Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

[Algona]

I have had 6 on days where I have not been able to do anything the prior day. INNO is clearly using the RNG to generate both the goods to be used and the number of goods. It doesnt matter what your attrition is at. I can have 4 goods of previous era when attrition is 1 or 50. And the next day have 6 goods of current era with 0, 3, 4, 10 or 20 attrition.

You're mixing terminology which is causing a fair amount of confusion.

Number of choices range form 4-6; more on that below. Number of Goods used for one choice is 1 at 0 attrition and goes up in documented steps as attrition increases.

----------

Random selection does not necessarily mean equal distribution.

Consider a d6 with the nymbers 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The number rolled is still random, but the distribution is weighted such that 1 comes up twice as often.

Take a look at this table:.

Here are my stats since I changed my data recording process:

Number of items to choose	Successful	Total	Win percent
4	504	544	92.6%
5	971	1254	77.4%
6	774	1387	55.8%

It's pretty easy to see that the number of choices is weighted. Is this a statistically meaningful sample size? Is the data rigorously recorded?

You can ask dontwannaname about his methodology. You can ask a statistician to give an estimate on accuracy based on the sample size.

Or you can collect data for yourself.

What do I think? ontwannaname has established a solid presence in the year they have been posting as knowlegeable and reasonable. No reason to not trust them, every reason to give them the full credence they are due.

----------

Point is that when you critique the RNG INNO shrugs and says, "No, it works fine." And they are right. Your problem is with the weighting of the distribution.

Which INNO may or may not change. I suspect they have accurate data on all players 'win' rates at various numbers of choices and very carefully picked the weighting for the results they want.

As with the RNG, everybody plays with the same distribution.

So while you may want it easier, as I suspect most players do, would that be good for the game?

Ask yourself why is INNO is choosing this particular weighting?

You may be on the right track, thinking that INNO is trying to soak up Goods. You might start trying to figure out why INNO is doing so. How does that help INNO make money or improve the game?

Or maybe it's to assure some desired balance point between fighting and negotiating? The recent change in attrition points towards that.

Maybe another reason or combination of reasons?

Rest assured that in the end it's to continue to make money, and INNO does that by making the game attractive to players for years. It's a formula that grossed them more then a Billion dollars, so it's safe to say they know what they are doing.

 

[Algona]

I'm not having as much luck finding previous era goods. I'm almost at the point of offering current age goods at 1:1 and still not able to get previous era goods in any quantity.

Sal gives one of the two long term answers for that. Keep some Goods producing SBs back an Era when you move up TF and Sleigh Builder seem reasonable. The other is to lay in a big stock of Goods before moving up in Era. I plan to do both.

Unfortunately I sold a lot of Capes in the year before GBG and am woefully short on PME Goods with no plans to move up in the near future My short term fix is to find PME and Future Era Guildies and trade 1:1 their PME for my CE Goods.

Since I produce a lot of CE and ProgE Goods, I'm doing a lot of trading of those to Guildies looking for them. One of the times that being in a big Guild pays off.

As I mentioned a while back, it's a great time to be one of the big Goods dealers or to consider going into that business.

 

[BruteForceAttack]

And therein lies the rub. Exactly why I'm a solid no on this. I will play my game when I'm available to play my game for as long as I want to, or am able to play my game. Catching a theme here? It's my game, not your game.

Since, as I suspected, you want my attrition information so you can hound me to play my game the way you want me to play my game, then no. You can't, nor should you, have my attrition information. Rally the troops. Send out the call. I'll respond if I can and want to. On my terms, not yours.

Again wrong assumption. it is good idea to know how much fire power is left for planning.

 

[DeletedUser37581]

Is this a statistically meaningful sample size?

Given the number of samples, the breakdown of 4, 5, and 6 items is approximately accurate to within 2% with 95% confidence.

Negotiations with 4 items occurred 22.4% of the time. There is 95% confidence that the actual value is between 20.4% and 24.4%.

 

[mamboking053]

And therein lies the rub. Exactly why I'm a solid no on this. I will play my game when I'm available to play my game for as long as I want to, or am able to play my game. Catching a theme here? It's my game, not your game.

Since, as I suspected, you want my attrition information so you can hound me to play my game the way you want me to play my game, then no. You can't, nor should you, have my attrition information. Rally the troops. Send out the call. I'll respond if I can and want to. On my terms, not yours.

Well...that would be fine if you were a one-man team, but since you are a part of the team, wouldn't that mean you should align yourself to the goals of the group rather than being an individual? I mean...comparatively...what team facilitates the idea "I do what I want when I want regardless of the needs of the team"?

But then again, if you are winning with this strategy then why fix it if it's not broken.

 

[Ctik]

No, you don't. No one agrees with you. That has nothing to do with a lack of comprehension. Quit whining and start winning!

You can also quit without spending a single diamond. Same result as the fights in your examples. Enough said. It sounds like you want a way to pay diamonds to continue fighting in a single-wave battle... this is the weirdest "dumbing down" of an explanation as I've seen.

