GBG Sector Victory Points Being Uneven Cost My Guild A Win

[Aggressor]

So, as you may know, in BG there are certain 'rings' of sectors. The middle ones, then the ones around them, then the ones around them, etc. In my opinion, the Victory Points per hour of all of these need to be even. Here's why.
My little guild on my Qunrir world worked hard and got off to an early lead. We got to the middle well before anybody and had a solid lead over everyone. The guild next to us was the second most active guild, always around a sector behind us. They always stayed closer to us than they shouldve, and thats because I come to find out, every one of the sectors between their starting sector and the middle is worth more Victory Points than ours. This upset me, but we had a lead so I figured it would be irelevent. We finally push through both of the middle sectors on our side while the other guild that is right next to us claims theirs. I do the calculations and they should be close, but not close enough to win, a solid several thousand victory points behind us. Well, on the last day of BG, they pull ahead at the last minute and win. The whole time they had only the same sectors we did and were not even as good as us, we always advanced faster then they did. They only won that BG because the sectors on their side offered more victory points than ours. They didnt have to work harder than us or be better than us to win, they won simply because their sectors offered more victory points than ours. Very dissapointing, and poorly done. Me and my guild are very upset about this as we worked hard to get ahead, and the other guild didn't even have to be better than us to win.
I think that the uneven amount of Victory Points per hour in similar sectors (sectors in the same "ring") should be either made the same or switched around so that ALL of the sectors offering more victory points aren't in one guild's path to the middle. I am very disappointed with this unnessecery feature of BG. I hope it gets fixed.

 

[DreadfulCadillac]

So, as you may know, in BG there are certain 'rings' of sectors. The middle ones, then the ones around them, then the ones around them, etc. In my opinion, the Victory Points per hour of all of these need to be even. Here's why.
My little guild on my Qunrir world worked hard and got off to an early lead. We got to the middle well before anybody and had a solid lead over everyone. The guild next to us was the second most active guild, always around a sector behind us. They always stayed closer to us than they shouldve, and thats because I come to find out, every one of the sectors between their starting sector and the middle is worth more Victory Points than ours. This upset me, but we had a lead so I figured it would be irelevent. We finally push through both of the middle sectors on our side while the other guild that is right next to us claims theirs. I do the calculations and they should be close, but not close enough to win, a solid several thousand victory points behind us. Well, on the last day of BG, they pull ahead at the last minute and win. The whole time they had only the same sectors we did and were not even as good as us, we always advanced faster then they did. They only won that BG because the sectors on their side offered more victory points than ours. They didnt have to work harder than us or be better than us to win, they won simply because their sectors offered more victory points than ours. Very dissapointing, and poorly done. Me and my guild are very upset about this as we worked hard to get ahead, and the other guild didn't even have to be better than us to win.
I think that the uneven amount of Victory Points per hour in similar sectors (sectors in the same "ring") should be either made the same or switched around so that ALL of the sectors offering more victory points aren't in one guild's path to the middle. I am very disappointed with this unnessecery feature of BG. I hope it gets fixed.

do i see.....Another GBG complainer!?
Actually i kinda agree with this so ill stay neutral for now

 

[Alpha Persei]

So, as you may know, in BG there are certain 'rings' of sectors. The middle ones, then the ones around them, then the ones around them, etc. In my opinion, the Victory Points per hour of all of these need to be even. Here's why.
My little guild on my Qunrir world worked hard and got off to an early lead. We got to the middle well before anybody and had a solid lead over everyone. The guild next to us was the second most active guild, always around a sector behind us. They always stayed closer to us than they shouldve, and thats because I come to find out, every one of the sectors between their starting sector and the middle is worth more Victory Points than ours. This upset me, but we had a lead so I figured it would be irelevent. We finally push through both of the middle sectors on our side while the other guild that is right next to us claims theirs. I do the calculations and they should be close, but not close enough to win, a solid several thousand victory points behind us. Well, on the last day of BG, they pull ahead at the last minute and win. The whole time they had only the same sectors we did and were not even as good as us, we always advanced faster then they did. They only won that BG because the sectors on their side offered more victory points than ours. They didnt have to work harder than us or be better than us to win, they won simply because their sectors offered more victory points than ours. Very dissapointing, and poorly done. Me and my guild are very upset about this as we worked hard to get ahead, and the other guild didn't even have to be better than us to win.
I think that the uneven amount of Victory Points per hour in similar sectors (sectors in the same "ring") should be either made the same or switched around so that ALL of the sectors offering more victory points aren't in one guild's path to the middle. I am very disappointed with this unnessecery feature of BG. I hope it gets fixed.

keep working hard and you might get somewhere soon . besides you guy's seem like a pretty tough guild

 

[Nicholas002]

yep. I agree 100% with this one. I see no reason why sectors in the same ring should have different VP values.

I guess this is INNO's way of throwing a little luck into GbG? but I'm not sure how this helps anyone.

 

[Graviton]

yep. I agree 100% with this one. I see no reason why sectors in the same ring should have different VP values.

I guess this is INNO's way of throwing a little luck into GbG? but I'm not sure how this helps anyone.

It helped the guild that ended up winning. Sounds like it's another piece of GBG strategy to consider when planning which sectors to take.

 

[qaccy]

@Emperor XX I'm curious. Would you still be making this thread about 'unfairness' if the situation was flipped, with the BG playing out exactly the same way and your guild being the one to obtain the last-minute victory? Or is it only 'unfair' because you lost?

