When can we stop pretending GBG is balanced?

[Tony 85 the Generous]

So you want every opponent to be the exact same colour? So everyone is red or everyone is green? Not just remove names for each colour?

Your sectors are gray (same as now), unclaimed black (same as now), all others are blue (pink, red, purple, green. Pick ONE color).

'Cause thing is you have to have something to show when a province is under attack, by how many guilds and know what your own progress is.

Flags would still exist and would show progress and progress of all the guilds attacking the sector (also same as now), only there would be no names or colors in the pop-up box for the sector.

Maybe not to the same extent as now, but all you'd have to do is keep doing what we do now: stop advancing when you're near completion. Read the movements of your opponents where possible.

But without knowing how which guilds are attacking your turf (and don't forget to look at the other side, that they do not know whom they are attacking). It puts a big hitch in trying to 'feel' you way through doing softlocks. At this time SLs are used more offensively (trying to keep a guild pinned down). By not knowing whom is attacking and whom you are attacking would shift the use of softlocks from offensive to defensive )you would set up a softlock to try to protect your own sectors).

Removing the colors and guild names is not a big change to the look-and-feel of GBG (same leaderboard, same sectors, same sector info screen format) but without the guild names and colors it has a large impact to how to play the game. Adding the fog of war is a slightly larger change, but Inno can steal the basis from GE so they have done it.

 

[Emberguard]

But without knowing how many guilds are attacking your turf

How are you not going to know? Especially given you said:

Flags would still exist and would show progress and progress of all the guilds attacking the sector (also same as now), only there would be no names or colors in the pop-up box for the sector.

 

[Emberguard]

Removing the colors and guild names is not a big change to the look-and-feel of GBG (same leaderboard, same sectors, same sector info screen format) but without the guild names and colors it has a large impact to how to play the game.

I would be perfectly fine with trying it out. I'm not convinced it would prevent "checkers" indefinitely, but I would like to see how it'd shake things up in practice rather then just in theory

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

I would be perfectly fine with trying it out. I'm not convinced it would prevent "checkers" indefinitely, but I would like to see how it'd shake things up in practice rather then just in theory

How could the checkerboard get setup if no one has the colors to go by or names on the sectors?

 

[Emberguard]

Same way it is now. By stopping before you complete the province and waiting on the other guilds to also stop on other provinces before taking some provinces

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

But without knowing how many guilds are attacking your turf (and don't forget to look at the other side, that they do not know whom they are attacking). It

My bad. I meant which guilds.

How are you not going to know? Especially given you said:

Flags would still exist and would show progress and progress of all the guilds attacking the sector (also same as now), only there would be no names or colors in the pop-up box for the sector.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

Same way it is now. By stopping before you complete the province and waiting on the other guilds to also stop on other provinces before taking some provinces

But the checkerboard is premised on (a) knowing which guilds are where, and (b) working with another guild (ie., an alliance, which won't exist). How would you know if the flag that was planted was black (assuming your are red--get it, checkerboard, sorry) or if it was a flag from one of the other 3-6 guilds on the map?

I'm not saying there won't be softlocks, but they won't be, can't be. in the checkboard pattern since you don't know where the other guilds are and/or who the other guilds are. My thought is that instead of a checkerboard, we will se a series of semi-circle or half-moon arcs of defensive SLs surrounding your base and your conquered sectors would come into being.

 

[UnStopaBull]

For clarity, anonymous leaderboard also means anonymous sectors; sectors are marked as yours, someone else's, or unclaimed.

There are no colors on sectors which you can't see any at the start except for the three adjacent to your base and there are multiple diamond maps. You have five minutes after GBG starts to find the other guilds on your map. How do you do it? You have 5 minutes. Go.

It takes our guild like 2 minutes max to get to center. Once there we message our usual allies and say which center tiles we took, they also would of gotten to center fast and then we compare notes , if we took a and b and they have c and d there is a very good chance we are together. We also could stop loading a tile at let’s say 152 and any ally would know it’s us.

 

[UnStopaBull]

How could the checkerboard get setup if no one has the colors to go by or names on the sectors?

we already have names ,a1 , a2t, people won’t have forgotten them , if they changed the map then someone would just make a map offline , label it and share it with allies so everyone would be on same page.

