Inequality in Guild Battlegrounds

[DESYPETE]

I was talking about the troops ahead of my era. You could have stayed in VF and had no advanced troops while still being able to fight eras ahead, so why go to SAAB?

what interest is there in staying in low eras ? besides i want to fight the best there is not be in low eras with weaker fighters that to me makes no sense as there is no pride in it for me. when i was in vf of course i was fighitng guys with space age troops from higher era than i was in it was easy, nothing to shout about with doing that as most players will do the same. ( infact i still use vf troops in saab era as the rocket is a great weapon ) so i really dont understand your point at all other than you some how want to make out staying in low eras wth the advantaged of high era troops is some how the best way to play the game or makes you out to be some kind of super human fighter ? yet we have all been there and done that it how we progess you will find out yourself one day if you do move up to the highest era. does it mean because i can beat saab troops with vf troops i am a god of a fighter ? lol no it doesnt we all do it

 

[legend9182]

what interest is there in staying in low eras ? besides i want to fight the best there is not be in low eras with weaker fighters that to me makes no sense as there is no pride in it for me. when i was in vf of course i was fighitng guys with space age troops from higher era than i was in it was easy, nothing to shout about with doing that as most players will do the same. ( infact i still use vf troops in saab era as the rocket is a great weapon ) so i really dont understand your point at all other than you some how want to make out staying in low eras wth the advantaged of high era troops is some how the best way to play the game or makes you out to be some kind of super human fighter ? yet we have all been there and done that it how we progess you will find out yourself one day if you do move up to the highest era. does it mean because i can beat saab troops with vf troops i am a god of a fighter ? lol no it doesnt we all do it

Well firstly, aging up was your choice not others. If you want to stay in highest Era then stay there but don't ask others to do the same. Bcz its a game which depends upon choices and strategy. So everyone has there own. You can't call it bad due to the fact they get higher Era units while staying in lower eras

And secondly, the number of troops they receive from higher Era is too less that if they wish to use them All they can't because they will die and they won't have them anymore.

So using them is too a choice and strategy. Its not bad or wrong Bcz its part of game. So if someone fights with them he/she has to decide when to use them and when not (not everyone have diamonds to keep reviving them).

 

[RichinZhills]

This is sidetracking the main idea of the thread, but Combat is pretty much just an equation. Each Age is going to be +x% stronger than the previous age. So to compensate we have GB's/potions/Tavern boosts to get our troops past that +x%. So, given that compensation, when those same troops attack those in the same Age it's not even a match. Before they balanced the neighborhood, as soon as you took the sector with a Tower on it in the continent, you opened yourself up to attack from that Age. But now, since everyone is pretty much in the same Age in the neighborhood, you're usually only getting hit by the top 5-10 players who live off pillaging or those new to combat just trying to attack anything that moves The first you can't do much about, the second ones are a bit more fun.
So yes there are game choices, but some are not optional, and some are just stupid. Using the cookie cutter 1 heavy/champion & 7 Rogues to auto-battle the whole neighborhood isn't a strategy, it's playing to the game's AI weakness. As a human player, I wouldn't touch the Rogues until every other unit was killed, but the computer AI loves to waste the first attack turning them all into a tank. IMO, the Rogues would have the smallest attack damage, but with a Kraken/Artic Orangery type bonus. So they wouldn't be targeted first and would still do critical damage on a hit, sort of like the Thieves backstabbing ability in games of old. But that would mean more actual work and strategy to beat an opponent, can't have that, can we?

