When can we stop pretending GBG is balanced?

[Tony 85 the Generous]

you compete for the spots and if you fail, get better

6000 players competing for 400 spots, and your solution is to get better? Again the problem is not getting better, the problem is catching a moving target.

How about some suggestions that would reduce the necessity to be one of the top 800 players in a world or alternatively a suggestion that would that would not require a player to be a part of the top 20 guilds. There are many ways to 'expand' the top 20, or reduce the necessity to be part of the top 20. For example, add anononimity and fog of war to GBG to prevent alliances then you don't have to be in the top guilds or part of the alliance in order to try to compete.

blame yourself instead of the system

The "system" (more precisely, the change to the system) is what has precipiated the problem and this discussion. The system is the root cause. Let's discuss root cause fixes rather than symptomatic patches.

 

[icarusethan]

6000 players competing for 400 spots, and your solution is to get better? Again the problem is not getting better, the problem is catching a moving target.

How about some suggestions that would reduce the necessity to be one of the top 800 players in a world or alternatively a suggestion that would that would not require a player to be a part of the top 20 guilds. There are many ways to 'expand' the top 20, or reduce the necessity to be part of the top 20. For example, add anononimity and fog of war to GBG to prevent alliances then you don't have to be in the top guilds or part of the alliance in order to try to compete.


The "system" (more precisely, the change to the system) is what has precipiated the problem and this discussion. The system is the root cause. Let's discuss root cause fixes rather than symptomatic patches.

no, the root cause is you cant be top 800 player

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

no, the root cause is you cant be top 800 player

Is not a cause, it is an effect or a result.

What appears to be a cause, may just be the effect of another cause which is actually the effect of another cause. Hence 'root cause'. There is a simple test to determine if you have dug to the root cause. Just ask why or what. Why must you be a top 800 player or what is the need to be a top 800 player? The need to be in the top, is to join the top guild. That might be the cause. To check test again. Why must you be in the top guild or what is the need? To be in a competitive guild in GBG. Is that the root cause? Test again. Nope still not it. So keep going. When you cannot come up with an answer to the question, then you have reached the bottom, or have found the root cause.

I'm glossing over the fact that you cannot fit 6000 players into 800 spots, nor that you can ever catch up to be in the top 800 making the approach as much irrelevent as impractical and impossible (disregarding players quitting the game, of course)

 

[icarusethan]

Is not a cause, it is an effect or a result.

What appears to be a cause, may just be the effect of another cause which is actually the effect of another cause. Hence 'root cause'. There is a simple test to determine if you have dug to the root cause. Just ask why or what. Why must you be a top 800 player or what is the need to be a top 800 player? The need to be in the top, is to join the top guild. That might be the cause. To check test again. Why must you be in the top guild or what is the need? To be in a competitive guild in GBG. Is that the root cause? Test again. Nope still not it. So keep going. When you cannot come up with an answer to the question, then you have reached the bottom, or have found the root cause.

I'm glossing over the fact that you cannot fit 6000 players into 800 spots, nor that you can ever catch up to be in the top 800 making the approach as much irrelevent as impractical and impossible (disregarding players quitting the game, of course)

you can keep going with the word game all you want. the moral of the story is that you and others who complain about the system never have the ability to get to the top tier of the system so you wanna do a complete overhaul. Thats not how reality works, neither should it work this way in this game.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

the moral of the story is that you and others who complain about the system never have the ability to get to the top tier of the system

Now you are getting close. Why? because you are chasing a running target and can never catch up unless they quit. The only way to catch the top players and guilds is by player attrition.

I don't want and am not asking for

a complete overhaul.

All that is being sought is a few tweaks (at least by me) that would improve the aspect of the game at hand (GBG) to make it more enjoyable. As it stands now, if you are not in one of the top tier guilds or able to ally with them then GBG becomes a complete smack down and waste of time (not to mention the animosity being cultivated between the guilds which is detracted from the social aspect of the game, instead of enhancing it). There have been several simple suggestions put forth in this thread that would alleviate much of the problems of GBG.

 

[icarusethan]

Now you are getting close. Why? because you are chasing a running target and can never catch up unless they quit. The only way to catch the top players and guilds is by player attrition.

