I would conclude, that this guild is strong, but not strong enough for the diamond league. They won in the platinum league every time, but not in the diamond league.
-
Dear forum reader,
To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can REGISTER HERE!
Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
Feedback Guild Battlegrounds Update 2021
- Thread starter Juber
- Start date
Yekk
Regent
The screens only show the last 4 leagues but I agree they should be in platinum with all the other guilds in their position. How is Inno addressing this problem? Please do not state "we are looking into it"...Makes you look like a politician.
This is the case with many medium (if not the majority) guilds on all worlds on all servers.
And that's the biggest point of frustration Inno doesn't seem to want to hear.
To please 2% of the very strong guilds who were tired of always being confronted with each other, Inno rotted the lives of hundreds of guilds too strong for Platinum and not enough against this 2%.
However, it would be easy to divide the guilds according to real championships:
- by replacing the PL by a number of guilds which go up and down leagues to always keep the same ratio (X in Diamond, 2X in Platinum, 4X in Gold, ...).
- by limiting to 6 guilds per CBG to energize without blocking.
- by capping the cumulative effect of siege camps so that attrition is NEVER zero.
But Inno prefers to add unhelpful things that make the system cumbersome rather than correcting bad estimates.
Owl II
Emperor
It's not really a strong guild. It's an unhappy guild, who does not want to play in a diamond, but it is constantly thrown there (judging by the information in the profile). But it may not be so. First place means nothing in GBG. Why are they showing it to us? What is the target?
jovada
Regent
We already gave a couple of solutions to make it more attractive , or more equal for mostly everyone, like only 1 slot in each province or all hq's starting with 2 open slots.
But i really doubt if something is even took in consideration of our feedback , and besides they have no time yet to do something, they are to busy now with the new future of guildperks, so things like pvp-arena , GbG , useless castle help, useless autoselect for negotiation and heal all button (where they still have to discuss says juber why they don't remove it , read the diamonds spend by mistake where they make profit)
I think they never heard about the expression " less is more" no instead of fixing what is wrong they come with a new future that at first look will be another big flop.
But i really doubt if something is even took in consideration of our feedback , and besides they have no time yet to do something, they are to busy now with the new future of guildperks, so things like pvp-arena , GbG , useless castle help, useless autoselect for negotiation and heal all button (where they still have to discuss says juber why they don't remove it , read the diamonds spend by mistake where they make profit)
I think they never heard about the expression " less is more" no instead of fixing what is wrong they come with a new future that at first look will be another big flop.
It says exactly that though: they win in platinum, but don't win in diamond. They've been in 2 platinum rounds and won them both. They've been in 2 diamond rounds and obviously done poorly enough each time to go back to platinum.
jovada
Regent
Yes and i think it's done in purpose, we do the same when we are diamond 1000 and the big pointfarming guilds are playing the egoïst way. We make sure we loose at least 50 points to have diamond light next time or even go back to platinum to have fun again.
Besides looking to the 1000MMR they should also put guilds with 70+ players together just as in the expedition where there is a balance between guilds.
CrashBoom
Legend
no it is not
place 1 and 2 are most time 100%+
and place 6 and 7 less than 10%
that is how GBG is also balanced
a few great guilds combined with really bad guilds
or have you ever be in championship where the last had more than 100% because there were only the best guilds in it ?
(on live with 20+ worlds to combine the championships. not on beta with too less guilds)
jovada
Regent
@CrashBoom
You are wrong, the balance in expedition is there , but the difference is if some 70+ guilds ends only with 10% is because they are really to lazy because every guild can easyly reach 80% if they are a little bit active, and it is not that another guild keeps you away from fighting.
GbG 2 big guilds take the other guilds away granting them 0 fights as a figure of speach.
You are wrong, the balance in expedition is there , but the difference is if some 70+ guilds ends only with 10% is because they are really to lazy because every guild can easyly reach 80% if they are a little bit active, and it is not that another guild keeps you away from fighting.
GbG 2 big guilds take the other guilds away granting them 0 fights as a figure of speach.
