• 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

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
Putting guilds with 20 vs. 40 vs. 80 members on the same map isn't much of a fair battle. I'm not a fan of mismatched advantages when there are direct rewards involved. Guilds should be grouped into similar membership levels, just like GE does it. Just my 2¢.
 

DeletedUser40996

Putting guilds with 20 vs. 40 vs. 80 members on the same map isn't much of a fair battle. I'm not a fan of mismatched advantages when there are direct rewards involved. Guilds should be grouped into similar membership levels, just like GE does it. Just my 2¢.
And they will be that way eventually . It's going to take time to work itself out .
 

Douglas 221

Active Member
I would like to suggest an improvement to GBG. When someone begins an attack on a sector and the guild decides they do not wish to pursue that sector currently an option be available for a guild leader to retreat from that sector. This keeps other guild members from thinking that sector is an active sector which needs their assistance. Many guilds seem to have set up a communications thread for GBG but often active guilds can fill that thread up with dozens of replies and some guild members might miss a note to not attack a certain sector which had been started often by error. No resources or successes would be retained if retreat was chosen.
 

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
Many guilds seem to have set up a communications thread for GBG but often active guilds can fill that thread up with dozens of replies

Make a set of rules for who can post to threads... and if need-be, set up a specific thread for "targets" vs. everything else. You don't have to limit yourself to just one thread if one thread isn't enough. Give the guild a place to discuss GBg and have a separate one for the leadership to post specific directives.
 

DeletedUser40996

I would like to suggest an improvement to GBG. When someone begins an attack on a sector and the guild decides they do not wish to pursue that sector currently an option be available for a guild leader to retreat from that sector. This keeps other guild members from thinking that sector is an active sector which needs their assistance. Many guilds seem to have set up a communications thread for GBG but often active guilds can fill that thread up with dozens of replies and some guild members might miss a note to not attack a certain sector which had been started often by error. No resources or successes would be retained if retreat was chosen.
Nope no not a chance .
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
Putting guilds with 20 vs. 40 vs. 80 members on the same map isn't much of a fair battle.

The first League my 29 player Guild took second over 5 Guilds of 79 and 80 while the winning Guild had 55 players. Wasn't a fair fight at all!

This week we're in second again (31 players) in order of placement the Guilds have 29, 31, 28, 52, 32, 40, 55, and 49 players. This looks to be a demolition job as well.

Guilds should be grouped into similar membership levels, just like GE does it. Just my 2¢.

If you ain't facing the toughest competition, you don't deserve the highest prizes.
 

DeletedUser10789

Figures you would say that Algona.....

So, I guess this goes back, YET AGAIN, to being unfair to all players. I have to agree with that statement, not you Algona.
There is ZERO reason to place a guild of 20 people into a GbG with guilds with over 60 players. That's just not fair. How is it fair if one guild with 70 or 80 players only need everyone to fight 2 fights, which they can easily and they take a sector, because in the Gold League you need 100 fights to win a sector. So, an advantage goes to any guild with a lot of people versus a guild of a smaller amount of people. Like a guild of 10 people fighting in a GbG with guilds of 60 and 70+ people. How is that fair at all.? It isn't. Period and end of story. Anyone who says it is fair is just flat out lying and trying to act like some big shot.

The GbG should be grouped just like GE and have equally matched guilds. If a Guild of 20 people and only 10 fight, that's a major dis-advantage and why should any guild either remove players or be penalized for the players they have.? Just make it fair and match up guilds based on active players in a guild, that would be fair. Or just be fair to start with. But just like Algona says, why by fair when you don't deserve it because you are not trying hard enough, RIGHT. What a joke. I would love to see you in a 10 person guild fighting against an 80 person guild and see what you say then. Funny how when the tables are turned, people don;t like that much, they like it unfair to their advantage. Sounds to me like a great way to get people just give up on it and not do it at all. The thought was good and the premise was good, but the implementation, not so much. Re-think it and make it fair for ALL. Not just some.

