Feedback Guild Battlegrounds

[Nessie]

@beelzebob666 We have 2nd place in GvG (for several months now), and we have been 1st place in GE for a long time, so we should not have had a bad MMR to begin with, unless there is something in MMR they have not told us.

@Envoy: and what could this be that you haven't told us? Please let us know, our guild is waiting for an answer

 

[Natalia1]

I expect that MMR would have been calculated from short-term data - current guild size, GE activity over 1 or 2 weeks, and GvG activity over 1 or 2 weeks. (Activity being measured in terms of number of people participating and amount of participation). Taking 1st place in GE is nice, but if it was accomplished with 65%, the MMR would be significantly less than 2nd place accomplished with 120%.

We never get less than 100% GE, usually better than that. We monitor GE performance of all guild members with spreadsheets, so we do not have players that do zero.

 

[DeletedUser10047]

If a Guild is non participating then they should receive nothing regardless of the position they hold. That's where they need to fix it.

If a guild does not meet minimum activity levels, then they get nothing. Unfortunately, clicking on a chest shows what the guild would get for finishing in that position without regard as to whether the guild actually reached the minimum activity level or not.

 

[DeletedUser8743]

The MMR rating isn't as balanced as you'd think. A guild of 1-2 members simply can't compete with guilds with 6-8 people. My guild only has 2 members, but this week we were pair off against a guild of 6 and a guild of 8 members. I personally did over 180 negotiations and my guild member did just over 20. We came in 3rd this week. But we were paired off against a guild of 6 and another of 8 members. If they all did negotiations, then they only had to do 20-30 each which costs roughly 100-200 goods. Me alone doing 180 negotiations cost me well over 500+ goods, not to mention the reward division between the weekly rankings make no sense.

The guilds in 4th to 8th, took 0-4 sectors each and they all got 118k - 120k guild power as a reward. But my guild in 3rd position got 129k guild power. The guild in 4th place got 122k guild power. Second place got 146k and the first place guild who didn't have to do as much as they did got 163k guild power. The amount of guild power rewarded between the ranking spots make no sense.

My guild got 6 sectors but only got 121k guild power for our troubles. The single member guild in 2nd place only got 4 sectors yet he got 146k. The guild in the first place position got 163k and 10 sectors but by their VPH, they didn't have to work that hard because they averaged 1790 VPH while 2nd to 4th position only got 200 VPH roughly. Our VPH is higher than the guild in 2nd position yet our VP count is lower, though we captured 4 before he even got 1...

The MMR rating isn't as balanced as you'd think. A guild of 1-2 members simply can't compete with guilds with 6-8 people. My guild only has 2 members, but this week we were pair off against a guild of 6 and a guild of 8 members. I personally did over 180 negotiations and my guild member did just over 20. We came in 3rd this week. But we were paired off against a guild of 6 and another of 8 members. If they all did negotiations, then they only had to do 20-30 each which costs roughly 100-200 goods. Me alone doing 180 negotiations cost me well over 500+ goods, not to mention the reward division between the weekly rankings make no sense.

The guilds in 4th to 8th, took 0-4 sectors each and they all got 118k - 120k guild power as a reward. But my guild in 3rd position got 129k guild power. The guild in 4th place got 122k guild power. Second place got 146k and the first place guild who didn't have to do as much as they did got 163k guild power. The amount of guild power rewarded between the ranking spots make no sense.

My guild got 6 sectors but only got 121k guild power for our troubles. The single member guild in 2nd place only got 4 sectors yet he got 146k. The guild in the first place position got 163k and 10 sectors but by their VPH, they didn't have to work that hard because they averaged 1790 VPH while 2nd to 4th position only got 200 VPH roughly. Our VPH is higher than the guild in 2nd position yet our VP count is lower, though we captured 4 before he even got 1...

