When can we stop pretending GBG is balanced?

[Just An Observer]

On C-World I estimate out of the 50 Diamond League guilds, only about half are truly powerful. There is room to breathe for the intermediate guilds. Weak ones go back to Platinum, then re-emerge in Diamond. Guild strength will change and some do get stronger while other guilds fall apart. It is not that bad of a gaming dynamic.

That said, the idea of 8 guilds from different worlds with no communication possible and a truly level playing field would make for a great GBG setting! Maybe we need a GBG V2.0 to work with.

 

[Wishful Sinful]

I personally think this thread asked the wrong question. However, as stated it would seem to be reasonable for the matchups to factor in total encounters by the guild the previous week. If a 10 person guild can drop 50-100K fights between them in a BG that seems more revealing about their capabilities than their BG map placement or this arbitrary LP scale they put into place. Further, limiting rewards and battle points to only occurring once per Attrition Level might curb farming.

I’d prefer to ask the question of “why more people aren’t bothered by the deterioration of the game that GBG has brought?”. The system, as is, doubles as a glorified welfare system. GvG requires significantly more tactics and coordination, yet the only reward for years has been battle points and guild rank, neither of which significantly impacts any individual‘s game (Yes, there is some impact on guild leveling, but let’s be honest about guild level impact). They introduced a “replacement” which would engage Mobile and PC gamers alike, which is a great concept, but then decided that no one would participate if there wasn’t an inordinate amount of personal reward. Now, the game is full of lipstick warriors with 500% boosts rolling up thousands of fights and the subsequent rewards and never crossing 40 attrition. It’s merely an exercise in who can sit and tap the longest. No real skill, no real strategy, no real test in ability. We might as well have a 75% chance of rewards for aiding, with a no limit friends list. I’ve played long enough to remember how lucky you were to get a SoK, and how the Pillar of Heroes was going to change the game in terms of FP efficiency. Now, there is no need to worry about making any type of balanced city or even care about design efficiency. Those that leveled up their Capes, BG, HC, etc have all lost value in their investment. Anything that produces FP or Goods is diminished. Just get attack buildings, to be able to cash in your GBG EBT card. Sure, you can still play the game however you want, but you and your guild are at a disadvantage to those that choose to farm.

Algona or Razorback nailed it though, if they keep getting people to buy/spend diamonds they aren’t going to change a thing. I understand why newer players are enjoying the easy ride to high level GB’s, but I would hope that long-term players would feel the same about their wasted grind over the years. What took you years to build can now be done in months. Even if you’re participating and reaping tons of rewards, just remember the small amount of gain each level of your GB’s nets for the higher investment versus someone with a GB in its infancy and the relatively massive gains they can make from that same amount of rewards.

I say all of this as someone with full access to unlimited fights on Diamond, so I’m not bitter about missing out. I think we just need to be real about the dramatic impact this mini-game has had on the larger game, or whatever is left of it.

 

[Algona]

I think we just need to be real about the dramatic impact this mini-game has had on the larger game, or whatever is left of it.

That is a topic I'd like to hear more on.

Great first post, I hope to hear more from you.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

I personally think this thread asked the wrong question. However, as stated it would seem to be reasonable for the matchups to factor in total encounters by the guild the previous week. If a 10 person guild can drop 50-100K fights between them in a BG that seems more revealing about their capabilities than their BG map placement or this arbitrary LP scale they put into place. Further, limiting rewards and battle points to only occurring once per Attrition Level might curb farming.

Great idea to address the OP question.

