Discussion Should GBG to be rebalanced?

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

The great "experiment" ended ingloriously and with a resounding failure.
Not that it was unexpected. This was immediately apparent after the change of the GBG, and the pretext that the desire was to balance the GBG convinced no one.
It just wasn't clear to me why, after it was acknowledged that it wasn't a good idea and the "innovation" wasn't rolled out to the live servers, 11 months had to pass during which most of us had decidedly uncomfortable feelings? A bit of revenge or a show of some strength? Or both? Whatever it is, it's neither fair nor honest.

But one basic question remains - IS IT REALLY NECESSARY FOR THE GBG TO BALANCE?
I can state with absolute certainty that it is necessary, but it should not be done with general and mindless restrictions that take away from the enjoyment of the game, but with specific intelligent solutions and with categorization of the guilds participating in the GBG.

But first let's see what the main conflict situations are in GBG.
In my opinion, they are two - the number of guilds participating and the Treasury.

The GBG is inherently ill-conceived.
What I mean. On the one hand, unequal guilds are allowed to participate on the same map - a guild of five members competes with a guild of 70 members, and in the Diamond League.
The other big problem that no one addressed when the GBG was created is the Guild Treasury.
To give a very simple example, a guild with one member has to pay for SC huge amounts of goods, which effectively dooms it to not being able to play freely like members of a large guild and this effectively discriminates against the small guild. A single player in a single member guild or players in a guild with two or three members can't deal with this problem. Simply when you're alone or there are two or three or even five of you, there's no way you can collect and maintain the amount of goods in the Treasury needed to build the SCs you need. not to mention that the GBG should be accessible to new guilds so they can play peacefully. Just n that respect things are not figured out as they should be and that is a big part of the slop, not the fact that you can do a lot of fighting. It's a game and people come in to get away from the daily grind and have some fun. The restrictions don't work in favor of that.

So what could be the changes that would actually balance out GBG and get more players actively participating:

1. Participation of guilds of equal size by category
- guilds with 1 member vs. guilds with 1 member
- guilds with 2-5 members vs. guilds with 2-5 members
- guilds with 6-12 members against guilds with 6-12 members
- guilds with 13-25 members against guilds with 13-25 members
- guilds with 26-45 members against guilds with 26-45 members
- guilds with 46-70 members against guilds with 46-70 members
this is just an example and the ratios may change

2. Goods to build the buildings in the GBGs
This is where things really need to change and the real possibility of the smallest and smaller guilds being able to afford to participate should be taken into account.
Ergo, there is no way that the goods required by a large guild can be paid for by a guild with one member! The ratios should be proportional.

If that were done, the GBG would become the most balanced part of the FOE. It will be fair and honest and everyone will be happy, and when you are competing against guilds with the same number of players, it's all up to your desire to progress now.

I hope this reaches developers and those involved in the game management process and they give it some thought.

Thanks for the consideration.

 

[planetofthehumans2]

There was rumor that there will be an additional leauge, hopefully the top 3 guilds from diamond leauge and only two can remain for the next week. That would give honest competitiveness. Maybe there should only be two diamond grounds open (top 12 guilds), the bottom two get recycled down to plat (next 24 guilds), then whatever comes below that. That excludes people just coming up because they did a few fights at lower levels.

3 guilds, 1 leauge/match: diamond+
2 guilds goes up (top one from each leauge), 2 guilds goes down
12 guilds, 2 leagues: diamond
4 guilds go up (top one from each leauge), 4 guilds go down
24 guilds, 4 leauges: plat
8 guilds go up, 8 guilds go down
48 guilds, 8 leauges: gold
16 guilds go up, 16 guilds go down

So you get a constant flow of guilds at the top of the racket because only one can stay at the very top week to week. Whose going to want to miss out on the top price?

And if you get 0 points at the end of the match, you get bumped down no matter what your LP is. Ain't no reason to be there if you're not gonna fight!

The # of people is kind of irrelevant. Yes if you're just one person, it is extraordinarily difficult to be in diamond leauge with those camp costs, but here's the thing - there are many single people out there getting 8k+ fights per week from gbg and a lot of people not touching it at all even in the same guild. So no matter what the # of guild people is, there are still going to be guilds who run over the rest by sheer determination and not having to work a full time job and sleep.