In a basic reward scale of 1st, 2nd and 3rd place, the top person get 50%, the 2nd get 30% and 3rd gets 20%. But the reward scale in this 1-7 scale, the rewards are too close together. A guild who worked their butt off to get 3rd position 6 sectors only gets a fraction of a difference from guild who only got 1 sector.

If first position got 163k, then I'd expect 2nd position to get no more than 90k, 3rd no more than 50k and the rest easily under 20k... but difference between the rewards of 118k to 163k reward needs to be further apart, yes? Considering the last two guilds on the bottom didn't even bother getting any sectors yet they still got 118k guild power as a reward for not doing anything?

The results are determined by victory points earned over the full 11 days of the battleground not sectors taken. Sectors are worth different amounts of VP points so you want to go after the highest VP sectors. If you take 3 sectors worth 20VP each and your opponent takes 1 sector worth 70VP, you're opponent is going to end up with more victory points.

As for VPH if your guild finished 3rd, your guild most certainly did not have the highest VPH over the course of the battleground. The snapshot that you see in the results just shows the VPH at the specific time the battleground ended. The same is true of the number of sectors. If you want to know the true VPH earned over the 11 day battle ground, you'd have to take the VP total divided by (11 days x 24 hours in an hour).

 

[DeletedUser8743]

It will be handled like GEX.

They may have changed it but when I aged up in the 1st battleground I immediately started facing higher age units but the goods required for negotiation did not age up.

 

[DeletedUser8743]

The fact that there are only 2 guilds raised to platinum after 2 battlegrounds does seem odd. At this rate, it could be several more battlegrounds before there is the first true platinum league. In our gold league battleground of 6 guilds, every guild was reasonably active and yet the 5th and 6th were demoted to silver. Doesn't make much sense to see active guilds being demoted at this point.

 

[FrejaSP]

What happens if I switch age during a battleground?
Are goods from new age required for trading,
Are Battles against troops of new age or
is it handled like GEX, where I use goods and fight against troops of my last age?

I do hope, if we switch age duing battleground, we will only need goods and fight against troops of our last age, else it will be very hard to changes age.

 

[beelzebob666]

They may have changed it but when I aged up in the 1st battleground I immediately started facing higher age units but the goods required for negotiation did not age up.

They did fix that - it was at least mentioned in the daily change log...

 

[aragon82]

The mistake is still in your assumption that all gilds started with the same MMR...

The easy explanation is that the guild that got promoted to platinum - even though they placed 3rd while you got 2nd - started off with a higher MMR to begin with, so they just needed less gains than your guild for the league upgrade...

But if you place decently next time too and you still do not rank up, something fishy might be going on. Nevertheless you still will be playing for platinum rank rewards next week...

So tell me how this is possible:
worst-case-scenario: we had been ranked as 6th in the 1st GBG with the lowest MMR in the highest ranked gold-league(unlikly but possible)
we got 2nd recieving some MMR points, Dragonstar(with higher MMR?) made 3rd spot gaining also a few points but lesser than us
we got pulled up to platinum on 2nd GBG, they not... so we should have been ahead of them at this point, right?

now we made 2nd in platinum, they got 1st in gold and bypassed us in terms of getting promoted to platinum, we not
thats NOT what a lower MMR at start is leading to, thats 1st Gold offers more ranking-points than 2nd Platinum

So we got punished for a better overall performance competing with the top-performes back-to-back, REALLY nice one Inno!

 

[Natalia1]

I do hope, if we switch age duing battleground, we will only need goods and fight against troops of our last age, else it will be very hard to changes age.

Freya, someone posted earlier that you fight new troops, I am not sure about goods

 

[beelzebob666]

now we made 2nd in platinum, they got 1st in gold and bypassed us in terms of getting promoted to platinum, we not
thats NOT what a lower MMR at start is leading to, thats 1st Gold offers more ranking-points than 2nd Platinum

That would be the most likely assumption then...

So we got punished for a better overall performance competing with the top-performes back-to-back, REALLY nice one Inno!

did you? you got platinum rewards, they only got gold rewards... you have a couple less prestige probably in the guild ranking though... but that also still is part of the "guilds getting sorted part".