I’d prefer to ask the question of “why more people aren’t bothered by the deterioration of the game that GBG has brought?”. The system, as is, doubles as a glorified welfare system. GvG requires significantly more tactics and coordination, yet the only reward for years has been battle points and guild rank, neither of which significantly impacts any individual‘s game (Yes, there is some impact on guild leveling, but let’s be honest about guild level impact). They introduced a “replacement” which would engage Mobile and PC gamers alike, which is a great concept, but then decided that no one would participate if there wasn’t an inordinate amount of personal reward. Now, the game is full of lipstick warriors with 500% boosts rolling up thousands of fights and the subsequent rewards and never crossing 40 attrition. It’s merely an exercise in who can sit and tap the longest. No real skill, no real strategy, no real test in ability. We might as well have a 75% chance of rewards for aiding, with a no limit friends list. I’ve played long enough to remember how lucky you were to get a SoK, and how the Pillar of Heroes was going to change the game in terms of FP efficiency. Now, there is no need to worry about making any type of balanced city or even care about design efficiency. Those that leveled up their Capes, BG, HC, etc have all lost value in their investment. Anything that produces FP or Goods is diminished. Just get attack buildings, to be able to cash in your GBG EBT card. Sure, you can still play the game however you want, but you and your guild are at a disadvantage to those that choose to farm.

It does seem that fp should be more difficult to produce than it is. I think the "fp-cash cow" aspect of GBG is self-perpetuating. The stronger a player gets the more they can participate in GBG, the more they participate the stronger they get. Same with GE but GE is limited to 64 encounters per 6 days and by the level of ToR. If GBG is "self-prepetuating" than stronger guilds can get stronger faster than the weaker guilds. I think part of the statement "work hard and get a stronger guild" that is forgotten is that the stronger guild is also getting stronger. The question is, as these posts indicate, can the gap ever be closed? If not and something is not changed, then this problem will be self-prepetuating.

Algona or Razorback nailed it though, if they keep getting people to buy/spend diamonds they aren’t going to change a thing.

Agree. But the players and guilds facing the unbalanced match-ups can effect this. Stop buying/spending diamonds until it is addressed.

I understand why newer players are enjoying the easy ride to high level GB’s, but I would hope that long-term players would feel the same about their wasted grind over the years. What took you years to build can now be done in months. Even if you’re participating and reaping tons of rewards, just remember the small amount of gain each level of your GB’s nets for the higher investment versus someone with a GB in its infancy and the relatively massive gains they can make from that same amount of rewards.

I am working on evaluating this statement. Granted I cannot unlearn what I have learned, so I cannot be a new player again. But I did start a new city to just see how long it takes to get to certain points. The first mark is a L80 arc. As we know an L80 arc gets medals for expansions and bps for free. So far I have 5 event buildings, spent no diamonds, put all fp towards the arc (expect for about 1000 fp when 1.9 spots were not claimed). I will make L80 today. Day #263. With that said, I can only complete a few battles in GBG per day. The same age 8v8 attrition 0 army is actually quite a challenge. In GE you do not face this army until the second level.

 

[wiserpenny]

I know it means nothing directly for matching in GBG. It is possible to get a high number without building, Zeus, CoA, CdM, and TA without which your ability to fight is severly compromised.

And funny enough ive found my way into a guild with very few serious fighters who finishes top 4 every 1,000 diamond season without allying with the top guilds... these people have done it through heavy amounts of negotiations through goods purchases. Not a long term approach and seasons we are the #1 and permit swaps i always lead scoring as a fighter. These guys are putting up solid #s and making it work with approaches most wouldnt do. Just an example of how it can be done when it wouldnt appear possible

 

[Joeyjojojo]

@Bearded James I like your post over all but this statement seems off:

...Those that leveled up their Capes, BG, HC, etc have all lost value in their investment. Anything that produces FP or Goods is diminished. Just get attack buildings, to be able to cash in your GBG EBT card...

While it's true that GBG does reduce the value of FPs overall, those FPs are used for...levelling GBs, and a lv70+ Cape is still worth having, especially since it is now, per the rest of your post, much easier to get. Moreover, it is still the case that players doing 1000+ advances/GBG season are actually quite rare in the game overall. Lots of players--even active players--just log in, collect and spend then log out and do very little GBG if any. I do a good number on one world and probably half that at most on any other, but mostly less than 100 attacks/season. It doesn't bother me that others do more. I think the deterioration effect is mostly an issue for players who are trying to be competitive with the top players/guilds.