CrashBoom
Legend
where is the balance when all can make 80%
putting strong and weak guilds of the same size into one championship is no balance
the solution to this would be the opposite
never put more than 1 big guild in it
so only if there aren't 2 big guilds in a league that can do that it won't happen
and the 9th get an "easy" league because all are weaker than them
so being 9th would be a reward. buth 8th a punishment
putting strong and weak guilds of the same size into one championship is no balance
and if we would put the "best" 8 teams together then the 8th can compete against the other top 7. but the 9th in the ranking wouldn't be able to ?
the solution to this would be the opposite
never put more than 1 big guild in it
so only if there aren't 2 big guilds in a league that can do that it won't happen
and the 9th get an "easy" league because all are weaker than them
so being 9th would be a reward. buth 8th a punishment
where is the balance when all can make 80%
putting strong and weak guilds of the same size into one championship is no balance
and if we would put the "best" 8 teams together then the 8th can compete against the other top 7. but the 9th in the ranking wouldn't be able to ?
the solution to this would be the opposite
never put more than 1 big guild in it
so only if there aren't 2 big guilds in a league that can do that it won't happen
That's not really a solution - because then the 1 "big" guild gets to play kingmaker and decide who plays and who doesn't.
They should occasionally have to face the other big guilds too.
The biggest aspects of "balance" would be:
1) Slow down movement - so guilds don't shoot from platinum to 1000-diamond. This isn't the #9 guild being put in with the top, this is the #100+ guild being put in with the top.
2) Spread out the top's ratings - there should not be 50+ 1000-diamond guilds when there's maybe 10 guilds that actually can compete on their own merit and not other guilds' generosity. This would require a change of the MMR philosophy from the zero-sum groups that only add/remove points from the system at below 0-rating and over 1000-rating.
That they're strong enough to stay in diamond but not strong enough (or don't care enough) to win it very often.
I could see two scenarios:
1) in 1000-diamond they're strong enough to outperform at least 2 guilds each round. And in sub-1000 diamond they're strong enough to win (some weeks perhaps they took 3rds/4ths and stayed in 1000 diamond, hence only 1 first in a sub-1000 group).
2) they're a perma-1000 guild that usually settles for 2nd or 3rd as part of the pact-that-rules-the-map. One week they got a 1st either because of weak random matchups or because that's just the way it worked out that round as noone cares who takes 1st-4th for the most part.
How much meaning do you really expect to get from these statistics? They paint a slightly clearer picture of a guild's position than just showing what their current rating is. i.e. which guilds stay in diamond and which guilds pop in and out and how frequently.
jovada
Regent
where is the balance when all can make 80%
putting strong and weak guilds of the same size into one championship is no balance
This is a balance , the selection is random over several worlds in expedition and you can compete to be first or you can fight for the rewards but every guild can reachs easyly +80% if they want.
And why not ?? if you are not the strongest +70 members guild and can't keep your 1000MMR you go back to an easier diamond light or even a platinum , that is exactly what all other guilds have to do now , so this is more balance then it is now.
Owl II
Emperor
How much? at least some
This is really important - to somehow reflect the success of guilds in the GBG. But no one cares about the first place in the group. What's the point of show just that? There must be a reason and I want to find outNoname 5.0
Steward
Actually Yekk. You don’t place a college football team in the NFL based on how many wins they have.
The fact that life is unfair doesn’t apply to games ,games are supposed to be competitive. Not the larger team gets to dominate the playing field.
The fact that life is unfair doesn’t apply to games ,games are supposed to be competitive. Not the larger team gets to dominate the playing field.
North American sports leagues are a business that you have to pay some sort of expansion fee to join.
But the concept of promotion/relegation in sport does exist in for instance the british soccer leagues. Where every season a handful of teams get promoted and relegated up/down levels.
So hypothetically under such a system, you just have to get good enough to work your way up the ranks. This is analogous to the "fix" some people want for GBG.
This also exists for world championships for many sports where they only want 10-14 nations at the championship tournament for practical reasons, but don't want to block expansion of the game to other countries. A couple teams get relegated and will have to requalify to attend again by competing against nations that performed well in the "B" tournament.
