• 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 into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

Guild Battleground - Purpose

Status
Not open for further replies.
At the time of writing this Post, Guild Battleground is on 2nd Day of 2nd Round.
I realise that only very few guilds out of 100s will participate fight/negotiate, already guilds dropping the game out like dead flies.

I question Inno Games, what is the Goal/Purpose of Guild Battleground ?

If it is just another platform like GVG where a few rules everything, then it is my opinion that Guild Battleground project is a failure as it does not facilitate a gaming where all guilds are actually having fun and involved.

Can Guild Battleground go back to drawing board, tweak the game to make all guild will be involved ?
example:
lower attrition to 1 per 10 fight/negotiations for players with low att/def (player high bonus = higher/quicker) - this will enable all players can afford to play more/longer.
Lower the goods, more guilds then can afford to stay/participate.

Current setup of Guild Battleground favours the biggest/wealthiest guilds hence very very few will play it.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser111359

Apparently you weren't paying attention at all.

The more active guilds will get pushed into the higher tiers, where it's increasingly expensive to participate. So it will tend to be self-levelling.
 

Agent327

Overlord
At the time of writing this Post, Guild Battleground is on 2nd Day of 2nd Round.
I realise that only very few guilds out of 100s will participate fight/negotiate, already guilds dropping the game out like dead flies.

I question Inno Games, what is the Goal/Purpose of Guild Battleground ?

If it is just another platform like GVG where a few rules everything, then it is my opinion that Guild Battleground project is a failure as it does not facilitate a gaming where all guilds are actually having fun and involved.

Can Guild Battleground go back to drawing board, tweak the game to make all guild will be involved ?
example:
lower attrition to 1 per 10 fight/negotiations for players with low att/def (player high bonus = higher/quicker) - this will enable all players can afford to play more/longer.
Lower the goods, more guilds then can afford to stay/participate.

Current setup of Guild Battleground favours the biggest/wealthiest guilds hence very very few will play it.

Try to understand how something works first, before you comment.
 

Iwateguy

Major-General
My guild on Beta has been in Gold league from the start but will probably be going up next time. I always go around the map and click on each guild's HQ province just to see who's there. In the current league, my guild shows 68 players (not all take part) and another guild shows 38. All six of the other guilds have one, two, or three players. As you might guess, we have dominated the map and our lead over 2nd place is ridiculous. It's hard to take BG and Inno seriously given that their system allows that kind of mismatch..
 
At the time of writing this Post, Guild Battleground is on 2nd Day of 2nd Round.
I realise that only very few guilds out of 100s will participate fight/negotiate, already guilds dropping the game out like dead flies.

I question Inno Games, what is the Goal/Purpose of Guild Battleground ?

If it is just another platform like GVG where a few rules everything, then it is my opinion that Guild Battleground project is a failure as it does not facilitate a gaming where all guilds are actually having fun and involved.

Can Guild Battleground go back to drawing board, tweak the game to make all guild will be involved ?
example:
lower attrition to 1 per 10 fight/negotiations for players with low att/def (player high bonus = higher/quicker) - this will enable all players can afford to play more/longer.
Lower the goods, more guilds then can afford to stay/participate.

Current setup of Guild Battleground favours the biggest/wealthiest guilds hence very very few will play it.
I find it fairly obvious that the guild battleground is a clever way of making players spend huge amounts of resources, especially diamonds, which from the point of view of the company running the game is what this is a'll about. It would be interesting to know how diamond turnover developed after the battleground started, probably went through the roof.
 

DeletedUser96901

My guild on Beta has been in Gold league from the start but will probably be going up next time.
after it running for so long on beta your guild needed 2 wins to go up
then it must very low in ranking
comparable to 3 men guilds

:lol:

don't blame the system if you are so low rated in gold for how many seasons (5 or more that it is running on beta) ?

