lord2403
Merchant
Aaaa, I see. In this time it will be Elephant, next battleground - SoH. It's correct?
-
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
Aaaa, I see. In this time it will be Elephant, next battleground - SoH. It's correct?
Emm55
Merchant
@ Deadpool: Surely by now Inno knows that we are unhappy about the LP ranking system. Maybe they thought this upgrade would renew our interest (and diamond spending). But I agree with you, Deadpool. It is time to fix the ranking system.
GBG was such a big package to introduce to the game. I'm sure that Inno has been learning along with us just how far we can take it. We players are wicked smart!!!
So far Inno has not told us why they are not addressing the ranking system problem. That forces me to guess. Maybe they don't want to experiment on the entire beta server initially? I propose that Inno ask for maybe 100 beta guilds to volunteer as beta* testers. They would test ranking systems for Inno. And, I'm positive, show Inno that player participation/ diamond spending will increase once we find a good ranking system.
Does anyone else have a Constructive idea as to how we could help Inno address the ranking system problem? I understan that they are not making it easy when they don't tell us WHY they aren't addressing it yet. I am just anxious to get it fixed!
Emm55
Merchant
Exactly : )
Emm55
Merchant
Aesthetics: I love the new view of the map w the names and the building spaces! I think it would be okay to combine the two views though. That way we see the names, the building spaces, and the flag info on one map. Also, for old eyes, can you increase the font of the names and the building spaces?
: )
: )
Retired Guy
Marquis
Is there some way to zoom in\out on the browser map?
crabbyoldman
Squire
Inno has still failed to address the unequal match-ups between large and small guilds. They have only made it worse. My first map I am faced with both provinces in front of my home with no building sites, so right off the bat we are building attrition. This is no problem for large guilds, but it is for smaller ones.
crabbyoldman
Squire
The match ups are the greatest problem, and the one problem they failed to address. Once again we are ignored.
blueskydwg
Steward
LOL - you must be talking about your main city because I doubt your Beta site can do that.
Well we'll start with the obvious solution to the ranking system problem, and then we'll look at why they might not want to:
Problem: the problem with the current system is that it attempts to equally distribute guilds amongst the entire range. So the Top ~10% (actually more like 14% because of boundary conditions) winds up in diamond - with a big ol' cluster at 1000 (~8% of all active guilds - there's that boundary condition). The problem is that the guilds at the top end need to be differentiated in matchmaking because the fall-off in parity is *so fast* near the top. There's maybe 4 or so "real" top guilds, and maybe 20 or so guilds that can actually do something without cooperation from their opponents when faced with those top guilds. And yet we have 60+ "top" guilds tied at 1000 LP each season.
Solution: Rating decay + Slowing down movement. Basically what you need is the higher a guild is ranked, the harder it is to keep going up. This will create sparser groupings in the upper brackets and more room for guilds to fight for their position without being pushed into the punishment bracket. One way to accomplish this is to add a decay in addition to the normal rating adjustment. It wouldn't take much of a decay to adjust the distribution. With 5% decay you would in steady-state have ~20 times less 1000-guilds and about 10 times less diamond guilds. So that might already be a touch too much.
What would rating decay look like? Let's take a look at a 8 team group where everyone's rated 850:
| Initial Rating | New Rating (Current) | New Rating (With 5% Decay) |
1st | 850 | 1000 | 983 |
2nd | 850 | 975 | 933 |
3rd | 850 | 925 | 883 |
4th | 850 | 875 | 833 |
5th | 850 | 825 | 783 |
6th | 850 | 775 | 733 |
7th | 850 | 725 | 683 |
8th | 850 | 675 | 633 |
4th actually goes down a little. And none of them hit 1000. 8th actually gets kicked right out of platinum. This also means that a 1st after an 8th does not send you right back to the same spot you were at. A nice correcting influence so that you don't feel you have to *try to lose* the round after you get stuffed.
So now why would this solution potentially cause problems that they wouldn't want to just go do it:
1) People *are* going to drop leagues. Some people are going to be pissed about this as it's not a good feeling. There would be pushback on this unless somehow they managed to disguise that end result (i.e. by say "adding" extra leagues at the top and tuning the decay around the weakest diamond guilds staying steady where they're at while the strongest guilds rise)
2) The addition of decay puts more strain on the influx of points from copper guilds that can't drop below 0 (the other boundary condition) since you're taking more points out of the system. It's hard to model for those guilds at the bottom and how many of them are actually going to do something and carry some points up to be shared by other leagues. So a very conservative decay (maybe 2%?) would probably be needed to make sure the whole thing doesn't collapse and create a void between the top 3-4 guilds and everyone else (sparse good, empty not as that means unused rating space). Since decay would need to be conservative, some of the desirable effects of decay could be replaced with slower movement in general (i.e. maybe 1st/8th are +/-105 instead (+/-15 per team you beat/lose to)
3) The top group would become very static. There would be far fewer guilds bouncing in and out of it. Top guilds may get bored or exhausted depending on their relationship with the other top guilds.
