Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

[DeletedUser37581]

We accept that as "fair".

Well there ya go. You want "fair". But that's not the point of GBG. It's a guild vs. guild slugfest. The best guilds win. The winners fight against tougher opponents and sometimes the only tougher opponents are bigger guilds.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Give it up, @Algona . What these people want isn't to fight against a guild that is about equal strength. It's to fight against a small subset of all guilds wherein they have a chance of dominating season after season.

This is exactly right. He knows he can consistently win if his competition was limited to guilds of his size as evidenced by:

Putting a 20-member guild that participates hard against an 80-member guild that may or may not participate equally as hard is an unfair matchup. You don't agree. I don't really care.

He knows most guilds his size won't participate hard and he'd dominate in a size based league system.

 

[Vger]

Really enjoying GBG so far. Good addition to the game.
The personal rewards don't seem as good as GE, but I'm OK with that. The guild rewards are way better. And I'm not including the personal benefits from SoH in my thinking on that.

Agree with those that think more logging would be useful.
Disagree with those that think more guild control would be a good idea.

Really like the fact that guilds are matched up based on something less trivial than guild size. GE, to my knowledge, only factors in guild size. That makes for some really lopsided results most weeks. It's not uncommon for only 2 or 3 guilds to even be remotely competing in GE, while the rest struggle to get over 2% for the week. GBG seems to be more of a fair fight, so far.

It will be interesting to see how the MMR rankings work out over time. Too early to tell if they are reasonably "fair". Maybe some tweaks will be needed, or maybe life just isn't always "fair".

Well done Inno.

 

[DeletedUser29117]

So my guild whose highest member is around 900K has been put on the same map as a guild who lowest member is nearly 7 million. I don't have a beef with the fact that they are going to easily win, what bugs me is that by allowing this sort of match-up you have emboldened this guild not just to win but to hem in my guild so that they have taken over every province surrounding my starting point. It is a complete waste of resources to try to compete with this guild, as a result this round has been spoiled for me and my guild. I have tried very hard to push members to try it out. Now I wish I hadn't. It's not like the GE where if you have trouble you can't come right back in a week. A combination of length of battle, poor match-ups, and rules that allow an advanced guild to not just win but to actively shut down the game for any other players makes this current version a bust.

To illustrate why their aggression serves no purpose as far as I can see, let me share current scores: They have 121K Victory points and 18 provinces. My guild is next with about 32K Victory point and we are now down to 1 province. None of the other guilds have participated, so they have 1 province and 0 Victory points.

 

[Algona]

Give it up, @Algona . What these people want isn't to fight against a guild that is about equal strength. It's to fight against a small subset of all guilds wherein they have a chance of dominating season after season.

Agreed on both counts. Some folks just can't face wide opem competition.

Sal gets into his 'I'm right no matter how wrong I am' mentality it;s a waste of time to try to show him otherwise, time will do that again.But I'm not trying to convince Sal, I'm talking to people who have an open mind in the hopes they'll consider how to handle GBG the way it is, not the way they want it to be.

As fat as Sal personally goes, I'll chalk it up to another Algona Sooth Sayer win in 6 months or so. Easy win. Sal is stubbornly blind but eventually always comes to grips with reality. Patience is always the prime virtue in FoE (or the forums) and I'm a patient man.

 

[sirblu]

The usual amounts of points for spending goods. Just tried a 1x negotiation in mars and got about 300 points from it for spending 8 goods.

Thanks so much - I have not been able to identify this on the live server.

 

[qaccy]

As everyone has equal access to Siege Camps, how is this a problem? It's also only the second round. Last week everyone was speed building palaces. In my battlefields, I've also seen a large number of traps and fortresses. Again, second week. Folks are exploring strategies. The question is also, what is sustainable over the long term? Even with a guild filled with Arcs, guild goods are not infinite.

