And they will be that way eventually . It's going to take time to work itself out .Putting guilds with 20 vs. 40 vs. 80 members on the same map isn't much of a fair battle. I'm not a fan of mismatched advantages when there are direct rewards involved. Guilds should be grouped into similar membership levels, just like GE does it. Just my 2¢.
Many guilds seem to have set up a communications thread for GBG but often active guilds can fill that thread up with dozens of replies
Nope no not a chance .I would like to suggest an improvement to GBG. When someone begins an attack on a sector and the guild decides they do not wish to pursue that sector currently an option be available for a guild leader to retreat from that sector. This keeps other guild members from thinking that sector is an active sector which needs their assistance. Many guilds seem to have set up a communications thread for GBG but often active guilds can fill that thread up with dozens of replies and some guild members might miss a note to not attack a certain sector which had been started often by error. No resources or successes would be retained if retreat was chosen.
Putting guilds with 20 vs. 40 vs. 80 members on the same map isn't much of a fair battle.
Guilds should be grouped into similar membership levels, just like GE does it. Just my 2¢.
The raw number of people in a guild is irrelevant. All that's relevant is the MMR of the guild, and MMR is entirely determined by performance in GBG. As you know, last weeks MMR was a stab in the dark to get Battlegrounds started. This week, your guild was matched with guilds that had the closest MMR to your own. That's entirely fair. From now on, the 5-8 guilds with the closest MMR will meet in Battlegrounds. How is that not fair?There is ZERO reason to place a guild of 20 people into a GbG with guilds with over 60 players. That's just not fair. How is it fair if one guild with 70 or 80 players only need everyone to fight 2 fights, which they can easily and they take a sector, because in the Gold League you need 100 fights to win a sector. So, an advantage goes to any guild with a lot of people versus a guild of a smaller amount of people. Like a guild of 10 people fighting in a GbG with guilds of 60 and 70+ people. How is that fair at all.? It isn't. Period and end of story. Anyone who says it is fair is just flat out lying and trying to act like some big shot.
The rest of this is just more whining. Complaining about your results, while pretending you don't understand how MMR works. However, I doubt your complaints will go away. You'll always need some excuse, other than your own guild's performance, to blame for the loss.The GbG should be grouped just like GE and have equally matched guilds. If a Guild of 20 people and only 10 fight, that's a major dis-advantage and why should any guild either remove players or be penalized for the players they have.? Just make it fair and match up guilds based on active players in a guild, that would be fair. Or just be fair to start with. But just like Algona says, why by fair when you don't deserve it because you are not trying hard enough, RIGHT. What a joke. I would love to see you in a 10 person guild fighting against an 80 person guild and see what you say then. Funny how when the tables are turned, people don;t like that much, they like it unfair to their advantage. Sounds to me like a great way to get people just give up on it and not do it at all. The thought was good and the premise was good, but the implementation, not so much. Re-think it and make it fair for ALL. Not just some.
The nice thing about the way MMR works is that after a devastating loss, a guild gets pushed down so that the next season should be quite a bit easier. On the downside, after an outstanding victory, a guild is pushed up so that the next season can become a real bear to win.You'll always need some excuse, other than your own guild's performance, to blame for the loss.
If you ain't facing the toughest competition, you don't deserve the highest prizes.
raw member count does not really stand for much
The raw number of people in a guild is irrelevant.
The nice thing about the way MMR works is that after a devastating loss, a guild gets pushed down so that the next season should be quite a bit easier.
Considering that matching guilds up by size is one change that absolutely isn't going to happen (as it would require eliminating the entire league structure), the only alternatives are to get used to the idea that the guilds you get matched up with are going to very tough competitors (regardless of guild size), or you can give up.I don't really see that as a "nice" thing. I see that as a way to demotivate a guild. Losses don't get people fired up to spend their goods and troops on smaller rewards. It's one thing when a boxer loses his/her belt to a better opponent. It's entirely different if that opponent is three weight classes above him/her. Or if you lose a basketball game to a better team... not one that has twice as many players on the court.
Congratulations. Obviously, your guild is currently punching above its weight class. Because of your guild's performance in non-GBG areas, it also sounds like your guild's initial MMR placed you in a weight class much higher than you really should be. Congratulations. Now you're facing other guilds who, because of their lack of performance in non-GBG areas, got placed in a weight class lower than they should have been.It matters when the guilds you are against are actually participating and not just full of noobs. Is every ~80-member guild going to compete? No. But that doesn't mean none do. Many of them do. To say you're doing well... yeah, we won last week too... sure... it's possible. We're also leading this week as I've shown. It's not a question of whether you can do it. But sustainability -- many of my members are tapped out on goods and diamonds just to keep us in 1st against larger guilds that don't have to spend as many goods because they have enough members to do the same damage with much less attrition. You can say it's fair. But it's really not.
And this proves my point. Based on actual GBG performance, you should not be competing with them, and they should not be competing with you. Sooner or later, you won't be. You know this too and you know the effect this may potentially have on your league.It matters when the guilds you are against are actually participating and not just full of noobs. Is every ~80-member guild going to compete? No. But that doesn't mean none do. Many of them do. To say you're doing well... yeah, we won last week too... sure... it's possible. We're also leading this week as I've shown. It's not a question of whether you can do it. But sustainability -- many of my members are tapped out on goods and diamonds just to keep us in 1st against larger guilds that don't have to spend as many goods because they have enough members to do the same damage with much less attrition. You can say it's fair. But it's really not.
Poor thinkery. Smaller rewards will only happen if you drop in leagues. The only way to drop in league is to consistently lose to better opponents. Whether they're better because they're larger, or better because they work harder is irrelevant. The better guilds will move up to face tougher opponents, others will move down to face easier ones.I don't really see that as a "nice" thing. I see that as a way to demotivate a guild. Losses don't get people fired up to spend their goods and troops on smaller rewards. It's one thing when a boxer loses his/her belt to a better opponent. It's entirely different if that opponent is three weight classes above him/her. Or if you lose a basketball game to a better team... not one that has twice as many players on the court.
That's your opinion
BTW, this isn't basketball.
Don't be that guy.