Please fix the guild rivalry matches

Your guild has constant amount of revenue spent there for thr 5x boost. I bet the reason many of us continue playing this battle bay because rovio is slightly different than any other game developer in term of “BattleBay” allowed us to win without paying. Its a free game . In comparison to “game loft” where u need to spend in order to climb up the ladder, we were allowed to upgrade weapon, ship, and etc. in the long run if this continues to happen, many will be disapointed and left the game. Leaving only those top 50 guild player ( some inactive one too) to keep playing and the game will phase out. Dont you think so? Just to remind u that not many is so fortunate like ur guild to spend some revenue for games. If it pays to win, then all i say bye rovio. Start a poll and see if it is fair for mk1 vs mk3 same thing guild rank3 against rank 180. Infamy 2500 average against infamy 5000 average. In the battlebay , lower infamy guild compared to top ten guild which has more? I believe sometimes been playing with aces level because there isnt enough people playing this game anymore.

 

Ok, so I just did some projections to simulate what would happen in the new rivalry system.
For my experiment, I created 198 guilds (enough for 33 rivalries each week).
I gave each a "starting quest score" (SQS) that represents a typical # quests that they complete.
I did this in the following distribution:
- 120 guilds got a random SQS between 24-36
- 60 guilds got a random SQS between 36-48
- 18 guilds got a random SQS between 48-60
Don't get too worried about my distribution -- it doesn't affect the results too much.

To begin the simulation, I sorted the guilds by those starting quest scores and paired them into groups of 6 (just like our rivalries), and let that be the first week of results.

For each successive week, I did the following:
(1) I re-sorted all the guilds by the quest scores they just got, and re-grouped them into new rivalries of 6 guilds
(2) I gave each guild a "weekly modifier" (random between -4 and +4) to represent the fact that every guild's performance varies week-to-week
(3) I calculated their score for the new week = SQS + weekly modifier
(4) I then ranked them within their rivalries based on this week's scores

I repeated this exercise for 12 weeks.....

After 6-weeks of the simulation:
- 94% of all guilds had an average rank between 2.0 - 5.0 (i.e. within 1.5 of the 3.5 average)
- 76% of all guilds had an average rank between 2.5 - 4.5 (i.e. within 1.0 of the 3.5 average)
- 48% of all guilds had an average rank between 3.0 - 4.0 (i.e. within 0.5 of the 3.5 average)

After 12-weeks of the simulation:
- 99% of all guilds had an average rank between 2.0 - 5.0 (i.e. within 1.5 of the 3.5 average)
- 91% of all guilds had an average rank between 2.5 - 4.5 (i.e. within 1.0 of the 3.5 average)
- 60% of all guilds had an average rank between 3.0 - 4.0 (i.e. within 0.5 of the 3.5 average)
(GRAPHS BELOW)

Conclusions:
- As the weeks roll by, every guild that routinely performs within reasonable range of their SQS will have their average rivalry rank converge (as I predicted) towards 3.5th place
- That means, the only way to have an average rank better than 3.5 is to have continuously increasing quest scores! Because once you plateau off, you'll immediately trend toward 3.5 again. So maybe you can "beat the system" for a week or two or maybe even three, but eventually your guild will hit their effort-wall, and you'll start getting 3.5th place just like the rest of us.
- Whatever short term gain you get from pushing a few extra quests to win a rivalry, will eventually be counterbalanced in the long term by extra rivalry losses.
- EFFORT (towards rivalries) HAS LOST ALL MEANING. Honestly, we might as well keep the guild quests, but scrap the rivalries altogether, and just give everyone a flat 13,500 tokens each week (to represent their average winnings for being 3.5th place every week).......

The old system had the flaw where people with strong ships/gear were tanking their infamy to generate easier rivalry match-ups.
However, by implementing this new system, you just threw the baby out with the bathwater....... :-(




A notes about my experiment:
The data actually would have been even slightly tighter if I were to have randomly selected tie-breakers (rather than realize too late that my data fell victim to Excels tendency to preserve sort-order in the cases where the same two guilds tied two weeks in a row).

 

So, are you suggesting that rivalry should give more rewards to some active, and leave other guilds with no rewards, in order to stimulate them to keep playing because, apparently nobody likes to face a fair match? Because, no matter how much people say, there's no way everybody wins that much, if some guild wins, 5 other lose, there are not enough numbers to keep everybody winning all the time, the only way to keep winning nonstop is to have unbalanced matches, ask Floyd Mayweather

 

I believe everything is said now.