I'm personally questioning whether the 'it's not sustainable' argument will hold water. Goods can come in a lot faster than some of us realize, and especially in ages above FE there's really no way to use them besides here in the battlegrounds. And again, I personally think it's a red flag to see almost exclusively one building being used, and it's the one that allows bypassing the major limiting factor that Inno designed into battlegrounds. If it was intended gameplay to allow for no attrition gain, I don't personally see why they would have bothered to put the mechanic in in the first place. I think this is just another than that Inno didn't really forsee when they were designing the buildings because as time and logic has shown, they're not all-knowing. There've been instances in the past where something is imbalanced relative to whatever else might be 'around' it, like with military units in certain ages. Sometimes they address these issues, even if it's rather far down the road, and even if that's the case here I hope that it comes eventually or that you're actually right and guilds do somehow burn through their treasuries and we're all stuck having to decide when it's worth it to build something because I can say that for my guild, after going through 1.5 battlegrounds our treasury's pretty much the same as it was a month ago.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

That's your opinion.



In fact, I did offer a reasonable alternative. You just didn't like it and proceeded to start an argument based on you thinking we don't deserve a balanced system.



It's neither your job, nor what you're actually doing. Feedback isn't always positive. We have every right to disagree with how things are. You don't get to choose what feedback you think is positive and therefore allowed. I offered my opinion as feedback, as requested by Inno, and provided a means to address it. Thanks for making that such a positive experience.



I'm fine fighting against a better guild that has equal numbers. It doesn't matter how good you are when you're dramatically outnumbered. Unless you have superpowers, you're doomed from the start. Speaking for myself, I'd like to see "balanced" tournaments, where you are fighting against equal numbers and if you have the stronger will, collective, and strategy, that is what puts you at the top. We don't have all golds in GE. We have many silvers and bronzes. The golds come when we're better than our opponents. That's not always the case and, although we fight to win, we aren't always successful. We accept that as "fair".

I'm a bit late to all of this convo, and I'm not reading it all. But what does an equal amount of guild members do for anything? GBG is based off of participation, and while INNO might not have gotten it exactly right on the matchups, just be patient. It will be evened based on participation. A guild with 30 members with all participating can easily squash a 50 member guild if they aren't all participating the same. Mine did it this last time...the plan for GBG is for it to be more competitive than GE as eventually everyone facing each other will be evenly matched. Let it go for now. INNO has already addressed this.

 

[DeletedUser29726]

After playing with battlegrounds, I have to say even this early that I think siege camps are too powerful and should probably be adjusted or have their effect changed completely. I know this opinion isn't going to be very popular with any players who read this, but I think it's a problem that one can look at the map and see pretty much every sector on it filled up with exclusively siege camps because bypassing the primary limiter for GbG participation is simply the best building benefit compared to anything else.

I'm not yet in battlegrounds where this would be seen but I can understand your line of reasoning. I've used 3 siege camps per week though and love em so I understand how larger more active guilds might be willing and able to go all out on them. It takes 4 days of Arc production on average per siege camp built. So each person could account for 3 siege camps per season relatively comfortably. If we say a 40 player guild is the size we're worried about that's 120 siege camps per season.

I think the best counter to this logic is probably to change siege camp to "1 less attrition" instead of "no attrition" such that trap proc + siege camp proc results in 1 attrition (where it currently results in 0 attrition).

 

[Darth Mole]

That

So my guild whose highest member is around 900K has been put on the same map as a guild who lowest member is nearly 7 million. I don't have a beef with the fact that they are going to easily win, what bugs me is that by allowing this sort of match-up you have emboldened this guild not just to win but to hem in my guild so that they have taken over every province surrounding my starting point. It is a complete waste of resources to try to compete with this guild, as a result this round has been spoiled for me and my guild. I have tried very hard to push members to try it out. Now I wish I hadn't. It's not like the GE where if you have trouble you can't come right back in a week. A combination of length of battle, poor match-ups, and rules that allow an advanced guild to not just win but to actively shut down the game for any other players makes this current version a bust.

To illustrate why their aggression serves no purpose as far as I can see, let me share current scores: They have 121K Victory points and 18 provinces. My guild is next with about 32K Victory point and we are now down to 1 province. None of the other guilds have participated, so they have 1 province and 0 Victory points.

That certainly sounds like a screwy match up. Hopefully next time round you'll get a more even mix.

