So there are always lots of posts about whatever the current meta is (currently BD, Mab, & EK are fielding the most complaints) but that got me thinking and wondering why it is that I’m not seeing a real problem with them (other than their overuse) where others do? Is it perhaps that I don’t feel it because I don’t mind the occasional loss. It’s pretty rare for me to go more than 100 wins without a legitimate loss but I also almost always fight only 3 trophy, 9,000+ opponents (unless I’m chasing Event frags).
So maybe that’s part of the difference? Some players have a higher sensitivity to losses (no judgement, we don’t all have to enjoy the same things) than others?
Which got me to thinking that, it’s my impression that GoW wasn’t really designed to be a game that players should expect to go hundreds of battles without losses even though, due to the early exploits (that have since been fixed), you could relatively easily go on a 1,000+ winning streak. Maybe that skewered expectations for what to expect from the game?
Personally I like a little bit more danger and don’t want to ever feel that safe and that led me to wonder, @Sirrian / @Nimhain / @Saltypatra, is there an ideal win/loss ratio in PvP that you are shooting for from a development standpoint and if so, would you mind sharing that, even in broad strokes?
As long as BD is the way it is, I don’t see how it is possible to rack up 100-match win streaks at 3-star level without being very selective and skipping all the BDs you see. I play every match offered, and my average weekly PvP record has been pretty consistent for a long time at 100 wins vs. 5-6 losses, with virtually all the losses to BD teams. With the best defensive teams among leaderboard players posting 35-40% win rates, someone has to be taking those losses.
The Guild Wars will throw much further light on this subject.
The AI is so easy to beat that it’s all about time per match. Freeze, mana drain, entangle, and of course Bone Dragon are all easily defeated. But they slow the match down, sometimes so much that a win takes 5 minutes instead of 1.
The AI is so simplistic that these types of mechanics feel cheap - an artificial way to introduce “challenge” that doesn’t make anything harder, just more annoying.
I’m around 25 to 1. But I also exit out when a match becomes “bad”. When a justice/mab team gets going and stuns/freezes my team, I retreat. When famine casts and resets my team to no mana, I retreat. When BD casts and triggers +60 attack/life from courage, I reset.
I’m a firm believer in “When something you do for fun stops being fun, stop doing it.” So when the match stops being fun…
I don’t mind losing to an AI when It plays better than me. Except the AI in the game is so predictable that I get mad when it only wins because of sheer dumb luck.
I think I’m sitting somewhere around 80-90% winrate these days, with the rare loss to bone dragon and courage. At least it feels like that anyway.
But my problem with the game isn’t Bone Dragon. Actually, it’s quite the opposite. Invasions require zero thinking, and the most efficient invade team right now is just overpowered.
I’d like to see the guild guardians nerfed, but that’s no secret
my invade win ratio is 95% (i dont always choose 3trophy opponent but i also often invade with underleveled/underdeveloped troops)
along with the defense it goes down to a total win ratio of 70%
tbh when i think about it its kind of weird, all my won matches have to count as a loss for someone but i never heard of a total win rate below or even close to 50%?
easy fast win with extravaganza effects is what keeping most people playing non-stop. put a little challenge will keep things not boring. put too much obstacles bums people out, they don’t play as much.
