When can we stop pretending GBG is balanced?

[Algona]

Siege camps / watchtowers (or even all buildings) get destroyed every time a territory is lost. This would make swapping territories more costly to ALL guilds, as more goods would be required to constantly keep building

fFixed. Not just large Guild, ALL Guilds.

I'm feeling way too lazy to do anything more then a back of the envelope guesstimate to find an answer to this:

What is the break even point of Treasury Goods expense from doubling (half are kept now) the Goods spent on SCs and how does that compare to what the top Guilds already produce or have the potential to produce?

(Seems like you'd need to know how many SCs a Guild would need for a Battleground and how many Treasury Goods the Guild produces in 14 days.) (60 lvl 80 Arcs produce 50K Goods per day, that pays for 30*14/11 = 40 SCs per day. Is that enough for dancing? That ignores all Atomiums, Obs, SoHs and donations to the treasurey...50, 60 SCs per day? Enough to do 20-30 swaps per day? Is that enogh to dance?)

As I said, back of the envelope, fun but hardly accurate You really should do some serious analysis.

If Guilds already do or can grow to produce enough TGoods to pay that on an ongoing basis, the consequences of this will make it so that fewer Guilds can dance and those that can will have less to worry about.

Is that what you want?

Number of attacks needed to take a territory scales with size of members in a guild who can participate (researched military tactics, member at start of season), which would make the playing field more even for lower member guilds.

Completely screws Guilds with a low proportion of GBG players. Which is pretty much every Guild in low platinum and below.

Rewards smaller Guilds for having a high GBG participation rate. The current 1-5 player Diamond and Platinum Guilds will love this.

Punishes large active GBG Guilds. Which seems to be, well, a pretty shitty thing to do to folks who have put in years crafting a large successful Guild.

Not really seeing any benefit as a whole for this suggestion, just more ways to game GBG.

 

[Steve Colbert 32468]

Thanks for the feedback, I had not realized all the implications of my suggestions.

 

[Steve Colbert 32468]

Perhaps costs would increase for SCs for each one purchased in a session or for a territory or for a guild in a particular territory. So if guild A is constantly retaking a territory, SCs costs ramp up for that territory i guess this just penalizes active guilds.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

Perhaps costs would increase for SCs for each one purchased in a session or for a territory or for a guild in a particular territory. So if guild A is constantly retaking a territory, SCs costs ramp up for that territory i guess this just penalizes active guilds.

Would cut back on farming, but doesn't cut back on alliances or pinning guilds. Also hinders guilds trying to fight back from being pinned as they will have to also repeatedly retake sectors.

 

[wolfhoundtoo]

Goods management is also a function of the age of a guild's members. Last I checked the goods needed are randomly selected based on all of the ages of the members of a guild which means at least part of successfully managing a guild's good levels can be done via membership requirements. Not sure how many guilds do this but i'm sure some do.

 

[WRAYRAY]

It is the biggest abused part of the game, not even close to fun for many, personally I think they should get rid of it, it is also letting the gap between larger and smaller player grow. Send it to the trash can

Does a deal castle or OBS help a guild defend in battle grounds?

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

Does a deal castle or OBS help a guild defend in battle grounds?

OBS only produces goods. Deal Castle only helps in GvG (though interesting idea though). Nothing helps with defense in GBG except for a good offense.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

Does a deal castle or OBS help a guild defend in battle grounds?

OBS only produces goods. Deal Castle only helps in GvG (though interesting idea though). Nothing helps with defense in GBG except for a good offense.

OBS does produce Support Pool, which helps defend in GvG, but does nothing for defense anywhere else.

