Since most Guilds do not play GVG, probably because GBG is so much more rewarding to spend goods on, why not use both GVG and GBG for guild rankings? Currently it is set for the Guild with the highest goods production as most cannot spend the high amount of goods it takes to play both.
Perhaps a bit off-topic but I can't help but ask since I keep seeing one variation or another of the bolded text:
Where does it state that you pay goods to play Guild Battlegrounds? The feature is
free. It's only in the placement of buildings that goods are required. Just as certain features in GvG are free, i.e., breaking sieges, the first level of the Guild Expedition, and the PvP Arena, it is a free feature.
I've played 4 worlds since long before the Battlegrounds feature was introduced and on 3 of them, I've never spent a single good to play as I have been able to succesfully fight well within my attrition penalties well into Platinum League
without building one single Battlegrounds Building! On 2 of my other worlds I played alone and always did. I played quite easily in Silver League and even ventured occiasionally into Gold League. My cities were somewhat advanced in Eras but not in military strength as in my main city. My only military GBs were the fight trio, CoA, Zeus, and CdM, none of which are even now above L70 and at that time probably between the 30's and 40's on any one of those cities. I had no overt use of ATTK/ATTK-D in any of those 3 cities. I'm not necessarily trying to 'toot my own horn' but only illustrate that in this manner I was more than successful playing the feature, and really quite lucratively in terms of personal rewards, but it was mostly due to the judicious use of good, common sense on my part and the part of the members of the guilds I was in in deciding not to overspend, if spend at all, in the Battlegrounds feature.
No, I was not at the 'top' of the Platinum League and we three lonely warriors who decided to settle back into Gold League, having never built one single building in over one a half years of playing the feature. We didn't engage in sector swaps. We didn't negotiate. We fought. It's each player's choice and the choice of the guild collectively to build. If a guild doesn't have the necessary goods, then they shouldn't build and stop fighting when the losses become too high to warrant continued advancement until each member of the guild is able to either personally donate or passively collect treasury funds.
That's just poor guild management to play beyond your members' capabilities but the feature is free. (Like I said, a bit off topic but honestly, to keep harping on and on about how expensive the feature is when it doesn't cost anything at all to either individual player or guild just deflates whatever good argument someone might have over a related issue!)
