Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

[Algona]

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.

You;re ignoring the third factor in the Equation: Participation.

GBG Success = Quality * Size * Participation.

Go read the spoiler in this:

Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

If implemented, you simply need to give members permission. How exactly is the change I suggested forcing you into some kind of mold? By making my guild have to pass out permission to each member to start battles. Your idea is an extra and superfluous step in the process: everyone can start...

forum.us.forgeofempires.com

It's clear that all three factors can and will influence success.

Ignore any of the three and you'll be drawing faulty conclusions and making lousy decisions. In other words it's stupid to focus on any of the factors. Until you've started analyzing what's really happening your opinions are meaningless because they have no basis.

Quit whining about fair. Everyone is playing under the same rules, we all have the same options which is the very definition of fair.

That Guilds have chosen to limit their size is their mistake, not INNOs.

 

[DeletedUser37581]

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?

The algorithm will ensure that guilds that perform better will move up while guilds that perform poorly will move down. There is no randomness to the matchups. It will just take a few seasons for guilds to get sorted by performance. There was no way to determine ahead of time how a guild would perform. Some guilds with 80 members are not participating at all. Some guilds with 40 members are rocking.

 

[DeletedUser40996]

"Well-known members" - good luck ...

I'll trust someone with the well known tag a lot faster than some newbie since they've obviously been playing quite a while to get the tag

 

[DeletedUser40996]

I thought the forum is to show to Inno that they failed with their innovation the Battlegrounds but as I can see they have paid observers who to reply to everyone with ready phrases. A "player" in IA with, as you can imagine, huge experience is giving advices.

How have they "Failed" with GbG ???? It's the first cycle for those of us that don't play Beta and we're learning as this first cycle goes along .

 

[Emberguard]

I'll trust someone with the well known tag a lot faster than some newbie since they've obviously been playing quite a while to get the tag

The tag is based on post count in the forums. While you’re right it’d take time to get post count up enough to get the tag it’s irrelevant to game playing time. Only the “new member” would know when they started playing

 

[UBERhelp1]

The tag is based on post count in the forums. While you’re right it’d take time to get post count up enough to get the tag it’s irrelevant to game playing time. Only the “new member” would know when they started playing

You could check their reaction score and when they joined the forum.

 

[DeletedUser40996]

The tag is based on post count in the forums. While you’re right it’d take time to get post count up enough to get the tag it’s irrelevant to game playing time. Only the “new member” would know when they started playing

My point was that they'd likely know the game better than someone who just joined forum ( as they usually go hand in hand with a game that's been around as long as FOE)

 

[Blue Dawg 469]

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.

Yes, I know what a BETA server is used for and how it is to be used. But even though the sheer numbers on public outweigh the number on BETA, they can still get a relative number to judge by instead of leaving it raw to assess new data from public.

Much like the way when they decided to use public as a test for incidents. They claimed only 1/4 of user got the incidents. But if that were true, then even at random at least 1 in four in any guild roughly should have gotten the incidents. Sadly everyone in my guild got the incidents yet I as guild leader never got one. Even of all my friends and neighbors almost all got the incidents showing in their cities but me.

 

[Graviton]

Yes, I know what a BETA server is used for and how it is to be used. But even though the sheer numbers on public outweigh the number on BETA, they can still get a relative number to judge by instead of leaving it raw to assess new data from public.

It's not just sheer player numbers, it's guild sizes and participation as well. Beta is not at all a proportional microcosm of live. If you know about beta servers then you know that live and beta are two completely different animals. They work out the mechanics on beta, but test server data is almost useless when determining something like guild groupings. They have to have live data for that, and the more the better. That's just how it works; railing against that is like yelling at the sky because it's raining.

 

[DeletedUser4491]

Yeah, but it doesn't cost the guild anything, so what's the big deal?

The big deal? When we're trying to work together with other guilds and we have some random numb nuts just throwing down sieges on random sectors it not only irks the other guilds but it wastes valuable fights by putting them on sectors we don't want or need.
And to answer the other guy that rudely responded I'm some kind of control freak...I can't be awake 24/7 playing this game, if we have a number of trusted members/leaders that are trying to coordinate the attacks it would ensure that all fights are meaningful instead of just wasted

 

[DeletedUser38162]

As we have been playing Battlegrounds I have noticed among the guild treasury logs, that any time a province building is placed there is NO log of those goods being spent. Is this an over site? Anything and everything coming and going from the guild treasury is always logged but I've not seen anything for this

 

[DeletedUser40996]

The big deal? When we're trying to work together with other guilds and we have some random numb nuts just throwing down sieges on random sectors it not only irks the other guilds but it wastes valuable fights by putting them on sectors we don't want or need.

