• 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

Changelog 1.167 feedback

  • Thread starter DeletedUser25252
  • Start date

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
And as you can see, In the first 5 attrition the battles and negotiations are all tougher. This is the point I was trying to get at. It is the beginning/low level player who is getting hurt and it makes it hard to rally the guild to do GBG. The people I'm noticing not participating in GBG include the group who usually finishes GE1 or close to it, but not much further. This will just make it worse.
10% -12%. A 1-2% difference across the 5 fights. That's hardly a barrier to entry. Also, more than offset by the significant strength reductions from 5 - 50. That will make a big difference to beginning and intermediate players making it far easier for them to contribute far more than they're able to now.
I haven't set GBG requirements in my guild yet, because I wanted to see how things go first. We are a top 75 guild, so pretty typical of many of the guilds out there I would think. Active, but not super focused either. We almost always come in 1st to 3rd in GE, it's very rare we don't medal. I'm not sure what the outcome will be yet if I were to strictly enforce a GBG requirement, because the way it stands now, with any realistic requirement I would have to kick half the guild.
One of my worlds is in a guild like this. I love the guild and the people, but our 28 member, #30 guild will be sinking into Silver soon. We've got about 8 people doing all the heavy lifting and virtual radio silence from leadership on GBG, all three . My dilemma is this - I can put up 30-35 advancements per day. My city would make welcome contributions to any guild on the way to Platinum. Not in a Gold guild on it's way to Silver. Unless they can somehow rise to the occasion, I'm afraid that the only way to change my guild, will be to change my guild. The rewards from Platinum are too rich for my city to wallow in a guild not reaching for Gold or higher.
At the other end of the spectrum, look at how fast the attk/def % increases between 100 and 113 attrition. That is why I think the current rebalance is way to harsh.
Apparently, 100 advancements per day is what Inno is looking for from a single player. In Gold league, that's one province. In Platinum, almost one. With proper use of Siege Camps, this can easily be extended to 300+ fights per day for a top end player. With up to 80 members per guild, that's a ginormous amount of daily advancements in a single guild.

It was never intended for half the map to change hands every 4 hours. I can tell you from my other city, that at the top end of Gold, moving into Platinum, that's exactly what's been happening. We have one member who can currently beat the 1,750% limit. So far, he's 1,084 fights this round. His level 117 Traz spits out 115 Rogues per day, who join the hundreds of thousands of reserves. While It's great having that kind of power in the guild, it does create quite an imbalance when one guy can fight as long as time allows.
 

DeletedUser37581

One of my worlds is in a guild like this. I love the guild and the people, but our 28 member, #30 guild will be sinking into Silver soon. We've got about 8 people doing all the heavy lifting and virtual radio silence from leadership on GBG, all three . My dilemma is this - I can put up 30-35 advancements per day. My city would make welcome contributions to any guild on the way to Platinum. Not in a Gold guild on it's way to Silver. Unless they can somehow rise to the occasion, I'm afraid that the only way to change my guild, will be to change my guild. The rewards from Platinum are too rich for my city to wallow in a guild not reaching for Gold or higher.
You may be sinking to Silver for now, but I would expect that to be temporary as more and more Gold league guilds claw their way up to Platinum.

On beta, there are 800 guilds participating in Battlegrounds. That should eventually translate into something like 80 guilds in Diamond league and 200 guilds in Platinum. On my two live worlds, the guild participation was less - 500-600 guilds participated in season 1. So it won't be all that difficult to get up to Gold and stay there after a few seasons.

My guild on beta isn't putting forth a mammoth amount of effort, and we are currently flip-flopping between gold and platinum. In a few more seasons, we will probably be firmly entrenched in platinum and we should probably even end up in diamond eventually.
 

DeletedUser6574

Maybe this game just needs a flat out single player king of the hill slugfest feature added for fighting. Maybe similar to GBG, but with no or very slowly increasing attrition, and more players and sectors per map.

They already have that, it's called GvG. ;-)
 

DeletedUser38275

As a mobile-only player, I appreciate the fixes there.