The saddest thing is that the sense of clan has disappeared again.
What is the point of forming a stable community for common result, if you can just create an empty clan and receive 1st place rivalry?

42k from rivalry equals to 3 cleared boards. But you don't have to do anything.
Some kids are screaming "we are farming 5-6 boards, this rivalry bonus is so small". Well, we are happy for you, take your choopa, but most people play quite hard to clear at least these three boards, no more.

To sum up:
- competition has no sense
- real clans have become useless
- people who didn't actually form a real clan now farm at least the same amount of trophies with no efforts (an with some tricks they can always achieve a first place)
- some kids are very happy of these changes and try to provide "arguments" why it is good.

Nuff said, hope developers will react soon.

 

If you create a guild after the rivalry starts, will you receive the 1st place reward? If you do that before the rivalry starts, you lose the previous reward and will face guilds that completed the same amount of quests... Is that smart?

 

Create two guilds, and migrate between them every two weeks.

Sounds like a solution to the current system, I don't want to wait half a year before devs will fix it.
Maybe our whole clan will use in order to stay competitive.

 

That's definitely an awkward definition of competition

 

I explained you how I can get both 3 boards and 42k from rivalry every week.

Maybe for you it doesn't matter that there is no more competition spirit and that the only sense of real clan was destroyed. Maybe for your clan it really doesn't matter, because u clear five boards or something. But if you had brains enough, you would realize that such situation will lead to the decreased amount of players, and all of your achievement will cost nothing.

If you can't think 2 steps afterwards, close the forum and play the ships.
We discuss here the future of this game, you play in the sandbox.

 

To beat weaker adversaries is the opposite of the competition spirit

 

Here's a new analogy that maybe some members might understand.

In most high school football systems it is done in the division based upon school size.
1a, 2a, 3a, etc.

The 1a State Champion School finished 10-0 for the season and averaged scoring 50 points per game.
The 6a State Champion School finished 10-0 for the season and averaged scoring 30 points per game.

On paper you'd think, why can't these two teams play together, but obviously the 6a school would demolish the 1a school because while they have the same record, they are not equal in terms of the players on the team, and as such the reason they are in different divisions. In BattleBay, like it or not, Infamy is the measure of "strength" in our game. So putting together rivalries of guilds of similar "strength" is the most fair method for these competitions.

 

OK, this may be embedded in your "separate issue" but I see the situation as exactly the opposite. I have a whole ton of really good reasons to maximize the guild lotteries (like an endless rain of epic perks which I desperately need not to mention a steady stream of pieces). I can't think of a single incentive to want to climb in infamy. Even if I could guarantee myself a first place slot in Master-1 every season the rewards wouldn't even come close to being worth it. I somehow doubt I'd be impressed with the first place rewards for ace or nightmare although I don't know what they are.

Other than that your analysis is very insightful. If true at the higher infamies then the obvious answer to me isn't to go back to the old system. It's to fix the scaling on the new system so that it is still "worth it" whether or not you win first place. By the way, I also question the scaling at the low end. Why on earth can a mark 1 boat have solid access to epic gear? Rovio has really got to stop with this design model of making newbie targets drop phat sacks of loot.

 

Whether u like it or not, the fact is many people complain that it is not fair this new rivalry reward. Go round and ask some players bout it. Not thinking bout the 42 k reward here, but keeping a clean record of being first at all time does matter to me. Now a quick question, somebody from my thread has a solid arguement, he said how can u put a cihuahua against a pitbull? How can u match average player 2500 against 4000? The bigger one will easily get over board 5 perhaps board 6. While the smaller infamy max only at board 5. So smart guy, how can u conclude this? U said not enough evidence, see my post. All my rival this time is players with infamy mostly 5000 and up while my clan highest infamy is 3500(1 player) some of us has infamy 1700. Teach me how to win, tell me do u consider this as fair and better?

 

All i can say is this week itself many has lost their interest against guild rivalry. Waiting for the quest to reset tomorrow and see if it is fair and square, otherwise gonna close the guild down. No point playjng when u know from the begining that u were against a giant. All of my previous rival guild were mostly strong, we keep contact with them and majority dissapointed. Except for “help i cant swim” he differs from majority of us perhaps?

 

If the chihuahua can byte 14 hours a day and the Pitbull only 1 hour, maybe it kills the pitbull before It fight back