• 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?

True592

Member
Hi all, I am looking for a "Feedback" thread for GBG... this one seems rather unofficial, or am I wrong? If I am, can I present my idea without reading previous 17 pages?
 

DevaCat

Well-Known Member
Hi all, I am looking for a "Feedback" thread for GBG... this one seems rather unofficial, or am I wrong? If I am, can I present my idea without reading previous 17 pages?
This one is unofficial, if you were looking for one that Inno might care to look at.

If you want to offer an uninformed opinion without reading what has already been discussed, knock yourself out.

I'll be back after I make some popcorn.
 

True592

Member
There is an official feedback thread here as well, shouldn't be too hard to find.
OK, I found it.
It is closed.
What is the next step?

PS. Found another one, this one is opened.
Could someone please confirm that is thread considered to be an official feedback for GBG?
 

Kranyar the Mysterious

Well-Known Member
Could someone please confirm that is thread considered to be an official feedback for GBG?
That might work. If the other one is closed, that is probably the only official one open, though I don't know if they monitor it anymore. Seems like just about everything that can me discussed or complained about GBG probably has been at some point. Maybe read through (run a keyword search on each page) and see if your idea has already been presented. Or post it here.
 

RaveWolf

Active Member
Your League Level is based on League Points, Not your Guild Level.
Yes, Sure, the stronger your Guild the better chance you have.
If you end up in Diamond League, it's because your Guild put the in the effort to getting there and played their cards right and built up Good Alliances.
Being in Diamond League is a great Achievement for Guild, NOT a slap in the face from Inno!!
With that said... CONGRATULATIONS! in being a Strong competitor.
 

Tony 85 the Generous

Well-Known Member
Your League Level is based on League Points, Not your Guild Level.
Correct.
Yes, Sure, the stronger your Guild the better chance you have.
Correct
If you end up in Diamond League, it's because your Guild put the in the effort to getting there and played their cards right and built up Good Alliances.
That is one way to put it
Being in Diamond League is a great Achievement for Guild, NOT a slap in the face from Inno!!
Neither correct nor incorrect. Just is.
With that said... CONGRATULATIONS! in being a Strong competitor.
Wrong. You can make it to diamond without being a strong competitor or able to compete against the guilds already in diamond. Hence the thread "can we stop pretending GBG is balanced?"
 

Graviton

Well-Known Member
Wrong. You can make it to diamond without being a strong competitor or able to compete against the guilds already in diamond. Hence the thread "can we stop pretending GBG is balanced?"

You don't know if you can compete against the other guilds already in diamond until you get to diamond. You don't know if those other guilds already in diamond are gonna stay in diamond after competing with yours. Come on.
 

Tony 85 the Generous

Well-Known Member
With that said... CONGRATULATIONS! in being a Strong competitor.
Wrong. You can make it to diamond without being a strong competitor or able to compete against the guilds already in diamond. Hence the thread "can we stop pretending GBG is balanced?"
You don't know if you can compete against the other guilds already in diamond until you get to diamond. You don't know if those other guilds already in diamond are gonna stay in diamond after competing with yours. Come on.
You don't know if you can or cannot compete because guilds advance based on winning, not based on their strength or ability to compete in GBG. Therefore the chances are you cannot compete. Therein lies on of the core problems with GBG, or at least the LP win-to-advance points system instead of advancing when strong enough or capable enough.

Remove the alliances and then we will have a start to finding out who the strong guilds are and the results will be based more on strength and capability to compete than on how well guilds can work the alliances. I thought the name of the game was Forge of Empires, not Survivor or Big Brother.
 
Last edited:

Graviton

Well-Known Member
You don't know if you can or cannot compete because guilds advance based on winning, not based on their strength or ability to compete in GBG.

Winning is not an indication that one can successfully compete?

Therefore the chances are you cannot compete.

Don't know how you got from point A to point B there. You don't know what the chances are until you actually compete. That's the entire point of competing.

Remove the alliances and then we will have a start to finding out who the strong guilds are

The strong guilds are the ones that win. You can tell a strong guild from its Won-Loss record. But you're saying winning isn't an indication of strength, so I have to wonder what your definition of "strong" is if it isn't winning.

