT PERSONAL GAINS.

As someone who's more invested in PvP it bugs me that GvG fights can so dominate tower rankings, especially if they're just point farming. I can spend the week fighting up and down the hood, carefully using units from several eras to rank on as many towers as possible, paying attention to what the good players are defending with (killing Spearfighters only gets you anywhere on a tower everyone else is ignoring), and one guy point farming on a GvG map for a few hours can lock me out of 1st place just by spamming auto on a bunch of Champions the guild placed for easy wins. Yeah, I admit that I've hit GvG on occasion just to jack my tower scores too, but the bottom line is that GvG can do substantially more fighting than PvP and GE combined.

2. Reading between the lines, it is clear the basic problem Innogames faces is coding. This is why we have not had GvG and chat on mobile to this point - I am certain. What most people do not recognize is that making various features portable to many different platforms (iPad, Android, multiple operating systems) is not as simple as it seems. (I was a computer programmer for a time). So I understand the difficulty involved and again -- I applaud the effort.

It's good to see someone understands the possible underlying problems with the coding instead of just shouting the same demands over and over.

The mobile port has been around for about 4 years now, for around at least half of the game's total lifespan. Inno has said repeatedly there's too many difficulties in porting GvG to mobile only for the GvG crowd to keep clamoring for mobile GvG. I'd say if it were feasible, it would have been done by now. GvG was designed for the browser experience using a mouse or touchpad, but mobile uses touchscreen interfaces and sometimes things just don't work the same. It's the same basic problem of porting PC game built around mouse + keyboard to a console that uses a gamepad, you have to adapt to the different interface. And that's just one issue.

If you look at any single server (I used US9 "Jaims" as an example in our own discussions) -- 84,000+ accounts listed. According to the databases 6700 are active and 18,000 "inactive". To be fair and conservative let's take that at face value and say that out of 84,000 listed accounts 24,700 are active. Guess what? That means that 70% OF THE ACCOUNTS ON THE SERVER ARE DEAD. My question then becomes simple -- how do you accurately measure the performance of your features if 70% of the "players" are now zombie accounts? Before you start throwing 5% - this or "Less than x" of that at us, Innogames you need to clean house. Any inactive guild or account on the server for over a year should be purged. TODAY. Use good data for decision making. Clean it up.

Remember Inno announced a few months back that they're going to delete accounts that have been inactive for over a year to comply with some EU data privacy law. So yeah these zombie accounts will still be around somewhat, but they'll slowly get purged. They'll probably just be replaced by new ones though.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

You joined a GvG guild, but do not want to participate in GvG. Got it.

I joined my guild be cause they also excel in GE and 64/64 is something I can contribute because I can't do GvG. Can't does not = doesn't want to. Because I want to, but can't, is why I'm excited for GBG. For the first time, I and many of my guildmates, finally have something we can play. Now that we can play, we want to play, and we're gonna play. We're tired of sitting around while others play something we can't.

I'm in a 2 member guild, dude. I already fund my own GvG play. Kinda foils your attempt at an insult, eh. lol

Then this particular issue doesn't affect you. In fact, you now have an advantage, because this affects those you fight, but it also affects those you ally with. There is no insult, it's an issue most guilds will need to deal with. As a GINO, this may well work to your advantage in GvG moving forward.

GINO (Guild In Name Only), that was an insult. Just to be clear.

 

[BruteForceAttack]

Some questions and answers from EN forum.. https://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/guild-battlegrounds.37671/#post-381016

Guild Battlegrounds - is it for guilds inside one world like GVG or different worlds like GE ?
The matchmaking will only happen on the respective world. No cross-world or cross-market at this time.


Treasury - what goods will be paid and how?
The Treasury Goods will be needed to build the Battleground Buildings on sectors your guild owns.
The needed goods will be random, depending on the highest member age of your guild. If one is in VF, than all goods until VF can be used. If the highest member in Iron Age, than only Iron Age goods will be used.


The draft says "guilds who want to participate" - do they have to join or are they automatically put in the lowest league ?
At first they will be put in the lowest league and need to fight their way to the higher ones.
If a guild is not active in Guild Battlegrounds at all, they will be removed from the matchmaking. If they want to participate again, they need to open the guild battlegrounds and click a 'join next battlegrounds' button or something similar.