 

[wolfhoundtoo]

the sectors would have to be coded because it's a map. There has to be a way to identify sectors for an individual guild or it just won't be workable as a map based game. No way to identify a sector for your own guild mates means less participation and Inno makes money on items by more participation not less.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

we already have names ,a1 , a2t, people won’t have forgotten them , if they changed the map then someone would just make a map offline , label it and share it with allies so everyone would be on same page.

Guild names not sector names.
There would be no guild names as to who has captured the sector (beside your guild name on your sector).

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

It takes our guild like 2 minutes max to get to center. Once there we message our usual allies and say which center tiles we took, they also would of gotten to center fast and then we compare notes , if we took a and b and they have c and d there is a very good chance we are together. We also could stop loading a tile at let’s say 152 and any ally would know it’s us.

You made it to the center in 2 minutes (doubtful but I can play along). How do you know which guilds to message? Are you going to message every guild in diamond league? If you took A1, how exactly do you figure out which guild is on B1, C1, and D1?

 

[UnStopaBull]

You made it to the center in 2 minutes (doubtful but I can play along). How do you know which guilds to message? Are you going to message every guild in diamond league? If you took A1, how exactly do you figure out which guild is on B1, C1, and D1?

3min? We are the one of the strongest guilds in O world , it takes us 30 sec to 1 min to take a tile (depending on the people online of course) . There are only 2-4 guilds in o world that can dominate the map when GBG begins like us , not too tough to communicate with them and figure out who is in our grouping. It’s not like we have just one ally and very rarely are 3+ powerhouses in same grouping.

 

[Peeking Turtle]

If you haven't done any simulation or calculations, then you cannot say that

You may think it will work, the math shows otherwise (barring the 2 blockading guilds screwing up). If I am missing a variable (other than negotiating which would be applied equally to all guilds and therefore would be irrelevent), please let me know what it or they are.

I also noticed you cut out the section in the quote of my post regarding "attrition points" which is key to how many attacks a guild can do per day. I used 8 equal guilds, only three of which really matter in the region where one is pinned into the HQ. The ability to plant SCs has a large effect on the rate at which attrition is increased (either per player or for the guild as a whole). It does not matter what the lock time is for the sectors. if each tier has the same lock time.

Here's the 2 layer SL sequence of events.
-Guilds 2 and 3 have formed a to layer softlock around guild 1 at A4-A, having taken and softlocked (guild 2 takes A3V and guild 3 takes A2S)
-Guild 1 takes A3V when it unlocks
-Guild 1 begins to attack A2S
-Guild 3 closes the softlock on A2S before Guild 1 takes it and before A3V unlocks.
-Guild 1 is now hemmed in. Nothing to attack.
-A3V opens, Guild 3 takes it. Guild 1 loses the flag on A2S and is back to their HQ
-A2S opens, Guild 2 establishes a soft lock

Rinse, repeat (just swap guild 2 and 3), and continue for 11 days.

NOTICE there is no time mentioned in the above sequence. The two layer softlock blockade is independent of time. The blockading guilds have the advantage of SCs which increases and enables them to maintain the blockade. Since the total amount of attrition available per guild does not change based on the lock time, then there is no help to the guild under seige by shortening the lock time. Guild 1 burns attrition 1:1 whereas guilds 2 and 3 burn attrition at no more than 0.76:1 (24% more attacks possible per day for guild 2 and 3). These examples are done with even strength guilds. Chances are the pinned guild is not equally as stronger (ie., able to accumulate the same number of attrition points per day), which now puts a larger differential between guild 1 and guild 2 and 3. If guild 1 can accumulate only 90% of that of guild 2 or 3, then guilds 2 and 3 have at least 34% more hits per day over guild 1.

I'm sorry to say that shortening the lock time will have no effect on GBG other than to require players to be online in GBG more. But it only takes 1 player to close a soft lock.

Thanks for the idea it was interesting to work through and try to make it have an advantage.

If you have any details on

and what is the "correct way". Please provide the details, I am especially curious as to how it differs from above.

