Rejected GBG matchmaking and league system changes

[Donna a Macskabolond]

Reason

Actual problems:
- too much guilds in the top league which results too big difference between the strongest and weakest
- active fighter guilds are matched with slow, sleepy, less active guilds
- nothing to fight in 1000 LP diamond league besides the personal rewards

How to identify active, fighter guilds?
- have more strong players than the average
- have the necessary treasury for building
- higher overall activity, organized and clear guild hierarchy
- number of players

These attributes will result in a higher average advance number/player than most guilds. If the guilds have problems any of the above 3 points it will result lower average advance/player. One more thing has impact on the advances what a guild can do in a season - the other guilds in the group. If not one of them bothers to take any sector than the guild can't have as much advances as it capable of.

Details

My suggestion to sort the guilds for matchmaking based on the advances/player of the previous season. For example if a guild have 155000 advances in the season and have 74 members then the average advances will be 2094.

The bigger guilds has more potential fighting capacities, so this number should be multiplied with a number depends on the number of players.
The average guild size lets say is around 40 players, so the multiplier should be:
Number of players Multiplier
70-80 2
50-70 1,5
30-50 1
10-30 0,9
1-10 0,8
It is necessary to push the active, higher headcount guilds above than the active medium or small size guilds. Of course, if we have numbers probably the multiplier needs some adjustment.

Based on this calculation in the next season the guilds will be matched similar guilds in activity, strength and treasury, so it will result a fairer matchmaking. If seems necessary one more multiplier can be added based on the final placement in the group ( 3-4 should 1, above than this higher, 5-8 lower multiplier should be used) or the multiplier can be different in different leagues. I'm not sure if it is necessary, some experiment is needed.

Changing the matchmaking system is not enough on its own, some adjustment is needed in the league system also, further changes seem necessary:
1. A new league is necessary for the biggest, strongest guilds where prestige points can be earned or loose for winning - the 1. place should provide around 2000 PP, 2. place 0, 3. place -500 PP, 4. place -1500 PP. This new league doesn't provide additional league points (just
negative for the 3-4 place), the personal rewards are the same as in diamond. The guild rewards such as guild power and fragments should be higher than in diamond. Maximum 2 groups should start in each season. The league should be exclusive.
2. Change the number of guilds in each groups. The number of guilds should depend on the league as the following:
Crystal league groups have 4 guilds
Diamond league guilds have 4-6 guilds
Platinum and lower leagues guilds have 6-8 guilds
3. Change the provided league points as @Juber suggested - either use a soft cap or use progressive LP (the higher the league the less the earned LP)
4. Shorten the seasons. The actual 11 days way too long, the final results can be predicted usually on the first day. The continous activity takes its toll on the GBG leaders and the members too. 6 days seasons with 8 days rest period would be enough.
5. Add two slots for building on HQ sector. The price should be high - about 50000 guild goods because these building can't be lost. It provides some chance to take some sectors for the smaller guilds.

Balance

The changes does not affect other parts of the game.

Abuse Prevention

The solution shouldn't open any exploit.

Summary

It is obvius now the GBG needs a serious reimplementation. The matchmaking and league system causes lots of problems, imbalance, complains, overall unsatisfied feelings on the players part. The suggested changes result in a more balanced matchmaking and league system while those guilds who has the means to fight get the chance to do so and those who feel a slower pace comfortable are matched similar guilds in activity.

Better matchmaking and more suitable league system increases the overall activity, the shorter seasons prevent burnout and also increase the activity.

Have you looked to see if this has already been suggested?

The matchmaking changes hasn't been suggested yet, some elements regarding the league changes comes from @Juber suggestions.

GBG matchmaking and league system has some serious problems what results in
- uneven groups where 1-2 bigger guilds dominate the map, slower, smaller guilds has no chance to fight
- lots of complaining
- in 1000LP there is nothing to fight for - GBG has no impact to global ranking
- GBG takes too much time which leads to burnout, lower overall activity

I'm happy to incorporate any suggestion which solve the GBG problems and feel free to add any comment regarding the ideas.