How does Attrition work? Is it player based or guild based?
It is player based and only applying to battles, not negotiations. Players with a lot of attack bonus will be able to fight way more, than the ones without or a lot less attack bonus


What time of day would the Attrition points be reset ?
This has not yet been set.


Guilds in the group – Does number of guild members matter?
The matchmaking will be done per league basis. The amount of players in a guild wont matter.


Negotiation goods do they come from the guild treasury or the players
These come from the player.

Is the name 'Guild Battlegrounds' definite
This is a working title at the moment

What about support pool bonus from Observatory, will it be usefull or only limited to GvG?
Will not apply to Guild Battlegrounds, only GvG

Are the rewards/points in Guild Battlegrounds influenced by the level of the participating players?
The player age doesn't matter. Victory Points per sector will be given for the time your can keep a sector. Rewards will be given depending on your rank after the battleground was closed and the league your guild is in.

Mixing existing 'Guild Leadership' with 'Battleground Leadership' for Building management. Can they be separated or use 'Trusted' for Battleground, as was the case in GvG?
We will be thinking about a new role specifically for managing battleground buildings.

What would be waiting period for players who changed the guilds (96 hr current wait time for GvG)?
If a guild gets a new member for battlegrounds, the new member has to wait for the next battleground to start

Will the costs of building province buildings prevent guilds with few members from participating?
If their stocks are low, they might not always be able to place buildings, that is correct.
But that will not lock them out of the feature, as province buildings will not be the all-determining factor.


How will Guild Battleground's ranking points work with GvG ranking points? will they add to each other (like GE giving extra guild power) or be replacement for GvG?
The battlegrounds feature will allow to gain more prestige points.
These points will depend on the league of a guild.

Will it be possible to play new style with allies or it is going to be very individual play style?
Guilds can agree to have a non-attack treaty when they end up together in a battleground.
For now, no explicit alliance system is part of this concept.

Negotiating speed is not even close to auto fight speed. How does this affect the option to battle or negotiate
Negotiations will presumably provide a bit more advancements (= progression points) per successful negotiation.

How will small guilds with less than 10 players will be able to fight against big guild with 80 players without losing for sure?
The big guild will be in a higher league and the small guild in a lower league, so once the leagues are sorted, the differences should not be too vast.

To help make Battle Grounds a "level playing field" can you restrict players to only use armies of their age or lower and no higher age troops than their current age? Players can walk through GE with army of higher age troops than their current age.
Attrition will handle this. A player with higher age units might be able to do a few more battles, but it should not be an issue. It will be looked at if it does become one.

Would "special goods" aka Oricalcum/Promethium be required to negotiate for players in AF/OF/VF ?
No, special goods will be excluded from Guild Battlegrounds.

Will more guild levels be added? Currently some guilds are at max level .
Yes, more guild levels will be added.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

not just remain, but effort made to continue improving.

No, you misread that. They found a few places where they can improve the current system, likely streamline the code, they'll do that, then GvG is done. Put a pin in it. Don't ask for changes, don't ask for maps, don't ask for a use of goods after FE. Put a pin in it, put it on a shelf, GvG is in the can. You can continue to play as long as you want, but after this next spit and polish update, GvG will be left to rust away, until it becomes the forgotten toy.

The advent of GE was to give mobile users a GVG type of experience and in my opinion a good compromise.
If the mobile users were truly interested in GVG, they can participate by using Puffin, not a great way of doing it - but doable, or occasionally get on a PC.

No. Not an option. I'm not running crappy software on my phone to have a crappy experience on my phone. Homie don't play that way. Besides, I'm on the West Coast, so homie can't play that way.

So a new system for the poor, casual, mobile players sounds like a waste of programming time better spent on other program issues and bugs.

This elitist BS, is another reason why I've not wanted to join your reindeer games. Don't call me a poor, casual player, or seek to imply that someone on mobile is a poor, casual player. Screw you and the Champ you rode in on.

