Feedback Guild Battlegrounds Update 2021

[Deleted User - 241425]

I’d say there’s two main issues. (1) the ability to steamroll a map (2) power disparity / matchmaking

Both issues feed into each other. Solving one of those two problems won’t necessarily be a complete solution on its own and would still likely need addressing separately, but addressing one issue would likely reduce the effect of the other problem.

I have a bug on the forum, I can only "like" your post once!

 

[Owl II]

I’d say there’s two main issues. (1) the ability to steamroll a map (2) power disparity / matchmaking

Both issues feed into each other. Solving one of those two problems won’t necessarily be a complete solution on its own and would still likely need addressing separately, but addressing one issue would likely reduce the effect of the other problem.

After all, the main problem is the crowded diamond league and the lack of a competitive environment. No patches will help until it decides. Look at the new map: devs said it is conscript to increase rivalry. Oh, yes, theoretically there are more fights. And yes, access to provinces has become easier. Guess how it affected? Yes, that's right. The weak are still sitting in their corners. We will get the same effect if we reduce the amount of slots in the provinces. Strong guilds will always strive to control the map. The weak will always be cornered. You just need to place them on different maps. I really, really like the idea of leaving no more than 1 slot in each province. But it will not solve the main problem.

 

[Emberguard]

You just need to place them on different maps. I really, really like the idea of leaving no more than 1 slot in each province. But it will not solve the main problem.

I agree it’s not a complete solution, it does however address one of the root causes. I’m not expecting it to be the only solution needed, I’m expecting it to help improve the ability for the weakest Guild(s) in a match to defend themselves (even more so if the idea of HQ providing Siege Camp support being implemented alongside reducing building slots outside of HQ)

The more resources and expertise a guild has available the more a guild can exponentially leverage benefits of support structures.

Siege Camps work as a balanced feature in lower leagues because those guilds don’t have the ability to leverage them to the same extent that guilds in higher leagues do. Inno had the right idea with advances needed increasing in higher leagues to account for greater guild ability, where they stopped short was in only applying that logic to a single mechanic. Had they applied it to attrition and/or support buildings or building slots available then it’d be far more effective in preventing steamrolling from sheer resources available.

It reminds me of a different game I played that had the exact same problem on a feature that was effectively GvG/GBG but presented differently. That games issue I would summarise like this:
#1 Guild: Can afford to Attack AND Defend against everyone
#2 Guild: Can afford to Attack AND Defend against #3 and below, can only afford to Attack OR Defend against #1
#3 Guild and Below: Can only afford to Attack OR Defend

Result: #2 Guild steamrolls everyone below them, #1 Guild steamrolls #2 Guild. Why? Because only one Guild is able to simultaneously attack and defend against their toughest opponent

For Inno this translates to the ability to keep going as attrition rises, and by extension the ability to remove attrition increase

 

[Tresco]

Don't see the new GbG as an exciting improvement quite the reverse and the reception of it on the live worlds
has been frosty to say the least but if Inno want to lose customers they're doing great.

 

[Owl II]

I’m expecting it to help improve the ability for the weakest Guild(s) in a match to defend themselves (even more so if the idea of HQ providing Siege Camp support being implemented alongside reducing building slots outside of HQ)

This will kill the basics of competition. That's all we'll get for sure.

 

[Emberguard]

This will kill the basics of competition. That's all we'll get for sure.

So does that mean you've changed your opinion on the idea?

I really, really like the idea of leaving no more than 1 slot in each province.

 

[Owl II]

But if we don't need a competition, but only need to give everyone the opportunity to farm equally, then yes. It would be a good reception
Just. Just.. Aren't you sick of farming? me yes

 

[Owl II]

So does that mean you've changed your opinion on the idea?

No! No. Reducing the amount of slots for all participants is a good idea. Give crutches to some participants on the map and weaken others? I don't like

By and large, this will not have a big impact on the situation as a whole. To win the map, camps alone are not enough. It is necessary to bypass the rival in the battle for the province If you are nerf the SC in any way, the strongest guilds will simply hit less. (And that's great, in my opinion). But they won't stop controlling the map. And they won't stop pinching the weak in the corner. That's what I think about it

 

[Emberguard]

But if we don't need a competition, but only need to give everyone the opportunity to farm equally, then yes. It would be a good reception
Just. Just.. Aren't you sick of farming? me yes

Forming alliances in order to farm is super easy to get rid of.

