Discussion GUILD VS GUILD

[napodavout]

HELLO ALL IS ALL
The Game has changed enormously since its inception, especially since the arrival of new media (pc).
As a result, fewer and fewer players are playing in guild vs guild.
We know that INNOGAMES cannot or does not want to open the guild vs guild to other supports
Those who for me greatly distort the guild ranking because only 3 to 5% of players participate

- So these are the two subjects that will be interesting in discussing
1 - why not replace the current guild vs guild start a war based on a period (x).
(example 6 months) who could give guild ranking points or a special gm
2 - Decrease the number of guild ranking points than that if it earns.
The idea is simple, guild vs guild with 3 to 5% of the players brings 50% of the guild ranking points.
Against battlefields with 80% of players brings 50% of guild ranking points

This is created to dialogue with fair play, is so that we continue to have fun with a competition accessible to all and all.
To your feathers friends





BONJOUR A TOUTES EST TOUS
Le jeu à énormément changer depuis ses débuts ,surtout depuis l arriver des nouveaux supports (pc) .
Ce qui fait que de moins en moins de joueurs jouent en guild vs guild .
On sais que INNOGAMES ne peut ou ne veut ouvrir la guild vs guilde aux autres supports
Ceux qui pour moi fausse émormément le classement guild car seulement 3 à 5% des joueurs y participent
-
Voila donc les deux sujets qui serai intéressant dans discutez
1- pourquoi ne pas remplacer la guild vs guild actuel part une guerre bassé sur une période (x)
(exemple 6 mois ) qui pourrai donnés des points classement guilde ou un gm spécial
2 - Diminuer le nombre de points classement guild que celle si rapporte .
L'idée est simple ,guild vs guild avec 3 à 5 % des joueurs apporte 50 % des points classement guild .
Contre les champs de batailles avec 80 % des joueurs apporte 50% des points classement guild

Ceci est créer pour dialoguer avec fair play , est pour que l on continue à s'amusez avec une conpétition accesible a toutes est tous .
A vos plumes les ami(e)s

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

Totally agree that the Guild Ranking system needs a change, influence of GvG shall be reduced while GBG, GE and maybe other variables gain more influence in how the guild ranking positions are assigned/achieved.

How much the influence of GvG vs GBG vs others variables should be? Which formula to apply? That is the debate.
Another similar Discussion: https://forum.beta.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/guild-ranking-overhaul.14664/

 

[thelegend88]

I am very pleased to see more people recognise this issue. This is not a guild ranking, but this is actually a GvG ranking... We need proper guild rankings in this game

 

[napodavout]

Good evening
At least that can allow for a dialogue .
Like you, I find that the guild ranking is distorted because of the guild vs guild.


Bonsoir
Au moins cela peut permettre d avoir un dialogue .
Je trouve comme vous que le classement de guilde est faussé a cause de la guild vs guild .

 

[DEADP00L]

Like you, I find that the guild ranking is distorted because of the guild vs guild.

Especially since this classification is discriminatory by penalizing those who do not play on PC.

 

[xivarmy]

Ranking is pretty much the *only* point of GvG. It is not an efficient way to level your guild (and hasn't been as long as Hall of Fames have existed - nevermind GE, and GBG which is much better at it). So it has to remain a significant contributor to the rankings. If you're going to stop it from being meaningful ranking-wise, you may as well just delete it entirely (which some may agree with - but there's some significant spenders it'd piss off too; i'd personally be in the "don't care" camp)

The current point where it's currently basically the *only* meaningful contributor is because the other major contributor, GBG, does a poor job of differentiating - there's 40-50 "#1" guilds according to GBG getting a whopping 18000 ranking from it - and then GvG breaks the tie (often with meagre 2000 contributions being notable - only the top 1 or 2 GvG guilds get anywhere close to the ranking from GvG that all the 1000s get from GBG; so it's not overall scale that's the issue).

If a decay is added to GBG ranking calculations (posted about it another thread), GBG would start doing a better job differentiating guilds that are good at it and be a more meaningful part of the rankings.

---

As for being unfair to mobile... Recruit a few PC players? It's not like it takes an entire guild to GvG. And long before mobile was even much of a thing there was regularly "farmer/trader" members of GvG guilds to cover the goods - so there's room for mobile players to fill that role. Unlike GBG where goods only come from ages where you have members (and thus Arcs), GvG requires goods from every age you want to fight - so you might value specific age campers (vs trying to push them into ages with existing stronger treasury) or need to find other ways to come up with certain ages of goods.

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

So, We are a better guild than yours because we got 5 Guildmembers that play GvG and you dont have one?

 

[xivarmy]

So, We are a better guild than yours because we got 5 Guildmembers that play GvG and you dont have one?