As always,
Stevie
 

DeletedUser29726

Well stevie, in my guild on Yorkton we have 5 people. We won last season handily including against some large guilds and are winning this week again.
The member count of this week's standings (1st to 8th): 5, 14, 73, 9, 24, 5, 29, 76

So clearly, raw member count does not really stand for much. I have no doubt eventually we'll be outclassed (I expect next season). Now the upside of this is as a 5 person guild we'll be eligible for the same reward as an 80 person guild in the same league and primarily I'll just be trying to maintain that league until some more fodder makes its way up at that point. The only way this can be fair is if we're competing in the same field as the big guilds.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
There is ZERO reason to place a guild of 20 people into a GbG with guilds with over 60 players. That's just not fair. How is it fair if one guild with 70 or 80 players only need everyone to fight 2 fights, which they can easily and they take a sector, because in the Gold League you need 100 fights to win a sector. So, an advantage goes to any guild with a lot of people versus a guild of a smaller amount of people. Like a guild of 10 people fighting in a GbG with guilds of 60 and 70+ people. How is that fair at all.? It isn't. Period and end of story. Anyone who says it is fair is just flat out lying and trying to act like some big shot.
The raw number of people in a guild is irrelevant. All that's relevant is the MMR of the guild, and MMR is entirely determined by performance in GBG. As you know, last weeks MMR was a stab in the dark to get Battlegrounds started. This week, your guild was matched with guilds that had the closest MMR to your own. That's entirely fair. From now on, the 5-8 guilds with the closest MMR will meet in Battlegrounds. How is that not fair?
The GbG should be grouped just like GE and have equally matched guilds. If a Guild of 20 people and only 10 fight, that's a major dis-advantage and why should any guild either remove players or be penalized for the players they have.? Just make it fair and match up guilds based on active players in a guild, that would be fair. Or just be fair to start with. But just like Algona says, why by fair when you don't deserve it because you are not trying hard enough, RIGHT. What a joke. I would love to see you in a 10 person guild fighting against an 80 person guild and see what you say then. Funny how when the tables are turned, people don;t like that much, they like it unfair to their advantage. Sounds to me like a great way to get people just give up on it and not do it at all. The thought was good and the premise was good, but the implementation, not so much. Re-think it and make it fair for ALL. Not just some.
The rest of this is just more whining. Complaining about your results, while pretending you don't understand how MMR works. However, I doubt your complaints will go away. You'll always need some excuse, other than your own guild's performance, to blame for the loss.
 

DeletedUser37581

You'll always need some excuse, other than your own guild's performance, to blame for the loss.
The nice thing about the way MMR works is that after a devastating loss, a guild gets pushed down so that the next season should be quite a bit easier. On the downside, after an outstanding victory, a guild is pushed up so that the next season can become a real bear to win.
 

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
If you ain't facing the toughest competition, you don't deserve the highest prizes.

That's your opinion. But pitting small guilds against large ones just favors large guilds. That's a no-no for me.

And just so you understand... my money goes where my mouth is on this one:

Screen Shot 2019-12-02 at 6.10.41 AM.png
Screen Shot 2019-12-02 at 6.45.27 AM.png

It's not like I'm slacking off. But this is what's necessary for our guild just to compete... and the guilds that have ~80 members against us don't have to do nearly this much. They take FAR less attrition against us and can mop up several territories at a time while doing so.
 

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
raw member count does not really stand for much

The raw number of people in a guild is irrelevant.

It matters when the guilds you are against are actually participating and not just full of noobs. Is every ~80-member guild going to compete? No. But that doesn't mean none do. Many of them do. To say you're doing well... yeah, we won last week too... sure... it's possible. We're also leading this week as I've shown. It's not a question of whether you can do it. But sustainability -- many of my members are tapped out on goods and diamonds just to keep us in 1st against larger guilds that don't have to spend as many goods because they have enough members to do the same damage with much less attrition. You can say it's fair. But it's really not.
 

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
The nice thing about the way MMR works is that after a devastating loss, a guild gets pushed down so that the next season should be quite a bit easier.

I don't really see that as a "nice" thing. I see that as a way to demotivate a guild. Losses don't get people fired up to spend their goods and troops on smaller rewards. It's one thing when a boxer loses his/her belt to a better opponent. It's entirely different if that opponent is three weight classes above him/her. Or if you lose a basketball game to a better team... not one that has twice as many players on the court.
 

