Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

[ODragon]

It's only an imbalance if FPs are the only consideration you take into account. There are also other rewards, and the size of the SoH.

I agree, at some point, it comes down to efficiency per space. Given that they are both 12 spaces no matter what the level, alevel 4 gives you 0.416 fp/space while a Level 2 gives you 0.25 fp/space. Why would you want two inefficient buildings when you can have one really efficient one.

L5 = 6/12 = 0.50 fp/space

I'm pretty sure that's one of the higher fp/space items in the game. At the moment (or at least as of the last update of the table, there are only 3 things better and 4 other things tied, one of which is hard to do if you want to sleep normally.

 

[DeletedUser39048]

How would you even balance that? Make it so no one in a large guild can do much, just so those in a small guild can do a lot? That doesn't seem fair either. It would also likely kill GBG. It is your choice to be in a small guild. If you want to compete with the big boys, put on your big boy undies and move to a big boy guild.

I totally agree with you, it's an individual choice what size guild yu're in, but right now, my map has a guild with 51 members.....who do you think is wiping the entire map? 31 of these members don't even have a personal score over 1M. This is simply unfair and not dependent on how big your undies are.

 

[Graviton]

I totally agree with you, it's an individual choice what size guild yu're in, but right now, my map has a guild with 51 members.....who do you think is wiping the entire map? 31 of these members don't even have a personal score over 1M. This is simply unfair and not dependent on how big your undies are.

Your guild was grouped with those due to your performance in GBG to this point. I think the formula is still shaking itself out.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

I totally agree with you, it's an individual choice what size guild you're in, but right now, my map has a guild with 51 members.....who do you think is wiping the entire map? 31 of these members don't even have a personal score over 1M. This is simply unfair and not dependent on how big your undies are.

Key words, "but right now." Next round, they'll have moved up in the league, matched others more at their performance level, as will you. With GvG as part of the initial MMR ranking yet no longer considered, many small guilds active in GvG started out with a higher MMR than they can sustain, many large guilds with no GvG participation started out with an MMR much lower than they deserved.

With each passing round, the effect of the initial MMR ranking is lessened, a few more rounds it will be as if the initial MMR ranking never occured. With 31 members below 1M in rank points, many of them may not be active in GBG at all, many others putting up minimal advancements due to their strength. Unless you have a bead into the other guild's actual numbers, you have no idea how many people are doing anything, what they're doing, or even how many people you're actually fighting against.

Either way, MMR is fair as are match-ups based on it. In another few rounds, each guild's MMR will be based on their actual performance on the battleground without the skew of the initial MMR. Just as water seeks it own level, so will the guilds active in GBG. MMR matches you with the 4-7 guilds with the closest MMR to your own. Whether they got that MMR with 51 players, 31 players, or 11 players, or just 1, there's nothing unfair about match ups based on actual performance, or are you suggesting there is?

 

[BruteForceAttack]

Key words, "but right now." Next round, they'll have moved up in the league, matched others more at their performance level, as will you. With GvG as part of the initial MMR ranking yet no longer considered, many small guilds active in GvG started out with a higher MMR than they can sustain, many large guilds with no GvG participation started out with an MMR much lower than they deserved.

With each passing round, the effect of the initial MMR ranking is lessened, a few more rounds it will be as if the initial MMR ranking never occured. With 31 members below 1M in rank points, many of them may not be active in GBG at all, many others putting up minimal advancements due to their strength. Unless you have a bead into the other guild's actual numbers, you have no idea how many people are doing anything, what they're doing, or even how many people you're actually fighting against.

Either way, MMR is fair as are match-ups based on it. In another few rounds, each guild's MMR will be based on their actual performance on the battleground without the skew of the initial MMR. Just as water seeks it own level, so will the guilds active in GBG. MMR matches you with the 4-7 guilds with the closest MMR to your own. Whether they got that MMR with 51 players, 31 players, or 11 players, or just 1, there's nothing unfair about match ups based on actual performance, or are you suggesting there is?

