• 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

When can we stop pretending GBG is balanced?

HEXylresorcinol

Active Member
I agree with the original post here. . For super guild's to take over the entire map in a few hours demonstrates the need for a better structure or way of pairing the competition. Some of the super-guilds seem to be nothing more than a collection of people who was here when the game first started. Congratulations to these people that dedicated the time and effort to achieve the positions you have, but Inno should also be trying to encourage newer players of the game to enjoy participating in GbG, The enjoyment of playing this game is advancing your city and GbG prizes are some of the best ways to do that.

I'll have to agree with @Pericles the Lion here. It depends on what world you're in, but in Tuulech (US19), it is very easy to join a top GBG guild once you have a level 80 Arc. I joined my current guild after 3 months of playing, and we're strong enough to checkerboard the map 5+ times/day. Granted once you join a guild with that kind of strength, for newer players, the biggest bottleneck for taking in tons of GBG rewards is units, so unless if you were in an era where 8 artillery rules supreme and stack your city with over 30 artillery barracks, you will not fight as fast as more developed players. You may be in a world where people expect you to be in FE if you want to join the super-guilds, so you will have a different experience than me.
 

HEXylresorcinol

Active Member
My god, why would anyone think that is a better path than quickly building and leveling up a Traz?
I tried your method of just leveling a Traz, but even that's not enough. This GBG season starting with 31 Ballista barracks, a level 71 Traz, and 2.5k unattached ballista, I lost over a thousand unattached ballista in 5.5 days. If I didn't have barracks, I would be losing a lot more. If you want to fight fast, you need a high attack bonus or be willing to lose a lot of troops. As a newer player who doesn't spend money on this game, the first option is not available to me.
 
Last edited:

Kranyar the Mysterious

Well-Known Member
I tried your method of just leveling a Traz, but even that's not enough. Last GBG season starting with 31 Ballista barracks, a level 71 Traz, and 2.5k unattached ballista, I lost over a thousand unattached ballista in 5.5 days. If you want to fight fast, you need a high attack bonus or be willing to lose a lot of troops. As a newer player who doesn't spend money on this game, the first option is not available to me.
Are you trying to go way above 30-40 attrition? That is a recipe for disaster in IA. I only had my Traz at level 21 back when I was in IA, and still averaged over 2500 battles a season and always maintained over 10k unattached ballista. That valuable 270 spaces that are being taken up with barracks could give you a ton of attack bonus. That's 17 expansions worth!!!
 

HEXylresorcinol

Active Member
Are you trying to go way above 30-40 attrition? That is a recipe for disaster in IA. I only had my Traz at level 21 back when I was in IA, and still averaged over 2500 battles a season and always maintained over 10k unattached ballista. That valuable 270 spaces that are being taken up with barracks could give you a ton of attack bonus. That's 17 expansions worth!!!
Well I have no more attack buildings to put in, so the next best thing to put in that space is ballista camps. But yes, I was trying to fast-fight at 35 attrition. Perhaps doing 1,000 fights a day also does the trick.
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
You know, this isn't a feedback or advice thread...nor is it a thread about who's in what league in GBG. It's a thread devoted to discussing what's wrong with GBG. The last several posts (and probably many more) are way off topic. I'm not going to report them all because then I'm doing someone else's job. But I'm unwatching this thread because I don't care about GBG league stats, or the best way to "fight fast" (not really fighting, just auto clicking) or any other tips/advice/stats about GBG. The rest of you, carry on.
 

HEXylresorcinol

Active Member
To get back on the topic of balancing GBG, I think one way to make checkerboarding (which seems to be the concern on many worlds since it locks out the guilds not in the checkerboard agreement) more difficult and promote strategies that require more guilds to get involved with the action is to randomize the province lock timers. If province lock timers are at possibly minimum 4 hours, and at maximum 8 hours, there is a good time window for other guilds to break the checkerboard. Granted this will be bad for guild leaders since checkerboarding was used to reduce online time and prevent burnout, but I hope this allows for more varied strategies and perhaps different battlegrounds buildings to be used. If one province building out of 9 is used way more than the others, and one kind of map control is used when two strong guilds are on the map, clearly there is something wrong with balance.
 

Pericles the Lion

Well-Known Member
Countless suggestions have been made relative to making GBG more of a level playing field yet INNO has turned a deaf ear. IMO, this is because guilds checkerboarding the map 5x daily are spending a lot of diamonds rushing siege camps on the outer rings. That, and the fact that a lot of players are spending diamonds to boost their attack % so that they can be competitive in GBG.
 