OK just to shorten this up and for the fun of debate.
You've stated in your simulations:
"I'm sorry to say that shortening the lock time will have no effect on GBG other than to require players to be online in GBG more" and that You "used 8 equal guilds, only three of which really matter in the region where one is pinned into the HQ" and that the pinned Guild being Guild 1 has done this:
-Guild 1 takes A3V when it unlocks
-Guild 1 begins to attack A2S
And your question "If I am missing a variable (other than negotiating which would be applied equally to all guilds and therefore would be irrelevent), please let me know what it or they are.

1. If there are 8 "equal Guilds then why do only 3 matter? your simulating it's only 2 against 1.
>> missing variable 1 it's now 2 against 6, your simulation is not considering the power of all alliances not just 2 Guilds.

2. Currently Guilds can't even get out of their home base due to the current 4 hour synchronized "Fort Knox" however in your simulation you stated "-Guild 1 takes A3V when it unlocks---Guild 1 begins to attack A2S" , So how could 1 Guild against 2 make it to the 2nd ring if lock times did not have an effect as you stated, so your simulation has proved shortening lock times would have an effect.
>>missing variable 2 there are 5 other Guilds now not being accounted for penetrating the 2nd Ring, at the same time (power of alliances), 2 Guilds can not possibly defend all 6 areas at once.

3. I'm not going to get into the attrition factors per player but will regarding SC's.
>>Missing variable 3 SC's are random on each map, so in the checker board it is noticed that Guilds may need SC's in ring 3 to support attrition in Ring 2, So since ring 3 sectors will be taken as proven in your simulation you drastically effect Guild 2-3 (your Super Guilds) attrition rates and not just in one region.

I'll agree to disagree with there will be "no effect" and due to the power of alliances and not being able to be in 6 places at once there can and likely will be multiple Ring 2 sector loses to these Super Guilds which will further effect their attrition rates to be able to maintain grid lock on all sectors. So yes if done correctly coordinated by alliances the current system can and likely will get broken down.

>>Missing variable 4, since my example more than likely proves 2nd ring sector loses your simulation has not taken into account the power of traps against attrition.

4.Requirement of players to be online more
>>Missing variable 5, are they going to be online more to be able to consistently defend this? as they will not really know when a coordinated 6 alliance attack could occur against them. 6 against 2, not 2 against 1.

I'm certain there are multiple players who would love to give it a whirl with change in sector times I've proposed. Only a live demo would be able to account for the many variables available.

I also did mention it is not entirely non defendable , but the coordination of setting different lock times to each sector and regions would be too challenging to maintain consistently.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

General statement for clarity: The simulator uses 8 guilds with different number of attrition points for each guild.

OK just to shorten this up and for the fun of debate.
You've stated in your simulations:
"I'm sorry to say that shortening the lock time will have no effect on GBG other than to require players to be online in GBG more" and that You "used 8 equal guilds, only three of which really matter in the region where one is pinned into the HQ" and that the pinned Guild being Guild 1 has done this:
-Guild 1 takes A3V when it unlocks
-Guild 1 begins to attack A2S
And your question "If I am missing a variable (other than negotiating which would be applied equally to all guilds and therefore would be irrelevent), please let me know what it or they are.

1. If there are 8 "equal Guilds then why do only 3 matter? your simulating it's only 2 against 1.
>> missing variable 1 it's now 2 against 6, your simulation is not considering the power of all alliances not just 2 Guilds.

That is not a variable. That is an outcome of the simulation. The other 4 guilds cannot get into the 2 layer-SC blockade. The blockade works both ways. You have seen this in action in GBG.

2. Currently Guilds can't even get out of their home base due to the current 4 hour synchronized "Fort Knox" however in your simulation you stated "-Guild 1 takes A3V when it unlocks---Guild 1 begins to attack A2S" , So how could 1 Guild against 2 make it to the 2nd ring if lock times did not have an effect as you stated, so your simulation has proved shortening lock times would have an effect.
>>missing variable 2 there are 5 other Guilds now not being accounted for penetrating the 2nd Ring, at the same time (power of alliances), 2 Guilds can not possibly defend all 6 areas at once.

Again, an outcome of the simulation not an input variable.

