Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

[Algona]

Participation, Size, and Quality of players are the three factors that will determine a Guild's success in GBG.

A shortage of any of these will put a Guild at a serious disadvantage.

----------

Because of attrition Quality of players is the least important of the factors but is still important. My startup city, 5 months old in IA, is able to do about 25 Advancements a day. That's a quarter of the amount players with 200 times my RP and years more time building their city are doing.

Is Size or Participation the more important factor? I see them as coequal pending meaningful evidence. I suspect there will a lot of debate over that question for a long time.

By interesting happenstance each of my three worlds demonstrate the importance of each factor:

Spoiler

Startup world 8 Guilds, 80, 80, 80, 80, 79, 63, 47, 46.

The Guild with 63 players has significantly more higher rated players then the other Guilds. Guess which Guild is doing best?

Spoiler

5 Guild with no additional Provinces and have accumulated 0, zip, nada, no Points between them Members? 80, 80, 80, 80, 79.

The Guild with 4 Provinces has 46 members, My Guild has 9 Provinces and 63 players. The 47 member Guild has 35 Provinces.

A clear case of Participation being the dominant factor while Quality is a minor factor and Size has no bearing on the outcome.

My experimental city 6 Guilds 59,51, 45, 45, 29, 27. The Guild with 27 players has significantly more higher rated players then the other Guilds. Guess which Guild is doing best?

Spoiler

# of members amd current Points 27 77K. 51 72K, 29 25K, 45 18K, 45 9K, 59 1K.

A clear case of Quality and Pparticipation dominating while Size doesn't seem to be significant.

My main city: 8 Guilds 6 with 70+ members, 59, and 57.

No spoiler here, this is a bruital League with 5 of the top 10 Guilds in the world and dozens of 100+ Meg RP players. 1 Guild has 75K points, 5 have between 23 and 27 K points, 1 has 17K 1 has 8K points.

The 4 and 6 ranked Guilds are the Guilds with 57 and 59 members

This has been a lot of fun to play. I joined GBG 90 minutes after launch, the entire map had been taken. The team in the lead was dominating the map early on but there has been a lot of back and forth with various teams dominating the map at various times, Province Buildings constantly being built and torn down, and slowly cutting into what I thought was an insurmountable lead.

With a week to go it could be an interesting race. I can't wait to see some serious diplomacy. By diplomacy I mean back room deals and sneak attacks and betrayals and backstabbing and treachery...

This League is the perfect balance of Size, Quality, Participation. I expect it is what Diamond Leagues will look like when the dust settles down.

A footnote:

I started writing this post to refute this post:

It's not about winning or losing, it's about being worthwhile. GE is worthwhile because if your guild is active, no matter the size, it benefits both the player and the guild. Seems to me that GBG is going to fail to live up to that. It is geared towards the players with hyper-leveled GBs, just like most of the game anymore. And that sucks. Because if you don't choose to adopt the hyper-leveling playstyle, you're out in the cold for too many of the game features. All of which comes back to the Arc. Again.

But writing the above showed me SL has the right of it except for one minor point. It's not the individual player that matters, it's the totality of the Guild.

Quality, Participation, Size. The Guilds who excel at all three will be fighting up in Diamond, while those who don't will still be able to make of GBG what they want.

 

[Emberguard]

Is that for the whole guild or each individual has to get 40 advances for a reward ???

Should be whole guild

From the announcement:

Why inactive guilds are gaining rewards as well?

• They're not! A guild that is too inactive will get no rewards at all. They have to do a certain amount of actions to be eligible for the reward.

When the battleground ends, guild members earn a reward according to the performance of their guild and their current league.

Also when the dev was discussing the requirement in beta they were talking in relation to capturing at least a single province from the lowest league (40 advances).

8. If the business model of InnoGames is solely dependent on diamond sales, then why do they chronically fail to provide detailed game instructions that would facilitate the use of diamonds? It seems to me that they are sabotaging their own business that way.

Almost all of those questions were included in the announcement and a pretty big portion of it in the game itself


1. Does a successful negotiation count for twice as much as a battle victory? If so, why didn't InnoGames tell us that?

negotiation provides more than one advance as it takes more time and resources to complete.

2. What is the exact formula for a guild's total victory points? [&] 3 When are victory points accrued? Continuously? At the top of the hour? When?

