Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

[Graviton]

So then tell me that if what you just said is NOT happening, and that the guild IS fighting in multiple places, how I can find out who is NOT paying attention to the guild communications.

if someone completes a siege when we have explicitly said NOT to complete the siege, how do I find out who did exactly did what we told them not to do?

Since we're all talking about how guild leaders can coordinate their GBG players I can understand how this info would be useful. I just object, as @Algona does, to the idea of institutionalizing a restriction on participation. Giving guilds access to more information helps us to avoid that kind of stuff.

 

[Harbinger963]

Transparency on who is doing what is better for everyone and minimizes the potential for bad actors. If someone is sieging the wrong sector, then a simple PM can address. This is Guild Battlegrounds, not just do your own stuff...

Every group fight game I have played had logs to help guild leadership.

 

[DeletedUser27974]

Have they intentionally nerfed the battle points for GBG? It seems odd to make more points from a level 3 GE battle than against troops at 1750% boost.

 

[Harbinger963]

Since we're all talking about how guild leaders can coordinate their GBG players I can understand how this info would be useful. I just object, as @Algona does, to the idea of institutionalizing a restriction on participation. Giving guilds access to more information helps us to avoid that kind of stuff.

There would be no reason or intention to restrict participation. That would make no sense. Coordination and cooperation is often about knowing who is uncooperative or uncoordinated. The only reasons I suggested seeing who was battling and how (fight/new) is that GvG has a similar feature. If we see someone do 40 negs to take a sector in 5 mins, then doesn’t it help to see that and say thanks?

Its not about control, and it’s certainly not about restrictions, it’s about how best to help communicate and coordinate. Or some times, just say “well done and thank you”.

 

[DeletedUser40996]

I thought this was "Guild Battlegrounds" not "Guild Negotiations". Our map is being dominated by a guild who is negotiating all of their battles and has control of 28 provinces and more in the works. Seems like this attrition only works with guilds that actually fight for provinces. Here again guilds with money to waste will win everything. I thought this was going to be a battleground for warriors, I was so wrong.

It's both . It's called a battleground because there's several other guilds on the map at same time . It shouldn't matter whether it's done with fighting or trading .

 

[Harbinger963]

It's both . It's called a battleground because there's several other guilds on the map at same time . It shouldn't matter whether it's done with fighting or trading .

But it isn't really either/or. I can continue to negotiate way past the point that I can fight. At some point, it is simply impossible to fight as you cannot win. But if you have enough goods, and diamonds, you can keep going until you have neither.

 

[DeletedUser28298]

Number of members in a guild is not relevant for Battlegrounds, other than if there are more members participating, it makes it easier to win.

The numbers of the guildies is very important. Say we have two guilds on the same level then the guild with more players has a bigger chance in BG because of the attrition, from one side, and from the other with more players the guild will have more goods in the treasury. It is not fair and not competitive 2 very different by size guilds to be in the same league.

 

[DeletedUser28298]

But it isn't really either/or. I can continue to negotiate way past the point that I can fight. At some point, it is simply impossible to fight as you cannot win. But if you have enough goods, and diamonds, you can keep going until you have neither.

Exactly - buy more and more diamonds... Inno made their diamond mine

 

[DeletedUser37581]

The numbers of the guildies is very important. Say we have two guilds on the same level then the guild with more players has a bigger chance in BG because of the attrition, from one side, and from the other with more players the guild will have more goods in the treasury. It is not fair and not competitive 2 very different by size guilds to be in the same league.

Those lopsided guilds will quickly part ways. They won't be around to bother each other season after season.

 

[DeletedUser33052]

IS GbG multiwolrd or only single world.

What's the question? Your post looks like a statement of something that is very unlikely to happen.

 

[Graviton]

There would be no reason or intention to restrict participation. That would make no sense. Coordination and cooperation is often about knowing who is uncooperative or uncoordinated. The only reasons I suggested seeing who was battling and how (fight/new) is that GvG has a similar feature. If we see someone do 40 negs to take a sector in 5 mins, then doesn’t it help to see that and say thanks?

Its not about control, and it’s certainly not about restrictions, it’s about how best to help communicate and coordinate. Or some times, just say “well done and thank you”.