The ability to form alliances is one of the tactical factors of GBG. It can even be argued that it's one of the features that could help "weaker" guilds. I understand that there are guilds that do well for awhile and then run into two or more guilds that have adopted the team-up strategy. Well, that's just how it goes. You didn't get out-gunned, you got out-maneuvered. That happens in war. A lot. Otherwise you could just compare the number of guild members and a guild's average Age or battle points or whatever, and crown a "winner" based on that. You could skip Battlegrounds all together.

I thought the name of the game was Forge of Empires, not Survivor or Big Brother.

Since we're talking about what things are called, GBG is called Battlegrounds, not Guild versus Guild. Nobody promised you it would be one-on-one. The ability to team up is one of the things that differentiates the two. If that's what you want perhaps you should stick to GvG.
 

Tony 85 the Generous

Well-Known Member
Winning is not an indication that one can successfully compete?
No it isn't. Since you don't have to be strong to advance. Just work the alliances. Again, the LP system is win-to-advance and is not based on strength or ability.
Don't know how you got from point A to point B there. You don't know what the chances are until you actually compete. That's the entire point of competing.
I am taking a bit of a jump in that I do not consider working an alliance to move up the same as fighting/negotiating and otherwise fighting your way to the top.
Otherwise you could just compare the number of guild members and a guild's average Age or battle points or whatever, and crown a "winner" based on that.
That statement is based on selecting guilds using the LP system, then looking at the 'whatever' value to determine the winner. On the other hand it also perfectly outlines both the problem of 'unbalanced' and the solution to be 'balanced'.

A short possible example of a 'whatever' value could the sum of the top 5 members from a season GBG, as such as here is one set of actual numbers from a previous season.
1. 1993M
2. 671M
3. 293M
4. 295M
5. 1254M
6. 561M

As you said, look at those and crown the victor. But this is exactly based on the comment and the implied method, select guilds based on LP and chose winner based on the 'whatever' value. Why would you do that? You wouldn't. You select 5-8 guilds close in value of 'whatever' (which would clearly not be those 6 particaular guilds) and put them on a map, then you could not immeidately crown a victor. They would need to battle it out. But they now all have a (closer) fighting chance, or at least it is not a foregone conclusion that guilds #3 and #4 will end up in P5 and P6 at the end of the season.

Since we're talking about what things are called, GBG is called Battlegrounds, not Guild versus Guild. Nobody promised you it would be one-on-one. The ability to team up is one of the things that differentiates the two. If that's what you want perhaps you should stick to GvG.
I never said it would be one-on-one. As for GvG, sure. Love to. Are you able to convince Inno to get GvG on Mobile? No. Guess that comment sunk faster than the Titanic.
 
Last edited:

Algona

Well-Known Member
A Guild's potential in GBG is based on 5 factors. Size of Guild, Guild Treasury, Guild Leadership skill, individual player capability, and individual player willingness to participate.

No, I'm not lecturing you Graviton, just wishing that this:

so I have to wonder what your definition of "strong" is if it isn't winning.

had been a question.

Maybe Tony would be so kind as to answer the implied question?

It's not the combined RP of the top X players in a Guild.

Bearded James Guild (posted a few days ago, four players combined 9ooM RP.) was complaining because they were getting stomped by bigger Guilds.

GUilds I've been in Diamond had top 5 of 1 Gig, 100M, 300M, and 120M RP.

The 300M Guild has been top 3 of each iteration for 10 months Not a single player over OF. (top five OF, AF, 3xFE)

The 1 Gig and 120M spend the same amount of time in Diamond.

The 100M spends two thirds of their time in Diamond.

Nope. RP ain't gonna cut it.

Seems like a pretty dirty trick to pull on Guilds that want to play Diamond even if they don't have X Billion RP. Or Guilds that don;t have a lot of high Era players. You don't have to be high Era to do a lot of GBG, just have a full suite of powered combat GBs and a rich Treasury.

Which leaves me curious also.

Tony, what is the way you want to judge if Guilds should be in Diamond?
 

Tony 85 the Generous

Well-Known Member
so I have to wonder what your definition of "strong" is if it isn't winning.
Maybe Tony would be so kind as to answer the implied question?
Work the alliance right, and you can win being the weakest and/or smallest guild on the map. Therefore strong does not mean win. The thread is meant to discuss the fact that far stronger guilds are pitted against far weaker guilds. Where does this mismatch come from? Why does this happen? Because the LP system is not based on guild strength, only on a guild's ability to win. Another example where, strong does not mean win.

