So... Guild rivalries and the match making... Broken?

Yeah it's that messed up. You find one person who can look at this and say this match up is FAIR. Funny thing is, this is the most fair match we've had in weeks,

 

But isn't that the point... To be matched at OUR LEVEL so that our hardwork would yield equivalent rewards. Instead, how is it fair to NOT be matched at our level???

 

So we should not play the game as much, not buy boosts, not fleet, so that we lose a whole lot, just to win the rivalry???

 

As a business model for ROVIO, THAT SUCKS. Discouraging playing, Discouraging fleeting, Discouraging buying boosts. Where oh where does that make sense, and would someone in sales and marketing look at this example and say, "Holy crap, we are discouraging this dedicated team from spending money on the game" and continue to allow the insanity behind the matching process to continue?

 

The match should be on guild infamy level, period. There is no other solution that would equate hard work and good teamwork with good rewards. Only one player on our team has a legendary weapon becauae we can't win the rivalry to get free spins no matter how much money or effort we throw at it.

 

From a business perspective - If only one player in your guild has a legendary weapon, then it's obviously full of new players since you get one of each free through achievements. Likewise, it's also full of people that are unwilling to spend money on epic crates - so, as with any business, Rovio is not going to prioritize customers that are unwilling to spend money.

As flawed as it seems to everyone, it makes perfect sense. The rivalry matchmaking is based purely on the number of quests completed. Each week, you have to continue spending the same amount of time playing and spending the same amount or more on boosts if you want to continue winning. So, the guilds and players that are willing to do that are matched against each other in a sort of bidding war - which creates revenue, pays salaries and overhead costs, and keeps the company/game alive.

From a competitive standpoint, it matches you against guilds with similar performance, so each match is bound to be interesting. It may be demoralizing for those unwilling to purchase victories, but, as I said, those players are not the company's priority.

When it was based on guild ranking (which has been tried), most sets only had one active, questing guild. Rank and number if quests completed are not strongly correlated. You can imagine how less competition would lead to less pearl purchases.

You also had a few issues with guilds trying to intentionally lower their ranking with sub-500 members. Those sub-accounts would intentionally tank infamy for easier matches - which made some quests easier and led to more seal clubbing.

 

That is not to say that the current rivalry matchmaking system is perfect, nor that I agree with it, but I understand it from a business perspective.

As an alternative, there could be a guild competition system implemented.

The first week acts as a qualifier to place your guild in a league - the higher the league, the better the prizes. The second week would eliminate the lowest 50% of each league. The third would do the same. The fourth would determine the league winners.

I haven't put a great deal of thought into a system like that, so I'm sure there would be issues with it, but at least it's a revenue-friendly alternative.

 

I understand, from a guild leader's perspective, that it's frustrating when members leave because they want a guild that wins every week. But, be patient.

They'll soon realize the only way a guild wins every week is if someone is willing to spend $200+ a week on boosts, or they join a guild where every member is expected to buy $5 a week in boosts - and one that's active enough to finish 90+ quests every week. But, there aren't many of those guilds willing to accept players without a full set of max epic weapons.

So, if your guild has a culture/environment they like, they'll be back.

 

It's not only bout the infamy of the guilds (in the same rivalry) that is unbalanced but also the amount of quests completed. I'm a guild leader too, and from what I've seen, only the guild leaders know/admit how lopsided it is, others just ignore the issue cuz they don't have any interest in questing stuffs
We completed 61 quests two weeks ago, then 54 after that and guess what we ended up meeting a guild that completed 82 quests last week, not to mention the ridiculous difference of captain levels and infamy of the players. Lol our highest score is only 70 so there's no way in hell we can beat them. I would be ok if this happened half the time but like braindandy said IT'S EVERY WEEK every freaking week. We no more remember the first place. I suggested few times that the rivalry matchmaking should be rather based on captain level and/or Gearscore since infamy matchmaking gives rise to many other problems. But I gave up on them since they don't care bout customer satisfaction. In every update they introduce us with new annoying bugs without even fixing the previous ones. Nowadays I don't even play as much as I used to do, I'm just tired of these bs and going with the flow

 

Rivalry matchmaking is based on one thing: quests completed. Coach all you want, but it's all to no avail...the more quests you complete, the more additional quests you need to complete to win the next week.

 

For those that argue that the current rivalry matchmaking bring in more revenue, that's just short sighted. What would a guild rank 1000 and got 48 quests done be spending when they have a rival ranked 100 that got 48 done? There is little chance that they are going to win. Why would the guild that ranked 100 spend money for? They can cruise to 53 and they won't have any challenger. Like TDM matchmaking, after they sort about by quest completed, they use a secondary matching to group them. Give the players some hope that they can win so they will spend.