But I did start a new city to just see how long it takes to get to certain points.

@Tony 85 the Generous: I started an IA city in O back in March to kind of do the same thing, though I'm not moving it out of IA and I did focus on getting the 3 main attack GBs plus Traz up and to lv10 before I really started pushing Arc, but I got that Arc to lv80 a few weeks back. It is so much easier now to do that (my last new city was when Y server was opened). Personally, I think the event buildings have done more to really change things than GBG. I think I was playing for a year and a half before my first city's FP production was over 100/day. I'm approaching 200/day on this new one plus GE and GBG.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

@Tony 85 the Generous: I started an IA city in O back in March to kind of do the same thing, though I'm not moving it out of IA and I did focus on getting the 3 main attack GBs plus Traz up and to lv10 before I really started pushing Arc, but I got that Arc to lv80 a few weeks back. It is so much easier now to do that (my last new city was when Y server was opened). Personally, I think the event buildings have done more to really change things than GBG. I think I was playing for a year and a half before my first city's FP production was over 100/day. I'm approaching 200/day on this new one plus GE and GBG.

I built Oracle from the quest line. I believe Zeus was also part of a quest. Then focused on the Arc. Now all bps are free. I will stay in IA until I have all the medal expansions. I am just short of 100fp/day on my test city. As mentioned in another thread, I have found small snipes available (not a lot, not consistant, but available) in IA and most players are appreciative to get the help raise the gb level.

To the biggest statement in your post,

I think the event buildings have done more to really change things than GBG.

I would agree. I NEVER felt the need to build ToB. Once I had the first event building, my neighborhood of houses was mostly torn down. By the second event building, they were completely gone. To that add, the fp generation. Not only do I think the event buildings change the status quo more than GBG. They do with each event. IMO, I'd like to see Inno increase the difficulty in getting the event buildings after the event. Again IMO, the ability to get the event building outside the event decreases the value of completing or participating in the event

 

[Wishful Sinful]

@Joeyjojojo - By no means did I intend to infer that a high level CC, HC, SC, BG, etc. was a bad thing and not worth investing in, as certainly they are nice to have. What I meant by diminished is simply that they aren’t what they used to be and that in the olden days when we had to forge uphill both ways in the snow, building these up was a real grind. You spent months turning your daily collection and sniping profit to raise them up. Because collections were smaller (and your best hope was a 100FP Relic in GE) this took much longer. So even if you’ve spent an extra year playing and building, your reward or gain for that extra time is diminished because you were gaining/growing at an inferior rate to someone starting after you.

I will agree that event buildings have impacted the game as well. I pulled the top 20 FP event buildings/sets (disregarding long tracks or trains which are highly variable in length) and they produce 87% more FP than the SoK standard of years ago for the same space/roads. They also usually carry some secondary benefit such as Goods or Attack Boost. To me though, these mainly serve to eliminate the need for “standard“ era-specific buildings for things like Pop/Hap/Sup/Coins/etc. which has always been achievable by building GB‘s like Cap/IT/LoA/SMB/etc. Even with all the FP increase and side goodies of event buildings they are still mostly limited in quantities without diamonds, and to me this still pales in comparison to the farming profit opportunity that exists within GBG. Every fight you can do in Diamond nets on average 1.69FP, 1.21 Goods, .12 Troops, and .25 Diamonds. If you can even get to 100 fights in a day, that’s 170FP and 120 Goods which is better than 2 decently leveled Capes. Many people, with even a reasonable amount of boost, can get well beyond that with Camps.

