Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

Graviton

Well-Known Member
If you're not a leader, is it going to affect you? Do you have to worry about it? If you feel like these additions WOULD affect you, perhaps there's a possibility that you quietly acknowledge that there's a problem with the way you're currently doing things?
I tend to agree, and I've said before (and I've been guilty of it myself) that people shouldn't argue with anybody in a feedback thread. The purpose of the thread is for players to express their opinions and not for the rest of us to convince them they're wrong.

Just bothers me to think how many don't voice their concerns because every idea presented gets tore up if it doesn't align with view of the world from a specific few.
We can be rough on proposals, yes. Because many of them are from new-ish players who don't fully grasp the game yet and/or they are short-sighted solutions to a handful of players' shortcomings and/or they're just silly; and much of the time the snark is started by the OP of a proposal thread when somebody dares to disagree with them. We long-timers have seen many of these suggested changes come through here several times by now and that can be frustrating.

As I said, it's my opinion that debate should be rare in a feedback thread, but I don't think anybody should apologize for it in the Proposals section. To many of us, the issue with allowing guild leaders the sole power to dictate GBG undercuts its very purpose, which is accessibility to everyone and the ability to play it when they are able. That's why the arguments against it are so vociferous.

To to answer your question, qaccy: yes, even though we aren't guild leaders this proposal does affect us, greatly. With tight controls guild leaders would shut us out of rewards and participation. I think it would hasten the demise of GBG; if players can't participate when and how they are able, they're likely to forego it completely.

I realize this is an argument of sorts in a feedback thread, but I though it important to address your point about the attitude around here lately.
 
Last edited:

Stephen Longshanks

Forum Moderator
Anything that gets added to GBG in this capacity is for leadership's sake. If you're not a leader, is it going to affect you? Do you have to worry about it? If you feel like these additions WOULD affect you, perhaps there's a possibility that you quietly acknowledge that there's a problem with the way you're currently doing things?
They are definitely for leadership's sake, not for the members'. But they would affect everyone because the leaders would use them to more tightly control players' freedom to act in GBG. And nobody opposed to these logs/controls, least of all @RazorbackPirate, is acknowledging that there is any kind of problem. The ones calling for logs/controls are clearly the ones that (mistakenly) think that there is a problem.
 

cptvkirk

Member
The variety of guilds i have seen that disparage some elements of the game that others revolve around lead me to agree that near every "tool" provided will be abused through effort or ignorance. I have witnessed guilds require 64 in GE every week from every member whether required to hold a lead or not as well as guilds that don't open the second level. Some guilds expect specific GB's, number of times aiding the guild per week, contributions to new buildings, dedicated space for guild benefit such a certain number of HOF's by certain age, specified times to be present for gvg etc.. The list of metrics that one guild holds as value over another is as diverse as the player base. For a player to feel restricted in any way isnt the fault of tools provided by the game or the way leaders of the guild they are in have implemented them, it is their choice to evaluate the environment they give their time to ensuring it suits them or there is a need to move to another. for any player, or even worse a moderator, feeling it their duty to dictate how any one guild is managed over another might be one of the greatest offenses i have seen in this forum.
 

cptvkirk

Member
The ones calling for logs/controls are clearly the ones that (mistakenly) think that there is a problem.
I can say with certainty that 99% of a team putting forth a coordinated effort with unified goals and 1% not doing the same while leaders have no ability to identify the 1% to either correct or remove them is a problem. It creates an accusatory environment and mistrust within a guild. this isn't an opinion.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
The variety of guilds i have seen that disparage some elements of the game that others revolve around lead me to agree that near every "tool" provided will be abused through effort or ignorance. I have witnessed guilds require 64 in GE every week from every member whether required to hold a lead or not as well as guilds that don't open the second level. Some guilds expect specific GB's, number of times aiding the guild per week, contributions to new buildings, dedicated space for guild benefit such a certain number of HOF's by certain age, specified times to be present for gvg etc.. The list of metrics that one guild holds as value over another is as diverse as the player base. For a player to feel restricted in any way isnt the fault of tools provided by the game or the way leaders of the guild they are in have implemented them, it is their choice to evaluate the environment they give their time to ensuring it suits them or there is a need to move to another. for any player, or even worse a moderator, feeling it their duty to dictate how any one guild is managed over another might be one of the greatest offenses i have seen in this forum.
No one except those wanting more controls want to dictate the actions of others. The fact that you can't under the current system is what has you here advocating for the controls needed to do so. Set your metrics for GBG. No one is arguing against that, least of all me. How many advances do you require per day? That's a metric no different than any other you've listed.

