• 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?

Vger

Well-Known Member
If you do not like clicking? jeez just stop. LOL (I aid everyone every day in four worlds.. and l have since I started. Afte a whole year I stopped aiding the Hood. mainly so I can attack back immediately when attacked. And the fact they never aid me anyway. So clicking? if clicking battling bothers you, you must aid no one. LOL
Yes, good point. One of the things I've always loved about this game is the time spent mindlessly clicking to win some insignificant reward, knowing that I was at least helping others. I'm glad Inno came up with a new way for me to mindlessly click to help my guild mates and win more insignificant rewards (and, yes...GBG is making click to win FPs about as insignificant and boring as winning coins.)
Personally, I'm finding each GBG season more boring than the last. And it doesn't matter if we are killing it farming, or sitting on the front porch watching the farmers march by.
I keep hoping an actual battle will accidentally break out on the battleground. Those are fun. But I think it's been almost a year since I saw that happen.
 

Just An Observer

Well-Known Member
Having played in a weaker GBG guild and then moving on to a strong one has been an interesting experience. The weaker guild saw me run GBG. I kept us at 1000/1000 6 of 7 times against the best. Now playing for the stronger guild, I see we are in a genuine war with another Top Dog guild that has been a blast to see! My personal gains look to double. Being on either side, weak or strong, has been fun as each has its challenges.

There are only a few high quality Diamond League guilds on C-World, which makes me wonder how other worlds are doing? For more "real war", it would be nice to see them matched up regularly. Either Diamond is too easy to achieve or we need a higher level for "real war" to be the norm if that is what the players want. I wonder if that is their preference or if farming would win out in a vote or poll?
 
Last edited:

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
They spent YEARS earning those GBs.
Can't let this go by without comment. Some players undoubtedly did spend YEARS building up their GBs. Most? Not so much. Not in the top guilds anyway. You know as well as I do that those GBs in the top guilds go up really quickly. I've personally seen GBs go up well over a dozen levels in the time it's taking me to type this. And I haven't even been in one of the really top guilds. Let's just lay to rest all this crap about people "working hard" at FoE. I don't know about you, but I have worked hard in my life. And nothing here even comes close. And if it does seem like "working hard" to you, then all I have for you is pity. There's nothing about FoE that is worth "working hard" for. Nothing.
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
I've spent years building up GBs. He wasn't comparing FoE to working in a coal mine, but an investment of that much time and perhaps dollars equates to work in this context. Context is everything.
Nope, sorry. Context is everything. And the context is that sitting comfortably in front of a computer, or sitting with a phone or tablet in your hand playing a game is in no way, shape or form something that can be referred to as "work". It's a leisure time activity that involves minimal physical or mental exertion. At the end of the day, all the time we spend here has no meaning in the real world. It's a game that can't be won, and never even reaches an ending point except as individual players decide not to play any more. It is a pastime. Not work.

And to my point, the top guilds don't even really have to spend much time building up GBs, as they go up dozens of levels in a day. Even if you wrongly consider anything about this game "work", it wouldn't apply to guilds where they have leveling parties. And that was my main point.
 

Taipanium

New Member
Let me expand on that. You can objectively measure individual player capability, Guild Treasury, number of players in a Guild. There is no way to tell how much players participate in GBG and the quality of Guild Leadership in GBG until the Guild does a lot of GBG.

Which means anything you can come up with that solely objectively measures Guild 'strength' would never put a smaller Guild with low ranked players in Diamond and possibly not even Platinum.

Algona, how do you feel about the idea of matching guilds at the top end of GBG based on their victory points from the previous season, rather than by League points? The league points function as a differentiator breaks down when you hit the 1000 LP ceiling.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
Victory Points could potentially work -IF- it's as a additional measurement to other factors so it's not too swingy.

Otherwise you risk a Copper League guild going straight into Diamond League purely from lack of opponents, not from their skill as a guild. While those in a competitive island may end up in a lower league even if they ended up in 1st place just because the opponents kept taking the provinces back
 

Taipanium

New Member
Victory Points could potentially work -IF- it's as a additional measurement to other factors so it's not too swingy.

Otherwise you risk a Copper League guild going straight into Diamond League purely from lack of opponents, not from their skill as a guild. While those in a competitive island may end up in a lower league even if they ended up in 1st place just because the opponents kept taking the provinces back
Oh absolutely, I did not mean for my suggestion to apply across leagues. The top victory point (vp) scorers in Platinum are already rising up to Diamond automatically so there the league point system still works as intended and there is no reason to look at second variables yet.