 

[Nicholas002]

It helped the guild that ended up winning. Sounds like it's another piece of GBG strategy to consider when planning which sectors to take.

this has little to do with strategy, because guilds have no control over where they are placed.
Say, theoretically, two guilds are equal in fighting power, goods, strategy, and everything else. If one guild's path to the center has more VP than the other guild's, they will win based purely on luck of placement.

 

[Graviton]

this has little to do with strategy, because guilds have no control over where they are placed.
Say, theoretically, two guilds are equal in fighting power, goods, strategy, and everything else. If one guild's path to the center has more VP than the other guild's, they will win based purely on luck of placement.

Then you don't just concentrate on your most direct path to the center. Strategy.

 

[Aggressor]

@Emperor XX I'm curious. Would you still be making this thread about 'unfairness' if the situation was flipped, with the BG playing out exactly the same way and your guild being the one to obtain the last-minute victory? Or is it only 'unfair' because you lost?

I might not have been as upset as I am, but it would be no less fair for them.

 

[Aggressor]

Then you don't just concentrate on the most direct path to the center. Strategy.

No, because the center victory points were still worth more that the ones in the other guild's path to the middle, so to focus on those and not the center would be strategy, it would be a bad strategy.

 

[Graviton]

No, because the center victory points were still worth more that the ones in the other guild's path to the middle, so to focus on those and not the center would be strategy, it would be a bad strategy.

I don't understand, you seem to be saying you can't take the center sectors and try to take sectors in your rival's direct path at the same time. Why not?

 

[Aggressor]

I don't understand, you seem to be saying you can't take the center sectors and try to take sectors in your rival's direct path at the same time. Why not?

Because this is a small guild of new cities in Silver League. We dont have that ability.

 

[qaccy]

Because this is a small guild of new cities in Silver League. We dont have that ability.

Taking 'their' sector would probably be preferable to moving into the middle, if you have to choose and want to win. Then they either have to go around or wait at least 4 hours, during which time you'll have gotten all of those VP from holding the sector(s). Right?

 

[Graviton]

Well then, congratulations! As a small guild of new cities you nearly won against presumably larger and/or more active guilds; the only thing that prevented your victory was a seemingly random distribution of sector values and a different strategy. I don't see a problem here, but that's just one guy's opinion.

 

[Nicholas002]

I agree. Of course strategy is more important than the number of victory points from each sector. Far more important.
However, isn't that kinda beside that point here?
Please name me one good reason that the victory points are not equal in sectors of equal distance from the center.

 

[Agent327]

You can not say things are fair or unfair without looking at the complete picture.

Guilds are placed on the map, based on MMR or League points as they are now called. Guild with the lowest points is placed at the 12 O'clock spot and after that guilds are placed clockwise based on points. So the weakest guild is placed next to what at that moment is the strongest guild and a guild that is just a little stronger than they are. Points the sectors give are influenced by that, same as the number of buildings you can place. Don't hear anybody sayng anything about that. In the end, the map is balanced and it is your strategical decissions that are the deciding factor. That's why you still can end up second if you think you will win.

 

[Aggressor]

Taking 'their' sector would probably be preferable to moving into the middle, if you have to choose and want to win. Then they either have to go around or wait at least 4 hours, during which time you'll have gotten all of those VP from holding the sector(s). Right?

No, because they have already advanced onto that sector, so once the 4 hours is up, they are alaready part of the way into conquering our province and making all of our hard work go to waste.

 

[Aggressor]

You can not say things are fair or unfair without looking at the complete picture.

Guilds are placed on the map, based on MMR or League points as they are now called. Guild with the lowest points is placed at the 12 O'clock spot and after that guilds are placed clockwise based on points. So the weakest guild is placed next to what at that moment is the strongest guild and a guild that is just a little stronger than they are. Points the sectors give are influenced by that, same as the number of buildings you can place. Don't hear anybody sayng anything about that. In the end, the map is balanced and it is your strategical decissions that are the deciding factor. That's why you still can end up second if you think you will win.

We were at the 12:00 spot I believe, and the enemy was at the spot where you say the best guild should be. So then why does the already best guild have sectors that are worth more VPs. THAT sounds even more unfair to me than I thought.

 

[Nicholas002]

You can not say things are fair or unfair without looking at the complete picture.

Guilds are placed on the map, based on MMR or League points as they are now called. Guild with the lowest points is placed at the 12 O'clock spot and after that guilds are placed clockwise based on points. So the weakest guild is placed next to what at that moment is the strongest guild and a guild that is just a little stronger than they are. Points the sectors give are influenced by that, same as the number of buildings you can place. Don't hear anybody sayng anything about that. In the end, the map is balanced and it is your strategical decissions that are the deciding factor. That's why you still can end up second if you think you will win.

OK. that makes sense. I hadn't realized that it was not a random placement around the map.

 

[Aggressor]

We were at the 12:00 spot I believe, and the enemy was at the spot where you say the best guild should be. So then why does the already best guild have sectors that are worth more VPs. THAT sounds even more unfair to me than I thought.

And in the end, if a guild is better than another one, they should win, right? If you give their enemies an advantage over them with better victory points per hour, that could spoil it for the best, most hardworking guild. That doesnt seem fair either. I think that the best guild should win, and the map should have no influence on that. If you're the best, you should win. Am I not right?