When can we stop pretending GBG is balanced?

[Manicato]

That is partially correct. You need to grow and prove you are better than the few guilds in front of you. But they are also growing. Collections for everyone are daily. As mentioned before. Growing is not the issue. The issue is catching. But without new guilds the number in diamond will not increase. You can grow at the same rate as all of those in front of you and you still will not move up until someone comes in behind and pushes you up.

Again grow vs catch. Catching is a magnitude more difficult.

That is right, we are speaking of some guilds point wise per player 10 million, some less battling players 100 mill or more and with at least 5,000 battles/negotiations a season.

 

[Manicato]

Why would nobody play? I can get to 90 attrition a day with out losing troops.

The problem is lower guilds can't benefit from buildings that reduce attrition while top guilds can smash them down with no impact to their treasury.

... It takes me about 600 fights and 4 hours of pressing the same 3 buttons... but I get to 90 attrition a day... and thats the problem... it takes me 4 hours... of . .... the ... same ... freaking button.

If they got rid of the attrition reduce buildings .... or even all buildings at that, the gbg will progress slower yes... however smaller guilds will have a chance to team up on the large guilds.... as it stands right now ... we just own the map and smash all the small guilds and keep the grid locked. They have no chance.... you remove our buildings and actully cap our attrition and it will give them a better chance.

.... its gotten so bad that there are days that I just dont have anything to attack because the grid is locked up and can't even get to my easy 90 daily

Its one thing if a low guildie player can only get to 30 attrition with 50 battles, but i can do 90 with 600 battles. ... the ratio is just messed up which is causing us to roflstomp them

They remove the attrition reduction buildings, and the low player would still get 30 battles and I would only then get 90... Large guilds will still be powerfull... (3x as powerfull. ratio of 30:90) compared to what i currently experience (which is 12x as powerfull. ratio 50:600 )

It fix's the burn out of top players having to spend 4-5 hours pressing the same 3 buttons over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, and it fix's the HUGE difference between guilds ability to battle.

The center map should be the most volatile squares and should change hands the most, however in my experience its the squares right next to the other guilds base. If they remove buildings we would save the attrition that we have available to battle the center as their worth more and leave the sides alone - which will also prevent us from trapping other guilds in their own base for hours/days on end. Currently it takes us less attrition (due to surrounding buildings) to lock a lowbie guild into their base then it does for them to fight and get out of our gridlock. ... which keeps the center safe for us.

wonderfully put thanks! The ratios are way off, when high players generate a season 6,000 battles and lower players generate 0-to struggling to gain 300. Something is wrong.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

I'm not sure how you disagree

Given that if you mean completely catching up, I disagree.

then agree

The lower ranked player can never fully catch up.

But I do agree, the lower ranked players and guild can never catch the existing high ranked players.

Not quite sure what a magnitude of difference is. An order of magnitude is 10 times as much. Is that what you meant?

That is what I meant. If you want to grow you guild to the full 80 members, that is (at least ) 10x easier than gaining on the guild "in front of you".

As noted earlier, catching up is not linear, it's a matter of second derivative. In terms of physics, think of distance covered, velocity, and acceleration.

In terms of game play, the higher ranked player has played more (distance), has a higher production (velocity, first derivative), but a lower increase in production over time (acceleration, second derivative) compared to the lower ranked player.

The difference in the second derivative is caused by the combination of the nature of GB cost to lvl versus increase in the production of the GB and the effect of SBs on overall individual production. I can go into detail on this if needed.

What this means in terms of catching up is that instead of looking at just the difference in power (distance) and production (velocity) between the two players you also have to look at the ratio of production increase over time (acceleration) between the two players.

Once you look at (I'll use the term acceleration ratio: the ratio of production increase over time between the two players.) the acceleration ratio combined with the oddity of GBG that once a player reaches a certain GBG capability the only limits on city advancement are opportunity to do GBG, the implications and ramifications on catching up become clear and are supported by and explain what has occurred since the advent of GBg.

