• 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.

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Any news on when this is getting released to beta?
Guild Battlegrounds is still in the concept stage. There does not appear to be any code written yet. I would not expect to see it hit Beta until early next year. In other words, Inno is still a long ways off, don't expect to see it hit beta any time soon.
 

DeletedUser29563

I think it's crucial that the new format has team based, real time, opponent interaction.
We certainly need the ability to defend attacks in real time. So i think having the OPTION to place our own defensive armies should be in place. But at the same time, a guild can also opt for let the AI defend.
The strength of BOTH options would be determined by a guilds BATTLE GROUNDS power ranking, that is completely seperate from GvG. The only combined benefit from the two would be prestige.
 

DeletedUser29563

Essentially, a guild could be a GvG powerhouse, but very weak in BG. Guilds should not be credited in one format, by fighting in another.
I will fight GvG until the day ot disappears, but I want to compete in BG also. I don't think my guilds GvG success should carry over to BG, unless we actually succeed in BG.
Im all for the negotiable feature, I jist don't have much input because I won't use it. The fighting has to be manipulatable. Meaning, a guild mist have maximum battle influence, and not just a GE style, never changing, encounter style battle against AI.
 

DeletedUser29563

I think that's it's ok if we mention GvG as long as it's pertinent to the new feature. Like making comparisons, or carry over features we might like to see. Is this correct?
 

DeletedUser

I think that's it's ok if we mention GvG as long as it's pertinent to the new feature. Like making comparisons, or carry over features we might like to see. Is this correct?
Yes, but rants about and suggestions for changes to GvG are not pertinent to this thread. GvG issues will be addressed as well as they can be, but no substantive changes will be made, according to everything official I have seen from Inno. (Which is the same thing everybody else here has access to.)
 

DeletedUser29563

Yes, but rants about and suggestions for changes to GvG are not pertinent to this thread. GvG issues will be addressed as well as they can be, but no substantive changes will be made, according to everything official I have seen from Inno. (Which is the same thing everybody else here has access to.)
Ok..I mis-worded my suggestions i guess. I mentioned GvG as examples because it's the easiest way for me to make my suggestions... understandable.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
you're all sort of correct to an extent
PLEASE NOTE: We want to hear your feedback regarding GvG and the new Guild Battlegrounds. However, I must ask that we remain civil. No bashing of others, no attacking. Any off topic posts may be removed. You are the best players of the best game around. Let's please act like it.
To be honest, the Game Developers were clear that nothing else will be done for GvG but if players want to take their time and effort to provide additional insight, let them as this will be one of the last times GvG is addressed.
Now are we going to keep arguing about this or can we get back to the main topic of GBG and closely related side topic of GvG? Let the mods decide which posts are within the guidelines or offtopic and if you wish to appeal a decision contact either the relevant mod or the CM(s) privately.

.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser2744

I don't think any of this will address the main issues with GVG - that it is owned by the big guilds, that unless your entire guild can fight exactly at reset you lose, and that changes already made have simply made it more difficult for smaller guilds. Add in the fact that a guild's global ranking is determined almost entirely by GVG and you have a recipe for disaster.

Guilds need to be able to release their HQ, otherwise the map is full of tiny guilds each holding one sector because they can't get anyone to release them. And bring back the attacking NPCs, so the bigger guilds don't simply wall off a bunch of empty space that no one can get to. And then figure out a way to stagger reset, so even smaller guilds have a chance to fight on more than one map.
 

DeletedUser

I don't think any of this will address the main issues with GVG - that it is owned by the big guilds, that unless your entire guild can fight exactly at reset you lose, and that changes already made have simply made it more difficult for smaller guilds. Add in the fact that a guild's global ranking is determined almost entirely by GVG and you have a recipe for disaster.

Guilds need to be able to release their HQ, otherwise the map is full of tiny guilds each holding one sector because they can't get anyone to release them. And bring back the attacking NPCs, so the bigger guilds don't simply wall off a bunch of empty space that no one can get to. And then figure out a way to stagger reset, so even smaller guilds have a chance to fight on more than one map.
None of it is expected to fix strategic issues with GvG. They have said that they're only going to try to address performance issues with it going forward.
 

DeletedUser29563

They didn't say that it wasn't possible, just that it wouldn't be at this time. Personally, I hope it never is cross world.

Same here...I don't think "cross-worlds" is the way to go.

My only concern with staying "in-world" is with the older legacy worlds. My primary fighting world is on B. I'm in a prominate GvG guild, so I expect to always have active GBG opponents to fight, as I would expect the other top 10 guilds to find themselves in the same league.

But...there are a ton of "dead" guilds, mostly small, that may clog up the lower leagues with inactivity. Maybe INNO has a way in mind to mitigate this. The one advantage I see GvG having over this new format, is guilds are not "randomly" put in. I worry about the older world, and inactive guilds.
 

DeletedUser29563

Same here...I don't think "cross-worlds" is the way to go.

My only concern with staying "in-world" is with the older legacy worlds. My primary fighting world is on B. I'm in a prominate GvG guild, so I expect to always have active GBG opponents to fight, as I would expect the other top 10 guilds to find themselves in the same league.

But...there are a ton of "dead" guilds, mostly small, that may clog up the lower leagues with inactivity. Maybe INNO has a way in mind to mitigate this. The one advantage I see GvG having over this new format, is guilds are not "randomly" put in. I worry about the older world, and inactive guilds.

