Guild Battlegrounds Improvements Feedback

[Salsuero]

Oh, I didn't know they were random. Thanks!

I'm not entirely sure they're random and not allocated according to a set of rules. I've never seen three slots next to a base, for example. You usually see one or none on the outer ring and it seems to correlate with the point value and whether or not it's connected to other specific tiles. I haven't charted out the history of where all the slots go, but as we use them frequently, there does seem to be more of a choice to where they appear than randomness. There may be an element of randomness at play, but I think it's also tied to some specific rules if so. It's just my guess and what I've seen. I don't know for sure. If someone could show me a three slot territory next to a base -- or anywhere on the outer ring for that matter, that would make me believe much more in the randomness theory.

 

[ffblackice]

Not sure it is a bug, when I was negociating, our guild took over the ownership of a province, then my negociation was stop and jumpped back to GBG screen, with a note something like "the province ownership has been changed", I would expect I should be able to complete my negociation then the note shows up.

 

[UBERhelp1]

Not sure it is a bug, when I was negociating, our guild took over the ownership of a province, then my negociation was stop and jumpped back to GBG screen, with a note something like "the province ownership has been changed", I would expect I should be able to complete my negociation then the note shows up.

Not a bug. Basically, your negotiation was stopped because the sector received the advances needed to take it. You can't add more advances to a taken sector, so your negotiation would be worth nothing.

 

[Resting Dynamo]

Not sure it is a bug, when I was negociating, our guild took over the ownership of a province, then my negociation was stop and jumpped back to GBG screen, with a note something like "the province ownership has been changed", I would expect I should be able to complete my negociation then the note shows up.

It's by design. If any of your guildmate were also active on the province, and they managed to finish it off before you, game will take you back and prompt the said message. Same thing with GvG, there it has thrown me error at times, but the idea remains same.

 

[Black Sheba the Terror]

I'm not entirely sure they're random and not allocated according to a set of rules. I've never seen three slots next to a base, for example. You usually see one or none on the outer ring and it seems to correlate with the point value and whether or not it's connected to other specific tiles. I haven't charted out the history of where all the slots go, but as we use them frequently, there does seem to be more of a choice to where they appear than randomness. There may be an element of randomness at play, but I think it's also tied to some specific rules if so. It's just my guess and what I've seen. I don't know for sure. If someone could show me a three slot territory next to a base -- or anywhere on the outer ring for that matter, that would make me believe much more in the randomness theory.

Yeah, definitely not completely random. It seems like the outer ring is usually 0-1, the next 2 rings are 1-2, and the center is 2-3, but it does vary.

 

[Salsuero]

the next 2 rings are 1-2

Yeah, except the ring surrounding the center can have 3 as well.

 

[DeletedUser9876]

Just like GE does now , Batttlegrounds needs to be changed to have guilds of equal membership size compete. Larger guilds have to big an advantage over smaller guilds due to attrition.

 

[DeletedUser28756]

Just like GE does now , Batttlegrounds needs to be changed to have guilds of equal membership size compete. Larger guilds have to big an advantage over smaller guilds due to attrition.

Post as a proposal

 

[Nicholas002]

Post as a proposal

Don’t bother. It won’t get much support.

 

[Agent327]

Post as a proposal

New features in the game are adressed in a feedback thread. That's where you can express yourr opinion and what youi like to see as well, or what you want out. As long as that thread is active there is no need to put sugestions you might have into a proposal. In fact it does not make sense to do so at all. Feedback gets forwarded to the devs. A proposal can get voted down and will never reach the devs. It is always better to use feedback.

 

[DeletedUser9876]

Don’t bother. It won’t get much support.

Why wouldn't it get any support? A guild of 80 members can crush a guild of 20 members right now in battlegrounds. Just like in the old days a Modern age player could easily plunder Iron age players in the hood. Then FOE fixed the problem and it made the hoods similar. The same problem exists today in BG and it is disproportionate to fight in if you are in a smaller guild versus a larger guild.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Why wouldn't it get any support? A guild of 80 members can crush a guild of 20 members right now in battlegrounds. Just like in the old days a Modern age player could easily plunder Iron age players in the hood. Then FOE fixed the problem and it made the hoods similar. The same problem exists today in BG and it is disproportionate to fight in if you are in a smaller guild versus a larger guild.

Because it's been proposed and shot down numerous times before.

League points, being based on actual performance of the guild as a whole, is fair. While an 80 member guild could crush a 20 member guild, often times they don't. Success in GBG has nothing to do with the number of people in a guild, it has to do with the number of advancements put up by the entire guild. As such, an 80 person guild that puts up, on average, 10 advances per day per person, or 800 advances, is worth as much as a 20 person guild that puts up, on average, 40 advances per day per person.

What you're asking for would skew the results in favor of active guilds at the expense of less active guilds. There's no fairness in that. It would be way too easy to game the system.

