• 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 Feedback

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser39339

Inno said it's only 5%, but either way, it's a problem that's finally being addressed with Battlegrounds. When GvG was designed, FoE hadn't planned to take FoE beyond FE. When AF was released, the GvG code prevented them from adding an AF map, so they created the AA map as a compromise, knowing no future age specific maps would be coming.

I suspect the same issue that kept them from introducing an AF map using AF goods also prevented them from utilizing goods from any age on the kludged together AA map. Hence the "first class ---- up."

Reset time is the fundamental problem with GvG and why it can't simply be ported to, or opened up to mobile. The lag/bugs everyone complains about all occur around reset, because everyone playing GvG plays GvG during the short span around reset. More players in GvG during that same short time span will just make the lag exponentially worse.

Having one map per age, per world also locks out the vast majority of guilds and players from ever gaining a toe hold to start fighting GvG. The maps have long been locked up by the bigger GvG guilds and allies, leaving the rest of the guilds on the server completely locked out of GvG even if they wanted to play. Works great for the big guilds, but for the rest of the server? Not so much.

Therein lies the rub. They can't fix the code they have. GvG was broken the day it was released, because of it's fundamental design. Recalc, one map per world, no ability to add maps for AF and beyond. The only solution to fix unfixable code?

Start over with a new concept that fixes the underlying problems of GvG by not repeating them. No defense means no recalc. Eliminate recalc and you eliminate recalc lag. No recalc also means anyone, anywhere can participate in Battlegrounds anytime their playtime allows.

GBG will also have unlimited maps that guarantee a foothold to each and every guild that wants to play. The maps won't be tied to age, meaning for the first time the entire guild, regardless of the age of the individual players, can now work together and contribute equally to a common goal on a common map. No more sitting on the sidelines, or rushing unprepared through the ages to join the rest of your guildmates on the guild's preferred GvG map.

Leagues also eliminates the problem of big guilds, filled with big players, with big boosts, built over many years of play, who can simply overwhelm anyone who attempts to come up against them. That alone leaves too many guilds and too many players locked out. Again, works great for the big guilds, but for the rest of the guilds on the server, not so much.

With Leagues based on performance and match-ups based on Leagues, now every guild, new or old, big or small, will fight guilds from their own League. Winning guilds climb Leagues to fight tougher guilds, under performing guilds can drop a League to have an easier time. Higher Leagues offer higher rewards to the most successful guilds in the Battleground wars, month after month, war after war.

Having also worked with software users over a long period of time, the biggest issue surrounding new feature acceptance is users inherently resistant to change, not wanting have to have learn a whole new thing that's only going to upset their routine.

Even features specifically built around user requests are often met with complaints simply because the feature is new and different. A simple UI overhaul sends many users into a rant fest lasting several release cycles, and too often, the first thing most users want to know about a new feature is where to go to turn it off. I expect most GvG users will end up disliking GBG simply because it's new and it's not the same GvG they already know, love, and dominate in.

Most of the complaints already have been along those lines. They don't want GBG because it's not GvG, they think it's the wrong direction because it's not an expansion or port of the same GvG. GvG players are already asking if they can opt-out of GBG, or will they be forced to deal with it, like it or not. GvG staying is to satisfy those resistant to change, because it's change.

For the rest it's something new and just like anything new, you'll have early adopters, early majority, late majority, and the laggards. Like any other change of this magnitude, expect those most heavily invested in GvG to be the most resistant to GBG, and likely the laggards in the adoption curve. No one should expect anything different, especially with GvG staying to accommodate their resistance, which is good.

C'mon, there's people who will never switch to HTML5 until Flash literally ceases to exist. When it does, they'll come here to make all the same complaints, "been here since the beginning," "spent a fortune," "greedy dirt bags," "never another dime," you know the drill and all the complaints. You also know the complaints are really about the change, it doesn't matter what the change.

With change come complaints from those simply resistant to change. So, let the laggards lag and the adopters adopt. It'll work itself out in the end, it always does.
What I don't understand is why they can't program additional maps. When you go on the Continental map and hop a boat, it takes you to the world map. There you can access the map for GvG. Why can't they just have another GvG map to access that has the higher ages?
 

