Feedback Guild Battlegrounds Championship Update

[.Dino.]

How do I open a formal complaint?

I mean... I'm not going to talk about the bot problem, because everybody knows about it and has complained relentlessly.

The problem is the random selection of guilds to participate together in the diamond league. It just doesn't work.

One of the worlds I play in is BR 2. My guild is rank #2. We ALWAYS confront the same guild that is rank #1. We've even declared a public strike once, asking other guilds to just do nothing with it in the same map, because it is impossible to win. But my complaint now is that as we always confront that guild, we always get second place and then the number of fragments for the main prize is never enough. The other smaller guilds get 1 or 2 wins when they go to a map without that guild, but it doesn't happen to mine. At least one round should be with totally different guilds.

Thanks for helping me.

 

[RKinG]

we had a lot of proposals for GBG and some were about the blue GBG defense. nothing was ever accepted yet some proposals were interesting. The beta community could have improved these proposals. For my part, I would really like a defensive system in GBG (to reduce the VP -Victory Point settings of the 5th hour) and improve my % boost defense and attack for normal fights.

One of the worlds I play in is BR 2. My guild is rank #2. We ALWAYS confront the same guild that is rank #1.

For what strategic reasons do they always manage to be first?

 

[planetofthehumans2]

For what strategic reasons do they always manage to be first?

Its pretty easy to be #1, you get all the fighters from all the other good guilds which per server may only be about 70 people at this point, who are willing to be online when gbg opens, where there is a good group of them that will be online 24/7, where they can get attrition 100+ if they need to, but mostly whom get 10k fights per season easily.

They should just swap to a tournament style matchup for the #1 price.

 

[angelgail]

it not just 1st even when they have that all locked up most will still keep the lower guild down .an dont say it cause we dont belong there we work our back sides off to get there an stay there

 

[.Dino.]

For what strategic reasons do they always manage to be first?

You've got to be kidding me... The strategy is bot usage.

 

[angelgail]

You've got to be kidding me... The strategy is bot usage.

even i dont go that far an these guys are getting 1st or 2nd but they have 70 to 80 players that must play we small in the 30s players an dang proud of what we can do

 

[Charles el Britannia]

Out of the blue we get an announcement about a GBG update. Excited, I started reading ... only to realize there is almost nothing new in it. Okay, now we know that cross-world matchmaking is sadly not possible. But I had hoped that we would have gotten more info about the blue boosts in GBG.

 

[xivarmy]

Out of the blue we get an announcement about a GBG update. Excited, I started reading ... only to realize there is almost nothing new in it. Okay, now we know that cross-world matchmaking is sadly not possible. But I had hoped that we would have gotten more info about the blue boosts in GBG.

> Okay, now we know that cross-world matchmaking is sadly not possible.

They mentioned this right at GBG's creation. That they wanted cross-world, but it wasn't technically feasible. This is mostly just an update saying "still not technically feasible in case you thought things had changed in the years it's been out".

> But I had hoped that we would have gotten more info about the blue boosts in GBG.

I think this post was mostly a lowering expectations post. That they've heard the concerns and proposed solutions, they've looked at them, and that we shouldn't expect much action on them for various reasons.

I assume the "new content" portion of the patch is just omitted from this, because there's no gain to them in spoiling that early. That this post is just a PR strategy to try and reduce some of the "why didn't you address X?" posts when it does drop. I assume blue boosts are coming either as a new map that just uses blue instead of red or an overhaul to how GBG plays on existing maps. I mean they haven't stopped giving us GBG-specific blue on items have they? So they must intend that to be a thing still.

 

[drakenridder]

It felt mostly like a vanilla Q&A. The plans to make LP requirements higher for diamond, would make diamond guilds drop into platina more frequently. Nowadays such guilds easily overpower platina guilds before getting overpowered when getting back in 1kD. An additional league (crystal or champion's league) 1.100LP and less LP given out (100-150 max) could be a better fit. Champions rewards could move up accordingly. Diamond could still be offered those side buildings frag. to maintain momentum for competition towards diamond league. It would offer a bit better buffer for platina guilds than making some diamond guilds overpowering them frequently.

 

[xivarmy]

It felt mostly like a vanilla Q&A. The plans to make LP requirements higher for diamond, would make diamond guilds drop into platina more frequently. Nowadays such guilds easily overpower platina guilds before getting overpowered when getting back in 1kD. An additional league (crystal or champion's league) 1.100LP and less LP given out (100-150 max) could be a better fit. Champions rewards could move up accordingly. Diamond could still be offered those side buildings frag. to maintain momentum for competition towards diamond league. It would offer a bit better buffer for platina guilds than making some diamond guilds overpowering them frequently.

Notably any change to the LP numbers alone is insufficient to change how things work currently. What's needed is not necessarily extra range, but rather slower movement relatively speaking. i.e. they could make your crystal but that'd just change the platinum-diamond yoyo to diamond-crystal. To reduce the yoyo, movement needs to slow down (and 10% more max LP is not a significant slow-down for +/- 175).