 

[Hiep Lin]

What kills GB is to fight without attrition.
The pleasure of personal gain comes before the interests of war, it is a disaster.
Whatever the final decision, attrition must no longer be blocked at 0.
The number of members in the guilds does not balance anything, in GE guilds at 133% (125 now) meet guilds at 10% it is not a balance.

 

[Goldra]

This have to change, but in another way:
- No more points for battles.
- A feature that you have to control 24h during 10 days if you want to win or be competitive, doesnt match with a casual game.
- Better prizes to win. The GBG buildings are useless.

 

[Yekk]

One of the biggest problems GBG has now is the abundance of strong players. On my main world it is unusual to have less than five strong 1K guilds, all with the goods and players to compete, in a league. This league we have 6 such guilds. The map is not big enough for 8 guilds in diamond these days.

I fear though Inno, like WW1 generals, is still going to fight its old wars. Leaving the players the losers once again.

 

[CrashBoom]

yes GBG should be rebalanced

how ?
remove LP limit

result:
top guilds won't fight the "average" 1000 LP guilds anymore

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

What kills GB is to fight without attrition.
The pleasure of personal gain comes before the interests of war, it is a disaster.
Whatever the final decision, attrition must no longer be blocked at 0.
The number of members in the guilds does not balance anything, in GE guilds at 133% (125 now) meet guilds at 10% it is not a balance.

Fortunately, this paradigm has completely failed in the last 11 months.
With forces and costs aligned, attrition plays no role. On the contrary, everyone can conduct fights the way he likes and without being restricted, and this brings corresponding bonuses that contribute to each player's development.
As things stand now, it's practically impossible for a guild-man to reach Diamond League because he's on an unequal playing field, and that's unfair. Since INNO has set up the GBG with the ability to have guilds with different numbers of members, they should just set up a fair system as well.
I'll say it again - things are inherently ill-considered, and I think that's because those who make the rules aren't actively playing, which a priori deprives them of a real and sober assessment of what should be done. There are a lot of amateurish solutions out there, and I hardly exactly found the hot water with that statement.
The purpose of my posting is to change things so that people smile, and nobody smiles when you limit them.
And I'll say it for the umpteenth time - THIS IS A GAME! It should bring, pleasure and joy!

 

[DEADP00L]

@Publius Cornelius Scipio

The number of members does not determine the results, many guilds with 5 to 10 members are more efficient than the majority of those with 30 members.

The classification by the only previous result (as currently with the LP) is a fiasco. It could be slightly improved if it took into account at least the previous 3 seasons.
My small family guild made up of 20 members is a spectator every time we find ourselves in the 1,000 league and is bored when we are in the simple diamond league.

I still think that the guilds who manage with their checkerboard take advantage of the fact that Inno never groups them together, at most they are 3 present in the same group but more generally 2. Regroups 8 guilds which usually dominate the league 1,000 LP between them, you will find that the battles will be epic or that these big guilds will then understand what the others have been going through for years.

So in a live world, where there are on average (on the French servers) 6 leagues 1,000 LP, 12 to 15 guilds cultivate while 30 to 36 guilds are spectators. This is an observation that not everyone can deny.

For me, there are only 2 possible solutions to "make accessible" the GbG to all the guilds who find themselves at the top:
- either by removing attrition to zero, one way or another; (except in GbG, in all facets of the game, there is a limit that requires waiting an hour or a day to resume activity)
- or by making the cost of the camps more and more expensive on the same day. Example 3,000 goods the first 10 camps, then 30,000 the next 10, then 300,000 the next 10 etc... with a reset at midnight each day.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

@Publius Cornelius Scipio

The number of members does not determine the results, many guilds with 5 to 10 members are more efficient than the majority of those with 30 members.

The classification by the only previous result (as currently with the LP) is a fiasco. It could be slightly improved if it took into account at least the previous 3 seasons.
My small family guild made up of 20 members is a spectator every time we find ourselves in the 1,000 league and is bored when we are in the simple diamond league.

