I used my normal pvp team for last 2 battles today and both took longer to win its like the ai has been ramped up like a F1 car does its engine in qualy .
I feel like I am potentially missing something about how GW scoring works.
Here are my results from the first three battles on day 1
All battles utilise 4 Yellow Troops, no troops were lost on any match
All info below is in the format
T(urns): Player / AI M(ana): Player / AI (Ratio) D(amage): Player / AI (Ratio) S(core):
Match 1: T:8/5 M:102/25 (4.1) D:366/18 (20.3) S:1452
Match 2: T:16/13 M:241/47 (5.1) D:541/13 (41.6) S:1364
Match 3: T:20/16 M:266/86 (3.1) D:476/274 (1.7) S:1401
This just seems completely nonsensical when looking at the results of match 2 to 3.
The performance of match 2 exceeds match 3 in every aspect and has a lower score.
I know that the damage and mana ratios are capped at 4 although there was some conjecture that this wasn’t working on day 1
I don’t understand how match 2 can score less than match 3.
2 Likes
Are you absolutely sure you were using only 3 green troops? I’ve had the very same number, 1260, reported for 4 survivors, 4 correct colors, first turn win. Your score might explain a few results I just can’t piece together.
Yup of course I’m sure! 
Seer
Spider
Kraken
Kraken
TL;DR: gw scoring the way it is now - is completely unfair
My 2 cents why im angry at the unclear rules, and at the criteria beimng said to reward and measure “good players”:
i claim that:
Currently the only way for a player to actually compete is figuring out the actual formula
-
with the “guidelines” we have been given - and the results ppl are reporting - it is being clear that without knowing exact formula players have NO control over their points gained (outside of troops alive and troops color), the “impression” that we have any control over the score since “we know the criteria” is false, the results jump all the way in the spectrum too much to ever show any actual link with its corresponding battle statistics especially with the recent reports players have been given
-
it is also being clear how much work and what kind of skills are required to figure out the actual formula
Here is reference of what kind of skills are needed
With 1. and 2. - if we assume that a “good player” is a player that is able to influence their score well enough to get a good result it is being clear that the current definition of “good player” being given by devs is:
Good player = person who:
- posseses skills necessarty to figure out hidden rules/formula
- has and uses (huge amount of) time outside of game to utilise abovementioned skills
- is able to efficiently use knowledge (created that way) during his gw fights
i simply dont accept such criteria of a good player as being anything close to fair.
i believe a good player should be able to efficiently use knowledge about rules - acquired from anywhere - during his gw fights
requiring player to “generate” that knowledge on their own - while it requires such skills and time - is not fair and not healthy for the game
so for majority of “in my opinion already good players” to have a fair shot we either need to wait for others to figure out and share formula or for devs to clear themselves from this and share it in public
i wouldnt be so angry if actually throwing “good games” would reflect the score but this formula is not anywhere close to it.
in half of caseas it actually punishes a “good play” in my opinion
even in some core concepts (punishing for utilising extra turns & other player-advantaging mechanisms like insta-kill) this new scoring is rather punishing good players then rewarding them
i believe devs did not intend to lead to this kind of situation but this is the way gw is right now, i hope they will change their mind and fix it rather sooner then later
16 Likes
I totally agree.
This system is unnecessarily complicated and unfair.
13 Likes
Wow I did just fine in gw but then again I’m not using looping teams just good old strategy but if that is what people are uaed to using then how is this skill to repeat and self repeat over and over again but then again almost all the post I have read so far about the changes are not any positive feedback like hey good job almost got it just another bit of tweaking. Lol any who devs keep working at it still fun to play regardless of all the looping defensive teams on gw.
That’s the part that troubles me the most. Not only do we not know the details of scoring, those details already have been ninja-changed at least once, requiring an entirely different strategy to compete. A team that scored well on Monday is now seeing pretty mediocre scores, using the very same play style. If somebody wanted to intentionally grief the competitive part of the guild wars player base, I couldn’t imagine a better way to set up traps.
@Sirrian
You have my utter respect for your communication style, it never fails to amaze me. This one feels like more than just a slap in the face though. Would it have hurt to give fair warning that scoring was reworked, never mind the reason? That whatever successful strategy we had been using on Monday might actually be harmful for our weekly score on Tuesday? Going by the silence accompanying this ninja-change to the rules, there’s no reason to believe this not happening frequently in the future. Which makes the whole scoring system a farce, just roll a random number and be done with it.
Sorry for being direct here, I guess my communication style wouldn’t earn me much money. 
4 Likes
Do you guys have plans to fix the Gem spawns? You’ve been saying you are going to fix this for a while now.
3 Likes
Way to complicated for a 3 match game for sure.
4 Likes
There’s something completely wrong here if programming electron density of an atom through quantum physics was easier.
4 Likes
@Sirrian something seems wrong here.
I’ve spent more than a few hours going through video to extract the numbers from my GW matches.
All matches used 4 troops of the day’s colour, all matches were finished with all troops alive, as such the COLOR_BONUS (since when did we stop spelling it colour :P) and SURVIVAL_BONUS will be constant for each match and any differences in score should be due to speed, mana and damage.
So the data I scraped from my games
Match 1: 1452 - Turns 8 Mana 102:25 Damage 366:18
Match 2: 1364 - Turns 16 Mana 241:47 Damage 541:13
Match 3: 1401 - Turns 20 Mana 266:86 Damage 476:274
Match 4: 1412 - Turns 15 Mana 235:34 Damage 480:0
Match 5: 1412 - Turns 9 Mana 184:25 Damage 555:45
There are a number of aspects of the scoring that doesn’t make much sense to me.
Excluding match 3 all of my mana and damage ratios exceed the maximum of 4x multiplier so I am assuming that they should take on the maximum value of 4. Given that the only bonus variable that changes in matches 1,2,4,5 is the speed bonus.
Match 5 was 6 turns (user actions) shorter than match 4 and has the same score.
Match 3 speed, mana ratio and damage ratio is worse than match 2 and yet has a higher score.
Doesn’t seem right.
7 Likes
Just to get it out of the way, though I generally agree with you, scoring is fair. I mean it is obfuscated and necessarily complicated for no reason but it’s so for everyone.
Having said that I had a laugh when I read Sirrian’s announcement of the GW changes, mainly at the part where he said he is a guy who likes simple. Yet the new scoring rules and there explanation where anything but.
4 Likes
Are you counting turns or actions? Are you counting gems removed from the board or increases to usable Mana by the troops on you team (filling a spell bubble)? Are you counting total damage dealt or total damage received by your opponent?
The issue may be that you may be treating overflow damage and Mana in a different way than the game does.
1 Like
They ninjafixed the formula for mana and damage efficiency from MAX to MIN. So yeah it probably capped at 4 now.
1 Like
I am counting user actions.
I am counting the change to mana as at the end of the turn / action. I am not counting mana overflow. You are right it may make some difference on games where the bonus multiplier is close to or under the 4x maximum but mine are so far over any small difference due to overflow should be negligible.
Likewise with damage.
4 Likes
Good info. Thank you.
1 Like
Yeah thanks ZK, I had heard that there might have been a problem with the ratio maximums. Appreciate the heads up though. 
1 Like
Have you considered: What IF they only include unique color troops in the new formula (like Tasks). Everything is top secret and no one really know for certain how things are calculated.
4 Likes
That’s something I intend to test this evening.
3 Likes