DeletedUser39339

After reading through all the comments here it's clear that GvG players are playing a completely different type of game than most regular FOE players. They are a small, but vocal and excitable group (that's not an insult, just an observation).

In my previous comment I intimated just dropping GvG for the new system, but I think there's a more fundamental issue here. I think the REAL-TIME aspect of the current GvG system (the recalc) is the DRAW to FOE for these particular players. While FOE is NOT primarily a real-time strategy game, because of the way GvG was implemented, it has BECOME that for these players. Getting online all at the same time with chat programs and drawing plans and implementing them all coordinated in real-time is an exciting way to play a game, and I get that (not my cup of tea, but I understand the draw). But, honestly, that's not FOE. AFAIK, it was never meant to be a real-time strategy game. And GvG is the ONLY part of the game that demands that kind of real-time coordination to play effectively.

So for the GvG real-time strategist, GE IS boring and pedantic. But for those of us who like a slower-paced game that we don't HAVE to be on at some particular time of day in order to participate and contribute to the success of our guild, the current GvG system is uninteresting or out of reach, and while GE is good, it's not ultimately satisfying. So, a new GvG system that rewards us "slower" players sounds like a great idea. That doesn't make US right and them wrong, or vis versa. It's just a differing of play styles.

Inno has to decide if FOE is going to be a real-time strategy game or a more leisurely-paced game in the GvG area. This new system sounds like they are trying to create a GvG system that will appeal to players who don't like or can't commit to a real-time strategy experience. That's why they are talking about keeping the current GvG. They WANT to appeal to EVERYBODY'S play style. But I don't know if that's really feasible. There will always be players that HATE the new system, but love the old one, and vis versa, because they are fundamentally different in how they approach gaming.

Glad I'M not a developer right now. :)
I disagree with your view. I am a GvG player and the recalc is not a draw. I dislike it because it actually limits my ability and my guilds ability to effectively ... key word ... effectively play during other times of the day. We do play at other times but the end result is not as effective as playing right at recalc. What is attractive to GvG players, IMHO, is the social aspect of the game that can be done in real time. Why else would the developers have set up chat lines, a main guild thread, and the ability to set up more threads, if not to be able to interact with each other. I'm not sure how this new concept will really work but if you battle as a lone soldier like you do in GE and there is no advantage or incentive to battle as a group, then the only reason anyone will play it is for the personal rewards they can obtain.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
I disagree with your view. I am a GvG player and the recalc is not a draw. I dislike it because it actually limits my ability and my guilds ability to effectively ... key word ... effectively play during other times of the day. We do play at other times but the end result is not as effective as playing right at recalc. What is attractive to GvG players, IMHO, is the social aspect of the game that can be done in real time. Why else would the developers have set up chat lines, a main guild thread, and the ability to set up more threads, if not to be able to interact with each other. I'm not sure how this new concept will really work but if you battle as a lone soldier like you do in GE and there is no advantage or incentive to battle as a group, then the only reason anyone will play it is for the personal rewards they can obtain.
I'm not sure how you think a guild will be able to capture territory from other guilds and progress across the map without guild wide planning, effective communication, and coordinated execution. All that changes is you won't all be clicking the auto-battle button at the same time everyday. All the chat stuff stays, I expect with Battlegrounds, chat will be busy outside the recalc crush to respond to changing conditions throughout the day. No defense or shielding means you'll always need to be on the lookout for attacks. Lone soldiers who won't follow guild battle plans will be ineffective at best, more likely harmful to the effort. The incentive to battle as a group is the same as it ever was, the desire to win.
 

DeletedUser

Please can we stop the back and forth discussions about GvG strategies/play styles and about GvG vs whatever idea some have gotten about GBG?
It is fruitless to argue about what the appeal of GvG is, it is entirely moot. Not because GvG doesn't matter, but because everybody is going to have a different (valid) opinion on what draws them to GvG. And for those that don't like GvG, there are as many reasons as there are players, as it is with anything. And all these discussions/arguments do is distract from us taking part in shaping the new feature. This is an amazing thing, in my mind, and unprecedented in my time in this game. They have asked for our input on what we would like to see or not see in the new feature...before they even have a solid concept themselves! So, let's focus on that, please.