 

[twisted king of rudyard]

New to forum here! I have read some of the newer post but I don't see anything addressing the real issue with battleground .. MMR ranking being capped at 1000 mmr. So a 48th rank team wins a season in platinum and moves to ranking 33 1000mmr. So there next season place them on the same battlefield as first and third place team. I don't think this is right and I'm sure there's others that are thinking the same thing that's been in one of these guilds. Don't give me it's the guild problem or your a nob as I have read in other comments that doesn't solve the problem. There is a couple ways of fixing this problem but seems it's being ignored. One way to fix it would be to remove the cap but a lower or newer guild would have no hope of catching the top guild if this happen. The most reasonable way of fixing this would be to redo the points earned in platinum and diamond. Instead of having a 300/350 point spread (+175to -175) have a 10 point spread for each spot so you have +30 to -30 on a 7 guild battleground. This could all play out over a couple of seasons at the new point scale and the battleground would straighten out. This is broken and in hopes that it gets fixed

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

New to forum here! I have read some of the newer post but I don't see anything addressing the real issue with battleground .. MMR ranking being capped at 1000 mmr. So a 48th rank team wins a season in platinum and moves to ranking 33 1000mmr. So there next season place them on the same battlefield as first and third place team. I don't think this is right and I'm sure there's others that are thinking the same thing that's been in one of these guilds. Don't give me it's the guild problem or your a nob as I have read in other comments that doesn't solve the problem. There is a couple ways of fixing this problem but seems it's being ignored. One way to fix it would be to remove the cap but a lower or newer guild would have no hope of catching the top guild if this happen. The most reasonable way of fixing this would be to redo the points earned in platinum and diamond. Instead of having a 300/350 point spread (+175to -175) have a 10 point spread for each spot so you have +30 to -30 on a 7 guild battleground. This could all play out over a couple of seasons at the new point scale and the battleground would straighten out. This is broken and in hopes that it gets fixed

It is not MMR but LP (league points). The span (range) of the LP of each league has been discussed along with the number of LP awarded per position that allows what you describe to happen. I agree with most of what you have said, but you have misssed one of the implications of the problem. Because of the number of points awarded in one season vs the range of points of the league, it allows a guild to go from copper to silver in one season if they finish P1. Smilarly they can go from platinum to upper diamond (1000LP) in a single season. Where I agree is the final LP should be less and the range of the leagues should be wider thus a guild must work their way from platinum to upper diamond of the course of several seasons.

 

[twisted king of rudyard]

It is not MMR but LP (league points). The span (range) of the LP of each league has been discussed along with the number of LP awarded per position that allows what you describe to happen. I agree with most of what you have said, but you have misssed one of the implications of the problem. Because of the number of points awarded in one season vs the range of points of the league, it allows a guild to go from copper to silver in one season if they finish P1. Smilarly they can go from platinum to upper diamond (1000LP) in a single season. Where I agree is the final LP should be less and the range of the leagues should be wider thus a guild must work their way from platinum to upper diamond of the course of several seasons.

The case I gave you is our guild it happens every other season for us lately. We go back to platinum finish first or second in platinum. We get to Diamond with a high LP and get stuck playing top 10 or 15 place guilds. Now we have tried going further back in platinum but there it's like low diamond for a large guild where tiles don't flip enough and hits not produced. So for our guild it's a no win situation. This is why I joined here hoping that another voice might entice things to happen if any thing is to be done.. We're a mid thirty's guild and we know it another problem that arises from this is loss of players. We couldn't keep up so three moved to a higher guild as to get hits in and then another one in the middle of this season. So this is more then trying to leveling the playing field of Battleground but to help guilds keep there players.

 

[King*Terry]

GBG need to be more balanced to guild sizes. It no fun when 2 full size power house guilds keeps everyone else locked to the 4th ring, and they retake the 3rd ring almost instantly when any sectors unlocked. An alliance doesn't help here and is Inno's favorite response to complaints on it. Inno, you balanced out the neighborhoods and the GE a few years ago, it's time to do the same to GBG to level out the playing field here too. Two guilds locking the other five off the map, may be allowed , but it's out right rude and makes player to want to quit the game.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

GBG need to be more balanced to guild sizes. It no fun when 2 full size power house guilds keeps everyone else locked to the 4th ring, and they retake the 3rd ring almost instantly when any sectors unlocked. An alliance doesn't help here and is Inno's favorite response to complaints on it. Inno, you balanced out the neighborhoods and the GE a few years ago, it's time to do the same to GBG to level out the playing field here too. Two guilds locking the other five off the map, may be allowed , but it's out right rude and makes player to want to quit the game.