As you might guess, we have dominated the map and our lead over 2nd place is ridiculous.
it is ridiculous that it took you so many seasons to dominate once on beta

because 2 wins in gold would ensure that you aren't gold anymore

It's hard to take BG and Inno seriously given that their system allows that kind of mismatch..
you allow that mismatch

the game moves good guilds up and 3 men guilds stays low

so if your guild is there than it must be the fault of your guild that it isn't moved up to guilds with more players
 

DeletedUser110131

I find it fairly obvious that the guild battleground is a clever way of making players spend huge amounts of resources, especially diamonds, which from the point of view of the company running the game is what this is a'll about. It would be interesting to know how diamond turnover developed after the battleground started, probably went through the roof.
Yep. I'm also pretty sure it went up. It'll probably adjust a bit down again, though, as the "new" wears off. Everything they do is ultimately to make players spend diamonds. When they do something that seems purely to improve the game, with no immediate effect on diamond spending, the end goal is to have happier players spending more diamonds. That's how it works. They've done a good job maintaining a balance between value and cost, so far, offering a fair enough deal to us players.
 
It is clear that the purpose of Battleground is to give large powerful guilds even greater power at the expense of smaller guilds... why else would you put guilds with 20+ members and multi-point scorers in the tens of millions up against a guild with one player and a low score. Might as well just have a button that says "Shoot me quick".
 

DeletedUser110131

It is clear that the purpose of Battleground is to give large powerful guilds even greater power at the expense of smaller guilds... why else would you put guilds with 20+ members and multi-point scorers in the tens of millions up against a guild with one player and a low score. Might as well just have a button that says "Shoot me quick".
I'm pretty sure they have an algorithm to match guilds with some fairness. They don't put 1 member guilds in with 80 member guilds. At least, I haven't seen it. You're right that they'll put 1 member guilds in with 20 member guilds, though. However, then there will usually be a lot of guilds in between. I don't find it particularly unreasonable that there's a reward for guild size, as long as it's within reason. Building a large and well functioning guild is an accomplishment. In my experience, once a guild gets to 40 or so, organizational issues start popping up pretty frequently. Running a guild of 80... I've never tried, and have no plans to.

What rank the players have doesn't matter directly. Activity matters most, with good city design and experience second. Since the encounters are adjusted for the players age, everyone should have a fair shot. Of course, there's a connection between activity and skill on one side, and rank on the other. That doesn't mean that a low ranking player can't be active and skilled, though, just that they're a more mixed bunch on average.

With a well designed city, I also mean one that hasn't been rushed through the ages. Obviously, if someone has a two month city in the Progressive Era, he/she will get trounced. That's because of bad strategy, and the trouncing is entirely appropriate.

From Inno's perspective, guilds are content; good guilds improve the player experience, and make for happier players who stay longer. Rewarding well functioning guilds and guilds up to a certain size makes sense for them. Rewarding 1 player guilds doesn't.
 

DeletedUser96901

It is clear that the purpose of Battleground is to give large powerful guilds even greater power at the expense of smaller guilds... why else would you put guilds with 20+ members and multi-point scorers in the tens of millions up against a guild with one player and a low score. Might as well just have a button that says "Shoot me quick".
you are wrong

if the one man is in the same league his doesn't have a "low score" :rolleyes:
he has the same score as the 20

Might as well just have a button that says "Shoot me quick".
or you could say
I do nothing:
get 90% of the reward for doing nothing when the 20 work hard

I'm pretty sure they have an algorithm to match guilds with some fairness. They don't put 1 member guilds in with 80 member guilds.
good result increase the MMR of one men
and bad result decrease the MMR of 80 men
that is the algorithm: end result of a league gives points (top half increase, lower half decrease)

and if both have the same score (MMR) then they fight each other

so it is possible that 1 fight against 80
BUT the 80 together are as good as the 1 alone
 

DeletedUser96901

all those
mimimi the other guilds are so big

but you get the same rewards for the same place

if 1 would 1 and 80 would fight 80 then the 1 men leagues would also get only 1/80 of the reward of the 80 men leagues on the same place

so instead of getting 90% on last place then 1 men guild would get 2% for being first
who would prefer that
 
I am in a Battleground where there is a guild of 55 with many in multi million scores (top is 45m) and another guild of 1 member with a score of about 3m ... so where is the fairness in taking a hill with built-in attrition that is equal for all. Its basically 55 against 1.
As as far as I know, doing nothing does not give any reward... I think at least one sector(other than home base) has to be held to the end.
but you get the same rewards for the same place
Everyone in the guild gets the same reward at the end.. there is no splitting of the rewards. Only the Guild reward stays equal.
 

