Guild Wars - Sneak Peek VI

Here’s an action they can take:

  1. Admit that there’s nothing they can do about it and be honest with us.
  2. Don’t setup new game modes using the same exploitable framework.
  3. Ask us to spend money on said new game mode when they know exploits are happening.

The problem is not that account sharers can exploit Guild Wars through playing time because as you said, the amount of fights are fixed. They can, however, use the MASSIVE amounts of free resources they’ve racked up, for themselves and from their guilds, to outspend everybody else in the game on Sentinels. It’s garbage. The whole justification for the new Guild Task system was to stop the exploitation and it hasn’t stopped.

I’m not losing any hair, nor am I worried about it. Disappointed? Sure, this game looks nothing like it did when I first started playing. It looks a lot more like Bubble Witch Saga and every other F2P game out there, which to me at least, is a shame. It’s definitely NOT Puzzle Quest or Warlords, and as a lifelong Steve Fawkner fan, that’s disheartening.

Outside of that, I’m going to keep offering up suggestions that will make the game better and/or prevent it from going any further down the rathole it’s currently in. I love the game, I love the developers and just quitting without any explanation as to why wouldn’t be fair to me, or to them.

3 Likes

Just to further get some clarity, you have to be among the top 10 guilds in the entire game to get these rewards? I know you said there are other rewards too, just want to get it straight.[quote=“Sirrian, post:82, topic:21506”]
If you can make top 10 in trophies, you can make top 10 in Guild Wars… at 10th slot, if all of your members buy 4 levels of guardians, they all profit 160 Gems + Cards + Gold for effectively doing what they did anyway. I can’t really see the downside here
[/quote]

Eh maybe this answers that.

1 Like

@Sirrian if X guild has ALL Guild Wars bonus and Y guild has only half the bonus will Y guild get more points for beating that team? Hope you understand what I’m trying to ask lol. A little incentive to maybe not level every sentinel if it means your guild could end up ranked higher than the one who upgraded every bonus :smile:

8 Likes

This is a great idea.

1 Like

@Sirrian I always appreciate that you directly engage the dissent in an honest manner rather than tried-and-true game dev tactics such as pussy-footing around it or having a public meltdown!

I remain optimistic that Guild Wars will be a fun addition to the formula and I can’t (well, I can) wait to see how things play out!

6 Likes

1- Stating the obvious is really that important to your ego? They, the devs, might as well do it because PVP is not even close to be a competition that could bear some impact on gameplay since it became a “friendly cesspoll where evebody wins something even when they are losing”, and that opened the doors for a much more serious exploit as of late…

2- It’s not the same, the number of battles is set. The results of these battles can be slightly skewed towards people who have more status by either being long time veterans + guild bonuses + Sentinels… But as the cost for the last levels of bonus is very prohibitive can you figure the math that USUALLY the bonuses from the Sentinels will not be something ever present? Now, if the Sentinels could be upgraded with GOLD ONLY as some people certainly desire, then it certainly would be a constant, and lame i must add, part of this new feature gameplay. Now your right conclusion about:

Yes, some people have no morals and will even spin excuses such as “They never stated it was against the rules.” to protect their wicked interests… I’m as much outraged, or even more, than you over it, but that’s not the place to express it or “try to sabbotage” the GW because they haven’t, yet, said something about what they are doing over it. They probably can’t share every detail with us so far because… how do i put it?.. Ah, they want to get people “Red Handed”. :imp:

3- They didn’t asked for it, in fact, maybe they won’t get a single penny from the players. But they surely should try because the game is a business…

I can only imagine Sirrian unconsolated in his office, his crying being cut by heavy hiccups while Ninhaim is outside asking if everything is okay… :wink: Ok, i must apologize beforehand, just in case, and i can understand your passion.

But sometimes delving very far into it is not exactly helpful. I know that you, me and others would like instant solutions to be applied to every problem we find in the game, but on the other hand the game needs to keep it’s flow of new features at a reasonable speed to keep things fresh and attractive, so we must bear with it. And i’m honestly inclined to believe that the devs are working on the exploits as it does undermines the profitable chances the game has, but as i said they are not discussing it with us because they certainly have reasons.

I could see it as some criteria to avoid draws for a given place. Let’s say that Guild X and Y ends up with the same number of points for the 1st Place, if they don’t change the code of how the points per battle works, because it would be easier to add lines of code to calculate tie breakers i think.

1 Like

I’m not confused, I got it straigth, but I kinda feel like this system is… Not good, I’ll say it bluntly : I hate it.

I understand the point of this system : making the strongest guild members even harder to defeat for ennemies.
However, because of the resources it costs, only the strongest guild members will be able to afford it in the first place (that’s for the “not a good system in my opinion”).

As for the reason why I hate it? People will over spend (they can’t afford it, but they will), and others will retaliate by over spending. End result : people will get less (from investing resources in temporary stuff) to get nothing more (as ennemies will also spend).

Appart from the magic bonus (since I’m soul capped), I’ll 100% boycott this system.

3 Likes

Stating the obvious? You do realize there’s another answer to the question, right? Namely that they know it’s going on and they simply DO NOT CARE. Until they come out and say explicitly that they can’t do anything about it, that other possibility still exists, whether or not you want to admit it.