They could extend diamond all the way to 1100 though and then -175 from max-diamond would be "low diamond". Doesn't help the matchmaking, but does mean guilds that can make it to max-diamond stay diamond with a loss and perhaps it gives those guilds a warm fuzzy that they are in fact "diamond guilds" and not platinum guilds that drift to diamond. Don't know that on a game-design level that's desirable though.

Improvements to matchmaking would have to change the LP system on a more fundamental level. Such that it's harder to go up than down (the problem with harder to go down than up is that it's inflationary and we'd wind up with even more guilds that don't belong at the top at the top).

If you take last in max-diamond, and then take 1st the next round you're currently right back to 1000-diamond currently. You probably shouldn't be. Winning against weaker competition should not cancel losing against stronger competition to the degree that you're right back against the best guilds on your server. There should probably be an in-between round in low-diamond where you compete against tier 2 guilds (other guilds that won in platinum, or that didn't get last in diamond but also didn't stay in max diamond) to see which of the tier 2 are best suited to be food for tier 1 again.

However if this effect is too pronounced it is catastrophically deflationary (talking "not enough diamond guilds for 1 group anymore"). So they do have to be a little careful with how much they slow-down upward trajectory.

 

[drakenridder]

Notably any change to the LP numbers alone is insufficient to change how things work currently. What's needed is not necessarily extra range, but rather slower movement relatively speaking. i.e. they could make your crystal but that'd just change the platinum-diamond yoyo to diamond-crystal. To reduce the yoyo, movement needs to slow down (and 10% more max LP is not a significant slow-down for +/- 175).

They could extend diamond all the way to 1100 though and then -175 from max-diamond would be "low diamond". Doesn't help the matchmaking, but does mean guilds that can make it to max-diamond stay diamond with a loss and perhaps it gives those guilds a warm fuzzy that they are in fact "diamond guilds" and not platinum guilds that drift to diamond. Don't know that on a game-design level that's desirable though.

Improvements to matchmaking would have to change the LP system on a more fundamental level. Such that it's harder to go up than down (the problem with harder to go down than up is that it's inflationary and we'd wind up with even more guilds that don't belong at the top at the top).

If you take last in max-diamond, and then take 1st the next round you're currently right back to 1000-diamond currently. You probably shouldn't be. Winning against weaker competition should not cancel losing against stronger competition to the degree that you're right back against the best guilds on your server. There should probably be an in-between round in low-diamond where you compete against tier 2 guilds (other guilds that won in platinum, or that didn't get last in diamond but also didn't stay in max diamond) to see which of the tier 2 are best suited to be food for tier 1 again.

However if this effect is too pronounced it is catastrophically deflationary (talking "not enough diamond guilds for 1 group anymore"). So they do have to be a little careful with how much they slow-down upward trajectory.

They said they wanted to make it harder to stay in diamond. This will worsen the yo-yo. You're right that if there's an additional league, the yo-yo effect moves up. This will relief platina guilds.
I however do agreed that a more stable situation would greatly counter the yo-yo effect. LP+VP like general ranking could contribute to it. Expending LP cap so, 175 LP up or down doesn't make you drop out or move up to the top would probably help a lot. It is admittedly a complex issue. Using VP could assist in the match making. As it reflects relatively how strong a guild is compared to the guilds it encountered.

 

[xivarmy]

They said they wanted to make it harder to stay in diamond. This will worsen the yo-yo. You're right that if there's an additional league, the yo-yo effect moves up. This will relief platina guilds.
I however do agreed that a more stable situation would greatly counter the yo-yo effect. LP+VP like general ranking could contribute to it. Expending LP cap so, 175 LP up or down doesn't make you drop out or move up to the top would probably help a lot. It is admittedly a complex issue. Using VP could assist in the match making. As it reflects relatively how strong a guild is compared to the guilds it encountered.

It doesn't relief platina guilds, it just makes them diamond guilds. If you don't change the system and you just raise the cap (a little), everyone moves up, not just the best (at first it'll be the best, but gradually it'll increase like diamond did). Being harder to stay diamond is what does give relief: Because it's just a small handful of guilds that are so far ahead as to make it unfun for "the rest", shifting the tiers below them down creates a better spread of guilds (platinum guilds getting bumped to gold in the process, but with better matchmaking).

 

[drakenridder]

It doesn't relief platina guilds, it just makes them diamond guilds. If you don't change the system and you just raise the cap (a little), everyone moves up, not just the best (at first it'll be the best, but gradually it'll increase like diamond did). Being harder to stay diamond is what does give relief: Because it's just a small handful of guilds that are so far ahead as to make it unfun for "the rest", shifting the tiers below them down creates a better spread of guilds (platinum guilds getting bumped to gold in the process, but with better matchmaking).

So, just reducing LP handed out is the best? For example:
#1 +100 LP
#2 +75 LP
#3 +50 LP
#4 +/- 0LP
#5 -25 LP
#6 -50 LP
#7 -75 LP
#8 -100LP
For stability maximum 1.005LP (901-1.005 diamond). This would reduce yo-yo situations and wouldn't make a guild instantly maxed out after winning in platina. This should make it harder to move up but also to descend a bit harder. Resulting in better stability?

