• 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

Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

  • Thread starter DeletedUser4770
  • Start date

Robbenn

New Member
No. This is not GvG. Why are you making agreements?
It's a war between guilds. Smart guilds create alliances if it helps them reach their goal. Exactly like GVG in that aspect. Why even bring GVG into this? How is it relevant?
Why would I not be allowed to seek an alliance with another guild if it helps me rank higher on the leaderboards? If you're not skilled enough to use the tools at your disposal to guarantee your success, the solution is to get better, not to remove the tools in order to level the playground.
 

ocshooter

New Member
As The direct ranking of Guilds is tied to GVG which everyone claims no one plays, you have to admit that really makes no sense at all,. Id like to know will ranking shift to be based on GBG going forward. Seems only fair as again everyone keeps saying 95% of the players dont even play it.. So how can it possibly be the determining factor of rankings?
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
It's a war between guilds. Smart guilds create alliances if it helps them reach their goal. Exactly like GVG in that aspect. Why even bring GVG into this? How is it relevant?
Why would I not be allowed to seek an alliance with another guild if it helps me rank higher on the leaderboards? If you're not skilled enough to use the tools at your disposal to guarantee your success, the solution is to get better, not to remove the tools in order to level the playground.
I'm not advocating for tools be removed or added. I'm also not the one who compared GBG to GvG demanding like functionality.

Seek all the alliances you want. Just know when doing so, you have no tools in GBG to enforce the agreement from your end.
 

DeletedUser33052

Disappointment so far with GBg. There needs to be changes made which will make this a better experience:
WHERE is this point?
2. Match up guilds with like-sized guilds. An 80 member guild can overpower an active 20 member guild easily with little participation.
3. Make it multi-world. Some of us don't like having to fight against friends especially when people in the guild can't be tracked or controlled (or even found out). Is a general breakdown in guild relations one of the goals here? Bravo if it is...you accomplished it.
4. Make the map bigger or make the event shorter. There was a lot of activity the first couple days and then it slowed greatly as someone dominated or agreements were made.
SIEGE controll missing!!!!

, good point to balance gbg and create cross world league
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser40996

As The direct ranking of Guilds is tied to GVG which everyone claims no one plays, you have to admit that really makes no sense at all,. Id like to know will ranking shift to be based on GBG going forward. Seems only fair as again everyone keeps saying 95% of the players dont even play it.. So how can it possibly be the determining factor of rankings?
The Numbers come from Inno themselves that the majority don't do GvG . It probably affects the "Top" guilds though as those are most likely the ones with the GvG players in them
 

Stephen Longshanks

As The direct ranking of Guilds is tied to GVG which everyone claims no one plays, you have to admit that really makes no sense at all,. Id like to know will ranking shift to be based on GBG going forward. Seems only fair as again everyone keeps saying 95% of the players dont even play it.. So how can it possibly be the determining factor of rankings?
Because the rankings are outdated and need a severe overhaul to be relevant to the majority of players/guilds. The only ones who really pay attention to guild rankings are the GvG guilds, and the few non-GvG guilds who believe it's quite an accomplishment to be ranked anywhere near the GvG guilds and strive for that. Whether GBG has any profound effect on guild ranking remains to be seen. Unfortunately, unless they nerf the GvG effect on rankings to reflect its minority niche in the game, it's probably still not going to be an accurate gauge of a guild's worth.
 

DeletedUser38162

OK so 11 days of this ... My 1/2 cent?? I like the idea behind Battle Grounds. There is a drive in place to form teams and a comradery within the guild. That part is fun, but the drain on your military and goods is exhausting if you want to get anywhere in the game. You secure a sector for 4 hours and then do it all over again in 8, lets just bang our heads up against a wall... its maddening!! I do wish it wasn't so draining, then maybe it could be more fun for everyone. Maybe if the game had some feeling of accomplishment, I don't know. However I Don't want anyone to get me wrong we will probably still play Battlegrounds but its just going to be a side note for anyone wanting to build on battle points or something, but to fight for 1st place against other guilds probably not. Just doesn't seem worth it. Maybe I will be singing a different tune when my city is at 10 mill.
 

Harbinger963

New Member
1 day remaining. Lines have been drawn, NAPs established, and positions locked in. Nothing has changed in the past 5 days. Someone suggested that 11 days is too long. I would tend to agree given what I have seen. That said, this might also be a function of the initial MMR used to match guilds up. Once more evenly matched guilds are facing each other, then the outcome may take longer to reach.

Some suggestions:

1) Add a column in the Member Activity to show total points earned. No one should have to do (2 * neg + 1 * fight) to figure out points scored (no matter how simple the math).

2) rank guilds by MMR, not just by prestige. Also provide transparency on how MMR is calculated (final table position? Total VP?)