Re: GBG, my guild will I believe stay on the fence. There’s no GvG for us as we are mostly mobile only, and the experience in 2 GBG seasons so far was confusing.
First GBG we started in Silver, and due to very low participation (2 guilds active only), finished easily 1st with having conquered the whole map (facepalm) and 90% of the VP scored, even not doing anything the last few days.
The second GBG was another story, still in silver after being ‘promoted’, we faced 7 guilds with more than twice the level, many high players (10M+ RP), and simply more players than us (we are about 17 to 19, all opposing guilds had at least 35). We didn’t do much, except score few advancements Iwe took 2 provinces, and lost them recently as they are 3/4th ring) just to see. We are still 7th since the 8th is even doing less than us.
There’s no real incentive to spend so much goods/troops for the difference in rewards on ranking, as we are not high level players (no long history with tons of goods, or high level GB), or high level guild (with a deep treasury). We struggle to actually be able to build much of the better GBG buildings as their high costs (3k+ goods) is sometimes not available for us (again we’re a young -one-year-old, growing) guild. We only started acquiring Arcs ‘recently’ (about 6 months ago) and mine’s the highest, and not even L20 yet. So treasury isn’t overflowing like I’d expect from older guilds with (many) Arc80.

So we sure can’t rank higher (gold...) and even the high-end of silver seems too much, even tho we’re active and a few of our players manage up to 30-40 attritions... not dreaming to get to the max.
We don’t want to be a bigger guild (more players) to enable still good GE performance (we are always on top2 spots), and have fair activity on our GBs.

Am I missing anything in the ‘profit calculation‘ of GBG for a young guild (without deep ‘pockets’)?
(I mean also: what does this rebalancing do to us? help or hinder?)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser29646

Since they did not post the balancing stats I assuming the stats posted here from other people are the correct ones. If that is the case then that is a great change!
 

DeletedUser37581

Since they did not post the balancing stats I assuming the stats posted here from other people are the correct ones. If that is the case then that is a great change!
Attrition LevelDefending Army BonusNegotiation Multiplier
00%1
12%1
24%1
36%1
49%1
512%2
615%2
719%2
823%3
927%3
1032%3
1137%3
1242%3
1348%3
1454%3
1561%4
1668%4
1775%4
1983%4
1991%4
2099%4
21108%4
22117%5
23126%5
24136%5
25146%5
26157%5
27168%5
28179%5
29191%6
30203%6
31215%6
32228%6
33241%6
34255%7
35269%7
36283%7
37298%7
38313%7
39329%7
40345%7
41361%7
42378%8
43395%8
44413%8
45431%8
46449%8
47468%8
48487%9
49507%9
50527%9
51547%9
52568%9
53589%9
54611%10
55633%10
56656%10
57679%10
58703%10
59727%10
60751%11
61776%11
62801%11
63827%11
64853%11
65880%12
66907%12
67935%12
68963%12
69992%12
701,021%13
711,051%13
721,082%13
731,113%13
741,145%13
751,177%14
761,210%14
771,243%14
781,277%14
791,312%14
801,347%15
811,383%15
821,420%15
831,457%15
841,495%16
851,534%16
861,574%16
871,614%16
881,655%16
891,697%17
901,740%17
911,784%17
921,829%18
931,874%18
941,920%18
951,967%18
962,015%19
972,065%19
982,116%19
992,168%19
1002,221%20
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
As a mobile-only player, I appreciate the fixes there.