We have all seen the guild pinned in the corner. Each morning they wake up holding only their base sector. They fight to get the three adjacent sectors. Since they are not strong enough to take the next layer of sectors, in four hours they lose those three and are back to just their base. When this happens, I have to ask "why is that guild on this map? They obviously cannot compete with the other guilds".

A guilds strength cannot be based on their ability to win.
Tony, what is the way you want to judge if Guilds should be in Diamond?
First one must put the current LP system out of their mind to consider the other possible ways guilds can be selected for a map in a season and how they may be divided into leagues.
I know RP/MMR won't work. I said it won't. I showed it doesn't. Being the only metric currently available to compare leagues, I gave it as a example to Graviton's comment.
You are heading in the right direction:
A Guild's potential in GBG is based on 5 factors. Size of Guild, Guild Treasury, Guild Leadership skill, individual player capability, and individual player willingness to participate.
Several of these factors are qualitative, though the result of them is quanitative. We could propose thousands of different ways to come up with a 'Guild RP'. But the fact is that a 'Guild RP' based on some formula that includes factors from above is what should be used to select the guilds per map. If you wanted to go further, it could be that a platinum guild could compete against a silver guild if their strength and ability are a match. That's not to say, that in a short time, that silver guild won't be in platinum anyway.
If you wanted a radical proposal (though based on analogous items already seen in FoE): Make a 'Guild RP' (called 'whatever' by Graviton and myself in previous posts) to select the guilds for the map, then have the leagues event style. This makes the league the output (or result) of the season, not the input to selecting the guilds for the season.
 

Graviton

Well-Known Member
Work the alliance right, and you can win being the weakest and/or smallest guild on the map. Therefore strong does not mean win. The thread is meant to discuss the fact that far stronger guilds are pitted against far weaker guilds. Where does this mismatch come from? Why does this happen? Because the LP system is not based on guild strength, only on a guild's ability to win. Another example where, strong does not mean win.

Sure it does. "Strong" is a relative term rather than a permanent, objective definition. "Strong" is inherently a relative term, as it only has context and meaning when tested.

Competition reveals not just raw strength but also ability: combining strength with the ability to adopt strategies and tactics, and to adapt to competitors doing the same thing, in order to win. GBG basically ignores raw numbers in favor of competition and achievement. Correct me if I'm wrong but you want to remove the impact of strategy and communication from the competitive equation, and instead base the pairing of guilds, and thus the results of each season, on raw numbers rather than the outcome of competition. Given such restrictions on competition, the guild with more players who are online more often and who have higher bonuses will always win. Every time. That's why I said you may as well just use a spreadsheet to hand out trophies, 'cause the actual competition won't tell you much.

If you wanted a radical proposal (though based on analogous items already seen in FoE): Make a 'Guild RP' (called 'whatever' by Graviton and myself in previous posts) to select the guilds for the map, then have the leagues event style. This makes the league the output (or result) of the season, not the input to selecting the guilds for the season.

Isn't that how GBG started? They grouped guilds based upon raw points and/or size (or some other comparative criteria, I don't recall what) and from then on it's been based purely on competition: actual achievement and results. It takes into account all facets of competition. It enables a comparison not only of combat bonuses and guild population but of everything that makes a guild a guild: how well do they communicate with each other? How diplomatic are they? How well coordinated are they? How active are they? Do they rely on a few high-level members or do they need everybody to pitch in?

I think it's interesting when a smaller guild punches above its weight and succeeds to the point that it gets grouped with larger, more populous guilds. It's exciting. It gives all guilds hope, for lack of a better word. It gives guilds incentive to grow and get better. I think it's exciting when some guilds can win by coordination and planning rather than relying on raw combat numbers.

Inno could very well decide to change things up with GBG, who knows? I don't know what's going on in beta. But I think the current system is multi-faceted and dynamic; you don't know what the competition is going to be like next season. Maybe you can power through it with ease; maybe you'll have to coordinate with another guild; maybe you'll get smacked around. I think that's a feature, not a bug, and therefore I think implementing your proposal would be artificially limiting and, in a word, boring.
 

