why not changing the way you play the battles?
if you lose your first battle,you won’t have to fight a soldier again,but the next rank.That way you will always fight from soldier to paragon and even if you win 2 battles out of 5 you can still earn decent points
1 Like
Look… @EricBLivingston i can appreciate your opinion and after reading the rest of your posts i realize that you were venting(which i can also appreciate as ive done so myself) and the perceived insult i took was unintended so i in turn apologize for the harshness of my response to it.
That being said…
The points you make can actually sort themselves out if you let them. Here let me show you what i mean… [quote=“EricBLivingston, post:4, topic:24283”]
What GW lacks, that the rest of GoW has, is “recoverability”. In a particular battle, GoW does show some recoverability, at least some of the time
[/quote]
These two statements lead to an obvious solution…
Ranked PvP has recoverability where GW does not and @efh313 said it best [quote=“efh313, post:24, topic:24283”]
Unfortunately GW may not be a game mode designed for everybody
[/quote]
If GW is not fun then do regular PvP. There are guilds popping up everywhere that are for those who dont want to participate in GW so you are left with a choice…
Stay in my guild and play GW for better or worse or join a guild thhat doesnt participate.
Im not saying its an ideal situation it is what it is.
As for the point system i happen to like it as is. It is designed to emphasize winning as top priority followed closely by color choice. There should be a devastating effect for losing ANY GW match otherwise someone who loses 2 fights and someone who wins all five could theoretically earn almost the same amount of points.
I don’t think the answer is “GW isn’t a game mode for everybody”. The answer is “GW exposes completely the warts this game possesses”.
It’s time to fix the issues instead of suggesting that people just opt out of GW altogether.
10 Likes
Yeah, the fact that GW in its current manifestation isn’t a game mode for everybody doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be. And it does highlight some mechanical issues that aren’t as obvious in other game modes, but are still there.
I think with some troop/ability fixes and a rethinking of how scoring is done, there’s no reason GW can’t become a mode for everyone and fit in nicely with the rest of the game.
2 Likes
It will never be a game mode that everyone enjoys. Some people don’t like direct competition. There is no getting around that in a “war”.
That said, I agree that most GW problems are fixable. And, several of them just put a glaring spotlight on areas in the game that should have been fixed a long time ago. For example, the devs should have worked on giving players an incentive for using variety on defense a long time ago. They didn’t. So now, upper level GW is a misery because of a stale meta filled with DM/devour.
Only time will tell if the issues will get fixed.
4 Likes
I dunno, I think it more exposes the kinds of players that are on the forums and what they’ve grown to think of the game as after having played it for a long time.
It feels like an echo chamber of people that have grown accustomed to a casual, can’t-lose game and are now upset b/c GW contradicts their expectations.
1 Like
Ok… but once again don’t re-cast the discussion in terms that make it look petty and ridiculous. No one (including me) has suggested that GoW be a “can’t-lost game” at all. Characterizing us as people who simply want an easy win, casual experience is incorrect.
My original point was this: I’d prefer a system where 1 loss didn’t punish you as severely as the current system does.
Actually i disagree with this as it seems to me that every time someone complains about losing matches lots of ppl here are ready to tell them to basically get over it. I think the majority of forumers are logical and intelligent ppl willing and capable of having civilized discussion.
1 Like
See my post above
Also another thing people in the top Brackets must remember, is that losing is a part of all direct competitions. Losing a game now and then is fine and normal. F.example 4 wins 1 loses is still good in a top Bracket.
4 Likes
I just don’t agree.
GW isn’t any different than PVP - every game is easy unless you get some crazy RNG and then there’s a potential to lose. GW is still every bit as easy as PVP, it’s still casual and “can’t lose” 99% of the time, just like PVP.
The sole difference is that PVP losses don’t matter and GW losses do. That, in and of itself, is a powerful motivator to complain even when one has never complained before.
1 Like
Exactly right.
2 Likes
Well, again - no one’s saying that losing is not “a part of all direct competitions” and no one’s saying that losing a game now and then isn’t fine and normal. Winning four out of five battles should still be a good outcome, but it comes down to what you think is “good”.
My point is just this: I’d prefer a system where 1 loss didn’t punish you as severely as the current system does.
1 Like
I’d prefer a system where losses are more a factor of player mistakes and less-than-perfect team composition than completely random occurrences over which the player has zero control.
4 Likes
Actually, the toughest battle is the one with the worst starting board, because you can’t prevent the devour or death marks from being rolled in the first place. This is the biggest random factor to any match. Otherwise, played carefully and the right team, the whole point is to prevent them from getting the coin flip in the first place. Mana drain causes just as much grief to a lot of people without being a coinflip instakill because the board is still RNG, and getting mana drained means losing your ability to board mod.
I’m still going to maintain that the problem is less about defense instakills, so long as they are avoidable, but the chance of them being not avoidable, and that they are random. Kerberos being able to get there by turn 2 most of the time (either 1 match and cast, or 1 match and a spider convert > extra turn > cast) is downright impossible to avoid given certain starting boards. I can definitely see the frustration there, but as of now, this still does not make the fight unwinnable.
The main issue is that the game is not set up so you take your losses from getting “outplayed” - ever. The more powerful board mod spells are simple and easy to see where you land, and you have such few swipe moves on your average clean board that you can easily suss out everything that will happen. Its so simple that instances of “oh, I set up that match 5 for the AI” or “oh, I missed that match 4 there” are few and far between. AI improvement in the manner that is present on console is not going to help with this - this consists mainly of “sliders” to set priority of matches and spells. It will simply make it easier for the AI to get to the point where they coin flip their RNG instakill, while also making AI looping slightly more effective if they don’t stop to take skulls. Why anybody wants this is beyond me.
I wish most devours/instakills were 100% and conditional, so you could avoid the conditions or avoid the cast to counterplay them (rather than just “be immune”) just because I think it would make for a better experience overall. If guild wars needs to be given some kind of “AI advantage” for certain spells on top of that, then so be it. I just wish we would stop trying to “level the playing field” as it were with certain troops (eg., lets make xx devour a lower chance or add a devour debuff that prevents additional devours etc or nerf this or nerft that) because that does not solve the initial problem. Offense will always have the burden of consistency, making strategies that hazard RNG less effective. Defense only has to win sometimes, making RNG based hail marys the order of the day, be it with board mod, devours, death mark, or even accentuating bad boards by using mana drain, and because they are balanced, they will eventually kill you with nothing you can do about it. Right now the incidence of this is pretty low, though. And it kinda has to be this way, because if it was even possible to make defense win most of the time versus players of equal progression levels, the game would be terrible. The point is, battles are not symmetric and the balance shouldn’t be treated as such. Its becoming more and more of a problem as the game gets older.
6 Likes
Thats totally fine, as 1 lose means that one lose half of the daily points. I agree that its a little too much.
Once again you take the words right out of my mouth and improve them in every way. 
1 Like
Well, that won’t happen until they code a smart AI or get live PVP. Without random bad luck from DK DM or devour, top players wouldn’t lose a match in GW.
Personally, I’d love the smart AI option.
2 Likes
We have the very first baby step of this on console (I assume when PC gets moved to Unity everyone will too). Its only Mana preference per color and skull priority. But we also have more RNG in the AI matching algorithm that will occasionally make sub optimal moves (sometimes resulting in a unexpected cascade). This just means you can’t reliably Skull bait.
There is a long way to go though until we get a smarter AI.
1 Like