• 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?

Yugi the 7empest

Active Member
I am trying to learn how the pairing system works and on what criteria it is based on. Something does seem "off" about it though. This is solely my subjective observation, but it seems that when pairing, the most obvious discrepancies are overlooked. My current guild is somewhat small, with 38 members and only one member above 100 mil points. We are paired up with 3 other guilds with 60+ members and each with 25+ players with 100 mil points or higher. On paper, we don't belong in the same zip code as these heavy hitters, and that is painfully obvious, yet here we are. And what is worse, there are 2 other guilds smaller than us in that grouping. No one in their right mind would pair these 6 guilds on the same field and consider parity attained, so again, it "feels" like the pairing formula is missing the forest for the trees. Kind of like if some fancy algorithm based on theoretical physics showed that a 3rd grade kid could compete with Shaq one on one. "But the numbers are right there, it should work!" Meanwhile, everyone with common sense is saying, "Dude, it's Shaq and a 3rd grader, let's be real here"
 
Last edited:

Agent327

Well-Known Member
GVG is fatally flawed plain and simple. Today, within 15 minutes one guild controlled the map, within 30 minutes they controlled 20 sectors or 3200 attrition which roughly speaking is 40 attrition for every member of their 80 member guild minus the buildings they placed.

Point being within 15 minutes a 12 day event was decided, most players will put the GVG on ignore and move on with their game farming a few battles/trades per day.

There is no attrition in GvG.
 

qaccy

Well-Known Member
I am trying to learn how the pairing system works and on what criteria it is based on. Something does seem "off" about it though. This is solely my subjective observation, but it seems that when pairing, the most obvious discrepancies are overlooked. My current guild is somewhat small, with 38 members and only one member above 100 mil points. We are paired up with 3 other guilds with 60+ members and each with 25+ players with 100 mil points or higher. On paper, we don't belong in the same zip code as these heavy hitters, and that is painfully obvious, yet here we are. And what is worse, there are 2 other guilds smaller than us in that grouping. No one in their right mind would pair these 6 guilds on the same field and consider parity attained, so again, it "feels" like the pairing formula is missing the forest for the trees. Kind of like if some fancy algorithm based on theoretical physics showed that a 3rd grade kid could compete with Shaq one on one. "But the numbers are right there, it should work!" Meanwhile, everyone with common sense is saying, "Dude, it's Shaq and a 3rd grader, let's be real here"
It doesn't really matter how the matchmaking system works. The guilds that go heavy in GBG don't care about 'competition' because that 'competition' actually makes BGs worse for them. BGs are more about the personal rewards than anything else. No matter what the matchmaking system looks like, the guilds that go hard on GBG are going to work out how to farm the most personal rewards for their members. Doesn't matter if it's one big guild in a BG with a bunch of small guilds or several large guilds together. Those end-of-season rewards and 'competition' aren't even a concern because there's essentially zero reason to play a BG that way once your guild is done climbing up to diamond league.
 

MJ Artisan of War

Well-Known Member
BIG fan of this new match-making randomization... We got paired with our sister guild and had the entire map totally checker-boarded by round two.
The battles, points, and other goodies are rolling in every four hours like clockwork... mmm mmm good...
 

Tony 85 the Generous

Well-Known Member
today within 15 minutes one guild controlled the map, within 30 minutes they controlled 20 sectors
There are a lot fo details missing to describe this situation. One guild took 20 sectors in 30 minutes. Check. They have lock all the other guilds into their base holding only 20 sectors. Only possible if they ran a ring around tier 3 and captured little else besides those 16 sectors. One guild controls 20 sectors, who controls the other 30 -ish? 52-ish sectors on the map and one guild controls 20 sectors and blocks the other 7 guilds into their base?
If it is a solo guild that managed to rush the map with no ally or softlocks, pushing back will not be difficult (foregoing any traps they may leave in their wake). The only defense possible in GBG to pin a guild is softlocks which requires to guilds.
 

