• 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
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.

I used it as intended. Attrition is what slows guilds down. The fact that you can have more members doing the same activity means the cumulative attrition is spread out among them and that means they don't hurt as much to put forth the same effort as a small guild. Since GBg is built around attrition as a penalty of participation, the fact that a large guild has an opportunity to spread that penalty out is inherently mismatched in my opinion. I don't have any issue with them putting guilds that are "roughly" similar in size AND participation together. But I'm just not in agreement that a guild 4x larger is fair by any means... because participation varies and guilds might take a week off when in a higher league, lowering their stats, dropping them to a lower league, where they can dominate again. If that happens, why put large guilds with small ones? Put them with other large guilds who have similar participation and let them find a way to get more participation from what they have... not force smaller guilds to spend more in attrition to get the same results. We'll see if they do start doing that down the road... but they asked for feedback now, not down the road... so I gave my feedback for what I've seen "so far" not based on guesses about the future. It appears as though they are comfortable putting large guilds with small ones. My feedback is that I don't find this to be a fair matchup. They can take that into consideration however they like.

You have no idea what's going on in those other guilds

Uh huh. Because you don't? What makes you think I don't have friends in different guilds who play this game with me? That's funny. Just communicate with guild leaders. They'll share all sorts of things with you freely... including alliances against you they've made (which you can see are true by how the map gets played). It's really not that hard to figure out what's going on if you're friendly and ask. Can they lie? Sure. But when you see the results match up to what you're told... it's not all that hard to believe them either -- especially when you're friends with those people.
 
Last edited:
Tuesday at 8:58 PM
lilithtalon said:
Please consider increasing the cost in diamonds to instantly complete a building in GBG.
Are you serious? You want to make it so only the rich can afford to do this?


Good point Salsuero. Perhaps leave the cost as it is and only allow each player to instantly complete a building once per day?

The buildings are a force multiplier. It is already the rich who can afford to do this. I am seeing a single guild (The Roman Empire - E world, US Server) instantly completing around 20 buildings every day (21 that I saw today and it's not over yet).
 

KingCrazyTaco

New Member
I am having trouble understanding guild leagues. Regarding Diamond League, how many guilds can be in the Diamond League? I've heard that it is only one guild and I've heard that it is multiple guilds. Calling it "Diamond League" makes it seem like there can be multiple guilds in it.

Any help on this matter is much appreciated!
 

DeletedUser29726

I am having trouble understanding guild leagues. Regarding Diamond League, how many guilds can be in the Diamond League? I've heard that it is only one guild and I've heard that it is multiple guilds. Calling it "Diamond League" makes it seem like there can be multiple guilds in it.

Any help on this matter is much appreciated!

There can be multiple guilds in it, but it'll take time. Eventually 10% of participating guilds roughly should be in diamond each week (which is to say the number that can be in it depends solely on the number that participate).

Copper league adds points into the system (due to teams not going below 0 MMR). Diamond league once it's formed sucks them out (due to a maximum in MMR). While there's more copper leagues than diamond leagues, more points are still being added into the system than are coming out.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
I am having trouble understanding guild leagues. Regarding Diamond League, how many guilds can be in the Diamond League? I've heard that it is only one guild and I've heard that it is multiple guilds. Calling it "Diamond League" makes it seem like there can be multiple guilds in it.

Any help on this matter is much appreciated!
Yes, there can and will be multiple guilds in diamond league. It is entirely possible that right now, there is only one guild in your world who has earned it. If that is the case, then guilds were pulled up from platinum league to fight them on the diamond battleground.
 

Vuurgoudhaantje

New Member
Q: If I advance to a new age during a round, will it work as in GE, i.e. my enemies and rewards will be of my previous age?

[apologies if this has been asked and answered -- I scanned through pages of this discussion without finding it]
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
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.

A high score can also mean point-farming, a player who has been playing for a VERY long time, or someone who consistently attacks weak targets. In GbG, you fight increasingly harder battles so for these types of players, it might not be the best match. This is largely why I stopped caring whether my happiness was high or not. Don't need coins or supplies and couldn't care less about points.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
Q: If I advance to a new age during a round, will it work as in GE, i.e. my enemies and rewards will be of my previous age?