Ingame explanation (popup that was available when first visiting GBG. Also available when clicking the question mark in the rankings popup)

Spoiler

Ingame Info:


Province output:

Once per hour, each province that a guild holds will provide victory points.

4. What formula is used to determine the placement of members on the Member Activity chart?

negotiation provides more than one advance as it takes more time and resources to complete.

1+1 = 2
so two negotiations + one fight = total

Not explicitly stated in regards to member ranking but there is a reasonable connection there


5. How many building slots are on each province? If the number varies, then what is the probability of each possible number?
Open a province and click on "building"

Spoiler

Spoiler

Each province can have from 0 to 3 slots on which buildings can be constructed.

6. Can the number of building slots be increased? If so, then how?
No.

it’s possible to cancel the construction or remove a building at any time to free the slot for another

7. Can the removal of a building immediately complete the siege of an opponent?
If the building is increasing the amount needed for the province then yes because then those increased advancement slots no longer exist. That perhaps could have been stated in the announcement but once you see it's added to the total instead of not counting every third advance it should be fairly easy to conclude the answer.

 

[DeletedUser40996]

Malice: the intention or desire to do evil; ill will. The definition fits you well.
I didn't ask you to join my guild.
I am pointing out the fact that the Founders need the option to know what is going on in their Treasury and have the ability to dole out responsibility just like they do in Guild vs. Guild fighting.

AFAIK you need to give permissions to BUILD the buildings it's not necessary to restrict who can start a siege since that costs personal goods or troops in a battle game no less

 

[DeletedUser40996]

By making my guild have to pass out permission to each member to start battles. Your idea is an extra and superfluous step in the process: everyone can start battles now, why force guilds to pass out new permissions to every member to get back to where we are now? It's unnecessary. It also doesn't seem to fit the apparent design philosophy, which was to create a guild experience that literally everybody could participate in according to their own schedule and play style. No recal times, no need for all fighters to be on at the exact same time; players in various time zones can play it when they want to. Your suggestion is a step backwards towards GvG design.

EDIT: Why do you two keep insulting Malice?

Because they can't handle an opinion that differs from theirs

 

[BruteForceAttack]

Currently, it looks like unless you defeat an army the army wont change.

E.g Lets say i face 8 Heavy units and I decide to negotiate instead of fighting. Even after successfully negotiating next round I will encounter the same 8 heavy units. I think it works same way for negotiation as well.

Please consider refreshing the army for new encounter.

 

[DeletedUser6425]

I thought this was "Guild Battlegrounds" not "Guild Negotiations". Our map is being dominated by a guild who is negotiating all of their battles and has control of 28 provinces and more in the works. Seems like this attrition only works with guilds that actually fight for provinces. Here again guilds with money to waste will win everything. I thought this was going to be a battleground for warriors, I was so wrong.

 

[DeletedUser37581]

I thought this was "Guild Battlegrounds" not "Guild Negotiations". Our map is being dominated by a guild who is negotiating all of their battles and has control of 28 provinces and more in the works. Seems like this attrition only works with guilds that actually fight for provinces. Here again guilds with money to waste will win everything. I thought this was going to be a battleground for warriors, I was so wrong.

Funny you should mention that. I only negotiate. And unlike a lot of other people, I only negotiate with goods that I can replenish. A lot of other negotiators are complaining about how they are now out of goods.

I just now participated in the conquering of a province. I was able to complete 3 successful negotiations before the province was conquered. The fighters just totally dominated the action. My guild is just barely leading a field that consists of the top guilds in the world - and I daresay that most of those guilds are dominated by fighters too.

 

[DeletedUser4491]

Would like to suggest two features:

Give the ability for founders /battleground leaders to delete sieges

Take away the ability of anyone but founders / battleground leaders to lay sieges

we're running into a terrible amount of wasted fights and an inability to direct our guild on correct sectors to siege due to anyone being able to attack whatever sector they'd like.

 

[BruteForceAttack]

Would like to suggest two features:

Give the ability for founders /battleground leaders to delete sieges

Take away the ability of anyone but founders / battleground leaders to lay sieges

we're running into a terrible amount of wasted fights and an inability to direct our guild on correct sectors to siege due to anyone being able to attack whatever sector they'd like.

And there is no control on who can place the siege and no log on who put the siege and no info on who is currently fighting.

