Inequality in Guild Battlegrounds

[FLKMAMS]

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

That is not like that, normally it is:
-All the individual rewards of one guilds, go to one only pack (5X troops... 50 goods (no especific, just the standar rewards) 10 forges.....). At the end of the campaign, all those rewards all divided between the number of members of the guild, no matters how many battles they do, so all of them get, for example... 3453 forges.... 123 unit of your age (divided in 25-25-25-25-23 perhaps), 1237 (divided among the 5 different kinds)... 452 diamonds..... All all of members get the same 3453..123...1237....etc., because the original numbers were, perhaps.... 120.000 forges (earned among all the memberes)... 40.000 units... etc.

So, all the individual rewards go into a very big pot, which is divided later between al the guild members.
The problem them, is that no active players get the same tham very active players, but you are considering guilds as the sum of all members (which is not fair, but it is fair at the same time). But I think, it´s always the same: we have to turn everything over, to make people who didnt do their job happy.

 

[Ceban]

That is not like that, normally it is:
-All the individual rewards of one guilds, go to one only pack (5X troops... 50 goods (no especific, just the standar rewards) 10 forges.....). At the end of the campaign, all those rewards all divided between the number of members of the guild, no matters how many battles they do, so all of them get, for example... 3453 forges.... 123 unit of your age (divided in 25-25-25-25-23 perhaps), 1237 (divided among the 5 different kinds)... 452 diamonds..... All all of members get the same 3453..123...1237....etc., because the original numbers were, perhaps.... 120.000 forges (earned among all the memberes)... 40.000 units... etc.

So, all the individual rewards go into a very big pot, which is divided later between al the guild members.
The problem them, is that no active players get the same tham very active players, but you are considering guilds as the sum of all members (which is not fair, but it is fair at the same time). But I think, it´s always the same: we have to turn everything over, to make people who didnt do their job happy.

no it isnt like that, you missunderstood me or maybe i used wrong expressions cause my english aint perfect but i think i write it ok but that you missunderstood me... It would work like this:
Your personal rewards go in some pot, you dont see anything, since final numbr of rewards will be smaller they even can make rewards drop more often but you dont get anything before end of the round. At the end of the round if your guild is 1st you get all what you won, if your guild is 2nd you gt only 70% of what you won... you see order later...

 

[DeletedUser113278]

no it isnt like that, you missunderstood me or maybe i used wrong expressions cause my english aint perfect but i think i write it ok but that you missunderstood me... It would work like this:
Your personal rewards go in some pot, you dont see anything, since final numbr of rewards will be smaller they even can make rewards drop more often but you dont get anything before end of the round. At the end of the round if your guild is 1st you get all what you won, if your guild is 2nd you gt only 70% of what you won... you see order later...

Ah ok, makes sense.... so the members still get a % of the same rewards they get now? (Depending if they can 1st, 2nd or 3rd...

Problem with that is that they’ll just make deals to which guild comes in which place in alternating BG’s, the overall rewards are just less and they’ll come to some agreement on how to share it .

 

[Trambambaj]

How about linking the chance to receive personal rewards with increase in attrition. Lets say 90% to receive it when your attr increases and 5% if it doesn't(the 2 nd value might be linked also with the chance to not increase attrition: bigger chance=lower chances to receive a reward and/or to be progressing as your attr rises(eg. If you have 5 attr the chances to receive personal rewards is lower than when you have 40 in case of not increasing attr in that encounter)).
Btw. in D we got rid of this problem as the top guilds worked kind of a deal not to delay lockdown nor build traps/palaces/destroy SC so we basically chase each other around the map.(at least for last 4-5 rounds)

 

[Epic Builder x1000]

no it isnt like that, you missunderstood me or maybe i used wrong expressions cause my english aint perfect but i think i write it ok but that you missunderstood me... It would work like this:
Your personal rewards go in some pot, you dont see anything, since final numbr of rewards will be smaller they even can make rewards drop more often but you dont get anything before end of the round. At the end of the round if your guild is 1st you get all what you won, if your guild is 2nd you gt only 70% of what you won... you see order later...

That is not going to work at all. High chances of abuse and less rewards overall.

 

[FLKMAMS]

no it isnt like that, you missunderstood me or maybe i used wrong expressions cause my english aint perfect but i think i write it ok but that you missunderstood me... It would work like this:
Your personal rewards go in some pot, you dont see anything, since final numbr of rewards will be smaller they even can make rewards drop more often but you dont get anything before end of the round. At the end of the round if your guild is 1st you get all what you won, if your guild is 2nd you gt only 70% of what you won... you see order later...

i understood you perfectly. what I mean is, that in the "pot way", normally all individual rewards all add in a single guild pot, and, at the end, all that pot is divided equally between all guild members. But doesnt matter if you finish 1rst, or 2nd. You get an equal part of 100% of all the amount, not 70% or so

 

[Spartadannycusbloke]

They need to make gbg cross sever like ge then it would end swapping and come down to the amount people can and how quick

 

[Cursedveggie]

They need to make gbg cross sever like ge then it would end swapping and come down to the amount people can and how quick

How would that end swapping?

 

[Spartadannycusbloke]

How would that end swapping?