Guild size (guild member) has little impact. Of the guilds I have seen do what you describe, they are doing that to guilds with more members. Furthermore there are guilds with much fewer members that are in diamond.

Agree two guilds soft locking sectors in front of all the other guild's HQs makes you want to blow of playing for the next ten days. Recently someone suggested to limit the number of sectors a guild can hold at any one time. I am seriously warming up to that idea.

 

[MJ Artisan of War]

Thread Question:
When can we stop pretending GBG is balanced?
Thread Answer:
Never Ever Ever!

 

[Algona]

Recently someone suggested to limit the number of sectors a guild can hold at any one time. I am seriously warming up to that idea.

The natural evolition would be that instead of just two Guilds dancing three or four Guilds will dance.

Ever square dance IRL?

Kinda like that, you switch partners frequently but as long as the caller stays on top of things no one ever misses a beat.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

The natural evolition would be that instead of just two Guilds dancing three or four Guilds will dance.

Depends on what the limit of sectors per guild is set to. If the number of sectors is too high then you are correct. OTOH, then the number of sectors should be lower.

There are 64 sectors (or 56-59 once HQ sectors are removed). On a map of 8 guilds, the limit would need to be 8-10 sectors per guild to allow each guild the ability to attack a sector. If set to 7 sectors, then once all 8 guilds take their 7 sectors, there is no way to attack (8*7=56). With a limit on the number of sectors, guild leaders need to be more strategic on which sectors they will hold, which they will farm, and which sectors they will use to trap a guild near their HQ.

I think a limit in the range of 8-10 sectors per guild, there need to be more than 4 guilds involved. 56/10=5.6 thus a limit will require 6 guilds to be involved. a limit of 8 "forces" 7 guilds to be involved.

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

-

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

THe idea of limiting sectors might be ok as long as it does not become a 'participation trophy sort of fix. IE the best Guild can still only hold on to 1/8 of all sectors. then it would soon become super boring. And even the weakest would still have the same win total as the strongest?(this ignores the fact the strong would still take the center and second ring all the time) .As it is now. most of the time the top two are holding18 of all sectors anyway. usually the little Guilds are holding some of the outer ring

It couldn't be 1/8 of the sectors per guild on a 8 sector map, it would need to allow for more or guilds cannot attack after they have taken their allotment. Your phrasing does provide a good limit calculation. The limit could be 1 / (number of guilds -1 or -2). On an 8 guild map athat allow to hold 1/7 of the sectors (9 per guild) or 1/6 (10 per guild). This not only allows guilds to fight, but also forces them to fight, to move, and to defend. They won't get to control the entire map. I do see this as a patch for the actual problem (guild selection per map) but since a solid method to determine the ability of a guild to perform in GBG has yet to be determined, adding something to remove some of the issues resulting from that problem may have to suffice.

As for always holding the top, those same guilds are also holding the little guilds in their HQ sector. If the number of sectors was limited, a guild would have to choose, hold the top or pin down a guild. Once a guild is allowed outside their HQ, using softlocks to pin them down becomes more difficult and requires more sectors. While softlocking is a player construct and there is no direct way to prevent it, limiting the number of sectors would also limit the number of softlocks available to the larger guilds.

 

[85gt]

Need to invert the map where the Siege Camps can be placed, each HQ should have a 3 SC sector in front and these are the only 3 building sectors on the map, the center should be limited to 1 Siege Camp per sector, row two and three limited to no more than 2 places to build and beach sectors leave alone. This will stop farming for the most part.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

Need to invert the map where the Siege Camps can be placed, each HQ should have a 3 SC sector in front and these are the only 3 building sectors on the map, the center should be limited to 1 Siege Camp per sector, row two and three limited to no more than 2 places to build and beach sectors leave alone. This will stop farming for the most part.

How do you invert something that is random?