• 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?

Reese7990

Active Member
Why should my rewards be limited by the size of my guild? If we're good enough to make it to diamond league, we're good enough to earn the rewards of being in diamond league.

Why should any guild's achievements be limited by size?

Part of me wants to agree with your argument. But the reality is, at least in the servers I am active in is that it's far to easy to gain diamond lp 1000 status. Adding a size min. Would help limit the amount of guilds capable of reaching the 1000 LP status.

A guild that is not big enough can simply recruit to be large enough. If a guild is successful and active it should have very little issue recruiting.
 

CDmark

Well-Known Member
Thank you, CDmark.

I appreciate your instructive reply.

Smart gamers will work out algorithm exploits. I recall in Civilization 1, domination was guaranteed with the selection of Ghengis Kahn going on all-out attacks from the start with the first military units.

BTW, this appeared in today's FOE update announcement:

"The Guild Battlegrounds' matchmaking should no longer be sorted by Guild IDs, from now on the matchmaking should be random by leagues."
I saw it afterwards. I guess soon meant this morning...lol and good, I think having the same guilds every time gets a bit boring. He may be referring to other issues with GBG, we wait and see.
 

23skidoo

New Member
I saw it afterwards. I guess soon meant this morning...lol and good, I think having the same guilds every time gets a bit boring. He may be referring to other issues with GBG, we wait and see.

Well, the idea that's it's sooner, is good news. Since the new season starts tomorrow, we'll see if there are noticeable changes.
 

Tony 85 the Generous

Well-Known Member
Adding a size min. Would help limit the amount of guilds capable of reaching the 1000 LP status.
So go with that. What would happen then?

Let's say there are currently guilds in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s in membership in diamond. Leagues are now limited by guilds size. so these 'formerly' diamond leagues guilds are no dispersed throughout copper, silver, gold, and platinum. These are (were) guilds that are capable to win enough seasons to get to 901+LP. What would happen if you then forced these guilds into the leagues?

Before you answer, let's take a step back and a step up. There have not been many posts about unfair and/or unbalanced maps or match-ups in any league except for diamond (and perhaps the top of platinum due to the 'ping-pong effect'). Why? Because those guilds that would be on the 'strong' side of the unblanaced matchup win and are forced to advance to the next league. That works until you reach diamond where there is no next league. So now these smaller than diamond-league-sized guilds will be dispersed through all of the leagues. Limiting league by guild size would essentially create the diamond league unbalanced problem in every league. Granted they would all have to go make new alliance guilds, but in the end the problem of unbalanced match ups and a guild or few guilds dominating the map each season is dispersed across every league. The problem of mismatched guild GBG strength would not solved, but more players would now feel the pain. Instead of the n guilds in diamond and n*60 (average members) players, every player that attempts GBG in every league in the world will see and experience it. Perhaps it should be implemented so that more players can experience it and encourage the problems in GBG to be identified and addressed.
 

The Lady Redneck

Well-Known Member
Take out the personal rewards and you'll see that zero-attrition sector swapping stop immediately. Not even kidding. Of course, that'll be because everyone will stop playing it, but that's beside the point!
Now I agree with this. and wonder why it is that this should be. There is a great deal of comparisons made between GBG and GvG. Most maintain GBG is better. So much so that GvG should be wiped off the game. But if they were to remove the personal rewards from GBG no-one would play it. Why?

GvG on the other hand gets played regardless. No rewards being needed.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
There’s always a couple guys sitting in the back of class, not paying attention, shooting spitballs.
Funny you think those with opposing views are not paying attention. Also you think it's guys, and you think expressing those opposing views is shooting spitballs. Quite revealing.
 

kennytoo

New Member
GVG is fatally flawed plain and simple. Today, within 15 minutes one guild controlled the map, within 30 minutes they controlled 20 sectors or 3200 attrition which roughly speaking is 40 attrition for every member of their 80 member guild minus the buildings they placed.

Point being within 15 minutes a 12 day event was decided, most players will put the GVG on ignore and move on with their game farming a few battles/trades per day.
 

kennytoo

New Member
GBG as it is today, is fatally flawed-ex. today within 15 minutes one guild controlled the map, within 30 minutes they controlled 20 sectors locking every other guild into their home locations. So, essentially a 11 or 12 day event is decided, making participation by a vast number of players far less likely. And this scenario has recurred several GBG in a row.

So how do you improve GBG? Well it goes to what the intent is, to reward the most active guilds or to get more players to play, cause those are, in many ways, mutually exclusive goals.

Right now the system is set up for the 1st goal. You may need something drastic to get the 2nd goal, perhaps top guilds will have their ability to play GVG reduced in the next GVG, ie increase costs for buildings or increase their attrition relative to other guilds.

think of it in terms of the NFL draft. The system is set up that the weaker teams get the better draft choices-it works to balance the game in the long run (theoretically) along with things like free agency and salary caps.

So back to todays GBG, I am an active player, but my interest in the current GBG is gone, i will do my daily attacks to farm a little, but i will give little thought to it and not bother acting strategically. And I will do alot fewer attrition, cause it simply isnt worth it.
 

icarusethan

Active Member
GBG as it is today, is fatally flawed-ex. today within 15 minutes one guild controlled the map, within 30 minutes they controlled 20 sectors locking every other guild into their home locations. So, essentially a 11 or 12 day event is decided, making participation by a vast number of players far less likely. And this scenario has recurred several GBG in a row.

So how do you improve GBG? Well it goes to what the intent is, to reward the most active guilds or to get more players to play, cause those are, in many ways, mutually exclusive goals.

Right now the system is set up for the 1st goal. You may need something drastic to get the 2nd goal, perhaps top guilds will have their ability to play GVG reduced in the next GVG, ie increase costs for buildings or increase their attrition relative to other guilds.

think of it in terms of the NFL draft. The system is set up that the weaker teams get the better draft choices-it works to balance the game in the long run (theoretically) along with things like free agency and salary caps.

So back to todays GBG, I am an active player, but my interest in the current GBG is gone, i will do my daily attacks to farm a little, but i will give little thought to it and not bother acting strategically. And I will do alot fewer attrition, cause it simply isnt worth it.
blah blah blah I'm in a weak guild, blah blah blah, but I want more rewards, blah blah blah, its not fair, blah blah blah. anything new you want to offer?
 
Top