Conversely....this could wake up some of those inactive guilds & players, and invigorate them to rejoin the game.
That'd be nice...
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
But...there are a ton of "dead" guilds, mostly small, that may clog up the lower leagues with inactivity. Maybe INNO has a way in mind to mitigate this. The one advantage I see GvG having over this new format, is guilds are not "randomly" put in. I worry about the older world, and inactive guilds.
There was an answer to this on the beta forum from one of the game developers. Here is the gist of what was said regarding your concern.

When GBG goes live every guild will be automatically enrolled and placed on a map the first week. Those guilds with no activity on the map the first or second week will go into an 'inactive' pile, so those guilds will no longer be matched up and placed on a map. If a guild that has gone inactive later decides they want to participate in GBG, there will be a switch to turn it back on. They'll then be matched up and placed on a map to battle other guilds the next round of Battlegrounds.

Sounds like it will take a few weeks to sort things out initially, but after that, the Leagues should start to form and sort quickly.
 

DeletedUser30312

Don't really have anything else to add about Battlegrounds. Like I said earlier in the thread, it's hard to make a solid judgement call without actually experiencing things.

From what it looks like, there are long standing problems in GvG that can't be fixed and/or none of the proposed fixes will solve a big underlying problem of a shrinking user base. Inno knows the problems exist, but there's really no way to deal with all of the problems in GvG itself. The design behind Battlegrounds seems to address those issues by providing a feature that deals with GvG's problems.

  • Battlegrounds will be made available to mobile, which is where the user base is experiencing growth.
  • Things will get shuffled on a regular basis so things aren't dominated by a dozen or so guilds containing long established players with little opportunity for newer players to advance, and those newer players may be more likely to actually take an interest in the feature.
  • The league system will hopefully put guilds on a relatively equal footing to provide entertaining challenges for everyone.
  • Things will be scaled to players' ages so multiple maps won't be needed and everyone can participate. People also don't need to spam tons of previous era military buildings just to stock their Traz to participate in the feature either.
  • Both fighting and negotiating will provide means for players to participate whether they enjoy fighting or city building, instead of the current system where the fighters do all the action while the farmers simply fill the guild treasury.
  • Structures provide a use for goods of all ages instead of FE+ goods piling up in the guild treasury in large numbers.
  • The gameplay should be spread out over the 10 day period letting people play when it is convenient for them rather than spiking at a single time of day which might not be convenient for some players. In addition, the game servers might not get hammered with lag problems from everyone being on at the same time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser29563

There was an answer to this on the beta forum from one of the game developers. Here is the gist of what was said regarding your concern.

When GBG goes live every guild will be automatically enrolled and placed on a map the first week. Those guilds with no activity on the map the first or second week will go into an 'inactive' pile, so those guilds will no longer be matched up and placed on a map. If a guild that has gone inactive later decides they want to participate in GBG, there will be a switch to turn it back on. They'll then be matched up and placed on a map to battle other guilds the next round of Battlegrounds.

Sounds like it will take a few weeks to sort things out initially, but after that, the Leagues should start to form and sort quickly.
makes sense...thank you
 

DeletedUser29563

Hell.. since this thing hasn't been created yet..lets think outside the box for a bit.

How bout this...perhaps we could have some sectors grant special abilities.

Example:
Sector 12.77 grants the ability "battle cry".
Once a guild takes sector 12.77, their troops are granted the ability "battle cry" for one hour.
Once Battle Cry is enabled, all troops will start the battle with +25% attack & defense. This will remain with the troops thru their first 3 turns. (making it ideal for ranged units).
There could be abilities that favor each unit type.

Battle Cry is just an example, not a suggestion. But seriously, let's get creative.
 

DeletedUser30312

That's an interesting idea.

Here's two more:

Shield Wall: grants bonuses to armies defending a sector.
Peace Conference: temporary reduction in negotiation costs.

Maybe these abilities could appear randomly, to keep things unpredictable and giving players the opportunity to use different approaches.
 

DeletedUser29563

That's an interesting idea.

Here's two more:

Shield Wall: grants bonuses to armies defending a sector.
Peace Conference: temporary reduction in negotiation costs.

Maybe these abilities could appear randomly, to keep things unpredictable and giving players the opportunity to use different approaches.
I like it
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Hell.. since this thing hasn't been created yet..lets think outside the box for a bit.

How bout this...perhaps we could have some sectors grant special abilities.

Example:
Sector 12.77 grants the ability "battle cry".
Once a guild takes sector 12.77, their troops are granted the ability "battle cry" for one hour.
Once Battle Cry is enabled, all troops will start the battle with +25% attack & defense. This will remain with the troops thru their first 3 turns. (making it ideal for ranged units).
There could be abilities that favor each unit type.

Battle Cry is just an example, not a suggestion. But seriously, let's get creative.
That's an interesting idea.

Here's two more:

Shield Wall: grants bonuses to armies defending a sector.
Peace Conference: temporary reduction in negotiation costs.

Maybe these abilities could appear randomly, to keep things unpredictable and giving players the opportunity to use different approaches.
I suspect this is the idea behind the buildings we'll be able to build in a conquered province. Although we don't know specifically what they'll be, we do know they will grant some benefit to building them. Unless blown up, those buildings and their benefits stay with the province, so acquiring a province with buildings will be especially attractive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top