Not sure what you're arguing here. I agreed with you about showing siege details.

 

[UBERhelp1]

IS GbG multiwolrd or only single world.

What's the question? Your post looks like a statement of something that is very unlikely to happen.

It is only one world.

 

[Blue Dawg 469]

Their concept or parameters of MMR pairing is highly flawed. On public my guild only has 6 members, but we're paired up with 6 other guilds with 60-80 members. And the one other guild with only 3 members. Of course the guilds with 60-80 members are dominating the map. The MMR rating should NOT include how active a guild is. That should be up to each guild to manager their guilds to ditch inactive players and not part of the MMR calculations as I understand it.

They should ONLY pair up guilds by size like GE does. Taking their activity into account is an idiotic concept which doesn't actual favor anyone especially if all they have to do is hop on a phone chain and rouse up inactive members to join the fight. Also the 6-item negotiations should give us 4 guesses instead of just 3 because I don't recall ever using soo much diamonds to do GE when I had the option to purchase an extra turn. Something not available to PvP BG...

The map isn't really a battleground as I've also noticed they removed our ability to defend our sectors. Over on BETA if another guild attempts to take our sectors we have the option to push them out. aka battle. But when it got released to public that part got left out. So the only saving grace is the 4-hr protection timer we get when we take a sector but once that ends, regardless of how many traps or towers we set, opposing guilds only need to do another 40/70/100 fights or negotiations to take our sectors. We have no option to push them out. Neither can we stop them from doing so.

So remind me how is this a battle? All it seems is a cheesy use / buy more diamonds deal for Inno... much like the Reindeer deal for the X-mas event. All that hype about gathering Reindeers when all it was - was a lure to get people to use diamonds to buy items we already get for FREE using Auction coins and gems.

 

[DeletedUser29726]

Their concept or parameters of MMR pairing is highly flawed. On public my guild only has 6 members, but we're paired up with 6 other guilds with 60-80 members. And the one other guild with only 3 members. Of course the guilds with 60-80 members are dominating the map. The MMR rating should NOT include how active a guild is. That should be up to each guild to manager their guilds to ditch inactive players and not part of the MMR calculations as I understand it.

They should ONLY pair up guilds by size like GE does. Taking their activity into account is an idiotic concept which doesn't actual favor anyone especially if all they have to do is hop on a phone chain and rouse up inactive members to join the fight. Also the 6-item negotiations should give us 4 guesses instead of just 3 because I don't recall ever using soo much diamonds to do GE when I had the option to purchase an extra turn. Something not available to PvP BG...

The way GE does it has downsides too - namely people you like and want to keep that aren't pulling their weight you feel obligated to kick in the name of 'better matchmaking' if you have people who care about the stupid championship. The way GBG does it is the same as things were for GvG that unless your guild is full, having a member who only does a little is better than having an empty spot. Managing bigger guilds is also a bigger headache - so those able to do so deserve to enjoy benefits from it.

The map isn't really a battleground as I've also noticed they removed our ability to defend our sectors. Over on BETA if another guild attempts to take our sectors we have the option to push them out. aka battle. But when it got released to public that part got left out. So the only saving grace is the 4-hr protection timer we get when we take a sector but once that ends, regardless of how many traps or towers we set, opposing guilds only need to do another 40/70/100 fights or negotiations to take our sectors. We have no option to push them out. Neither can we stop them from doing so.

So remind me how is this a battle? All it seems is a cheesy use / buy more diamonds deal for Inno... much like the Reindeer deal for the X-mas event. All that hype about gathering Reindeers when all it was - was a lure to get people to use diamonds to buy items we already get for FREE using Auction coins and gems.

I think you misunderstood how things worked on beta. You could never 'fight back'. You can race them to take a sector you're both sieging. You can race them to take the sector they're sieging from and wipe out their progress. You can still do this on live.

 

[DeletedUser40996]

Their concept or parameters of MMR pairing is highly flawed. On public my guild only has 6 members, but we're paired up with 6 other guilds with 60-80 members. And the one other guild with only 3 members. Of course the guilds with 60-80 members are dominating the map. The MMR rating should NOT include how active a guild is. That should be up to each guild to manager their guilds to ditch inactive players and not part of the MMR calculations as I understand it.