The philiosophy of what you are saying has merit, but your analogy breaks down on several fronts.
First question is what you think the rate of change in the distance is. I don't mean it is 'production', but its value over time. The second derivative of a linearly decreasing value is 0. If it is asymptotic, then the distance never goes to zero in the first place and is supported by the fact the second derative is a horizontal non-zero line.

In your previous example you stated production numbers (1000FP/day higher, 200FP/day lower). I believe those to be too close together, possibly due to omitting omit several items. Given the higher ranked player's gbs cost more to level, but they also have the ability to far out produce the lower ranked played. Between the higher ranked player's large city and thus higher daily production, their ability to earn more rewards in GE (due to higher level ToR), their ability to fighting further per day in GBG (earning fp rewards), and higher level arc producing income from 1.9 threads (assuming at least a moderate bank). I know where I rank and/or what I can do based on this list. I am not a high ranked or strong player. Scaling your previous example based on my fp per day, the higher ranked player needs to be moved up into the 1200-1500 range, and the lower ranked play dropped to 120-150 range. You are have put forth a 5x differential and I disagree. I say the differential needs to be 10x. My test city (~120fp/day, iron age) and my real city (~500fp/day, colonial) already display a 4-5x differential. Since all players must traverse the paths (gb levels cost the same), the lower ranked player will never catch the higher ranked player.

P.S. This assumes $0 out of pocket. Of course, any player could buy their way to the top in a heartbeat. I am aware of some very new players (12-18 months) that are now in the top 100. No way they got there from logging in daily. There have been some dollars exchanged for diamonds.

 

[Graviton]

But I do agree, the lower ranked players and guild can never catch the existing high ranked players ... The philiosophy of what you are saying has merit, but your analogy breaks down on several fronts.

Then forget the example and focus on the point: the rate of growth between an established and powerful guild versus a newer guild is not the same. The established guild may still be growing but it won't be growing as quickly as the newer guild can grow. Between the numerical limit on guild membership and the effective limit on GB levels (there is no hard cap but there's a point of diminishing returns beyond which it no longer really helps to level them) the gap will narrow over time. The newer guild will never catch the established guild unless the established guild stops growing completely, but the newer guild can indeed get closer.

So, "catching" an already-high level player/ guild is not the issue here, or rather, it shouldn't be, because the only resolution for that is summarily hobbling advanced guilds and/or artificially boosting lesser guilds. If what is being asked for here is for Inno to stratify guilds based on criteria other than direct competition (which includes the ability to coordinate with other guilds), then what you want isn't GBG at all but something completely different. A guild arena where one guild is pitted against one other guild, paired against each other based on ... something. I don't know what, since points are awarded in different ways and thus a point comparison, or even a like number of members comparison, isn't that informative; and can change every day.

 

[Taipanium]

According to the FoE wiki, the VP awarded are the same per league and only vary per the number of guilds on the map.

I am familiar with the LP awards table you posted and how the current advancement and demotion scheme works based on LP. But what Algona was asking for was VP victory points, the stuff you earn per hour during an active GBG session and which determines your ranking in that season. (never mind, I was reacting post by post as I was catching up, I now see others have pointed out the same thing)

I am also operating on the assumption that enough guilds are already in diamond league on every server, i.e. a few dozen guilds at least. I remember reading an Inno post once that their intention was to have 20% of the guilds per server end up in Diamond.

What I notice is that most people here still talk about Diamond league as if it is one league, so let me reiterate: the guilds at 1000 LP and the guilds anywhere between 901 and 999 LP form TWO different pools from which the algorhytm draws on matchmaking day. In a rare cases a 975 LP guild is lumped in with 7 guilds at 1000 LP, just to fill out a GBG instance. But a 901 LP guild will never be matched against 1000 LP guilds, as long as you have a few dozen guilds in all of Diamond.

 

[Taipanium]

Seems under the current scenario, things will continue to sort themselves out as guilds continue to grow, consolidate, and move up. Even under the current LP system, the path is clear if you want to be stay in Diamond league. Grow. In numbers and in capacity. One thing is clear, under any fair system the best will always be at the top beating the second best. How do the best get to be the best? By investing what it takes to get there both individually and as a guild.