 

[DeletedUser29117]

That

That certainly sounds like a screwy match up. Hopefully next time round you'll get a more even mix.

I suspect it might be because of the rule that every new guild no matter its power is put into the copper league.

 

[DeletedUser29726]

It doesn't matter how big the gap is though, so you'll get 2nd and a promotion to silver for next week; and a different assortment of guilds to play with. Just do what you feel like for individual rewards til the end of the season if there's no other guilds playing this season.

 

[Salsuero]

He knows he can consistently win

But we don't. I already said that:

We don't have all golds in GE. We have many silvers and bronzes. The golds come when we're better than our opponents. That's not always the case and, although we fight to win, we aren't always successful.

So instead of making up what you think I mean, perhaps read and comprehend what I actually write.

But that's not the point of GBG. It's a guild vs. guild slugfest.

No, that's GvG. GBg should be about pitting similar guilds against each other. Not pitting guilds with the ability to bully other guilds with numbers against easy prey so they can accumulate bigger and better rewards simply for being bigger. But hey, glad you guys enjoy that kind of game.

He knows most guilds his size won't participate hard and he'd dominate in a size based league system.

So you're saying we don't have a right to compete against guilds our size based on guild participation? What the hell is a guild-based competition if not about guild participation? These giant guilds don't even need a quarter of the guild to participate and they already beat us in attrition ability if we have a 100% participation in ours. You people are absolutely silly!

 

[Salsuero]

what does an equal amount of guild members do for anything

Attrition. If you have 80 members in your guild, you can ask/require everyone to complete 10 attrition daily (for example). That's 800 attrition from just simple participation that is very easy on guilds. In a gold league, that's 8-16 territories daily depending on whether they are taken via fights or negotiations (not accounting for buildings that make it more expensive). In a 20 member guild, you would need everyone to do 4x that attrition. Do you think you'll get everyone to put in 40 attrition daily? Do you think that's as sustainable to each individual compared to just 10? Do you think an 80 member guild might be able to afford more buildings to make it harder for a 20 member guild to only need that 40 attrition from each member? The larger guild is more likely to be able to spread those attacks out and still be effective at slowing down the smaller guild as well, since the smaller guild would have to focus more effort and wait for attrition to reset while the larger one can just keep going. It matters.

Let it go for now. INNO has already addressed this.

Where? I'd like to read that. I didn't go through 40 pages of feedback before posting mine. So if I missed something, please share it with me.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

Attrition. If you have 80 members in your guild, you can ask/require everyone to complete 10 attrition daily (for example). That's 800 attrition from just simple participation that is very easy on guilds. In a gold guild, that's 8-16 territories daily depending on whether they are taken via fights or negotiations (not accounting for buildings that make it more expensive). In a 20 member guild, you would need everyone to do 4x that attrition. Do you think you'll get everyone to put in 40 attrition daily? Do you think that's as sustainable to each individual compared to just 10? Do you think an 80 member guild might be able to afford more buildings to make it harder for a 20 member guild to only need that 40 attrition from each member? The larger guild is more likely to be able to spread those attacks out and still be effective at slowing down the smaller guild as well, since the smaller guild would have to focus more effort and wait for attrition to reset while the larger one can just keep going. It matters.

I agree, but again, the matchups were never going to be perfect at the start. An 80 member guild can ask its members to do 10 encounters til the cows come home but the bottom line is that the participation of that guild had been so lackluster in other things that they were matched up with a 20 person guild.

GE is incredibly boring most of the time because of the fact that it only matches up teams against like size guilds. My guild dominates 1st place every week with the exception of a few times where it’s a race to 1st.

GBG is much better at matching up like-guilds in terms of participation that it’s actually fun competition. That should not be changed because it’s not 100% fair right now. Let it even out, it’ll take a few rounds of data.

 

[DeletedUser37581]

GBg should be about pitting similar guilds against each other

Yes, that sounds good. It will take a few seasons for the MMR values to sort themselves out. Are you that impatient?

Or by similar do you mean "guilds of the same size"?

