I started the game and fell in love with it because of the mechanics that the game had then and still has to a certain degree now. I’m not a fan of the longer, drawn-out matches that the game seems to be heading towards. If this “smarter ai” makes matches last even longer than they currently do then it is certainly not a good thing, at least to players like me.
7 Likes
You are not alone here Macawi, I haven’t stuck around this long cause the game is a second job.
3 Likes
I believe people will keep fielding “teams of one” to get more revenges, and you and others can still enjoy the game, but maybe at a slower pace as more breaks would be needed due the slightly longer battles.
If the matches really do end up lasting a lot longer, I hope the devs at least up the amount of gold we get per battle to make up for it.
3 Likes
^ this, if the matches gonna be a little longer than before I am fine as long as the Gold from the battle rewards get raised.
2 Likes
Somebody in the last 150 posts mentioned this, but I can’t be bothered to go back and find the correct citation:
Each guild can participate in 900 battles per week, tops. What if only the top 800 scores were counted towards that guild’s weekly score? It’s a bit more data to keep track of on the devs’ end, but 800 integers for each guild hopefully won’t make a huge amount of difference (sorting and slotting in new matches might get hairy from a computing time standpoint – I have less experience with that).
This gives each guild 20 player-days of slack each week, among the 30 players. It reduces the need for Sirrian’s suggestion of rolling tickets for matches (but doesn’t eliminate it completely). It allows individual players to take some days off when they aren’t feeling like playing, or aren’t capable of doing so. Or, on Sunday, people can go crazy trying to beat the 800th score and up their guild’s total that way.
3 Likes
Here is a suggestion.
Each guild member gets 30 tickets.
The six guilds that they can attacked are shown on Tuesday with their respective guild statues bonuses on their respective day.
They can use one ticket for one attack at any time of their choosing until the end of the week. So they can do all 30 attacks on Tuesday or wait till Sunday to do all 30 attacks. Or anything in between. In my opinion, the effort needed to organise and plan for all 30 guild members to attack certain guilds on a Sunday will be too much effort for most guilds.
They can attack a guild a maximum of five times.
What’s happening here… 93 New Posts - hmm maybe some of them are small nope they’re enormous /wrists
5 Likes
Time to get the ole glasses out and start reading my friend. I’ve found that popcorn helps too.
4 Likes
They could up the guild member cap to 50 instead of 30 and make the seals cap needed to get to chest lvl 6 a bit higher to remedy this… hell it could even help remedy the worries of not enough active members fighting in guild wars too. I hate that we can’t have more players who can be casual along with those that aren’t.
It makes it stressful for leaders that want to be a bit more laid back but can’t be when they have to kick someone for “under performing” 3 weeks to find out its because of real life issues that came up. I mean when you need 25 members to hit 1500+ or all 30 to hit 1334 to get that last chest level it kind of forces your guild if they want to hit that goal to be picky on who you keep in. None of us like feeling like this.
1 Like
After reading through the entire thread, I still don’t really see a problem with 5 battles/day to be in an elite guild. That’s a pretty darn low requirement for the most hardcore, social system in the game. And you’ll still get rewards if one person fights once all week. It really seems like a pretty low bar to be one of the best guilds in the world. Seems like guilds will continue to sort themselves out and it will be fine.
That said, I do see the appeal of the idea of a guild pool. I think the idea of allowing members to do more than 30/week is a nice touch so someone can “save the day”, but the downside is that players will feel rushed to get in all their attacks early so they don’t get “stolen” by other members. I can actually see that being even worse than 5/day. Maybe if the “extras” can only be done on the last day?
5 Likes
That creates some different problematic scenarios. We get some guilds who will manipulate things to have a few people steamroll everything on the last day - or, failing that, it’ll be another form of ‘enforced behavior’ where people need to check on the last day and power through more fights if necessary.
1 Like
I don’t understand this argument: we will all be limited to 5 fights against each guild. So how can you do “more fights”?
You don’t be surprised by a guild, it’s easy: do all your battles.
And the rush meta claimed by Sirrian can also be applied day by day (i.e. everyone waiting the last 10 minutes of one “australian” day). It is way worst because it’s unfair for the ones that cannot be connected during these 10 minutes (because of night time).
Whoo, this one got long while I was away. I’ve skimmed what I can but there is no way I’m reading it all so forgive me if I’m duplicating someone’s argument.
In general I back ogunther’s position. It’s not that I want everything for free, its that I’m worried about what this interaction will do to overall guild feel. Guilds are not purely mechanical constructs for wringing more rewards out of the game, they’re a collection of friends. As I’ve hit the endgame grindwall I’d have quit months ago if it wasn’t for the people around me. Helping them, repaying they help they gave me coming up, socializing. It’s true that if you’re not a guild member you are at a mechanical disadvantage in the game, but if it was purely mechanical you could just take the PvP leader board, divide by 30 and assign everyone a guild. Change it week to week, no permanence, why not. So ‘just change guilds’ isn’t an answer.