Yes and no.
Yes, because that is how we feel it is *supposed* to work. In a straight up free for all fight, King of the Hill style, as how GBG was designed to be (fun) - that is an argument for individual guild improvement that I would fully endorse.

No, because the whole premise is shut down once you factor in the locked maps with 2 guilds farming 52 sectors and abusing siege camps. No amount of grit, determination, resources, or player strength will get you out of that trap once its set on Thursday morning.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

No, because the whole premise is shut down once you factor in the locked maps with 2 guilds farming 52 sectors and abusing siege camps. No amount of grit, determination, resources, or player strength will get you out of that trap once its set on Thursday morning.

This is where my experiences says your wrong. On more than one occasion we've been able to join in the farming fun later in a round. By doing our best to mess them up in our neck of the woods, while asking them to join the fun, we've been invited in.

While certainly we're not able to turn and hold the number of provinces the big kids can, but three guilds can farm the same province as easily as two and Siege Camps don't care how many other guilds have points on a province.

Stop trying to make GBG something it's not. Work to maximize what you can do and what you can get from GBG within the constraints as they stand.

 

[Emberguard]

Are the VPs the same for the different Leagues, ie, does Copper pay the same as Diamond?

I'm not sure. What I do know is the VP's are randomised on a per province basis with those in the center being worth the most. So if you wanted to check you'd have to do so over a long period of time to get an idea on if there's an actual range per league or if it's entirely random with all leagues sharing the same potential range.

No amount of grit, determination, resources, or player strength will get you out of that trap once its set on Thursday morning.

Maybe not get out of it straight away, but that doesn't mean you have nothing you can do. If you're certain you can't win then you can still make the most of it by getting in as many fights/negotiations you can so you can build your city for next season. If you do nothing you're getting nothing out of it which only worsens the situation. And who knows. If you approach it as doing what you can you may do better then you realize. It's not always as bleak as it looks unless you completely give up

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

I never paid attention. Are the VPs the same for the different Leagues, ie, does Copper pay the same as Diamond?

Based solely on my experience of the lower leagues (Copper through Gold), it is slightly higher as the league is higher.

 

[Taipanium]

Maybe not get out of it straight away, but that doesn't mean you have nothing you can do. If you're certain you can't win then you can still make the most of it by getting in as many fights/negotiations you can so you can build your city for next season. If you do nothing you're getting nothing out of it which only worsens the situation. And who knows. If you approach it as doing what you can you may do better then you realize. It's not always as bleak as it looks unless you completely give up

Oh we do the best we can currently working on keeping 6th place to not end up in Platinum in our current season. But the few rewards we get, although they help grow our cities, still just makes us fall further behind the top dogs with their 50.000 battles per season farming and growing their cities. (to what end, I always wonder, but I seem to be alone in that). I still wish there was a 'leave this GBG' button for guilds, the use of which would have some negative effect on the remaining farmers.

As for fighting hard enough to be 'let into the party': we have been in all kinds of scenarios in the past year. We have been part of 3-way and even 4-way farm alliances. the consensus on our server seems to have become that the more guilds to coordinate with, the more complexity and aggravation you get over coordinating sector flips. So its 2-way deal almost all the time. My current season is an exception - we ended up with 3 of the strongest guilds, they are 3-way farming the whole map, mostly because the diplomatic fallout between them (from making like two friendly competing teams) would be higher than just go through the motions of the farm clickfest.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Oh we do the best we can currently working on keeping 6th place to not end up in Platinum in our current season. But the few rewards we get, although they help grow our cities, still just makes us fall further behind the top dogs with their 50.000 battles per season farming and growing their cities. (to what end, I always wonder, but I seem to be alone in that). I still wish there was a 'leave this GBG' button for guilds, the use of which would have some negative effect on the remaining farmers.

