Guild Wars - Sneak Peek VI

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 canā€™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 ā€œfriendly cesspoll where evebody wins something even when they are losingā€, and that opened the doors for a much more serious exploit as of lateā€¦

2- Itā€™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 + Sentinelsā€¦ 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 ā€œThey never stated it was against the rules.ā€ to protect their wicked interestsā€¦ Iā€™m as much outraged, or even more, than you over it, but thatā€™s not the place to express it or ā€œtry to sabbotageā€ the GW because they havenā€™t, yet, said something about what they are doing over it. They probably canā€™t share every detail with us so far becauseā€¦ how do i put it?.. Ah, they want to get people ā€œRed Handedā€. :imp:

3- They didnā€™t asked for it, in fact, maybe they wonā€™t get a single penny from the players. But they surely should try because the game is a businessā€¦

I can only imagine Sirrian unconsolated in his office, his crying being cut by heavy hiccups while Ninhaim is outside asking if everything is okayā€¦ :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 itā€™s flow of new features at a reasonable speed to keep things fresh and attractive, so we must bear with it. And iā€™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. Letā€™s say that Guild X and Y ends up with the same number of points for the 1st Place, if they donā€™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

Iā€™m not confused, I got it straigth, but I kinda feel like this system isā€¦ Not good, Iā€™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 (thatā€™s for the ā€œnot a good system in my opinionā€).

As for the reason why I hate it? People will over spend (they canā€™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 Iā€™m soul capped), Iā€™ll 100% boycott this system.

3 Likes

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

Hereā€™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 thereā€™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 donā€™t value pvp.

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

So what iā€™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. Itā€™s just another area of the game that they donā€™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 donā€™t exactly see that as a fix either.

I think itā€™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 donā€™t think anyone saw it being this competitive.

I completely understand you all having to make money, so thatā€™s a separate issue. But I just donā€™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 iā€™m putting it out there on the interwebz. With all this being said, iā€™m not going to ā€œcause a stirā€ because at the end of the day I donā€™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 isnā€™t a one-sided street, this could be the cool new addition to those competitive players. Iā€™m happy for that, but again I donā€™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, vacationā€¦

Except havenā€™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 youā€™re doing 0 PvP battles/week. In which case, this system isnā€™t really for you to begin with.

Youā€™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 isnā€™t the case here.

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

They canā€™t solve it because there is nothing stopping people from letting others play into their devices using the same accontā€¦

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 iā€™m sure itā€™s not a viable project for a F2P Match-3 gameā€¦

Aside from that do you have any solution?

6 Likes

This whole conversation is hilarious.

Oh my god I canā€™t stop laughingā€¦ because then I may start crying.

This is going to be even more of a letdown for me than I anticipated.
I canā€™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. Youā€™ve designed a whole brand new featureā€¦ for 10 guildsā€¦ and really anything lower wonā€™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 thereā€™s actually a shot of normal guilds that arenā€™t on steroids to win. Designing a whole feature centering around guild competition for only the top guilds is so pointlessā€¦ oh my gosh this has made me so upset I need to go do something, anything, else.

Horrible direction. Thatā€™s all I can really say.

9 Likes

It could use the Guild League tiers, such as our guild is ā€œGrandmaster Iā€ 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. Iā€™ll help you on that:

This is a preview, nothing is entirely final and everyone can surely make their colaboration IF they donā€™t come already in berserker modeā€¦

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

Hereā€™s a thought: Since the original Puzzle Quest celebrated itā€™s 10th anniversary last week, why donā€™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 ā€œproof,ā€ but how many people will that catch? One or two, at most, and as soon as word gets around that itā€™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 ā€œmax acceptableā€ 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 donā€™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 itā€™s happening, for starters?


But people are surely entitled to waste every oportunity they have to contribute with meaningful suggestions in order to keep moaning over issues that couldnā€™t be solved by Ancient Titans of the gameā€™s industry, but that must be solved tomorrow by this particular company responsible for this ā€œrollercoaster of emotionsā€ wich is GoW.

@Eika, you might want to add Aku as a solid meme material in your foldersā€¦ There is literally any possible smug/rage/shocked/confused/sad/happy face that you might need.

2 Likes

Youā€™re just as guilty, responding to every criticism, real or perceived, with your fanboy bullshit.

Get over yourself.

3 Likes

If itā€™s hard to detect how could they? Why would they take the risk to accuse people, when they could be wrong? Itā€™s extremely hard to detect.

Itā€™s not something you can prove by time played.