It ain't the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog. As it should be.

 

[Nicholas002]

Why wouldn't it get any support?

As discussed at length in several other threads, in GBg matchups are made based on performance. You can’t get much more fair than that.

 

[Salsuero]

an 80 person guild that puts up, on average, 10 advances per day per person, or 800 advances, is worth as much as a 20 person guild that puts up, on average, 40 advances per day per person.

That's hardly "fair and balanced" considering it costs far less in troops/goods/time for 20 people to achieve the same as 10 people. So to say it's "equal" for 10 players to shoulder the same load as 20 is disingenuous.

You can’t get much more fair than that.

Sure you can. Base it on performance AND numbers. Easy.

 

[DeletedUser9876]

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.

 

[DeletedUser9876]

It ain't the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog. As it should be

Well that logic is not currently applied to GE and you can apply the same argument you just made against GBG.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

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 there have to absorb attrition. It is the Attrition that makes it a game changer.

Disagree if you want, but everything you say is based on a hypothetical. The reality is you have no idea who is or isn't active in any guild, nor does it matter. Guilds who win will move up, guilds who lose will move down.

While I agree that GBG has everything to do with the number of members participating, the number participating has no bearing on the total number in the guild. Using your own argument of 20% of an 80 member guild being active, they would be evenly matched with a 20 person guild with 80% of the members active. Again, you have no idea the activity level inside an opposing guild.

I've been in small guilds that kicked much larger guild's behinds because of member composition and activity. Which is why the number in a guild doesn't matter. But I get why you'd want it to. It would mean a small active guild would consistently have a walk in the park, something the current system keeps from happening. Which is why few support the change.

Well that logic is not currently applied to GE and you can apply the same argument you just made against GBG.

Indeed I could, but GBG isn't scored the same. In fact, smaller guilds with members who can all complete 64/48 have a much easier time than larger guilds who don't. Which is why you often see guilds in GE with almost all Gold championship wins, very few Silver, and zero Bronze.

Different scoring structure, different match up rules. As it should be.

 

[Salsuero]

I have to respectfully disagree with both of you

It won't do you any good. They aren't being honest about how it works.

Let's compare a 4-person guild to a 40-person guild (because it's easy visual math).

Your goal is to average 250 fights per player (we'll ignore negotiations for simplicity) for a total of 1,000 fights. That would mean an actual 250 fights per player with 100% participation. But one player is sick this week and another player is just lazy -- and so both of them don't do anything at all. So, that means it falls to the other two players to pick up the slack for 500 fights per player... double the effort due to 50% participation.

For the 40-person guild -- the goal being the same -- you're looking for a total of 10,000 fights. Let's say 10 (5x more) of them do nothing at all (damn bums) and another 10 of them are at least able to do half of the goal. That means there's a combined 1,250 fights between those 20 players, leaving 8,750 for the other 20 players. That's still only a 437.50 average left for them to complete in order to achieve that same 50% participation, even though you had 5x more players doing absolutely nothing in your guild.

Yes, these are hypotheticals. But that's how you analyze this sort of thing. You can more easily spread out participation among larger guilds. It's just a fact. You don't have to make up for deficiencies as much as individuals the more people there are to do so. This is an HONEST assessment of how/why participation can be easier when you have a larger guild and why it isn't equally balanced/fair when put up against smaller ones.

There are regularly 15-member guilds put up against 80-member guilds on the maps. If 10 members of a 15-player guild and 10 members of a 80-player guild all go on vacation at the start of a GBg round, the remaining players of each of those guilds will have a much different requirement of them to achieve the same participation. Since all you're evaluating is the participation average of a guild, you're saying it's fair that 70 players can collectively handle the missing 12.5% with the same effort as the guild that has to make up a missing 33%. It doesn't matter if it's hypothetical... it matters that it can happen at all. Allowing for these hypothetical situations at all is poor balancing.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Yes, these are hypotheticals. But that's how you analyze this sort of thing.

No, that's how YOU want to analyze it. But that in no way is the correct way to analyze it. As you've shown above you can construct whatever ludicrous hypothetical you need in order to lead someone to whatever predetermined conclusion you want to lead someone to.

In your case, you've made it clear you're looking to game the system to your guild's advantage. 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 have no interest in making GBG fair, you want to stack the deck in your favor.

That it's so transparent is laughable.

 

[DeletedUser9876]

No, that's how YOU want to analyze it. But that in no way is the correct way to analyze it. As you've shown above you can construct whatever ludicrous hypothetical you need in order to lead someone to whatever predetermined conclusion you want to lead someone to.

In your case, you've made it clear you're looking to game the system to your guild's advantage. 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 have no interest in making GBG fair, you want to stack the deck in your favor.

That it's so transparent is laughable.

We are never going to agree on this. 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.