 

[DeletedUser]

Would like to suggest two features:

Give the ability for founders /battleground leaders to delete sieges

Take away the ability of anyone but founders / battleground leaders to lay sieges

we're running into a terrible amount of wasted fights and an inability to direct our guild on correct sectors to siege due to anyone being able to attack whatever sector they'd like.

Yeah, but it doesn't cost the guild anything, so what's the big deal?

 

[DeletedUser40996]

Would like to suggest two features:

Give the ability for founders /battleground leaders to delete sieges

Take away the ability of anyone but founders / battleground leaders to lay sieges

we're running into a terrible amount of wasted fights and an inability to direct our guild on correct sectors to siege due to anyone being able to attack whatever sector they'd like.

FFS learn BETTER COMMUNICATION THEN . A large guild might have the ability to have some kind of leader on 24/7 but with 1000's of guilds on every world the smaller guilds that some players prefer won't have that ability

 

[DeletedUser40996]

Yeah, but it doesn't cost the guild anything, so what's the big deal?

The big deal is so the big guilds can totally dominate like they do in GvG because it would shut the smaller but active guilds out of participation if their leader/founder isn't available to start sieges after sector x gets conquered

 

[UBERhelp1]

The big deal is so the big guilds can totally dominate like they do in GvG because it would shut the smaller but active guilds out of participation if their leader/founder isn't available to start sieges after sector x gets conquered

? He was supporting your point by asking what those changes would accomplish

 

[DeletedUser33052]

, when crossworld GbG starts, it will be very interesting like GE is now.

, was this question answered, maybe Im missing reply?

 

[DeletedUser40996]

? He was supporting your point by asking what those changes would accomplish

Missed that . I've just woken up and hadn't yet had morning caffeine when I posted why imo it's such a "big deal" to those clamoring to have permissions to start sieges on sectors in the GbG

 

[DeletedUser37581]

, was this question answered, maybe Im missing reply?

What's the question? Your post looks like a statement of something that is very unlikely to happen.

 

[Harbinger963]

Request for feature:

Battleground Log: add details for player actions for fights and negotiations. Would like to see:

1) who placed siege on a sector.

2) who is fighting/negotiating on that sector

3) who completes/wins the siege.

to manage the display, only option 1) is shown by default. User then clicks on the icon to open up a drill down showing activity on that sector. details should show player, time, fight or negotiate. An icon is sufficient, as can use for fight and something else for negotiate.

this is ONLY for own guild. Not interested in other guilds activity as the flag/banner provides sufficient details.

 

[DeletedUser40996]

Request for feature:

Battleground Log: add details for player actions for fights and negotiations. Would like to see:

1) who placed siege on a sector.

2) who is fighting/negotiating on that sector

3) who completes/wins the siege.

to manage the display, only option 1) is shown by default. User then clicks on the icon to open up a drill down showing activity on that sector. details should show player, time, fight or negotiate. An icon is sufficient, as can use ⚔ for fight and something else for negotiate.

this is ONLY for own guild. Not interested in other guilds activity as the flag/banner provides sufficient details.

What's the purpose ??? Does it matter who's fighting where as long as the guild is communicating and not fighting multiple places at once .

 

[Algona]

Control freaks coming out of the woodwork.

I dig you want to optimize effort intp a tactical and strategic cohesive whole, but these ideas of controlling who does what when? In a fluid environment? To change your Guildies into good little Napoleonic Era soldiers to march in unison? Is it that big a thrill to yell, "Ready! Aim! Fire!"

Hey, if you can talk folk into yielding to that sort of regimentation, good for you.

But asking INNO to enable such?

pffft.

As always, don't ask INNO to change the game to make up for your deficiencies. In this case leadership and communication skills.

Or in the case of the whiners who are whining about negotiators have the advantage! Or fighters have the advantage.

It's the people who are good at either that have the advantage.

Geez, nothing like a new game aspect to transform folks brains into dooky.

Didn't we hear all this nonsense with GE?

 

[Harbinger963]

What's the purpose ??? Does it matter who's fighting where as long as the guild is communicating and not fighting multiple places at once .

So then tell me that if what you just said is NOT happening, and that the guild IS fighting in multiple places, how I can find out who is NOT paying attention to the guild communications.

if someone completes a siege when we have explicitly said NOT to complete the siege, how do I find out who did exactly did what we told them not to do?

Your response actually answers your own question.