Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

[DeletedUser29468]

Personally disagree about the log, fine as it is. Create a guild thread to organize attacks, and if you want to give guidance, do one attack or negotiation in a province to set a flag.

The problem with no way to determine who has attacked what sector, is that leaders have no way to assure other guilds that we will *not* attack. Other guilds can send spies, for whom there is no hold, as in GvG. Those spies can disrupt GBG for the guild by wildly attacking other guilds, potentially also impacting alliances and treaties in GvG as a result.

 

[DeletedUser35836]

Personally disagree about the log, fine as it is. Create a guild thread to organize attacks, and if you want to give guidance, do one attack or negotiation in a province to set a flag.

Guild threads have not been successful. we have sent many messages in multiple threads about a sector that was not to be attacked and it has been repeatedly ignored by at least one member. We need to know who is attacking or negotiating that sector.

 

[DeletedUser29468]

Guild threads have not been successful. we have sent many messages in multiple threads about a sector that was not to be attacked and it has been repeatedly ignored by at least one member. We need to know who is attacking or negotiating that sector.

Exactly! And the potential for spies, abuse, and consequent disruption of GvG treaties and alliances is great!

 

[Cybrweez]

I wish Support Pool could be used here. I had 3 thoughts, what if the pool could reduce costs of Buildings? Increase slots in a province (if there's a limit of 0-3)? Or increase/decrease chance of buildings staying after conquering?

I also wonder if that percentage could be affected by time to reconquer? So longer a guild holds sector, the chance for buildings to remain goes down.

 

[Kranyar the Mysterious]

The problem with no way to determine who has attacked what sector, is that leaders have no way to assure other guilds that we will *not* attack. Other guilds can send spies, for whom there is no hold, as in GvG. Those spies can disrupt GBG for the guild by wildly attacking other guilds, potentially also impacting alliances and treaties in GvG as a result.

Exactly why I like it. This is not GvG. Those alliances mean nothing in GbG (so far), which I think is great. The alliances cause stagnation, and I personally hate them.

I'm glad the developers addressed the issue the way they did, and I hope they never add into the logs which provinces an individual attacks or makes it so a leader has to set a flag to attack a province.

 

[DeletedUser30312]

Yeah, one of the initial things I'm getting out of this is that the GvG recalc rush strategy doesn't work here. Fighters will eventually run into the attrition wall, and you can't just blindy mash Auto with a bunch of rogues +1. There needs to be some definite coordination and patience as well.

I do think the idea that larger guilds are at an advantage is valid though. The more people you have, the more advances a guild can make while the smaller guilds hit the attrition wall faster. Ghosts won't be able to mess around here as they do in GvG, and ghosting will put the parent guild at a disadvantage as it means they lose their big fighters.

So basically guilds are going to have to decide how strongly they want to focus on this and keep and recruit members who do real participation. The GvG guild with 5 fighters and 50 casual players churning out Arc goods isn't going to cut it. It's probably going to combine the commitment of GE with the strategy and coordination of GvG. I think we'll see some guild shakeups in the next few months.

 

[FiveCentFather]

With only 3 turns negotiation is a game of luck with almost no strategy. Solving GE by negotiation is fun, in GBG it's pure frustration.

Totally agree with this. I'm a all-negotiation player, and that extra turn is critical for more than five goods. Otherwise it's just a total crap shoot. And it's not about the waste of goods (which isn't really all that bad), it's that it makes negotiating frustrating, time consuming and tedious. If there is not SOME way to earn that bonus turn (even if temporarily and/or at the cost of using more goods), I won't be doing Battlegrounds. It's simply not FUN, which is kind of the point of playing a game. I ENJOY doing GE by negotiation, because there IS actually quite a bit of strategy involved. But not with how it is implemented in GBG.

 

[DeletedUser29726]

I have to agree with what is said about this, you can't possibly expect somebody with 30 members to be able to compete with a larger Guild and to have someone say that maybe you should join a better Guild as preposterous... Some of us don't want to be in a gigantic Guild. We like things the way they are and we do well. However when you consider the amount of resources that Battlegrounds takes then you should at least make it a Level Playing Field.

Sure I can expect that it's possible. It depends a lot on who the larger guild is, how active they are, etc. The point of how it's setup that every guild from a 1 member one to an 80 member one is competing in the same pool and potentially eligible for the largest prizes. If 1 player guilds were only paired with other 1 player guilds it wouldn't be very fair to make them eligible for the same guild rewards as a coordinated active 80 player guild. Hence that 1 player guild needs to show they can actually beat 80 player guilds to get there. In this extreme, it may seem unlikely - but 30v80, that seems quite plausible.

