Lots of Previews - Guild Wars, Crafting, Dungeons, and more!

Exact same experience here.

Also, on the topic, I feel that the decision to drop down to 27 players is a terrible move.

  • Scores between guilds will constrict.
  • Leaves those players in the lowest 10% feeling like they haven’t contributed at all to the effort, resulting in them feeling like ‘why bother?’
  • Unless it’s been stated, I hope only the 27 scorers get the rewards.

Now, a lot of the people that wanted this change was because they wanted players to be able to have a ‘time out’ and not affect guild performance, thus less stress(?!).

Unfortunately, for these exact people this change will result in any loss of points in the top 27 to be maginifed, due to the fact that scores will be closer together. So those players will see an increase in perceived stress. All because they championed for the opportunity to ‘Time Out’…

Have fun.

:grin::+1:t2:

6 Likes

That one isn’t set in stone yet, thankfully. All Sirrian said was that they were willing to experiment with the idea, and that it would certainly not come before 3.1, at the earliest. Not a huge fan of eliminating rewards for those who don’t contribute points. It’s unnecessarily punitive to players whose guilds have a large range of level, collection completeness, and activity.

that would be horrible providing all 30 ppl played and tried their best
im hating your ideas here :stuck_out_tongue:

by the way i dont think they have any reason to feel “why bother” since it still yelds pvp rewards - unless they feel like “why bother” about pvping at all to begin with… but then its not the system that needs to be corrected since we are talking about a guidl that takes non-pvp ppl in so all other gw-contruibuting members shouldbt be so stuck up about ppl not contributing to the gw

1 Like

I agree. It’s totally unrealistic and rather ridiculous not to have any kind of buffer to allow people to live their lives. Holidays? Don’t forget to log on via remote play from your hotel. No vita? Sony tablet or phone? Yeah, great. Oh I forgot, I obviously turned everything off before I left. Oh wait I’ll ask my cousin to log in for me. Makes call. He called me a sad bastard and hung up.
Illness… See the above.
Working away. Not quite as bad but still an issue.
Other half asking you to spend more time with them and less time playing gow. Hmm, only going to get worse.
I’ve got my daily tasks to do, then my guild wars, then my dungeons.
Bye love, there’s a solicitor’s letter coming in the post, I’m going to my mum’s.
See why all thirty members HAVE to count with your logic is a bad idea ?
27 is a good sensible compromise. There’s a guy in my guild who hates guild wars, loves the guild and left for a break. He was gone a week before coming back. At least there’s a bit of breathing space now.

5 Likes

Exactly, that’s why it should remain at 30 Guild Members scores being counted.

No, why bother GW if their score will never count? Not counting is the same as not particpating. Reducing the amount of member s that can participate in the Guilds Score is detrimental.

2 Likes

I totally disagree. If you have a guild full of people who stay in and play gow all day and night then fine. Most don’t.

reducing score is to:

  • allow guild recruit (when suddenly lost a member)
  • having member vacation
  • inviting a low level member without making them feel completely bad or ebing banned from the guild

asking all 30 or punishing the not-counted makes it too “hardcore” game mode

it can still stay hardcore at the top ranks with the “top 27” system in, while it would offer much more relaxed and casual mode at the ranks below, i dont see why you are so stubborn to not let this mode be more open for casual players - after all the hardcore is only very small % of comunity

8 Likes

I would term myself a casual player, maybe with ‘hardcore’ views… :flushed: Playing about 100 battles a week.

From my personal perspective is I don’t care really what I score, within reason, dropping a few games or troops a week is fine.

My point is this change won’t make it a more relaxed system though due to the reasons I posted above. This will load up more pressure on the other 27 to score well. Do people not see this?

