Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

[RazorbackPirate]

Ummm, how so?

Likely referring to this. According to @dontwannaname in another thread,

Current Prestige Point Awards in GBG
Copper: 0-600
Silver: 601-2100
Gold: 2101-3900
Platinum: 3901-5400
Diamond: 5401-6000

Those numbers will triple once GBG is rebalanced to match GvG. It might take a few days.

The numbers above were based on the anticipated change in GvG to 3 recalcs per day. Now thay they've decided to roll back to the original 1 recalc, they need to triple the GBG numbers to match. Don;t know all the ins and outs, but that's the gist.

I suspect we'll see this announced in the next changelog?

 

[Alaric 694 the White]

The most consistent mistake I see players make is advancing too quickly. I did the same thing when I got started, but I was finally convinced to slow down, focus on building and leveling GBs, including an Arc 80, and stockpiling resources, especially goods. I spent about a year in LMA doing just that. I also learned how to spin Recurring Quests which now give me about 750 CA goods per day without goods buildings. Donating to GBs (at profit with an Arc 80) allows me to create even more.

You just need to throw your city in park and do the same thing. Contribute what you can to GBG each day while growing the power of your city to do more. I believe the design of GBG is to get you to slow down on tech. Too many people rush to the end of the tech tree. For what? Just to sit and wait for the next age?.Slow down and get strong now. That will make future ages much easier and you'll be good in GBG.

Totally agree and great advice to all new players! My first guild didn't move super fast and I stuck around longer than I should have just not knowing things. As a NEW player I spent way too much time finishing each ERA quickly and never stopped to focus on GB's. So, I'm totally ERA parked now in a great guild and building up everything now that I have options and not the only one of a handful of people contributing FP's to my GB's. Even got an Arc now that is getting leveled, which I never thought was possible before.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Totally agree and great advice to all new players! My first guild didn't move super fast and I stuck around longer than I should have just not knowing things. As a NEW player I spent way too much time finishing each ERA quickly and never stopped to focus on GB's. So, I'm totally ERA parked now in a great guild and building up everything now that I have options and not the only one of a handful of people contributing FP's to my GB's. Even got an Arc now that is getting leveled, which I never thought was possible before.

There you go. You're well on your way. Only difference between you and the best is time.

 

[Kranyar the Mysterious]

Likely referring to this. According to @dontwannaname in another thread,


The numbers above were based on the anticipated change in GvG to 3 recalcs per day. Now thay they've decided to roll back to the original 1 recalc, they need to triple the GBG numbers to match. Don;t know all the ins and outs, but that's the gist.

I suspect we'll see this announced in the next changelog?

Oh, I thought I had missed something that was being changed that would make GBG more interesting. Not something that we expected all along. Then again, maybe they were referencing a thread over on the EN server, or maybe a conversation they had in a dream, or something...

 

[DeletedUser30935]

Are MMR's published anywhere, or do we have to go through and figure out everyone's individually?

 

[*Arturis*]

I got 3 statues from the las GBG season, should I build 3 level 1 or upgrade one to level 3?

 

[DeletedUser29726]

Are MMR's published anywhere, or do we have to go through and figure out everyone's individually?

Have to figure em out. For the time being they feel publishing the MMR would be "too messy".

 

[DeletedUser26263]

As promised MSG Launched its surveys today. Because GBG is such a new feature we limited the first round of questions to get general reactions only for round one of GBG. We'll do a more comprehensive survey after the next round is done and people have more time to hone their skills, tighten play and gain more perspective. Here is what we asked:

1. Did you participate in Guild Battlegrounds? If not, why not?
2. Do you plan to participate again? If not, why not?
3. What did you like about the feature?
4. What did you dislike about the feature?

I am attempting to get as many of our guilds and affiliates as possible across the MSG System to participate. The potential pool includes 29 guilds - 20 worlds - 2000(ish) players. We'll collate and I'll share the data here as well as to our own folks. This is not scientific, not official ... just something we are doing to gauge our own members' feelings and give us some leads for future participation planning. We will share it openly becuase we all benefit as FOE players with better perspectives on this game-changing feature. Information is power -- it improves the game for all. At least this is my hope.

More when results come in and we can collate a pile of data!