As for fighting hard enough to be 'let into the party': we have been in all kinds of scenarios in the past year. We have been part of 3-way and even 4-way farm alliances. the consensus on our server seems to have become that the more guilds to coordinate with, the more complexity and aggravation you get over coordinating sector flips. So its 2-way deal almost all the time. My current season is an exception - we ended up with 3 of the strongest guilds, they are 3-way farming the whole map, mostly because the diplomatic fallout between them (from making like two friendly competing teams) would be higher than just go through the motions of the farm clickfest.

You should quit. Seriously. If your greed and envy are such that you can't stand other players having more, then this isn't the game for you. Players who've been investing in their cities years longer than you have, who continue to invest in them will always have more than you, and always be able to get more than you. To what end? Because they can. They've earned the ability to do it, so they do it.

You also seem to have completely missed @Algona's point about proportionality. I'm not surprised. You can't get past what others have that you'll never have.

The way I see it, you got three choices moving forward.

1. Quit - Probably the best scenario for you. The inherent structure of FoE doesn't seem to suit you.
2. Change Guilds - Join a guild that controls the party. 'Make your city attractive enough to get an invite, then perform well enough to stay there.
3. Grow your Guild - Become big and bad enough that your guild is one of the two controlling guilds on the map. It's a grind, but completely doable. It's how the top guilds got to be top guilds.

The option you don't have? Change the game. This thread is a place for you to cry it all out, nothing more. Inno won't even read it.

You want to do 50,000 battles per season farming? Build a city capable of doing that. Don't expect others to share their lunch money with you, and stop trying to get the teacher to take their money from them, 'cause reasons.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

You also seem to have completely missed @Algona's point about proportionality.

It would be my belief that due the learning curve of FoE, the knowledge and desire increases with time playing. Thus most to all of the guilds in the platinum league are tring to get stronger. But as I have shown and others have agreed to, there is a limit (inherient precentage is you will) to the number of guilds that can stay in diamond. The rest will ping-pong and there is nothing you can do about it, except to encourage mroe players to join a world to push your guild upwards.

The aspect of Algona's "math" that is inherient and is stated, is the ability to catch up diminshes the closer you get. The guilds in the discussion are not copper or silver versus diamond, though applicable are irrelevent. The discussion is centered on the unbalanced match-ups in diamond and the guilds that ping-pong between platinum and diamond. If you apply the "math" that Algona has put forth to a platinum-diamond ping-pong guild versus always-in-diamond (not the very top guild or guilds, but any guild that is always in diamond), the distance is closer, therefore the production is closer, therefore the ability to gain is reduced.

The way I see it, you got three choices moving forward.

1. Quit - Probably the best scenario for you. The inherent structure of FoE doesn't seem to suit you.
2. Change Guilds - Join a guild that controls the party. 'Make your city attractive enough to get an invite, then perform well enough to stay there.
3. Grow your Guild - Become big and bad enough that your guild is one of the two controlling guilds on the map. It's a grind, but completely doable. It's how the top guilds got to be top guilds.

1. Doesn't solve the problem
2. Doesn't solve the problem - some guild will still be dealing with the unbalanced matchup on the map and/or bouncing between platinum and diamond
3. Doesn't solve the problem - Grow your guild but your competition is growing too and your ability to catch them is limited to slim.

The option you don't have? Change the game. This thread is a place for you to cry it all out, nothing more. Inno won't even read it.

This thread is about just that and other associated aspects. You are welcome to not participate (including suggesting players give up and quit).

 

[Algona]

You also seem to have completely missed @Algona's point about proportionality. I'm not surprised.

Don't be too hasty on this. Tpny and I are still arguing / debating / figuring this out.

Tony raised some good points and questions in his last response to me, I'm sorting them out.

The aspect of Algona's "math" that is inherient and is stated, is the ability to catch up diminshes the closer you get. The guilds in the discussion are not copper or silver versus diamond, though applicable are irrelevent. The discussion is centered on the unbalanced match-ups in diamond and the guilds that ping-pong between platinum and diamond. If you apply the "math" that Algona has put forth to a platinum-diamond ping-pong guild versus always-in-diamond (not the very top guild or guilds, but any guild that is always in diamond), the distance is closer, therefore the production is closer, therefore the ability to gain is reduced.

