We don’t have an official ETA for the 3.2 update. Once we start the approval process with Microsoft and Sony I will tell the forums like I have in the past.
In the meantime, if guilds are found to be cheating after this instance, they will be punished accordingly.
Please elaborate this part to make all clear. What kind of action in Guild Wars considered as cheating? Is what guilds in question been doing considered as cheating? What kind of punishment?
Why call it WAR if you don’t want it to be like any other WAR IN history? Every WAR has alliances. The spirit of WAR is to ally with others to win said WAR.
Sorry to insist…
@Saltypatra, i have an honest question for you and the team: Considering this event as a learning experience, in the future would be possible to ask the community’s opinion about such gray areas elaborating rules in new features?
If it was in the grey zone, it’s only because they cannot detect anything. They also cannot detect if my wife plays with my account or not, that’s why it’s okay for multi-players to share the same account…
Putting easy defense? What are an easy defense teams? Non-META ones?
What about the low bracket players who don’t have these troops?
What about players that don’t want to put META teams by sympathy for others?
I posted this earlier concerning punishment. However, we are not considering any previous instances as cheating or against the spirit of guild wars. We will only punish players and/or guilds moving forward. Cheating would include purposefully setting unviably easy defenses, and working together to do so, in order to maximise points.
We are always happy to discuss potential exploits with the community. However, on some occasions, we won’t take a stance immediately when we do not know how a situation will play out. In other circumstances we have in the past, and will in the future. It largely comes down to the context.
You still didn’t answer my question. The spirit of WAR is to find allys. Why create a WAR if you don’t want it to be like every WAR in history?
Maybe because this isn’t history, it’s a game. It also possible that one word can have various shades of meaning. Insisting on one’s own specific definition can be a barrier to communication.
I’m not gonna lie, i’m baffled the team took a neutral stance on this literally allowing the inquiring guilds to do such alliances. And in the end Pandora’s Box was opened because it was handled with such secrecy on the team’s end…
It is a WAR our guilds are the combatant. The dev created and knew exactly what was going to happen.
Please explain easy defenses. Example: if I decided to put Roc - Domovoi - Goblin - Humility in my GW defense, would you consider it as cheating?
How would you know/detect if they were working together to do so? Screenshot in the OP is provided by whistle blower, would you be able to tell if there’s no whistle blower?
Alliances are common practice in many online games. It makes perfect sense to me that the devs would wait to see how the community chose to go to war, and how different play styles affected the game dynamic. There are still those sitting on different sides of the fence on this matter. Someone is going to be disappointed, regardless of the devs final decision.
Seriously? It’s pretty clear the devs didn’t over-analyze using the word “war”. Are we really going to hop down a ludicrous real world war analogy now for this match-3 game? What’s next? Are people going to assert that they should allow bots too? Real world war is dirty and filled with illegal and unethical actions after all.
Using the phrase “guild war” is ubiquitous in all manner of games that have guilds. For some games, the war game mechanics are intricate with a great deal of depth. In other games, like casual match-3, they are extremely shallow.
I can’t elaborate further at this time, but I will when I can. We are still investigating how we are going differentiate guilds where this is happening versus those that aren’t.
Am I allowed to cut internet to your guild members’ houses, so that they cannot participate in the game and earn points? Your definition of war is nonsensical. The stakes here are low enough that some degree of comity should be expected.
The question was directed at Salty, but i believe the best approach would really lock out your defensive teams on day one of Guild Wars, if you can’t choose said teams maybe a random pick of six teams among the ones you have could be used. In this sense you can’t know if you will be able to help just one guild, but every guild in the week, if you set up a weak team to give points away…
Yes, i understand it perfectly, but the very nature/mechanic of our War is a ranked/tired sequence of battles… Unlike other games where two, five, a dozen guilds could become allies to defeat a stronger one we are bound to a ladder that can’t be climbed with such alliances, and therefore i think it’s not a proper behavior to be followed.
@Saltypatra - Please respond to the comment directly above yours. Did the guilds in question contact you to ask for permission to do this? If they did, how did you respond?
Okay. I’ll narrow my question to be more specific then. Guild in question scheduled to meet again this week, if they still doing what they have been doing, will they be punished? Example, both guilds pull 148-2 score, would you be able to tell if they’re colluding or they’re just simply too good that both can only got 2 loses?
A nuclear option would be to change the current 6 defense team mechanism to 1 defense team which would be used for the entire week. This single defense team would be locked after the start of the week’s GW.