A better GvG guild yes. But if despite having 5 guild members that play GvG you can't even hold platinum in GBG, you're probably not going to outrank a diamond GBG guild that doesn't GvG.

"The Best" guild should have to have both a GBG and GvG presence.

The composite ranking is fine in principle - the issue is that "better GBG guilds" don't get much of a spread. Make the higher MMRs more challenging to maintain and thin the ranking out, and I think a better balance will be struck.

 

[napodavout]

DARRTH
I'm not talking about guild values, but an unfair count in view of the players
I currently play on different media
So the number of ranking points must be right for the greatest numbers
if the guilds vs guilds has 3 to 5% of the players, why this one will bring in as much as the CBD which is played by 80% of the players?
it is not up to the players to be penalized, especially since INNO GAMES has favored its new supports
I specify to be clear, I play on pc and participate in GDG and CDB, eg etc .....


DARRTH
Je ne parle pas des valeurs des guildes, mais d'un décompte injuste au vu des joueurs .
Je jeux est actuellement jouer sur différents supports
Donc le nombre de points de classement dois être juste pour le plus grand nombres
si la guilds vs guilds compte 3 à 5 % des joueurs ,pourquoi celle ci rapporterai autant que la CDB qui est jouer part 80% des joueurs.
Ce n est pas au joueurs d être pénalisés , surtout que INNO GAMES a favorisé ses nouveaux supports .
je précise pour être clair ,je joue sur pc est participent a la GDG et CDB ,eg etc.....

 

[Emberguard]

if the guilds vs guilds has 3 to 5% of the players, why this one will bring in as much as the CBD which is played by 80% of the players?

By the time a guild gets the equivalent in Prestige for GvG as what you get in GBG they’re probably spending somewhere in the region of 10’s of thousands of goods per hex captured. Such a Guild would be unable to take breaks from GvG without the risk of their ranking getting a heavy beating overnight, potentially losing everything in a matter of days. Guild Battlegrounds guarantees you can take the entire season off, be kicked for inactivity and still retain the bulk of your ranking.

GvG will always have a guaranteed cost to participate. No way around that and you can’t improve Treasury health directly through GvG rewards

Guild Battlegrounds you can potentially play and get significant ranking gains without ever touching the Guild Treasury while directly investing the gains to improve your ability to replenish the Treasury. For those that do use the Treasury to erect Buildings you can arrange with other Guilds to never delete buildings therefore reducing the cost per capture and sharing the cost between Guilds

Even if GvG had its usefulness reduced in Prestige gains, as long as you can get a minimum of 2,500 prestige available from GvG (max Guild Lvl prestige) then it’ll always be a tie breaker between GvG and non-GvG Guilds.

The composite ranking is fine in principle - the issue is that "better GBG guilds" don't get much of a spread. Make the higher MMRs more challenging to maintain and thin the ranking out, and I think a better balance will be struck.

If there were a prestige gain for consecutive seasons @ 1,000 LP, with the gain being reset if ever going below 1,000 LP, that’d help differentiate guilds. Maybe +50 prestige for each season.

 

[napodavout]

HELLO
The guild where I play participates in both, and we know very well the concern for the treasury.
I understand very well that the guild ve guild is a very important move, and that it must be promoted.
If we do a percentage of the participants, one should earn 10% of the guild ranking points, while the other should earn 80%.
Then INNO GAMES can take into account its percentages, added a bonus for the guild vs guild for resources.
Let's say that we can give 70% of classification points to the CB, against 30% for the GVG
In reality the 3 to 5% of GVG players who do not want a change in guild ranking points, it will also affect their personal ranking.
Without forgetting that some do not want to do battlefields, prefer to play alone and come and type in GVG to make their ranking points to the detriment of team play.




BONJOUR
La guilde ou je joue participe au deux ,est nous connaissons très bien le souci de la trésorerie .
Je conçois très bien que la guilde vs guilde est un coup important en trésorerie ,est que cela dois être favorisé .
Si on fait un pourcentage part rapport au participants une devrais rapporter 10% des points classement guildes ,pendant que l autre devrais en rapporté 80%
alors INNO GAMES peut prendre en compte ses pourcentages ,ajouté un bonus pour la guilde vs guilde pour les ressources .
Disons que nous pouvons accordé 70 % de points classement a la CB ,contre 30% pour la GVG .
En réalité les 3 à 5 % de joueurs GVG qui ne veulent pas d une modification des points classement guilde ,c es que cela toucherai aussi leur classement personnelle .
Sans oublier que certain ne veulent pas faire les champs de batailles , préfère jouer seul est venir tapez en GVG pour faire leurs points classement au détriment du jeu d équipe .

