Feedback Guild Battlegrounds Update 2021

[Kronan]

I got a question recently from someone wanting to understand GBG better. It’s worth providing a detailed answer, but explained.

Here’s the question: In GbG, how do Siege Camps (SC’s) work? For example, how many SCs would it take to fight for a sector totally attrition free (ie don’t incur any attrition penalty).

Here’s the answer: In the current GbG design, INNO built the SCs to work in an ADDITIVE probability stacking model. So to answer the question, here’s how to figure it:

1 Siege Camp gives a 24% chance for a zero attrition increase on that battle
2 Siege Camps give a 48% chance for a zero attrition increase on that battle
3 Siege Camps give a 72% chance for a zero attrition increase on that battle
4 Siege Camps give a 96% chance for a zero attrition increase on that battle
5 or more Siege Camps give 100% chance for zero attrition increase on that battle. In other words, NO ATTRITION accumulates.

With a carefully planned and then mapped journey, a guild with enough people power, goods and other financial resources (diamonds), could take over the a lot of the map very very quickly, and with next to no attrition.


Us math geeks have privately discussed a theoretical method to slow this type of rapid attack on the entire map. It makes a tiny change. It would change this FROM Additive probability stacking to a MULTIPLICATIVE probability stacking model.

In this Multiplicative model, a guild cannot get to ZERO attrition no matter how many SCs they built, so would eventually get stopped by the pain of the game.

The multiplicative stacking model’s equation looks like this (vs straight adding of the probability):

1- ((1- First SC %) x (1- 2nd SC %) x (1 - 3rd SC %) x (1 - X SC %))

so if you had 4 SC to support your fight, here’s a comparison of the probability models:

Additive: 24% + 24% + 24% + 24% = 96%
Multiplicative: 1 - (1 - .24)⁴ = 66.6%

As you can see, this very small change will make a big difference in fighting “attrition free”. Right now, enjoy the additive probabilities

 

[1BFA]

@Juber Has the Attack Penalty changed on the new map, multiple folks across guilds are reporting on US servers that they are getting more damage than usual. Generally I'd dismiss these claims, however since folks from multiple guilds are reporting, checking here.

Has anyone else heard such reports.

 

[DEADP00L]

I can confirm that on my live worlds I lost an average of 30 attrition, yet with compositions that seem to me much more affordable.
On one of my worlds, where I am in the FUTURE, I easily reached 110 attrition with 1201/685 in attack while being blocked only by 8 glider tanks. However, without modifying my attack, I painfully reach 75 attrition and yet there is no longer a composition of 8 glider tanks.

A change has indeed taken place and it is not on Attack% linked to attrition, it seems unchanged.

 

[xivarmy]

@Juber Has the Attack Penalty changed on the new map, multiple folks across guilds are reporting on US servers that they are getting more damage than usual. Generally I'd dismiss these claims, however since folks from multiple guilds are reporting, checking here.

Has anyone else heard such reports.

The armies are different. In some cases this might lead to more damage. Though at least one of the armies is more exploitable than any on the old map (6 artillery = flyer paradise).

 

[1BFA]

The armies are different. In some cases this might lead to more damage. Though at least one of the armies is more exploitable than any on the old map (6 artillery = flyer paradise).

Thanks.. @Juber Anything official about this? It would be nice to see at least a vague statement in release notes viz "We have balanced the armies that you face". Also does this apply to old map?

 

[Juber]

Thanks.. @Juber Anything official about this? It would be nice to see at least a vague statement in release notes viz "We have balanced the armies that you face". Also does this apply to old map?

I have not received any information on this, neither have I found anything in the documentation available to me. I have asked the developers now.

Also, I have removed the off topic conversation. Please stay on topic and don't discuss the feedback handling here. Thanks.

 

[podkap1970]

Keen Eye is the plague himself
one of the worst units stat

its one of the reason why in higher eras you lose so many units

 

[drakenridder]

I got a question recently from someone wanting to understand GBG better. It’s worth providing a detailed answer, but explained.

Here’s the question: In GbG, how do Siege Camps (SC’s) work? For example, how many SCs would it take to fight for a sector totally attrition free (ie don’t incur any attrition penalty).