The majority of the reward comes from the league you're placed in. If you're in the top 2, you're on your way to getting to a higher league (though it might take some seasons). If you're in the bottom 2, you might be falling out. if you're in the middle of the pack, you're probably just staying put - eventually this is where you should expect to find yourself. Don't fret that you're not "winning" the round.

There will always be occasional mismatches. Guilds get stronger and weaker and it takes time for their rating to adjust.

My 3 servers for context:
Houndsmoor - inactive guild of 3, up against guilds from 1 to 64 members in Silver. winning so far.
Langendorn - active guild of 13, up against guilds from 2 to 63 members in Silver. running away with it.
Yorkton - active guild of 5, up against guilds from 3 to 38 members in Copper. winning handily.

So no, I'm not part of 'big guilds' myself, and I absolutely want the possibility to compete with them in future weeks.

 

[DeletedUser29726]

Totally agree with this. I'm a all-negotiation player, and that extra turn is critical for more than five goods. Otherwise it's just a total crap shoot. And it's not about the waste of goods (which isn't really all that bad), it's that it makes negotiating frustrating, time consuming and tedious. If there is not SOME way to earn that bonus turn (even if temporarily and/or at the cost of using more goods), I won't be doing Battlegrounds. It's simply not FUN, which is kind of the point of playing a game. I ENJOY doing GE by negotiation, because there IS actually quite a bit of strategy involved. But not with how it is implemented in GBG.

You can earn temporary diamonds and use it for that bonus turn when you fell you need it (i only have on 6 item negotiations when at high attrition besides; otherwise I just retry til I get it). 6 items can be tricky to negotiate through, but fighters facing high boost hit a *real* wall eventually where it's not a question of spending more troops, but just something they cannot pass with their current bonus. So it's only fair negotiators do have some 'challenging' negotiations.

I am pretty much pure-negotiation on one of my worlds (because it gives more progress). I currently feel goods producers have the edge over fighters in GBG, so I can't see it being made easier for them as it stands.

 

[DeletedUser40996]

Loving Guild Battlegrounds so far. 2 things that are badly needed - 1) there needs to be a log to indicate which players are attacking or negotiating certain tiles and 2) there needs to be a chat within GBG

Why a chat since any decent guild would have threads for swaps/trades/stix to brix/Arc/1.8 or 1.9 etc just add a thread in the message center for GbG . and same goes for the log . No need to show who's fighting where if things are coordinated through the guild message center threads

 

[DeletedUser40996]

Agree. Log and chat is need, cross-platform. Or maybe GBG leaders could set markings on some provinces, which would indicate for guildies what to attack.

Or maybe just post in the guild message center since any decent guild has threads for various things already

 

[DeletedUser40996]

I have to agree with what is said about this, you can't possibly expect somebody with 30 members to be able to compete with a larger Guild and to have someone say that maybe you should join a better Guild as preposterous... Some of us don't want to be in a gigantic Guild. We like things the way they are and we do well. However when you consider the amount of resources that Battlegrounds takes then you should at least make it a Level Playing Field.

Define "better" as well . Just had one of our guild leaders GIVE me ARC GOODS so because it's a smaller guild it must be a bad guild according to the wisearses that tell others to join a "better" guild

 

[DeletedUser40996]

Guild threads have not been successful. we have sent many messages in multiple threads about a sector that was not to be attacked and it has been repeatedly ignored by at least one member. We need to know who is attacking or negotiating that sector.

Boo hoo. Someone is playing a battle game like a battle game and you're worried about who's stepping on who's toes .

 

[Triopoly Champion]

Cool, since I have never done a single GvG battle in Mt. Killmore, I think I am in fine stead with nearly 5k battles to date. I'm sure that 10k battles won't take all that long as I approach 300 unboosted attack.

I battled to 220 yesterday before switching back to negotiation, and did nearly 100 of those total. Today I will start with battles instead of negotiation, so the attrition doesn't hit as fast. It was a bit steep in prior age goods, but didn't dent my current age goods at all. Just didn't feel a need to brag about it.

Have fun watching.

I beat up to the 180% without losing 1 single rogue, I don't think it worth more of my fights if I have to lose tons of rogues as my current guild isn't in GvG + GBG major. I feel good only because I beat a 2-wave army that has the higher boosts than mine.

If I level all of my Zeus, CoA, CdM, TA to level 70 or 75, then I have to beat the 320% boosted enemies to satisfy my own needs.

 

[Myrddindau]

Just out of curiosity, @Merlin II , how would you expect to see guilds sorted by size? Does a guild of 1 get matched against a guild of 2? A guild of 2 against a guild of 3? 3 against 5? 5 against 10? 10 against 20? How many different bins are there? 80? 50?

And are you willing to accept that all small guilds (say, under size 10) get copper league rewards - regardless of how strong they are? While guilds of size 65 or more always diamond league rewards - regardless of how many members participate? Or how do you see it work? It's one thing to say "match by size" but unless you can come up with an alternative structure to the entire feature, it doesn't help much.