Agent327

Overlord
I'm pretty sure they have an algorithm to match guilds with some fairness. They don't put 1 member guilds in with 80 member guilds. At least, I haven't seen it.

You are pretty wrong. They do. You not having seen it is no reason there is an algorithm. Figured you smarter than that.
 

DeletedUser110131

I am in a Battleground where there is a guild of 55 with many in multi million scores (top is 45m) and another guild of 1 member with a score of about 3m
So I stand corrected. Based on the two guilds I fight with, who are of different sizes, and a very short period of observation, I thought I had seen a pattern indicating some algorithm. It seems there is none, besides the MMR, as Test Ament wrote.

so where is the fairness in taking a hill with built-in attrition that is equal for all. Its basically 55 against 1.
The fairness is that a guild is as good or bad as the collective effort they make. The idea of guilds is identical to the idea of working as a group. Little collective effort makes for a poorer guild. With only one member, a guild can't be very good. If it's not good, then it shouldn't be rewarded as if it was. It doesn't matter how good or bad the individual player(s) are, when it's a competition between guilds. Unfair would be to reward bad guilds.

Everyone in the guild gets the same reward at the end.. there is no splitting of the rewards.
True.

Only the Guild reward stays equal.
And guilds that don't function like guilds are meant to should get less reward.

You are pretty wrong. They do. You not having seen it is no reason there is an algorithm. Figured you smarter than that.
Agent327, is that the secret identity of Captain Hindsight? Good on you, pointing out exactly the same thing that both Test Ament and Justmadmax has already pointed out. You even managed to be slightly informative about it. Not as informative as Test Ament and Justmadmax, but you're... um... showing prom... well... making an eff... ah... could be worse. Maybe. Here I go again, speculating without evidence!

I can see where you went wrong here
Yep. Tends to go wrong, doesn't it, whenever 327 tries to figure something.
 

Agent327

Overlord
Agent327, is that the secret identity of Captain Hindsight? Good on you, pointing out exactly the same thing that both Test Ament and Justmadmax has already pointed out. You even managed to be slightly informative about it. Not as informative as Test Ament and Justmadmax, but you're... um... showing prom... well... making an eff... ah... could be worse. Maybe. Here I go again, speculating without evidence!

Had to didn't I? If you do not see it for yourself you might think there is an algorithm. With 3 telling you, you are wrong there is this slight chance you might actually accept it. Chance you will still argue it is bigger ofcourse.
 

DeletedUser110131

Had to didn't I? If you do not see it for yourself you might think there is an algorithm. With 3 telling you, you are wrong there is this slight chance you might actually accept it. Chance you will still argue it is bigger ofcourse.
I base my theories on the available data. If and when a theory is disproven by new data, I discard the theory. I don't even feel embarrassed when admitting the error. There's no need to show me three white ravens to disprove the theory "all ravens are black". One will do fine. It figures that you wouldn't be aware that additional data is redundant for some types of inferences, though. It also figures that someone admitting an error would catch you by surprise. Have you ever admitted one, in earnest? You should try it. It can be liberating.
 

Any Empire

Sergeant
That's some great and very reliable data. "I haven't seen it".

Data: "a series of observations, measurements, or facts; information " [American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing ]

An intelligent comment would be to question sample size, assumptions on population variability, inclusion/exclusion criteira used, etc. Making assumptions about the OP's approach, without asking for clarifications, is lazy and worthless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top