I don't want and am not asking for

All that is being sought is a few tweaks (at least by me) that would improve the aspect of the game at hand (GBG) to make it more enjoyable. As it stands now, if you are not in one of the top tier guilds or able to ally with them then GBG becomes a complete smack down and waste of time (not to mention the animosity being cultivated between the guilds which is detracted from the social aspect of the game, instead of enhancing it). There have been several simple suggestions put forth in this thread that would alleviate much of the problems of GBG.

The only way to get rich is wait until all rich people die, I see your logic. Carry on

 

[Agent327]

(not to mention the animosity being cultivated between the guilds which is detracted from the social aspect of the game, instead of enhancing it)

Very weak argument. Same animosity is created by GvG and pundering.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

Same animosity is created by GvG and pundering.

Probably true. But I can only comment on GBG since I haven't met any guilds that do GvG. With more guilds able to do GBG, I would expect the problem to be growing. Point in fact, until GBG I wasn't aware of any issues between guilds.

 

[Peeking Turtle]

you can keep going with the word game all you want. the moral of the story is that you and others who complain about the system never have the ability to get to the top tier of the system so you wanna do a complete overhaul. That's not how reality works, neither should it work this way in this game.

A few adjustments are not a “complete overhaul” the current system is in other words flawed, it is obvious, and all know this. In an 8-guild competition why should it be possible for 2 Guilds to lock out all other competition, the “system” is now only 25% participation. I do not rely on a paycheck from this game, but that reduction will not attract interest from new players nor create “stronger” more improved players considering the rewards it provides.

“Top Tier” Guilds has been stated quite a bit here, so you are either top or nothing? game will not grow! Players will look for a more competitive game they can participate in. These “Top Tier” Guilds are creating less and less competitive players and simple interest taking advantage of the current “system.”

I have seen a lot of comments regarding balancing of match ups, this would alleviate that concern as you will never find a true balance between top and bottom competition. So, it really would not matter who you are now paired with as it would be more challenging to lock out your competition entirely, not impossible just more challenging.

The only argument against these sector timings would be from the “top tier” as now it would be more challenging to you to control the entire map and dictate guild placements and that is it. I wonder why I see top tier complaints about slow competition sometimes, well guess if you keep everyone else in a box so easily how could any competition get stronger? Yes, there are other game aspects so let us just keep it to the GBG point.

Anyway, in all there seems to be plenty of concern from all players regarding the current system, so Inno should be concerned with that and at least do some Beta testing on a few ideas:

• Sector timings from 30 minutes to 4 hours
• Add more world match ups like in GE, why not?
• 
  
• 
  
• Obviously, all players suffer attrition to a level where they can not continue so no lower powered Guild or player could keep attacking every 30 minutes and no Large Guild could continuously defend it. At least now you have a competitive arrangement and Guild matching really would not matter, toss in more random Guilds from other worlds would be an interesting twist on alliances.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

Obviously, all players suffer attrition to a level where they can not continue so no lower powered Guild or player could keep attacking every 30 minutes and no Large Guild could continuously defend it.

You are not taking in to account the effect of siege camps or alliances. With the right sectors and SCs in the right place a single player can take multiple sectors per day, even in platinum and diamond leagues (I have personally done it. Repetitive as all heck, but I have done it). With SCs and alliances accounted for, reducing the lock time of a sector from 4 hours to 1/2 hour would increase the availability of rewards 8-fold.

toss in more random Guilds from other worlds would be an interesting twist on alliances.

The only effect of going cross-world would be an increase in cities in those worlds in order to enable communication within the alliance. Cross-world GBG would have no effect on the game play, only on the number of cities in each world (talk about server loading LOL).

 

[RazorbackPirate]

These “Top Tier” Guilds are creating less and less competitive players and simple interest taking advantage of the current “system.”

Same as it is in GvG, which in just a few years dropped to 5%, in large part because of the 'top guilds'. How much does participation need to fall in GBG before Inno realizes there's an issue?

I don't know the answer to the issues, but I can agree there are issues. I can't imagine Inno foresaw the farming game GBG has become, but it eats diamonds. Hopefully at a slower rate with participation dropping, to me, the only thing that will get Inno to make adjustments.

On the Arch Event Q&A stream, the Devs did say GBG adjustments are on the road map, I'll leave it to them to deal with the specifics. I've seen a few ideas on this thread I hope Inno sees and takes note of, but I won't pretend to have the answer.

GBG is great if you're interest is farming lots of FPs, but if you're interest is actual competition, not so much.