There are few people here loudly support this rivalry matchmaking because their guilds are not very competitive. This give them a chance to get first once in a while. The fact that these lazy guilds got rewarded once in a while to beat up on very much weaker guilds is not fair. Those lazy guilds complained about they never got any win when they not trying in the old system. The only flaw of the old system was that not every guild in the rivalry got the same board. They were random so winning also depend on luck. If using the old system with every guild in the same rivalry got the same boards, then it gives advantage to the more active and more spending guilds. Shouldn't that how it suppose to be?

 

I am a professor of Marketing in one on of the premier business schools. And what you have described makes no sense. Why would you want a system where new players are not sustained, or kept as loyal customers? And trust me, we spend that kind of money on boosts - but to no avail. New players matched impossibly to older seasoned players who are already loyal customers and would spend the cash regardless of the rivalry is not the way to continue building a loyal base of new players. I've had people quit, not the guild but the game, out of sheer frustration. Economics aside, because without a doubt, this model doee not invest in players who are recently joining the game, from a pure sportsmanship POV regarding gaming, you will never find a sports league that pits national pro teams against junior varsity high schoolers, just because the junior varsity team scored as many touchdowns as a professional team.

It's for the birds, I tell you. The match makes no economic sense, discourages newer players from spending money on boosts etc, discourages a steady stream of newly adopted players, and is unfair sportsmanship all around. That's my position and I'm standing by it. I've about had it myself, and I spend nearly $100 a week. How do you think we get 36 quests done from newer players?? I'll commit to this: not again. Definitely not from me unless it changes. No more boosts, we can lose, and lose more players from the game.

 

Not quite. The problem with the old method was that it encouraged players to tank their infamy, dropping the guild infamy, giving them much easier rivalries to easily dominate.

So, solve that, and then we can go back to matching guilds by guild infamy, which would be much better for guilds (as @brainDANdy pointed out).

Solving it isn't easy though. As the solution would involve either restricting tanking by using infamy floors per ship mk, or making rewards for maintaining your highest infamy more worth it than getting 1st in rivalries each week.

 

You're 100% correct about all this, and I've argued the exact same thoughts months ago.

The problem was that people were tanking infamy to give the guild easier rivalry matchups, so they could easily get 1st each week. Which ruins the game experience just as much.

 

Sorry, a third solution would be giving all guild quest rewards based on total quest completion, and remove rivalries altogether (so no fabricated competition, and thus no placement rewards). I was in favor of this the most, as then guilds just like yours are encouraged to do their best (and spend!), and are rewarded for achievement.

 

I have forthwith instructed our members to stop the purchase of any further boosts, it makes no sense to throw money at something that we will consistenly lose every week until we have scaled back our efforts on the quests for 3 weeks before we get a fair match. And at that point, we can win without any boosts because we reign supreme with regard to teamwork. I shared the posts from earlier today, and they were as equally dismayed as I was to learn that the rivalry is set up as an advantage for the top ranked guilds only, of which none of us will ever become members since we currently lack the level 40-50 epic weapons they have now, and by the time we acquire those weapons, the top ranked guilds will have even higher standards. So give up now on boosts, rivalry, and similar nonsense. They resoundingly agreed. We will play the game without the rivalry until we are bored and do something else. Thanks for the candid feedback..., it sure makes things a lot simpler. And gee, what do we need a guild for?

And I thought we had a good thing going by bringing in newer players and coaching them.... And it's clearly not a "seal clubbing" strategy considering we aren't ranked and we can't compete. And I resemble that seal-clubbing comment, as some of my best friends are seals, and man those seals' clubs are off the hook. The DJs spin some of the best tracks right off the ends of their noses, all the while squawking "Seal squawk! Seal squawk! Seal squawk!". Let's just try to see some of the highest ranked Battle Bayonettes do that! (This is my attempt at generating a little levity so you know I'm not a sour grape yet I need some spirit lifting after learning that all my spending on boosts for months have been a waste as they only further put my guild down the rabbit hole of being unable to compete at all, and not just my money but theirs were totally wasted effort. I'd love to hear the argument that by spending a ton of money on boosts that got us nowhere vs guilds with four times our infamy was not just utterly wasted. I know thats how my guildmates feel about it too. It's a total downer.)

 

Very good point @brainDANdy. The guild that manipulating the system (not yours) doesn't need to use boosters. The guild that matching up against this guild won't use boosters because they know they can't win.

Regarding the new players, Rovio has done nothing major to improve their game plays. They did some patch works and told the new players to deal with it. Many players suggested ways to better help the noobs but went on deft ears. Rovio will not do anything major if it doesn't bring in money right away. They should learn from GameLoft.