 

[DeletedUser26263]

Yes, I had fun chewing on one of those guilds in the opening season:

Actually you were up against two of our guilds. Postmen Prestonia is an MSG Family Guild -- and Nephilim is one of our affiliates. Fun!

 

[DeletedUser40996]

1. Did you participate in Guild Battlegrounds? If not, why not?
2. Do you plan to participate again? If not, why not?
3. What did you like about the feature?
4. What did you dislike about the feature?

Posting here as game currently under maintenance

1. Yes I participated some

2. Yes I'll participate in future battlegrounds

3. I like that it's available for mobile players as well as pc players so anyone in a guild can participate

4.Attrition goes up too quickly / individual rewards for successful fights or negotiations too random . Given the high costs in goods or units the individual rewards should be guaranteed after a win

 

[DeletedUser4491]

If you want to control every player in your guild, go back to GvG.

Thanks for the well thought out response, Inno needs more thoughtful mods such as you

 

[DeletedUser40996]

Thanks for the well thought out response, Inno needs more thoughtful mods such as you

He wasn't posting as a "Mod" but as a "player"

 

[DeletedUser34905]

I've read the above posts that indicate the general spread for the prestige assigned to guilds based on league.

But the question i have is how is the prestige actually calculated/assigned among guilds in the same league.
Because while the numbers make sense and are in order of ranking in a grouping, when comparing multiple group sessions in a world they don't seems to correlate to the vp or sectors held by a guild or total number of advancements made by the guild members (although this last comparison is limited to partial results as we didn't get the numbers for all of the 28 guilds).

We compared numbers for 4 out of the 5 group sessions of Gold league guilds in K world (the last group we just did not get all detailed info for so its not included atm)

	Guild	Rank	Province end	Vp/Hr End	VP	GbG Prestige
1	Group 4 G1	1​	11​	1056​	169,800​	4380​
2	Group 4 G2	2​	7​	585​	160,300​	4026​
3	Group 3 G1	1​	10​	505​	210,000​	3912​
4	Group 3 G2	2​	9​	619​	181,500​	3834​
5	Group 4 G3	3​	8​	310​	155,900​	3708​
6	Group 2 G1	1​	17​	799​	272,400​	3690​
7	Group 4 G4	4​	12​	594​	140,600​	3612​
8	Group 2 G2	2​	6​	236​	157,700​	3522​
9	Group 1 G1	1​	14​	1259​	383,000​	3462​
10	Group 4 G5	5​	11​	457​	108,600​	3442​
11	Group 3 G3	3​	22​	1766​	168,900​	3306​
12	Group 3 G4	4​	6​	255​	158,200​	3240​
13	Group 1 G2	2​	23​	859​	152,600​	3162​
14	Group 2 G3	3​	10​	1049​	150,900​	3102​
15	Group 1 G3	3​	14​	560​	94,026​	2922​
16	Group 2 G4	4​	12​	826​	138,600​	2922​
17	Group 4 G6	6​	6​	327​	100,900​	2750​
18	Group 3 G5	5​	6​	184​	120,400​	2706​
19	Group 4 G7	7​	5​	175​	46,994​	2604​
20	Group 2 G5	5​	8​	230​	74,116​	2598​
21	Group 1 G4	4​	4​	108​	50,222​	2586​
22	Group 3 G6	6​	3​	84​	97,562​	2550​
23	Group 1 G5	5​	3​	65​	30,597​	2286​
24	Group 3 G7	7​	4​	142​	11,858​	2226​
25	Group 2 G6	6​	5​	195​	31,562​	2196​
26	Group 1 G6	6​	1​	0​	29,747​	1902​
27	Group 2 G7	7​	2​	16​	14,263​	1818​
28	Group 1 G7	7​	1​	0​	0​	1626​

the table is ordered in the descending order of prestige assigned for GbG for all the guilds. but if it was ordered by actual groupings inside each grouping the prestige is assigned in order of ranking for that group.

what we found is that we cannot explain is why some groups/guilds have been assigned more prestige than others.

group 4 has the highest overall prestige assigned to it. ie even 3rd and 4th ranked guild in that group got more prestige than the 1st ranked guild in Group 1 (which btw has the highest overall VP at the end) and yet only ranked 9 on prestige overall.

we also looked at the number of advancements ie total number of fights and nego for a guild for the whole session and while as stated those numbers are a bit more limited (lol could not get everyone to bother adding them up) we have multiple comparisons where guilds with less total nego and fights than others have higher prestige. so while its possibility that there was more competition in some grouping and it was harder to hold sectors and more effort was needed, number of advancements don't seem to correlate to the prestige. The perfect example of this is a guild with higher VP and ranking with
3094 negos and 7409 fights that has a lower prestige than a guild with 3083 nego and 5152 fights (an example chosen as the 2 have almost the same number of nego so it shows its not about the nego vs fights either)

the last thing we compared was the combined number of VP for all guilds in the group acquired in the session. And no Group 4 was not the one that had the highest combined VP for the session. That was group 3.