It's flawed this week because of the smaller active GE guilds it should work itself out in a few cycles

They should ONLY pair up guilds by size like GE does. Taking their activity into account is an idiotic concept which doesn't actual favor anyone especially if all they have to do is hop on a phone chain and rouse up inactive members to join the fight.

Because it's new there was bound to be issues especially the first cycle

Also the 6-item negotiations should give us 4 guesses instead of just 3 because I don't recall ever using soo much diamonds to do GE when I had the option to purchase an extra turn. Something not available to PvP BG...

Agreed with this . It gets extremely costly if the RNG is unkind to you .

The map isn't really a battleground as I've also noticed they removed our ability to defend our sectors. Over on BETA if another guild attempts to take our sectors we have the option to push them out. aka battle. But when it got released to public that part got left out. So the only saving grace is the 4-hr protection timer we get when we take a sector but once that ends, regardless of how many traps or towers we set, opposing guilds only need to do another 40/70/100 fights or negotiations to take our sectors. We have no option to push them out. Neither can we stop them from doing so.

Having not played Beta I had no idea this mechanism existed and it really should because the costs of the "buildings" is astronomical and for smaller guilds can totally screw up the ability to open GE difficulties

So remind me how is this a battle? All it seems is a cheesy use / buy more diamonds deal for Inno... much like the Reindeer deal for the X-mas event. All that hype about gathering Reindeers when all it was - was a lure to get people to use diamonds to buy items we already get for FREE using Auction coins and gems.

Yep since I play several worlds there's no way I can afford diamonds for them all .

 

[Blue Dawg 469]

...I think you misunderstood how things worked on beta. You could never 'fight back'. You can race them to take a sector you're both sieging. You can race them to take the sector they're sieging from and wipe out their progress. You can still do this on live.

So again I pose the question, how is it a battleground. Or PvP for that matter... it's only a race and those with more members get to the finish line faster... cue eye rolling emoji's...

 

[Blue Dawg 469]

It's flawed this week because of the smaller active GE guilds it should work itself out in a few cycles

...Because it's new there was bound to be issues especially the first cycle

Then what was the point of releasing it on BETA if they have not figured out how to pair up fair matchings.

Having not played Beta I had no idea this mechanism existed and it really should because the costs of the "buildings" is astronomical and for smaller guilds can totally screw up the ability to open GE difficulties

• Why was my guild positioned in this League and how can we advance?
  • The initial calculations are based on number of members and activity (and success) within GE and GvG of the past two weeks (at the point of calculation). This calculation is just an approximation, as it could never reflect the final rank of a guild. For that to be reflected, we need a few seasons so that the league system can sort it itself naturally. Every guild has a value assigned, also known as "Match-Making-Rating" (MMR). This value decides on the league allocation and as your Guild plays battleground, you should advance to a more competitive league or decay to a more fairly balanced one, so take the first battlegrounds as a way to "calibrate" the place where your guild should be located.

The parameters of MMR were released in both the BETA and public post about GBG. But all the data gathered from BETA was never used for public so it starts with being unbalanced and lopsided and they think they is okay... smh...

 

[Graviton]

Then what was the point of releasing it on BETA if they have not figured out how to pair up fair matchings.

To test the mechanics. Beta is nothing like live in terms of sheer numbers of players and the number, size, and activity level of guilds. There's no way for them to accurately gauge guild matchups without some real data, which they can only get by letting us use it for awhile.

 

[Darth Mole]

Remember back when we used to get terrible hood mismatches?
No doubt the same algorithm is employed here and if it continues to throw the odd 5 player guild in with a bunch of 70 players then at some point it will be changed? Maybe?

 

[DeletedUser40996]

Remember back when we used to get terrible hood mismatches?
No doubt the same algorithm is employed here and if it continues to throw the odd 5 player guild in with a bunch of 70 players then at some point it will be changed? Maybe?

It should change starting with second cycle as this first one was based on GE activity but from here on it should be based on GbG activity