Seems to me that whichever battle you lose, those are the points you should lose. For example:
Battles in order are worth 50, 100, 200, 400, 750 points. If you lose the 1st battle you lose the 50 points and instead of rehashing a 2nd battle against another soldier for 50 points you fight your 2nd battle against a vanguard for 100 points.
This way you will always fight 1 of each tier of battle and even if you lose your 1st 4 battles you can still make half the points by winning the last (and presumably hardest) of the 5 battles - the same as if you won the 1st 4 battles and lost the last one where currently you lose half the points for losing the (presumably) toughest battle.
If each battle is worth different points because the assumption is they get tougher as you progress through them then the wins & losses at each level should carry the appropriate risk/reward of that level, not losing a lot more than you could possibly gain at that same tier. Thereās then also a need and desire to continue fighting the rest of your remaining battles.
Seriously though, I actually suggested this progression system in a thread elsewhere on these forums. That way, you only lose the points for the battle that you lost as opposed to losing PARAGON points in a SOLDIER Battle. I think this would solve ALOT of the frustration that players experience when they have that unlucky RNG in the very first battle. Knowing that regardless you will still get to face the Paragon.
That being said, I also understand the counterargument that it takes ALL of the teeth out of GW, which for those who are truly competitive is the only GoW game mode that actually has genuine teeth.
Unfortunately GW may not be a game mode designed for everybodyā¦ which is admittedly difficult to accept when GoW has done such a splendid job for so long being all things to all players.
The progression system just gets back to my point I made earlier. If at most, my defensive win counts for 100 points (being in tier 2), then I really feel like I have no impact for the guild. At that point, itās just up to the top two tiers, with most of that burden on the Paragon.
You want less stress when fighting, go right ahead. But you are now putting more stress on all your Paragons because they have to fight 30 battles and they are all significant. At that point, the paragon will be the difference between whether your guild wins or loses. 60 people playing, but itās actually just a 1v1.
I think everyone wants to win and no one likes to lose, but I can happily lose to a player or AI that outplays me and deserves it.
What makes me rage is losing to cheesy tactics that require almost nothing but RNG rolls. I never feel outplayed when the AI gets devours on 2 out of 2 Kerb or Kraken casts. Famine I rarely have a problem with because he doesnāt start at half full mana AND has a higher cost. I do think he should be bumped to 22 anyway.
Kerb is a much bigger offender due to: Fast start from FG, higher devour chance, and trait that spawns meat in front of him when he eats your characters. How somebody doesnāt see this as OP baffles me, but it also just gives you no sense of hope or player input when enemy kerb can literally be charged in one move (one mana surge,) before he is ready for coin flip RNG destruction.
Iām not sure that it takes all the teeth out of GW. I mean, if the scoring were as suggested - that you can fight all five types/tiers of battle and get what points you can from it - everything else would remain in place. Youād still have ranked guilds, top scoring players and guilds, with commensurate rewards, etc. What part of the GW system would suffer from a change in scoring like that?
I think itās important to remember that the existing system wasnāt āhanded down from on highā in a perfect, optimal state. Itās already been tweaked once, and Iād imagine will be tweaked again. I donāt believe the scoring system as it is today is somehow āperfectā and canāt be improved or changed with good effect for the game overall.
I donāt think that would be more stress for the paragon. The guild can simply discuss what defense team they like best, through consensus or vote, and the paragon puts that defense in place. Itās not like that individual is actually playing 30 battles; they are just setting up a defense. I donāt think thatās very stressful, especially if their defense has been discussed with the guild.
The problem is that very often, the Paragon battle ISNāT the toughest. In fact, Iāve only had one day since Guild Wars started where the Paragon battle was the toughest.
Invariably, the toughest battle is the one in which the AI gets positive RNG and either devours or death markās one or more of my troops.
Am I going to complain about it? No. Am I going to let it spoil my fun in GW? No. Am I going to suggest that this game takes zero skill? No.
But the OP is not wrong in suggesting that the ādifficultyā in this game is a flawed AI hidden behind several random, slot-machine mechanics.
Itās dynamics like that which make me feel that random chance plays a large part in individual win/loss outcomes of battles, and thatās exactly why I feel that any given single battle should not has as much impact on overall results as it can have in GW currently.
This system also has the problem that if you lose the first battle to bad rng you would not give a damn, but if you lose the last battle of the series to the same incident and amount of bad rng you should get mad beyond comprehension.
In this way this system would potentially make GW much more unfair and infuriating than the current one, depending on what stage you experience your case of bad luck in the seriesā¦
I think he means that other that the paragon and next tier maybe, that the other defenders are only defending for very little points that they dont affect the outcome, and it comes down to whos paragon has best def that wins. Right now a loss hurts just as bad from bottom level as it does from top level which it should i think. I mean if i get beat by bottom tier, they deserve it. I would be happy if they did give you something for defending though.
