Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

[Super Catanian]

Fighting is usually much faster as well.

It depends on whether you are autobattling or not. I sometimes do it, but tend to fight manually. It takes me longer to fight, since the strategy required to win a battle with minimal casualties is greater than negotiating.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[DeletedUser37581]

One advance by fighting equals one point, One advance by negotiating equals two points.

Or more accurately, one encounter by fighting yields one advance. One encounter by negotiating yields two advances.

 

[Myrddindau]

Recruit more members to your guild, or expect to languish in silver. You needn't get huge--the 2nd place finisher in my gold league had 27 members-but 11 isn't likely to be competitive there. Why would you expect it to be?

The GBG has turned into a joke as predicted. The concept of "attrition" simply means bigger guilds have an overwhelming advantage against smaller guilds - no matter how active the smaller guild is on the GBG. The answer is not to "recruit more members" as many guilds choose to remain small. In order to equalize or make the GBG more competitive between varying sized guilds, the "attrition" limitation needs to be completely eliminated or scaled to to the size of the guild (i.e. larger guilds have higher attrition than smaller guilds). Since the concept of attrition is already an artificial brake on the game (not to mention that it completely abrogates the time/investment players made developing their respective military boosts), at least scaling it to guild size (preferably completely eliminating it) will increase competition by allowing guilds of all sizes to directly compete with against each other. As it stands now, "recruiting more members or languishing in silver" is not a constructive way to address a system problem as it effect all guilds of medium or small size.

At this point, my guild simply fights for player benefits and does not focus on the rankings (hey Innogames...this means we do not spend diamonds trying to negotiate sectors). It also means that my teammates are starting to lose interest in the game because attrition makes fighting against much larger guilds a gesture in futility. In lieu of encouraging more participation, it may have the opposite effect.

 

[Agent327]

The GBG has turned into a joke as predicted. The concept of "attrition" simply means bigger guilds have an overwhelming advantage against smaller guilds - no matter how active the smaller guild is on the GBG. The answer is not to "recruit more members" as many guilds choose to remain small. In order to equalize or make the GBG more competitive between varying sized guilds, the "attrition" limitation needs to be completely eliminated or scaled to to the size of the guild (i.e. larger guilds have higher attrition than smaller guilds). Since the concept of attrition is already an artificial brake on the game (not to mention that it completely abrogates the time/investment players made developing their respective military boosts), at least scaling it to guild size (preferably completely eliminating it) will increase competition by allowing guilds of all sizes to directly compete with against each other. As it stands now, "recruiting more members or languishing in silver" is not a constructive way to address a system problem as it effect all guilds of medium or small size.

At this point, my guild simply fights for player benefits and does not focus on the rankings (hey Innogames...this means we do not spend diamonds trying to negotiate sectors). It also means that my teammates are starting to lose interest in the game because attrition makes fighting against much larger guilds a gesture in futility. In lieu of encouraging more participation, it may have the opposite effect.

If it's a Guild's choice to stay small they should accept they can not compete with bigger Guilds. It is totally ridiculous to ask Inno to do something about that. That is the real joke here.

 

[DeletedUser]

The GBG has turned into a joke as predicted. The concept of "attrition" simply means bigger guilds have an overwhelming advantage against smaller guilds - no matter how active the smaller guild is on the GBG. The answer is not to "recruit more members" as many guilds choose to remain small. In order to equalize or make the GBG more competitive between varying sized guilds, the "attrition" limitation needs to be completely eliminated or scaled to to the size of the guild (i.e. larger guilds have higher attrition than smaller guilds). Since the concept of attrition is already an artificial brake on the game (not to mention that it completely abrogates the time/investment players made developing their respective military boosts), at least scaling it to guild size (preferably completely eliminating it) will increase competition by allowing guilds of all sizes to directly compete with against each other. As it stands now, "recruiting more members or languishing in silver" is not a constructive way to address a system problem as it effect all guilds of medium or small size.

At this point, my guild simply fights for player benefits and does not focus on the rankings (hey Innogames...this means we do not spend diamonds trying to negotiate sectors). It also means that my teammates are starting to lose interest in the game because attrition makes fighting against much larger guilds a gesture in futility. In lieu of encouraging more participation, it may have the opposite effect.

If it's a Guild's choice to stay small they should accept they can not compete with bigger Guilds. It is totally ridiculous to ask Inno to do something about that. That is the real joke here.

I don't say this often (if ever) but I have to agree with Agent here. I lead a small guild on V world, and we accept the fact that we won't succeed any higher than Gold. No logical reason that we should be able to compete with larger guilds.

 

[DeletedUser30312]

If it's a Guild's choice to stay small they should accept they can not compete with bigger Guilds. It is totally ridiculous to ask Inno to do something about that. That is the real joke here.

Exactly.

Besides, a guild doesn't automatically get an advantage from being bigger, it has to actively participate in GBG and coordinate its efforts. Smaller guilds that know how to do GBG will still do well against large guilds that just screw around.

 

[Algona]

bigger guilds have an overwhelming advantage against smaller guilds - no matter how active the smaller guild is on the GBG.

Agreed completely.

That Guild of 28 casual players none with over a million RP half not playing anymore has a HUGE advantage over that Guild with 14 active players most over 2M RP one of whom is the number 8 player in that world. Like, say, you. No wonder you want to get rid of attrit.

Congrats on growing your Guild from 11 to 14 since your last post.

Your Guild Prestige has increased with each passing BattleGround. You've been steadily doing well to the point you're the third highest ranked Gold Guild. Why are you whining?