Tony 85 the Generous

Well-Known Member
Countless suggestions have been made relative to making GBG more of a level playing field yet INNO has turned a deaf ear. IMO, this is because guilds checkerboarding the map 5x daily are spending a lot of diamonds rushing siege camps on the outer rings. That, and the fact that a lot of players are spending diamonds to boost their attack % so that they can be competitive in GBG.
That is not unlikely train of thought on their end. There is also the opposite side where some will not spend diamonds until it is addressed. The corallary to that would be, not only would more spend diamonds if the issues were addressed, but those spending and those not currently spending may buy and spend more diamonds. I for one, do not spend any diamonds in GBG and I know a bunch more doing the same. That's only little ol' me. How many more are there out there not spending on GBG because of the poor match ups?
 

Pericles the Lion

Well-Known Member
That is not unlikely train of thought on their end. There is also the opposite side where some will not spend diamonds until it is addressed. The corallary to that would be, not only would more spend diamonds if the issues were addressed, but those spending and those not currently spending may buy and spend more diamonds. I for one, do not spend any diamonds in GBG and I know a bunch more doing the same. That's only little ol' me. How many more are there out there not spending on GBG because of the poor match ups?
You make a good point. However, INNO can easily see how many players spend diamonds to rush SCs and how many players spend diamonds to increase their attack boost. Certainly, they can also see the players that are exclusively F2P. What they cannot see is how many players that are not spending on SCs, or attack buildings, that would spend if the GBG "issues were addressed". Bird in the hand, eh?
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
That is not unlikely train of thought on their end. There is also the opposite side where some will not spend diamonds until it is addressed. The corallary to that would be, not only would more spend diamonds if the issues were addressed, but those spending and those not currently spending may buy and spend more diamonds. I for one, do not spend any diamonds in GBG and I know a bunch more doing the same. That's only little ol' me. How many more are there out there not spending on GBG because of the poor match ups?
How many diamonds are 'little ole' you and the 'bunch more doing the same' spending in FoE outside of GBG regularly? 'Cause I have a theory that unless one is spending diamonds on the regular now, maybe having spent them on the regular in GBG at one time before they became disillusioned, aren't going to suddenly change their established behaviors no matter what changes happen. I also have a theory, I suspect shared by Inno, that promises of imaginary diamond purchases don't pay real salaries.

Beyond that, I see the basis of the complaints as greed, masking itself as unfairness, whatever that is. I see a whole lot of players unwilling to do what's needed to get to the top of the heap, seeing what those at the top of the heap are getting in GBG, then complaining they can't get the same with half the effort. Anyone in FoE can get to the top of a top guild in GBG if they want to, they just need to do the same things that those who are there now did to get there.

Every player is on an even playing field. The rules the same for all. The path to success in GBG is clear. If you can't or won't do what's needed to get to the top, then be happy with the rewards you get with the amount of effort you put in. Say what you will about the current system or how the top players use it, but it is a meritocracy. The best get the most. That's also where most proposals on this thread fail. They're based on penalizing those who've put in the effort and giving an advantage to those who haven't.

Could the matchups be tweaked? Maybe. Maybe even probably, but you can't hinge the argument on mythical diamond sales. Inno has way more behavioral analysis about diamond expenditures and what drives them than either of us want to know about. Without seeing the data or running the numbers as Inno has, I can tell you one thing. If after two years Inno was dissatisfied with the current rate of diamond expenditures in GBG, or had the analysis to support your claim that tweaks would mean even more, they would have made the changes.

Will they ever make changes? Who knows and who cares? The system is the way the system is and the path to success under the current system is clear. Do it, or don't.
 

Tony 85 the Generous

Well-Known Member
You make a good point. However, INNO can easily see how many players spend diamonds to rush SCs and how many players spend diamonds to increase their attack boost. Certainly, they can also see the players that are exclusively F2P. What they cannot see is how many players that are not spending on SCs, or attack buildings, that would spend if the GBG "issues were addressed". Bird in the hand, eh?
I would disagree that Inno cannot see players not spending diamonds on GBG. Inno could surely see that a player is buying diamonds and spending them outside of GBG and not inside. If I was looking at a report that shows a group of players participating in GBG, spending diamonds outside GBG and not spending diamonds on GBG, I would certainly want to know why this group exists. It should bring up the questions "what do we need to do to get those players to spend them on GBG?" or "why are they not spending them on GBG?". One of the possible answers is that some of those players are holding back spending diamonds because of issues with GBG.
 