GvG is not going away, but it is not going to get more than tweaks to performance issues. Inno has made that clear.

GBG is their next big thing, and we have the chance to have some say in how it is shaped, before it even gets close to Beta. So please, put your thinking caps on and get rolling with those great ideas that I know are out there. Don't let this opportunity be ruined by infighting. Thanks.
 

DeletedUser28686

GvG is my favorite part of the game hopeing the bugs get fixed its honestly alot of fun once you learn it its hard to go without! looking forward to seeing improvements
i know there are more advanced battle games and i do believe with a lil work it can be fixed
 

DeletedUser39339

The obvious way is that another guild seized and won the sector either through their own design or as a prearrangement with a friendly alliance. Some of these higher age maps have lots of daily action ... who controls what changes so frequently that there is no point in putting in much defense units.
Sometimes a lot of effort goes in to setting up alliances. I am curious as to how that can carry over into GBG. Will the guilds we are matched up against be in our same world or other worlds like in GE? If same, may be able to hang on to alliance if guilds are evenly matched and end up in same leagues.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
@Raven Blackmore

From the announcement page:
https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/guild-battlegrounds.26088/#post-255970

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.


My guess is if there’s enough different guilds to fight against then alliances may only last for that round. If we end up seeing each other fairly often then it would be more likely for lasting alliances while in similar leagues
 

DeletedUser37653

So please, put your thinking caps on and get rolling with those great ideas that I know are out there. Don't let this opportunity be ruined by infighting. Thanks.

Well said! I would suggest to you perhaps creating a new thread where it asks for specific GvG feedback. It is clear after 29 pages that people are very passionate about GvG, and it would be good to have a substantive way to give ideas to the developers. Perhaps with overwhelming feedback, they will reconsider their position to limit GvG to just a few more tweaks. Can you do that for us? Make a new one?


----


2nd Part.

I think it would be nice (socially responsible) to see a feature included in battlegrounds where we can "blacklist" a guild from our own world (thus not being forced to participate with or against them for 10 days). In other words, a guild we want no part of in playing against or with in battlegrounds. This is important for social reasons, not in game-tactics reasons. There are players that have a deep resentments towards others, and simply plan all of their online activity to trolling or tormenting another guild or player. They don't really play the game, they just prevent others from having a decent experience. This is quite prevalent in GvG, global chat, and the like. It is not simply sniping or taking tiles. It is a concerted effort to mentally or emotionally drain another human being with negative comments, personal attacks, and subverting any perceived goals their target may have in the game. When reporting these players, the advice often given by moderators is to just ignore them. Significant barriers to prevent future abuse is rarely, if ever implemented, so the abusive behaviour continues.

I feel that from a position of social responsibility, Inno Games would go a long way to curving cyber bullying if it included a blacklist feature. Cyber bullying is a problem on the internet. Research for cyber bullying is new and in progress for this phenom. Not to get too off topic, but according to the research available and what has been published in scientific journals, their is a convergence of conclusions from researchers that these provocateurs and trolls seem to have a sadist mentality, are generally people with poor social skills, low self-esteem, or simply like to subvert rules of society they could not do off of the internet. I think everyone can agree that cyber bullying, or bullying in any kind is wrong.

A blacklist feature in battlegrounds would help prevent a guild who has a player, or a large group of players from having their way with a younger, less experience group of players that they simply want to torment. Being forced to play the game for 10 days with people we're told by moderators to ignore is not socially responsible. A black list feature will prevent that straight away.

As for how to implement? Some suggestions: Allow a founder to include 1 guild, or alternatively a small number of players to black list. Thus any guild who has those players would not be matched with the founder doing the black listing. I would posit that this might even reduce the number in-game support tickets that your hard working game moderators would see and have to deal with.