First time capture rewards (to replace individual battle rewards). Done. No more alliance farming. It'd destroy the game if on a [per province] basis due to the ability for a single guild to steamroll the whole map before anyone else gets a look in, so if first time capture were used it'd have to be either [per player] or [per guild] in order for it to have any chance of working (in a positive manner)


In any case, I'm not suggesting remove competition. GvG has a max cap on defense capability, it's the competition in GvG that gave rise to GBG in the first place. All I'm suggesting for GBG is putting a max cap on support structures so you retain competition instead of having a steamroll situation without expense. The top guilds could still steamroll without any support structures if they really wanted to

When power disparity has too much swing in it then matchmaking becomes meaningless as the #1 has no competition and will guarantee a steamroll. Likewise addressing power disparity without also addressing matchmaking is only going to go so far before you *have* to address the matchmaking side of the equation. Both sides are required to have a complete solution

 

[Owl II]

Forming alliances in order to farm is super easy to get rid of.

First time capture rewards (to replace individual battle rewards). Done. No more alliance farming. It'd destroy the game if on a [per province] basis due to the ability for a single guild to steamroll the whole map before anyone else gets a look in, so if first time capture were used it'd have to be either [per player] or [per guild] in order for it to have any chance of working (in a positive manner)


In any case, I'm not suggesting remove competition. GvG has a max cap on defense capability, it's the competition in GvG that gave rise to GBG in the first place. All I'm suggesting for GBG is putting a max cap on support structures so you retain competition instead of having a steamroll situation without expense. The top guilds could still steamroll without any support structures if they really wanted to

When power disparity has too much swing in it then matchmaking becomes meaningless as the #1 has no competition and will guarantee a steamroll. Likewise addressing power disparity without also addressing matchmaking is only going to go so far before you *have* to address the matchmaking side of the equation. Both sides are required to have a complete solution

We don't have any algorithm for matchmaking right now. Even matchmaking by id was an algorithm. Now - there is no. This is the main problem. You offer to put up with it and look for ways to somehow play it.

 

[Emberguard]

We don't have any algorithm for matchmaking right now. Even matchmaking by id was an algorithm. Now - there is no. This is the main problem. You offer to put up with it and look for ways to somehow play it.

I'm not offering to put up with no matchmaking. Not at all. None of my suggestions are in any way mutually exclusive to addressing matchmaking. My solution can work alongside any matchmaking solution.

Different people have different strengths. If my strengths in the way I approach a issue is more suited to addressing the steamrolling part of the equation, then that's the part of the issue I'm suited to addressing.

Other players are far better suited to addressing the matchmaking part of the problem. I'm leaving that part upto those that know how to approach matchmaking to do so (and they already have brought up solutions to matchmaking earlier in this thread)

------

I wouldn't say there's "no" algorithm: there is one. Sort by LP highest to lowest, if there's greater than 8 Guilds with a duplicate score then randomise between the duplicate score guilds. It's a lousy algorithm because it doesn't address the issues, it definitely needs improving, but it is still a algorithm

 

[Owl II]

First time capture rewards (to replace individual battle rewards). Done. No more alliance farming. It'd destroy the game if on a [per province] basis due to the ability for a single guild to steamroll the whole map before anyone else gets a look in, so if first time capture were used it'd have to be either [per player] or [per guild] in order for it to have any chance of working (in a positive manner)

Rewards for the first capture? Yes, it would destroy alliances. But it would also away sense of the game for weak guilds
But again I like the way you think

 

[jovada]

You have to agree that the HQ should be available for capture If you want to have a SC in the HQ. Otherwise, it is not a balance, but just a lobby of the weakest who cannot move from the HQ. It would be much more correct and honest to create conditions the weak would like and could strengthen to compete with the strongest. And if not, they would have been in the lower leagues. Otherwise, what's the point? Drool and farm FP?

That should be really stupid and shooting in your own feet as a point and fp farmer, yeah take their hq and remove them from the map and after one day you are finished playing if you are the only topguild on the map.
If you are two topguilds on the map , you may be sure that their first goal is to remove the 4 or 6 other guilds from the map so they can start point and fp farming as they please.

The only thing you would achieve with this is to chase more players away, maybe the developers should create a map not for guilds but for individual players so they can play all day long and farm.

 

[Owl II]

That should be really stupid and shooting in your own feet as a point and fp farmer, yeah take their hq and remove them from the map and after one day you are finished playing if you are the only topguild on the map.
If you are two topguilds on the map , you may be sure that their first goal is to remove the 4 or 6 other guilds from the map so they can start point and fp farming as they please.