In this case it "may" be nothing to do with GVG, initial MMR included other factors such has guild members and GE activity. I believe the more members you had you got more MMR.

 

[DeletedUser39048]

Key words, "but right now." Next round, they'll have moved up in the league, matched others more at their performance level, as will you. With GvG as part of the initial MMR ranking yet no longer considered, many small guilds active in GvG started out with a higher MMR than they can sustain, many large guilds with no GvG participation started out with an MMR much lower than they deserved.

With each passing round, the effect of the initial MMR ranking is lessened, a few more rounds it will be as if the initial MMR ranking never occured. With 31 members below 1M in rank points, many of them may not be active in GBG at all, many others putting up minimal advancements due to their strength. Unless you have a bead into the other guild's actual numbers, you have no idea how many people are doing anything, what they're doing, or even how many people you're actually fighting against.

Either way, MMR is fair as are match-ups based on it. In another few rounds, each guild's MMR will be based on their actual performance on the battleground without the skew of the initial MMR. Just as water seeks it own level, so will the guilds active in GBG. MMR matches you with the 4-7 guilds with the closest MMR to your own. Whether they got that MMR with 51 players, 31 players, or 11 players, or just 1, there's nothing unfair about match ups based on actual performance, or are you suggesting there is?

Thanks RB...that actually makes sense..

 

[RazorbackPirate]

In this case it "may" be nothing to do with GVG, initial MMR included other factors such has guild members and GE activity. I believe the more members you had you got more MMR.

The actual formula does not negate the fact that many small guilds started out with a MMR higher than they could ever sustain, many large guilds started out with an MMR much lower than they deserved. It does not negate the fact that all of this is still getting worked out as more data points based on actual performance are added, it also does not negate the fact the MMR, being based on actual performance in Battlegrounds is fair.

So, thanks for an irrelevant post that adds nothing to the conversation. Nor addresses the actual topic being discussed, the fairness of Battleground match ups based on MMR. Not sure why you felt that nit needed picking, but I'll concede your point, regardless of it's applicability to anything.

 

[DeletedUser29726]

One thing that could happen as the system matures is they could lower the rate of movement for guilds to reduce the bouncing around. 25 MMR for each guild you beat (and -25 for each one that beats you) is very useful for enabling the initial spread-out (which still has a long way to go - new points from copper leagues trickling their way up to platinum and diamond). But perhaps it could be reduced to 15 a few months down the road to reduce how wide the competition difference is from week to week. It is pretty jarring how one week you can be the only guild in a battleground making much progress at all, and the next round it looks like an actual battleground and you seem out of place with your 1 province a day capture rate (one of my worlds where I'm the only active player).

Of course what's happening is you're more or less acting as a transfer vehicle for points from the bottom to help fill out the top better. one week you're facing guilds newly in silver from copper (for instance) that manage to take 1 or 2 provinces the whole season. You can beat those easily and take their points up with you while they go back down to copper where points are "created". Then next season you meet the guilds that can take 3+ provinces a day vs your 1 and hand those hard won points off to them and go back down to collect more. Over time guilds will spread out more and this will become a less common experience hopefully. At least apart from the tier 2 guilds. Who inevitably someone has to win platinum-1 (which will probably look more like what gold-1/gold-2 look like now within a few months) and will bounce up to an upper diamond group each week and then get their ass kicked back down. Not really a way around that though - someone has to be the prey for those top guilds and a rotation of tier 2 guilds that are bouncing up and down is probably the best that can be.

 

[BruteForceAttack]

The actual formula does not negate the fact that many small guilds started out with a MMR higher than they could ever sustain, many large guilds started out with an MMR much lower than they deserved. It does not negate the fact that all of this is still getting worked out as more data points based on actual performance are added, it also does not negate the fact the MMR, being based on actual performance in Battlegrounds is fair.