[apologies if this has been asked and answered -- I scanned through pages of this discussion without finding it]
GBG rewards aren’t based on ages anyway, but I can confirm that if you age up during GBG, your encounters will too. You will face current aged troops and need current aged goods.
 

qaccy

Well-Known Member
@Salsuero I have to ask, seeing your multiple posts over the past few pages of this thread: Is there a reason you're automatically assuming that every member in a guild is contributing in GbG and thus larger guilds are doing far more? This system is designed to eventually match up guilds based on ACTIVE members, not TOTAL members. Right now that's not entirely the case since it's all new, but eventually if a guild with 30 members is up against a guild with 80 members, that means that they have around the same number of active players that have gotten them to that point and that's what matters. You can't 'spread around' attrition to members who aren't participating in the first place, so it doesn't really matter if a guild has 80 members if 50 of them (or more) aren't doing anything and they're getting matched up with 30-member guilds in GbG.
 

Kranyar the Mysterious

Well-Known Member
It appears that there is going to be an attrition rebalance. If the update stays the same way it is in beta right now, negotiating will get more expensive, and fighting will be easier for awhile, but then get tougher. The attrition cap for both negotiating and fighting will be removed, so beating 1750% won't get you"unlimited" battles anymore.
 

DeletedUser14423

Battlegrounds is fine. They had to put everyone somewhere based on some logic that matched the MMR system. Now that this one time guestimation is behind us, future match ups will be based on actual performance. Let the ones you can't beat win, but beat the other ones your size.

Things will sort themselves out after a couple of rounds.

It has gotten a lot better in week 2. Now I would like to see permissions enabled like we have in GvG. I have a lot of player dropping new sieges on our allies and have no way to stop them, very frustrating. I would also like to see the history upgraded so that I can see who is dropping new sieges.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
It has gotten a lot better in week 2. Now I would like to see permissions enabled like we have in GvG. I have a lot of player dropping new sieges on our allies and have no way to stop them, very frustrating. I would also like to see the history upgraded so that I can see who is dropping new sieges.
It doesn’t matter if someone is starting a new seige. It costs the guild nothing for this. That is why a permission exists in GvG, vs it not existing in GBG. A flag means nothing to you except an eyesore, so get over it.
 

DeletedUser14423

It doesn’t matter if someone is starting a new seige. It costs the guild nothing for this. That is why a permission exists in GvG, vs it not existing in GBG. A flag means nothing to you except an eyesore, so get over it.
It gets very expensive when some moron attacks a guild that you have an alliance with and then they get pissed and take a few of your highest point sectors. This is after repeatedly posting not to attack their sectors. So yes it costs the guild a crapload. It would also be nice if we could stop or delete a siege that was done in error. Not much to get over Imp, just trying to improve the game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
It gets very expensive when some moron attacks a guild that you have an alliance with and then they get pissed and take a few of your highest point sectors. This is after repeatedly posting not to attack their sectors. So yes it costs the guild a crapload.
That is an indirect cost which is not INNO’s responsibility to control. “Guild alliances” are not part of the game nor are they intended to be, that’s player choice.
 

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
Is there a reason you're automatically assuming that every member in a guild is contributing in GbG and thus larger guilds are doing far more?

I'm not assuming that. You don't need every member to participate. If just 25% of an 80 member guild participates, that matches 100% of a 20 member guild. But, an 80 member guild with only 50% participation would see half the attrition on average for each participant, compared to the same effort by the 20 member guild. So... that means the large guild could do twice as many battles for the same attrition. It doesn't make sense to me that the algorithm could account for "active" participation when a large guild could simply choose not to participate during a week where they want to take it easy and rebuild, then for the math to determine they aren't active, putting them in with a small guild the following week and ramping up their participation again. I already conceded that it remains to be seen, however I stand by my point. Putting guilds with the same rough amount of members AND active participation is what I'd like to see. I'm only answering because you asked. I'm not actively continuing this conversation/debate.
 

DeletedUser37581

The algorithm doesn't take into account participation at all. Nor does it take into account guild size. MMR (going forward) is based entirely on performance. If a guild takes 1st, their MMR increases. If a guild takes last, their MMR decreases. Nothing else matters. In a field of 8, 4th place has its MMR increased by a small amount, 5th place has its MMR decreased by a small amount, and so on.
 

DeletedUser29726

Well I mean you're free to be that half-active 80 player guild that doesn't try very hard and gets matched up with 20 player guilds. But assuming the active half of the 80 player wants to keep winning they'll eventually find their match. It's also quite possible their active players just aren't capable of going as far as your super-active 20. Such that while in absolute terms they have it "easier", in relative terms it seems quite expensive to them too.
 

DeletedUser

The algorithm doesn't take into account participation at all. Nor does it take into account guild size. MMR (going forward) is based entirely on performance. If a guild takes 1st, their MMR increases. If a guild takes last, their MMR decreases. Nothing else matters. In a field of 8, 4th place has its MMR increased by a small amount, 5th place has its MMR decreased by a small amount, and so on.
It may not going forward, but it did for the original seedings.
 
Top