When can we stop pretending GBG is balanced?

[Ironrooster]

Let's imagine the cap is lifted. What is the difference between the top 8 guilds having 1000LP versus having 1100, 1225, 1300, 1425, 1550, 1600, 1625, and 1900 LP? If the 7th place guild has 1225LP instead of 1000LP how does that make them more able to compete?

If the top 8 have that disparity, then there is no solution from grouping strategy for the top guild. The top guild will continue as it is now. Of course the other guilds not in the top 8 will probably be better balanced.

I suppose the top guild could split into 2 guilds, but that's probably not a solution they want.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

Which is why if you group the 1st place winners together and 2nd place winners together, the alliance cannot benefit for more than one round straight unless they just happen to have a lot of friends among all guilds. Either way, they’d both still have to win their next match independently to be grouped together again.

That is an interesting idea and could provide for a nice mix up season to season. But I don't think it will improve the competition in any way.
The minimum number of guilds for a season of GBG is 5. That would require 40 (or more) diamond league guilds. In the worlds that I have surveyed, I see about that many give or take. If a guild was at 901LP, this is there first season in diamond, and won (last season at 901LP, after this season at 1000LP); that would pit them against a 1000LP guild that has been there for the past seasons. I could just about guarantee that will be a blow out (with the new diamond league guild getting the short end of the deal).
Where do the new diamond league guilds go? Where do you put a guild that was at 850LP start of last season and finished in first place and now has 975LP? Do you put them up against a guild that has had 1000LP season after season? Again, I can't imagine a guild that will be making their first appearance in diamond will be competitive against a guild that has been in diamond 1 for seasons.

The top guilds have their friends, have their way to do things worked out, and have their animosities set. So it is just about gaurantee that they will "have a lot of friends among all guilds".

 

[Wildelk68]

Its obvious from all the posts that GBG is a severely broken concept and need some serious changes! Question is does INNO really to do so!

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Guess it depends on diamonds spent under the current system vs. expectations.

I don't disagree the current matchmaking system seems to need work.

 

[Algona]

Its obvious from all the posts that GBG is

of concern mostly to folks who want to the opportunity to farm more in Diamond.

Don't get me wrong, I think that is a reasonable request.

I keep hoping that someone can come up with a viable solution.

I'd keep an eye on Tony, they seem to have a pretty good grasp on things.

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

-

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

of concern mostly to folks who want to the opportunity to farm more in Diamond.

Don't get me wrong, I think that is a reasonable request.

I think many would take the ability to farm, but mostly they want the ability to prevent being locked down, pinned in, blown out, and twiddling their thumbs for 11 days because they are seriously outmatched, because they were lucky enough to win and advance to diamond even though they don't have the might and are now either not "in" on "the alliance" or there is one guild that decided to pin them down to their HQ.

A few simple changes could help address and improve the strategy required to play GBG, including:
- "anonymous" leaderboard, no guild names posted in GBG until it closes (if there are no guild names, then how do you know who else is on the map to form an alliance)
- Fog of War, Command and Conquer style. Only show the status of sectors you are adjacent to.
- Limited number of sectors conquered per guild (not originally my idea, but is a valid one), the number could be up for debate and would require a 'sector surrender' button. It would force guilds to strategize more in many ways, including whether to pin down a guild or not, where or how to farm, and which sectors to hold, and how to close sectors that are softlocked (ie., indirectly putting a time limit on softlocking a sector). On a map of 8 guilds with 56 available sectors, the number of sectors per guild is limited from at least 8 to a maximum of 10-11. On the other hand and while we are at it, break the map down in to more sectors would increase the limit (both min and max) and increase the strategy required to move around the map.

These do not address the poor match ups directly, but aim to help address (not solve) them indirectly.

Wouldn't it be a different (mini-) game if you didn't know what other guilds were on the map or where they were while you fighting to get the most valuabe sectors within your limit to come out P1 at the close of the season?

 

[Aruu the Apocalyptic]

Can someone explain to me why my idea isn't formatted correctly to be submitted:

Idea:
Limit the number of players in GBG that can fight simultaneously to five per province per guild.

Have you Checked the Ideas section for the same idea posted by someone else? Is this idea similar to one that has been previously suggested?
I have checked the ideas section and this is a unique idea. This idea has not been previously suggested.

Reason:
This would improve the balance of GBG fighting/negotiating and increase the number of battles fought.

Details:
When a province is open in GBG, limit the number of players per guild to the first five that claim they are fighting/negotiating in that province. This would require players to claim which province they are fighting in. They would need to indicate that they are leaving a province, allowing another guild member to enter the province. After five minutes of inactivity, a player's claim on a province would be removed. A player can claim to be in one province at a time and cannot claim to be fighting in multiple provinces.