Re: GBG, my guild will I believe stay on the fence. There’s no GvG for us as we are mostly mobile only, and the experience in 2 GBG seasons so far was confusing.
First GBG we started in Silver, and due to very low participation (2 guilds active only), finished easily 1st with having conquered the whole map (facepalm) and 90% of the VP scored, even not doing anything the last few days.
The second GBG was another story, still in silver after being ‘promoted’, we faced 7 guilds with more than twice the level, many high players (10M+ RP), and simply more players than us (we are about 17 to 19, all opposing guilds had at least 35). We didn’t do much, except score few advancements Iwe took 2 provinces, and lost them recently as they are 3/4th ring) just to see. We are still 7th since the 8th is even doing less than us.
There’s no real incentive to spend so much goods/troops for the difference in rewards on ranking, as we are not high level players (no long history with tons of goods, or high level GB), or high level guild (with a deep treasury). We struggle to actually be able to build much of the better GBG buildings as their high costs (3k+ goods) is sometimes not available for us (again we’re a young -one-year-old, growing) guild. We only started acquiring Arcs ‘recently’ (about 6 months ago) and mine’s the highest, and not even L20 yet. So treasury isn’t overflowing like I’d expect from older guilds with (many) Arc80.

So we sure can’t rank higher (gold...) and even the high-end of silver seems too much, even tho we’re active and a few of our players manage up to 30-40 attritions... not dreaming to get to the max.
We don’t want to be a bigger guild (more players) to enable still good GE performance (we are always on top2 spots), and have fair activity on our GBs.

Am I missing anything in the ‘profit calculation‘ of GBG for a young guild (without deep ‘pockets’)?
(I mean also: what does this rebalancing do to us? help or hinder?)
I can see why it's confusing, hopefully an explanation will help.

In the first round, all guilds were assigned an initial MMR based on previous activity in GE, GvG, etc. The MMR was then used to determine your initial league, and the guilds in the first match ups. The 7 guilds with the closest MMR got assigned to the same battleground. In the first round, every guild with active members got assigned to a battleground map. As you saw in your first round, many guilds chose not to participate and you coasted to an easy win.

At the end of the round, your MMR was adjusted based on your performance, as was every other guild who participated the first round.This new MMR was again used to determine your league, and 2nd round match ups. Again, the guilds with the closest MMR assigned to the same battleground. Those guilds who didn't participate, didn't get assigned to a battleground map for round 2, to participate in the future they'll have to opt in.

So why the apparent mismatch now?

Again, all those guilds who didn't play in the first round were dropped from the Battlefields. They can sign up to participate in a future round, but until they do, they won't appear in future match ups. From now on, every guild you meet will have been active in the previous round. Over the next few rounds, you may see a few more guilds go inactive, any who don't participate, will be dropped from future battleground until they sign up again.

So now, all the guilds you're meeting share a similar MMR, m,ost likely because they share a similar demographic, mostly mobile players, do well in GE, don't GvG. As a result, you all received a similar MMR for the first round. They started with a similar MMR, were assigned to a battleground, did what they did, had their MMR updated accordingly, and ended up with an MMR very close to yours. So now you all meet on the battleground for round 2.

At the end of this round, those at the top will get their MMR adjusted upward, those at the bottom will get their MMR adjusted downward. The new MMR will again determine both your league, and your next round match ups. You'll always be matched up with the 4-7 guilds with the closest MMR to your own. In theory, after a half dozen rounds, the leagues and battlegrounds will sort enough that you'll then be facing guilds you're pretty evenly matched with.

With MMR, guild size, guild age, member age, city size, are all irrelevant. The only thing that matters in GBG leagues and match ups is MMR and MMR is determined by actual performance in GBG.

Say that six rounds from now, your 17 person guild meets a 30 person guild. What does that mean? It means those 30 members are putting up about the same number of advancements as your guild is. Could be that all 30 are doing a minimal amount each day, no sweat. More than likely, you've got 10 people working like crazy to win, another 20 doing enough to make a show on the rank board, and the rest doing nothing, Regardless of how they're getting there, they've earned a similar MMR based on their actual performance, and you're now meeting them on the battleground. May the best guild win.

So yes, right now match ups are all over the place because there's literally 2 data points to base them on. Only one of those data points comes from actual GBG performance. Once there's 20 data points, 19 based on actual GBG performance, the match ups will be fair. You'll always be meeting guilds at your same level of performance, no matter what the make up of the guild.