I wrote about that already - by not doing random battlegrounds from guilds of the same league but pitting guilds of neighboring MMRs against each other they effectively created a hundred or more leagues, many of which share the same reward schedule besides having (highly) different difficulties (e.g. highest group in gold vs lowest group in gold).

From my point of view possible solutions to that are:
1) have random battlegrounds of guilds in the same league
2) pit neighboring MMR guilds against each other, but remove the rough leagues entirely as every battleground is a league of its own already - the rewards could get scaled by the guilds MMR in that case

Regarding the initial sorting of guilds I already made some remarks previously...

Maybe you could just set/round the MMR to the center of the respective league for the initial MMR on live. As the initial MMR is a pretty rough guess anyway that would help make the development of the league ranking feel more fair.

EDIT: If the initial MMR would be set close to the ranking up threshold for every guild in the respective league, that would allow guilds in the top 3 to quickly rank up in the next battleground already, while the guilds in the lower places are not demoted immediately after the first round...

example: assuming 3 is the threshold to be in platinum, gold guilds could all start out at 2.8, silver all at 1.8, bronze all at 0.8...

Also all leagues should be sufficiently filled from the start - especially as you intend to have a pretty even spread of 10/25/30/25/10 in the end. I think originally in the first battleground season there have only been two or three gold battlegrounds... that will only hinder a quick population of the higher leagues. So maybe you "estimate" the MMR according to your previous algorithm - that list gets sorted and the top 33% get set into gold with an MMR of 2.8, the middle 33% get set into Silver with 1.8 and the rest gets 0.8 in bronze... that would help with filling the top leagues quicker. You could even add the original MMR/100 to the respective new MMR (e.g.: 1.8 + 1.1/100 = 1.811) so the sorting of the guilds is kept...

 

[Nessie]

So tell me how this is possible:
worst-case-scenario: we had been ranked as 6th in the 1st GBG with the lowest MMR in the highest ranked gold-league(unlikly but possible)
we got 2nd recieving some MMR points, Dragonstar(with higher MMR?) made 3rd spot gaining also a few points but lesser than us
we got pulled up to platinum on 2nd GBG, they not... so we should have been ahead of them at this point, right?

now we made 2nd in platinum, they got 1st in gold and bypassed us in terms of getting promoted to platinum, we not
thats NOT what a lower MMR at start is leading to, thats 1st Gold offers more ranking-points than 2nd Platinum

So we got punished for a better overall performance competing with the top-performes back-to-back, REALLY nice one Inno!

It is clear that there is a mistake, so please correct it @Envoy

 

[DeletedUser8978]

I find that they give few points to the guild and that we should continue to play with the old gvg that do not work well .. a guild that is always positioned at 1 place in the battlegraund will never be 1 in the ranking without the old gvg or wrong?

 

[aragon82]

did you? you got platinum rewards, they only got gold rewards... you have a couple less prestige probably in the guild ranking though... but that also still is part of the "guilds getting sorted part".

No we did not get punished in terms of personal rewards and sligthly higher prestige / guild power
Yes we did as a guild, basicly not able to achieve 1st spot two times in a row, getting a slow start -> lesser MMR-points, lesser progress compared to others(as you can see now)

So next round will be: Kyp, Dragonstar, LK and two others supposed to have "fun" in high-mmr platinum? Besides five guilds pushed up from gold to fill the 2nd (lower-mmr) platinum?
We will see, but I really hope I am completly wrong this time....

Am I the only one thinking it is a mistake to pair top-performers together AND set fixed values for performance AND breakpoints for the next higher league?
Do one thing or the other, but dont mix it up in the way it is done so far.
atm its more rewarding(in terms of MMR) to be "the best of the rest" than doing well in the hardest league

@Beelzebob: your suggestion is really good(from my point of view) they should think about it.

for now: too slow seperation from guilds into the different leagues, would take months to fill the higher leagues properly and "sort" the guild within the sub-leagues accordingly

 

[beelzebob666]

a guild that is always positioned at 1 place in the battlegraund will never be 1 in the ranking without the old gvg or wrong?