 

[DevaCat]

Interesting discussion so far, but Salsuero's use of the word "attrition" in the above post is/could be confusing. Attrition is an entirely different aspect of GBG. Better to use attempt, encounter, or advancement in framing that argument. Just my two coppers.

 

[DeletedUser30312]

So my guild whose highest member is around 900K has been put on the same map as a guild who lowest member is nearly 7 million. I don't have a beef with the fact that they are going to easily win, what bugs me is that by allowing this sort of match-up you have emboldened this guild not just to win but to hem in my guild so that they have taken over every province surrounding my starting point.

Player points here don't tell the whole story though, because you've got to take into account a player's age. Every player's battles and negotiations are based on their current age. A player who has a high number of point for his age is going to do much better than someone who is low. But that's not a GBG problem, high points means the player has a well-developed city, strong GBs, may be a skilled fighter, or is capable of using large amounts of goods. That player probably stays in the top 5-10 of the neighborhood, and can dominate PvP, GE, and/or GvG, so dominating GBG should be no surprise.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

So you're saying we don't have a right to compete against guilds our size based on guild participation? What the hell is a guild-based competition if not about guild participation? These giant guilds don't even need a quarter of the guild to participate and they already beat us in attrition ability if we have a 100% participation in ours. You people are absolutely silly!

The right. Please.

Not only do you not have the right, you don't even have the ability. The guild based competition is about total guild effort vs. total guild effort. So yes, guilds with more members have the potential to expend greater effort in total with less effort per member. However, that's all it is. Potential. You have no idea how many people you're actually fighting against or the effort each individual is expending to get to that total effort.

Attrition. If you have 80 members in your guild, you can ask/require everyone to complete 10 attrition daily (for example). That's 800 attrition from just simple participation that is very easy on guilds. In a gold league, that's 8-16 territories daily depending on whether they are taken via fights or negotiations (not accounting for buildings that make it more expensive). In a 20 member guild, you would need everyone to do 4x that attrition. Do you think you'll get everyone to put in 40 attrition daily? Do you think that's as sustainable to each individual compared to just 10? Do you think an 80 member guild might be able to afford more buildings to make it harder for a 20 member guild to only need that 40 attrition from each member? The larger guild is more likely to be able to spread those attacks out and still be effective at slowing down the smaller guild as well, since the smaller guild would have to focus more effort and wait for attrition to reset while the larger one can just keep going. It matters.

All correct. Which is why in a few more rounds, you won't see those large active guilds with high participation anymore. After the leagues sort, you'll know that any large guild you face is an inactive guild with low participation and a worthy competitor. MMR doesn't lie. Battlefield match-ups are the 5-8 guilds with the closest MMR. That's about as fair as it gets.

All the rest, while true mathematically, is all a fiction you're living in your head. You have no idea what's going on in those other guilds, what their actual member participation rate is, or the actual attrition each of the active members is hitting. You're all upset about something you've entirely made up.

 

[DeletedUser33052]

So my guild whose highest member is around 900K has been put on the same map as a guild who lowest member is nearly 7 million. I don't have a beef with the fact that they are going to easily win, what bugs me is that by allowing this sort of match-up you have emboldened this guild not just to win but to hem in my guild so that they have taken over every province surrounding my starting point. It is a complete waste of resources to try to compete with this guild, as a result this round has been spoiled for me and my guild. I have tried very hard to push members to try it out. Now I wish I hadn't. It's not like the GE where if you have trouble you can't come right back in a week. A combination of length of battle, poor match-ups, and rules that allow an advanced guild to not just win but to actively shut down the game for any other players makes this current version a bust.

To illustrate why their aggression serves no purpose as far as I can see, let me share current scores: They have 121K Victory points and 18 provinces. My guild is next with about 32K Victory point and we are now down to 1 province. None of the other guilds have participated, so they have 1 province and 0 Victory points.

, that may happen or guilds create "Victory map" and send your guild bottom, lol

, but player score not so big thing here because "super active Iron age guild with 70 members" can beat others...

, match making is poor as long its server "inbreed" but I dont expect GE type matchmaking - rewards are really too high for that.