Guild Battlegrounds Improvements - League Points Feedback

[-Sebastian-]

I am not speaking of just changing the numbers. You are correct, that would only move not solve the problem. The points system would have to be revisited and revised. My first simple suggestion would be another league (or two) between platinum and diamond as there seems (to me) to be too big of a step. Additionally it seems too easy to be booted out of diamond (current situation as an example, one bad week and you are out).

Yeah, it's a problem. On one of my worlds, I'm in a guild like this, where we bounce between dominating a platinum map, and barely being able to get out of our HQ on a diamond map. The match-making system isn't doing a good job. I suspect part of the problem is the way LP max out at 1000. There's no way to distinguish a guild that's had 1000 LP for 6 months and gotten 1st on every one of those maps, from a guild that was mid-ranked in Platinum at 825 and managed to scrape out a victory on an 8-guild map.

I understand the desire to mix up guilds, so the top handful of guilds in a world aren't always facing each other. But this particular way of accomplishing that isn't working well. It actively makes the game less fun.

 

[The Prince Visigoth]

I am in a guild that actively smashes any and all challengers on a diamond map. The real problem is how do they figure out who goes on what diamond map. So many guilds are in diamond league and the matchmaking for it has no real rhyme or reason. Maybe Inno could explain how they do GBG matchmaking...

 

[Nicholas002]

I am in a guild that actively smashes any and all challengers on a diamond map. The real problem is how do they figure out who goes on what diamond map. So many guilds are in diamond league and the matchmaking for it has no real rhyme or reason. Maybe Inno could explain how they do GBG matchmaking...

It goes by your placement. My guild alternates between first and second or third diamond group. In first diamond, we have no real chance to win, so we sandbag into 5th or 6th. This drops us down to a lower diamond league group, in which we are always the strongest guild. Then we win that one, and jump back up to group 1.

 

[-Sebastian-]

It goes by your placement. My guild alternates between first and second or third diamond group. In first diamond, we have no real chance to win, so we sandbag into 5th or 6th. This drops us down to a lower diamond league group, in which we are always the strongest guild. Then we win that one, and jump back up to group 1.

Some of it goes by placement, when the LPs are between 901 and 999. But in my other world, I'm in one of those guilds like the one @Visigoth mentioned, and the ranking of the guilds with 1000 LP seems to be random. Which is a problem because over half the guilds in Diamond League there have 1000 LP (36 total, 20 with 1000 LP, 16 with LP from 901 to 999). And the same goes for guilds with 975 LP, or 950, or 925, which are what happens when a guild reaches 1000 and then gets bumped down (6 of the 16 have 950 LP). Our joke is that the devs at Inno break ties by playing beer pong.

I like the part of the design where guilds that come in last Diamond League *will* get bumped back to Platinum - it provides real stakes for the competition. So I don't like the simple solutions of reducing the rewards for winning, or increasing the maximum LP to 1100. But I'm not sure what else to suggest. Maybe doing the sorting after adding the LP rewards, but before trimming down to 1000? But that would only affect guilds with 1000 LP. Maybe reducing the positive LP rewards for winning in Diamond, but keeping the size of the negative LP "rewards" the same? But I'm not sure that would be a complete improvement.

 

[The Prince Visigoth]

It goes by your placement. My guild alternates between first and second or third diamond group. In first diamond, we have no real chance to win, so we sandbag into 5th or 6th. This drops us down to a lower diamond league group, in which we are always the strongest guild. Then we win that one, and jump back up to group 1.

I understand how that works. I’m saying with so many 1000 MMR guilds how does Inno select who goes where? It’s like a dart throw on who they select to go to what diamond map in GBG. My guild has tried to figure this out and we still can’t. We think we are close and bam completely different

 

[Nicholas002]

Yeah, I think it's random within the 1000 LP guilds

 

[UBERhelp1]

In my experience, the battlegrounds I'm in (except for the very top diamond battleground) are actually pretty nice. Everyone works together to make sure that everyone gets to do as many advances as possible so everyone gets rewards. Instead of locking down the map, the top guilds help facilitate swaps and such. The only buildings placed are siege camps, and they are never deleted by anyone, so that no one has to waste their goods.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

I'm not sure if this feedback is leagues, league points, or a combination of the two. Our guild is getting really tired of alternating between Platinum and Diamond. Literally moved down this season and will move up for next season, and back down the season after. We crush platinum, get promoted to diamond and get crushed, then go back to platinum, crush it, go back to diamond and get crushed. It shows to me an issue with the league divisions, league points, or an issue with the promotion/demotion between leagues.