Here’s the answer: In the current GbG design, INNO built the SCs to work in an ADDITIVE probability stacking model. So to answer the question, here’s how to figure it:

1 Siege Camp gives a 24% chance for a zero attrition increase on that battle
2 Siege Camps give a 48% chance for a zero attrition increase on that battle
3 Siege Camps give a 72% chance for a zero attrition increase on that battle
4 Siege Camps give a 96% chance for a zero attrition increase on that battle
5 or more Siege Camps give 100% chance for zero attrition increase on that battle. In other words, NO ATTRITION accumulates.

With a carefully planned and then mapped journey, a guild with enough people power, goods and other financial resources (diamonds), could take over the a lot of the map very very quickly, and with next to no attrition.


Us math geeks have privately discussed a theoretical method to slow this type of rapid attack on the entire map. It makes a tiny change. It would change this FROM Additive probability stacking to a MULTIPLICATIVE probability stacking model.

In this Multiplicative model, a guild cannot get to ZERO attrition no matter how many SCs they built, so would eventually get stopped by the pain of the game.

The multiplicative stacking model’s equation looks like this (vs straight adding of the probability):

1- ((1- First SC %) x (1- 2nd SC %) x (1 - 3rd SC %) x (1 - X SC %))

so if you had 4 SC to support your fight, here’s a comparison of the probability models:

Additive: 24% + 24% + 24% + 24% = 96%
Multiplicative: 1 - (1 - .24)⁴ = 66.6%

As you can see, this very small change will make a big difference in fighting “attrition free”. Right now, enjoy the additive probabilities

How would you change the description of SC's buffs in a way that everyone understands that a multiplicative system is laying behind? Everyone can understand additive but the former...

 

[DEADP00L]

Even on this point Inno was not honest :

 

[xivarmy]

How would you change the description of SC's buffs in a way that everyone understands that a multiplicative system is laying behind? Everyone can understand additive but the former...

Just that they're independent chances.

Each siege camp is a dice roll, if one of them succeeds, no attrition. If none of them succeed, attrition. More siege camps = more dice, but you can still fail them all. The change would be disrupting to some - but it's not a foreign concept for people.

Edit: This is how some people insisted they did work at the start because it's what made sense to them reading the description. There'd be a transition period if it changed.

 

[xivarmy]

Even on this point Inno was not honest :
View attachment 7637

Hey I was just about to post the list for the second one lol I didn't bother collecting a list for the first one though, so good you have a comparison. Also I counted to 20 after checking hundreds of sectors, so now I have to figure out which one I never saw

I don't know that you can call it dishonest that they didn't mention the army changes - that was never pledged to be a static feature, even if it turned out to be one.

Edit: I see the two I'm missing - they're two-wave armies that had different 2nd waves. Which I may not have been totally diligent in checking that second wave beyond "oh there's a second wave, and the first wave is the same"

 

[DEADP00L]

lying by omission is a form of dishonesty !

 

[Juber]

lying by omission is a form of dishonesty !

Could you please elaborate, where we lied?
For example: If I don't tell you, that I am male, did I also lie to you in any form?

 

[xivarmy]

On the topic of discussing the army changes, some broad observations:

Artillery are less present overall in first waves of the new map going from 1.72 per fight to 1.32 per fight (somewhat shifted to more in 2nd wave) - so overall less focus on flyer cheese - but it does have the *best* flyer cheese encounter by contrast (there was never more than 4 artillery in a wave in the first one). There's also only 18% of arrangements with 3+ artillery in the first wave vs 44% of arrangements on the first map.

Fast units are more represented in first waves of the new map going from 1.44 per fight to 1.77 per fight; and heavy units in first waves are down from 1.61 per fight to 1.46 per fight - so also trying to place more pressure on long-range cheese I'd guess.

Light and Ranged units are up slightly.

 

[DEADP00L]

Could you please elaborate, where we lied?

Affirming :

With this update, it will include a completely new map, new reward buildings, and a new display of Guild Battlegrounds Leagues within the Guild Overview! In addition, we have also included some quality of life improvements, which were implemented based on collected suggestions from our communities. We cannot wait for you to jump in and play!