 

[Ironrooster]

Anyway, in all there seems to be plenty of concern from all players regarding the current system,

Not from all players, only a few. There really aren't that many posting here.

Personally, I have no issues with the current system.

 

[My Push Account]

GBG is great if you're interest is farming lots of FPs, but if you're interest is actual competition, not so much.

This. Might be one of the biggest differentiators between types of players. Those that play strictly for growth or to kill time/socialize and those that were looking for another type of challenge. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

While GBG eats diamonds, it also does a decent job of spitting them out, too.

 

[Agent327]

Probably true. But I can only comment on GBG since I haven't met any guilds that do GvG. With more guilds able to do GBG, I would expect the problem to be growing. Point in fact, until GBG I wasn't aware of any issues between guilds.

So? Without playing GvG you are not able to figure out that players and Guilds might do the same they do in GBG? And plundering is totally new to you?

 

[Peeking Turtle]

You are not taking in to account the effect of siege camps or alliances. With the right sectors and SCs in the right place a single player can take multiple sectors per day, even in platinum and diamond leagues (I have personally done it. Repetitive as all heck, but I have done it). With SCs and alliances accounted for, reducing the lock time of a sector from 4 hours to 1/2 hour would increase the availability of rewards 8-fold.

Not possible would be my argument (but a test would need to be done), as all you need to do is disrupt one of the sectors a guild needs for SC support as a Guild needs X amount of support for 0% attrition, since you can not defend or retake a sector you own then A the competition takes it , B yes your alliance can take it but it would disrupt your checkerboard pattern of supports on other sectors and due to the timing patterns could further disrupt the inner patterns depending on the competitors success or penetration inward. You could now increase the rate of fighting and attrition rate of your competitors (finally) and would slow the reward process somewhat. Imagine the other 6 guilds actually now have a chance to participate and do this. However in my initial statement there may be a few outboard sectors that would provide the ability for a constant 30 minute flip (depending on SC supports) without any sacrifice or disruption to a 2 guild surrounding alliance. These "Jackpot" sectors could simply still be disrupted with the loss of a holding position. Would definitely be an interesting test to see how it's disruptive or manipulated but the 4 hour synchronization of all sectors is what is allowing for total map lockdown with ease.


The only effect of going cross-world would be an increase in cities in those worlds in order to enable communication within the alliance. Cross-world GBG would have no effect on the game play, only on the number of cities in each world (talk about server loading LOL).
[/QUOTE]

Possible, but if I were the developer, then I would want that rather than watching the worlds die down. The expectation of new cities logically would bring more income to support those "new" server upgrades LOL. I'd only be interested in working the best deal for my group with the Guilds you are matched with, I don't see myself opening another city. The hardcore gamers here who are on every 4 hours 24/7 may feel they need to do that.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

as all you need to do is disrupt one of the sectors a guild needs for SC support as a Guild needs X amount of support for 0% attrition, since you can not defend or retake a sector you own then A the competition takes it , B yes your alliance can take it but it would disrupt your checkerboard pattern of supports on other sectors and due to the timing patterns could further disrupt the inner patterns depending on the competitors success or penetration inward. You could now increase the rate of fighting and attrition rate of your competitors (finally) and would slow the reward process somewhat. Imagine the other 6 guilds actually now have a chance to participate and do this. However in my initial statement there may be a few outboard sectors that would provide the ability for a constant 30 minute flip (depending on SC supports) without any sacrifice or disruption to a 2 guild surrounding alliance. These "Jackpot" sectors could simply still be disrupted with the loss of a holding position. Would definitely be an interesting test to see how it's disruptive or manipulated but the 4 hour synchronization of all sectors is what is allowing for total map lockdown with ease.

In the simulations I have performed, I am not seeing any difference in the amount of ground to be gained by the allied guilds or the pinned guild. Even when I enter a random alliance screw up and allow the 'pinned guild' to gain an extra sector, nothing changes. While that is actually correct (nothing changes with the sectors), something does change with the fighting and sector changing hands when going from 4 hours to 1/2 hour. In the 1/2 hour simulation the fighting of the "weaker" guild dies off by the 3rd sector swap. In short, there is no difference because attrition and lock time are mutually exclusive. All guilds and players are limited by attrition, not by the time the sectors are locked.