What I would like to see is this. Lets say a GBG season starts with 32 guilds at the 1000 LP level. They are divided into 4 GBG instances with 8 guilds in each. Since they are all at the same LP level, the Inno games algorhytm randomly (as far as we know) puts 8 out of those 32 together. That often lumps 2 far stronger guilds together with 6 weaker ones.
Solution - only for these 32 guilds in this example: do not match them randomly, but based on previous victory points. That puts the numbers 1 and 2 of each previous season together in the next one. And all the numbers 3 and 4 also together. The 5 and 6's are already demoted to the sub-1000 range automatically by the current system, and the 7 and 8's are automatically sent back to Platinum.
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
Algona, how do you feel about the idea of matching guilds at the top end of GBG based on their victory points?

I saw you post the idea few days back. It's an interesting idea that deserves some discussion. I like that it uses the results from GBG.

I've got a few questions.

What happens to Guilds that get shut out?

How do Guilds relegate and promote Leagues?

I never paid attention. Are the VPs the same for the different Leagues, ie, does Copper pay the same as Diamond?

The VP values of Sectors change from BG to BG. Are they much the same across different maps in the same season?

Have you done and modeling?
 

Tony 85 the Generous

Well-Known Member
Are the VPs the same for the different Leagues, ie, does Copper pay the same as Diamond?
According to the FoE wiki, the VP awarded are the same per league and only vary per the number of guilds on the map.

1611746457937.png

I am still playing with models trying to get more leagues in diamond. It has been very difficult to increase the number of guilds in diamond league. A few factors appear in play.
1. The 1000LP a cap (1000LP max) which brings into effect
2. Guilds that are already in diamond tend to occupy the positive LP positions and
3. The narrow band of guild LP to be in diamond (901-1000, or 100 LPs) versus the number of points that can be lost by finishing last (or second to last in two cases)

Ironically, I have found the more 'maps' I have put together the more guilds are able to advance and stay in the diamond league. With only 24 guilds in diamond it is very difficult to get an additional guild to stay in diamond. With 120 guilds it is easier. It appears that to grow diamond league relies on two factors:
1. The number of diamond guilds that currently exist (the more current diamond guilds, the more maps per season, the more platinum guilds can advance and stay)
2. The number of non-diamond guilds advancing, especially guilds advancing from platinum to diamond. All guilds start in copper. The more new guilds started and advance through the leagues then the more that can be in diamond.

Diamond league cannot grow unless platnium league grows first. 1-2 guilds new to diamond will not be able to stay in diamond, 8-10 guilds are required to advance from platinum to diamond to make another map to allow some of them to stay in diamond. 8-10 guilds are required because two of them will be stuck losing and dropping back to platinum.

Guilds can only be added to diamond league when:
1. Enough new guilds are formed in a world
2. That advance through the leagues
3. And advance from platinum to diamond to form a new map

If a guild is stuck ping-ponging platinum-diamond, it appear it would be in your interest to find a couple of gold league guilds to help grow so they can advance to platinum so more current platinum guilds can be advanced to diamond alongside.

I'm not saying the LP system is good. I think it stinks. This is just a summary of the results of my simulations.
 

Tony 85 the Generous

Well-Known Member
To force more Diamond members is what you want?
No. Just saying what it is.
why not let the system work as is.
What you are reading is how the current system works.
So the number of Diamond League members is determined by their ability. As Platinum Legue grows more Diamond will happen.
The number of diamond league guilds is determined by the number of new guilds in the world that are able to win and advance. Ability? To win, yes. To compete in diamond, (still) no.
Growth is required in all leagues in order to have more diamond league guilds. This will not remove the last place ping-pong nor the unbalanced match ups. The platinum-diamond ping-pong is primarily a result of the large number of LP lost in last and/or second to last place that exceed the "width" of the diamond league LP (ie., loss of -100 to -175 versus diamond league is only 100LP wide).

I would have to review the trials or make a new simulation, but it is very possible that adding a boat ton of guilds in copper league could force all guilds silver to platinum to advance. Adding enough (two boat tons of guilds?) could force a new map in diamond.
Clearly of there were more qualified Diamond, more qualified Platinum and Gold to Platinum the Diamond league wold grow is what I get from the above stuff.
You almost got it. It starts in copper and ripples through the leagues. It is not "qualified" guilds , just more guilds. "Qualified" plays no part. By adding guilds to copper means there more copper maps. More copper maps means more guilds earning positive LP. At some point those positive LP accumulate into being advanced to silver. More silver league guilds means there are more silver maps. More silver maps means more guilds earning positive LP. At some point those positive LP accumulate into being advanced to silver. Rinse and repeat for gold and platinum leagues. With diamond comes the caveat of 'staying in diamond'. Due to the point loss and width of diamond league, for a guild to stay in diamond there need to be "extra" guilds advanced from platinum to diamond (as compared to silver-gold or gold platinum) such that the loser(s) in diamond become the the ping-pong ball.