DeletedUser37581

I don't really see that as a "nice" thing. I see that as a way to demotivate a guild. Losses don't get people fired up to spend their goods and troops on smaller rewards. It's one thing when a boxer loses his/her belt to a better opponent. It's entirely different if that opponent is three weight classes above him/her. Or if you lose a basketball game to a better team... not one that has twice as many players on the court.
Considering that matching guilds up by size is one change that absolutely isn't going to happen (as it would require eliminating the entire league structure), the only alternatives are to get used to the idea that the guilds you get matched up with are going to very tough competitors (regardless of guild size), or you can give up.

BTW, this isn't basketball.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
It matters when the guilds you are against are actually participating and not just full of noobs. Is every ~80-member guild going to compete? No. But that doesn't mean none do. Many of them do. To say you're doing well... yeah, we won last week too... sure... it's possible. We're also leading this week as I've shown. It's not a question of whether you can do it. But sustainability -- many of my members are tapped out on goods and diamonds just to keep us in 1st against larger guilds that don't have to spend as many goods because they have enough members to do the same damage with much less attrition. You can say it's fair. But it's really not.
Congratulations. Obviously, your guild is currently punching above its weight class. Because of your guild's performance in non-GBG areas, it also sounds like your guild's initial MMR placed you in a weight class much higher than you really should be. Congratulations. Now you're facing other guilds who, because of their lack of performance in non-GBG areas, got placed in a weight class lower than they should have been.

Now things are sorting themselves out. Yes, you'll always have to work like crazy to best larger guilds that seemingly coast along. Here out, it's all MMR, it doesn't matter how any guild gets to their MMR, guilds with the closest MMRs will meet in each Battleground. You know this, and you know it's fair. Sounds like you also know your current performance is not sustainable and you know the effect this will potentially have on your guild's league.
It matters when the guilds you are against are actually participating and not just full of noobs. Is every ~80-member guild going to compete? No. But that doesn't mean none do. Many of them do. To say you're doing well... yeah, we won last week too... sure... it's possible. We're also leading this week as I've shown. It's not a question of whether you can do it. But sustainability -- many of my members are tapped out on goods and diamonds just to keep us in 1st against larger guilds that don't have to spend as many goods because they have enough members to do the same damage with much less attrition. You can say it's fair. But it's really not.
And this proves my point. Based on actual GBG performance, you should not be competing with them, and they should not be competing with you. Sooner or later, you won't be. You know this too and you know the effect this may potentially have on your league.
I don't really see that as a "nice" thing. I see that as a way to demotivate a guild. Losses don't get people fired up to spend their goods and troops on smaller rewards. It's one thing when a boxer loses his/her belt to a better opponent. It's entirely different if that opponent is three weight classes above him/her. Or if you lose a basketball game to a better team... not one that has twice as many players on the court.
Poor thinkery. Smaller rewards will only happen if you drop in leagues. The only way to drop in league is to consistently lose to better opponents. Whether they're better because they're larger, or better because they work harder is irrelevant. The better guilds will move up to face tougher opponents, others will move down to face easier ones.

If a loss demotivates your members instead of motivating them to do better, then maybe they shouldn't be competing. Losses are a part of competition, and in a 5 - 8 way scrum, there can be only one #1. The rest will have to settle for less than best, most all the time. If your members can't deal with losses and that makes them sit GBG out, then that will also have a huge negative effect on your guild's ranking and league.

From here out, it's a competition based on performance. Performance will always place your guild exactly where it should be, along side other guilds with almost the same performance. "Some will win, some will lose, some were born to sing the blues" (Don't be that guy.)
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
That's your opinion

Opinion? I don't think so. It's the recognition that if GBG is set up the way INNO has said, eventually we will all wind up playing Guilds that have consistently demonstrated they have about the same capabilities.

RP covers everything else I was typing better then I could in the post immediately above this.

I <3 that post RP.
 
A huge thank you to Inno for adding this new feature! Fun, fun, fun!

It is pulling our guild together as GvG never could due to reset occurring at 8 pm server time and many unable to participate because they can't be ingame at that time. :D

Just one concern so far. We find that the ability to finish a building instantly for 50 diamonds is unbalanced. It costs 10 diamonds to purchase an additional round in negotiations (not a guarantee of success), but a guild can add 30 fights (15 negotiations) to the province for just 50 diamonds.

Please consider increasing the cost in diamonds to instantly complete a building in GBG.
 
Top