Here’s my concern, people are comparing it to the pvp we have now and rightfully so. The pvp board we have now only serves for one purpose, competition. Which means only the most competitive need apply. Now there’s nothing wrong with that, competition is good. What this does though is alienate anyone else that plays, which is why we have so many people that don’t value pvp.

Referring to as I said before, data shows people spend a lot of hours in pvp but that doesn’t mean people enjoy it. They’re forced into it. (non-competitive people) So pvp is already an alienated space, and now GW risks doing the same. If you aren’t highly competitive, you need not apply.

So what i’m getting at is we already have 1 area of the game for that, why do we need 2? IF this is the route to take, then a lot of people are going to be disappointed because GW does absolutely nothing for them game-play wise. It’s just another area of the game that they don’t really care for and barely participate in.

Where I disagree with others at is the rewards needing to be better as far as pvp goes. I was lucky enough to place 8th on the leader-board this week.(not bragging, for reference) I had to spend countless hours and 2800 trophies. That was for nothing other than literally bragging rights. Imagine if the rewards were better? You would have to do so much more than that even. So I don’t exactly see that as a fix either.

I think it’s just a targeting issue. The route it seems you are on is targeting the wrong players. Now I personally could still be fine with this if there are other promised events planned later on for guilds to participate in. I knew GW was about competition, but I don’t think anyone saw it being this competitive.

I completely understand you all having to make money, so that’s a separate issue. But I just don’t see the reason to take all this time in making something that is once again only going to appeal to a small amount of the player-base.

These are just my opinions, and i’m putting it out there on the interwebz. With all this being said, i’m not going to “cause a stir” because at the end of the day I don’t have to participate. If that is the case cool, but I was hoping GW would be some new exciting addition. To be fair so that this isn’t a one-sided street, this could be the cool new addition to those competitive players. I’m happy for that, but again I don’t think they represent a big enough portion of the player-base.

I think there are a lot of semi-casual/casual guilds out there missing something new and exciting to do and break up the monotony of pvp.

7 Likes

Sirrian cared so little that he deleted an entire thread during his, short-lived, vacation…

Except haven’t they already said you can only do a total of 30 battles/week and you get rewards after every battle? That seems like it takes no more time than the game currently does unless you’re doing 0 PvP battles/week. In which case, this system isn’t really for you to begin with.

You’re speaking about the defense glitch exploit.

How about addressing the account sharing that is DOMINATING the PVP leaderboards for almost a YEAR with absolutely zero from the devs?

Yeah sorry I referred to time and that isn’t the case here.

But I was also speaking to both PVP and GW together.

They can’t solve it because there is nothing stopping people from letting others play into their devices using the same accont…

Well, they could make the game work only with facial recognition from the frontal camera of the phone or web-cams for computers/consoles, but i’m sure it’s not a viable project for a F2P Match-3 game…

Aside from that do you have any solution?

6 Likes

This whole conversation is hilarious.

Oh my god I can’t stop laughing… because then I may start crying.

This is going to be even more of a letdown for me than I anticipated.
I can’t even form the proper words to explain how messed up this system is other than to say I agree with @ogunther 100%

All in one tier? So that means literally the top 10 guilds are the only ones who will even break even with the sentinel bonuses. Anything lower and it will be a loss. You’ve designed a whole brand new feature… for 10 guilds… and really anything lower won’t stand a chance in heck at winning.

I would rather have it with multiple tiers to promote actual competition between different tiers of guilds. That way there’s actually a shot of normal guilds that aren’t on steroids to win. Designing a whole feature centering around guild competition for only the top guilds is so pointless… oh my gosh this has made me so upset I need to go do something, anything, else.

Horrible direction. That’s all I can really say.

9 Likes

It could use the Guild League tiers, such as our guild is “Grandmaster I” we would face other guilds of the same league, but one issue that could be exploited on this case would be guilds not collecting/gaining trophies in order to keep themselves at lower leagues in order to plunder the top 10 rewards of the said league.

I agree that no one could contribute meaningfully to it while on such state, take some time, recollect your thoughts and come back later. Remember wich kind of developers we have. I’ll help you on that:

This is a preview, nothing is entirely final and everyone can surely make their colaboration IF they don’t come already in berserker mode…

Am i’m still being overly dramatic/crazy @ogunther ? People are, in certain degrees, acting just as i judged they were.

Here’s a thought: Since the original Puzzle Quest celebrated it’s 10th anniversary last week, why don’t we make the competition more about playing the puzzle game and less about who can buy how much in stat bonuses??

7 Likes

create game :sunglasses:

1 Like

I agree. How do you prove that an account was shared? Someone posting here might count as “proof,” but how many people will that catch? One or two, at most, and as soon as word gets around that it’s bannable to admit it, nobody will admit it anymore.

You can say you can monitor gameplay patterns, but how many hours should be deemed “max acceptable” before action should be taken? 21 hours a day? Some people subsist on 3 hours of sleep a night. Do you want to be in charge of defining a limit after which an account should be flagged for ban? Or maybe the devs should put in an auto-logout timer and an enforced curfew.

This sort of issue is rarely black and white. In most cases, companies will say that sharing your account is against the Terms of Service just so they don’t have to deal with any complications that arise (someone logging in and disenchanting all your troops, or spending all your gems, or changing your password, etc). Detection is mostly impossible, and would require a lot of dev time and resources.

11 Likes

How about they just come out and at least acknowledging that it’s happening, for starters?