All the guild requirements you listed above I can voluntarily comply with or not, with all the metrics needed for you to enforce them, or not. What you're asking for are controls that could/would force me, involuntarily, to follow your dictates/demands. Solicit my voluntary support, or deal with the consequences of your inability to do so. I don't care what your title or position is within your guild, that's a level of control I'll never support.

Soliciting voluntary submission = Leadership / Enforcing involuntary submission = Dictatorship

The only reason I would ever support this is to give you the rope needed to hang yourself so your best players leave you. We've gotten some really great GBG players over the last few weeks because of over restrictive, over allied guilds that prevent their players from playing GBG when they're able to. However, even knowing this, You have no right to that level of control.

While I can always choose to flee a dictatorship, I'd rather never allow a dictator to rise.

I can say with certainty that 99% of a team putting forth a coordinated effort with unified goals and 1% not doing the same while leaders have no ability to identify the 1% to either correct or remove them is a problem. It creates an accusatory environment and mistrust within a guild. This isn't an opinion.
While it may in your guild, it does not in many, many others. If this is the environment in your guild, it's the environment you've created. An environment that points, once again, to a failure of leadership. The problem is not the 1% error rate, the problem is your expectation of perfection.
 

cptvkirk

Member
i think i have identified the misunderstanding. you think i'm upset i can't make my guild do what i want? leaders facilitate the guild's expectations. I'll give you it is a failure of leadership. the lack of information is causing me to fail to facilitate my guild's expectations.

lol...i'm not even in my guild at the moment. But i don't have to worry about them doing what i want while i'm away. their goals haven't changed, who is helping make it happen might have.

While it may in your guild, it does not in many, many others. If this is the environment in your guild, it's the environment you've created. An environment that points, once again, to a failure of leadership.
what looks to be a near record breaking 161 yes votes would indicate otherwise. I'm sure you are awesome leading your guild, i don't know if my 4 years would measure up. again, not telling anyone else how they should do it. simply adding my voice to many others that agree on something we need for how we do it.
 
Last edited:

Belisarioos

Active Member
You're right, we could get over it. But we play a game with a competitive platform that has a forum to voice our concerns as we encounter them. If we all just "got over it" the game wouldn't improve much and you wouldn't have much to talk about.
.

edit..i take that back...i can't even begin to let anyone think i feel some of the recent changes we have seen driven from here are anything close to resembling an improvement. Just bothers me to think how many don't voice their concerns because every idea presented gets tore up if it doesn't align with view of the world from a specific few.
You can build your own check sheet, when you get your Guild to cooperate.
It bothers me that so many people on this forum (and in the Real World) can't accept that there suggestions aren't immediately accepted as the best way to fix to their perceived problems with the world or game.
FOE is a game world that depends on social interactions. Creating rules for everyone that allow control of those social interactions by Leaders/Founders is not (IMO) conducive to a happy gaming (or Real Life) experience.
When I first encountered Razorback Pirate, it was over the issue of fair trade vs free markets. At first I thought INNO should incorporate fair trade; until after digesting the various points of view (and RP's terse insight) I realized that if a Guild wanted to "help" it's members with price controls, it didn't need INNO to make it happen. Cooperation amongst guild members would. In any case, in the Guilds I belong to Free Market Trading is encouraged with the provision that if requested by a member to accommodate a "fair trade" (using our Guild Market Thread), it should be honored. Fortunately in all of the Guilds there is a group of players that pick up these trades. Currently, except for "newbies below Late Middle Ages", everyone is happy with free trade.
The same will be true for GBG and any other feature INNO develops.
Remember HOF ruined the game, the ARC destroyed the game, Rogues unbalanced the game, BAZINGA!
There are well known members that have a hard time constraining there frustration when discussing proposals that want more control given to Founders/Leaders, but if you take a deep breath, push away from the forum and try to see the game through the eyes of the 50 million registered players.
 

