Another joyless GW day ruined in battle #1

@EricBLivingston you still havent addressed my point that if all 5 battles were worth tge same how would GW be any different than PvP?

Edit: and why should someone who loses 2 battles earn almost as much as someone who loses 0

They could change the allocation of points to something in the middle-ground too. How about the 5 battles are respectively worth 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% and 30% of the total available points (whatever that number is). Points still escalate, but losing one battle takes you down to 70% of the total available, instead of less than 50% as it is now. Losing 2 out of 5 would take you down to 50%.

1 Like

Im ok with the one loss punishing you the way it does. It makes you try even more with your defense team. And if you get a defense win in GW you know you cost the other guild some points.

@Stan that is a solution i woukd be ok with

I took issue with [quote=“EricBLivingston, post:54, topic:24283”]
My point is just this: I’d prefer a system where 1 loss didn’t punish you as severely as the current system does
[/quote]

And[quote=“alexander, post:41, topic:24283”]
if you lose your first battle,you won’t have to fight a soldier again,but the next rank.That way you will always fight from soldier to paragon and even if you win 2 battles out of 5 you can still earn decent points
[/quote]

1 Like

Whoa this is a long thread to say little new on the well-worn GW vs RNG vs points loss topic.

I’m a bit disappointed by how much straight hostility was directed at the OP, from members who had articulated their opposed view far better in the many other threads on the same matter. Maybe the OP invited a little with flippant and provocative language… but still…

Many conflicting factors play together on GW: troll defences with shameless RNG the only option really, defence wins actually mattering, colour team restrictions hindering the player, the binary nature of points loss… This creates a situation where the coin toss nature is hard to consistently avoid, even with a straight counter team: play enough games and sheer RNG will cost you a win, with consequences that can feel disproportionate.

Many players like that nail-biting pressure. Many others do not. I’m assuming in any case the update has done enough for the game’s metrics and profitability that the devs and publisher don’t yet see a need to fix anything.

6 Likes

You can’t do that. If you lose a battle against a soldier, next you’ll face against another random soldier. Same rule applies if you lose against higher rank. In short: you won’t see enemy paragon if you lose one of your first 4 battles.

1 Like

Except for the part where they’ve already made changes, and already communicated that they need an update to fix others. They’re listening, and you should know better than most that they are.

They changed the guild statue colour bonuses from 80% max to 50% max. And expect to change the DeathMark mechanic to the 1 turn delay it should probably have had all along (which isn’t really a GW point, just that GW put it into stark relief as DeathKnights appeared at the same time).

What else have they changed? Or confirmed that they intended to change? Anything core to address the pressures that GW creates against sheer RNG? If it even needs addressing, which the forum is clearly divided upon…

I have only seen fairly media-management generic we-are-keeping-it-under-review responses. The last few weeks have been a DeathKnight or Famine or Kerberos obscured blur though, for me.

1 Like

I don’t understand this. Is it a joke? Is it a dig? How do you try harder when running Devour/DM on defense?

1 Like

GW would always be very different from normal PvP, regardless of scoring, for the basic reason that PvP is structured so that any one loss is easily countered and made up for simply by playing more. The only “punishment” for losing PvP is that you have to put in more effort to get to the exact same place you would have if you’d won the PvP battle. That’s what I mean when I say that the rest of GoW is ‘recoverable’.

In a given battle, many times if you get behind, you can “recover” and pull to the front and win, essentially “coming from behind” - and that is a GOOD thing, that’s very motivating and is a great feeling when you are able to do that. It’s a mechanic they should strive to cultivate. If PvP, you can “recover” from losses by just playing more matches. In Explore, Quest, and Challenge mode, you can try again, play more, etc. - losses aren’t that big a deal if you’re willing to put in the effort to overcome them. I recognize the Arena isn’t like this, but that’s a whole other thread.

For instance, what if you could attempt any given GW battle up to three times, with each attempt being worth 100%, 80%, and then 50% of possible points for that battle? Then, if RNG and other circumstances drove you to an inevitable failure the first try, you could have another go and get decent points out of it - plus you could have the satisfaction of finally beating that defense - and I’d not underestimate the value of these psychological “wins” in terms of maintaining the fun and motivation of the game. If I had bad luck on round one of a match-up, but was able to recover most of my points and win in the end, that would do wonders for my level of entertainment and desire to continue on with the following battles.