I still think that the guilds who manage with their checkerboard take advantage of the fact that Inno never groups them together, at most they are 3 present in the same group but more generally 2. Regroups 8 guilds which usually dominate the league 1,000 LP between them, you will find that the battles will be epic or that these big guilds will then understand what the others have been going through for years.

So in a live world, where there are on average (on the French servers) 6 leagues 1,000 LP, 12 to 15 guilds cultivate while 30 to 36 guilds are spectators. This is an observation that not everyone can deny.

For me, there are only 2 possible solutions to "make accessible" the GbG to all the guilds who find themselves at the top:
- either by removing attrition to zero, one way or another; (except in GbG, in all facets of the game, there is a limit that requires waiting an hour or a day to resume activity)
- or by making the cost of the camps more and more expensive on the same day. Example 3,000 goods the first 10 camps, then 30,000 the next 10, then 300,000 the next 10 etc... with a reset at midnight each day.

Obviously you didn`t read carefully what I wrote.
I`m not talking about your or someone else guilds but for all the guilds and players.
There must be a fair level playing field and a fair level start.
This is a balanced GBG

 

[CrashBoom]

Obviously you didn`t read carefully what I wrote.
I`m not talking about your or someone else guilds but for all the guilds and players.
There must be a fair level playing field and a fair level start.
This is a balanced GBG

but the number of members doesn't make it fair or balanced

or do you really want a 80 men guild guild which is normally doing 200k advances per season put in the same battle with seven 80 men guild which are only doing 20k on average per season



fair and balanced:
- ignore guild size
- take the average of advances of the last 5 or 10 season
- and then make the leagues according to that

 

[DEADP00L]

Obviously you didn`t read carefully what I wrote.

Yes, but there is no more blind than the one who does not want to see!

If you talk about ALL guilds you are a God!
Not only does no one know how each of the guilds behaves, but it totally changes depending on the personality of the leaders.

How do you want to find a solution common to everyone that is fair by not differentiating between guilds that only want to cultivate and those that only want to play without ever having wanted to be at the top of the league or with guilds made up of occasional players willing or unable to do 10 fights daily?

The current grouping is distorted because there are not enough pro guilds, so grouping additionally or instead depending on the number of members will prove impossible and above all it could lead to shenanigans.
Example of a guild of 80 members, it could split into 4 guilds of 20 and share the map, reproducing the current concern.

 

[outoftheline]

I hope this reaches developers and those involved in the game management process and they give it some thought.

hahaha.. so innocent.

you can see that there is already something in the making from the spoiler section, so no real point in discussing GBG in any way.

 

[ArklurBeta]

IS IT REALLY NECESSARY FOR THE GBG TO BALANCE?

Yes, GBG, in it's current state is broken. "You" (you in the general sense) can like how it can be played, you can hate it, but given it should be about winning against the other guild in a battle, it...should be a battleground, not a place where you sit down with your friends (even enemies?!?!) and grab your "garden tools" every 4 hours to harvest the crop, so to speak.

 

[drakenridder]

@DEADP00L the only ones able to judge and know for certain what all guilds may or may not do in any given feature to some very general extend, are the devs and possible mods with excess to certain data. Not sure if that's equal to a god but I guess from a strict in-game perspective they're technically "gods."
That been said, combined with the spoilers, new investors and players indirect main focus on GbG nowadays, I'm pretty sure the devs are working behind the scene on changes. My guess is that it'll indirectly or directly would encourage spending into the game. To become competitive in some way. From a pure business perspective, 2-3 guilds locking others out is undesirable. Particularly since they'll farm it out. This compromises potential diamond spending in negotiations and battles. Due to the lack of any real conflict. Which from the part of a business is just downright bad. Another issue is the farming. Since it creates a semi-post scarcity position. Next to those things, it's like 2w of boringly watching from the sidelines while being locked out. Which gives tons of time to gravitate away from Forge. Since interest in Forge will drop in that time. So, yeah I'm pretty confident the behaviour is compromising potential of the game and Modern Times Group exploring their options to prevent this in the future.

Yes, GBG, in it's current state is broken. "You" (you in the general sense) can like how it can be played, you can hate it, but given it should be about winning against the other guild in a battle, it...should be a battleground, not a place where you sit down with your friends (even enemies?!?!) and grab your "garden tools" every 4 hours to harvest the crop, so to speak.