You are mistaken if you think that I'd give my eye teeth to drive them away. They don't bother me. On the contrary, they are hindered by strong guilds.

maybe the developers should create a map not for guilds but for individual players so they can play all day long and farm.

Someone suggested this idea when the development of the PVP arena came to a standstill. It is a pity that it was not considered

 

[Owl II]

I wouldn't say there's "no" algorithm: there is one. Sort by LP highest to lowest, if there's greater than 8 Guilds with a duplicate score then randomise between the duplicate score guilds. It's a lousy algorithm because it doesn't address the issues, it definitely needs improving, but it is still a algorithm

This is an excellent algorithm in general. The problem is all the active guilds are here: " if there's greater than 8 Guilds with a duplicate score then randomise between the duplicate score guilds"

 

[xivarmy]

This will kill the basics of competition. That's all we'll get for sure.

Catch-up advantage is actually key to the basics of competition in many games. One competitor running away with a game is not very interesting - so you artificially create competition. i.e. in a racing game, the car that's trailing gets to go a little faster. Heck, even in FoE, GvG addressed this quite well with costs being lower when you have little.

Now it is a matter of taste as to whether you like games that encourage that artificial competition or not - racing games that have it also have modes with it off that are often favored among serious players. But when you're sitting around with people with widely varying skills, it should be with catch up advantage on. The better players will still win more often than not - but the weaker ones don't feel hopeless. GBG-1000 as it stands is closer to that bunch of people sitting around with widely varying skills. It would be a better game giving the rear of the group some small advantages to get into the fray more frequently.

You'd prefer to get those filthy casuals out of your 1000-group. And that would be another solution - but I'm not convinced there's enough "serious" guilds to create healthy matchmaking at the top unless they solve the ability to make it cross-world (stated at GBG's reveal of being something the dev team wanted to do, but couldn't overcome technical issues). Which is perhaps part of why they're not fixing the rankings.

It would not destroy GBG competition to give guilds a leg up to get out of their HQ - it would encourage it. Not to the degree that that guild that was sitting in HQ is now challenging for #1 - but they'd at least be doing a little more than spectating. And that would give a little more satisfaction to the guilds at the top as they have live prey to play with (think cat with a bird ).

 

[Owl II]

Catch-up advantage is actually key to the basics of competition in many games. One competitor running away with a game is not very interesting - so you artificially create competition. i.e. in a racing game, the car that's trailing gets to go a little faster. Heck, even in FoE, GvG addressed this quite well with costs being lower when you have little.

Now it is a matter of taste as to whether you like games that encourage that artificial competition or not - racing games that have it also have modes with it off that are often favored among serious players. But when you're sitting around with people with widely varying skills, it should be with catch up advantage on. The better players will still win more often than not - but the weaker ones don't feel hopeless. GBG-1000 as it stands is closer to that bunch of people sitting around with widely varying skills. It would be a better game giving the rear of the group some small advantages to get into the fray more frequently.

You're a smart guy. Why are you forcing me to write for 100 time what has already been written 99? OK, let's try again. Maybe an advantage for the weak makes sense in a racing simulator. But I would compare our situation more with... a boxing match. And you insist that fighters of different weight categories can be in the same ring. You just need to give the lighter one an extra mouth guard

You'd prefer to get those filthy casuals out of your 1000-group. And that would be another solution - but I'm not convinced there's enough "serious" guilds to create healthy matchmaking at the top unless they solve the ability to make it cross-world (stated at GBG's reveal of being something the dev team wanted to do, but couldn't overcome technical issues). Which is perhaps part of why they're not fixing the rankings.

None of us, the participants in this discussion, sees the situation as a whole. Not me, not you, no one else. And those who see, do not enter into discussions. I am based only on my own experience. There are about 10 roughly equal top guilds in our world. This is enough to compete or farm with each other. Leave the small guilds in their sandbox, and not beat them over and over again, with or without a mouth guard. Because with a mouth guard they will still be beaten

 

[jovada]

There are about 10 roughly equal top guilds in our world. This is enough to compete or farm with each other. Leave the small guilds in their sandbox, and not beat them over and over again, with or without a mouth guard. Because with a mouth guard they will still be beaten

And that is exactly what is killing this game, the 5% egoistic players that only care about farming points and fp, they don't care about balans, we are the players with alca over level 100 and our city is only filled with %attack giving buildings.
How many topguilds with over 70+ players where there are only 20 maybe 25 fighters (and among those maybe 5 big pointfarmers who play all day long) and the rest is there to provide goods for the treasury, Those players don't care about the guild they only care for themselves and if there are not enough goods in the treasury they quit guild and look elswhere.
New players they come try to play , see that they are going nowhere because the gap with the farmers only becomes bigger and bigger and quit the game.
Maybe FoE can create a new world every 6 months so everybody starts from zero again but that is also a dream cause after 2 days the new world is falsen by crossdeals haha.