My experience might be skewed, but in terms of players that are active and really get the game, a high percent of them are in top guilds and racking up ample fights per session. My assumption is that anyone interested in a discussion on the dynamics of GBG is more on the dedicated side and likely does what they can to maximize fights. I don’t imagine that those more casual players care about inequities or imbalance in the game, and frankly I’m not sure why they are playing if not to try and optimize their city and do their best. While I say that as someone that believes in doing whatever you do as perfectly as you can, I have no misunderstanding that their are any winners in this game, other than Inno. It still seems odd to ignore a facet of the game that propels you forward, and in this case a glitch code level facet.

I was interested in exactly what you described in your IA city and shifting to build up Attack vs FP. Speaking strictly from an FP return, Cape has always been the hands down winner. It takes 248 Days to get all your FP back from L70 (Assuming 1.9 per slot). CdM to L70, on the other hand, takes 453 days. However, you get 60% on both boosts for Attack with the CdM. Does that boost help you do an extra 21 fights each day of GBG to offset the daily collection gap? If it allows you to do 30 extra per day, you not only cover the daily collection gap, but in 10 battlegrounds, you’ve also erased the base cost difference between the two and it only takes 232 days to pay for your CdM. The FP comparison will get hazy with Zeus and CoA since their secondary rewards aren’t FP, but you can imagine a similar exercise where the boost benefit in GBG outweighs things like Kraken, HS, IT, etc. You can also imagine how this transfers on down to the event buildings people choose. Things like the Pirate Ship, Fire Pagoda, Wolf HoH, etc. become the only reasonable option as the minimal FP or Goods gap can be made up thanks to improved performance in GBG.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

I was interested in exactly what you described in your IA city and shifting to build up Attack vs FP. Speaking strictly from an FP return, Cape has always been the hands down winner. It takes 248 Days to get all your FP back from L70 (Assuming 1.9 per slot). CdM to L70, on the other hand, takes 453 days. However, you get 60% on both boosts for Attack with the CdM. Does that boost help you do an extra 21 fights each day of GBG to offset the daily collection gap? If it allows you to do 30 extra per day, you not only cover the daily collection gap, but in 10 battlegrounds, you’ve also erased the base cost difference between the two and it only takes 232 days to pay for your CdM.

The rate on the CdM can be further reduced by the ability to fight through GE and obtain fp rewards. The more fighting through GE, the less negotiation, the less supplies and goods taking up space, the more fp you can produce, the more you can reduce the rate on CdM. Buildings like CdM and AO have a secondary benefit to which a variable (debatable but not zero) value can be placed.

 

[Agent327]

@JoeyjojojoWhat I meant by diminished is simply that they aren’t what they used to be and that in the olden days when we had to forge uphill both ways in the snow, building these up was a real grind. You spent months turning your daily collection and sniping profit to raise them up. Because collections were smaller (and your best hope was a 100FP Relic in GE) this took much longer. So even if you’ve spent an extra year playing and building, your reward or gain for that extra time is diminished because you were gaining/growing at an inferior rate to someone starting after you.

That you call the "olden days"

In the real "olden days" GB's maxed out at lvl 10.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

@JoeyjojojoWhat I meant by diminished is simply that they aren’t what they used to be and that in the olden days when we had to forge uphill both ways in the snow, building these up was a real grind. You spent months turning your daily collection and sniping profit to raise them up. Because collections were smaller (and your best hope was a 100FP Relic in GE) this took much longer. So even if you’ve spent an extra year playing and building, your reward or gain for that extra time is diminished because you were gaining/growing at an inferior rate to someone starting after you.

While true, so what? What impact does that have on your city?

 

[Wishful Sinful]

While true, so what? What impact does that have on your city?

I‘m not claiming impact on my city, merely on the game as a whole. It goes to a general sense of fairness where players aren’t as rewarded for their past commitments and any gaps in strength they worked, maybe even paid, to build is being eroded by a severe escalation in reward within the game. More troubling is how this escalation is concentrated in one specific area of the game.