Last edited:

Ebeondi Asi

Well-Known Member
I remember seeing a player with at least thirty archer barracks. I wondered what??? but hey! each player can do as the like. One of the fun parts of Foe is all the ways it can be played.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
I would disagree that Inno cannot see players not spending diamonds on GBG. Inno could surely see that a player is buying diamonds and spending them outside of GBG and not inside. If I was looking at a report that shows a group of players participating in GBG, spending diamonds outside GBG and not spending diamonds on GBG, I would certainly want to know why this group exists. It should bring up the questions "what do we need to do to get those players to spend them on GBG?" or "why are they not spending them on GBG?". One of the possible answers is that some of those players are holding back spending diamonds because of issues with GBG.
Who are these players? Are you one? Do they even exist? If they do, are they fighters? Inno can see that too.

As I said, Inno has way more behavioral analysis about diamond expenditures and what drives them than either of us want to know about. Do you actually think after two years Inno has not used their scary amounts of data on players to run those reports, ask, and answer those questions? If Inno had figured out how to make spenders who spend, but don't spend in GBG, spenders in GBG, Inno would have made the changes by now.

But I bet if they implemented your idea, they'd really clean up. Pots of diamonds at the end of every rainbow and no one will ever quit the game ever again.
 

Sharmon the Impaler

Well-Known Member
Who are these players? Are you one? Do they even exist? If they do, are they fighters? Inno can see that too.

As I said, Inno has way more behavioral analysis about diamond expenditures and what drives them than either of us want to know about. Do you actually think after two years Inno has not used their scary amounts of data on players to run those reports, ask, and answer those questions? If Inno had figured out how to make spenders who spend, but don't spend in GBG, spenders in GBG, Inno would have made the changes by now.

But I bet if they implemented your idea, they'd really clean up. Pots of diamonds at the end of every rainbow and no one will ever quit the game ever again.

Exactly , everything has a side consequence. Even if they gave you 2X the diamonds for every diamond you spend on GbG it still wouldn't work Diamonds would become worthless and so would what you spend them on. Power creep is a fine example of this too. I have 1846 attack and it is worth about 65% of what it was worth 2 years ago.
 

Ebeondi Asi

Well-Known Member
. I have 1846 attack and it is worth about 65% of what it was worth 2 years ago.

Two years ago, you probably were in SAM waiting for SAAB to open
Just moving up Era cuts the value of Attack boost. For example in Progressive I was king of the hill in GbG with 400 attack. But in Future 400 attack is no where near enough in GbG and I needed over 1000 just to be nearly as good in Future Era as that 400 in Progressive.
I have 1800 attack too in SAM and can beat Venus most of the time in PvP
I am certain 1800 is not nearly as good in Venus. IMO of course since I have never played in Venus Era.
 
Last edited:

B0udica

Active Member
It's been my experience that GbG is fluid, it changes throughout the week. On day 1 Guild A might own the whole map but there's no guarantee they'll hold it. Instead of complaining about balance or lack thereof focus on drumming up guild participation, having a devoted GbG thread or an app [like Discord] where folks can plan strategy and chat while fighting and of course, helping each other build/level-up fighting GBs like Traz, CdM, CoA, TA etc.
 

NWWolverine

New Member
I'd like to see a nuclear bomb option? Allowed once a day. Clears all ownership in a 2 section arc around your base. Locked from other guild attacks for 15 minutes once activated. Double attrition to attack after that for 4 hrs. I know, I know, Genius, Right? ;}
 
Last edited:

Ebeondi Asi

Well-Known Member
An idea that was put forward and ignored would be 100% attrition free all sectors touching home sector. and half attrition (free no SC needed for the first 50% , traps do not work Fortress does not affect in touching Guild home sectors nor in one away sectors
Etc in the first sector and one away from home sector of each Guild.
This would help everyone it is true. bt the main group it would help are weaker Gulds to at least be able to have some sectors. and even i they cannot compete across the whole map, they can compete among themselves for relative rewards positions. and give them more practice at taking sectors, and fighting..
 

Ebeondi Asi

Well-Known Member
Another way would be to have all sectors have three slots. But!! Sectors five away from home a Guild cannot build anything at all If something is built there and left when taken, it remains and is usable.
In sectors four away from home a Guild can build one slot only again if something is there when the sector is taken they can use it. and three away only two slot can be filled. etc. two away all slots can be filled. I think that would be a whole new dynamic in the GbG game.
I am betting the big Guilds will get it figured up easily. but it would be a different dynamic.
This also migh make three and four way play more common. rather than the usual two Guild domination.
 
Last edited:
Top