 

[Owl II]

Wow. I would like to know the reasoning of those who voted against

 

[DEADP00L]

Wow. I would like to know the reasoning of those who voted against

To start again the same principle of the subject on the GbG, by criticizing those who do not think like you instead of bringing arguments on your way of voting?

I didn't vote because I don't see the point.
I am one of those who did not wait 2 years to realize that there was a problem with the GbGs and who shared their opinion (unlike the players who discovered the forum 2 weeks ago).
Not only was an accepted suggestion never implemented quickly, but I prefer to test the GbG nerf on my live world for several seasons before judging what would be best for the future.

 

[CrashBoom]

Wow. I would like to know the reasoning of those who voted against

the details

 

[planetofthehumans2]

Wow. I would like to know the reasoning of those who voted against

The people who think nerfing the SC was a good idea LOL

Nah but there are way too many suggestions in this idea. I did originally post in the gbg thread to cap number of guilds per leauge, but this aint the way to go about it. Cap platinum to top 10 guilds with two battles (5 guilds each). Just imagine being in the same battle with the same 4 guilds forever, what a nightmare. And have #4 losing guild lose 500LP hahaha, drop down to gold and have to fight back up.

 

[Donna a Macskabolond]

The people who think nerfing the SC was a good idea LOL

Nah but there are way too many suggestions in this idea. I did originally post in the gbg thread to cap number of guilds per leauge, but this aint the way to go about it. Cap platinum to top 10 guilds with two battles (5 guilds each). Just imagine being in the same battle with the same 4 guilds forever, what a nightmare. And have #4 losing guild lose 500LP hahaha, drop down to gold and have to fight back up.

That's what you refer to is prestige point what determines the global ranking, not league points and was just suggested in the new TOP league, not the currently existing league.
On the other hand there should be changes in the league based on the average advances. In one season a guild is able to do more fights in other less, the ranking never should be the same, but I have to admit the TOP 10 guilds will be usually the same but maybe the exact order will be different.

 

[Owl II]

The people who think nerfing the SC was a good idea LOL

Nah but there are way too many suggestions in this idea. I did originally post in the gbg thread to cap number of guilds per leauge, but this aint the way to go about it. Cap platinum to top 10 guilds with two battles (5 guilds each). Just imagine being in the same battle with the same 4 guilds forever, what a nightmare. And have #4 losing guild lose 500LP hahaha, drop down to gold and have to fight back up.

It was conceived that way. And it worked like this until many weak guilds reached the limit due to the incorrect distribution of LP at the end of the season.

 

[Owl II]

As for the nerf of the SC, it will not affect the distribution of guilds by league in any way. It's just that now the game will lose its dynamic. If a strong guild wants to pin you in your corner, it will do it. And they will have more motivation for this now. But this is an off-topic here

 

[Pericles the Lion]

4 guilds in "Crystal", 4-6 in "Gold" ?

On my main world I just finished up a L1000 GBG swap round. 587 battles. Unlike many, I will admit that I do GBG for the rewards. The sooner that more players admit that rewards are the prime motivator the sooner INNO might take suggestions (such as the OP's) more seriously. Meanwhile, IMO, any suggestion that perpetuates, or even exacerbates, farming will get little attention.

4 guilds in "Crystal" would create a farming paradise. 3-5 in "Gold" not much less so.

 

[Donna a Macskabolond]

4 guilds in "Crystal", 4-6 in "Gold" ?

On my main world I just finished up a L1000 GBG swap round. 587 battles. Unlike many, I will admit that I do GBG for the rewards. The sooner that more players admit that rewards are the prime motivator the sooner INNO might take suggestions (such as the OP's) more seriously. Meanwhile, IMO, any suggestion that perpetuates, or even exacerbates, farming will get little attention.

4 guilds in "Crystal" would create a farming paradise. 3-5 in "Gold" not much less so.

If in the crystal league perstige points can be or earned or loose then probably no farming will happen. The really big guilds care enough for the global ranking not to risk loosing prestige.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

If in the crystal league perstige points can be or earned or loose then probably no farming will happen. The really big guilds care enough for the global ranking not to risk loosing prestige.