You still dont get it.

There are multiple ways to improve your fighting ability (event buildings, GB's, Tavern) yet not a single thing for negotiating in GBG. You are completely at the mercy of the RNG.

And stop with the whining comment. This is a discussion where you have your opinion and I have mine. I could just say "Quit whining about the feedback" and contribute your own.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Again wrong assumption. it is good idea to know how much fire power is left for planning.

And your planning relies on those attrition levels rising to an amount you've determined, coupled with an expectation that I will fight/negotiate up to that attrition level each day. And if I don't? If I only go for the easy stuff to fight longer with low attrition longer? What then?

 

[mamboking053]

You still dont get it.

There are multiple ways to improve your fighting ability (event buildings, GB's, Tavern) yet not a single thing for negotiating in GBG. You are completely at the mercy of the RNG.

Well...you can't improve the RNG element of it- there will always be a chance for loss.

But you can reduce how often you lose by improving your decision making. You can improve the number of attempts you can make by increasing the amount of goods you have. Certain buildings within GbG reduce the attrition rate so that you don't spend many resources per attempt (although this requires goods, as well...). They help, at least...

 

[Ctik]

You're mixing terminology which is causing a fair amount of confusion.

Number of choices range form 4-6; more on that below. Number of Goods used for one choice is 1 at 0 attrition and goes up in documented steps as attrition increases.

----------

Random selection does not necessarily mean equal distribution.

Consider a d6 with the nymbers 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The number rolled is still random, but the distribution is weighted such that 1 comes up twice as often.

...........

I am not mixing terminology.

Each Attrition change (including the initial loading of the GBG), each province is set with the following:
1) the RNG will decide on 4, 5 or 6 goods
2) the RNG will decide on which goods from previous and current era
After a win, Attrition will raise and all provinces will repeat 1 and 2.
A scale is set that when certain attrition is reached, the amount of goods of each is increased.

I fully understand what INNO is doing. They have added the negotiating and now wish they didnt. You are not allowed any improvements for GBG for negotiating where fighting there is.

I can see if negotiating worked more like:

Attrition 0-5: 4 goods of previous era costing 1 each
Attrition 6-10: 4 goods of current era costing 2 each
Attrition 11-15: 5 goods of previous era costing 3 each
Attrition 16-20: 5 goods of current era costing 4 each
Attrition 21-25: 6 goods of previous era costing 5 each
Attrition 26-30: 6 goods of current era costing 6 each


Or something similar to that. I would need time to find a good balance to fighting to know how it should work

 

[BruteForceAttack]

And your planning relies on those attrition levels rising to an amount you've determined, coupled with an expectation that I will fight/negotiate up to that attrition level each day. And if I don't? If I only go for the easy stuff to fight longer with low attrition longer? What then?

Again wrong assumption, not every guild is run the negative way you think. For e.g. guild members message how many fights they can do and then have to switch to negotiate..or they say I can auto upto this attrition then have to manually fight...(is important to know if a province has to be taken quickly). Since members throughout the day on their own time do stuff in gbg knowing how much juice is left before reset assists planning.

 

[DeletedUser38368]

This remains to be seen. I'm not sure that it does satisfy that requirement since you aren't actually actively donating anything (the same reason for the GBs). It's a collection that goes directly to the treasury. You don't have the option NOT to donate, which is the point. If you were to be given an option to keep OR donate and you chose donate, that would make sense. But to say you're donating something when it's automated as the function via collection is not what the devs feel meets the spirit of the ask. I agree with them.



Negotiations are worth twice as much per attrition point (meaning they are equal to two fights) and so, the cost of goods makes it worth "extra" in that sense. However, the cost of troops to many players keeps them from fighting as much as well. And goods are FAR easier to get than troops. It's a play style difference that determines what you're going to be good at (or not) in this respect.

No it doesn't remain to be seen. I am telling you the SoH collection counts toward "donate goods to your guild treasury quests."
If the SoH works this way then all buildings with a similar function should work this way as well.

As for your goods comment. All I can say is that it's called "Guild Battlegrounds" not "Guild Trader Grounds."

Sorry for the late reply, haven't been to the forum in weeks.

 

[DeletedUser37581]

No it doesn't remain to be seen. I am telling you the SoH collection counts toward "donate goods to your guild treasury quests."
If the SoH works this way then all buildings with a similar function should work this way as well.

The good news is that all non-GB buildings that produce guild goods count toward "donate goods to your guild treasury" quests.

 

[DeletedUser38368]

The good news is that all non-GB buildings that produce guild goods count toward "donate goods to your guild treasury" quests.

Lol yes and all of those buildings have the most ridiculous collection sound byte.

 

[DeletedUser]

I have to disagree with this. I have had 6 on days where I have not been able to do anything the prior day. INNO is clearly using the RNG to generate both the goods to be used and the number of goods. It doesnt matter what your attrition is at. I can have 4 goods of previous era when attrition is 1 or 50. And the next day have 6 goods of current era with 0, 3, 4, 10 or 20 attrition.