3) there was a lot of complaints in the beta about the move up / move down in the leagues and that after a season finished, they were “surprised” that they had a) not been promoted; b) been relegated to a lower league, etc. So to fix this, add a component to the ranking table that shows what will happen based upon current league standing. If a guild KNOWS that it will be relegated to a lower league, it might give it some motivation to do something about it.

This can be done using a very simple approach - green up arrow for league promotion, and red down arrow for league relegation. Lots of changes in dynamics from this, once guilds and players gets to see what the results of their action/in actions and decisions are in real time instead of when the season is over.
 
Last edited:

Harbinger963

New Member
Because the rankings are outdated and need a severe overhaul to be relevant to the majority of players/guilds. The only ones who really pay attention to guild rankings are the GvG guilds, and the few non-GvG guilds who believe it's quite an accomplishment to be ranked anywhere near the GvG guilds and strive for that. Whether GBG has any profound effect on guild ranking remains to be seen. Unfortunately, unless they nerf the GvG effect on rankings to reflect its minority niche in the game, it's probably still not going to be an accurate gauge of a guild's worth.
Bring in MMR as a guild ranking score. Add it to the guild rankings page. Add option to allow the table to be ranked using a) prestige b) MMR. Guilds would then climb and fall more slowly and be a reflection of their overall worth instead of losing a bunch of GvG sectors one day in AA and falling 20 spots. Phase out prestige by setting option to use MMR for new guilds (but of course can be changed). Switch it out after 12 months and give everyone lots of advanced warning.

Note: MMR could be a function of all three guild competitive components (GBG, GE, GVG). Weighting for Inno to decide! Weighting can then be adjusted as game evolves. Or have a table for each...

Also, one of the things that has always surprised me is the lack of in-game stats. I have to go to external websites to find such info. e.g. largest guild by member points, by fights, winner of the points/day, fights/day (and per week) etc. For those competitive in nature, these are useful metrics for bragging rights! I would propose adding some of these...
 

BruteForceAttack

Well-Known Member
Please fix the flaw how victory points are awarded. It should be based on how long the guild has owned a province and not just top of the hour.

As IS : Acquire province 1-2 mins before top of the hour, get vp for top of the hour and next 4 hours, i.e assuming that your province will not be taken by another guild in 1-2 mins.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Please fix the flaw how victory points are awarded. It should be based on how long the guild has owned a province and not just top of the hour.

As IS : Acquire province 1-2 mins before top of the hour, get vp for top of the hour and next 4 hours, i.e assuming that your province will not be taken by another guild in 1-2 mins.
Part of the strategy, don't you think? When to attack? Only flaw is your perception. Adapt to how it is.
 

DeletedUser37653

Hi, I'd like to offer some feedback.

1) I read the criteria for making a successful negotiation count twice as much towards progress on a new sector, when compared to a successful battle is...: Because it takes longer to negotiate. If that is true, yes that's fine, that makes sense.

But I will also ask you to please consider battles under high attrition rates (+1,300%~). These take _waayyyy_ longer than a normal battle, and also way longer than negotiating. This is because we cannot auto battle in those hard ones against the bad guys. Maybe you can consider making it be something like at around 1,300%+ battles that we do not press "auto" equal +1 more value of progress? So in effect: A non-auto battle at 1,300% would be worth 3. Just an idea.

2) Also, perhaps you can consider also darkening the turquoise coloured guild a bit darker, or maybe a shade of forest green. This is because on some computers, some of my guild members have reported some sensory issues in being able to immediately tell the difference between the turquoise colour and our white colour. especially if it is on like the ocean and stuff.

3) and finally, I think it would be pretty neat if you could make different maps, with different features on them. Looking at the same map all the time (while it is pretty!) will get boring.

4) oh one more., just an idea for some new buildings, maybe you can make one that's a bridge, that lets us attack sectors that are diagnol to each other, but not adjacent. Just an idea.

Overall good job on GbG so far. My guild likes it. bye.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser26263

I am launching an internal survey tomorrow in MSG's guilds that have participated in Battlegrounds for round one. I will share some of what we get here later. For now, the following are some of the things we've heard most from regular players in our guilds:

1. They like the fact it allows mobile players to contribute to guild leveling
2. They like the fact it works much like Exepditions -- negotiate or fight
3. They feel the algorithm used for negotiating is too difficult -- to begin with "it forces you to pay diamonds most of the time". Many have also said that they think Innogames has this backwards -- fighting for one point (as opposed to negotating for two) seems wrong.
4. They do NOT like the fact you cannot withdraw a siege, nor defend when attacked. Several have commented that this reminds them of kids'"King of the Hill" games or Tic Tac Toe .. .in other words a pointless venture since it is impossible to keep what you gain for more than 4 hours.
5. In general, comments are equally positive/negative save one thing we have heard from almost every player we ask for feedback .. "IT IS WAY, WAY TOO EXPENSIVE FOR THE AVERAGE PLAYER"

Again these are just general reactions -- a loose accounting only. I'll post more detail once we do the surveys.