TLDR: The problem with changing the ranking system is someone's not going to be happy with the changes. So the cowardly route of not changing anything is what they're opting for.
Last edited:
I sincerely think the LP tables were perfect for setting up GbG.
Since the Gold and Silver leagues are underexploited and generate frustrations among the average guilds which find themselves little by little shipped in 1.000 Diamonds, to undergo 2 weeks without real competition.
While the current system allows very large guilds to binge without getting bored by meeting the same opponents but at the expense of the pleasure of simply playing for a large majority of guilds.
So if the happiness of 5% is essential to 60% of the frustrated (35% being those who attach no importance to GbG) Inno does very well to keep the current system.
However, by dint of disgusting the majority of players grouped in average guilds, this will generate a bigger concern about the future of the game.
And I say this without any jealousy towards the big guilds.
Since the Gold and Silver leagues are underexploited and generate frustrations among the average guilds which find themselves little by little shipped in 1.000 Diamonds, to undergo 2 weeks without real competition.
While the current system allows very large guilds to binge without getting bored by meeting the same opponents but at the expense of the pleasure of simply playing for a large majority of guilds.
So if the happiness of 5% is essential to 60% of the frustrated (35% being those who attach no importance to GbG) Inno does very well to keep the current system.
However, by dint of disgusting the majority of players grouped in average guilds, this will generate a bigger concern about the future of the game.
And I say this without any jealousy towards the big guilds.
jovada
Regent
Really nothing changed regards gameplay, maps are still dominated by 1 or 2 guilds taking even sector in front of your hq because they are to dumb to realise they shoot in their own feet that way.
On live servers if it is 1 guild that takes everything i punish them by taking no more sectors , i set surrounding sectors 155/160 and never take them , when i am ready to move on i take 1 sector and attack surrounding again , and so on, the egoist guild can only do 1 sector a day if i allow it hahahaha.
If you end 3th or 4th with 1 sector or with 10 sectors that changes nothing for the guildrewards so easy to do.
you'll be surprised how quick you receive mail begging you to please take sector and promise you to leave a sector they never attack so you can always do your fights hahaha. If they are not begging, they will insult you but you may be sure they suffer cause instead 500 battles a day they can do only 10 or 20 if they are not selfish and leave nothing for their own guildmates whahahaha.
Attachments
Yekk
Regent
hold control down and use the mouse wheel works for me.
Yekk
Regent
One change that absolutely needs to happen is there needs to be at least one 3 tile in front of each guild home base that has at least a slot. Forcing a guild to have to fight 320 full attrition fights (2 tiles in diamond) to move to the middle is shameful... just wrongminded... again what were you thinking??
This one I did not know about and was not informed about, it was as surprising for me, as it was for you. ^^You're dissembleThe rewards have changed. Not a word about this in the announcement
This is part of the feedback I forwarded to our developers
Emm55
Merchant
thank you. You're hired!
Retired Guy
Marquis
THANKS !
Owl II
Emperor
Oh... Miscommunication? I feel for you. This also happened to the last CM. Obviously, the problem is not CM. I don't want to be sarcastic. I just want to saythe change in rewards is the most significant part of all the changes. I would say the only significant one. And the developers didn't mention it
davvcik0.01
Farmer
I think, it would be wise to consider reduction of GbG biuldings stats for the new map
in map we have 1st (central sector), 2nd and even 3rd ring are all fighteable with 4+ scs (as there are always 6 attached sectors) = 19 free attrition sectors
I am not complaining about chances to have free fights, but it seems that due to hexagon grid of the map there is basicly no scenario where this won't happen
I am personally playing very activly GbG sine November 2019 and the map that were always most competetive were those with lower sc numbers, where the players always were forced to burn at least some attrition during the day-run
I am affraid that if the map and with hexagon grid would have still scs that reduce 24% of attr, than it paradoxicaly would be even more favourable for bigger guilds than the old map ... as those big guilds always tend to be the fastest but those also often skip attrition heavier sectors, that could give lower guilds some room for fighting
in map we have 1st (central sector), 2nd and even 3rd ring are all fighteable with 4+ scs (as there are always 6 attached sectors) = 19 free attrition sectors
I am not complaining about chances to have free fights, but it seems that due to hexagon grid of the map there is basicly no scenario where this won't happen
I am personally playing very activly GbG sine November 2019 and the map that were always most competetive were those with lower sc numbers, where the players always were forced to burn at least some attrition during the day-run
I am affraid that if the map and with hexagon grid would have still scs that reduce 24% of attr, than it paradoxicaly would be even more favourable for bigger guilds than the old map ... as those big guilds always tend to be the fastest but those also often skip attrition heavier sectors, that could give lower guilds some room for fighting