Here's the 2 layer SL sequence of events.
-Guilds 2 and 3 have formed a to layer softlock around guild 1 at A4-A, having taken and softlocked (guild 2 takes A3V and guild 3 takes A2S)
-Guild 1 takes A3V when it unlocks
-Guild 1 begins to attack A2S
-Guild 3 closes the softlock on A2S before Guild 1 takes it and before A3V unlocks.
-Guild 1 is now hemmed in. Nothing to attack.
-A3V opens, Guild 3 takes it. Guild 1 loses the flag on A2S and is back to their HQ
-A2S opens, Guild 2 establishes a soft lock

Rinse, repeat (just swap guild 2 and 3), and continue for 11 days.

NOTICE there is no time mentioned in the above sequence. The two layer softlock blockade is independent of time. The blockading guilds have the advantage of SCs which increases and enables them to maintain the blockade. Since the total amount of attrition available per guild does not change based on the lock time, then there is no help to the guild under seige by shortening the lock time.

Since there is no time basis other than locked/unlocked, time is proven to be an independent and irrelevent variable. It doesn't matter if the sector unlocks after 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 78 minutes, or 4 hours. They unlock when they unlock, and all unlock after the same amount of time. The actual amount of time does not matter. If the lock time varies per tier, then it is a whole other situation. So long as the times are the same then time is irrelevent.

3. I'm not going to get into the attrition factors per player but will regarding SC's.
>>Missing variable 3 SC's are random on each map, so in the checker board it is noticed that Guilds may need SC's in ring 3 to support attrition in Ring 2, So since ring 3 sectors will be taken as proven in your simulation you drastically effect Guild 2-3 (your Super Guilds) attrition rates and not just in one region.

All SCs are random in all sectors on all maps. Fact is that is a guild is pinned they have no SCs. Therefore any number of SCs for two blockading guilds gives them an advantage.

I'll agree to disagree with there will be "no effect" and due to the power of alliances and not being able to be in 6 places at once there can and likely will be multiple Ring 2 sector loses to these Super Guilds which will further effect their attrition rates to be able to maintain grid lock on all sectors. So yes if done correctly coordinated by alliances the current system can and likely will get broken down.
>>Missing variable 4, since my example more than likely proves 2nd ring sector loses your simulation has not taken into account the power of traps against attrition.

Who is going to be placing traps and how many places can they place them? Certainly not the pinned guild since they do not occupy any sectors with building slots. The blockading guild has not use to plant them since they have the advantage with reducing their own attrition through their use of SCs.
P.S. When was the last time you have seen a trap? I'm thinking the last trap I saw was in late 2020.

4.Requirement of players to be online more
>>Missing variable 5, are they going to be online more to be able to consistently defend this? as they will not really know when a coordinated 6 alliance attack could occur against them. 6 against 2, not 2 against 1.

I would not disagree this would "require" more players to be online. This requirement is nullifed since the shorter lock times increase the "number of sectors" available to be attacked (due to unlocking sooner) and the number of "attrition points" available has not increased.

Put another way, shortening the lock time does not increase the limited number of "attrition points" available per guild. Shorter lock just means a fast burn rate. Once all "attrition points" are used, then attacks and movement ends for the day. With a shorter lock time, the limit will be reached earlier in the day.
As a trial, I will adjust the number of players online when sectors unlock, biasing the number towards the pinned guild at reset (ie., giving them a jump start over the blockading guild).

I also did mention it is not entirely non defendable , but the coordination of setting different lock times to each sector and regions would be too challenging to maintain consistently.

We don't have to set the times. That's Inno's job. I would expect them to be set per tier to a fixed value for each tier.

The fact is there is a limited number of attacks per guilds (I have been calling that "attrition points", the amount one guild fight and negotiate per day). The one outstanding variable would come into play (and cannot be forecasted or simulated) as a combined result of the reduced the lock time (or more precisely, the increased frequency that sectors are unlocked) and "limited"/"fixed" number of attrition points, will be which players have the [wherewithal] and fortitude to push there attrition higher than they currently or normally and to maintain it at that level. Ie., does a player that feels 25 attrition is enough loss or cost now push it up to 30 or 35, or a player that goes to 50 push it up to 55 or 60. This psycological factor would increase the number of attrition points for their guild. If the increase is proportional, then the blockading guilds will increase their advantage. If the increase is even, then no advantage is gained. If the increase is inverted (pinned guild increases more than blockading guild), then there is a slim chance that come late in the GBG day, additional progress can be made against the blockade. In some way the change must be an advantage to the pinned guild in order the change to have an effect, other wise you are only "making the rich richer".

