Guild Battlegrounds Improvements Feedback

[RazorbackPirate]

You don't even know how large a guild Salsuero is in do you? So how can you argue that is what he wants since it is to his guild's advantage? His point is a valid one. There is a huge inbalance because of various guild sizes. A 10 person guild with 10 very active members still cannot defeat a 80 person guild with only 20 active members. The small guild, in that example, can have 100% participation while the large guild will still dominate with only 20 active players or a measly 25% participation. Furthermore the smaller guild will have to overcome a very high attrition constantly due to there being a small number of fighters to begin with even with 100% participation. Take a step back and read what I just wrote and be objective about it please. Can you honestly say the facts I just outlined above are incorrect? I am in a 60 person guild not a 10 person guild so my comments are not self-serving in anyway.

His guild, Cybertron currently has 14 members. He's also stated before that most of them are very active in GBG. So yes, I can argue that.

You may think his point is valid, I don't. He wants the balance tipped in his favor, just as it is in GE.

A 10 person guild with very active members should not be able to beat an 80 person guild with 20 active members, nor a 40, or even a 20 person guild with 20 active members. It's a fantasy for them to think they should. That they they're even facing larger at all means the 10 person guild has done very well. But once they meet competitors that, for whatever reason, are better than them, they deserve to lose and get bumped back to meet lesser competitors they're better suited against.

You win some, you lose some, if you can't stand to lose, you ought not play. You're the one not being objective and the size of your guild adds no weight to your argument. You don't want to face competition you're certain to lose against. Tough. GBG is like the brackets in a sports competition, as long as you keep winning, you keep moving up, once you lose, you're out. In GBG you keep moving up until you lose, then you're bumped down again. Deal with it.

The system is fair as it is. Limiting competition to guilds your size would skew the system in your favor. If you didn't think it would, we'd not be having this conversation.

 

[The Prince Visigoth]

Razorback and Nicholas I have to respectfully disagree with both of you, using your own logic that it is based on "performance". For argument sake lets pretend just 20% of a guild is active in GBG. That means an 80 member guild would have 16 GBG fighters and a 20 person guild would have 4 GBG fighters.
You do the math - how in the world can those 4 fighters ever ever compete with the 16 fighters especially when those 4 fighters would not be fighting 4 hours after the GBG reset since their attrition would be through the roof. SUCCESS IN GBG HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE NUMBER OF ACTIVE PEOPLE IN THE GUILD! The larger the guild chances are the more fighters they have to absorb attrition. It is the Attrition that makes it a game changer.

Siege Camps are the game changer

 

[Salsuero]

But that in no way is the correct way to analyze it.

Says you. Sorry, I'm not on your page.

ludicrous hypothetical

It's not ludicrous when it happens. And it does. Sorry, but you're just trying to pretend it doesn't.

you've made it clear you're looking to game the system to your guild's advantage

No I haven't.

You want your small highly active guild to always compete against guilds of the same size since 9 times out of 10, you'd smoke the competition.

You guys keep doing this. This isn't honest. I never said we ONLY want numbers to matter. I said it should count numbers AND participation. That WOULD be balanced. You're just trying to ignore the second half of what I want and then call me out on something I've never asked for. THAT is ludicrous.

You have no interest in making GBG fair, you want to stack the deck in your favor.

It's not stacked in your favor if you have a guild of 100% participation and 15 members up against a guild of 100% participation and 15 members. I dunno how else to explain it.

That it's so transparent is laughable.

I mean... if it were true, I suppose.

I can argue that.

Not if you're going to argue something I'm not arguing for.

He wants the balance tipped in his favor, just as it is in GE.

What makes you think it's tipped in our favor in GE now?! LOL



Please explain the "tipped in our favor" part of those results. I see us working hard for those trophies and still coming up short for 1st roughly 40% of the time. If it were tipped in our favor, we'd have all gold trophies, right?

The system is fair as it is.

Nah.

Limiting competition to guilds your size would skew the system in your favor.

No, it wouldn't... because they'd all have the same level of participation. If that point isn't also considered, it's not an honest conversation.

 

[Salsuero]

We are never going to agree on this.

I told you that ahead of time.

Can you honestly say the facts I just outlined above are incorrect?

Not honestly. But I told you not to expect that. Look at how the latest effort to argue this completely ignored the point about it being equal in numbers AND participation so it could be said that we want it to be skewed in our favor. That's not honest. It's what I've come to expect, though.

 

[Emberguard]

What makes you think it's tipped in our favor in GE now?! LOL

View attachment 16149

Please explain the "tipped in our favor" part of those results. I see us working hard for those trophies and still coming up short for 1st roughly 40% of the time.

Guild expeditions started on May 11 2016

That's a maximum of 214 guild expeditions anyone could have participated in with any worlds that came after that having less expeditions. 194 trophies - 214 = 20 your guild either didn't exist for or didn't place in the top 3

I've found in Guild Expedition I'm only competing between #1 and #2 most weeks. Sure you put the effort in. But how often are you actually competing against those that are capable of getting past Lvl 1 or Lvl 2? That's why GE is tipped in your favour. It doesn't factor in your opponents capabilities in any way. It only makes the goal post the same spot


edit: imagine if those guilds who always strive for 133.3% were pitted against each other with size being the secondary factor between 133.3% guilds? It’d be a true race every time to see who can do it the best. I can complete 64 encounters in 20 mins. I’ve seen one player state they can do it in 10 mins. You wouldn’t be able to wait a few days in before starting without the risk of being booted out of top three entirely on a consistent basis

 

[Salsuero]

20 your guild either didn't exist for or didn't place in the top 3

I'll tell you now, we existed. Sounds like it wasn't at all tipped in our favor for at least 20 weeks it's been live.