Now that you've got a couple rounds under your belt, you can see what it will take to consistently perform, not always win, but perform. I'm sure you can already see how you can retool and grow your city, work with your members to do the same thing. Work as a team to collectively improve your cities to improve your performance as a team.

Work on growing your city, your members, and your guild. Do your best to get stronger each round. Watch what the winners do and learn from them. Then let the rest sort itself out knowing you're exactly where you should be each and every round, no matter who you're up against.
 

Kranyar the Mysterious

Well-Known Member
The biggest caveat will likely be that once things settle down you still might face a new guild of extremely active members who trounce you in their journey from copper league to diamond, or a lower guild who suddenly pick up a few new active players, but those seasons will end up being the exception, not the rule.
 

DeletedUser37581

Because of MMR, there will be quite a bit of mixing going on from season to season. Guilds that finish 4th or 5th won't see too much difference in their level of competition from season to season*, but guilds that finish 1st or 8th are going to see pretty major differences. A guild that finishes 1st will have its MMR adjusted upward by 175. And a guild that finishes 8th will have its MMR adjusted downward by 175.

Take a guild that has an MMR of 250. Solidly in Silver league. It wins a close battle and takes 1st. Now its MMR is 425 - Gold league. But who is it facing? A guild that was at MMR of 600 (not too far away from platinum league) but did terrible and took 8th place so its MMR is now 425. These two guilds were 350 MMR apart from each other the previous season and now facing each other. For one, it will be a huge challenge. For the other, it might be a piece of cake.

The intent of the MMR system is not to match up guilds that are close in abilities week after week. If a guild does well, it will be facing tougher competition. If a guild does poorly, it will be facing easier competition. From season to season, the standings get scrambled up quite a bit. This will provide almost constant variety.

*And how about those guilds that finish 4th or 5th? Well, they aren't just matched with other guilds that finish 4th or 5th. A guild that was at 400 and finishes 4th is now at 425 and on the same battlefield as those earlier two guilds. Similarly, a guild that was at 450 and finishes 5th will also be at 425 and on the same battlefield. Any battlefield will contain a wide mix of guilds, some that did well, some that did poorly, and some that did so-so.
 

DeletedUser38275

(snip)

Work on growing your city, your members, and your guild. Do your best to get stronger each round. Watch what the winners do and learn from them. Then let the rest sort itself out knowing you're exactly where you should be each and every round, no matter who you're up against.
Thanks much for the insight. I’d guessed there was some misc effects from the initial seeding, and start of the feature. Then why change already the attrition/reward system, unless beta is ‘rich’ enough to provide that feedback?

We’ll of course continue growing ;) the only open question being how much to expect from GBG for the guild. Indeed the gains are quite impactful, even in silver for us. The question remains the costs to us, and the additional ‘effort’ or ‘stress’ on ‘average’ players.

As one of the guild leaders, I try to balance game features with players life, and game expectations. We are not competitive, in a strict sense, but can compete when we see a profit, and hopefully the GBG matching will settle quickly, before ‘my’ players get a negative impression of it, or it may become harder to incentivize them.

(Example of our guild behavior: we only have an ‘8 encounter wish’ for GE, but most weeks achieve somewhere in the 70% overall, without much discussions, but if too many guilds are pushing in GE we may overall only achieve 50% if we can’t get a better podium. We won’t try to breach the 90% ...)
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Thanks much for the insight. I’d guessed there was some misc effects from the initial seeding, and start of the feature. Then why change already the attrition/reward system, unless beta is ‘rich’ enough to provide that feedback?
There was no change to the reward system, the adjustment was to attrition only. With negotiations being worth 2 advancements compared to fighting's one, and a slow ramp up in number of goods compared to a quick ramp up in attrition, in the first 2 rounds, too many people were favoring negotiations over fighting. The adjustment allows more fights and pops the goods number up a bit faster. This, they hope, will even out the attractiveness of the two options.
We’ll of course continue growing ;) the only open question being how much to expect from GBG for the guild. Indeed the gains are quite impactful, even in silver for us. The question remains the costs to us, and the additional ‘effort’ or ‘stress’ on ‘average’ players.