There is a lot of whining about the strong guilds dominating GE and GVG and Inno coming up with ways to fix it. Guess what, the strong guilds will dominate any type of fighting system scenario that Inno can problematically come up.
Deal with it, and overcome it, and get over it.

Only time will tell. Seems like most strong guilds dominating GvG aren't interested in a, "new system for the poor, casual, mobile players" that's, "a waste of programming time." No. You'll never lower yourself to the level of the 'common' player to engage in GBG. My question to you is how will you GvG without the 'common' players goods? Seems GBG is the populist revolt against the bourgeoisie and it sounds like the bourgeoisie don't like it.

 

[Liberty]

I joined my guild be cause they also excel in GE and 64/64 is something I can contribute because I can't do GvG. Can't does not = doesn't want to. Becaue I want to, but can't is why I'm excited for GBG. For the first time, I and many of my guildmates finally have something we can play. Now that we can play, we're gonna play. We're tired of sitting around while others play something we can't.

I doubt any of us have any objection to a glorified GE2 for phone players, which is what this new thing sounds like. Why would we? The problem was in how they introduced it; they chose to relate it to GvG.

Just as GvG players have no issue with something new to keep phone players entertained, you should have no issue with what serious computer players have fun playing, which is GvG. We would like what WE enjoy playing to be fixed and new maps added. The new maps are easy for them to do.

Then this particular issue doesn't affect you. In fact, you now have an advantage, because this affect those you fight, but it also affects those you ally with. There is no insult, it's an issue most guilds will need to deal with. As a GINO, this may well work to your advantage in GvG moving forward.

GINO (Guild In Name Only), that was an insult. Just to be clear.

Oh looky. Someone who has no clue about how to play GvG giving me advice on how to play GvG. Isn't that just cute.

 

[DeletedUser]

As a reminder, this thread is for feedback/suggestions on the new Guild Battlegrounds concept, not GvG. Please restrict your comments/suggestions to the thread topic. Thanks.

 

[Emberguard]

I suppose... here's a question for those IN THE KNOW:
The live Q&A happening tomorrow, is it going to have a working model of the GBG? I have too much going on so I won't be able to attend it in real-time and have to watch after the fact (pity, I'd like to participate), but if it is going to show a working model it might help those of us who aren't really sure/on the fence on this form a better idea so we could offer more constructive feedback.

From the EN forum Community Manager:

Great questions, which will be forwarded. To be clear, Guild Battlegrounds is very much still in the concept stage and no development has begun. The whole purpose of this announcement is to gather feedback, questions and ideas from which will form the basis of a more solid feature going forward.

So if they have anything "working" at the Q&A chances are it'd be a gif or graphical presentation not anything with actual code behind. ​

 

[DeletedUser34596]

Whatever you do, please include mobile! The experience should match as closely as possible on all platforms.

 

[saknika]

How does Attrition work? Is it player based or guild based?
It is player based and only applying to battles, not negotiations. Players with a lot of attack bonus will be able to fight way more, than the ones without or a lot less attack bonus

What time of day would the Attrition points be reset ?
This has not yet been set.

I'm not sure that it's fair to not also dock those who negotiate? I know it costs them goods, but for those of us who fight it can cost us troops. I really feel like there ought to be something in place to limit negotiations, too.

Guilds in the group – Does number of guild members matter?
The matchmaking will be done per league basis. The amount of players in a guild wont matter.

How will small guilds with less than 10 players will be able to fight against big guild with 80 players without losing for sure?
The big guild will be in a higher league and the small guild in a lower league, so once the leagues are sorted, the differences should not be too vast.

How will Guild Battleground's ranking points work with GvG ranking points? will they add to each other (like GE giving extra guild power) or be replacement for GvG?
The battlegrounds feature will allow to gain more prestige points.
These points will depend on the league of a guild.

Based on these three things it sounds like bigger guilds will be at an advantage to smaller ones because they can more easily get into higher leagues? I don't know, something about this just doesn't feel right, I can't quite put my finger on it though to explain why exactly.

What about support pool bonus from Observatory, will it be usefull or only limited to GvG?