So, thanks for an irrelevant post that adds nothing to the conversation. Nor addresses the actual topic being discussed, the fairness of Battleground match ups based on MMR. Not sure why you felt that nit needed picking, but I'll concede your point, regardless of it's applicability to anything.

I didn't disagree with anything else ....for an average reader your post seems like only because of GVG the initial MMR was messed up... It just shows implicit bias towards GVG. Do we know that the guild that Op was referring to does GVG?

 

[DeletedUser37581]

I didn't disagree with anything else ....for an average reader your post seems like only because of GVG the initial MMR was messed up... It just shows implicit bias towards GVG. Do we know that the guild that Op was referring to does GVG?

With 4 seasons in the basket, initial MMRs are already of no account. With possible 175 point swings to MMR each season, any guild that was hugely mis-ranked initially would already be ranked in the ballpark of what their performance suggests.

 

[BruteForceAttack]

With 4 seasons in the basket, initial MMRs are already of no account. With possible 175 point swings to MMR each season, any guild that was hugely mis-ranked initially would already be ranked in the ballpark of what their performance suggests.

Hmm I'm not sure about that, at least not in diamond league. Just looking at our server, few of the platinum need to downgrade to Gold. I'm sure it will happen, but just not yet.

 

[DeletedUser29726]

Hmm I'm not sure about that, at least not in diamond league. Just looking at our server, few of the platinum need to downgrade to Gold. I'm sure it will happen, but just not yet.

The opposite will happen. Those platinums will start to feel like real platinums. And the ones you think are real platinums will be diamond.

Edit for some context:
On my main world, according to dontwannaname's list (far more exhaustive than my own as I stopped in gold), there are 438 participating guilds in GBG.

This means at equilibrium there should be *44* diamond guilds (there's 2) and *110* platinum guilds (there's 15). Every guild currently in platinum should be expected to be in diamond eventually (or in the group that bounces between platinum and diamond. Most guilds currently in gold should be expected to be in platinum (with some of them being platinum-diamond bouncers as well).

 

[DeletedUser37581]

The opposite will happen. Those platinums will start to feel like real platinums. And the ones you think are real platinums will be diamond.

I agree. Any guild that is capable of hitting platinum league now - even if it gets immediately bounced down to gold - will probably end up in diamond eventually.

Diamond league will eventually reach 40 to 50 guilds on most worlds. Currently, there aren't any worlds that have that many guilds in platinum and diamond combined.

 

[DeletedUser]

I told my guild on V that we would probably be bouncing back and forth between Silver and Gold. And we're okay with that.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

One thing that could happen as the system matures is they could lower the rate of movement for guilds to reduce the bouncing around. 25 MMR for each guild you beat (and -25 for each one that beats you) is very useful for enabling the initial spread-out (which still has a long way to go - new points from copper leagues trickling their way up to platinum and diamond). But perhaps it could be reduced to 15 a few months down the road to reduce how wide the competition difference is from week to week. It is pretty jarring how one week you can be the only guild in a battleground making much progress at all, and the next round it looks like an actual battleground and you seem out of place with your 1 province a day capture rate (one of my worlds where I'm the only active player).

Of course what's happening is you're more or less acting as a transfer vehicle for points from the bottom to help fill out the top better. one week you're facing guilds newly in silver from copper (for instance) that manage to take 1 or 2 provinces the whole season. You can beat those easily and take their points up with you while they go back down to copper where points are "created". Then next season you meet the guilds that can take 3+ provinces a day vs your 1 and hand those hard won points off to them and go back down to collect more. Over time guilds will spread out more and this will become a less common experience hopefully. At least apart from the tier 2 guilds. Who inevitably someone has to win platinum-1 (which will probably look more like what gold-1/gold-2 look like now within a few months) and will bounce up to an upper diamond group each week and then get their ass kicked back down. Not really a way around that though - someone has to be the prey for those top guilds and a rotation of tier 2 guilds that are bouncing up and down is probably the best that can be.