As for talk of seal requirements, I actually really liked their introduction. Under the old guild system you really only had gold donations and trophies to track, and the way the game economy is set up right now both of those boiled down to PvP and players still leveling their kingdoms and whatnot where at a strong disadvantage. While I suspect a lot of people involved in this conversation make the majority of their seals from PvP, that’s not the only option. If the event system encourages traitstone farming with Explore, or spending time on Treasure Maps those things generate seals too. A player fresh out of the tutorial who is active can bang out those seals questing or doing challenges while reinvesting in their kingdoms and still contribute.
So seals allowed flexibility, and quite a lot of it. We could track players overall engagement level instead of just PvP. And yes, Guild Wars is inherently PvP focused but as described it feels like a step backwards. You will play THIS game mode, you will play THIS often, you will use THIS skill set.
Using terms from Magic the Gathering I’m completely the Spike of my guild. It’s why I’m the one in here doing a system analysis on the new system. I quite like my guild and it’s not full of spikes. We’ve got a couple PvP nuts, a hard core spike, people who just sink a lot of time but little effort into it, one or two with more money than time but the game supports that and I’m not going to judge how they contribute as long as they do. Mostly they’re my friends from around the world. And I’m pretty sure if people start going off in their own direction because the hegemony of play styles gets driven apart, I’m not going to find a new spike guild of grinders. I’m going to drop the game and move on to something else.
5 Likes
I’ve written several posts on this as well. The requirements and time investment needed in this game has only firmly gone up. If you want any sort of decent rewards to actually be able to “play and enjoy the game.” Pretty soon only highly active guilds will exist, and casual guilds will be a death sentence. A place you go when you really are done playing.
3 Likes
I suspect that the 25,000+ active players in this game (guess, but I see PvP rank 1 players up to 28k in the match-ups), who aren’t on this forum, and cannot (mathematically) be in the top (say) 50 Guilds (=1500 players max), would disagree with this sentiment and disprove this. The game has a signifcantly huger player base than the tiny proportion active (and vocal) minority here on the forum; and GW are (anecdotally for me anyway) well-known to be a big attraction and retention factor.
3 Likes
I appreciate that this is also a grammatically horrible and tortuously (and torturously) convoluted sentence.
7 Likes
What you’re showing me and what I said, are not comparable. It doesn’t matter that the player base is growing.
Those players that you mentioned are going to turn their guilds into a highly active one. It all comes back around. And if the guild they’re in doesn’t conform and become active enough, then well they’re just going to funnel back to the top per usual. There’s only 30 slots a guild can fill, of course there’s more active players than the top 50 guilds. Again this proves nothing, it is to be expected.
The system in place now is trying to turn 50-100 active guilds, into 200-300.(or whatever number fits) Which is good, no argument there. But the end game here is higher player engagement and hours spent in this game.
Til we hit a number of hours spent that is forever unhealthy for the game, and pushes the casual player out. Which is why i’m firmly against any mechanism that persuades what day I have to play. I spend enough hours as is without someone telling me where to be, and how to spend my time.
But with that being said, this is hardly the first game to do this.
Competition is fun, I get it. I too want some real competition and I hope GW brings it. But I also want to be mindful of everyone it could hinder or alienate along the way. The game still has to be appealing to everyone, not just those of us who put all the time we can into this game. I want whatever is best for the overall health of the game, as do the Devs. So I trust they will listen to all sides before making a decision.
But again they have the data and stats before them. I’m merely a player. If i’m way off base here, and maybe I am, then so be it. They can say you know what HK, you’re full of sh!t. That would be perfectly okay, and not only that, but i’d still continue to spend money. 
3 Likes
all i get from reading this is htismaqe was unhappy that his guild didn’t do as much as he would like but didn’t want to tell them, but instead hinting about it here.
yep. this is a troll post and i’m gonna get in trouble but it worth it!
4 Likes
My questions: 1 Will this put guilds that arent 30/30 in a disadvantage or are there measures taken against this? 2: how is the actual pvp calculated, will you be pitted against a random members defense team or something else (that would be a horrendous idea since many guilds have inactive or semi active players or players who dont care about defense and thus use just a single troop or something without synergy and would be way too easy to farm, i dont want to kick my guildies and i never will even if my guild turns into a farm because of this mode. sigh) 3 when will this come to ps4? in 2018? 4 will this in some way replace normal pvp (i hope so cause normal pvp is in dire need of a total revamp as using defense teams for this creates nothing but niche and obnoxious gimmicks just to spite other players) Sorry for no spaces im on ps4 and cant make spaces with this keyboard.
1 Like