And just to know you can't buy any bread or meat with the fp you farmed

I really think that only 1 slot in each sector and 2 in HQ could be a big benefit for gameplay in GbG, and i also think that at least 70% of the players feel the same way, only those 5% pointfarming players will be against i think.

And if innogames hesitate because they think they will loose diamond purchase for camps i am not against that they ask 100 diamonds for instant building instead of 50, those players who want to conquer quickly the entire map can also pay for it then.

 

[xivarmy]

You're a smart guy. Why are you forcing me to write for 100 time what has already been written 99? OK, let's try again. Maybe an advantage for the weak makes sense in a racing simulator. But I would compare our situation more with... a boxing match. And you insist that fighters of different weight categories can be in the same ring. You just need to give the lighter one an extra mouth guard

Except we already are in the same ring - and there seems no prospect to get out of it. So perhaps we restrict the heavyweight to body shots

As for why we're going at this the 100th time, you argue very forcefully - it encourages people who disagree with what you write to rebut so as not to leave the impression your perspective is the only one

None of us, the participants in this discussion, sees the situation as a whole. Not me, not you, no one else. And those who see, do not enter into discussions. I am based only on my own experience. There are about 10 roughly equal top guilds in our world. This is enough to compete or farm with each other. Leave the small guilds in their sandbox, and not beat them over and over again, with or without a mouth guard. Because with a mouth guard they will still be beaten

While there's probably 10 guilds I could identify on most of my worlds that are indeed a class above your ordinary 1000-guild, within those 10 there's probably 2 or 3 guilds that can make the rest of that 10 look like they don't belong - and occasionally they *do* do that because by randomness it's a round of heavy hitters. And without much variation - some of those "rest of the best" would start trying to make their way out to the smaller guilds sandbox instead - and some of the smaller guilds would have to take their place. It is a fundamental issue that near the top of guild rankings, there's a wide gap in strength even within say the top 5.

And since someone has to be in the group with those top couple/few, it's important that it feel "worth it" to be the fodder. Which is where an advantage in HQ and whittling away some of the advantage of holding everything might be needed even if the rankings are fixed up a bit. It needs to be better to be the bottom dweller in diamond so that guilds are less prone to try and avoid it.

If the rankings near the top could be thinned as well, that would also be a good idea (say to the point where there's 10-20 guilds in that "1000 club") - but that alone is not going to be enough to avoid the artificial issues caused by guilds trying to find a better experience.

 

[Owl II]

Except we already are in the same ring - and there seems no prospect to get out of it. So perhaps we restrict the heavyweight to body shots

It's disgusting. But that you (and everyone else) are ready to agree with this is the worst thing.

And since someone has to be in the group with those top couple/few, it's important that it feel "worth it" to be the fodder. Which is where an advantage in HQ and whittling away some of the advantage of holding everything might be needed even if the rankings are fixed up a bit. It needs to be better to be the bottom dweller in diamond so that guilds are less prone to try and avoid it.

We had seasons when 4 or 5 top guilds gathered in one group. A powerful guild of 70 people of an era no lower than the Future was "fodder". Have you ever played in such seasons? Obviously not. If you were playing, you would understand that it's not the SC that are needed there. They need additional fighters to break out of the HQ. Because a sector is taken in seconds. The SC in the HQ would help weak guilds beyond 1000 or in the lower leagues. Yes, it will work where the sector takes half a day. But they are in their sandbox. They have everything in ok without it there.

If the rankings near the top could be thinned as well, that would also be a good idea (say to the point where there's 10-20 guilds in that "1000 club") - but that alone is not going to be enough to avoid the artificial issues caused by guilds trying to find a better experience.

Well, we have already convinced that the developers see this game differently than us. What this new map is worth. Let's see what they surprise us with next year. But I have no hope that any of us will be happy about it.