This being a nice summation and the last couple sentences the key to the discussion /argument we're having.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

This being a nice summation and the last couple sentences the key to the discussion /argument we're having.

That was the conclusion that was vexing on my previous comment. Your method seemed right and wrong to me for a while and I just put my finger on why.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

It would be my belief that due the learning curve of FoE, the knowledge and desire increases with time playing. Thus most to all of the guilds in the platinum league are tring to get stronger. But as I have shown and others have agreed to, there is a limit (inherient precentage is you will) to the number of guilds that can stay in diamond. The rest will ping-pong and there is nothing you can do about it, except to encourage mroe players to join a world to push your guild upwards.

I wonder what would happen if two or three Platinum/Diamond churn guilds would unite into instead of complaining the mechanism is not fair. There are ways to solve the issue within the current framework, you'll just want none of it.

The aspect of Algona's "math" that is inherent and is stated, is the ability to catch up diminishes the closer you get. The guilds in the discussion are not copper or silver versus diamond, though applicable are irrelevant. The discussion is centered on the unbalanced match-ups in diamond and the guilds that ping-pong between platinum and diamond. If you apply the "math" that Algona has put forth to a platinum-diamond ping-pong guild versus always-in-diamond (not the very top guild or guilds, but any guild that is always in diamond), the distance is closer, therefore the production is closer, therefore the ability to gain is reduced.

As long as your obsession is catching up, nothing can satisfy you. The issue isn't the math, it's your attitude about it. What's your goal? Rank Points? Guild Prestige? Personal/Guild rank on the leaderboard? Who cares? All that might feed your ego, but it does nothing to your city. Since, all things being equal (which they're not,) you'll never catch the best of the best as long as they keep playing, what's the goal?

Be able to do 50k fights in a GBG season? Do it. You mad because by the time you can do that the best of the best will be up to 52k per season? That's your issue? That's what's unfair?

1. Doesn't solve the problem
2. Doesn't solve the problem - some guild will still be dealing with the unbalanced matchup on the map and/or bouncing between platinum and diamond
3. Doesn't solve the problem - Grow your guild but your competition is growing too and your ability to catch them is limited to slim.

This thread is about just that and other associated aspects. You are welcome to not participate (including suggesting players give up and quit).

The fundamental issue is how you can't or can't deal with the issue. You've repeatedly stated as your goal something unrealistic.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

I wonder what would happen if two or three Platinum/Diamond churn guilds would unite into instead of complaining the mechanism is not fair.

I assume you are suggesting for two to three of the ping-pong guilds to merge into one. Likely not physically possible to merge two into one, but perhaps three into two (assuming 50-55 members per guild, you can't fit 100-110 members into a single guild, but 150-160 do fit into two guilds). Perhaps four into three providing they have 60 members each.

I would love to hear what you think would happen. You are at least looking at the guild, opposed to an individual player. On the other hand, we already know what would happen. First, you have lost a guild. So that shifts the possible number that stay in diamond. OK, one or two guilds lost may not make that much of an effect. But there is in fact an effect due to the loss of a guild, just as there is an effect in gaining a new (copper league) guild.
Second, assume the new members range through the existing range of members of the guild. Did the guild get larger? Yes. Did the guild get stronger? In a way yes, in another way no. Again math. The asuumption is the new members are evenly distributed through the existing members. Members with strengths 5, 10, and 15 average to 10. Add in members that are 4, 10, and 16. What is the average? Still 10. The guild is not stronger. If those numbers represent fights instead of strength, then the new members have added 30 fights a day. Extrapolate that over the 15 new members, then you have added 150 per day. Now the question becomes how much of a dent did this make in the difference between this guild and the next stronger guild, or the last of the top 5%.