In the many times Iāve made it to the paragon fight, Iāve only lost there once. Statistically I lose the paragon fight about as often as I lose any other fight, which is what gives me the feeling that random chance plays a large part in it. Today was a good example. I was pounded into the dirt in battle 1, losing very quickly and decisively. Then I blew through battles 2-4 easily, as I do have a good team and do know how to play. But if battle #1 was supposed to be the āeasiestā one and the rest āharderā thenā¦ yeah, not so much. In fact it felt exactly the opposite of that. Battle 5 was the fastest and easiest win for me.
Because it doesnāt work even close to thatā¦ the battles simply donāt scale like they theoretically are supposed to. Today, as on many days, I lose quickly in battle 1 or 2, only to breeze through the rest, simply because the gems line up right for me, or not, typically.
Orā¦ it doesnāt feel that way at all, which is my experience. My whole āRNG plays too large a roleā argument is based on my own experience that I simply donāt find that the battles scale upā¦ I lose battles at all levels or tiers about equally, based largely on how my gems line up. I just donāt find that the higher-tiered defenses are really all that much harder than lower tiers. It has WAY more to do with the troops selected, RNG, and how many devours/DMs they get on me out of the gate.
As many others have experienced Iām sure, Iāve played identical defense teams in battles 1 and 4 say - something low, and something high. And had the experience of being almost wiped out or being wiped out in the ālesserā battle against that defense, while easily and quickly destroying the exact same defense at the higher tier. That sort of thing happens so often I donāt even really react much to it anymore, itās sort of commonplace Iāve found, since guilds are doing better at coordinating and setting up similar or identical defenses.
Now that I think about it, perhaps the difference in experience is due to the nature of the guild(s) in question. Iām in a tier-1 guild, and almost everyone in the guild is level 1000+ with nearly-maxed kindgoms and fully traited mythics in defense. And thatās the nature of the guilds weāre fighting as well. So, the āsoldiersā in the guilds have excellent troops with high stats, full traits, and great bonuses, etc. In fact, really the only difference in defense quality in our guild or the ones we fight between soldier and paragon would be sentinel bonuses. And with much of the battles being decided by Devours and Death Marks, with Famines and other troops draining (all of those effects not impacted by stats) I think thatās why I feel little difference between soldier and paragon fights.
Perhaps in the lower tiers, guilds vary more, so that soldiers are fielding non-mythics or ones without all traits and kingdoms behind them, and the paragons have more of that. That would create more of a gradation between ālowā and āhighā battles. But at my tier, I donāt feel the difference really.
I completely agree with the first post and also want to either take away all instant kill skills (itās been at least a week since any of my troop died because of a different reason that DM, Devour or Famine cast) or to make them 100% but much harder to cast. No one complains that Maw is OP (his mana cost should be 30 IMO, but that is for a different discussion).
Once again. The problem with the instant kill skills is not that they are in the game, but their huge randomness. Example: This morning I played with my Gorgotha / Krys / DS / Krys team agains DN/Kerberos/whatever. They were almost dead I just needed one cast with Krys, bet there were no blue or green matches so I casted Gorgotha. Filled them both bot nicely, but unfortunately I got a skull match. This killed his DN and DM me. On his turn he filled his Kerberos. On my turn I lost both of my Krys dragons and on his he devoured my DS. And all this was thanks to one random skulls. I do not understand how someone can consider this kind of behavior to be OK in the STRATEGIC game.
For people who claim, that we just want to have game easy, I say NO. We do not want the game to be easier. Quite opposite. I want it to be a challenge, but making it harder by making it a luck game is not the way. And having one hugely OP troop in the game as Famine is not either.
If you want the game harder, pervade developers to improve the AI. For example why does the AI always takes skulls? It does it even in case when it can cast a spell what would end the match. Or why does he cast Gorgotha all the time even when all other troops have a full mana. Or why does he cast Giant Spider when he can cast Kerberos. I am sure, that we can find hundreds of examples, when the AI acts extremely stupid.
And about the points. I agree that you should get more points for fighting against the paragon, then against a soldier (in theory it should be harder). But I also agree that loosing a battle against a soldier should cost you over 50% of all points. IMO it should work just like bonus for the remaining troops work. If you loose one troop in the fight against the soldier, you loose 10 points. If you loose it against the paragon you loose 230 points. So my suggestion is, let us play against all the ranks no matter the previous results. And the points for a winning the battle should be much closer than they are now. The paragon battle is not 15x harder that the solder battle. IMO 10% points increase from rank to rank should be enough.