In short, with the LP system the way it is there will always be a platinum-diamond ping-pong ball guild. The conclusion here is that I have figured out what it takes to not be the ping-pong ball guild. Unfortunately, it has little to do with getting stronger and most to do with getting more guilds in the world that will 'push' you up.
Since they are not .. what would be needed is to weaken the requirements? to force the legues to grow upwards. And even more weak Guilds would be whining that they cannot compete in Diamond???
You are getting it. I am not sure you can 'weaken' the requirements nor force guilds to advance. With this system a guild can advance only so far on its own. It takes all the guilds in the world (especially new guilds) for you to be able to advance leagues. And that doesn't address the fact that it is possible for a guild to be 'pushed' into diamond. They are not competitive and barely succeeded in win-to-advance, they they are in diamond now.

The basis of the requirements need to be changed. Win-to-advance is the root cause of guild members complaining about the unbalanced match-ups and not being competitive in diamond league.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Guilds can only be added to diamond league when:
1. Enough new guilds are formed in a world
2. That advance through the leagues
3. And advance from platinum to diamond to form a new map

If a guild is stuck ping-ponging platinum-diamond, it appear it would be in your interest to find a couple of gold league guilds to help grow so they can advance to platinum so more current platinum guilds can be advanced to diamond alongside.

I'm not saying the LP system is good. I think it stinks. This is just a summary of the results of my simulations.
This is the best argument for not opening new worlds I've seen. Based on this alone, it seems each server has much growth potential ahead.

As to your analysis, let me start by saying I don't agree with your fundamental premise that the LP system is flawed. I'm in a guild that's in the churn zone between Platinum and Diamond. I see no issue with our position. If anything, it shows that it's too easy for us to get to Diamond, and very hard for us to stay there. Personally, I don't have an issue with it.

Seems there's far to many underpowered (undeserving?) guilds that make up a typical Diamond map. If 2 - 3 guilds can effectively shut out or shut down the other 5 - 6 guilds that make up the map, then 5 - 6 guilds don't deserve to be there. The problem is that there are far too few 65+ member guilds. Too many small fry guilds end up on Diamond maps.

I also think far to many small fry guilds see the competition and give up. Then justify all the reasons why they can't. Is it most can't, or most don't?

Seems under the current scenario, things will continue to sort themselves out as guilds continue to grow, consolidate, and move up. Even under the current LP system, the path is clear if you want to be stay in Diamond league. Grow. In numbers and in capacity. One thing is clear, under any fair system the best will always be at the top beating the second best. How do the best get to be the best? By investing what it takes to get there both individually and as a guild.

Don't like where you are, change where you are under the current system. Don't ask Inno to change the system to favor your guild without change. To do so would be unfair to those who do work.

And therein lies the rub. The work, the time, the investment. Don't ask Inno to change the rules. Learn to win under Inno's rules.
 
Last edited:

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
According to the FoE wiki, the VP awarded are the same per league and only vary per the number of guilds on the map.
Wrong points. This chart is for League Points, which is what is used now to determine league placement. They are talking about Victory Points, which are the points earned by taking and holding sectors.
 

Graviton

Well-Known Member
Nope, sorry. Context is everything.

Yes, it is everything. And yet you continue to talk about "work" in a context-free manner. Have you never referred to "working" on your city, or "working" on a particular GB, or "working" on getting boosts? Everybody else does. But okay, whatever.

And to my point, the top guilds don't even really have to spend much time building up GBs, as they go up dozens of levels in a day.

There's a somewhat valid point, although it could be argued (as @RazorbackPirate does above) that there was investment of time and mental exertion (which is "work" in this context) to reach the point where individual players could contribute to successful levelling parties. Top guilds weren't born as top guilds, which I believe was the original point to which you responded with your aside about the word "work".
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
A couple of excellent posts Tony.

I completely agree with your findings, that the more GBG active Guilds there are the more Guilds there will be in Diamond.

When GBG first started Guilds had to work up to Diamond. INNO stated (If memory serves) about 5% of GBG Guilds would eventually wind up in Diamond.

Do you think we've reached that 5% point?

Is that 5% number accurate?

According to the FoE wiki, the VP awarded are the same per league and only vary per the number of guilds on the map.

