Inequality in Guild Battlegrounds

[pharl]

Thanks for the suggestions guys.
I think using an equation to match somewhat equal teams could achieve the same result as Kool's suggestion, however I"m not sure about reducing rewards. That exists already in the different leagues. We'd probably end up with small guilds with a league of their own (bronze, gold, plat etc), medium and large with the same. It becomes more complex from an FoE development side of things, but perhaps worth considering.
Limiting fights seems to be at odds of people spending ages getting their attack ratings up, only to find they can't do all the fighting they want. I can't do heaps each day, but I've no problem with others that can. However, removing certain buildings such as SCs might be interesting. Smaller guilds don't normally have the treasury to build them and it certainly puts things on a more even level.
I think the nub of the problem is where 2 or more teams collaborate to get the top 3 positions. While I can see that on the face of it there's nothing wrong with collaboration, the way teams are operating more and more in GBG is limiting the fighting opportunities for smaller guilds who can't even take sectors as they're locked all the time because of swapping between top guilds. Perhaps matching up more equally sized guilds would be only a part of a solution and another could be the reduction or removal of GBG buildings (traps, SC's etc).

 

[pharl]

Thought of something else. What if more sectors were introduced, and there were a set number of sectors around your base that a guild could take that were off limits to other guilds? I'm only thinking 2 or 3 sectors. Once per day, these 2 or 3 sectors would be cleared again, so battles could carry on by the guild in a new day. They'd have to be placed on the map behind the base, not in front. That way, smaller guilds (well, all guilds) could at least do a number of battles to gain prizes each day and other guilds that wanted to contest the centre and 1st, 2nd etc places could contest all sectors in front of their base. Just another thought - not sure how that woud go, but at least all guilds could experience battles and gain prizes.

 

[pharl]

I think the effect woud be a positive. Smaller guilds would perhaps initially just take their own assigned sectors, but at least they will get in to the GBG mindset - battle each day, get prizes. As a result, small guild players would be more inclined to build up attack and become stronger, then start to push outwards and compete in front of their base.

 

[TheKingOfKool]

Isn't that what copper league is for? And we have the various level already - only I stated them in a different way - I'll re-state again

Why should a high school level sports player get paid what a professional sports player gets paid?

1) tag football → copper league 2) midget football → silver league 3) high school football → gold league 4) college football → platinum league 5) pro football → diamond league

Each of these leagues have various rewards - it is how everything works.

Why should a high level sports player - and I'm not talking about age - get the same rewards as a professional grade player

again - it makes no sense

 

[Vesiger]

Look at the state of this current map - by the way, the green team are mates with one of the larger teams. What hope does anyone else have?

I don't think guild size or unfair match-ups are the problem. The problem is that the players have discovered an exploit that the developers hadn't anticipated (two guilds swapping alternate sectors and leaving them at 99% completed).
I agree that any time two powerful guilds collaborate in order to do this, it effectively kills off all action in the battleground, but changing the way that leagues are compiled won't have any effect on that.

 

[TheKingOfKool]

I don't think guild size or unfair match-ups are the problem. The problem is that the players have discovered an exploit that the developers hadn't anticipated (two guilds swapping alternate sectors and leaving them at 99% completed).
I agree that any time two powerful guilds collaborate in order to do this, it effectively kills off all action in the battleground, but changing the way that leagues are compiled won't have any effect on that.

I agree Ves - however that isn't the title of thread - Inequality & Exploiting are two different things.
Inno might consider a threshold where if a sector isn't taken within a timed period after so many fights -

ie Platinum league 130 to take: if a sector has reached 120 (or some percentage to allow for fortresses and such) - a timer starts and must be taken within that time - if not ALL guilds that have invested fights or negotiations in the sector are lost and must be re-fought or re-negotiated - this might be one idea that would keep guilds from swapping sectors. This would reduced the phenomenon of "Sector Priming"

However - keeping something from being exploited is almost virtually impossible - one of the last changes was to reduce all fights by half when another guild takes the sector - pretty much did nothing - tactics were changed to deal with the change.

 

[FLKMAMS]

Look at the state of this current map - by the way, the green team are mates with one of the larger teams. What hope does anyone else have?

such a beautiful picture!!

 

[klods hans]

The problem is that the players have discovered an exploit that the developers hadn't anticipated (two guilds swapping alternate sectors and leaving them at 99% completed).

Kind of strange if they didn't anticipate an exploit like that, when it's almost the same as one of the "flaws" that has killed GvG.

 

[Powe]

e Platinum league 130 to take: if a sector has reached 120 (or some percentage to allow for fortresses and such) - a timer starts and must be taken within that time - if not ALL guilds that have invested fights or negotiations in the sector are lost and must be re-fought or re-negotiated - this might be one idea that would keep guilds from swapping sectors. This would reduced the phenomenon of "Sector Priming"

That is... well... Guilds will no longer need to rebuild siege camps. They will build 4 and not need any more. Even in silver and gold league it will be exploited. This will never get introduced.

 

[DeletedUser113278]

Inequality lmao

Sorry, had to get that out of the way... but let’s be real, yes it is unequal, life is unequal. The game is never going to be ‘equal’.

What you have to do to fix your problem is really as simple as KoK points out, beat them or join them, and if you can’t (or choose not to), then you’ll fade back to the lower league until next time.

The idea to link guild size to GBG matching is a bad idea as has already been pointed out. (Size does not equal strength). And if something like that was implemented and rewards not reduced, super strong mini guilds will pop up everywhere.

Personally I’d like to see SC’s being removed (if only for FOE’s addicts sanity), but it won’t really help the opening posters problem.

 

[Vesiger]

That is... well... Guilds will no longer need to rebuild siege camps. They will build 4 and not need any more. Even in silver and gold league it will be exploited. This will never get introduced.