Will not apply to Guild Battlegrounds, only GvG

I think Inno would be wise to change their mind on this. Make the support pool relevant again for more than just GvG. They do a lot to make certain GBs rendered useless by new special buildings and stuff, it'd be nice to see them do something to make them relevant again.

Mixing existing 'Guild Leadership' with 'Battleground Leadership' for Building management. Can they be separated or use 'Trusted' for Battleground, as was the case in GvG?

We will be thinking about a new role specifically for managing battleground buildings.

100% agree that the leadership in GBG should not be general guild leadership. It should definitely be something like "Trusted" is to GvG. Someone I trust to help with GBG might not be someone I trust to help with guild management after all. Just like GvG.

Would "special goods" aka Oricalcum/Promethium be required to negotiate for players in AF/OF/VF ?

No, special goods will be excluded from Guild Battlegrounds.

Thank goodness.

 

[saknika]

From the EN forum Community Manager:

So if they have anything "working" at the Q&A chances are it'd be a gif or graphical presentation not anything with actual code behind. ​

I'd be fine with that. Even still visuals for concept artwork more than what they've given would help me better understand what they're envisioning thus far. I definitely don't expect them to delve into complicated coding yet.

 

[Liberty]

This is the elitist BS that us 'poor huddled masses' have against GvG players. The constant need to think you're better than any other players. Global Chat filled with you basking in your own glory. It's nauseating. I'm glad we're not getting the chance to join GvG. We never much liked you anyway. Must be why you're in a guild of 2. Easy to shine bright in a mirror.

I have no idea if you are a huddled mass or not. Nor do I care. I also don't frequent global chat. We are talking about the game. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder. My point was that I doubt anyone has a problem with you getting something you enjoy playing; we just don't want what we enjoy playing to be ignored.

There was no advice. Just pointing out that GBG could well give your cute, little, self-aggrandizing 2-person guild an advantage as your competition changes focus. As your pond shrinks, you're little fish guild seems bigger in comparison. Good for you. More glory for you to bask in as you spew it on Global. "Look at me! I won the sectors my enemy retreated from. I'm king of the world!"

You sound like you have had some bad experiences in the game. There is no reason to blame me for whatever bad experience you had on whatever server you play on.

Look, some of us enjoy playing with a team and strategizing; sounds like you enjoy the solitary thing, negotiating battles, etc.. Nothing wrong with that; just different strokes for different folks. We don't begrudge you getting what you want. Don't begrudge us for advocating for what we want.

 

[DeletedUser31442]

As a reminder, this thread is for feedback/suggestions on the new Guild Battlegrounds concept, not GvG. Please restrict your comments/suggestions to the thread topic. Thanks.

That's what the title of the thread says and I've enjoyed the half dozen or so posts that dealt with the topic at hand as I find I am intrigued and a bit excited at the possibilities of what guild battlegrounds offers not the endless off topic angry obsession of the 5%

 

[Emberguard]

I'd be fine with that. Even still visuals for concept artwork more than what they've given would help me better understand what they're envisioning thus far. I definitely don't expect them to delve into complicated coding yet.

Just to clarify I don't know if there'll be anything we haven't seen so far, just speculating that if there is it'll likely be of that nature.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

I'm not sure that it's fair to not also dock those who negotiate? I know it costs them goods, but for those of us who fight it can cost us troops. I really feel like there ought to be something in place to limit negotiations, too.

This makes no sense. Why would you want to have another limit to your own guild's progression on the map? If you can learn to produce goods also, you then become a superpower. Once you grind through your troops for the day, grind through your excess goods in negotiations.

I'm at almost 1000 goods per day in my LMA city, with a 1.9x thread, building and leveling fight GBs is cheap. I'm going the superpower route. Seems that puts fighters only, like you, might be at a disadvantage in how much you'll be able to contribute to GBG progression. Especially if you're grinding up your troops elsewhere. Don't ask for a limit on negotiations, be happy you'll have guild mates to pick up your slack.

It sounds like bigger guilds will be at an advantage to smaller ones because they can more easily get into higher leagues? I don't know, something about this just doesn't feel right, I can't quite put my finger on it though to explain why exactly.

