Ok… But i have been told by @Aelthwyn before that i am no more than a troll who is stupid so maybe my interpretation was influenced by past experience
That said i no longer desire to remain in the lions den to be torn apart by the pride so i am leaving this thread
Well at least this ones funny.
What really made me laugh was the idea that a top guild leader who knew how the scoring worked was going to tell everyone else they were trying to beat. Cracking that.
You mean collaborate? Personally, although I do not think the suggestion to abstain was altogether serious (as everyone of us knows, as well as the Devs, that the most competitive among us will not abstain or boycott the guild wars) that action would speak the loudest. If guilds–sisters, children, cousins or otherwise–collaborate, everyone suffers. So I guess that suggestion was in jest as well. http://community.gemsofwar.com/t/guild-wars-and-sisters-guilds/23674?u=playerdaniels
Liars and cheaters
And your post furthers this conversation in what manner?
I don’t represent anyone’s opinion but my own, but I agree. I think the new scoring system is fine. It rewards, in order:
The scores I am getting reflect my ‘feel’ of how the match went and although I wouldn’t be able to calculate the exact score, I am never surprised by the result and nothing about the scoring feels random to me.
In my opinion, there are many bigger issues that I hope the devs are spending their time on.
As long as I have the general idea of how scoring work I really don’t care. I think people overemphasize this aspect of the game to the extent its detrimental to themselves and their guilds. We prefer to just play the damn game and enjoy it. That is our unofficial statement.
Sincerely,
Gilgamesh GM of
rank 29 Dominant
Bracket 4
Guild wars optional
PC/mobile
I consider myself a control/defensive player. Last week I scored my highest score yet and for the first time managed to be Paragon.
So I disagree on an empirical basis with your statement.
I would like to know how it is calculated but can live without it too.
What about those of us who win in a dominant fashion, yet are scored less points than those who just run lucky?
I have seen some videos, like Tacet’s, and that guy usually doesn’t go past 1400.
… Yet, people who play rambo now usually score around 1450 on average. Me included, once I broke down the scoring system. And I don’t find it fair. Because there are people who, in my opinion, play it better than me.
Those who “play rambo” (if I understand what you’re saying), are probably using a high-risk, high-reward team that is likely to stall or get creamed if they get stuck with a bad board or a lucky AI drop. They take the risk of an increased losing percentage to try to maximize their scores on individual battles. Over 30 battles, these things should tend to favor players and teams that can consistently win in a dominant fashion.
I lost my first two battles on Saturday due to:
That’s random. Getting 1268 points instead of 1292 points based on a blip in mana collection or taking a couple of extra moves is not random.
This…I second this.
The officers of Growler, currently rank 215 and in bracket 12, endorse this statement.
I’m talking mostly about battles where people (and now, Tacet specifically in this example) won with prime advantage of both mana and damage in ratio over 4 (higher than mine).
And I went for 4x Krystenax. And I suffered more damage than he did, for sure. I believe my mana wasn’t as good as his (he looped), either. And I even lost one troop (resummoned). But just for playing Rambo (knowing the system) - I won with 60 more points than he did. For no reason at all.
And no, I don’t think that 4 actions difference is worth that much. Because other battles haven’t been as punishing in actions done. In that comparison - it’s just random.
For some of you guys, who usually play the same way, and see battles with the same pace as usually - it doesn’t seem random. But for people like me - who broke the scoring system twice and has gone over tens of video records, one by one, analyzing them one after another, going through roughly a hundred games of data - this is a completely different matter.
Please @peterix tell me why in tarnation the devs would program that level of random on score?
Isnt it more likely that there is a factor that you are unaware of and therefore not accounting for?
Right on spot, sir.
That’s exactly it. But one thing in what you said is wrong. It’s not me who is unaware. It’s us.
However, I’m the one who has proof they gave us a false formula and lied to us about it.
Well then by all means lets see it
@Vangor there is no reason for them to keep the formula of scoring a secret and that is what we want changed. Gw is a competitive LEAGUE and as the players it is our right to know exactly how we are scoring points and how we are losing points. Just like any competitive LEAGUE sport or GAME know exactly how to score and how many points they can possibly get.
Have you not read anything i have posted? I assume you haven’t or you wouldnt have said that…
I am still waiting on this proof that @peterix says he has…
Just so I fully understand: you both maxed out your survival, damage and mana bonuses, yet he took longer and you think he should have a higher score because he didn’t lose a troop in the first place and seemingly had a higher ratio of damage?
There is plenty of room to discuss what the limits of these ratio bonuses should be - you seem to be saying that you think that a max ratio of 4 is not high enough to adequately recognize how good Tacet is - but this is not the argument that the OP makes. They, as far as I can tell, are saying primarily that the scoring system is incomprehensible and needs to be simplified.
@Stan I do not really mind. I’m actually pretty adaptable when it comes to things like these.
… What I’m saying is that Tacet is, in my eyes, a better player than I am. By a long run.
And the scores - they were not fair, if you ask me.
But since we are said to believe the formula doesn’t involve anything else - we might as well claim it’s random.
@Vangor, I sent you a PM a nice while ago.