Respectfully, this is wishful thinking. At the most there will be 10.5 days of farming then a free-for-all at the end if the rankings are close.

 

[DEADP00L]

Creating an additional league won't solve any of the problems as long as LP is the only constraint to move up or down leagues.
You either need a history of meetings made in previous GbGs, or take into account the number of members, or something else relevant.

 

[Donna a Macskabolond]

Respectfully, this is wishful thinking. At the most there will be 10.5 days of farming then a free-for-all at the end if the rankings are close.

I know some big guilds on the 7 server I play and all of them would kill for some prestige points. Also I suggest to shorten the seasons, maximum a week would be ideal with 1 week rest period.

 

[Donna a Macskabolond]

Creating an additional league won't solve any of the problems as long as LP is the only constraint to move up or down leagues.
You either need a history of meetings made in previous GbGs, or take into account the number of members, or something else relevant.

If you check the idea the number of player in a guilds is taken into account twice: the average advances calculated by the guild overall advances and the number of players, also the number of players determines an additional multiplier where the bigger guilds in size will get a higher multiplier because we want them separated from the medium and small sized guilds.

 

[DEADP00L]

Read again what I wrote to understand:

Not only was an accepted suggestion never implemented quickly, but I prefer to test the GbG nerf on my live world for several seasons before judging what would be best for the future.

Making suggestions BEFORE seeing all the pros and cons of the nerf is totally thoughtless!!!

 

[Yekk]

Read again what I wrote to understand:

Making suggestions BEFORE seeing all the pros and cons of the nerf is totally thoughtless!!!

I voted yes...The nerf's cons greatly outweigh its pros with the end results being guilds in platinum still will tank their leagues to avoid diamond. The nerf was not even a good first step. Big guilds walked across the map then had to wait for the little 15 man guilds to take a few tiles. Some days I had no fights as the strong guild I am in does not abuse others. We leave them SC tiles to restart. Where before I could set a timer for fights now they are dependent on guilds who can not fight or will not. Dependent on the other guild running out of steam at which point we retook their tiles. Done all at once which meant most players offline got no battles...

 

[DEADP00L]

I voted yes...The nerf's cons greatly outweigh its pros with the end results being guilds in platinum still will tank their leagues to avoid diamond.

We are saved, you have been able to test all the possible cases that we will encounter in the live servers after a few seasons where everyone will have assimilated the change.

From the moment you can't accept that others don't experience nerves the same way as you, we'll go in circles.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

I voted yes...The nerf's cons greatly outweigh its pros with the end results being guilds in platinum still will tank their leagues to avoid diamond. The nerf was not even a good first step. Big guilds walked across the map then had to wait for the little 15 man guilds to take a few tiles. Some days I had no fights as the strong guild I am in does not abuse others. We leave them SC tiles to restart. Where before I could set a timer for fights now they are dependent on guilds who can not fight or will not. Dependent on the other guild running out of steam at which point we retook their tiles. Done all at once which meant most players offline got no battles...

Odd. Your battle curve shows that you battled more this past season than the one before. Same with most of the other top players in your guild.

 

[Fire Witch]

This thread is about a suggestion, not analyzing player behaviour. Thank you.

 

[planetofthehumans2]

That's what you refer to is prestige point what determines the global ranking, not league points and was just suggested in the new TOP league, not the currently existing league.
On the other hand there should be changes in the league based on the average advances. In one season a guild is able to do more fights in other less, the ranking never should be the same, but I have to admit the TOP 10 guilds will be usually the same but maybe the exact order will be different.

No I was referring to LP. I don't think adding more leagues is going to help anything, it'll just lead to more and more leauges being made like platinum on top of diamond. They should restrict platinum with the top reward with the top guilds, that we can agree on, but there also many suggestions here.

What we want to do is make the easiest suggestions for the devs - it will be more likely accepted and worked on. The easiest solution in my eyes is to only limit the top leauge and not force the devs to redo the whole gbg ranking system and add more leauges with more/different prices.