There are ways to solve the issue within the current framework, you'll just want none of it.

I have reviewed your posts. I do not see a single viable or possible suggestion. The three items you previously suggested do not solve nor address any issue in any way. Please stop providing critism of others suggestions and make one of your own now.

As long as your obsession is catching up, nothing can satisfy you.

I am not obsessed with it. I (with Algona's help) am exploring if it is possible to solve the problem by getting stronger. Since every guild is getting stronger it is not the absolute "strength" but the difference in "strength" that matters. Algona's concept details out that catching the top guilds gets harder the closer you get. Granted you don't actually have to catch them, just get close. First how close is close enough? Second how close are those guilds behind you? In order to shift the dynamic, not only does one guild need to close on the stronger it also needs to lead away from those just behind. If everyone takes a step forward at the same time, then nothing changes. Someone needs to change position for there to be a change.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

What's your goal? Rank Points? Guild Prestige? Personal/Guild rank on the leaderboard? Who cares? All that might feed your ego, but it does nothing to your city. Since, all things being equal (which they're not,) you'll never catch the best of the best as long as they keep playing, what's the goal?

The only logical goal in playing this game is to have fun. Period. Lots of real life ways to put the time/energy/effort wasted here to a paying use. This is a game that you can't win. You can't even ever really get to the end and say you completed it. It doesn't take much in the way of skill or brains to have a fairly impressive city, so any ego massage someone gets from playing is imaginary at best. The only real life attributes that mean anything here is how nice or not nice you can be. I generally prefer to be nice. Generally.

The point is, it doesn't make sense to play the game solely to "win" or "be the best" or even to have an "impressive city". You can't win. Only one person can "be the best", and impressive cities are literally a dime a dozen. It only makes sense to play the game to have fun. And the message that I see throughout this thread (and others) is that GBG is pretty much no fun. Being in a farming guild can hardly be viewed as fun, since we have testimony from actual participants as to the crushing monotony of clicking for hours to get all those Siege Camp-aided battles in. We also have the testimony of many players who run up against those farming guilds and their allies that they suck the fun out for pretty much everyone else at the same time. Personally, I enjoy GBG, but that's because I studiously avoid anything above Silver league. In other words, I play it for fun. Or don't play it if I don't feel like it. Same with GvG and GE...and Settlements...and Daily Challenges.

So I guess what I'm saying is that to argue that all the complainers should just suck it up and get better or use the "if you can't beat them, join them" philosophy is to miss the big picture. The big picture is that GBG has turned into GvG 2.0. Completely dominated by large guilds with their alliances. Twisting what could have been a huge improvement over GvG into simply a GvG lookalike. The only real improvement over GvG is that it is available to all players. Except that many, many players who had access to GvG rarely if ever bothered with it because of much the same issues as we're now seeing with GBG.

I stated my suggested improvements before. Put restrictions on the same guild rebuilding Siege Camps/Traps on the same sector. Progressively reduce the % chance of personal rewards on all subsequent attempts to retake a sector that has been taken once and then lost. Put those two changes in and large guilds will still have the upper hand, but there won't be the farming and complete shut out of other guilds like there is now. And, with the personal rewards cut down to a more reasonable level, it won't be so easy to widen the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots".

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

The only logical goal in playing this game is to have fun.
...
It only makes sense to play the game to have fun.

and

And the message that I see throughout this thread (and others) is that GBG is pretty much no fun. ... We also have the testimony of many players who run up against those farming guilds and their allies that they suck the fun out for pretty much everyone else at the same time.

are opposing and contridicting comments. It is hard to have fun or for the game to be fun when you walk into a slaughter on Thursday morning or when you are good enough to advance from platinum league only to be dropped from diamond the next season.

So I guess what I'm saying is that to argue that all the complainers should just suck it up and get better or use the "if you can't beat them, join them" philosophy is to miss the big picture.

Suck it up would be the only option. As RazorbackPirate already suggested joining them, but since not everyone can fit into those guilds and the loss of the guilds effects the leagues this is not an solution.