 

[ColAlphaMale]

I'm must chime in here as well. Why is GE balanced in guild size for competition & GBG is not. How do the producers expect a guild with 10 members to battle a guild with 70 members. I'm afraid even though the rewards are substantial in GBG. The cost in goods & troops to my members is too much for my small guild. I feel Valkyrie In Flight guild will have to drop out of GBG. We do very well in GE, so well concentrate our effort there. ColAlphaMale, Co-founder VIF.

 

[wolfhoundtoo]

Because no one said a small guild should be able to compete with a big guild on a map based game in which the more you can attack (and the faster) of course the better you can do in the match. The basic design is the problem so to speak as it requires a certain number of battle/negotiation wins to take a sector. The more of you the better for that purpose. If you want to be able to do better in GBG you'll need to expand.

 

[Peeking Turtle]

General statement for clarity: The simulator uses 8 guilds with different number of attrition points for each guild.


That is not a variable. That is an outcome of the simulation. The other 4 guilds cannot get into the 2 layer-SC blockade. The blockade works both ways. You have seen this in action in GBG.

Again, an outcome of the simulation not an input variable.

Since there is no time basis other than locked/unlocked, time is proven to be an independent and irrelevent variable. It doesn't matter if the sector unlocks after 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 78 minutes, or 4 hours. They unlock when they unlock, and all unlock after the same amount of time. The actual amount of time does not matter. If the lock time varies per tier, then it is a whole other situation. So long as the times are the same then time is irrelevent.

All SCs are random in all sectors on all maps. Fact is that is a guild is pinned they have no SCs. Therefore any number of SCs for two blockading guilds gives them an advantage.

Who is going to be placing traps and how many places can they place them? Certainly not the pinned guild since they do not occupy any sectors with building slots. The blockading guild has not use to plant them since they have the advantage with reducing their own attrition through their use of SCs.
P.S. When was the last time you have seen a trap? I'm thinking the last trap I saw was in late 2020.

I would not disagree this would "require" more players to be online. This requirement is nullifed since the shorter lock times increase the "number of sectors" available to be attacked (due to unlocking sooner) and the number of "attrition points" available has not increased.

Put another way, shortening the lock time does not increase the limited number of "attrition points" available per guild. Shorter lock just means a fast burn rate. Once all "attrition points" are used, then attacks and movement ends for the day. With a shorter lock time, the limit will be reached earlier in the day.
As a trial, I will adjust the number of players online when sectors unlock, biasing the number towards the pinned guild at reset (ie., giving them a jump start over the blockading guild).

We don't have to set the times. That's Inno's job. I would expect them to be set per tier to a fixed value for each tier.

The fact is there is a limited number of attacks per guilds (I have been calling that "attrition points", the amount one guild fight and negotiate per day). The one outstanding variable would come into play (and cannot be forecasted or simulated) as a combined result of the reduced the lock time (or more precisely, the increased frequency that sectors are unlocked) and "limited"/"fixed" number of attrition points, will be which players have the [wherewithal] and fortitude to push there attrition higher than they currently or normally and to maintain it at that level. Ie., does a player that feels 25 attrition is enough loss or cost now push it up to 30 or 35, or a player that goes to 50 push it up to 55 or 60. This psycological factor would increase the number of attrition points for their guild. If the increase is proportional, then the blockading guilds will increase their advantage. If the increase is even, then no advantage is gained. If the increase is inverted (pinned guild increases more than blockading guild), then there is a slim chance that come late in the GBG day, additional progress can be made against the blockade. In some way the change must be an advantage to the pinned guild in order the change to have an effect, other wise you are only "making the rich richer".

Will wrap this debate up:
You just said:
"Since there is no time basis other than locked/unlocked, time is proven to be an independent and irrelevent variable. It doesn't matter if the sector unlocks after 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 78 minutes, or 4 hours. They unlock when they unlock, and all unlock after the same amount of time. The actual amount of time does not matter. If the lock time varies per tier, then it is a whole other situation. So long as the times are the same then time is irrelevent."