Visual Aids:


Balance:
This will not effect any other game features.

Abuse Prevention:
This change would eliminate a single guild from dominating a GBG season. It would also reduce the possibility of guilds being targeted out of fighting in a GBG season.

Summary:
This will allow for a better gaming experience for all guilds in the GBG arena.

 

[Graviton]

My guess is that it's formatted correctly, but it's been proposed before.

 

[wolfhoundtoo]

Was it rejected from the proposal section? If a mod rejects it they should be willing to explain how its not in the correct format.

 

[Tannerite2]

Except for the fact they have all been awarded wnough LP to be in diamond.

I guess? That doesn't make them competitively equal.

You have adequately described most of the issues with the LP system, except for the fact the points are solely awarded on winning or that league advancement is based on the LP accumulated. Neither take into account the relative competitiveness of the guilds.

Obviously LP total alone is not enough to balance the matches on the map. How would you suggest to differentiate the guilds if not by LP?

Lowering the LP rewards in diamond makes it much more difficult to advance. In the current setup, a team in a mid-tier platinum league can jump straight to 1000LP - and is seen as equal to other 1000LP guilds in the eyes of the game. In my suggested system, a guild would have to slowly fight it's wait through diamond league, needing to come in 1st in at least 7 diamond league rounds in a row to reach 1000LP (shortest time to reach 1000LP). The restriction of upward and downward mobility would account for slight differences in each round. A guild couldn't get an easy round and suddenly jump to 1000LP. There's no need to account for how easy/hard a round is, because that would sort itself out over team as consistent lowers would fall and consistent winners would rise. There would be no jumping between mid-tier platinum and 1000LP over and over again without a way to exit the cycle. There would be no guilds unable to keep up at 1000LP.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

I guess? That doesn't make them competitively equal.

Lowering the LP rewards in diamond makes it much more difficult to advance. In the current setup, a team in a mid-tier platinum league can jump straight to 1000LP - and is seen as equal to other 1000LP guilds in the eyes of the game. In my suggested system, a guild would have to slowly fight it's wait through diamond league, needing to come in 1st in at least 7 diamond league rounds in a row to reach 1000LP (shortest time to reach 1000LP). The restriction of upward and downward mobility would account for slight differences in each round. A guild couldn't get an easy round and suddenly jump to 1000LP. There's no need to account for how easy/hard a round is, because that would sort itself out over team as consistent lowers would fall and consistent winners would rise. There would be no jumping between mid-tier platinum and 1000LP over and over again without a way to exit the cycle. There would be no guilds unable to keep up at 1000LP.

I can agree with both sentiments if this is the way it was when GBG first started. Now that the guilds are in their leagues (and diamond league cannot grow without new leagues being formed and leagues participating and advancing in GBG) this change will have little effect on GBG.

 

[Tannerite2]

I can agree with both sentiments if this is the way it was when GBG first started. Now that the guilds are in their leagues (and diamond league cannot grow without new leagues being formed and leagues participating and advancing in GBG) this change will have little effect on GBG.

It would have little immediate change besides preventing wild jumping between mid-tier platinum and 1000LP, but I believe it would slowly fix itself over time. Or Inno could send every guild back to 905LP and let them work to 1000LP.

The biggest complaint I've seen is that GBG isn't competitive, right? Well forcing all the best guilds together and making it difficult for "bad" (relative to top guilds) guilds to reach the top would do that. It's very difficult for 8 guilds to all get the fights they want, so top guilds would be forced to fight each other. It would be very difficult for a 925LP level guild to reach 1000LP, so there wouldn't be defenseless guilds at 1000LP getting held on base.

I also liked the idea to have guilds from different worlds, but Inno seems set against it. And I do like having a competition just for specific worlds that is balanced by age, unlike GVG (all ages map specifically).

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

It would have little immediate change besides preventing wild jumping between mid-tier platinum and 1000LP, but I believe it would slowly fix itself over time. Or Inno could send every guild back to 905LP and let them work to 1000LP.

The biggest complaint I've seen is that GBG isn't competitive, right? Well forcing all the best guilds together and making it difficult for "bad" (relative to top guilds) guilds to reach the top would do that. It's very difficult for 8 guilds to all get the fights they want, so top guilds would be forced to fight each other. It would be very difficult for a 925LP level guild to reach 1000LP, so there wouldn't be defenseless guilds at 1000LP getting held on base.

I also liked the idea to have guilds from different worlds, but Inno seems set against it. And I do like having a competition just for specific worlds that is balanced by age, unlike GVG (all ages map specifically).

