• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

When can we stop pretending GBG is balanced?

Manicato

New Member
Mu apologies. My mistake for using undefined terminology. I'm not talking about the number of Diamond Guilds.

By 'tier 1' I meant what you refer to as " these 5-6 guilds " and Thanksfortheloot as top 4 Guilds.

----------



A computer needs objective criteria.
What do you propose as those criteria?



Almost every poster complaining in this and every other thread about GBG is upset because they aren't getting enough personal Rewards.

How does forming another Division give those Guilds moved into that division more Rewards?

Looks like your idea is a way to punish those Guilds while getting more Rewards for Guilds that can't get them now.
Its not about punishing guilds that are at the top. As a matter of fact, I am in a very strong guild in one of the lands and going, sometimes, against another strong guild, when racing sometimes our opponent just has that edge and sometimes we do. One thing I will say for the top guild that I am in I appreciate, is that the leaders are sensitive to the list. So, for example, it doesn't take conquering sectors in front of other guilds home base to be in the top 2 in order to remain in the diamond league. The advisors will tell us as a team to not take sectors from time to time in front of other guilds home base giving those guilds an opportunity to farm and lock sectors so they can earn rewards. Now if there is a competitive guild that does not do this, then our guild will counteract the opponent(s). But if we are on a list that is going to be a reasonable season, then why lock guilds down when it is not always necessary to win? It is all about strategy.

I also am in guilds that are active and sometimes it is not easy for the GBG leaders to motivate members to help with sectors, but it doesn't mean the guild is weak. I have seen more guilds trying to work together in map sharing and collaborate so that guilds have opportunity and at the same time, there are seasons it is every guild for themselves or the alliance so that no one has a chance even though the top guilds are locked in 1st and 2nd guaranteed the win for the season.

It is hard to punish guilds who maintain the #1 and #2 spots in GBG. If top guilds were given a challenge then also rewards could be greater.
 

Tony 85 the Generous

Well-Known Member
The server distribution gets very top heavy, which is why I suggested the 8 guilds-only titanium league. The size limit is key there, else its just a temporary displacement of the same problem.
Not "else its just a temporary displacement of the same problem" it is "a temporary displacement of the same problem".

Work with the current LP method and run some numbers and simulations. "The server distribution gets very top heavy" will be a very, very, very slow process. On a 8 guilds map, your top 4 will stay in diamond 1, and guilds 5 &6 will bounce from diamond 1 to 2, and guild 7-8 (not mentioned) will drop to platinum. Because of the combination of the 1000 point max and these "titanium" level guilds always taking the top diamond spots, The numbers must work out just right to grow the number of diamond league guilds.
 

Tony 85 the Generous

Well-Known Member
I agree with what others have said ... grow your guild and be more competitive instead of the constant bitching about how others are better or bigger or stronger than you.

Your leaders won't do what is needed to grow? Find a better guild, there are plenty of them out there.

Instead of trying to neuter others, get better yourself.
Growing and competitive are two different things. Growing your guild and gaining members is straightforward. Growing will help in being competitive. But the members also need to "gain strength". Gaining strength in and of itself is not difficult. Plant and level the right great and event buildings. But gaining strength to catch up to the top guilds is problematic. They are not sitting still. They are also gaining strength. Gaining strength to be competitive with the top guilds is a significant issue.

I do not suggest neutering the top guilds. The problem is mixing the yearlings in with the big dogs. That is a problem that can be solved (by Inno).
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
But gaining strength to catch up to the top guilds is problematic. They are not sitting still. They are also gaining strength. Gaining strength to be competitive with the top guilds is a significant issue.

Good post, but I think you need to look a little closer at this.

As I mentioned above, this is a case of looking at the second derivative.

In plain words while the more established player has a lot more resources and can add more to their city, the player catching up gains more proportional strength by doing less then the established player.

Crude example.

Player lvls Traz from 80 to 81 goes from 78 to 79 troops. Player lvls Traz from 10 to 11 goes from 8 to 9 troops.

First player is ahead still by 70 Troops but the proportion of the difference is less.

This second derivative phenomenon is exacerbated by the nature of increasing GB lvl cost.

Pre GBG this process was not significant because the lesser player was always behind in production by the ratio of the production between the players.

GBG changes that ratio because the Rewards from GBG add more proportionally to lesser players then greater players.

Add 1000 FP to top player per day and they will do a lot with it.

Add 200 FP per day to good player and they will do a lot more proportionately.

Dig it?
 

Tony 85 the Generous

Well-Known Member
Good post, but I think you need to look a little closer at this.