I stated my suggested improvements before. Put restrictions on the same guild rebuilding Siege Camps/Traps on the same sector. Progressively reduce the % chance of personal rewards on all subsequent attempts to retake a sector that has been taken once and then lost. Put those two changes in and large guilds will still have the upper hand, but there won't be the farming and complete shut out of other guilds like there is now.

This not correct and is proven to be incorrect already by the guilds in diamond league.
There few factors that cause a guild to get pinned. First, alliances. That is obvious how that works. Second, attrition. When you are breaking out from your base there is no SC support and the attrition accumulates quickly. Being (third) a weaker guild this accumulation quickly becomes detrimental and stalls the guild. The loss of the SCs and Traps does not have the same effect on the opposing (strong guild). The opposing guild has the strength to pin in a guild, they have the strength to muscle over any traps or to do it without SCs. Very few top diamond guilds waste time and resources planting traps.

And, with the personal rewards cut down to a more reasonable level, it won't be so easy to widen the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots".

As has been posted, the gap does not widen it shrinks. But the gain (distance) shrinks at a decreasing rate (like when you forget to push on the gas more when you drive up a steep hill, the closer you get to the top the slower and slower you go).

In short as seen in the current layout, removing seige camps and traps will have little to no effect on the top diamond guilds. Reducing personal rewards would apply to both the "stronger" and "weaker" guilds. therefore both rewards would be reduced. This would be an instance of "both taking a step at the same time". The change would have no effect on the ability for the weaker guild to narrow the gap or the stronger to widen the gap. It would result in a status quo, just reducing the number of fp that Inno hand out per season.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

are opposing and contridicting comments. It is hard to have fun or for the game to be fun when you walk into a slaughter on Thursday morning or when you are good enough to advance from platinum league only to be dropped from diamond the next season.

They are not contradicting statements. The second statement explains why GBG has a problem...it's no fun. It's either monotonously boring or frustrating.

This not correct and is proven to be incorrect already by the guilds in diamond league.
There few factors that cause a guild to get pinned. First, alliances. That is obvious how that works. Second, attrition. When you are breaking out from your base there is no SC support and the attrition accumulates quickly. Being (third) a weaker guild this accumulation quickly becomes detrimental and stalls the guild. The loss of the SCs and Traps does not have the same effect on the opposing (strong guild).

You're missing something. My suggestions reduce the incentive and hinder the mechanism for endlessly trading sectors. And that's the main problem with GBG. Sure, there will still be alliances, but part of the incentive for forming them will be gone, so maybe they won't be as prevalent. In any case, players getting thousands of battles and the resulting pile of personal rewards from them would be cut down to size.

As has been posted, the gap does not widen it shrinks.

Sorry, but how does the gap shrink when the "haves" get in thousands of battles with the resultant rewards and the "have nots" are pinned in their home sector without any chance at battles or rewards? Your theory just doesn't pass the smell test. Of course the gap widens. The same way the gap in Treasury size would widen between a guild with level 80 Arcs and a guild with few low level Arcs. That's just common sense. Saying the gap shrinks is not borne out by the facts of reality.

In short as seen in the current layout, removing seige camps and traps will have little to no effect on the top diamond guilds.

Sure it would. It would cut way down on the farming of endlessly trading sectors. Common sense is your friend.

Reducing personal rewards would apply to both the "stronger" and "weaker" guilds. therefore both rewards would be reduced. This would be an instance of "both taking a step at the same time". The change would have no effect on the ability for the weaker guild to narrow the gap or the stronger to widen the gap. It would result in a status quo, just reducing the number of fp that Inno hand out per season.

Wrong again. How would it affect them the same when the "stronger" guilds get tons of personal rewards from endlessly trading sectors and getting in thousands of battles through farming that the "weaker" guilds never get that chance? It would definitely affect the farming guilds more. The rewards would only be reduced on repeated attacks on the same sectors that have been taken multiple times by the same guild. That mechanism wouldn't affect the weaker guilds at all. You really need to step back and think about this stuff from an objective perspective instead of mindlessly defending an indefensible system.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

are opposing and contridicting comments. It is hard to have fun or for the game to be fun when you walk into a slaughter on Thursday morning or when you are good enough to advance from platinum league only to be dropped from diamond the next season.