An example to clarify (these are not the exact numbers from the simulation, but simplified for the sake of discussion)
Setup:
- diamond league (160 hits per sector)
- three equal guilds (one pinned, two allied)
- each with 60 members
- two members max out at attrition 1-30 (two players fight to attrition 1, two players to attrition 2, ... two player fight to attrition 30; as I said simplified).

This gives 930 "attrition points" to each guild. But that is not the number of attacks, just the total maximum attrition of each guild.
If guild A is pinned against the two-layer SLs blockade they have no SC support, and therefore can only take 5 sectors (5.8 to be exact) sectors per day (930/160).
Guild B and C have the same number of "attrition points" but with SC support. With a single SC they can take 7.2 sectors, 2 SC=8.6, 3 SC=9.99, and 4 SC = 11.39 sectors per day.

First: timing, there is no way to beat the two-layer SL blockade unless one of the allied guilds drops the ball.
Second: hits per guild or sectors per day, there is no way to out swap a guild that can produce more hits per day.

I have left out the effect of negotiating, but I did some simulations with it. If used equally per guild, it has a linear increase in the number of hits for all guilds (ie., there is no benefit, advantage, or disadvantage).

In the end, shortening the lock time increased the number of rewards for the players in the alliance and did nothing (help or hurt) the pinned guild.

Thank you for the idea. All the ideas are fun to play with and see what effect they have on the outcome of a season or on a guild.

the 4 hour synchronization of all sectors is what is allowing for total map lockdown with ease.

The lockdown is a product of two layer checkboard softlock pattern enabled by alliances. Time is irrelevent.

The only effect of going cross-world would be an increase in cities in those worlds in order to enable communication within the alliance. Cross-world GBG would have no effect on the game play, only on the number of cities in each world (talk about server loading LOL).

Possible, but if I were the developer, then I would want that rather than watching the worlds die down. The expectation of new cities logically would bring more income to support those "new" server upgrades LOL. I'd only be interested in working the best deal for my group with the Guilds you are matched with, I don't see myself opening another city. The hardcore gamers here who are on every 4 hours 24/7 may feel they need to do that.

I do not see any new income being generated. Point in fact, if that was implemented I see myself having a bronze age city in every world with just enough tech researched to make friends and chat. The cities would not even need to be part of a guild. But since I have the cities, perhaps I turn them all into diamond mines, which further fails to provide any income to Inno but requires them to provide the server capacity to support it.

 

[Peeking Turtle]

In the simulations I have performed, I am not seeing any difference in the amount of ground to be gained by the allied guilds or the pinned guild. , something does change with the fighting and sector changing hands when going from 4 hours to 1/2 hour.

An example to clarify (these are not the exact numbers from the simulation, but simplified for the sake of discussion)
Setup:
- diamond league (160 hits per sector)
- three equal guilds (one pinned, two allied)
- each with 60 members
- two members max out at attrition 1-30 (two players fight to attrition 1, two players to attrition 2, ... two player fight to attrition 30; as I said simplified).

First: timing, there is no way to beat the two-layer SL blockade unless one of the allied guilds drops the ball.
Second: hits per guild or sectors per day, there is no way to out swap a guild that can produce more hits per day.

I have left out the effect of negotiating,

Well I don't have GBG simulator, but I can tell you if you input "all" of the "variables" you will see the outcome is much different, To start there are 5 other Guilds not being accounted for. You can't leave out negotiating , the current "fort Knox" lock out design will be penetrable into the 1st ring if done correctly. You could greatly increase the rate of fighting of the 2 high powered Guilds at higher attrition rates which could wear them down attrition wise, let alone an increase in goods cost in sector take backs to maintain camp supports they may need for inner layers, so they would need to be a little more cautious on their defense.
It's not entirely non-defendable nor not penetrable , you can't assume only 3 guilds are participating. Anyway it would be more competitive than the current design.
As far as opening other worlds I'm assuming doing so for a communication channel if they did introduce mix world set up like in GE, to solve that they could put in some type of "live chat" and "private group" feature of those Guilds competing on the map, that might be a little more challenging programming maybe.
Anyway hopefully there are some changes soon as Razorback mentioned they commented On the Arch Event Q&A stream. Currently mid-high range Guilds are bouncing in and out of leagues and getting stonewall matched with same Guilds every other session which breaks down to 22 days a month of being able to do practically nothing- boring and not interesting, doesn't seem like something I would design if I were a developer, just my opinion.