And this is why you've been called a "control freak" it's a battle game you really expect everyone to play a battle game how you dictate

And to answer the other guy that rudely responded I'm some kind of control freak...I can't be awake 24/7 playing this game, if we have a number of trusted members/leaders that are trying to coordinate the attacks it would ensure that all fights are meaningful instead of just wasted

No fight is "Wasted" since the guild still needs some minimum # of advancements to get even minimal rewards .

 

[Algona]

Meanwhile, on topic: I like GBG.

 

[Dacaybaby]

Honestly my guild is ranked 244 on F world we got matched with 5 guilds in the top 10 (We were ranked gold league for GE reasons) And so far we are winning GBG by a big lead because these larger top ten guilds spend time and resources on both GBG and GvG. My guild focuses only on GE and GBG which gives us more time and resources also these top 10 guilds have ruffly 55 to 60 members whereas we have 78 daily players its a numbers game 80active players gives us 20more players to rack up attration. I'm glad we started in gold it allows us to rank up much quicker and catch up to these larger guilds.

 

[DeletedUser40143]

Enjoying GBG very much so far. Our guild has seen a *huge* uptick in participation. Players who were quietly farming goods on mobile only are now fighting GBG hardcore and doing better than many of our GvG regulars! It's awesome to see.

Questions I have if anyone can please answer:

1. As the upper leagues solidify, how many guilds are expected to be the highest league and how many groupings per league? In our initial grouping Inno matched what are reasonably 3 of the top 5 GBG guilds in the same map. Will we just end up matched up again in session #2, 3 and so forth? I worry that the top 3-4 guilds in diamond will end up matched up with each other each over and over. I hate fighting the same people all the time. Really hoping Inno can figure out how to do cross-server matchups. That is what makes GE so nice because it adds great variety.

2. Does anyone know the formula GBG will have on guild rankings at the end of the season? I see what crowns will be awarded but not sure about prestige. Can't remember if this was published anywhere.

 

[DeletedUser37581]

1. As the upper leagues solidify, how many guilds are expected to be the highest league and how many groupings per league? In our initial grouping Inno matched what are reasonably 3 of the top 5 GBG guilds in the same map. Will we just end up matched up again in session #2, 3 and so forth? I worry that the top 3-4 guilds in diamond will end up matched up with each other each over and over. I hate fighting the same people all the time. Really hoping Inno can figure out how to do cross-server matchups. That is what makes GE so nice because it adds great variety.

Inno expects that about 10% of the guilds active in Battlegrounds will end up in Diamond league. Depending on the number of guilds that are active in a particular world this could amount to 50 or more guilds.

Yes, the top 3 or 4 guilds could end up getting matched against each other every season. However, even if cross-world match-ups became something that Inno implemented, the same situation would hold, except those top 3-4 guilds would be from different worlds.

2. Does anyone know the formula GBG will have on guild rankings at the end of the season? I see what crowns will be awarded but not sure about prestige. Can't remember if this was published anywhere.

It isn't published anywhere, but the amount of prestige will be based on the initial MMR rating (which is currently unknown) plus/minus the MMR that is earned/lost based on placement within the battlefield.

 

[UBERhelp1]

we need a popcorn emoji

I agree 100%

And to stay on topic currently I think GBG is a pretty solid feature how it is. Don't make us have to have guild leaders start a siege.

 

[Omega Snake]

If anyone has asked for this, I apologize... it would be very helpful to have some information available at least to guild leadership - the number of fights from each member since the last time attrition was reset. It would be useful information to decide if an attack on a province is worth it. It could be available from the member screen.

 

[Super Catanian]

I agree 100%

And to stay on topic currently I think GBG is a pretty solid feature how it is. Don't make us have to have guild leaders start a siege.

Hey, @Emberguard, were you able to get a new popcorn card with the kaomoji money I gave you?

On topic, GBG has made our Guild much more interactive. Jokes are now increasing (for example: I recently erected a Statue in my honor in the new province I just conquered).

 

[DeletedUser40996]

If anyone has asked for this, I apologize... it would be very helpful to have some information available at least to guild leadership - the number of fights from each member since the last time attrition was reset. It would be useful information to decide if an attack on a province is worth it. It could be available from the member screen.

What if people have RL problems ???? How would knowing their attacks from Midinght reset to whenever you check the logs make any difference on whether a province is worth it or not ??? COMMUNICATE to the guild where the attacks should be