 

[xivarmy]

So, just reducing LP handed out is the best? For example:
#1 +100 LP
#2 +75 LP
#3 +50 LP
#4 +/- 0LP
#5 -25 LP
#6 -50 LP
#7 -75 LP
#8 -100LP
For stability maximum 1.005LP (901-1.005 diamond). This would reduce yo-yo situations and wouldn't make a guild instantly maxed out after winning in platina. This should make it harder to move up but also to descend a bit harder. Resulting in better stability?

It would, although I'm not sure I'd pick exactly what you have there. There's upsides and downside to any system chosen. The other problem not discussed with slowing upward movement is how many seasons does it take a new strong guild (say a splinter due to drama off an existing strong guild) to reach the spot it "belongs". Currently it's 5 seasons to diamond. If it were +100 a round it'd be 9-10 seasons to diamond, depending on if they keep the 50% bonus at 0 LP.

One of the biggest problems is one inno has very little control over (and discussed in this post), the pool of guilds. It may well be impossible to reach something we'd classify as "good matchmaking" for the guilds in existence on a real world, especially smaller worlds. Doesn't mean they can't make improvements but there's a good chance there's no magic bullet for the problem.

 

[drakenridder]

It would, although I'm not sure I'd pick exactly what you have there. There's upsides and downside to any system chosen. The other problem not discussed with slowing upward movement is how many seasons does it take a new strong guild (say a splinter due to drama off an existing strong guild) to reach the spot it "belongs". Currently it's 5 seasons to diamond. If it were +100 a round it'd be 9-10 seasons to diamond, depending on if they keep the 50% bonus at 0 LP.

One of the biggest problems is one inno has very little control over (and discussed in this post), the pool of guilds. It may well be impossible to reach something we'd classify as "good matchmaking" for the guilds in existence on a real world, especially smaller worlds. Doesn't mean they can't make improvements but there's a good chance there's no magic bullet for the problem.

Thanks now I understand your solution better. The values are just a concept, not actual values I'd propose. Whenever a strong guild fractures the freshly set-up guilds are bound to start at 0 and climb the ladder. An X% streak bonus LP up to platina league could help them getting where they belong. For example: 2nd or 3rd #1 in a consecutive round +50% bonus LP, 3rd or 4th consecutive 1st place +75% LP bonus (cap) and maintained until the guild loses their victory streak. This to help them power level to their correct league. It's unlikely any guild can get 3 victories in a row just on luck. As they'll face ever harsher competition. This streak buff could help accelerate such fallen titans climbing up rapidly.

 

[Dursland]

When are those new matchmaking changes coming?

We have been paired against the same championship guild 5 times in a row in US29 and now our guild is just disintegrating.

People are either joining that winning guild or the other guild that hasn't been paired against them 5 times in a row.

Fully expecting to see them a 6th time come Thursday. This is terrible.

 

[angelgail]

our map has only the top 2 guilds playing they keep the rest of us beached ,we may get lucky an get a few hits in before they take the tile

 

[Yekk]

GBG gets hurt by guild size. The strongest guilds become full and trade out lesser players for other guilds strongest. They then become even stronger. Only be addressing this can the inequalities be addressed. A smaller map with guilds being divided up (possibly at random) might work. Inno says they will not invest in developing cross world so that leaves smaller "teams" as the only real solution.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

GBG gets hurt by guild size. The strongest guilds become full and trade out lesser players for other guilds strongest. They then become even stronger. Only be addressing this can the inequalities be addressed. A smaller map with guilds being divided up (possibly at random) might work. Inno says they will not invest in developing cross world so that leaves smaller "teams" as the only real solution.

Examine the members of your guild on US(22). Look for members that are inactive (or nearly so). Among the active players, look for ones that only manage a handful of fights. Now, take a look at the members of the #1 and #2 GBG guilds. Winning GBG seasons and GBG Championships is not just about the number of members. The top guilds set, and enforce, minimum performance standards. They have high expectations and hold their members accountable. Imo, the #1 reason that second tier Diamond guilds lose their strongest players is that these players grew frustrated with the guild's leadership team being unable to motivate (or remove) the stragglers. Eagles don't fly with pigeons.

 

[Yekk]

Examine the members of your guild on US(22). Look for members that are inactive (or nearly so). Among the active players, look for ones that only manage a handful of fights. Now, take a look at the members of the #1 and #2 GBG guilds. Winning GBG seasons and GBG Championships is not just about the number of members. The top guilds set, and enforce, minimum performance standards. They have high expectations and hold their members accountable. Imo, the #1 reason that second tier Diamond guilds lose their strongest players is that these players grew frustrated with the guild's leadership team being unable to motivate (or remove) the stragglers. Eagles don't fly with pigeons.

insult noted... my US 22 guild is a friends and family guild having no real chance of placing first. Unlike your main we do not bot