The new way they pick rivalries promotes tanking

When I mention guild tanking it is not infamy I'm referring to, just a reduction in completed quests for an easier rivalry.

 

I guess I’m missing your point then (it happens a lot with me ). I feel like the answers to your questions support using infamy as the primary metric. It’s almost time to start drinking...maybe it’ll make sense to me then.

 

I guess you are a fan of communism?

 

I think so far your arguments are based on being in guilds that can complete a lot of quests and can somehow deem the winning token insignificant. However, there are a lot of newer players out there where they can spend a lot of time but still doing 1 board or at most 2 boards only. In that case, hard work and winning gives them a lot of extra bonuses. However, because of this system, they are not rewarded for their hardwork. This is communism. It didn't work in China or Russia, so please don't promote it in Battle Bay. (Even in Communism, it only affects the poor people. Rich people stays rich, just like you, because you have other means of income)

 

Right now, you can win a rivalry by doing almost no quests. Try to think in a position that you have just started the game recently and even the first board is difficult for you. Don't think in your current position where you can ignore the rivalry rewards altogether.

All games in the world should encourage two things:
1) Hard work - the more people play it, the more ads income or pay to win income the game would receive. Of course you have been arguing that finishing more guild boards is also promoting hard work, but there comes point 2 below:
2) Constant welcoming to new players - a game is only durable if there is a constant influx of new players. New players must receive enough rewards to be motivated, otherwise they will get left out and quit very soon after trying the game. Most games would even give the new players some extra advantages so they can catch up with the old players (but not so much that pisses off the old players). In this new guild rivalry match making system, the new to medium new gamers are completely screwed. They will not want to work hard on this game (which means they will play other games assuming that they always play games in their leisure time).

In conclusion, this new rivalry system will chase a lot of new players away and soon Rovio will lose income, and they will perform less updates, and we all suffer. I really like this game and don't want this to happen.

 

Infamy cannot be the primary metric because it also promotes tanking. However, quest number is definitely NOT a good metric either. It will only let down many hard working players.
There are a couple of metrics they can use:
1) Gold - Silver - Bronze medal history. If a guild constantly win first place, it could be because they have been hardworking, or they have been cheating by tanking infamy. Regardless, they have won enough times and they would not mind losing once or twice. But once you get some 2nd place, you will be matched with other similarly winning guilds, and it would be an interesting match to see if they cheat or hardwork.
2) Infamy MUST be somehow used. Even if people tank their infamy, they somehow have to get back up to the league bi-weekly. So why not add a little more reward for being in the upper leagues and encourage people to stay in the upper leagues?
3) Quest number is the score for winning the rivalry, it can somehow be used but not with a very heavy weight.

 

WTF.. that is the most happy unicorn thing I've ever heard in this forum, what part of anything ive said can you possibly link with communism..Lmao, does your brain only works on buzzwords dude,

Ahh..He just used the word fair and square must be a communism..Lol

And yes, guild rivalry should never ever be matched with infamy, current system is how it should be, guilds should be taking onto the opppnenets that has same activity level as them, matching high activity but low infamy guilds with high infamy but low activity guilds leads to a mess.

 

Exact opposite, in old system many of the new to medium ranged guilds were totally screwed, it was very common to have a rivalry where bottom 4 guilds stood no chance against top 2 guilds. That's why many guilds that would tank infamy and successfully get easier rivals and almost guaranteeing them first place while other guilds stood no chance at scoring that rank.

 

You nailed it bro. F Rovio.

 

I’m not even sure where to start with this. I will pray for you.

 

I've seen plenty of guilds in my rivalries that have been nearly full but don't bother to quest... what's infamy mean in that case? Because infamy has wild swings and is subject to manipulation, I just can't see it as a reasonable input to a guild rivalry matchup. Let's face it, infamy is a semi-random number barely accurate within 500 points. Guild quests, on the other hands provide an objective measurement of effort, and it is the only measurement used in a rivalry win. As such I don't understand where you think any of my arguments support using infamy in a rivalry.

 

What is your problem dude? Rovio is greedy. More people would pay for things if their prices weren't ridiculous and they didn't try to change things to screw players over.

 

If a guild doesn’t bother to quest, great! That doesn’t mean that couldn’t quest as hard as other guilds of the same size. They are making a decision to not compete.

I haven’t said infamy is perfect — it’s not. But in my opinion it’s fairer to determine matchups with infamy than last week’s results. That’s all I’m saying. Using last week’s results will result in a tighter competition, but I don’t think that it’s better. I think that it penalizes guilds that try harder, and that is the root of my issue. My assumption is that most of the people that like the new system are in guilds that didn’t compete strongly in rivalries.

If this were a tournament, where the winners advance to compete for bigger prizes, then I would agree that the matchups should be based on last week’s results. But it isn’t. With this new system, it’s like splitting a road race into two categories—those who tried hard and ran a fast race last week, and those who didn’t GAF and walked the last race. And the prizes for both races are the same! Realistically road races are broken into age groups, because it’s the simplest way to generalize a person’s potential.

I’m not disparaging guilds that don’t GAF—good for them if they want to prioritize other things in life. But it makes no sense to me to pit them against other guilds who don’t GAF for the same prizes.

 

I was thinking that too. I'd love to sit down and have a long discussion about history and political science so we can get to the bottom of this evil "communism" thing that is, apparently, threatening to effect even Battle Bay.

Insofar as early guilds and newer players, yeah that's me. My guild struggles to complete the easy board. I'm sorry I like the new system a lot better but I still think it gives way too much of the wrong things to early captains.

 

I agree that this current rivalry matchup system is worse than before, and it does penalize guilds that try harder. However I do not think infamy is the answer because predicting production based on infamy is a fool's game. It's like signing an offensive lineman in American Football based solely on his size and weight... regardless of whether he has any actual talent or work ethic. If a guild chooses to be casual, it isn't particularly fair for them to be in a rivalry with another guild of the same infamy where each player spends 4 hours/day questing and buying boosts.

I don't know how the rivalry matchups were done before, but at least the matchups felt a little random, like the rest of the game in terms of how you get items and supplies via random loot boxes and raffles. I can accept random rivalries more than the current system which is demoralizing because it can be so easily manipulated, just like infamy, and that manipulation will just increase going forward.

I've proposed that infamy itself be calculated on a simple moving average to circumvent this type of manipulation, and I also propose that rivalries be calculated based on a simple moving average of quests completed rather than just last week's results, because it will circumvent the "sandbag one week and blow everyone out the next" incentives that the Devs have created with the current rivalry system.

 

I don’t even think this system will generate revenue for Rovio. In the short run, yes, people will try. But once you spend money to boost a few quest done this week, you will face harder opponents next week who spend equally that much as your guild.
At that time your guild need to spend more than last week in order to keep winning.

Will players infinitely increase their spending on one game? No. People will quit after a few weeks after they found that it’s impossible to keep up the good work and win.

I also support randomness in matching. At least when you get a strong rivalry, you can blame God for the unfair game but it’s random, which means you will be fine after this one unlucky week.