BTW - the top 3 guilds on the above table were upgraded to platinum, the bottom 3 were bumped to silver.

I mention this last as while this is not about league placement and advancement, but its about ranking assigned to same league guilds across the world, since total Vp, or advancements or nothing else explicit we can figure out done in GbG correlates to the prestige assigned the only potential thing we see is that groupings with guilds with higher MMR (group 4 and 3) have a higher prestige base assigned to them. but then when ordered by prestige its also seems like some prestige assigned cutoff is the measure of league advancement and demotion (guild ranked 26 finished in 6th with 29K VPs and got bumped to silver while guild in 24th place finished 7th with only 11K VP but stayed in Gold league). which would make it kind of a circular calculation. ie higher starting MMR (based on factors outside of GbG) gives you higher prestige base calculation in GbG, which then gives you higher MMR score from GbG towards the next calculation. But this makes no sense, as it would advances some guilds over others in a non equitable manner regardless of how they do compared to others in GbG. The score from GvG is simple. you hold the sector at recalc you get the points. doesn't matter if you had to defend it and reload multiple defense armies to do so. or if you were the attacker and had to re-siege the sector multiple times to acquire it. The GbG doesnt seem to follow that principle.

If someone can see something above that we missed or has other ideas or knows how its supposed to be calculated we'd love to know as we have been racking our brains over it since GbG ended. yes we know that these algorithms can be complex, but we cant seem to find any vague, and even less a clear correlation between GbG performance and the prestige assigned once we compare across groups. and lol if someone wants to do the same thing in another world while the data is still available i'd love to see what they come up with and how the results compare.

 

[DeletedUser37581]

what we found is that we cannot explain is why some groups/guilds have been assigned more prestige than others.

Quite simply, the prestige is based only on the adjusted MMR of the guild.

 

[Sheriff Of Rottingham]

Lots of complaining by people saying GBG is "TOO EXPENSIVE!" It's only as expensive as YOU make it. You don't have to spend a single diamond. You don't have to negotiate if you don't have lots of goods. You don't have to attack if your troops are going to die. Attrition resets 10 times each season. If you're wasting resources and diamonds, consider analyzing your decisions and how you are playing.

People also listing their examples to prove why it's unfair, or too expensive. My guild did approx 750 attacks, and 350 negotiations and we ended up 3rd and got promoted to gold. Required almost no effort. I had to train my newer players to relax, and not waste resources. How to properly trade, and attack. Everyone can learn and adapt to changing circumstances, you can too. There is nothing in GBG that you can't overcome and be "successful". I measure success as you reaching your potential.

My only complaint on GBG is that I don't think the way we will play it is the way INNO intended us to play it. And that is on THEM for making it that way. If INNO intended us to form alliances, then fine. If they intended us to fight free-for-all, then they need to make GBG completely anonymous.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Lots of complaining by people saying GBG is "TOO EXPENSIVE!" It's only as expensive as YOU make it. You don't have to spend a single diamond. You don't have to negotiate if you don't have lots of goods. You don't have to attack if your troops are going to die. Attrition resets 10 times each season. If you're wasting resources and diamonds, consider analyzing your decisions and how you are playing.

People also listing their examples to prove why it's unfair, or too expensive. My guild did approx 750 attacks, and 350 negotiations and we ended up 3rd and got promoted to gold. Required almost no effort. I had to train my newer players to relax, and not waste resources. How to properly trade, and attack. Everyone can learn and adapt to changing circumstances, you can too. There is nothing in GBG that you can't overcome and be "successful". I measure success as you reaching your potential.

I can easily agree with all of this.