Why would causing uncompleted sieges to expire mean that guilds would never need to rebuild siege camps?

 

[Powe]

Why would causing uncompleted sieges to expire mean that guilds would never need to rebuild siege camps?

The siege camps would never be destroyed since they would leave it 1 fight away from completing till it returned to 0 as in the idea.

 

[FLKMAMS]

Personally I’d like to see SC’s being removed (if only for FOE’s addicts sanity), but it won’t really help the opening posters problem.

That could be even worst. There are many medium guilds in strenght, but very old, what means they have a very high treasure. They have been collecting and donating by years (normally for gvg, or whatever), and now, they have a normal advantage for that effor.
If you change that, you put on the same level that guild, with a new-strong one (well, really the strong one would be stronger, just because its members get more attrition). That is not fair.

I think, the main problem here is guilds... well, not guilds... some whining members of med-low guilds, want to play gbg with GE rules. I mean... with no rules... You dont need any guild strategy at all to get position 1-2 in GE, just a couple of players doing it, at any moment along the week. Then, gbg arrived and hit in their pretty faces....... and cries started.. "rivals have 80 members..." "rivals set 3 sieges in all the campaign, and that is too much".. "sieges ask goods than i dont have, or just a few, because we have only one member of that age"... "sieges ask lot of goods for us, where are only 20 people, why they ask the same than for a 80 members guild?".... bla....bla...bla....

EDIT!
And which i love the most... "there are 2 guilds covering all the map with flags!", oh lord that is the best one xD

 

[DeletedUser113278]

That could be even worst. There are many medium guilds in strenght, but very old, what means they have a very high treasure. They have been collecting and donating by years (normally for gvg, or whatever), and now, they have a normal advantage for that effor.
If you change that, you put on the same level that guild, with a new-strong one (well, really the strong one would be stronger, just because its members get more attrition). That is not fair.

I think, the main problem here is guilds... well, not guilds... some whining members of med-low guilds, want to play gbg with GE rules. I mean... with no rules... You dont need any guild strategy at all to get position 1-2 in GE, just a couple of players doing it, at any moment along the week. Then, gbg arrived and hit in their pretty faces....... and cries started.. "rivals have 80 members..." "rivals set 3 sieges in all the campaign, and that is too much".. "sieges ask goods than i dont have, or just a few, because we have only one member of that age"... "sieges ask lot of goods for us, where are only 20 people, why they ask the same than for a 80 members guild?".... bla....bla...bla....

EDIT!
And which i love the most... "there are 2 guilds covering all the map with flags!", oh lord that is the best one xD

Great points, but the idea to remove SC’s (for addicts sanity), is for their benefit haha, doing 1000’s of battles per day must take its toll.

 

[Ceban]

The more inactive members you have, the more it drags you down.

and what is so bad in kicking inacitves in the ass if you prefer to have active fighting guild? then tehy can group in proper guilds, actives in active one and inactives in inactive one, so where is problem in that???

 

[Ceban]

how about setting a limit on the amount of fights a guild can have ? a bit like there planning to do with this new pvp idea ? or getting rid of sc ? as the sc are a great gift for players like myself who can do lots of fights over as many sectors as i can and i earn huge fps etc for the effort but not everyone can do that. so may be if they got rid of sc it certainly would stop me from playing 1000s of fights and bring me down to a more relisitic level of just 60 - 70 a day ? maybe that wold bring about more balence ? of course you will have the guys who are greedy moaning its unfair because of there losses they make but at least it would bring us down to a level the other players can live with and make a fair fight of it ?

Now you are done, now they will crusify you... when i sugested that cause WE HAD TO MANY REWARDS AND CAUSE I HAD TO MANY FIGHTS then players wich have less benefits from camps than me called me insane and cried how then tehy wouldnt be able to exploit GbG

 

[Ceban]

solution for this problem is really easy, ther are 2 wich i named earlier already:
1. cancel all players reward but make guild rewards a lot bigger and diference between them a lot bigger and then guilds will lose motivation to make stupid 3 way alliances on day 1 but will play to actualy get first
2. make players rewards even bigger but place them in packs and at the end of round players from guild number 1 get 100% of that pack, players from guild number 2 get 70% from number 3 get 50% from number 4 30% and rest get... Lets stay polite... then all would fight for spots and wouldnt make idiotic alliances

 

[FLKMAMS]

In tha

Great points, but the idea to remove SC’s (for addicts sanity), is for their benefit haha, doing 1000’s of battles per day must take its toll.

In that case, let addicts decide, instead of lowest guilds xD

 

[Powe]

solution for this problem is really easy, ther are 2 wich i named earlier already:
1. cancel all players reward but make guild rewards a lot bigger and diference between them a lot bigger and then guilds will lose motivation to make stupid 3 way alliances on day 1 but will play to actualy get first
2. make players rewards even bigger but place them in packs and at the end of round players from guild number 1 get 100% of that pack, players from guild number 2 get 70% from number 3 get 50% from number 4 30% and rest get... Lets stay polite... then all would fight for spots and wouldnt make idiotic alliances

I do like number 2, so you can try making it into a proposal.

 

[DeletedUser113278]

solution for this problem is really easy, ther are 2 wich i named earlier already:
1. cancel all players reward but make guild rewards a lot bigger and diference between them a lot bigger and then guilds will lose motivation to make stupid 3 way alliances on day 1 but will play to actualy get first
2. make players rewards even bigger but place them in packs and at the end of round players from guild number 1 get 100% of that pack, players from guild number 2 get 70% from number 3 get 50% from number 4 30% and rest get... Lets stay polite... then all would fight for spots and wouldnt make idiotic alliances

I wouldn’t mind the group rewards thing as long as it was also divided up amongst guild members based on a % of what they actually did.