xivarmy

Well-Known Member
Logs seem to be the happy medium place between those who want control and those who don't want to be controlled though. For those who want control they know who to talk to and ultimately have the recourse of removing the member if they're a detriment to the guild. For those who don't want to be controlled, they'd be able to find a home where they're not being controlled as guild removal as the only ultimate way to control them is a lot more extreme than most guild leaders will want to resort to (particularly amongst small to medium sized guilds that are always wishing for a few more members).

I'm completely on board with no ability to restrict where and when people can attack; if the default position is people need leadership's permission to play the feature, the feature is dead to over 90% of the playerbase.
 

honey55

Active Member
If it is bad fir a guild to have rules fir gbg and the ability to know if it's members are complying than wouldn't it be bad for guilds to have rules for ge. Some ⁷guilds require one to do 1 level, some 4. I actually can understand ut myself. I simply don't join a guild if I am not willing to abide by its requirements. Why should a member who does nothing get the rewards as well. I'm just confused why people are so against it. Alot of guilds have requirements for aiding, gvg, ge, etc. Why is gbg different. I am totally not getting this debate. Most of us will simply join a guild that has requirements we are ok with. Why is it ok to have requirements for ge and gvg and not gbg.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
If it is bad fir a guild to have rules fir gbg and the ability to know if it's members are complying than wouldn't it be bad for guilds to have rules for ge. Some ⁷guilds require one to do 1 level, some 4. I actually can understand ut myself. I simply don't join a guild if I am not willing to abide by its requirements. Why should a member who does nothing get the rewards as well. I'm just confused why people are so against it. Alot of guilds have requirements for aiding, gvg, ge, etc. Why is gbg different. I am totally not getting this debate. Most of us will simply join a guild that has requirements we are ok with. Why is it ok to have requirements for ge and gvg and not gbg.
Just as you set minimum or timed requirements to finish X levels/encounters in GE, you can set a minimum number of Advances each guild member must make each day/each round. Just as you can check the Contribution list in GE for compliance, you can check the Member Activity list in GBG for compliance.

Just as you can with GE, you can kick members who don't meet your required minimums. I've yet to hear any objections to this. I know I don't object to them.

I'm not getting why you think you can't set minimum GBG requirements and enforce them. Many guilds already have. Publish them in your guild description and just like the myriad of other requirements, players are free to join or not. Not seeing an issue here.
 

Graviton

Well-Known Member
If it is bad fir a guild to have rules fir gbg and the ability to know if it's members are complying than wouldn't it be bad for guilds to have rules for ge. Some ⁷guilds require one to do 1 level, some 4. I actually can understand ut myself. I simply don't join a guild if I am not willing to abide by its requirements. Why should a member who does nothing get the rewards as well. I'm just confused why people are so against it. Alot of guilds have requirements for aiding, gvg, ge, etc. Why is gbg different. I am totally not getting this debate. Most of us will simply join a guild that has requirements we are ok with. Why is it ok to have requirements for ge and gvg and not gbg.
Honestly, if people don't get the arguments for and against by this point they never will or just don't care to.
 

True592

Active Member
I linked for you the EXACT formula used to to calculate MMR. Hell, I even linked to you your exact MMR. That you don't like the formula or can't figure out the math is irrelevant.
It is not a formula. It is irrelevant (ha-ha) that you think it is a formula. That is an algorithm, description, or whatever else.
Here would be a formula to my question, based on that description:

Guild rank = MMR * 18 + Guild's prestige bonus + SUM(GvG sector prestige).