How many other leagues are in this boat? How can the league points, league divisions, or promotion/demotion between league be adjusted to stop this?

This sounds about right.

 

[-Sebastian-]

In my experience, the battlegrounds I'm in (except for the very top diamond battleground) are actually pretty nice. Everyone works together to make sure that everyone gets to do as many advances as possible so everyone gets rewards. Instead of locking down the map, the top guilds help facilitate swaps and such. The only buildings placed are siege camps, and they are never deleted by anyone, so that no one has to waste their goods.

We've had an "only build siege camps, never delete siege camps" rule just like that, since early March, and it's been great, too.

Facilitating swaps to farm rewards seems nice in theory, but we found it difficult to do in practice. Maybe we just need more practice, I guess? But there did seem to be an inherent problem in coordinating guilds with wildly differing activity levels.

 

[ArrowsOfTime]

I am not speaking of just changing the numbers. You are correct, that would only move not solve the problem. The points system would have to be revisited and revised. My first simple suggestion would be another league (or two) between platinum and diamond as there seems (to me) to be too big of a step. Additionally it seems too easy to be booted out of diamond (current situation as an example, one bad week and you are out).

i agree with what you said for many things

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

We've had an "only build siege camps, never delete siege camps" rule just like that, since early March, and it's been great, too.

Our guild, and most that we communicate with during GBG, place only siege camps and as many as they can. Very few banners, outposts, fortresses, and statues. Those buildings to increase the number of hits to take a sector do not deter anyone. They just plow through anyway. We have found fortresses and outposts a (complete) waste or resources. Maybe they work on smaller guild with less power, in silver and sopper leagues, but are useless in gold, platinum and especially diamond. The best money is on siege camps that reduce attrition increase which allows for faster battling and sector turnover (capture and build in a two hour rotation).

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

Based our the current season, I am thinking there needs to be a 'might factor'. A factor that gauges the ability "to bring it". I do not believe it can be based on member count. Though member count would have a natural effect on the 'might gauge' by the simple fact of having less members. This season we are up against guilds with 19, 15, 18, 22, 61, 40, 18, and 61 members (my guild has 60). We can certainly 'bring it' more than 5 of the 8 guilds. But here we all are, in platinum. Most of them moved up because they were just able to win there seasons, nothing to do with how well they are able to compete in the next level league.

I am not sure how the 'might factor' would be calculated, but a suggestion for the Inno devs to consider. Points for winning and placing in the season alone is not working.

 

[Nicholas002]

This season we are up against guilds with 19, 15, 18, 22, 61, 40, 18, and 61 members

that reminds me: this season in diamond league, one of the guilds is a one man guild! that's pretty impressive IMO. (though the guild has some GE trophies, so at some point they must have had more members)

 

[-Sebastian-]

that reminds me: this season in diamond league, one of the guilds is a one man guild! that's pretty impressive IMO. (though the guild has some GE trophies, so at some point they must have had more members)

Wow that's impressive! But I suppose a single player who can do 4000-5000 fights can probably defeat most platinum maps...

 

[Nicholas002]

If someone can do 4000 fights a season without a lot of siege camps they almost certainly have to be able to fight at max attrition. (Either that or they have TONS of goods, and could afford seine camps)

 

[September*]

Once 30 or more guilds are 1000 LP what determines matchmaking on the Diamond maps? Is it alphabetical by guild name? Maybe a mathematical sum of the ASCII characters in the guild name? The internal Guild ID number in reverse sort order? We really can not figure it out, other than it stays very similar and does not seem based on overall guild rank in the world (that would seem to make some sense wouldn't it?) or even some consideration of ranking on the previous season (all the #1's together, all the #2's together, etc.). Maybe it is alphabetical based on the Guild Leaders names, should I change my name to find out?

This is probably a result of the LP system being biased to pushing so many guilds up to the 1000 LP limit, but fixing that seems to be off the table at this point.