Considering that a number one guild on the regular servers has about 20k Prestige (including ~2k Prestige from the guild level) while a platinum guild gets only about 3k Prestige from Battlegrounds, the top position will still likely be dominated by a GvG active guild unless everyone just stops playing GvG.

On the other hand, the Number 10 guild typically already has less than 8k Prestige - so the GBG active guilds will be able to make quite a difference by doing GBG additionally to GvG.

 

[DeletedUser9522]

Freya, someone posted earlier that you fight new troops, I am not sure about goods

That was a bug and was fixed. It should work like GEX.

 

[DeletedUser9523]

@aragon82:
To help explain your special case a bit better: The guild ~Dragonstar~ has been in a battleground with 7 participants, while your battleground only contained 5.
The more competitors you have, the more MMR points are at stake (so you can win more, but you can also lose more). This is simply done since the more competitors you beat at the same time, the more statistically relevant that result is in the big picture.

For live worlds - as I said before - you may have a totally valid point that we need to reconsider the initial MMR allocation (upon releasing the feature), so that the swelling into Platinum and Diamond won't take too long.

For your interest: This whole discussion lead us to have a closer look again at the Underdog bonus and if it worked correctly. And in fact, there was a minor bug. But it didn't affect your specific case at all.
So it was really helpful that this was brought up.

 

[DeletedUser10047]

Considering that a number one guild on the regular servers has about 20k Prestige (including ~2k Prestige from the guild level) while a platinum guild gets only about 3k Prestige from Battlegrounds, the top position will still likely be dominated by a GvG active guild unless everyone just stops playing GvG.

On the other hand, the Number 10 guild typically already has less than 8k Prestige - so the GBG active guilds will be able to make quite a difference by doing GBG additionally to GvG.

Take into account that prestige from GvG is at two levels right now. For beta and EN servers, with recalcs avery 8 hours, prestige is 1/3 of what it is on the other servers that still have recalcs once a day. With recalcs every 8 hours, top guilds have prestige closer to 7-10k.

Also, my calculations show that platinum guilds can get more than 4k from Battlegrounds:
ΚΥΡΙΑΡΧΟΙ - 2000 (level) 6131 (GvG) 4986 (GBG) 13117 (total)
~Dragonstar~ - 1875 (level) 382 (GvG) 4032 (GBG) 6289 (total)

 

[aragon82]

@aragon82:
To help explain your special case a bit better: The guild ~Dragonstar~ has been in a battleground with 7 participants, while your battleground only contained 5.
The more competitors you have, the more MMR points are at stake (so you can win more, but you can also lose more). This is simply done since the more competitors you beat at the same time, the more statistically relevant that result is in the big picture.

For live worlds - as I said before - you may have a totally valid point that we need to reconsider the initial MMR allocation (upon releasing the feature), so that the swelling into Platinum and Diamond won't take too long.

For your interest: This whole discussion lead us to have a closer look again at the Underdog bonus and if it worked correctly. And in fact, there was a minor bug. But it didn't affect your specific case at all.
So it was really helpful that this was brought up.

thx for your awnser, I really appreciate you have an open ear for us and take this feedback serious.

according to this information: get promoted to a higher league -> harder opponents, lesser progress(due to fewer guilds)
looks like same amount of guilds in the upper leagues(platinum, gold atm) makes more sense than slowly filling up.

 

[beelzebob666]

Take into account that prestige from GvG is at two levels right now. For beta and EN servers, with recalcs avery 8 hours, prestige is 1/3 of what it is on the other servers that still have recalcs once a day. With recalcs every 8 hours, top guilds have prestige closer to 7-10k.

oh... that is a good point!

can get more than 4k

In diamond most probably, I have only seen an increase of about 3-3,5k after the first Battleground season