I editied this also to add a few things pointed out to me by some of our leaders -- including one big item I forgot. Innogames I know was counting on this having a major impact on GvG, reducing participation there. That does appear to be true for now as GvG is noticably quieter in some places -- however there has been a side effect as well. GUILD EXPEDITIONS has taken a major participation hit in many of our guilds. I personally suspect this was in the plan, as the GbG requirements almost mandate a reduction in Expeditions activity by their design. If not -- Law of Unintended Consequences applies here.

Food for thought anyway. More soon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

athena9

Active Member
Ok we have played this and are coming up on the end of it. Our guild will more than likely be a close 2nd. It was competitive and lots of back and forth of being #1 and #2. My observations and feedback speaking as a founder of one of the higher ranked guilds with most member points and battles on our server and holding #1 overall every winter. So yes we have long time players, we have diamond players, we have fighters who know what they are doing, and we have lots of resources like goods, and we have leaders who know how to manage and teach. That said.....

*GBG is not going to be sustainable for many guilds season after season especially if the goal is to win. Even those with the advantages and resources will see a depletion. The goods costs for buildings are so random and skewed it makes no sense. I think the worse one I saw was 11,700 of a PME good for one building and that was just one of the goods.
*The attrition rates: fighting for many doesn't last long, not like it does for those of us with insane attack bonuses. Then when one has to turn to negotiating the goods costs are going to break people's banks sooner than later. These are goods people need for tech unless you are lucky enough to be at the end. Just in my SAM hood the trades up looking for Virtual Future Goods multiplied astronomically overnight.

And again if the goal is to win it requires people fighting and negotiating. I guess a guild could decide to tell their members don't use your goods....when you can't fight anymore stop for the day but not if the guild wants to win.

And the sad thing is a lot of us actually enjoy it much to my surprise. It has some strategy and working together as a team though it will never replace GvG for us.

It has potential but I think it needs some nerfing down of:
1. Building Costs
2. The rate of Attrition for fighting but especially for negotiating.
3. Only occurring once a month. I just found out there is only a 3 day break in between.

I have seen feedback about match-ups. But I want to say that in this case I saw a not top guild outplay the current #1 guild on our server over the first several days. Though I believe that guilds with the advantages I mentioned in the first paragraph will eventually outlast....well until every guild that decides to keep playing GBG is broke and no one can play it anymore. And many of you probably will nay say this....but just wait and see if things stand as they are now.

In the meantime I think a lot of guilds will be making decisions even now about if and how they want to proceed.

Side note suggestion: Log needs to be more detailed.
 

Darth Mole

Well-Known Member
Does anyone know if a guild member who hasn't unlocked Military Tactics should be included in the Member Activity scorecard?
I have a member who says he hasn't unlocked it and he's sat there at the bottom with 0 and 0
 

DeletedUser37581

Does anyone know if a guild member who hasn't unlocked Military Tactics should be included in the Member Activity scorecard?
I have a member who says he hasn't unlocked it and he's sat there at the bottom with 0 and 0
Yes. Even though Military Tactics hasn't been unlocked, that member will still be eligible to join in the fun when he unlocks the technology, and will still receive the chest reward (fragments) even though he hasn't personally contributed.
 

Darth Mole

Well-Known Member
Yes. Even though Military Tactics hasn't been unlocked, that member will still be eligible to join in the fun when he unlocks the technology, and will still receive the chest reward (fragments) even though he hasn't personally contributed.
Thanks. Appreciate it.
 

DeletedUser40996

*GBG is not going to be sustainable for many guilds season after season especially if the goal is to win. Even those with the advantages and resources will see a depletion. The goods costs for buildings are so random and skewed it makes no sense. I think the worse one I saw was 11,700 of a PME good for one building and that was just one of the goods.
*The attrition rates: fighting for many doesn't last long, not like it does for those of us with insane attack bonuses. Then when one has to turn to negotiating the goods costs are going to break people's banks sooner than later. These are goods people need for tech unless you are lucky enough to be at the end. Just in my SAM hood the trades up looking for Virtual Future Goods multiplied astronomically overnight.

And again if the goal is to win it requires people fighting and negotiating. I guess a guild could decide to tell their members don't use your goods....when you can't fight anymore stop for the day but not if the guild wants to win.

And the sad thing is a lot of us actually enjoy it much to my surprise. It has some strategy and working together as a team though it will never replace GvG for us.

It has potential but I think it needs some nerfing down of:
1. Building Costs
2. The rate of Attrition for fighting but especially for negotiating.
3. Only occurring once a month. I just found out there is only a 3 day break in between.

Side note suggestion: Log needs to be more detailed.
1 Expensive for sure but that's to keep balance as some of those buildings are extremely powerful

2 agreed attrition goes up a bit too fast

3 it's actually twice a month on 2 week cycles it just happens that the first one started in the middle of a month