And it wouldn't matter anyway - the complaints would still come rolling in.

The comments posted were not complaints but, rather, the current shortcoming with the GBG. Your example of 1 guild member versus a guild of 80 are extremes. Again, the current GBG is simply a question of basic math (i.e. larger guilds will be able to generate more fights/negotiations than much smaller guilds because of attrition and with each sector set at a fixed number of fights, the small guild will always be at a disadvantage). The alignment should be similar to the alignment in the weekly GE in which guilds of similar size (not 1 member versus 80 members) are paired against each other.

The easiest way to fix this problem is to eliminate "attrition." This is really what I am advocating which will allow all sized guilds compete as the success or failure of a guild will be predicated on the investments its members made in military boosts, guild treasury, and goods production (for negotiating). Attrition is an artificial brake which favors larger guilds.

 

[DeletedUser37581]

The comments posted were not complaints but, rather, the current shortcoming with the GBG. Your example of 1 guild member versus a guild of 80 are extremes. Again, the current GBG is simply a question of basic math (i.e. larger guilds will be able to generate more fights/negotiations than much smaller guilds because of attrition and with each sector set at a fixed number of fights, the small guild will always be at a disadvantage). The alignment should be similar to the alignment in the weekly GE in which guilds of similar size (not 1 member versus 80 members) are paired against each other.

The easiest way to fix this problem is to eliminate "attrition." This is really what I am advocating which will allow all sized guilds compete as the success or failure of a guild will be predicated on the investments its members made in military boosts, guild treasury, and goods production (for negotiating). Attrition is an artificial brake which favors larger guilds.

The whole point of attrition is to make this a guild versus guild competition. Without it, Battlegrounds would be dominated by the strongest players. This situation is somewhat overcome in GE because placement is based on percentage completion. Yes, larger guilds are favored, but that's not too surprising.

It almost sounds like you are looking for a feature that is completely different from Battlegrounds - no leagues, not guild versus guild but strong player versus strong player, ...

And where did I mention a guild of 1 versus a guild of 80?

I personally would rather wait a few seasons for the guilds to get matched by performance.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

All the match ups in this round are arbitrary based on some arbitrary method Inno used to assign a starting MMR to get the leagues started. From here out, future match ups will be based on the guild's actual MMR. It will likely take a few rounds, but soon the leagues will stabilize and you'll find your guild pretty evenly matched.

Future match ups will be based on performance in previous Battlegrounds. So a low energy, low participating 80 person guild may be well matched with a high energy, high participating 30 person guild. Only time will tell. And that's the point.

Give the Battlegrounds system time to work itself out and more importantly, time for the guilds to sort themselves out.

 

[CatNik]

Battlegrounds is supposed to affect guild ranking from what I have read. I have not been able to find out exactly how much and when. Is it after the completion of an entire round of Battlegrounds? I see the crown reward you get after completion. Don't see anything about prestige.

 

[DeletedUser29726]

Battlegrounds is supposed to affect guild ranking from what I have read. I have not been able to find out exactly how much and when. Is it after the completion of an entire round of Battlegrounds? I see the crown reward you get after completion. Don't see anything about prestige.

Yes, it's after the round's complete. It's not well displayed but it's an amount based on your new MMR (that is you should be able to derive a quantity that directly corresponds to MMR for an active guild by taking their prestige and subtracting level and GvG contributions). It stays around for the entire 2 weeks after the close of a GBG season.

 

[DeletedUser29726]

I think Guild Battlegrounds was designed with the very high-level player in mind. Someone who has a tremendous amount of goods, troops and diamonds to spare. Unless you're extremely lucky, negotiations will cost you diamonds each time. I am not enjoying this new feature at all, and neither is my guild.

Get better at negotiating? This was a common problem at the start of expedition, but then I thought people got better - but perhaps the people who are bad at negotiating just got used to having the 4th turn tavern boost for negotiations that don't really need it?

For your first offer always offer as many different things as you can. (i.e. for 4 selections, do 4 items+1 duplicate. For 5 or 6 do 5 different).

For your second offer first place 'wrong position' items under columns where you got flat out wrong answers. Then put in any items you don't know if there's any (either because they were the 6th item or because they came up correct the first time and you don't know if there's a 2nd one) under columns where you got 'wrong position' answers. then put in any 'wrong position' items you haven't found a new spot for yet. finally duplicate 'wrong position' items in columns where they may still go.

For your third offer you may often be able to derive exactly the right answer from the clues of the first two. It's also often a 50/50 guess (far from "extreme luck" needed). Very rarely you'll still have little clue where things go (extremely *bad* luck) and this is where you simply give up and go again and hope for more normal luck next time.