If like ge it was 8 guilds from each server the communication wouldn't be there like it is in our server langendorn as you know cursed it's very easily made a nap or thread between guilds also diamond would probably be filled with guilds like wod and dragons from another world would be a much closer fight with neither agreeing not to win the amount of fps that are being won in these swaps is Huge and leaving any player that isn't in them guilds at a big disadvantage

 

[Cursedveggie]

It would be more difficult but with players being on multiple worlds and other 3rd party chat software being readily available it wouldn't take long for the top guilds to get to know each other and alliances being formed

 

[TheKingOfKool]

Tactically, what makes GbG more difficult is forward planning - should one of these wild ideas make it to the developer's desk - lol - Should I continue to level my Goods GB's (who knows if the bldgs. for sectors remain - will they reduce negotiations costs allowing wimpy to get farther than they should be able to), should I continue leveling Attack GB's (will they allow sector shield options on sectors - as they do for cities), and so on.

Wild, Wild, Wild - now we just need the West

 

[TheKingOfKool]

It would be more difficult but with players being on multiple worlds and other 3rd party chat software being readily available it wouldn't take long for the top guilds to get to know each other and alliances being formed

Agreed - It will accomplish nothing in the long term -

Following deals more with Exploitation rather than Inequality:

Sector swapping could be made more difficult if a guild losses a sector - They cannot retake for one Full Reset period - this means - no Release & Retake as abused in GvG.

At the very least - no retaking can be allowed for a full 4 hour period - but even better would be as described below:

Lose a sector in GbG - lose it for a minimum of 24 hours to a maximum of 1 day, 23 hours, 59 minutes, 59 seconds - A Full Reset Cycle - None of this lose it just before reset & then take it right back stuff (I would prefer stronger language but you get my meaning) - You would see how quickly swapping would come to an end - then if your guild is strong enough - you would be able to capture the sector.

Anyone wishing to use some or all of this idea - go right ahead and do so - I will quickly support this type of idea.

 

[Ceban]

i understood you perfectly. what I mean is, that in the "pot way", normally all individual rewards all add in a single guild pot, and, at the end, all that pot is divided equally between all guild members. But doesnt matter if you finish 1rst, or 2nd. You get an equal part of 100% of all the amount, not 70% or so

no, each player have his own pot, what he won, and how much from that pot he will get depend where his guild will finish at the end of GbG round

 

[FLKMAMS]

no, each player have his own pot, what he won, and how much from that pot he will get depend where his guild will finish at the end of GbG round

in that case i was wrong about the final pot (invidivual, not guild). But I think that is the worst. Some guilds cant get more than 4º...5º... just because it is impossible for them. That means those who fight a bit more because they can, will get nothing for it just because the rest of the guild are low players (for example).

 

[Ceban]

in that case i was wrong about the final pot (invidivual, not guild). But I think that is the worst. Some guilds cant get more than 4º...5º... just because it is impossible for them. That means those who fight a bit more because they can, will get nothing for it just because the rest of the guild are low players (for example).

then they drop to platinum or from platinum to gold and stay there... look, sector swapping or calculating to lose precisley enough points to stay in diamond but not to be on top table is idiotic... its mockery of this game...

 

[Andrew420]

... look, sector swapping or calculating to lose precisley enough points to stay in diamond but not to be on top table is idiotic

Thats your opinion
More players than you know dont agree with you


This is idiotic

. its mockery of this game...

Thanks for the laugh

 

[Ghastly Icon Joe]

That would probably be the consequence of your suggestion. Just because a guild has 80 members it doesn't mean all 80 play gbg. By stripping non-gbg players from a guild the the big fighters would be in an easier grouping

Cant see whats wrong with groupings based on number of guild members. If based on membership numbers, it groups together guilds who have similar potential. If a member doesnt do BG then thats an internal issue for the guild to resolve.

 

[Knight of ICE]

Cant see whats wrong with groupings based on number of guild members. If based on membership numbers, it groups together guilds who have similar potential. If a member doesnt do BG then thats an internal issue for the guild to resolve.

It would create small guilds with acive fighters.

 

[RichinZhills]

Maybe we can all agree that nobody likes getting matched up against a Titan
Instead of Inequality (which exists in all forms of life) it probably should have been imbalance. The imbalance is a Game mechanic and can be adjusted in the programming. All players exist within the parameters of these mechanics ("What is the Matrix?"-Neo), and what and how they choose to operate is simply strategy.
I'm still a fairly new player of FoE, but I do have to question the mechanics of why one guild would be matched against another. We should all know that there is math, and then there is Math. You can have the basic random number generator that just picks 8 random Guilds and throws them together. But you can also balance that by adding more Math into the equation. There are so many other factors that could be added to Guild matches: player's age, how many medals they have, whether they play GbG or GE, how long they've been in the guild, how old the guild is, how many players have been active in the last week, and basically anything else you want to add in.
This complicates the programming and it's really up to the programmer's capability to figure out the math, but it's doable. But until then, I'd have to agree that there is a definite Imbalance in the game when it comes to the GbG & GE guild selections.

 

[Cursedveggie]

It would create small guilds with acive fighters.

Like mine on L