BpTexas

New Member
The new algorithms are more skewed than before. In the previous system, at least for the most part powerful guilds would be matched with powerful guilds. A strategy even developed to intentionally place 4th, 5th, or 6th, but still stay in Diamond, and the next round you'd be place against a more appropriate guild. It wouldn't cut your total number of battles either. Now, the number 1 guild could be matched against a guild that luckily made just enough points to get into the Diamond League. And the weaker guild will not be matched against other guilds similar who had the strength to crawl into Diamond. More unfair than before, but does give a nod to Big guilds only

BIG fan of this new match-making randomization... We got paired with our sister guild and had the entire map totally checker-boarded by round two.
The battles, points, and other goodies are rolling in every four hours like clockwork... mmm mmm good...
Since it's random, you have an equal chance of getting matched against a guild that has no business even being in the Diamond. Guilds should be matched closer to the GE matching system

There is no attrition in GvG.
He obviously meant GbG....LoL

I am trying to learn how the pairing system works and on what criteria it is based on. Something does seem "off" about it though. This is solely my subjective observation, but it seems that when pairing, the most obvious discrepancies are overlooked. My current guild is somewhat small, with 38 members and only one member above 100 mil points. We are paired up with 3 other guilds with 60+ members and each with 25+ players with 100 mil points or higher. On paper, we don't belong in the same zip code as these heavy hitters, and that is painfully obvious, yet here we are. And what is worse, there are 2 other guilds smaller than us in that grouping. No one in their right mind would pair these 6 guilds on the same field and consider parity attained, so again, it "feels" like the pairing formula is missing the forest for the trees. Kind of like if some fancy algorithm based on theoretical physics showed that a 3rd grade kid could compete with Shaq one on one. "But the numbers are right there, it should work!" Meanwhile, everyone with common sense is saying, "Dude, it's Shaq and a 3rd grader, let's be real here"
Your right no one would pair those guilds together, and it fly's in the face of common sense. The new system is indeed worse than the old system. Some powerful guilds are happy, because on many maps they will have zero competition, but it's worse than ever

And you need to comment about every post I make. Your point?
[/QUOTE
To many posts ignore the obvious, so it seems we need some wisdom posted.
 

MJ Artisan of War

Well-Known Member
Powerful guilds do not want zero competition on any GbG map.
They want one other powerful guild they can play checkerboard with...
The weak guilds get to watch... Rule of the jungle...
No... Wait... Jungle is GE... Well, You get the idea...
Just improve to where powerful guilds want You...
Then You will suddenly become a big GbG fan....
 

icarusethan

Active Member
Your right no one would pair those guilds together, and it fly's in the face of common sense. The new system is indeed worse than the old system. Some powerful guilds are happy, because on many maps they will have zero competition, but it's worse than ever
get better as a guild/ individual player then you can fix that, before that, crying me river
 

Yugi the 7empest

Active Member
get better as a guild/ individual player then you can fix that, before that, crying me river
It's alot of work to be successful in the top guilds since you have to watch the map like a hawk and set those alarms every 4 hours. If you are even a few minutes late, those tiles are flipped. Granted, I would much rather deal with that than hoping for a 3rd ring tile once or twice a day. I'm in the top guild in A and it runs like a well oiled machine. But, it's not a place where you can just pop in once or twice a day and expect to make the cut. I give alot of props to those players who are successful at those levels, cause it takes work.
 

UP ONLINE

Active Member
GBG in not fare most times I must restart the Negotiation not every one has $$ to buy Diamonds to get Another turn
use Medals or 3x goods rate to gat another turn
 

CDmark

Well-Known Member
I always wondered, what if GBG got rid of all the buildings, no sieges, no traps, nothing, just pure attrition based advances. I know top guilds will still do good but smaller guilds may have a better chance to at least get rewards? This is an open question, to see what forum folks think. I didn't do any search and apologize if it has been discussed. The reason I wonder this idea, way back, Dec 5, 2019, a GBG Q&A (I mentioned in another thread), Marcel went into them increasing attrition from 100 to 150, I believe. That video I couldn't view earlier this evening, seems to be missing on facebook. Developers were surprised people were exceeding their maximum after looking at the first season. He said attrition was there so it would limit players from playing all day. We all know how it is played now, the siege camps make it so not many actually see high attrition.

Other thought I had, remove siege camps and traps completely, just watch towers and decoys, a scaled down version of fortresses. So, some limit on the attrition % chance of reduction, but never can you have no attrition, maybe a 50% maximum reduction.
 