My only complaint on GBG is that I don't think the way we will play it is the way INNO intended us to play it. And that is on THEM for making it that way. If INNO intended us to form alliances, then fine. If they intended us to fight free-for-all, then they need to make GBG completely anonymous.

The way it's set up now, people can do either. Why is that a problem?

 

[DeletedUser34905]

Quite simply, the prestige is based only on the adjusted MMR of the guild.

See that is exactly what makes no sense. You say prestige assigned to GbG is based on MMR, ok. But then on the other hand MMR is based (at least partially) on the same points that are used to calculate prestige.
if MMR to start is = GvG + GE (activity and success) at least the GvG portion of the MMR directly correlates to prestige. since prestige is/was before GbG= gvg+ guild level. That would mean that at least some portion of GvG is counted twice.

besides that problem, that explanation basically states that guilds that did better previously in other aspects of the game like GvG and Ge automatically get more prestige from GbG even if their overall score and VP is lower than other guilds.
This type of duble-counting of certain actives would only widen the gap between guilds and would seem to contradict one of the points mentioned when GbG was first announced which was to give guilds not involved in GvG and guilds with mostly mobile players a chance at more guild advancement and a more even field since there was no plan to bring GvG to mobile.

The initial calculations are based on number of members and activity (and success) within GE and GvG of the past two weeks (at the point of calculation). This calculation is just an approximation, as it could never reflect the final rank of a guild. For that to be reflected, we need a few seasons so that the league system can sort it itself naturally. Every guild has a value assigned, also known as "Match-Making-Rating" (MMR). This value decides on the league allocation and as your Guild plays battleground, you should advance to a more competitive league or decay to a more fairly balanced one, so take the first battlegrounds as a way to "calibrate" the place where your guild should be located.

OK. that is clear. MMR as stated determines league and league advancement. By the observation in Beta where guilds had to finish 1st in a league twice before passing over to a higher league there seems to be some short term cumulative effect to the MMR (cumulative performance points over the last few sessions possibly). OK. higher leagues get higher score and rewards. OK.

But guilds in the same league should score based on the same parameters at the end of that session. Those that moved up will score higher in the next session when they are assigned to the higher league. So how/why does a guild with a possibly higher starting MMR but lower VP and ranking in GbG get more prestige points while in the same league?

 

[DeletedUser37581]

See that is exactly what makes no sense. You say prestige assigned to GbG is based on MMR, ok. But then on the other hand MMR is based (at least partially) on the same points that are used to calculate prestige.
if MMR to start is = GvG + GE (activity and success) at least the GvG portion of the MMR directly correlates to prestige. since prestige is/was before GbG= gvg+ guild level. That would mean that at least some portion of GvG is counted twice.

In a sense, you are correct. Initial MMR was based on factors (such as GvG participation) that had a side effect of affecting prestige. However, initial MMR was not based on GvG standings, and therefore prestige from GvG was only an incidental effect. A guild that had significant prestige from GvG but had little GvG activity in the two weeks leading up to the first Battlegrounds season would have had a relatively low MMR. In addition, MMR is only adjusted based on battlefield placement. The initial MMR values will quite quickly be of no effect at all.

But guilds in the same league should score based on the same parameters at the end of that session. Those that moved up will score higher in the next session when they are assigned to the higher league. So how/why does a guild with a possibly higher starting MMR but lower VP and ranking in GbG get more prestige points while in the same league?

The adjustment to MMR at the end of the season is based only on battlefield placement, not VPs earned. If guild A had an initial MMR of 380, guild B had an initial MMR of 435, then if guild A finished 1st, its MMR would have increased to 555, while guild B finishing 2nd would have its MMR increased to 560. In this case guild B, having a higher initial MMR but finishing in a lower place, would receive more prestige than guild A. (*Numbers for MMR adjustments are based on a battlefield with 8 guilds).

 

[DeletedUser31429]

How is prestige payed out for gvg, ge and gbg. Is it daily at recalc and adjusted based where your at or at the end of each event.

 

[Emberguard]

But guilds in the same league should score based on the same parameters at the end of that session. Those that moved up will score higher in the next session when they are assigned to the higher league. So how/why does a guild with a possibly higher starting MMR but lower VP and ranking in GbG get more prestige points while in the same league?

I recall reading on beta something about a higher and lower brackets within leagues. Also if your GBG season has less then 8 guilds that’ll have your rating effected