Ive learned from some very "wise" "experts" that it's not unintended but supposedly "strategy." Quite surprised that there are actual intellectuals who see it for what it is.

 

[xivarmy]

yes GBG should be rebalanced

how ?
remove LP limit

result:
top guilds won't fight the "average" 1000 LP guilds anymore

Note that to avoid perpetual inflation this does require an additional drain on LP - as the current drain is the LP cap (and the source is the stream of new guilds in copper).

An example would be where say every guild loses X% of their LP each season and has to make it back just to stay where they are. Even 5% would be hugely significant at thinning out the upper ranks (to the point where putting together 1 full diamond group might be a challenge). 2% might be enough (remember it's not just 1000s contributing to the drain in this system but the hundreds of golds and platinums as well).

----

Perhaps the core problem though is that on many servers there may not even be 1 full group of "close to the best" guilds that are competitive with each other - such that even with a hypothetical perfect matchmaking system you still get the top group being a lopsided walkover.

And you need at least 2 groups that are close enough in ability so that you can rotate some in and out of the best group and still have everyone competitive-ish or some guilds will start sandbagging again and sending up even less competitive guilds in their place.. The obvious solution to this of cross-world has previously been ruled out on technical issues. As such while making sure "the best" have a group that the neo-1000s will not be put into is likely a positive and shrinks the problem, it doesn't truly address the problem that there just *isn't* parity at the top.

So the alternative if you *can't* make the top group evenly competitive is some combination of:

- give catch-up advantage in some form to make it less painful to be the minnow of the round. Maybe you need less advances to capture things close to your HQ. Maybe you get some siege effect from your HQ. Maybe you get different lockout timers depending on distance from HQ so you can get a headstart in races.
- limit the "good rounds" so that the incentive to seek more of them out by not-winning in a lower group is less present. (0 attrition must be heavily limited somehow - one example I saw other than the multiplicative stacking that we had on beta for a while is to simply address the number of slots such that all sectors have 1 slot, no more luck on starting positions, and no more easy free sectors - though if you can surround a sector you can still turn it free).
- tie the reward into the result moreso than the number of fights. Make it so you get a good reward for losing in diamond - at least competitive with winning in platinum (daisy chaining on down to lower leagues - they already do this, but since the individual fight rewards are the ones that are more valued it doesn't carry much weight) so that there's no reason to avoid diamond.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

Yes, GBG, in it's current state is broken. "You" (you in the general sense) can like how it can be played, you can hate it, but given it should be about winning against the other guild in a battle, it...should be a battleground, not a place where you sit down with your friends (even enemies?!?!) and grab your "garden tools" every 4 hours to harvest the crop, so to speak.

Go back and read one more time what I wrote. Obviously you can`t understand imediatelly from the first reading. I understand, that you must support INNO every time, but at least try to make decent comments

 

[Old Blue Eyes]

I like the current live format. Some players see it as something they don't want to mess with because they don't have time or energy to win. Some work hard to win and use it to build cities. The top guilds have like minded players wanting victory. I'd like to see crossworld competition of the finest.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

hahaha.. so innocent.

you can see that there is already something in the making from the spoiler section, so no real point in discussing GBG in any way.

 

[CrashBoom]

An example would be where say every guild loses X% of their LP each season and has to make it back just to stay where they are. Even 5% would be hugely significant at thinning out the upper ranks (to the point where putting together 1 full diamond group might be a challenge). 2% might be enough (remember it's not just 1000s contributing to the drain in this system but the hundreds of golds and platinums as well).

10% --> new max 1750 (place 1 gives 175 and the loss would be 175)
5% --> new max 3500
2% --> new max 8750

but only the winning guild would stay at max
the 2nd would already lose points

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

I like the current format. Some players see it as something they don't want to mess with because they don't have time or energy to win. Some work hard to win and use it to build cities. The top guilds have like minded players wanting victory. I'd like to see crossworld competition of the finest.

I`m a fighter and I like fighting. But it is not the essential. All INNO "experts" don`t mention the essential of my posting - really rebalance GBG. Everyone is writing unessential thing and details and this is normal for this Forum. There`s an organized army of defenders for what INNO doesn`t like and as usual there are here to comment.