The rewards in a multi-league system would have to be very carefully examined. Without more information about how GW points are actually calculated, let’s assume for now that the rankings would shake out how they currently are.
Assuming this, nobody outside the top ten has a reasonable chance of beating Anonymous, Intrim, or anyone else in the top 5. Why would they accept lower rewards (the 6-infinity tiers) in the Premier league when they could drop down to the Championship league and easily take the 1-5 prizes there?
You could force everyone in the top five to move up one league each week, which creates turnover at the top. But for the rest of the guilds, the rewards at the bottom of the next league would have to be better than what they receive in the middle of their current league. This suggests the rewards payout should be more sharply peaked in the lower leagues, while also being slightly lower at the top.
Example using numbers because it’s easier for me (ignore for the moment that these payouts go to zero – the perils of using a linear model rather than power-law or exponential ¯_(ツ)_/¯):
Premier league: Rank 1 receives 1000 gems, each rank below receives 10 gems less per rank
Championship league: Rank 1 receives 750 gems, each rank below receives 15 fewer gems
League One: Rank 1 receives 500 gems, each rank below receives 20 fewer gems
League Two: Rank 1 receives 250 gems, each rank below receives 25 fewer gems
Wow… I started reading this thread when it had 10 posts. Had to deal with work. And came back to this.
I will try and be concise.
I think @ogunther brackets are brilliant. Now I need to rinse my mouth out.
Also, I, like so many others never imagined this would be a single bracket. I wanted each week to be a war. I am only fighting 6 guilds. If My guild dominates out of my group of 7 and yet my guild places 200 out of all guilds. I will absolute feel slighted.
Shouldn’t rewards be tied to the places within a guilds ACTUAL opponents? Otherwise, why bother having specific guild opponents. They serve NO purpose.
Here is another option, to tie rewards to the place within the actual Guild War in which you compete.
I’m not bothering with the other rewards because, let’s face it. Nobody cares. This would mean that nobody gets a whopping 1500 gem reward but many people have a shot each week to make a decent push forward. Also we are already guaranteed that he opponents will be similar guilds cause @sirrian already explained that they will do all he matchmaking on day 1.
Comparing these leagues with the whole amount of gems from Sirrian’s table seems like something out of question ASSUMING that Sirrian’s table is final about the maximum of gems they intend to give us as rewards from this feature during each week.
Taking that on consideration, we could select the total of gems from the top five of Sirrian’s table and we have:
So tweaking your general idea of the Leagues, we could have the Premier League, if i correctly understood, being composed of the top five guilds with rewards as it follows:
Rank 1 = 1060 gems
Rank 2 = 910 gems
Rank 3 = 760 gems
Rank 4 = 610 gems
Rank 5 = 460 gems
================
Total of 3800 gems
The change just as exposed affected drastically the rewards of Rank 1 (-440 gems), 3 (+260 gems) and 4 (+ 210) from Sirrian’s first table… Each rank has a difference of exactly 150 gems and the numbers aren’t “pretty”, but what do you think?
Certainly some extra tweaks in the numbers are needed, but until it’s mentioned otherwise i believe it would be best to keep the proposed amount of gems as show on Sirrian’s table in mind as some form of orientation.
I put zero thought into the total payouts, so you’re right that they’re far more generous than what Sirrian initially posted. Also, there are the non-gem payouts to be considered (troops, gold, glory, etc.). I think my point stands:
In a multi-league system (where guilds are free to choose their own league), the rewards payouts need to be flatter at the higher leagues in order to encourage teams to move up. Otherwise you encourage guilds to hang out in lower tiers beating the stuffing out of easier competition for more rewards.
I agree, and there’s definitely a thought process behind it that would need to be fleshed out before rolling it out, or even the idea of automatically moving up if say, you hit top 5. These are just some things that could result in a healthier War that encourages purchases from all guilds, and competition throughout the ranks.
You can see a big drop in the gems from rank 10 to 11. One third of the gems and it would be way less intense in your suggested league model.
Maybe the reason for the devs to discard leagues in this feature is to avoid people “plundering” the top rewards of lower leagues as they could easily dominate those wich is, obviously, very bad to the game image as a whole. So if we atempt to work with the concept of leagues it would be wise to discard any form of manipulation from the player’s/guild’s part on what league they belong. In a very earlier post here i mentioned this:
So, even with predefined leagues based on trophies i could see people exploiting it by simply choosing +1 trophies battles, but still earning enough gold for the guild tasks…
@sirrian please can you explain more how the points scores are calculated?
Suppose we have Guild A, a top five guild of 30 level 1000+ super active players. And we have Guild B, an organised guild of 30 active players in levels 200-500. @sirrian please help me understand a few example scenarios?
if Guild A fights Guild B in the war, what happens? Assume both guilds play the same high percentage of their available games. Assume also everyone sticks to their fave pvp team and doesn’t bother with the daily colour bonuses. Guild A with better stats say wins 95% of matches. Guild B wins 90% of matches. Who wins? (If this were pvp roster scores, Guild B would have more points per win because the victims in Guild A are much higher level)
same as scenario 1, but both guilds also use the daily colour teams: Guild A has better resources and more troops, and gets colour bonuses in say 80% of matches, Guild B achieves this in say 60% of matches. Who wins? And by how much?
Now meet Guild C. They have 20 players, some active, some casual, with levels mostly around 1000. A bored veterans guild, if you like.
Guild A plays Guild C, and Guild A obviously wins, playing a high percentage of games and scoring colour bonuses. How many points do they score? Next Guild B plays Guild C, and also easily wins, with same high percentage of activity. But they score more points than Guild A did because Guild C players are higher level?
By the end of the week, what’s happened? Most days have pair ups like scenario 3? So at the end of the week, Guild B tops the rankings?
I would mind this either, I posted a question/statement about the point system yesterday (in this thread #140) and the community seem to think that there was ZERO difference in scores/battle/power level. I suppose everyone was just to busy arguing their point to read anything.
Yeah, really I was actually being a bit sarcastic when I posted 1 Win = 1 point yesterday. As others posted comments that its “common sense” that there are NO multipliers in the Guild wars point system based on the opponents team strength or power. From Sirrians screenshot, I doubt it. But its not final.
most of the player base arent satisfied with the high weekly cost of skill purchase (this should either be lowered, or rewards should be increased)
none of the players here liked the single bracket (why would a guild of 10 players and 20k trophies total compete with a 30 players guild and 20k on week basis, compete in the first place?)
rewards distribution needs to be tuned to better fit number of guilds (which should be readjusted if multiple brackets get implemented)
This would mean that nobody gets a whopping 1500 gem reward but many people have a shot each week to make a decent push forward. Also we are already guaranteed that he opponents will be similar guilds cause 
Alright that is funny.