After the first month or two once the Leagues sort out, Leagues will no longer matter for fights, only for point accumulation. Bigger guilds fighting bigger guilds getting bigger rewards for more investment should not surprise anyone. Minor League players get paid less than those in the Major Leagues. This is as it should be.

Those who focus on GBG will excel and reap the rewards, those who don't won't. It may very well be from focus alone, top ranked GvG guilds may not be top ranked GBG guilds. From a resource cost alone, it will be hard for any guild to be the top guild in both. It'll be fun to see how it plays out. Now I finally get to be a part of the competition.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

So, it seems someone removed my post for not being on topic, when all of my posts are on topic.

I responded about how the game should fix it's problems with GvG and how it would benefit all of us players for such fixes.

This is why your post was off topic and why it was removed. This thread is asking for feedback on the information provided about Battlefields. They've stated that GvG will not go away, they'll give it one last spit and polish, then set it aside. All future development will be for Battlefields.

Your posts have all been about what you want Inno to do to fix and change GvG, which they've already stated, they're not doing. If you've mentioned Battlefialds at all, it's been to say how you don't want them or why it's the wrong direction. Hence your posts are off topic.

So instead of asking them to send back the train that's already left the station, why don't you instead provide feedback consistent with the thread. "Hey GvGers, given your expertise and love for the old train, can you give us your feedback and ideas on how to improve our design for the new train. Based on the issues and limitations of the old train design, this is what the new design looks like so far, help us improve the new design."

Stop posting about how they should change the old train, why you like the old train, and why you want Inno to get more people to board the old train. Inno will not be improving the old train. They'll just keep it in service as long as people keep riding it. In the meantime, help them improve the evolving design of the new train.

If your posts are not about the new train, the posts are off topic.

 

[Liberty]

RP, since you are not a Moderator, it's really not your place to tell another player what they can or cannot talk about. Sheesh.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder. You sound like you have had some bad experiences in the game. There is no reason to blame me for whatever bad experience you had on whatever server you play on.

Only bad experiences is when I've run across folks with your attitude. "Oh, look at me, I GvG. Don't you wish were hot like me?" and we share a server.

Look, some of us enjoy playing with a team and strategizing; sounds like you enjoy the solitary thing, negotiating battles, etc.

Not sure how you think any guild will excel in Battlefields without working as a team and strategizing. This is exactly the elitist BS I'm referring to. You look down your nose and have no idea what you're talking about.

Nothing wrong with that; just different strokes for different folks. We don't begrudge you getting what you want. Don't begrudge us for advocating for what we want.

We don't begrudge you getting what you want, or even advocating for what you want, but this thread isn't about what you want. Like it or not, Inno stated clearly in the first announcement post that, what you enjoy playing is going to be ignored.

You keep thinking they're going to make new investments into GvG. They're not. All new investments will be for Battlefields. This thread is about feedback on the current thinking for Battlefields. If you'd like to contribute to the improvement of Battlefields, please share you ideas and expertise. But so far, you have no ideas for Battlefields, you don't even understand Battlefields. You probably didn't even read the part about Battlefields. Which is kind of dumb, that's fine, but thread is about Battlefields, not GvG.

As far as GvG is concerned, 2 years from now when new guild members join and ask about GvG, we'll be answering, "I wouldn't worry about it. No one really plays that anymore. There's a few older members who still mess around with it, we just let them do their thing. Anyone really serious about the guild and the game gets really serious about Battlefields."

That day is coming sooner than you think. You can cling to the past or help shape the future. I don't care either way.

RP, since you are not a Moderator, it's really not your place to tell another player what they can or cannot talk about. Sheesh.

He asked why his post was deleted. I answered. I can. I have a brain. Speaking of telling someone what they cannot talk about ... seems I was not far off on that mirror thing, was I?

 

[saknika]

This makes no sense. Why would you want to have another limit to your own guild's progression on the map? If you can learn to produce goods also, you then become a superpower. Once you grind through your troops for the day, grind through your excess goods in negotiations.

I'm at almost 1000 goods per day in my LMA city, with a 1.9x thread, building and leveling fight GBs is cheap. I'm going the superpower route. Seems that puts fighters only, like you, might be at a disadvantage in how much you'll be able to contribute to GBG progression. Especially if you're grinding up your troops elsewhere. Don't ask for a limit on negotiations, be happy you'll have guild mates to pick up your slack.

