An "exploit" of the new Guild Rivalry System...

This is the solution that could make everyone happy. Scale the rivalry win rewards based upon quests completed NOT on rivalry placement.
One week our entire rivalry was around 48 quests. So basically it was a race to get to 48 quests the fastest, since that is the tiebreaker. It's just ridiculous that you can now complete 1 or 2 quests less than 1st place, but get 40,000 less tokens. But a one-man guild completing 5 quests might be able to get 41,000 tokens.

 

See, I don't like that though. So I would be at least 1 unhappy person.
If you're just making the rivalry reward scaled to # quests, then why have a rivalry at all?
I like the sense of competition where something meaningful is on the line.
I also don't mind that a solo dude doing 5 quests can get a decent reward for getting 1st place. Good for that guy who beat 5 other (solo?) guilds!

I think the "easy win" is to reduce the overall spread between 1st and 6th, because right now, they're so far apart that it's soul-crushing (honestly, even if you get 1st). If the rewards were brought a bit closer together, they'd still be meaningful, but people wouldn't be so hell-bent on doing whatever ugliness is deemed necessary to get 1st place...

 

We're talking about scaling the winning tokens for first place, just like any tournament that pays out based on # of participants (because more participants' entry fees are added to the pot). 2nd-6th are still getting a fraction of that, so the incentive still remains to win.

I've been seeing increased evidence of sandbagging because it remains the best way to maximize tokens. I've calculated if our guild is going to finish anything less than 2nd place, it's worth stopping at 36 quests (we regularly do 45), sacrificing 15,750 tokens, to get a win the following week, which would net us about 21k additional tokens across the two rivalries. Considering 45 quests is worth 100k tokens, that represents a substantial boost in tokens. Why not?

Sure Rovio could do what they do with infamy matchups and take into account your maximum, and they may do that, but then Rovio is forcing high achieving guilds to play each other which effectively reduces that bonus for high achievers. It's a disincentive, absolutely, and no question about it. This is why scaling should be implemented, so at least high achievers get bonuses that are relevant to their effort... relative to the "pot" size (total quests completed by all rivals). It's the only fair way to do it.

 

Ahh, I think I slightly misunderstood the original suggestion. Thanks for clarifying.

So, building off of that, and putting #'s to it... here's the best system I could come up with:

 

To provide a more thorough explanation:

Your Rivalry Rewards would now be the sum of two components:
- A PLACEMENT-BASED FLAT REWARD -- basically just like we have now, just with reduced values and a reduced spread from 1-6th place
- A VARIABLE BONUS -- based on how many quests you did and how many quests the 1st place guild did

PROS
- The more quests the 1st place guild does, the bigger everyone's potential bonus ---> this means you want to be in high-achieving rivalries!
- The more quests your guild does, the bigger your bonus ---> this means your guild has a strong reason to continue pushing, even if 1st place seems hopeless!
- Even if you're not in a high-achieving rivalry, you still have significant placement-based rewards ---> this means guilds at every level still have valuable incentives to compete & win!
- The overall spread of rewards between 1st-6th is reduced ---> less hopelessness = less giving up = more sense of competition across more guilds for the full week! No more intentionally gaming the system (taking a week off to quest-tank back down)! Less guild stress overall! Now you can take your guild, and all your beloved rookies and veterans alike, and see what you can build and accomplish together with no fear of drama, toxicity, or implosion!

CONS
- There may be some that think that these tighter rewards might reduce the benefit for getting 1st. That's probably because they are only imagining themselves getting 1st place (something we know is no longer possible to do every single week). I would instead encourage them to imagine a tight and competitive Rivalry (maybe even across all 6 guilds), put sample values into the chart, and see if the end results seem fair (across all 6 perspectives). If something still doesn't seem fair, I am curious to see your chart, know which perspective you're imagining, and hear what exactly feels unfair.

 

That's only just the first page! Too many possibilities!! Maybe i should jump in a bit

 

(edited my chart above. it's now simpler to understand and calculate.)

 

Interesting post , i was also thinking about the same idea but will the devs see this as playing unfairly with the guild? as last last week the devs post player should play fair

 

I asked.
https://forum.battlebay.net/threads/i-have-questions-community-and-you-fair-play-battle.17353/
They said it's no problem for guilds to coordinate to play or not play however they want.