Tony 85 the Generous

Well-Known Member
I think the current system is multi-faceted and dynamic; you don't know what the competition is going to be like next season.
Based on the LP system, you can be pretty close to knowing exctly what is coming next season based on where you finish this season.
I think that's a feature, not a bug, and therefore I think implementing your proposal would be artificially limiting and, in a word, boring.
The current LP system provides a stale environment. Limited ability for guilds to advance. Limited number of guilds to fight (or work with if you like alliances and negitiating where you will end up rather than fighting for it). Once you have reached the platinum-diamond threshold, the only question for next season is "will you be allowed into the alliance or be pinned in the corner". Yeah real exciting. NOT!

Now a system that provides a group of guilds that can compete on equal footing, that would be exciting and unpredictable.
 

RaveWolf

Active Member
Just look at the various Quotes / Strategies in 'The Art of War' by Sun Tzu...
Not everything is about "Physical" Strength, who's played the longest, who has more fighters / members, etc.
'Balance' is relative. History is rife with small armies beating bigger armies simply because of their strategy.

I've been playing for over 5yrs now and there are players that have way surpassed me that have only been playing for a year. They were obviously lucky enough to be taught the best strategies that I unfortunately never learnt in the beginning or was just unaware of at the time. I'm not gonna cry now and say it's unfair. Ok, I did too in the beginning when it came to Plundering, but I learnt from my mistakes and now Plunders mean nothing to me and have only been plundered a handful of times in about 2-3yrs.

Just like in Fighting matches, one lucky win could push you over into the next league. If you don't want to end up in Diamond League then Don't Win in Platinum! Simple.
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
This is not 100% correct.

Once you have reached the platinum-diamond threshold, the only question for next season is "will you be allowed into the alliance or be pinned in the corner".

You've got a limited viewpoint being a one worlder and relatively new to the forum. That does NOT invalidate your experience, but your experience may not be representative of the game at large.

In this case, your world has that problem, many do. Not all.

----------

I stand by the factors I listed and you quoted. All five are critical to a Guid's performance in GBG.

Guild Leadership and individual participation can't be measured except by the general trends of past GBG performance.

But the fact is that a 'Guild RP' based on some formula that includes factors from above is what should be used to select the guilds per map.

I appreciate you answering my question.

I don't accept it's a fact, that this argument has gone for thousands of posts for over a year means it's a point of debate.

Three of five factors are easily measured,and were used for the iniitial seeding that so many folk objected to. Individual participation can only be based on past performance. Guild Leadership os at best inferred by the relative success of the Guild compared to the expected ability based on the other factors.

In other words, past performance, has to be taken into account for any chance of a prediction algo(na)rhythm to work on how a Guild will do in GBG.

I'd enjoy seeing debate on specific ideas, utterly reject the notion that because there is a problem the system has to be changed even if we don't know what we are going to replace it with.

So, got any ideas on hwo you want to seed Guild for GBG?
 
Last edited:

Tony 85 the Generous

Well-Known Member
I don't accept it's a fact, that this argument has gone for thousands of posts for over a year means it's a point of debate.

In other words, past performance, has to be taken into account for any chance of a prediction algo(na)rhythm to work on how a Guild will do in GBG.

So, got any ideas on how you want to seed Guild for GBG?
By any metric that any groups guilds together by their ability to compete against one another. I have posted many options.

As it stands now, a season of GBG completes, points are awarded and those cumulative points alone determine the next season's grouping. A guild may not have added a single new member, leveled a single gb or increased one RP but by the fact they won they advance. They did not get stronger. They have no additional 'firepower' next season than they did last, but next season they are in the next league up.

The complete dependency of the results of one season on the start of the next needs to be split, or at least tempered, in order to begin to address the problem. A league system is fine for defining the standings. But the league is an output and a result of GBG, not used as the input or selection criteria for the map.

The criteria you list are good. As you said three of the five factors are easily measurable. For the latter two,
Guild Leadership is at best inferred by the relative success of the Guild compared to the expected ability based on the other factors.
After all it is a competition, so give some credit (some credit, which is different than current where the credit is single and total) for where the guilds finish the season (0 for last, 5 for second to last, etc.) and add those numbers to the "Guild GBG metric". Provided on a per season basis, this would in the larger picture become a cumulative value with the "Guild's GBG metric".
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
I have posted many options

Do any go into specific weighting of factors while acknowledging that past performance has to be given some weight?

Can you roll out a couple of models we can look at?

I'm happy to discuss this and see if we can come up with some formula that works with the five factors.
 
Top