 

[Powe]

This is sidetracking the main idea of the thread, but Combat is pretty much just an equation. Each Age is going to be +x% stronger than the previous age. So to compensate we have GB's/potions/Tavern boosts to get our troops past that +x%. So, given that compensation, when those same troops attack those in the same Age it's not even a match. Before they balanced the neighborhood, as soon as you took the sector with a Tower on it in the continent, you opened yourself up to attack from that Age. But now, since everyone is pretty much in the same Age in the neighborhood, you're usually only getting hit by the top 5-10 players who live off pillaging or those new to combat just trying to attack anything that moves The first you can't do much about, the second ones are a bit more fun.
So yes there are game choices, but some are not optional, and some are just stupid. Using the cookie cutter 1 heavy/champion & 7 Rogues to auto-battle the whole neighborhood isn't a strategy, it's playing to the game's AI weakness. As a human player, I wouldn't touch the Rogues until every other unit was killed, but the computer AI loves to waste the first attack turning them all into a tank. IMO, the Rogues would have the smallest attack damage, but with a Kraken/Artic Orangery type bonus. So they wouldn't be targeted first and would still do critical damage on a hit, sort of like the Thieves backstabbing ability in games of old. But that would mean more actual work and strategy to beat an opponent, can't have that, can we?

First, PvP towers have nothing to do with neighbourhood fighting. Second, the continent map AI attacks rogues last. Third, this has been suggested already and is DNSL. Fourth, INNO will not do this because they will lose their best customers who have up to 10000 rogues. And finally, it's amazing you have 290000 points in your best world and still know so much about the game.

 

[Knight of ICE]

First, PvP towers have nothing to do with neighbourhood fighting. Second, the continent map AI attacks rogues last. Third, this has been suggested already and is DNSL. Fourth, INNO will not do this because they will lose their best customers who have up to 10000 rogues. And finally, it's amazing you have 290000 points in your best world and still know so much about the game.

First neighbouhood fighting is part of the PvP Towers
Second continent map IA does attack rogues, absolutely not last, but the moment it can.
Third, if something is DNSL is not up to you to decide. You can report it. Mods team decides.
Fourth,you have no clue on what Inno will do or what not.
And finally, well previous four points are clear on that.

 

[Powe]

First neighbouhood fighting is part of the PvP Towers
Second continent map IA does attack rogues, absolutely not last, but the moment it can.
Third, if something is DNSL is not up to you to decide. You can report it. Mods team decides.
Fourth,you have no clue on what Inno will do or what not.
And finally, well previous four points are clear on that.

First: PvP towers do not need to be unlocked for neighbourhood fighting.
Second: the Continent map AI targets regular units before rogues.
Third: the DNSL includes this.
Fourth: INNO has already rejected this.

 

[RichinZhills]

Agree to disagree:
The Towers ARE the defacto neighborhood rating system. Anytime you want to see who the neighborhood fighters are, go into your News tab, select events, and click on your Age's tower up top. It will tell you who has the most points and most battles for that Age in your neighborhood. Optionally, since the neighborhoods are balanced, if you'd like a challenge, use some of your earlier Age'd units to attack with. You'll see that you're now on that Ages Tower leaderboard. It's true they don't have to be unlocked to fight (that ability is unlocked late in the Iron Age), however, you won't have access to the Ranking system, and you won't see your own battles & score unless you do have them unlocked.
When neighborhoods were a mix of all ages, the Towers were a way for PvP's in "your" neighborhood to rank according to those Age troops. I was too new at the time, so I don't know if upper Age'd players were limited to attacking lower Age'd players with units only available in that Age (like GvG) or not. But I know I didn't see higher Age'd troops attacking me until I unlocked that Tower first. I negotiated through the Continent fast, so I was usually unlocking Towers 2 Ages above me. In a few places, you HAVE to unlock that Ages Tower to get further on the Continent.

 

[J-S-T]

Guilds are matched on past gbg performances through the ranking system.

All new guilds start with 0 points

Your finishing position coupled with the number of opponents gives you a + or - to your ranking score and determines your league

Next round guilds with similar rank face each other.