The Lady Redneck

Well-Known Member
that's what 90% of the forum people think they can do :) that's why you can see all these posts poping up daily around here
Not just the forum people. A lot of folks who never come near the forums refuse to "see" the game as it really is. All they are used to are fast action kill 'em all and get the end game prize and move on to the next game type thing. They want it to be something you throw a load of cash at, spend a quick 5 minutes a day and be top dog running a top guild within a month at the most. When that does not work they throw a hissy fit. Some get in touch with support DEMANDING it get changed to be what they want as they know best. Others just try to bully their way through or start a new guild that is going to show us all how the game should work because we have got it all wrong. Some even end up buying high level accounts to short cut the game. They spend a lot of cash in their efforts to prove this and fail, so write a whiney review and stop playing.
 
Last edited:

BpTexas

New Member
get better as a guild/ individual player then you can fix that, before that, crying me river
LoL...So A high school team doesn't deserve the same chance as a college team. They need the opportunity to get batter, but the system is unbalanced, so they can't get better....Hello! Hello!

It's alot of work to be successful in the top guilds since you have to watch the map like a hawk and set those alarms every 4 hours. If you are even a few minutes late, those tiles are flipped. Granted, I would much rather deal with that than hoping for a 3rd ring tile once or twice a day. I'm in the top guild in A and it runs like a well oiled machine. But, it's not a place where you can just pop in once or twice a day and expect to make the cut. I give alot of props to those players who are successful at those levels, cause it takes work.
Actually, some of the more powerful guilds do stop in very infrequently. They take the whole map, and then sit there and "French fry in their own fat." Many players have gravitated to these guilds, because the computer algorithms make it impossible for some guilds to succeed even if your watching the map 24/7. It's like matching a college team to a high school team.

I always wondered, what if GBG got rid of all the buildings, no sieges, no traps, nothing, just pure attrition based advances. I know top guilds will still do good but smaller guilds may have a better chance to at least get rewards? This is an open question, to see what forum folks think. I didn't do any search and apologize if it has been discussed. The reason I wonder this idea, way back, Dec 5, 2019, a GBG Q&A (I mentioned in another thread), Marcel went into them increasing attrition from 100 to 150, I believe. That video I couldn't view earlier this evening, seems to be missing on facebook. Developers were surprised people were exceeding their maximum after looking at the first season. He said attrition was there so it would limit players from playing all day. We all know how it is played now, the siege camps make it so not many actually see high attrition.

Other thought I had, remove siege camps and traps completely, just watch towers and decoys, a scaled down version of fortresses. So, some limit on the attrition % chance of reduction, but never can you have no attrition, maybe a 50% maximum reduction.
I always thought that there should be a League above Diamond, with the SCs costing maybe 10-30 K apiece, but for the smaller or weaker guilds SC cost would remain low. In any case, it should be set up as a real competition.
 

icarusethan

Active Member
LoL...So A high school team doesn't deserve the same chance as a college team. They need the opportunity to get batter, but the system is unbalanced, so they can't get better....Hello! Hello!
go back to high school league then, why you wanna be in college league and complain you cant win?
 

wolfhoundtoo

Well-Known Member
I always wondered, what if GBG got rid of all the buildings, no sieges, no traps, nothing, just pure attrition based advances. I know top guilds will still do good but smaller guilds may have a better chance to at least get rewards? This is an open question, to see what forum folks think. I didn't do any search and apologize if it has been discussed. The reason I wonder this idea, way back, Dec 5, 2019, a GBG Q&A (I mentioned in another thread), Marcel went into them increasing attrition from 100 to 150, I believe. That video I couldn't view earlier this evening, seems to be missing on facebook. Developers were surprised people were exceeding their maximum after looking at the first season. He said attrition was there so it would limit players from playing all day. We all know how it is played now, the siege camps make it so not many actually see high attrition.

Other thought I had, remove siege camps and traps completely, just watch towers and decoys, a scaled down version of fortresses. So, some limit on the attrition % chance of reduction, but never can you have no attrition, maybe a 50% maximum reduction.


That would make more room for more guilds presumably but why the question really is why hasn't Inno changed it already? Could be they are slow but it would seem likely that they see some benefit in the current format for them (i'm assuming revenue wise but obviously I have no data on that). There are a few posts i seem to remember earlier in the thread on this if you wanted to go back and look.
 
Top