>The most important missing variable in your simulation is this:
My proposal on tiered timing changes (My initial posting)
Ring 1 - 4 hours
Ring 2- 2 hours
Ring 3- 1 hour
Ring 4- 30 minutes.

So it is very clear you did not enter all of the variables. The rest of your results are now severely miscalculated.

Commenting on anything else discussed is now irrelevant.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

Will wrap this debate up:
You just said:
"Since there is no time basis other than locked/unlocked, time is proven to be an independent and irrelevent variable. It doesn't matter if the sector unlocks after 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 78 minutes, or 4 hours. They unlock when they unlock, and all unlock after the same amount of time. The actual amount of time does not matter. If the lock time varies per tier, then it is a whole other situation. So long as the times are the same then time is irrelevent."

>The most important missing variable in your simulation is this:
My proposal on tiered timing changes (My initial posting)
Ring 1 - 4 hours
Ring 2- 2 hours
Ring 3- 1 hour
Ring 4- 30 minutes.

So it is very clear you did not enter all of the variables. The rest of your results are now severely miscalculated.

Thank you for finally noticing I have been stating the lock time are the same. This makes a big difference. Surprisingly this was far easier to implement in the simulation than I expected. The results were interesting. The tiered lock times really makes apparent the difference in the "attrition points" per guild. I added a random function to select which two guilds would have the most. By day 3 it was obvious.

Unfortunately, for the lower attrition point guilds the situation was made worse.

In the direct comparison.
Previously

Here's the 2 layer SL sequence of events.
-Guilds 2 and 3 have formed a to layer softlock around guild 1 at A4-A, having taken and softlocked (guild 2 takes A3V and guild 3 takes A2S)
-Guild 1 takes A3V when it unlocks
-Guild 1 begins to attack A2S
-Guild 3 closes the softlock on A2S before Guild 1 takes it and before A3V unlocks.
-Guild 1 is now hemmed in. Nothing to attack.
-A3V opens, Guild 3 takes it. Guild 1 loses the flag on A2S and is back to their HQ
-A2S opens, Guild 2 establishes a soft lock

Rinse, repeat (just swap guild 2 and 3), and continue for 11 days.

Once the time were changed to be tiered as listed, the result is that guild 1 never attacks, can never attack, A2S.
When guild 1 takes A3V, it unlocks before A2S. So guild 3 closes A2S which staggers the lock time and attacks and takes A3V. The above now applies latterally using D4H/D4G and A4B/A4C. (substitute D4H and A4B for A3V, D4G and A4C for A2S, etc)

As for the guilds with HQ at D4E and A4E, they are also easily pinned. It appears the key there is the hold on A3X and D3Z which allows SCs and a position to attack and support A4C and D4G.

I made some variations on the simulation, such as a head start in reverse order of attrition. HA! That was a rout. The end of the second day had guilds pinned down. It was interesting to see the effect of "holding the high ground" (tier 1). The kings of the hill held all the turf.

The final simulation was an inversion of the tier times
Ring 4- 4 hours
Ring 3- 2 hours
Ring 2- 1 hour
Ring 1- 30 minutes

Tier 4 sectors between bases become a swap or push-and-push-back since there was SC support from Tier 3 and no 2-layer softlocks to work with/around.
Tier 3 was pretty stagnant, with a lot of held sectors.
Tier 2 and Tier 1 become highly contentious ground. Since Tier 1 unlocks before Tier 2, it could be attacked more often. Tier 2 sectors swapped constantly with 6 guilds fighting for 8 sectors. The guilds that held tier 2 were the only ones that could secure tier 1 sectors but could only do so for 30 minutes. The final item to note was, again, the effect of the attiriton points. Come the end of the day, the top 2-3 guilds in attrition points held most of tier 1 and tier 2. Furthermore the day ended LONG before the 24 hour clock (ie., they ran out of attition points).

 

[CrabbyOldMan]

Making the guilds unknown would solve nothing for the smaller guilds. The big ones will simply gobble up all the provinces.
What might help would be a more equitable distribution of building sites. My guild has been stuck on maps where we were surrounded by provinces with only a single building site. By the time we can even think about acquiring a province with 3 sites we are all atritioned out. In the meantime the larger guilds have gobbled up the prime real estate, giving them a bigger advantage than they already have