Thanks for your consideration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
I think it would be nice (socially responsible) to see a feature included in battlegrounds where we can "blacklist" a guild from our own world (thus not being forced to participate with or against them for 10 days). In other words, a guild we want no part of in playing against or with in battlegrounds. This is important for social reasons, not in game-tactics reasons. There are players that have a deep resentments towards others, and simply plan all of their online activity to trolling or tormenting another guild or player. They don't really play the game, they just prevent others from having a decent experience. This is quite prevalent in GvG, global chat, and the like. It is not simply sniping or taking tiles. It is a concerted effort to mentally or emotionally drain another human being with negative comments, personal attacks, and subverting any perceived goals their target may have in the game. When reporting these players, the advice often given by moderators is to just ignore them. Significant barriers to prevent future abuse is rarely, if ever implemented, so the abusive behavior continues.
As this behavior seems inextricably linked to GvG, I expect this behavior to be curbed once Battlegrounds arrives. These long standing grudges, alliances, etc. make no sense in the context of a 10 day contest where opponents change each time. Folks need to let the nonsense go, or keep it to GvG.

GBG is our opportunity to make a clean break from all of that. I'm not in favor of programming in a tool that facilitates the continuation of bad behavior. If it's truly a problem there is Ignore. Not just you reading it and letting it go ignore, putting those players on ignore using the ignore feature both in game and in Chat.

While there is a point that it reaches bad behavior, psychological warfare is a perfectly valid tactic to employ. If some trash take gets under your skin, it's working. Again, just click ignore and it largely goes away.
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
As this behavior seems inextricably linked to GvG, I expect this behavior to be curbed once Battlegrounds arrives. These long standing grudges, alliances, etc. make no sense in the context of a 10 day contest where opponents change each time. Folks need to let the nonsense go, or keep it to GvG.

The grudges will always be there, and maybe some new ones will come up because of the increased activity. It would be like the grudges that exist between various teams in real world sports.

But like real world sports, the new system at least allows the opportunity for things to change up rather than seeing the same teams go to the Super Bowl every year.
 

DeletedUser

Well said! I would suggest to you perhaps creating a new thread where it asks for specific GvG feedback. It is clear after 29 pages that people are very passionate about GvG, and it would be good to have a substantive way to give ideas to the developers. Perhaps with overwhelming feedback, they will reconsider their position to limit GvG to just a few more tweaks. Can you do that for us? Make a new one?
Listen, I get it. There are a lot of players that are very passionate about GvG. I'm not a fan of GvG myself, but I understand. But over the 4 years or so that I've been on the Forum as a player, there have been numerous proposals/discussions/arguments about how to fix and/or improve GvG. I honestly don't think that there's a lot left to be said on the matter. The other consideration is that higher level Inno employees don't frequent the Forum, so the feedback would have to percolate up through channels, and I'm sure you realize that it would lose its impact through each step. From the indications we (players) have had from Inno, they are aware of the GvG issues, and the players' concerns. Unfortunately, for reasons that they have outlined in the Forum announcement about this new feature and their intentions towards GvG, they have made it clear that there are numerous large obstacles that make it impractical to do anything more than try to improve performance in it as is. It is extremely unlikely that any more posting on the Forum, even on a dedicated thread, will change that.
 

DeletedUser38934

A different direction is needed entirely. When the game was initially built one could not have seen the popularity spike. Wipe the chalkboard off and do this instead.

Have a 4 vs. 4 game where players can queue in solo and only control 4 units.

Make the map smaller so as people on smartphones can easily see the map.

Have individual and guild rewards for wins or participation in the battles. Limit 10 battles per every 24 hours from time first engaged.

Players earn points more by wins then losses. Standing at the end of a 1 week (7 day) tournament will decide the top tiered players. These players get extra points to spend in a store that one can purchase goods, medals, forge points, ETC... For their city.

This is obviously a barebones assessment but this will boost (gvg pvp) involvement many times over and may take a life unto its own.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
A different direction is needed entirely. When the game was initially built one could not have seen the popularity spike. Wipe the chalkboard off and do this instead.