As one of the guild leaders, I try to balance game features with players life, and game expectations. We are not competitive, in a strict sense, but can compete when we see a profit, and hopefully the GBG matching will settle quickly, before ‘my’ players get a negative impression of it, or it may become harder to incentivize them.
Make sure they all understand that the first six weeks are the shake out and learning rounds and ask everyone to find their comfort level in GBG participation. Tell them you want them to fight like hell, but the point is to do well, and have fun every week, not win every week.
(Example of our guild behavior: we only have an ‘8 encounter wish’ for GE, but most weeks achieve somewhere in the 70% overall, without much discussions, but if too many guilds are pushing in GE we may overall only achieve 50% if we can’t get a better podium. We won’t try to breach the 90% ...)
Let the leagues sort out then decide if the rewards at the higher level are worth the effort and requirements it will take to get them. If Silver rewards are meaningful to you at your level, then be happy with those. Get folks to have fun pushing the competition and Gold might even be in reach.
 

DeletedUser38275

snip

Make sure they all understand that the first six weeks are the shake out and learning rounds and ask everyone to find their comfort level in GBG participation. Tell them you want them to fight like hell, but the point is to do well, and have fun every week, not win every week.

Let the leagues sort out then decide if the rewards at the higher level are worth the effort and requirements it will take to get them. If Silver rewards are meaningful to you at your level, then be happy with those. Get folks to have fun pushing the competition and Gold might even be in reach.
We try to manage our activity to get the most out of game ‘events’: last weeks’ GE was very tight, and we decided (supported by the mismatched GBG) to focus on GE. This week with event, we also decided to continue focussing on GE, and we should top that podium again. We’ll keep an eye on GBG, as we don’t want either to drop too far by ‘ignoring’ the feature.
Thanks again for all answers (thumbsup)
 

vern511

New Member
Agreed. As I said, I've been monitoring this change on Beta and the complaints we hear are all the same old, same old. I also agree it will be fun to watch the newest round of whining.
This might favor farmers but now do a smaller size guilds supposed to compete with bigger size guilds? If its made for everyone to tap out
 

vern511

New Member
If the changes are made for everyone to tap out this will favor 80 member guild vs 40 member guild.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
This might favor farmers but now do a smaller size guilds supposed to compete with bigger size guilds? If its made for everyone to tap out.
Not sure how an easing of attrition curve for fighters and a steepening of the attrition curve for negotiations favors farmers, but okay, if you say so. Point? Why do you think smaller size guilds should be able to compete against bigger size guilds?
If the changes are made for everyone to tap out this will favor 80 member guild vs 40 member guild.
Even without the change, 80 member guilds had the advantage. This change does not change that.
 

vern511

New Member
Details are still being tracked down. But here is a table posted by andreab on the beta forum:
BeforeAfter
AttritionMilitaryNegotiationMilitaryNegotiation
510%112%2
930%227%3
1570%361%4
23200%4126%5
30340%6203%6
34420%7255%7
42580%8378%8
49720%10507%9
901540%181740%20
1001750%202275%22
1061750%202569%23
1131750%203056%24
If this true bigger guilds will have the advantage then 80 member guild shouldn't be fighting 40 member guild
 

vern511

New Member
Not sure how an easing of attrition curve for fighters and a steepening of the attrition curve for negotiations favors farmers, but okay, if you say so. Point? Why do you think smaller size guilds should be able to compete against bigger size guilds?

Even without the change, 80 member guilds had the advantage. This change does not change that.
But player like me was able to fight as much as I can to make up for fighting a bigger guild. Impossible now with a 3000%
 
Last edited:

vern511

New Member
But player like me was able to fight as much as I can to make up for it impossible now with a 3000%
Our 3 top fighters in our guild had 3000 fights each last week we won with eas 3 80 member guilds so our lower age member didnt have burn a lot of goods so we set a minimum of 10 fight or 5 negotiations a day they were all cool but now attrition hit 3000 at 113 its impossible for us or anyone to fight that much
 
Top