As I mentioned above, this is a case of looking at the second derivative.

In plain words while the more established player has a lot more resources and can add more to their city, the player catching up gains more proportional strength by doing less then the established player.

Crude example.

Player lvls Traz from 80 to 81 goes from 78 to 79 troops. Player lvls Traz from 10 to 11 goes from 8 to 9 troops.

First player is ahead still by 70 Troops but the proportion of the difference is less.

This second derivative phenomenon is exacerbated by the nature of increasing GB lvl cost.

Pre GBG this process was not significant because the lesser player was always behind in production by the ratio of the production between the players.

GBG changes that ratio because the Rewards from GBG add more proportionally to lesser players then greater players.

Add 1000 FP to top player per day and they will do a lot with it.

Add 200 FP per day to good player and they will do a lot more proportionately.

Dig it?
I see what you are saying in general terms. But the point is still there and when applied to the guild instead of a player makes catching the top guilds a significant issue (as compared to adding members).
 

Joeyjojojo

Active Member
Another perspective on a couple comments here.
the top end of Diamond. There we see a different phenomenon: medium sized guilds (say 50-60 members) loosing their best fighters to the 5-6 top guilds because they rather join the farmfest in stead of being excluded and locked down for a few seasons in a row. The server distribution gets very top heavy
Solution: join a top guild. I did and now it's a blast in GBG,
IMO, the top guilds are NOT fun to do GBG. The timing to take sectors and the speed at which they flip requires far more intense playing than I (and I suspect many others) want from this game. Every once in a while we'll end up in a season where things work out nicely and I can pop on and grab a sector for cheap/free and I'll end up with 1500-2k hits. Most of the time I end up in the 700-1200 range just because I don't have time/opportunity to be on right when a sector opens and fight with abandon until it flips. From what I can tell that 700-1200 probably places me in the top 5% of GBG attackers, and I could certainly do more, but I'm miles behind the biggest players in the top guilds and I have zero desire to join them.

I find the asymmetry within the top leagues more annoying than getting pinned in on those occasions when we are unlucky and end up at the top of diamond. Specifically high platinum is often more competitive than low diamond because there are a good number of guilds that fell there from throughout diamond including some that dropped from the top end. That last thing seems to me to be more of an issue. The fact is that if you can land in low diamond and hold there your guild will probably have better farming opportunities than they would at the top of diamond OR the top of platinum. I wonder if it would be useful for GBG to dial back the points gained/lost as guilds move up in leagues--or maybe just across the board now that the guilds are mostly settled out. It seems like that would lessen the feast or famine aspect that currently prevails.
 
Last edited:

Taipanium

New Member
Not "else its just a temporary displacement of the same problem" it is "a temporary displacement of the same problem".

Work with the current LP method and run some numbers and simulations. "The server distribution gets very top heavy" will be a very, very, very slow process. On a 8 guilds map, your top 4 will stay in diamond 1, and guilds 5 &6 will bounce from diamond 1 to 2, and guild 7-8 (not mentioned) will drop to platinum. Because of the combination of the 1000 point max and these "titanium" level guilds always taking the top diamond spots, The numbers must work out just right to grow the number of diamond league guilds.
We must be seeing very different server stats. The Brisgard server IS already very top heavy. With that I mean: there about 40 guilds at 1000 LP, lets call that 'Diamond-1'. Those get put together in GBG instances. There are a few dozen more guilds in the 901-999 LP range, those I will call Diamond-2. Those get matched with each other based on their amount of League points. In Diamond -1 there are about 6 guilds who are *far* stronger than the rest, because all the fighters migrated to there so they could farm. Those six will team up with each other no matter what when they find each other, and show zero mercy to the rest of the map. Worse, they will lock some guilds down harder than others, so that they determine exactly what the top ranking from 1st to 8th will look like. It is this migration of fighters that I referred to with the term 'top heavy'. Or as others here have advised: Go join a winning team.
The results is that of the 40 guilds at Diamond-1, six get all the rewards (no strategy, just mindless mouse clicking and overwhelm with numbers) and the other 34 are screwed. Put those 6 in an 8-guild max size Titanium league, and you do not simply displace the problem. You force them to fight each other, plus you make the game fun again for the remaining 34 guilds at Diamond-1 level.
The part that still needs figuring out is how/when to demote guilds from Titanium back down to Diamond.

Another solution I have seen suggested which I also like, is to do this: (at least for Diamond-1): base the matchmaking not on League Points (as its a bad differentiator there) but on victory points from last season. So if you have for example 4 GBG instances totaling 32 guilds at the top of Diamond, the top 2 of each instance get placed together in the next season.
 