You assume I'm only a fighter, I'm not. I'm a balanced player. I prefer to fight over negotiations because, quite frankly, negotiations bore me. I tend to use my goods to give to other mates who struggle, so they can get further as we work in-guild to help get them in a better position of self-sufficiency.

My concern here is that it's only fighters who are being throttled back in some way. Someone in a previous post on this thread suggested that to match attrition for fighters, negotiations should cost more as time goes on, before resetting back to a smaller amount (the way attrition will reset), and that seems like it'd help balance both kind of play style. After all, if players can produce enough goods to sell GB sets to other players, then it makes sense that they could negotiate, without stop, as much as they pleased. Meanwhile even someone who is a strong fighter and producing goods (just not at the same capacity) won't have that same ability.

Essentially, if you have chosen to be a fighter and fight effectively, you're going to be throttled back. If you've chosen to be a goods maven with more goods than you can ever possibly want, trade, or use, then you're going to be no-holds-barred. You can be equally strong in either of those aspects and play this game well, it doesn't seem right that only one side of the coin has a limiter.

After the first month or two once the Leagues sort out, Leagues will no longer matter for fights, only for point accumulation. Bigger guilds fighting bigger guilds getting bigger rewards for more investment should not surprise anyone. Minor League players get paid less than those in the Major Leagues. This is as it should be.

Those who focus on GBG will excel and reap the rewards, those who don't won't. It may very well be from focus alone, top ranked GvG guilds may not be top ranked GBG guilds. From a resource cost alone, it will be hard for any guild to be the top guild in both. It'll be fun to see how it plays out. Now I finally get to be a part of the competition.

My concern is more for guilds that are just starting out, or who end up not having enough people to make up the difference to get into higher leagues despite being really invested and strong in GBG. If quantity of mates matters, then it puts only the biggest guilds at an advantage, and will smaller guilds or newer guilds that are still growing have the ability to catch up and share in that piece of the pie, so they too can have a guild with lots of awesome perks? A lot of GBG sounds like it's trying to level out the playing field a bit to make getting top spot and extra prestige from it in a world as a top-3 guild more competitive. That's what I'm trying to get at, will this system assist in that notion? Obviously the GBG minded guilds are going to go hardcore, but it'd suck to know that because there's only 60 of you instead of a maxed-out 80 player guild that you'll never be in the top league and you'll never have a shot at a top placing guild rank no matter how hardcore you went at it.

 

[DeletedUser37440]

What about support pool bonus from Observatory, will it be usefull or only limited to GvG?
Will not apply to Guild Battlegrounds, only GvG

I really hope the decision gets changed. I don't think it should be a major factor, but I do think it should have some value.

Will the costs of building province buildings prevent guilds with few members from participating?
If their stocks are low, they might not always be able to place buildings, that is correct.
But that will not lock them out of the feature, as province buildings will not be the all-determining factor.

One of the big concerns is the ability to put all those high age (AF+) and massive quantities from Arcs to use. I expect there should be some fairly expensive province buildings in the mix and that those buildings should be overwhelming against a broke guild. They simply shouldn't end up in the same league.

Treasury - what goods will be paid and how?
The Treasury Goods will be needed to build the Battleground Buildings on sectors your guild owns.
The needed goods will be random, depending on the highest member age of your guild. If one is in VF, than all goods until VF can be used. If the highest member in Iron Age, than only Iron Age goods will be used.

This mechanic concerns me because it seems to penalizes age, and just compounds the useless high age goods issue. It seems so-so that an Iron age team is asked to pay only in iron age, but a VF team has only a very small chance (random 1/15 ages) of being asked to pay in VF. It would probably be better to base the selection on member ages, just randomly pick a participating member and use their age for the goods, its not great but it at least avoids the worst of it.

 

[DeletedUser30393]

I like it! GvG is awkward because, to be involved, a higher-level guild member must be on-hand, forcing similar schedules. I am assuming that players thousands of miles apart will be able to play this without concern for schedules, would that be correct?