I would think this needs to be done in every league. You mention jumping from platinum to diamond, but your idea only applies to diamond. So that problem is not prevented. Similar to jumping platinum to diamond, guilds jump gold to platinum as well. Making the final LP awards smaller and the number of LP per league wider (instead of 1000LP max, use 2000LP and make diamond 1751-2000 instead of 901-1000).

This only addresses one small of many problems. I think it would help by allowing guilds to build strength as they are advanced and meet up with stronger guilds. However there are many other issues that this would not address at all, such as the ability to form alliances which cause guilds "on the outside" to be pinned down even if they are of equal caliber.

 

[Tannerite2]

I would think this needs to be done in every league. You mention jumping from platinum to diamond, but your idea only applies to diamond. So that problem is not prevented. Similar to jumping platinum to diamond, guilds jump gold to platinum as well. Making the final LP awards smaller and the number of LP per league wider (instead of 1000LP max, use 2000LP and make diamond 1751-2000 instead of 901-1000).

I would be ok with making it more difficult to advance as you go higher in he rankings. Maybe you can earn 100 LP at the lowest level, but only 15 at the highest. That way a good guild that just starts out doesn't have to sit for months in lower tier leagues, but it would still prevent the high mobility issues.

This only addresses one small of many problems. I think it would help by allowing guilds to build strength as they are advanced and meet up with stronger guilds. However there are many other issues that this would not address at all, such as the ability to form alliances which cause guilds "on the outside" to be pinned down even if they are of equal caliber.

How do you solve that though? Even if you get rid of siege camps and any reason to farm fights, guilds will still make alliances to shut others down. It happens in GvG. It happens in most strategy games with a war component. Plus, in my experience, it's very difficult for 2 guilds that are individually equal to a 3rd guild to shut the 3rd guild down. The 3rd guild can usually break up the checkerboard at least once a day. And with 5 other equal guilds besides those 3, it would be even more difficult to shut any single guild down with only 1 other guild's help. I guess I don't really see the issue here.

 

[Just Ava]

I am tired of being with the same guilds round after round. If this is supposed to be random and there are are a huge number of guilds in Diamond why are there always at least 3-4 of the same guilds each round. It's laughable and also a detriment to guild moral. At the beginning of INNO's version of Farmville, people came out in droves for the easy rewards. Now they are bored and if weren't for minimum encounters, not sure if the whole guild would even play. There is the opposite in another world I play in, where we have been with 3 of the same guilds 4 times in a row. My guild there is not a small meek guild, but there is one there that is a bully on the server. We have been trying to figure out if they are running macros ( Do not deny they are being used INNO ) or if they are just lucky enough to have 30+ people on for every sector fight. When you can start with a 50 pt or more head start, a good amt of your guild fighting, and lose a sector in 2 minutes, no one comes to the fight. Move the guilds around more INNO. It used to be that way.

 

[wolfhoundtoo]

Have you compared your accounts to the accounts of that enemy guild? With enough attack/defense boost and sufficiently high GBs (and some ages are make this easier) you can run quite a few battles without having to replace your units at all. I can do a decent amount and my attack/defense isn't that all overall.

On a side note are you farming in the big bored guild? You don't think that maybe the other guilds might see you as a bit of a bully if your team could be bothered to show?

 

[Matt the Melancholic]

Why not simply have an additional league above Diamond? Or even two or three? No I am not going to waste my time providing Inno with free consultancy formatting a suggestion. They want to hire me they can pay me.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

Why not simply have an additional league above Diamond? Or even two or three? No I am not going to waste my time providing Inno with free consultancy formatting a suggestion. They want to hire me they can pay me.

Because it won't make a difference. Why not split diamond league into two leagues? Titanium league for diamond league guilds with 1000LP and diamond league for 901-999LP. What's the difference from that and the way it is now? Nothing. Either way a guild advances leagues based on winning and "collecting" LP. If no other criteria about which guild is "assigned" to which league is changed, then nothing is changed. Even the rudimentary cumulative changes of doubling the total LP from 1000 to 2000, doubling the range of the leagues (diamond from 901-1000 to 1801-2000), and either halving LP awarded per season or progressively decreasing the LP awarded in each league (where P1 in copper 8 guild map wins 200LP, P1 in silver 8 guild map wins 100LP, P1 in gold 8 guild map wins 50LP, etc) is an attempt to determine consistancy which could infer a guilds ability to compete and be ready to advance.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Why not simply have an additional league above Diamond? Or even two or three? No I am not going to waste my time providing Inno with free consultancy formatting a suggestion. They want to hire me they can pay me.

So you got nothing. Not like Inno is asking for anyone's feedback on this issue anyway.