They are hardly opposing viewpoints, I think you missed his point. My guild is in this exact position. We all have great fun in GBG. We're not bothered in the least by being in the churn.

Both our guilds play under the exact same system. What's the difference? The players in the guild and the players' attitudes about GBG.

Suck it up would be the only option. As RazorbackPirate already suggested joining them, but since not everyone can fit into those guilds and the loss of the guilds effects the leagues this is not an solution.

I can't quite decipher what you're saying here, but it's not so much about sucking it up, although that could be good for you. It's about not being so invested in a GAME!!! There's nothing to win, no destination to get to. Get out of your head. No one of import in RL cares one iota about your city or your guild. You play a game? Cool. You have fun? Cool. Beyond that, no one cares if you think of yourself as some digital bad ass warrior vanquishing the world from the evil AI.

Please. You're wasting RL time building an imaginary city, with imaginary buildings, accumulating imaginary wealth, fighting imaginary troops, on your way to imaginary glory. It's a game. No one cares.

This not correct and is proven to be incorrect already by the guilds in diamond league.

This statement in incorrect. @Stephen Longshanks' idea, having never been tried, has not been 'proven to be incorrect.'

There few factors that cause a guild to get pinned. First, alliances. That is obvious how that works. Second, attrition. When you are breaking out from your base there is no SC support and the attrition accumulates quickly. Being (third) a weaker guild this accumulation quickly becomes detrimental and stalls the guild. The loss of the SCs and Traps does not have the same effect on the opposing (strong guild). The opposing guild has the strength to pin in a guild, they have the strength to muscle over any traps or to do it without SCs. Very few top diamond guilds waste time and resources planting traps.

You keep explaining the system like we don't understand it. We understand it just fine.

The real issue here as I read it, is that you have a weak guild with a thin underpowered bench. That's not the fault of the system. It just means you're one of the best of the worst. You're a Platinum guild that get's churned into Diamond league. Work on building your guild and your guild members' cities until you are a diamond league guild. When you're worthy, a map will open up for you. That's the way the system works.

You're also under the false impression that everything is static. It's not. Guild composition can change dramatically in a few short months. Big long term players leave the game, or worse, leave the guild taking a half dozen top players with them. To think that your guild can never enter that space is wrong. But just like the guilds who are there now, it will take you years to get there. And the top guilds won't have moved that much further in that time. Things change, and proportionality.

And what is your goal anyway? Imaginary points with imaginary ranking, for your imaginary guild, on an imaginary leaderboard? You planning to put that on your resume? Your dating profile?

As has been posted, the gap does not widen it shrinks. But the gain (distance) shrinks at a decreasing rate (like when you forget to push on the gas more when you drive up a steep hill, the closer you get to the top the slower and slower you go).

So it is about imaginary points and imaginary ranking.

In short as seen in the current layout, removing seige camps and traps will have little to no effect on the top diamond guilds. Reducing personal rewards would apply to both the "stronger" and "weaker" guilds. therefore both rewards would be reduced. This would be an instance of "both taking a step at the same time". The change would have no effect on the ability for the weaker guild to narrow the gap or the stronger to widen the gap. It would result in a status quo, just reducing the number of fp that Inno hand out per season.

Again, people come, people go, things change as a result. Any system that would dethrone a long standing top guild for an underpowered newcomer would be inherently unfair. Not many people would play a game like that.

So, yes. Long term players with years more time in their cities, with years more time building their guilds, as long as they keep playing, will always have more than you. There will come a point in your progression that the only way you'll move further up the leaderboard is for someone to quit, or die. Just like in the real world.

Unlike the real world though, FoE is a game and no one cares. But it is a good opportunity to learn some important life lessons.[/QUOTE]