Yes, I could have seen a calculation from wording. But it was really late, it seemed that your link just misfired and went to the bottom of the page.
Also, on top of that, I didn't expect anything like that. I mean, support answer should have been that MMR now determines your guild rank, unless guild owns vast GvG territories.

While MMR is not published, it can be calculated at the end of each round.
I agree with that now.

Those other guilds, regardless of members, have obviously done enough to get more prestige leading to a higher rank
What is obvious here? Is that also a math term?

No matter what combination of factors got them there, (which you can figure out for yourself using the formula provided) they've got higher numbers, so they've obviously done better than you. But, I can understand your upset. It must be highly embarrassing to have your 33 member guild bested by guilds with 1, 2, and 3 members. Ouch.
How is it not matter?
That actually is the thing that matters the most!!!

There would be football games this weekend.
Imagine, teams running around, scoring touchdowns, field goal... fumbles, interceptions, sacks.
But... there is no score. You don't know what you get points for. At the end of the game, refs come together and tell the stadium: Team A beat Team B with a score 34 : 20.
You wouldn't approve such circus, would you?

On your last remark, yes, there are a lot of doubt for calculation! Our guild moved from Silver to Gold, owning a lot of territory on a map. You don't find suspicious, that guilds with just few players got higher score. Let me think otherwise, please, and your disagreement, actually, is irrelevant here.
 

True592

Active Member
Hi, I'm sorry, there is too much information without reading the whole thread.
But, I've seen your proposal. I think, there is a better way.
Instead of pulling flags, make them of different color. Flags set by leaders would be, say, red one. Everyone else would stay with gray ones. So, there would be no confusion and it would be visible on the map, where leadership recommends to go.
(but I feel your pain. We are struggling in the current week. Yet, somebody managed to set a siege on the best guild, pissing them off. What's more hilarious, someone works on the most outer tier sector. You know, those that give 12-20 points. And, no one tells who's doing that, LOL! :))

Another thing, and I've seen it as an official proposal, yet I don't know whether it went thru or not.
Give founders ability to pin a thread!
It is really painful, how GBG thread get quickly drown by swap threads and such.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
It is not a formula. It is irrelevant (ha-ha) that you think it is a formula. That is an algorithm, description, or whatever else.
Here would be a formula to my question, based on that description:

Guild rank = MMR * 18 + Guild's prestige bonus + SUM(GvG sector prestige).

Yes, I could have seen a calculation from wording. But it was really late, it seemed that your link just misfired and went to the bottom of the page.
Also, on top of that, I didn't expect anything like that. I mean, support answer should have been that MMR now determines your guild rank, unless guild owns vast GvG territories.
Well smell you. Mr. math wiz. Emphasis on wiz, and I don't mean cheese.
What is obvious here? Is that also a math term?
No it's an objective term based on the formula, Higher prestige + higher guild rank = Better than you
How is it not matter?
That actually is the thing that matters the most!!!
Why? While the combination of factors may be interesting to know, it doesn't matter what combination of factors got them a higher rank, they have a higher rank. Pick all the nits you want over the specifics, you've got a lower rank. That's all that matters.
There would be football games this weekend.
Imagine, teams running around, scoring touchdowns, field goal... fumbles, interceptions, sacks.
But... there is no score. You don't know what you get points for. At the end of the game, refs come together and tell the stadium: Team A beat Team B with a score 34 : 20.
This isn't football, I don't care about football. How football is scored has no bearing on GBG.
You wouldn't approve such circus, would you?
A circus might actually make football enjoyable to watch. As it stands, it's both a time and mind suck. And Yes. My name is RazorbackPirate and I approve this message.
On your last remark, yes, there are a lot of doubt for calculation! Our guild moved from Silver to Gold, owning a lot of territory on a map. You don't find suspicious, that guilds with just few players got higher score. Let me think otherwise, please, and your disagreement, actually, is irrelevant here.
The amount of territory you hold on the map is irrelevant. Did you see map holdings as part of the GBG formula? Nope. Not there. Where did you place in the round? That's all that matters, that's the only thing that affects MMR. Taking 1st holding 3 provinces or 10 provinces, all the same. First is first and last is last.