This is why a guild of 1 can face a guild of 80 (and win)

Butba guild with 1 can only beat a guild with if those 80 have little or no experience andnare rankednvery low. If indiviudal ranking and not guild ranking are factored intonthe match making equation as well, then there cant be such an imbalance. It makes absolutely no sense ignoring anplayers ranking. A guild with 20 high ranking players can beat a one man guild with a player of the same ranking if both guilds are the same league: this is a mismatch by virtue of thebfact that the 20 man guild of equally high ranking has more resources at its disposal than a single man guild. Likenwise a guild with 20 players each ranking much higher than a guild with say 5 players but in the same league alson has an advantage over the smaller guild with fewer and weaker players. Matchmaking should be on player strength and number in a guild, guild level should play a lesser role if a 1 man guild can defeat an 80-man guild., Guild level should only be a measuring factor when players ranking and the size of the guilds they are in are similar.

For example, I am in a guild of 7 players whose top player has 20,000,000 and last with 40,000. The guild itselfnis 35 level and we are up guilds from level 53 to 66 and the average player has well over 50,000,000 in one guild and 30,000,000 in the next. The 50 million guild has 20 players and has taken all provinces of the inner circle withing 2 day and by day 9 all but 2 or 3 rear provinces are allowed by that guild to stay within the hands of guilds occupying those provinces. In other words the imbalance is so huge that the 50,000,000 average per player guild has tanke n thenentirenmap just because they can and this you call fair? Have a look at your justice Inno. Is this how justice is to be played out on the battle ground?

One player (a 1 man guild) had over 225,000,000 points and he could not even put a dent in the dominanting guild's attacks and fell pray like everyone else to them. I beg you. How is this supposento be fun and fair?

 

[Cursedveggie]

Butba guild with 1 can only beat a guild with if those 80 have little or no experience andnare rankednvery low. If indiviudal ranking and not guild ranking are factored intonthe match making equation as well, then there cant be such an imbalance. It makes absolutely no sense ignoring anplayers ranking. A guild with 20 high ranking players can beat a one man guild with a player of the same ranking if both guilds are the same league: this is a mismatch by virtue of thebfact that the 20 man guild of equally high ranking has more resources at its disposal than a single man guild. Likenwise a guild with 20 players each ranking much higher than a guild with say 5 players but in the same league alson has an advantage over the smaller guild with fewer and weaker players. Matchmaking should be on player strength and number in a guild, guild level should play a lesser role if a 1 man guild can defeat an 80-man guild., Guild level should only be a measuring factor when players ranking and the size of the guilds they are in are similar.

For example, I am in a guild of 7 players whose top player has 20,000,000 and last with 40,000. The guild itselfnis 35 level and we are up guilds from level 53 to 66 and the average player has well over 50,000,000 in one guild and 30,000,000 in the next. The 50 million guild has 20 players and has taken all provinces of the inner circle withing 2 day and by day 9 all but 2 or 3 rear provinces are allowed by that guild to stay within the hands of guilds occupying those provinces. In other words the imbalance is so huge that the 50,000,000 average per player guild has tanke n thenentirenmap just because they can and this you call fair? Have a look at your justice Inno. Is this how justice is to be played out on the battle ground?

One player (a 1 man guild) had over 225,000,000 points and he could not even put a dent in the dominanting guild's attacks and fell pray like everyone else to them. I beg you. How is this supposento be fun and View attachment 22135fair?

And my guild of 12 is fighting and holding our own against 2 guilds working in collaboration with a total of 114 members. What's your point?

 

[Forwandert]

@Schnappi

With some of these rounds I do see your point to a degree but from your screen grab its fair to say you're not even attempting, you're on 0 attrition.

There's always going to be some back and forth of sectors which is part of the game and the way its designed. You have 4 hrs from taking one to progress further and if you take the right sectors you will block them from taking yours again till you either all run out of attrition or out of sectors to take. Then tomorrow you get to do the same again. It is fair though and its partly your own participation that's keeping the map like that.