Have a 4 vs. 4 game where players can queue in solo and only control 4 units.

Make the map smaller so as people on smartphones can easily see the map.

Have individual and guild rewards for wins or participation in the battles. Limit 10 battles per every 24 hours from time first engaged.

Players earn points more by wins then losses. Standing at the end of a 1 week (7 day) tournament will decide the top tiered players. These players get extra points to spend in a store that one can purchase goods, medals, forge points, ETC... For their city.

This is obviously a barebones assessment but this will boost (gvg pvp) involvement many times over and may take a life unto its own.
Or they could give us GBG.
 

DeletedUser40143

From FB Q/A couple of things.

They are most likely not going to make GBG cross world.

They may add attrition to negotiations as well

They may also make it so that attrition goes down...not sure about that

There will also be a break from GBG for few days, so it will be a bi weekly kinda thing

They cannot talk about numbers yet, fps, rewards, ranking points etc

Still in concept stage/drawing board.......gonna be a while before it even hits beta

Disappointed to hear it won't be cross-world. Did they say why this is not possible?
 

DeletedUser40143

Further GBG Comments:

1. Cross-world would be great if feasible. It would greatly increase the variety of opponents. Right now many GvG worlds are stale with same opponents fighting for days / months / years. GE is nice because you don't get that.

2. Would be nice if Obs / Deal / Basil mattered in GBG.

3. Ranking pts balance is critical with GBG. As several have already noted, GvG ranking pts currently dominate. I hope ranking pts available from GBG are comparable to GvG.

4. It remains unclear how this is going to play out regarding guild treasuries. Are some guilds going to be faced with a tough decision on where to spend their guild treasury? It sounds like guild treasury is spent on buildings but it isn't clear how tactically important these buildings are. Guild treasury is not spent on setting sieges, correct?

5. Longer term, a GB that benefits GBG specifically would naturally follow, just like the ToR helps GE.

6. How many leagues will exist per server? Again, diversity of opponents is a good thing.
 

DeletedUser29563

After sitting on it a few days..this is what I would like to see, and not like to see in this new feature.

Likes:
* The NPC armies must change each 10 day cycle. Unlike GE, we need random AI armies, which are unseen until a sector is attacked. If a sector is attacked unsuccessfully, they should change when said guild takes another run at that sector.

* The attrition feature is interesting. Another idea is to have the AI army Attack & defense % ramp up each time a player attacks a sector. Maybe in 5% intervals, until it reaches 100% of that players own A&D %. To be reset each day.

* Like in GvG...guilds should only be allowed to attack adjacent sectors to their current holdings.

* There should be at least 3 different sector power levels...if not more.

* Like in GvG...guilds need to be able to defend sectors under attack by other guilds in real time.

* There should be a daily, top 10 fighter ranking system. The top 10 hammers, from the previous days action, are publicly displayed for 24 hrs.

* At the end of each 10 day cycle. The winning guild nominates a guild member of their choosing, for MVP status. The MVP from each cycle is given a 1x1 trophy to display in their city. This trophy provides no production nor bonus to city.

Dislikes:

* Do not limit the amount of sectors a guild can attack at a given time.

* Do not dumb it down for new players. New players can and will learn. But seasoned players will never gain interest in a mundane feature(GE).

* Do not make it easy. If this feature has any hope of drawing my attention from GvG (I want to do both). It must challenge me. I want to strategize, politic, plan, scout, spy as well as fight. Just like I do for GvG.

* Do not ignore the negotiator type player. I do not negotiate, but we will need those that do to succeed. Negotiating should have it's own incentives and rewards.. whatever that may be.

* Do not water this down....this should be vicious and raw for those of us who play that way. I want my farmers and negotiators to be just as involved as my fighters. But to draw the players in that are currently fighting the concept, there has to be war. I want to smash....every opponent....every cycle.


I love GvG, but I get it, this is the future. I want this to work..I really do. But it has to have an edge, while not requiring EVERYONE to be edgy. mtm75
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top