So the decrease in the% of winnings and the change in line-ups are part of the improvements for the quality of play?
Definitely, I really have trouble with Shakespeare's language.

But if you take all the comments that we send to Innogames for you, a simple messenger who translates what we give you, it is certain that it is no longer useful to underline your work and to show that Innogames prefers not not play on transparency with its customers who take time to raise the slightest concern.

 

[Juber]

decrease in the% of winnings

This is definitely not true. The chance the receive a reward stayed the same.

change in line-ups

This one I am currently investigating, if this is even intended. It could be, that it happened on accident.

But if you take all the comments that we send to Innogames for you, a simple messenger who translates what we give you, it is certain that it is no longer useful to underline your work and to show that Innogames prefers not not play on transparency with its customers who take time to raise the slightest concern.

You are right, that I post the announcement I am given, but I also give feedback to the writers. This is why there are some additions in the live announcements compared to the initial beta announcement.
Also, I am currently writing the Changelogs and try to implement every feedback I get on the announcement.

But this is getting off topic again. So please stay on topic (the update) and don't discuss the communication again. Thank you!

 

[DEADP00L]

This is definitely not true. The chance the receive a reward stayed the same.

that is playing on words!

On the old map we had different % with different rewards.
Before with 1,000 fights, I gained on average 240 shards + 1,200 goods + 1,680 FP + 240 diamonds.
Adding thugs, gold, and commodities automatically lowered the Most Wanted % Earnings.

 

[xivarmy]

that is playing on words!

On the old map we had different % with different rewards.
Before with 1,000 fights, I gained on average 240 shards + 1,200 goods + 1,680 FP + 240 diamonds.
Adding thugs, gold, and commodities automatically lowered the Most Wanted % Earnings.

Taking the sunny side of that - perhaps with the most wanted earnings cut, less people will be motivated to grind BGs and shift the balance a little more back towards other sources of income I think FP might be about the same though - so no dice on that. I mostly notice less fragments - so i think the new rewards came out of the fragment chance.

 

[Juber]

that is playing on words!

On the old map we had different % with different rewards.
Before with 1,000 fights, I gained on average 240 shards + 1,200 goods + 1,680 FP + 240 diamonds.
Adding thugs, gold, and commodities automatically lowered the Most Wanted % Earnings.

And we announced on the live world, that the rewards are different. It differs from player to player what they want. Some prefer the fragments, some the goods, some the units and some the coins and supplies. I for example like getting coins and supplies on my new world. They are a good boost.
As for the change of the chance for the fragments, I am also currently investigating, if it is intended, that it is lower compared to the old map.

On a personal side note:
In the past, there were many complaints, that new additions feel like a copy past (especially the last ages). Would you prefer, if the new map was just a copy past of the old one? I guess not. I like, that the map has different rewards, a different layout and different unit constellations. Especially because of these things, it does not feel like a copy paste. Also, the developers could also include many more changes for future maps/additions: bigger maps, more/less guilds in one battleground, special buildings for certain maps, different building costs, different attrition values, ...
Would you also dislike it, if anything of these things would be done?

 

[DEADP00L]

Would you prefer, if the new map was just a copy past of the old one?

WARNING: don't take it for yourself, you were a player like us on the DE server.

But I would have preferred that our feedback was heard.
Not a redesign of the map, not a redesign of earnings, but as the majority of players claim on almost all forums, a reshuffle of the siege camps (to avoid this abuse of attrition which is no longer rising), a reshuffle of the regrouping of guilds (to avoid that 5 to 6 guilds are spectators 1 GbG out of 2) and a revaluation of the gains of guilds to the detriment of personal gains.

We want to play, not just watch others.
We don't all want to merge to be in impersonal 80-member guilds. The most convivial guilds are always composed of 30 to 50 members.

We wanted a blockage on sectors, not a spy to say who did not respect.

We wanted Inno to understand that the multiplication of clicks (if only to change the troops) was killing our pleasure in playing.

In short, I'm not going to repeat the hundreds of comments here or on the DE forum or on the FR forum, we just want straight answers, and not silences like the "cure everything" button.