 

[Powe]

To be fair; Screen Grabs are "Then not Now". It might well be that Schnappi was just about to rampage through the ranks of the Foe!

FOE? Fire Of Enemies?

 

[rayster001]

i love how you think that is called out smarting others ? if everyone knows about it how can it be out smarting ? its not like its rocket science, but it will not work unless you have the players in the guilds who spend enough time to make it happen, hence the big guilds have the edge and i know a few guilds who do this practice, but then they also take sectors in gvg and fill them up and release them each day to retake them again, which is what you call smart but others call cheating, but you always come down and the side of this kind of game play, the idea you can fight on your own and try to win seems unreal to you, or for that matter a guild proving there champs not by using another guild but by doing so on there own, which is the whole idea of the game to win and be the best guild out there, so you call it smart while the rest of us just know these guilds who do it do so as they know they can not win any other way. fair competion doesnt seem to count

--------------------------------------------
The General meaning of this thread i believe is the fairness of the game ??..... we had a BIG bomb dropped on us last round , we have 70 people but only 40-50 participaate ...the BOMB was that 3 guilds came after us in our world .. one had 3.6 B points as a guild , 2nd had 1.7 B points and 3rd haad 1.1 B points as a guild , the point is that we have about 800 M points as a guild , i believe the system should be placed on the amount of points a guild has as an overall total , NOT size of a guild .. just my piece on this discusion , its NOT rocket science to see that the bigger guilds just want to slack off to get into a easier set to dominate and kill the GBG part of this game

 

[TheKingOfKool]

Excerpt:

Is this how justice is to be played out on the battle ground?

LOL - Justice on the Battle Field? - Surely you gest - lol - The strong and the weak ; duking it out.

 

[Emberguard]

I believe the system should be placed on the amount of points a guild has as an overall total , NOT size of a guild

Ranking points mean nothing in the context you’re using. You’d need to look at where those ranking points are actually coming from. Using goods or winning fights on its own doesn’t tell you if that team is stronger than you. It simply means they’ve played the game in the past. They could also have raised GBs that have no effect on their fighting / negotiating capability which would have increased their score in an irrelevant manner

Also we currently do have GBG sorted via a points system: League Points. This is based solely on your game performance during GBG. If you don’t like the current system then changing to Ranking Points may not be much better

 

[TheKingOfKool]

This is one of the good Battle Seasons -- LOL -- It's a Siege Camp Festival.

All the Lilliputians are running amuck across the battle field.

 

[Cuthwolf]

It is sometimes neither fun nor personally rewarding to dominate the map. My guild has a very weak (for diamond league) mix of opponents this time. Since dominating on day one we only get to retake four sectors a day.

 

[Paladiac the Pure]

One question I have, as I am not really much of a battler type player - but once you basically have the Battleground locked for 1st place - what is the purpose of retaking sectors, other than for personal rewards? The way I see it, if I was in a guild in this position, I would probably sit back and ignore the rest of the Battleground period, unless it appeared that first place was in jeopardy. Right now, as it is, I basically only do 5 or so battles/nego's a day, looking for FP's. My guild has half the players not even participating - so maybe due to lack of guild participation, I might be missing part of the reason for continuing to play the Battleground for the current period.

 

[klods hans]

It is sometimes neither fun nor personally rewarding to dominate the map. My guild has a very weak (for diamond league) mix of opponents this time. Since dominating on day one we only get to retake four sectors a day.

View attachment 22187

It's a boycott. They don't fight back, so you don't get any points and rewards.

 

[DiegoAngel26]

I agree with you. There's inequality in guild battlegrounds.

 

[Fallon-the-fifth]

I've read Inno's criteria concerning GBG and am here to tell you it is off by a mile. We have been placed in a league where the top two are absolutely head and shoulders above the rest, they can take 90% of the sectors in minutes, GBG becomes a chore and it becomes very tough to motivate your guild members to participate. We need a fairer system, please.