GE is tipped in your favour.

It's not tipped in our favor. We work for our trophies... and even then, we sometimes don't even place in the top 3. If it were tipped in our favor, we'd never lose.

It doesn't factor in your opponents capabilities in any way.

That's not what we are asking for in this case, so it's really a moot point. GE is irrelevant to what is being requested here. The comparison isn't even a comparison.

It only makes the goal post the same spot

Right. So... anyone who feels a need can propose that they be put up against guilds of only the same size and/or participation if they think that'd be more fair. Nothing stopping them... and I wouldn't blame them if that's how they felt. I wouldn't vote against it either because I'm not trying to have this game be easy... just fair.

imagine if those guilds who always strive for 133.3% were pitted against each other with size being the secondary factor between 133.3% guilds?

Imagine if they were put up against each other with size being an EQUAL factor... what would THAT race look like? It seems to me that it'd be EVEN MORE competitive... and balanced. Small guilds can hardly brag when they finish GE faster than a guild 2x... 4x the size. The logistics of having all your players able to be online, all in the same timezones, all with the free (not at work) time... evenly-matched numbers makes that a reasonable competition. Of course, the larger guild can definitely brag that it beat a smaller one in terms of speed. But I'd still prefer to see more balance of numbers to these races. You don't see teams of different numbers competing in sports. They are theoretically equal in terms of participation, numbers, quality... all for a reason. Putting a baseball team of 18 players that only work half as hard at the game against a team of 9 doesn't seem all that fair to me. Sure, the team of 9 can win... but it takes a lot more effort with only 3 outfielders than it would with 9... even if you don't work as hard as a member of the 9... but that's the actual problem... as a member of the 9, you wouldn't HAVE to work as hard and could still cover that outfield pretty easily. The 3 outfielders definitely have cause for complaint when they don't have the ability to cover as much ground with as little effort, but are expected to do so.

 

[Emberguard]

You don't see teams of different numbers competing in sports.

*most sports.

 

[Salsuero]

*most sports.

I guess I should've been more specific: "team sports" was what I meant. I'm not sure which team sports allow for different numbers on competing teams while playing, but yeah...... most*. Is there a team sport that allows for a matchup where an opponent can have 500% more players competing at the same time?

 

[Agent327]

I guess I should've been more specific: "team sports" was what I meant. I'm not sure which team sports allow for different numbers on competing teams while playing, but yeah...... most*.

Every teamsport where a player can be send off

First thing coming to mind is tennis, Davis Cup and Fed Cup. Also team pursuit in a lot of sports.

Is there a team sport that allows for a matchup where an opponent can have 500% more players competing at the same time?

Counter question, is there any teamsport where players can decide when to contribute?

 

[Nicholas002]

Is there a team sport that allows for a matchup where an opponent can have 500% more players competing at the same time?

soccer. If all but 2 players got red-carded, on one team, the other team would have more than 500% more players.

 

[Agent327]

soccer. If all but 2 players got red-carded, on one team, the other team would have more than 500% more players.

Game gets stopped if one team only has less than 7 players left, so nice try, but no cigar

 

[Cassius the Penitent one]

A key binding to open GBG would be nice. Like "E" is for GE or "G" for guild menu.

 

[Salsuero]

A key binding to open GBG would be nice. Like "E" is for GE or "G" for guild menu.

GBg isn't attached to the "menu button" set, though... it's a "building". It's the same as the Friends Tavern, Antiques Dealer, and Cultural Settlements... what are the hotkeys to open those?

 

[Salsuero]

Counter question, is there any teamsport where players can decide when to contribute?

That would be tied to the rules of engagement for the sport more than the balance of play, in my opinion. Sports have their own rules. Technically, players aren't required to contribute unless they want to in any sport, right? I mean... they'd get removed, fired, etc. if they didn't (which can also be the result in a guild). If you're playing doubles tennis, you could technically stand there and allow your partner to make all the moves... and there wouldn't be anything against the "rules" for doing so. You would be required to serve at some point, but you could simply phone that in and lose those points too. It's not a great strategy to do that... but neither is doing that in GBg. That's why the guilds with 100% participation are better than the ones with less. On an American Football team, you can have a kicker whose job is to kick punts who never even has to play because the punt situation never comes up. Or you could have a kick returner who never has to do anything because the ball is always kicked out of the end zone. They are on the team... reap the rewards of the team after a win... but don't do a thing for you. Different dynamics of participation... but at least the teams field the same number of players.

 

[Joeyjojojo]

I've mostly just been enjoying this no-win argument from the sideline, but I kind of like this analogy to team sports. An FoE "team" is the guild, and it has a roster of 80 players. Some people chose to compete with a much smaller roster, but since they can go get more players that choice is part of their tactics. It works well in GE, not so well in GBG.

I remember playing soccer in high school a couple times against smaller schools that could only field 9 or 10 players, even if we agreed to play with a reduced # on the field we had a big advantage because we could sub in fresh legs (no sub limit in US high school...at least not then). I think at least once we sent a volunteer player or two to the other team to play for them so that they could field the minimum to play. That doesn't really have any FoE analogy, just a fond memory

Edit: as for the [old] announcement, I like the league points being shown. The extra levels on the SoH are fine and I have no issue with only one more FP on this fantastic building, but increasingly I wish that building upgrades did not act as reno kits as well. For the SoH I'd really like to leave the one in OF but still upgrade it to lv8 to get the max goods donated to the guild. There are already one up kits and reno kits, making every upgrade serve as a reno kit is a bit redundant..and annoying.

 

[Salsuero]

Some people chose to compete with a much smaller roster

LOL