 

[CrashBoom]

If we do a percentage of the participants, one should earn 10% of the guild ranking points, while the other should earn 80%.

GBG ranking points compared to GvG is in huge favor of GBG (sure more than 80% to 10%)

how many guilds get 18k ranking points from GBG ? 50+
and how many guilds get 18k ranking points from GVG ? 1 or 2

how many get 10k or more points ?

in reality the 3 to 5% of GVG players who do not want a change in guild ranking points

in reality only 3% to 5% of all ranking points are from GvG

 

[Owl II]

in reality only 3% to 5% of all ranking points are from GvG

But this is what raises them above the rest

 

[Hiep Lin]

The day when a ranking will have a meaning ...
Let those who love GvG play.
GvG must not become a second battlefields, it must keep its characteristics.
The difference between the 2 functions must remain

 

[Emberguard]

In reality the 3 to 5% of GVG players who do not want a change in guild ranking points, it will also affect their personal ranking.

Guilds that put in the work should be rewarded for it. It's only fair that they get ranking from GvG

Let's say that we can give 70% of classification points to the CB, against 30% for the GVG

That would change very little. Those with a high score from GvG are also maxed out on GBG

Screenshot from one of the Live EN worlds:

If you look at the points distribution only the absolute top guild is receiving more points from GvG than what they get from GBG. Even if we capped the two competitions at a GBG/GvG - 70/30% distribution, it'd only effect the top 7 Guilds, almost only the top 6. 'Cause those are the only Guilds reaching a high enough score on GvG to even get 30% out of GvG

If you removed GvG entirely out of the equation then the top Guilds would still be near or at the top: sorting by Lvl will only slightly shift things around.

 

[napodavout]

YES this may not change the ranking of guilds at the top of the rankings with the current calculation.
let us reduce the prestige obtained by the GVG by 40%, let us raise the MMR to 2000 pts, with leagues with differences between levels. That will change the data.
In addition I am sure that the competitors would be up for it.
Imagine a player on tablets (without the means to pay for a computer) competitor will never be able to compete and will end up leaving the game, what a pity !!!



OUI ceci ne changerai peut le classement des guildes en haut de classement avec le calcul actuel .
Diminuons le prestige obtenue par la GVG de 40% ,montons le MMR à 2000 pts ,avec des ligues avec des écarts part paliers .cela changerai les données .
En plus je suis certain que les compétiteurs serais partant .
Imaginons un joueur sur tablettes (sans les moyens de ce payer un ordinateur ) compétiteur ne pourra jamais rivalisé est finira part quitter le jeu , quel dommage !!!

 

[napodavout]

Your table reflects reality well, guild 10th in the ranking with the new calculation will be how much in the ranking.
the second will undoubtedly be first.


Ton tableau reflète bien la réalité ,guilde 10 éme au classement avec le nouveau calcul serai combien au classement .
Le deuxième serai sans doute premier .

 

[Emberguard]

the second will undoubtedly be first.

Why? They both have maxed out GBG and the same Guild level. 1st would remain in 1st due to highest number of members

et us reduce the prestige obtained by the GVG by 40%,

How? Prestige is obtained by capturing a sector in GvG. How exactly do you intend to change the calculation?

let us raise the MMR to 2000 pts, with leagues with differences between levels.

I assume this would mean additional leagues added

Ok, that'd just raise 1st from 21,589 Prestige to 59,789 prestige. They're the strongest Guild on that world. They dominate GBG more or less unchallenged due to having recruited all the top players

 

[CrashBoom]

stop this stupid discussion

the second will undoubtedly be first.

any idea which makes a guild best in both GVG and GBG only be 2nd in ranking is stupidity

let us reduce the prestige obtained by the GVG by 40%, let us raise the MMR to 2000 pts,

so reduce the 3-5% of GVG points in total ranking to less than 1%

stupidity

a top 10 guild is good in everything
and if a guild is only good in GBG they are obviously not even good enough for top 20

The idea is simple, guild vs guild with 3 to 5% of the players brings 50% of the guild ranking points.
Against battlefields with 80% of players brings 50% of guild ranking points

to be honest
the top 3-5% of the players makes more GBG action than the bottom 80% of the players

 

[CrashBoom]

so even the top 10 combined makes almost twice the amount of points in GBG than in GVG

and the rest of all guilds makes less GvG than the top 15 combined

and btw
all top rated guild in GBG get 18000 ranking points
so no matter how GvG is changed it is the factor which decides the ranking

The Game has changed enormously since its inception, especially since the arrival of new media (pc).

nice joke
new media: PC

the PC version was first.
the mobile phone apps are the new media