 

[Dokro the Third]

Honestly, I think they should implement a change where your home base has 3 sieges at all times. This will allow the weaker guilds a chance to push off from the edge and disrupt the timing of the guilds swapping. With the CF being nerfed, Guilds can't endlessly farms Goods to build SC's every time they take a sector. They may need to strategically build in the future which may make things more interesting.

However, right now it is set-up for the larger Guilds to bully the smaller ones. Every once and awhile you can make a push off the edge to disrupt the map, but with limited attrition left, you are bound to be pushed back to the edge.

If you could avoid alliances, I believe GbG would be a blast. Unfortunately, that is an impossibility and I don't see a quick fix to make it more competitive. I say give home bases some siege power and leave everything else as is.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

Well I don't have GBG simulator, but I can tell you if you input "all" of the "variables" you will see the outcome is much different, To start there are 5 other Guilds not being accounted for. You can't leave out negotiating , the current "fort Knox" lock out design will be penetrable into the 1st ring if done correctly. You could greatly increase the rate of fighting of the 2 high powered Guilds at higher attrition rates which could wear them down attrition wise, let alone an increase in goods cost in sector take backs to maintain camp supports they may need for inner layers, so they would need to be a little more cautious on their defense.

If you haven't done any simulation or calculations, then you cannot say that

if you input "all" of the "variables" you will see the outcome is much different

You may think it will work, the math shows otherwise (barring the 2 blockading guilds screwing up). If I am missing a variable (other than negotiating which would be applied equally to all guilds and therefore would be irrelevent), please let me know what it or they are.

I also noticed you cut out the section in the quote of my post regarding "attrition points" which is key to how many attacks a guild can do per day. I used 8 equal guilds, only three of which really matter in the region where one is pinned into the HQ. The ability to plant SCs has a large effect on the rate at which attrition is increased (either per player or for the guild as a whole). It does not matter what the lock time is for the sectors. if each tier has the same lock time.

Here's the 2 layer SL sequence of events.
-Guilds 2 and 3 have formed a to layer softlock around guild 1 at A4-A, having taken and softlocked (guild 2 takes A3V and guild 3 takes A2S)
-Guild 1 takes A3V when it unlocks
-Guild 1 begins to attack A2S
-Guild 3 closes the softlock on A2S before Guild 1 takes it and before A3V unlocks.
-Guild 1 is now hemmed in. Nothing to attack.
-A3V opens, Guild 3 takes it. Guild 1 loses the flag on A2S and is back to their HQ
-A2S opens, Guild 2 establishes a soft lock

Rinse, repeat (just swap guild 2 and 3), and continue for 11 days.

NOTICE there is no time mentioned in the above sequence. The two layer softlock blockade is independent of time. The blockading guilds have the advantage of SCs which increases and enables them to maintain the blockade. Since the total amount of attrition available per guild does not change based on the lock time, then there is no help to the guild under seige by shortening the lock time. Guild 1 burns attrition 1:1 whereas guilds 2 and 3 burn attrition at no more than 0.76:1 (24% more attacks possible per day for guild 2 and 3). These examples are done with even strength guilds. Chances are the pinned guild is not equally as stronger (ie., able to accumulate the same number of attrition points per day), which now puts a larger differential between guild 1 and guild 2 and 3. If guild 1 can accumulate only 90% of that of guild 2 or 3, then guilds 2 and 3 have at least 34% more hits per day over guild 1.

I'm sorry to say that shortening the lock time will have no effect on GBG other than to require players to be online in GBG more. But it only takes 1 player to close a soft lock.

Thanks for the idea it was interesting to work through and try to make it have an advantage.

If you have any details on

the current "fort Knox" lock out design will be penetrable into the 1st ring if done correctly.

and what is the "correct way". Please provide the details, I am especially curious as to how it differs from above.

It's not entirely non-defendable nor not penetrable , you can't assume only 3 guilds are participating. Anyway it would be more competitive than the current design.

 

[The Lady Redneck]

It would be far easier if they were to Accept that is is a new Farming aspect of the game. It has nothing to do with battling. Change the name from Guild Battle Ground to Guild Common Ground. A Communities Common land is where everyone can take their animals to graze and even do co-operative farming. Give us a GB called The Forge where we could beat our swords into ploughs and hoes. Could also add a Building that produced tractors, combine harvesters etc instead of military vehicles. Also change some of the rewards to suit the new theme. That should be easy enough for the designers to do surely.