Whatever.

(hey Innogames...this means we do not spend diamonds trying to negotiate sectors)

Right, Wait. What? You would spend Diamonds on Negotiations?

If you aren't spending Diamonds now when you are up against average to slightly above average competition how much will your 14 members spend when the competition is easier?

Pretty damn sure that if you get your way and play against only Guilds about your size, most of whom your Guild could easily dominates, especially without attrit ,you wopuld never spend any Diamonds.

What a load of self serving dooky.

 

[DeletedUser37581]

On us14 (chosen at random), there are 30 guilds of size 5 or smaller competing in gold league, and several of them have only 1 member. There is a guild with 6 members competing in platinum.

 

[Damocles 653 the Lucky]

Or more accurately, one encounter by fighting yields one advance. One encounter by negotiating yields two advances.

Ya I get that. And it wasn’t in here that I read it.
This is what I am talking about: “Guilds are actually ranked by the total number of advances they make. 1 fight = 1 advance while 1 negotiation = 2 advances. They don’t show this number on either screen but that is what determines whether a guild moves up, stays or moves down a league, not the ranking or points.”
Is this true?

 

[DeletedUser37581]

Ya I get that. And it wasn’t in here that I read it.
This is what I am talking about: “Guilds are actually ranked by the total number of advances they make. 1 fight = 1 advance while 1 negotiation = 2 advances. They don’t show this number on either screen but that is what determines whether a guild moves up, stays or moves down a league, not the ranking or points.”
Is this true?

Players are ranked by advances. Guilds are ranked by victory points. (On the Guild Battlegrounds leaderboard/member activity window).

Edit: Placement of the guild on the battlefield (1st, 2nd, etc.) at the end of a season determines the amount of adjustment to that guild's MMR. MMR determines a guild's league.

 

[barra370804]

On us14 (chosen at random), there are 30 guilds of size 5 or smaller competing in gold league, and several of them have only 1 member. There is a guild with 6 members competing in platinum.

I'm on us14, which guild is the 6 person one?

 

[DeletedUser37581]

I'm on us14, which guild is the 6 person one?

the big o

 

[barra370804]

the big o

wow, 5 members.

 

[Agent327]

Ya I get that. And it wasn’t in here that I read it.
This is what I am talking about: “Guilds are actually ranked by the total number of advances they make. 1 fight = 1 advance while 1 negotiation = 2 advances. They don’t show this number on either screen but that is what determines whether a guild moves up, stays or moves down a league, not the ranking or points.”
Is this true?

No, totally false.

A guild moves up, stays or moves down a league based on MMR.

 

[DeletedUser28727]

We can argue and debate all these things as much as we want - the bottom line is:
1. Guild leaders have no control or way of tracking who is attacking who. And they should.
2. MMR is a nice, nut flawed idea.

I'm in a guild of just over 40 and we do fine when up against guilds our size. However more often than not we are put on a map
with guilds with 70 and above members. When that happens those guilds dominate the map. True enough that a small guild of very active
players will out perform a large guild with casual players. However the larger the guild, the greater the percentage of active players. Evidence
shows that larger guilds win top spots.

GBG is flawed and nobody seems to care. More worried about the cutesy research graphics..

 

[barra370804]

Guild leaders have no control or way of tracking who is attacking who. And they should.

As a guild leader that specifies in GBG, I disagree.

MMR is a nice, nut flawed idea.

Again, I disagree. One week you might do well, the next week, not so much. It all balances out.

I'm in a guild of just over 40 and we do fine when up against guilds our size. However more often than not we are put on a map
with guilds with 70 and above members. When that happens those guilds dominate the map.

Who cares? The rewards between first and last place are not very different.

 

[DeletedUser28727]

okay - you have an agreement with another guild to not attack each other. One of your flags goes
up showing a siege on that guild. How do you tell, specifically, who set that siege? I've talked to many
in other guilds and they all have the same complaint - you can't tell who is attacking who at the province
level.

 

[DeletedUser37581]

We can argue and debate all these things as much as we want - the bottom line is:
1. Guild leaders have no control or way of tracking who is attacking who. And they should.
2. MMR is a nice, nut flawed idea.

I'm in a guild of just over 40 and we do fine when up against guilds our size. However more often than not we are put on a map
with guilds with 70 and above members. When that happens those guilds dominate the map. True enough that a small guild of very active
players will out perform a large guild with casual players. However the larger the guild, the greater the percentage of active players. Evidence
shows that larger guilds win top spots.

GBG is flawed and nobody seems to care. More worried about the cutesy research graphics..

Why do you feel that a good small guild should be able to beat a good large guild? Or even compete together?

The way MMR works is that a guild that does good will be matched with tougher opponents. A guild that does poorly will be matched with easier opponents. What's unfair about that?

 

[DeletedUser28727]

Why do you feel that a good small guild should be able to beat a good large guild? Or even compete together?

Never said that.

 

[BruteForceAttack]

okay - you have an agreement with another guild to not attack each other. One of your flags goes
up showing a siege on that guild. How do you tell, specifically, who set that siege? I've talked to many
in other guilds and they all have the same complaint - you can't tell who is attacking who at the province
level.

Proposal already submitted.

Guild BattleGrounds "Log" Enhancement

Proposal: The Guild Battleground log should include a list of sectors attacked and the guild members names doing the attacking. . Current System: Currently the log only shows things like Special bldgs. constructed, Lost sectors, Conquered sectors etc. Details: Knowing who in your guild is...

forum.us.forgeofempires.com