Or, maybe each matchup is best 2 out of three. Or you have points scale differently, have the matches worth the same, or many other options. The idea is simply this - that it’s not fun when losing a single battle has as much impact as they currently do on your overall results.

I see a lot of different def teams
Only 1 Kerberos in all 5 fights, and 1 famine

What bracket are you in, Hoop? Ive been up against 8 out of 10 Kerberos/FG teams in GW these 2 days.

2 Likes

bracket 2. Maybe just luck. I guess there was 1 the first day also. So 2 days ive had 2 kerb battles.

1 Like

Well @EricBLivingston since you are unwilling to see my point we must agree to disagree… That said ill leave you with this…

If. GW. Isn’t. Fun. Simply. Abstain.

Vangor out

Well, sure this is what I’ve been saying - the core of the argument is subjective. You like the system as it is, and I don’t lol. We both have reasons for why we like or dislike it. At the end of the day, it’ll be up to the devs to work out the system that benefits them the most. The optimal solution would be pareto-optimal, in that it should benefit the most players possible without generating any negative effects for any. GW is currently not pareto-optimal at all, because while it benefits some, it also causes distress and angst for others. That’s not an efficient or really desired solution for the devs.

From an economic standpoint, if you think about two outcomes:

  1. GW that no players absolutely love, most think it’s “ok”, and no one hates
  2. GW that few players absolutely love, some think it’s “ok”, but some absolutely hate.

The polarization of option #2 is not good for most games, as it can cause the “haters” to be a vocal group that winds up causing dissent, creating a toxic environment, spending no money on the game, and ultimately eroding the player base through rage-quits and just getting tired or fed up, etc. I’ve seen MMOs go this route, where fewer and fewer love it more and more, isolating the game into a tighter and tighter niche of die-hard “lovers” who ultimately can’t sustain the game and the whole thing flops.

Better to have fewer “lovers”, a very wide base of “likers” and no “haters” than a small group of “lovers” and a growing group of “haters” in my opinion.

From a GW standpoint, they’d be well-served to create a system that didn’t piss anyone off, and that most people enjoyed. And yes, this might create a “blander” experience for the die-hards who want the nail-biting intense, all-or-nothing stuff, but that’s what “mass appeal” is all about really lol.

1 Like

The reason for so much DM and Devour on defense is that even if you kill 1 Troop, you cost points to the attacker.

I think the progressing points system is OK, but needs a lower rate of progression.

From
50, 100, 200, 400, 750 points.

To something more like
100, 200, 300, 400, 500

That seems like a better progression to me. The battles are still escalating, but it’s not the end of the world if you lose a fight. You just lose 500 plus modifiers.

4 Likes

If they are recasting what you are saying so that it sounds more ridiculous, then maybe look at what you are saying and figure out that already sounds ridiculous.

You are right on one point though. If the first battle against a soldier is just as hard as the 5th fight against a champion or paragon, then the sentinel bonuses aren’t doing enough to make the champions/paragons worth the extra points. Maybe the devs need to buff champion’s and paragon’s bonuses from underling’s sentinels?

1 Like

I see where you are coming from. If I were to change anything, then win or lose you move on to the next fight. that way even if you go 1 and 4 only defeating the paragon, you still can get half of the day’s total points. Losing to a soldier or vanguard shouldn’t cost you the chance to fight the paragon and earn those points.

1 Like

You’re so right. The same “lovers” (or “fanboys”) posted exactly the same answer in every “GW-is-not-fun” topics… Can we agree that it’s the first time that so much unhappiness is due to one patch?

About dollars, I really hope that these “lovers” are as active with their credit card than on this forum… :wink: Because there is something that it’s sure: players leaving the game will never give any dollars to the game. So yeah “lovers” can continue with their “if you’re not happy leave the game” attitude, but be sure that they’re not helping devs.

About the “If you don’t like GW, don’t play it”: it’s not acceptable. GW was a promise to give a new breath to this game and what we get: a more toxic PVP mode. Devs talked about it since one year and it can be disappointing for some (a lot of?) players to have waited one full year about a feature which should not concerned them.

For the idea to reduce the gap of points, it seems obvious that this gap currently brings a lot of frustration to players (with players leaving guilds/game because of their poor performance).
This idea was already proposed but as far as I know, no devs gave us any answer… so it seems not an issue for them. In fact, we don’t have any feedbacks about GW from the devs…

6 Likes