So, No. I don't find it suspicious. Embarrassing, but not suspicious.

The top member in my guild has put up 1,693 fights and 83 negotiations this round alone with over 4 days left to go. By the end of the round, he'll easily top 2,500 fights all by himself. He's done more by himself than 90% of the guilds have done in the last 4 rounds combined. He could be in a one man guild and easily make Platinum all by himself. Doing so would rank his one man guild much, much higher than your 33 man Gold guild.

So yes, I can easily see how 1, 2 and 3 member guilds are ranked higher than you. Nothing suspicious about that at all.

Funny, even with the formula, you still can't figure it out.
 

True592

Active Member
Where did you place in the round? That's all that matters, that's the only thing that affects MMR.
.....
So, No. I don't find it suspicious. Embarrassing, but not suspicious.
Yes, it is. The way you reply to people is embarrassing, and those guild placements makes it suspicions.

The top member in my guild has put up 1,693 fights and 83 negotiations this round alone with over 4 days left to go. By the end of the round, he'll easily top 2,500 fights all by himself. He's done more by himself than 90% of the guilds have done in the last 4 rounds combined. He could be in a one man guild and easily make Platinum all by himself. Doing so would rank his one man guild much, much higher than your 33 man Gold guild.
First, no, he would not make to Platinum. He would lose back a big part of sectors gained. Some of his sieges would fail, wasting fights taken.
Second, I've checked those guilds before questioning them. No monster performers there.
Lastly, think of it. You said that only relative placement matters. We took the 1st. ... I know what you're going to say. Those guilds performed so much better in previous rounds. You know, when I see results deviate on multiple occasions, I'm questioning that something is wrong. You and likes, you just having beliefs.
 

Orius Maximus

Well-Known Member
Gamers gonna game any system. Alliances and lockouts and loopholes will be found and exploited.
Yup. From day one, we had people looking to see how to squeeze as much advantage out of GBG as possible. That's going to happen. Guilds want to form alliances, that's fine by me. The way I see it, as things settle down, the diamond and top platinum leagues will be dominated by the strongest guilds who already have these alliances in place from GvG and can manage to maintain them properly. So they'll lock down GBG like they have GvG locked, but the big difference is that the rest of us will still have more dynamic and interesting maps to play on. At least things reset here giving everyone a clean start.

The two guilds where I've been doing things in GBG have dabbled in alliances each season, but with different guilds each time, since they're both in Gold where things are fluctuating. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but I'm getting an impression that some guilds who can control maybe up to a third of the map are realizing that strategic alliances are useful here. If you can't control most of the map anyway, you're getting a better performance by agreeing to divide things evenly with your most significant rival on the map. Otherwise, as you pound each other senseless over the same provinces, the weaker guilds can steal other provinces from you and then you end up in a worse finishing spot.

They are definitely for leadership's sake, not for the members'. But they would affect everyone because the leaders would use them to more tightly control players' freedom to act in GBG. And nobody opposed to these logs/controls, least of all @RazorbackPirate, is acknowledging that there is any kind of problem. The ones calling for logs/controls are clearly the ones that (mistakenly) think that there is a problem.
That's another nature of online games, some teams like more control than others, I've seen it plenty of times before. There's always guilds/clans/whatever out there that are run by martinets and some players absolutely love that environment. They thrive in it, some people just like to be followers. It's already been a part of FoE for a long time now, so not much now is going to change it. I can't stand that sort of thing myself, and I don't join those guilds, preferring looser teams where I'm free to do what I want, but if people want those guilds, they can have them. The guilds I'm in on Jaims and Parkog don't goose step, and they're doing decently well in GBG.