Can you elaborate more what’s your idea/suggestion regarding this system you pointed out?
Well, this is why I keep coming back to my main point. I don’t really think they will ever achieve the “perfect” AI or defense, nor do I think that troops will ever be perfectly balanced, or that abilities won’t be exploitable or defenses set up that are very RNG-dependent and create frustrating losses due to back luck - and of course, one can always simply lose due to bad playing.
That’s all why I prefer a more lenient system that doesn’t hammer you so hard for any single loss. I feel that GoW will always be a game in which you can easily and quickly lose a battle through a set of circumstances over which you have no control and can’t hope to counter, and that’s FINE. Not perfect, but it’s really pretty ok for a game that’s simply can’t ever BE perfect.
The solution is to make the rewards system not imply the opposite. The rewards are simply too heavily influenced by the outcome of a SINGLE battle, when single battles are, and always will be, too influenced over RNG and other factors. The solution is to not make single battles as pivotal in the overall outcome of the day. That way, those battles that just can’t be won aren’t quite as big an issue and you can just move on and still have a good outcome regardless, even if not a perfect one.
This is quite different on console. Cascades from hell can shower you at any time.
2 Likes
May folks have suggested alternatives - have each battle be worth equal amounts, have the “scaling” simply be less (as one person pointed out, while the paragon battle might be harder than the soldier battle, it’s not 15 times harder…), or one of many other solutions. The bottom line for all of these is that I feel if you lose one battle out of the five, getting hit with a 50% point reduction is just too much for my taste, given the ways and whims of how you can so easily lose one battle.
Well, losing from odd random events like shower cascades is really no different than losing from odd random devour/DM events to me. I want a smart AI that actually gives the player a strategic challenge. It would be nice for battles to rely more on skill than RNG.
And by smart AI, I don’t have unrealistic expectations like it mimicking a human in this game. But, I would like it to make logical moves like having a beast slayer attack the actual beast on a team, having Maw not attack the single troop on the team with impervious, etc.
4 Likes
Can you provide some concrete examples. This is too abstract for me, but I’m interested.
1 Like
Yes, I would suggest that losing via cascade is actually more tiresome. I just find it amazing how many PC players say that they cannot lose.
If I stayed on topic I would have said that the OPs concern was reasonable and the counters filled with hyperbole were not surprising.
I would suggest that the current system assumed that the lower ranked members of a guild were significantly underpowered relative to the higher ranked members… which is not particularly true.
The points awarded for winning each match, on a given day, could be determined by apportioning them with respect to each opponents Defence Team Score.
3 Likes
@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