Last edited:

Taipanium

New Member
In plain words while the more established player has a lot more resources and can add more to their city, the player catching up gains more proportional strength by doing less then the established player.

Crude example.

Player lvls Traz from 80 to 81 goes from 78 to 79 troops. Player lvls Traz from 10 to 11 goes from 8 to 9 troops.

First player is ahead still by 70 Troops but the proportion of the difference is less.

This second derivative phenomenon is exacerbated by the nature of increasing GB lvl cost.

Pre GBG this process was not significant because the lesser player was always behind in production by the ratio of the production between the players.

GBG changes that ratio because the Rewards from GBG add more proportionally to lesser players then greater players.
In other words, the diminishing returns concept that is built into the game.
Yes that does serve as a balancing factor, except for one part where I disagree with you:

"GBG changes that ratio because the Rewards from GBG add more proportionally to lesser players then greater players. "
Wrong in this sense: the 'greater players' conglomerate into farm vehicles, taking all the FP's from GBG for themselves, leaving the 'lesser players' with nothing, or with the occasional trip down to Platinum league where nothing happens.

Most Platinum guilds that I have seen these days struggle to output 200 hits /day. Medium sized guilds (in capability level) could do say 2000 hits/day but are on lockdown at the high end of Diamond. Top end guilds do 5000 to 6000 hits/day and take everything.
 

Tony 85 the Generous

Well-Known Member
"GBG changes that ratio because the Rewards from GBG add more proportionally to lesser players then greater players. "
Wrong in this sense: the 'greater players' conglomerate into farm vehicles, taking all the FP's from GBG for themselves, leaving the 'lesser players' with nothing, or with the occasional trip down to Platinum league where nothing happens.
You are speaking of 'guilds' whereas the original post was (literally) about 'a player'. I think you have missed the point Algona was trying to make. On the other hand, your statement has allowed me to complete my thought.
GBG changes that ratio because the Rewards from GBG add more proportionally to lesser players then greater players.

Add 1000 FP to top player per day and they will do a lot with it.

Add 200 FP per day to good player and they will do a lot more proportionately.
The total impact of this is a wash. Yes, player 1's gbs cost more. Yes player 1 is stronger thus accumulates more fp. If player 1's cost for the mext traz level (as an example) is 5 times that of player 2, then there is no gain.
 

The Winning Bid

The way it is set up it encourages guild centric growth instead of player centric growth. Traz is guild centric because it gives you more units to fight in Gbg , SoH , ditto , Obs , same , Arc , yup as most combat Gb are guild centric as well. The players that focus on treasury GBs and combat Gbs are much more attractive to strong guilds rather that players with just a bunch of FP GBs and special buildings. The stronger guilds invite them in and with this they grow faster than the players who focus on themselves. These player focused members tend to be the players that only do the minimum requirements and guild leaders know this.
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
IMO, the top guilds are NOT fun to do GBG. The timing to take sectors and the speed at which they flip requires far more intense playing than I (and I suspect many others) want from this game.
This here is exactly why I never stayed long the few times I was in a top GvG guild over the years. To my mind, to play like that should be a paying position. With benefits. If I worked, I would not want a second job that pays nothing. And being retired, I certainly don't want to go back to someone else (besides my wife, of course) making demands of my time or schedule.
 
To reduce the conflated imbalance - Remove Seige Camps/Trap
For inno to make players use up the goods. - Reduce rewards % (upto a max) with each time a tile is taken for that guild and have a new building to prop the % up to initial levels
 

Sparky16

New Member
These are not just a little mismatches, these mismatches are extreme.
So we have 27 Members with top players around 11M in points.
The other Guilds have 70+ payers with the majority over 50M in points. These Guilds need to be fighting amongst themselves, not with extremely weak guilds in comparison. How is this even fun for all guilds involved. I'm pretty sure these Top of the top guilds would have more fun if all the guilds were even just slightly matched in strength.

Attrition doesn't come into play when these guilds have 70+ players, all with arcs 80 or more, obs etc...

Inno themselves say they want to try and match, at least reasonably matched guilds and attrition should make it even for all guilds. This is far from happening and should not happen. Shit, on day one the board was completely over run by two guilds in less than 20 minutes. They were taking sectors in 30 seconds or less, building 4 siege camps on each sector and spending diamonds to build them faster.

There is no point in even playing GBG when this keeps happening. It's a very strong possibility that players will just get fed up and quit.
 
Top