I see now that the way you worded it originally was misleading. It appeared that you were claiming to need 6 or each good, when what you were really trying to say was that you had 6 options of resources to offer. (I say resources to offer because sometimes it's all goods and sometimes coins/supplies are included in the options.) I don't see having 6 options right off the bat as much of an issue. You only start out having to offer 1 good (or minimal coins/supplies) to each of the 5 spots, so even if you try all three turns and fail it is at most 15 goods you're out if you quit and try again from scratch. If that is a problem, then you have bigger issues than the number of options.

 

[DeletedUser40197]

No it doesn't remain to be seen. I am telling you the SoH collection counts toward "donate goods to your guild treasury quests."
If the SoH works this way then all buildings with a similar function should work this way as well.

I know the SOH counts for quests to donate to guild treasury. I had one the other day and collected on my 2 SOHs. Then had donation credits to the guild treasury portion.

 

[Ctik]

I see now that the way you worded it originally was misleading. It appeared that you were claiming to need 6 or each good, when what you were really trying to say was that you had 6 options of resources to offer. (I say resources to offer because sometimes it's all goods and sometimes coins/supplies are included in the options.) I don't see having 6 options right off the bat as much of an issue. You only start out having to offer 1 good (or minimal coins/supplies) to each of the 5 spots, so even if you try all three turns and fail it is at most 15 goods you're out if you quit and try again from scratch. If that is a problem, then you have bigger issues than the number of options.

I guess calling it resources would be better wording. Will try to do that going forward.

 

[qaccy]

@RazorbackPirate I get where you're coming from regarding 'your game', but at the same time being a part of a guild does require sacrificing some degree of that 'freedom' depending on the requirements of the guild. Much like how it's reasonable and expected that a guild should allow its members leniency from requirements if real life emergencies or other circumstances come up (real life comes first), I think that a guild can expect its members to contribute to its growth to the best of their ability rather than intentionally (or selfishly) only putting in bare minimum or even no effort while still enjoying the benefits of that guild.

Regarding GbG specifically, I don't like witnessing first-hand a sector being captured in minutes because it has no attrition gain, and then immediately following that another sector is called out but it sits there for an hour because it isn't surrounded by siege camps. Now, considering the previous sector was just taken, where did everyone suddenly go that the next sector now takes so long to capture? Were these members only around for the easy rewards and they slipped silently back into the shadows once it was over? Can't really know for sure, but I know how it looks when I see it happening. This is the sort of behavior that bothers me. Much like the players who are only interested in killing Champions in GvG, this sort of 'candy' farming to me undermines what these features were intended to be and frankly, it disgusts me just how self-centered so many players are that even when they're in a guild, they only care about themselves and not the team that they're allegedly a part of.

This post ended up turning into a rant, because thinking about human nature really gets under my skin.

 

[Ctik]

His problem is that with 6 options it is harder to do than with 4 options. That's why he wants 4 options at the start. He never mentions the number of goods needed. Also when you negotiate and you do not get it after 3 tries you can use diamonds to continue till you finally win. With fights you do not have that option. When you lose you lose, period. That's what he is whining about. Criticize him all you want, but at least get it right.

Please stop. You are now making yourself look foolish. I am giving feedback in what I believe is an unbalanced aspect of the game. If you have trouble with that, sorry that it bothers you.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Again wrong assumption, not every guild is run the negative way you think. For e.g. guild members message how many fights they can do and then have to switch to negotiate..or they say I can auto up to this attrition then have to manually fight...(is important to know if a province has to be taken quickly). Since members throughout the day on their own time do stuff in gbg knowing how much juice is left before reset assists planning.

And if I don't care to report in? What if I just want to show up and hit what I can, when I can?

I do what I do, the way that I feel like doing it for the benefit of me first, the guild second. I play when I play, for as long as I feel like playing, and spend that playing time playing the way I want, not the way you want. You should have no expectations beyond that. I am a voluntary member of your guild. I do not work for you. You do not pay me.

As such, you have no say over how I spend my time or my resources. I play for my city's advancement first, then for the advancement of the guild. Whatever I contribute to the guild, I do so voluntarily, freely, and cheerfully, out of my city's abundance. I do not contribute under compulsion, guilt, or coercion.

Now, before you go all, "Blah, blah, blah, guild. Blah, blah, blah, team. Blah, blah, blah, whatever," in my 48 member Platinum guild I am ranked 35. My member contribution in GBG is currently 28. Why is that information alone not enough for you?

 

[Salsuero]

I'm not having as much luck finding previous era goods. I'm almost at the point of offering current age goods at 1:1 and still not able to get previous era goods in any quantity.

Yeah, I can understand that issue. And some ages are much harder to trade down than others. I camped for quite a while in my previous age, so I had a very large surplus of goods when GBg was released. It wasn't an intentional plan, since I didn't know it was in the works, but I figured it would be a good idea to have them "just in case" and it turns out it was a good decision in hindsight.