Not sure what any of this means other than you want to scrap the MMR system for something like MMR, but not MMR.

In the current Battleground, the guilds matched have MMRs from 427 to 444, a difference of 17 points. In my other world, MMRs range from 713 to 732, a spread of 10 points. Maybe I'm just stupid, but how is this unfair?

 

[DeletedUser37581]

I told my guild on V that we would probably be bouncing back and forth between Silver and Gold. And we're okay with that.

Yeah, as long as your guild can avoid 8th this season, you'll stay in Gold. And quite possibly never see Silver again.

 

[DeletedUser29726]

Not sure what any of this means other than you want to scrap the MMR system for something like MMR, but not MMR.

In the current Battleground, the guilds matched have MMRs from 427 to 444, a difference of 17 points. In my other world, MMRs range from 713 to 732, a spread of 10 points. Maybe I'm just stupid, but how is this unfair?

It'd be the same MMR system with a different constant. MMR goes from 0 to 1000 atm, and still would. MMR moves by +175 to -175 in 8 player groups currently. If the 25 constant was changed to 15 it'd instead move by +105 to -105. This would allow for more 'divisions' over the total scale from 0 to 1000.

I'm not saying it's unfair. I'm saying it's less volatile. I.e. one of those 427 to 444 guilds will take first and be 600+ next season. Which is probably higher than their 'real' rating and they'll get thumped for a week (and that's fine with me - but is the experience being complained about). If instead they took +105 they'd be at < 550 and perhaps less prone to being thumped. If they're still underrated they'd do well again and then get to the 600+ still, it'd just take longer.

With the current constant it takes a new world-beater superguild (rare, but guild drama sometimes does lead to guilds splitting up and forming new ones) starting from copper (0) 6 seasons of firsts to reach 1000 (capped diamond). If the constant were 15 instead it'd take 10 seasons of firsts.

At this time it wouldn't help because guilds are still concentrated near the bottom and it'd just take longer for them to spread out. But once they *are* spread out lowering the constant to make movement slower would mean its less prone for a victory one season to mean getting your ass whooped in the next.

 

[BobboG]

algona, it is obvious you have never been in our situation, so your advice along with your snide remarks are useless

 

[BobboG]

Seems like your current plan is to give up, complain, and hope INNO changes GBG. How is that working out for you?

Or you can try diplomacy? Relax for two weeks and store up Troops and Goods? Grow your Guild? Hit the Province to trigger the swap then hit it again 4 hours later with a coordinated blitz to take the spot before the other Guilds reset the lock and be prepared to exploit any breakthrough?

You've advanced to platinum. Your Guild should be able to do the last suggestion. If nothing else you can rack up a few individual Rewards.

It sucks, you're gonna have a brutal 10 days, but it's gotta be better then your current plan.

It is obvious that you have never been in this situation so your advice is useless and your snide insults uncalled for.

 

[Algona]

It is obvious that you have never been in this situation so your advice is useless and your snide insults uncalled for.

You're right, it is obvioous that I've never tried complaining and asking INNO to change the game because I'm getting my ass handed to me. Maybe you're right, maybe that will work for you. Let me know, please?

In the meantime, would you like your ass cerviche or roasted?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a glutton for punishment and go out of my way to get my ass handed to me in game. I started my second city a couple years back to experiment with. Which consists mostly of trying stupid things, having them blow up in my face, and then trying more stupid things. It's kinda fun, but I'm sicko perv that way.

But I don't piss and moan about it, I don't ask INNO to change the game because something goes wrong. When I run into something I can't figure out I ask for help. I guess I'm sicko perv that way, too.

After all the norm for this forum is to come in screaming about urine flow and accusing INNO of causing the problem while demanding INNO clean up the mess.

Carry on.

Would you like something to drink with your ass?