SL covers this, we're talking VP, not LP.
 

Tony 85 the Generous

Well-Known Member
Wrong points. This chart is for League Points, which is what is used now to determine league placement. They are talking about Victory Points, which are the points earned by taking and holding sectors.
Yep. My bad. I do know along with the building spots (now) moving, the VPs move within the league. Or at least they moved once, since I made my map. I do not know between leagues.
 

Tony 85 the Generous

Well-Known Member
Seems under the current scenario, things will continue to sort themselves out as guilds continue to grow, consolidate, and move up. Even under the current LP system, the path is clear if you want to be stay in Diamond league. Grow. In numbers and in capacity.
That is partially correct. You need to grow and prove you are better than the few guilds in front of you. But they are also growing. Collections for everyone are daily. As mentioned before. Growing is not the issue. The issue is catching. But without new guilds the number in diamond will not increase. You can grow at the same rate as all of those in front of you and you still will not move up until someone comes in behind and pushes you up.
One thing is clear, under any fair system the best will always be at the top beating the second best. How do the best get to be the best? By investing what it takes to get there both individually and as a guild.
Again grow vs catch. Catching is a magnitude more difficult.
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
Again grow vs catch. Catching is a magnitude more difficult.

Not quite sure what a magnitude of difference is. An order of magnitude is 10 times as much. Is that what you meant?

For the rest of this post, please note that I assume the lower and higher ranked players are equal in desire to improve, time to play the game, and ability to utilize their individual current game state. In other words, equal players, just one has played longer and therefore has a more advanced city.

Given that if you mean completely catching up, I disagree. The lower ranked player can never fully catch up.

If you mean some subjective term, like the ability to do GBG, well, that bears further scrutiny.

----------

As noted earlier, catching up is not linear, it's a matter of second derivative. In terms of physics, think of distance covered, velocity, and acceleration.

In terms of game play, the higher ranked player has played more (distance), has a higher production (velocity, first derivative), but a lower increase in production over time (acceleration, second derivative) compared to the lower ranked player.

The difference in the second derivative is caused by the combination of the nature of GB cost to lvl versus increase in the production of the GB and the effect of SBs on overall individual production. I can go into detail on this if needed.

What this means in terms of catching up is that instead of looking at just the difference in power (distance) and production (velocity) between the two players you also have to look at the ratio of production increase over time (acceleration) between the two players.

Once you look at (I'll use the term acceleration ratio: the ratio of production increase over time between the two players.) the acceleration ratio combined with the oddity of GBG that once a player reaches a certain GBG capability the only limits on city advancement are opportunity to do GBG, the implications and ramifications on catching up become clear and are supported by and explain what has occurred since the advent of GBg.

That's a lot to ponder, so I'll give folks a chance to digest that.
 

Manicato

New Member
Another perspective on a couple comments here.


IMO, the top guilds are NOT fun to do GBG. The timing to take sectors and the speed at which they flip requires far more intense playing than I (and I suspect many others) want from this game. Every once in a while we'll end up in a season where things work out nicely and I can pop on and grab a sector for cheap/free and I'll end up with 1500-2k hits. Most of the time I end up in the 700-1200 range just because I don't have time/opportunity to be on right when a sector opens and fight with abandon until it flips. From what I can tell that 700-1200 probably places me in the top 5% of GBG attackers, and I could certainly do more, but I'm miles behind the biggest players in the top guilds and I have zero desire to join them.

I find the asymmetry within the top leagues more annoying than getting pinned in on those occasions when we are unlucky and end up at the top of diamond. Specifically high platinum is often more competitive than low diamond because there are a good number of guilds that fell there from throughout diamond including some that dropped from the top end. That last thing seems to me to be more of an issue. The fact is that if you can land in low diamond and hold there your guild will probably have better farming opportunities than they would at the top of diamond OR the top of platinum. I wonder if it would be useful for GBG to dial back the points gained/lost as guilds move up in leagues--or maybe just across the board now that the guilds are mostly settled out. It seems like that would lessen the feast or famine aspect that currently prevails.
I fully agree, it is like feast or famine. Where the stress really comes to play is if members are in a strong guild that require minimum 500 battles/negotiations per season, then with, let us say, a full roster of members 80 it can become challenging when players are on at different times. I also, at times have found myself fortunate to make up the points by playing at times of the day or night when other members are not on!

There are days I go in, everything is either locked or "do not take" then if the instruction is from your guild, you can risk getting booted for not following battle instructions leaving the stress of trying to make up the battles/negotiations for the season.

Many are seeing this and are wondering if even the map could be re-vamped.
 
Top