1 Like

i completely not see this… it will throw exactly same pressure on 27 that it was throwing at them while it weas 30-system
not an inch more pressure then it was?
all it changes is pressure off from possibly 3 members, whats wrong with that

and if someone tries their best but the rng will be dcompletely worst for them for entire gw they wont have to stress out since they will know if their result is worst it wont get counted - for now if rng hates you - you wont have this luxury

6 Likes

Ok, 30 players have a far better chance of absorbing a bad score/luck than 27, right? There are now 10% less to spread the load around.

Example:

  • Guild A has 3 player away on holidays or hungover or whatever.
  • Guild B has the full 30 so only 27 will count.

Now, Guild A is still fighting against a full 30 because it won’t be until the end of the week that the lowest scores will be discounted.

So, here we see stress being applied more to the 27 players in Guild A because all their scores are going to count anyways, where Guild B can play with some knowledge that any bad scores for three players will be removed.

That is only one simple example.

3 Likes

all 30 members fight

  • 30count: all members stress like usual
  • 27count: the weakest members dont worry so much about it - some ppl stress less then usual

only 27 members fight:

  • 30count: all (now 27) members stress like usual - but frustrate additionally since they know they have some members not playing -they know their efforts wont fully count
  • 27count: all (now 27) members stress like usual

from my perspective:

while its true having lost 3 members not fighting will havemore pressure on remaining 27 - the difference with the two offered systems wont actuall put more pressure/stress to the remainign members - the pressure is not being added by the 27count system - its being removed

2 Likes

Yeah and it’s fine.

  • Guild A will have a stress, the one that we already have: all members should do their best
  • Guild B could be less stressful but you cannot decide who are going to do a bad score… And I personally don’t share my stress with my guildies…
    So in the worst case, too much members will take the GW too much easy and do a bad score…

During about half of the GW, we were missing one member (generally players leaving the game in the middle of the week for no reason) and during this week it was quite difficult to keep our rank.

My only concern is that it’s going to decrease the gap between guilds in terms of points and maybe the difference between rank 1 and rank 2 will be one win…

i wouldnt worry about that

i think it will much more be depending on the actual system how to calculate the points in the first place - which is being changed as well (and im hating the fact its not completely clear btw)

Yes I stated this will happen too, smaller margins will mean more stress, not less.

So my point remains about people wanted this in to reduce stress, I’m saying it won’t happen.

1 Like

top bracket will have high stress doesnt matter what.

the change is to reduce stress at lower brackets, there the small points difference wont matter as much while difference of missing few members definitely will

and the top27 reduces stress but only max of 3 members - but it can reduces frustration of possibly up to 27 members which is a great thing

There’s no stress already in the lower brackets, they’re already filled with guilds with missing players etc.

1 Like

but there is frustration from fact they cant put all coz the missing members - especially at middle brackets

as long as its not a rng based thing ppl cant have control of - i think top brackets are fine with stress?

I don’t see a problem with this example for the 27 person guild. I’d rather go in and say “Hey, if we do well we can win this.” instead of “Why bother, they will have 3 extra scores over us”

After some more thought, I don’t mind the change to guild wars scores based on mana collected. I tend to grab quite a bit more mana than the AI does, even with zany cascades, because I can plan ahead and trigger my own cascades. The AI never does this on purpose. I almost always fire off more spells over the course of the match, also. And I can time those spells so that gem creation or transformation is likely to extend my turn, giving me the chance to collect even more mana.

I hope that Sirrian and company choose not to back down from this change without giving it a go first.

Here’s an idea, only use the highest score from the guild in Guild Wars!

That way, up to 29 players could think, “Heh… SO glad I don’t have to use my brain… Now, 4x PVP speed…GO!”

Edit:

30 players from guild A try their hardest to compete in the war for the benefit of their guild, all earning 6000 points each from the day’s war. But only 27 players have their points totalled.

Guild B, has only 27 players that try to compete from their guild, with three of its members chanting, “I’m not going to do it this week, why bother, it sucks anyway, I’m opting out this week!!”. The 27 players that tried all scored 6000 points.

Whose guild deserves the win AND the greater point bonus for the week?

2 Likes