While this game has grown in breadth and scope to consume more player time, it has eliminated much of the challenge of a true “civilization building“ experience which I don’t personally see as good for game, regardless of tenure.

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

-

 

[Agent327]

And food. this game has nothing resembling food. LOL

Convenience Food in ME.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

I‘m not claiming impact on my city, merely on the game as a whole. It goes to a general sense of fairness where players aren’t as rewarded for their past commitments and any gaps in strength they worked, maybe even paid, to build is being eroded by a severe escalation in reward within the game. More troubling is how this escalation is concentrated in one specific area of the game.

While this game has grown in breadth and scope to consume more player time, it has eliminated much of the challenge of a true “civilization building“ experience which I don’t personally see as good for game, regardless of tenure.

I don't get this point. You enjoyed the progress you made during the time you made it, you've lost nothing. In fact, having progressed to the point you did prior to the introduction of GBG set you up to reap much higher rewards from GBG than any noob could hope.

There is nothing 'unfair' about the power creep. Except maybe the long time players have benefited from higher FP generation for longer than any noob could hope. Your years of investment let you reap for years, years of playing has allowed you to benefit from the power creep for years, and playing since before GBG set you up to reap bigger rewards from GBG since the beginning.

While the noob cities might grow faster than they did in the past, so do established cities, at a rate far faster than the noob. The rich get richer, then complain about how unfair it is. Seems you are having a true “civilization building“ experience.

 

[Wishful Sinful]

This really wasn’t the main point that I attempted to make, but the advantage over other players in getting rewards is the guild you find yourself in, their participation, their treasury, and their willingness to spend diamonds. The extra amount of bonus between a 5 year player and 2 year player doesn't really matter if neither of you have to cross 40 attrition. Using these same two players, when they both get 500FP in rewards, which one does that help notably more? It‘s a fraction of a level for the 5 year person and potentially a full level or more for the 2 year person. But let’s assume your perspective is right, GBG is disproportionately helping more advanced cities. I would think that you would find that equally disconcerting.

I agree with you that power creep isn’t necessarily unfair, unless it is unchecked and non-linear. Event buildings started doing this quasi-gradually and GBG took it to another (exponential?) level. We now have a system of uncontrolled power creep, at least until you reach the very low ROI levels of GB’s (80+).

The point I was trying to focus on is that GBG, a mini game that was supposed to be a supplemental component of the larger game, is now the preeminent means for growth and dwarfs every other aspect of the game. You have the ability to churn out 1000+ FP per day just through this channel, even as a moderately developed city. That same moderately developed city probably gets 400-500FP out of their daily collection. Perhaps, you (and others) view that as a positive, I find it alarming and a bad design for game mechanics. Thus, my full support in nerfing rewards, battle points, camps, etc. to bring an emphasis back to developing efficient and balanced cities and not designing cities to support a singular component.

”Civilization Building” is Inno’s terminology, not mine.

 

[wiserpenny]

MO, I'd like to see Inno increase the difficulty in getting the event buildings after the event. Again IMO, the ability to get the event building outside the event decreases the value of completing or participating in the event

From what i’ve seen you usually have to wait a year before you can get the previous year’s building. As long as they keep a cool off like that it doesnt seem unreasonable.

 

[wiserpenny]

mini game that was supposed to be a supplemental component of the larger game,

Says who? I’d bet inno sees mobile players as a growing proportion. Even PC players play mobile part time. Notice how they havent brought GvG mobile... seems inno thinks of GBG as more than just a supplement. The settlements are a supplement. GBG is a major component whether you like it or not.

Just wait until they start messing with prestige and weighing GBG success more and more... all that GvG work that happens only for score / prestige will matter less. I can’t wait to see how those conversations go on here!

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

-

 

[wiserpenny]

Guild limit personal gain to some amount per season. (

Huh??? Like... “no jimmy... you reached your encounter max for the day have to stop.” Is this a real problem? Most guilds have requirements to hit minimums