The difference between this and what we have now is that it's too easy to climb up and the "GBG premier league" (1000-diamond) has an unwieldy 60+ teams of wildly different capabilities. Furthermore losing kicks you down multiple tiers in a sense to a spot where there's no sport in beating down your new "competition". You weren't capable of competing with the top level pros, but now you're facing rec league teams. One would think there should be multiple steps in between that.
Taking an example from one of my very active live worlds, we currently have:
- 64 Diamond guilds, or 12%
- 98 guilds in Platinum, or 18%
- 136 Gold guilds, or 25%
- 146 Silver guilds, or 27%
- 96 Copper guilds, i.e. 18%
for a total of 540 guilds.
The distribution would not be more homogeneous if it were like this:
- 30 Diamond guilds, 5.5%, or 5 leagues of 6 guilds
- 60 guilds in Platinum, 11%, or 10 leagues of 6 guilds
- 120 Gold guilds, 22%, or 20 leagues of 6 guilds
- 240 Silver guilds, 47%, or 40 leagues of 6 guilds
- 90 Copper guilds, 14%, or 15 leagues of 6 guilds
Every 1st ONLY would go up in league while every 5th and 6th would go down league; except in Silver where only the 6th would go down and in Copper where the first 2 would go up.
So we would always keep the same number of guilds within the leagues.
Then the regroupings would be carried out by classification of the preceding GbG:
- the first sets, filled by a few second
- the second sets, filled by a few third
- the third sets, filled by some fourth
- the fourth sets, filled by the new graduates.
With this proposal, there would no longer be a 1 GbG out of 2 "yoyo" effect and classification within a GbG would then have a real impact and no longer any need for PL.
- 64 Diamond guilds, or 12%
- 98 guilds in Platinum, or 18%
- 136 Gold guilds, or 25%
- 146 Silver guilds, or 27%
- 96 Copper guilds, i.e. 18%
for a total of 540 guilds.
The distribution would not be more homogeneous if it were like this:
- 30 Diamond guilds, 5.5%, or 5 leagues of 6 guilds
- 60 guilds in Platinum, 11%, or 10 leagues of 6 guilds
- 120 Gold guilds, 22%, or 20 leagues of 6 guilds
- 240 Silver guilds, 47%, or 40 leagues of 6 guilds
- 90 Copper guilds, 14%, or 15 leagues of 6 guilds
Every 1st ONLY would go up in league while every 5th and 6th would go down league; except in Silver where only the 6th would go down and in Copper where the first 2 would go up.
So we would always keep the same number of guilds within the leagues.
Then the regroupings would be carried out by classification of the preceding GbG:
- the first sets, filled by a few second
- the second sets, filled by a few third
- the third sets, filled by some fourth
- the fourth sets, filled by the new graduates.
With this proposal, there would no longer be a 1 GbG out of 2 "yoyo" effect and classification within a GbG would then have a real impact and no longer any need for PL.
I don't think your system would help much with "yoyo" effect in fact.
Of your 30 diamond guilds 10 are going to be knocked out and 10 more added. those 20 guilds are most likely undergoing a yoyo. And another ~40 are going to be doing yoyo between gold and platinum which may still be significantly extreme differences in play environments.
One of the things LP *does* do well is effectively give us more than 5 classifications (i.e. 1000-diamond, low-diamond, high-platinum, low-platinum, high-gold, mid-gold, low-gold, high-silver, low-silver, copper). If you were going to a strict promote/relegate system we'd probably need more than 5 to replace them. The problem is LP just moves too fast to allow a guild to settle in where they belong. And well that way too many guilds reside at 1000.
Also the top group would probably need to be smaller than you've made it - at 30 with a 10 per week rotation it probably still settles into the meta of 20 "real" diamond guilds, with dozens of guilds trying desperately *not* to win in platinum and get put in with them - so the poor rank 100 guild that just wants to play as best they can still might get stuck in diamond. Maybe at a size of 12 or 18 for the top group there might be enough guilds that *want* to be in there to avoid the artificial effect of people trying *not* to win and avoid extreme mismatches.