 

I can see that. And I'm sure they understand the economics of gaming more than I do. I specialize in Pharmaceutical Marketing and market research, and as such, the basics for building a brand, a lot of emphasis at launch is obviously on the early adopters,and making them loyal customers. That's your base. But eventually, you will lose players to other games or life matters, and in addition to retaining your early adopters, definitely a first year launch strategy, you have to refocus on new customers who arent early adopters, maybe they aren't tech savvy, or maybe they only start playing a game once all their early adopter friends have played it. It's a different segment for sure, but one thing makes them different in most markets: they are more brand loyal because early adopters are always switching to the latest and greatest newest game. Sure, you want to keep them but they like new shiny things. If after a year launch, you haven't switched gears to attract and retrain the later adopters who are new customers, the noobs, you're going to bleed out your business. Again, to be clear, gaming is not my market expertise, but I sense the lack of focus on the nook. I even pay for VIP chat, and in the chat, when making comments, I've been told to shut up and come back when my infamy has reached at least 2000: not a noob-friendly place to be. And now after learning that even all my spending for boosts won't help because our team is too good for our peers and is matched instead to guilds with 3-4 times our infamy, I am feeling the aching discomfort of mega-noobiness.

 

As a graduate of one of the top business and law schools in the country, I am not surprised to hear that. There's something about career academics, like career politicians, that reduces their ability to see another view point. It probably has something to do the confidence required to speak in public for a living. If they allowed doubt in their mind, they might be less effective speakers.

Sorry -- went off on a tangent. I'm still waking up but I'll give it a go


Your main points (paraphrased) and my comments below --

a. Guild Rivalries is only one of the mini-games of a larger BB ecosystem.

Events are the newest “big” addition to battle bay, Guild Rivalries are the 2nd most recent. Each of those are mini-games. The main portion of the game is the infamy ladder where players are matched primarily according to their skill. For the most part, new players are matched with new players. As their skill and gear score increase, so does their infamy.

By hyper-focusing on one portion of the game and making broad generalizations, you are missing the larger picture.

b. BB devs have shown a commitment towards their community/consumers.

The new reward system for Events is a great example of the dev team doing something for the BB community. The developers invested a great deal of time and resources into creating a new mini-game that encouraged players to spend pearls on event tickets (thus increasing revenue). Then, amazingly, the team decided to make that event free for all to play as often as they wished. Obviously, a player could still purchase coins, but it’s purely an option. As sought after as the rewards are, I have a hard time seeing any interpretation other than it was a gift to their community – a gift, mind you, that took significant resources to create.

c. Adjust the perception of the corporate machine with reality.

The world of mobile gaming can be quite lucrative – if you are sitting atop the mountain. Unfortunately, BattleBay is closer to the base of that mountain. The top 10 games make a great deal of revenue, followed by a sharp decline. Where does BattleBay rank? Not even in the top 150 … So, instead of viewing BB devs as part of the soul-crushing corporate machine, you should recognize that it’s a handful of dedicated folks doing the best they can.

Imagine that the dev team as a few dreamers crammed in a studio apartment. These dreamers are being asked to support a few thousand family members - all with different wants and needs - while being hammered with non-stop Trump-esk type comments on how poor of a job they are doing --- because that’s a more accurate picture. Oh, and you’d be one of the Trump tweeters in that simile.

d. The dev team have higher priorities at the moment.

To name a few: they are responsible for/working on bug fixes, infamy MM adjustments, event MM adjustments, Nightmare league resets, ship and item balancing (*Tshield*), star rewards (and getting rid of fire damage BS bonuses), targeting system, gameplay/graphics smoothing/improvements, creating new perks/items/ships/ship tiers/captain levels/maps, customer support (complaints/in-game harassment and spamming issues), monitoring for cheats/bots/hacks, and monitoring the forum.

They have a fair few things to keep them busy, so they may not be able to revamp the entire game at your every whim – within 12 hours of a tantrum.

a. It has been tried and it did not work.

With each guild matched for rivalries, you would be matched with five guilds directly next to your ranking. For guilds outside of the top 300, most of them could do one board and win their rivalry. Was that fair for the top guilds that had to do 60+ quests and spend hundreds on boosts – to get the same reward? No --- And that led to guilds intentionally dropping their ranking, which is the opposite of what the game was created for.

b. Higher ranked guilds do not have quite the advantage you think they have

Yes, higher infamy players typically have more powerful items, but many of the guild quests have nothing to do with item power (i.e., star hoarder, ship sinker, shooter/defender/enforcer/speeder/fixer win machines). However, it is easier for lower infamy players to use multiple ships and lower leveled items (for the x10 multiplier).

Second, many top guilds complete around 48 quests a week – because (as you’ll find out) you are locked into one ship and one set of weapons by crew training as you near the 40s in captain level. It is too expensive and/or time consuming to leveling up items for a second ship and switching 20+ crew trainings over every time you want to change it up.

When my guild was doing 70+ quests a week, our best contributors were under 2k infamy. They could load up 3 bertas, do more damage and win more often than any of our 4k+ people. That advantage is a big reason why the top questing guilds are spread throughout the guild rankings.

Lastly, as far as the top players spending money anyways comment goes, they aren’t. They are limited to one ship and 9 or 10 items. Those items are maxed. Their captain level is maxed. Their perks are set. So, they don’t have a need to spend more – which might be a good thing for the devs to address --- assuming you want all of those new players you develop to have a game to play in six months.