Maybe you misunderstood, that’s why I said it’s better to be one per team and not one per army, because those cards need ascension too
i didnt misunderstand, it would still be bad 
there is no way ppl farm extra copies for a mythic that they can use only one copy of (famine for example)
- ppl would want refunds and misstrust the company deciding they wont do purchases anymore since later their purchases may become completely devalued, bad for the market
- ppl would not wish to farm 4 mythic of these kinds so it means less purchases since they would stop at 1 mythic - less money, bad for the market
and if you cant make base mythics like famine or death unique then how would that fix current issues? 
1 Like
@Sirrian said that unique troops will not happen or only in some specific new game modes. So forget about it (sadly).
But he said that devs thought about adding unique traits (ie traits that cannot stack). No update.
About your arguments, difficult to know as we don’t know about which features bring dollars or not…
Just as an update: My day 2 Guild war opponent line up was:
Beast
Beast
DK, Famine, Famine, Death
Beast
Beast
I was lucky enough to have a perfect day today, but that certainly won’t always happen thanks to RNGesus.
One more problem is this:
How do we design a way to encourage different defense teams without enforcing another (just different) meta?
If defense teams got day bonuses, it wouldn’t take us that long to find the optimal color troops for that day and face those for 5 straight matches. It would solve the problem of day-to-day monotony, but create a new issue of “Ok, on blue day I’m going up against EK, Krystenax, (troop), (troop)…” every game. Is that better? worse?
2 Likes
completely without the meta you would have to reward the team depending on troops usage statistics :
- the least common troops this week = the most rewards
- the most commonly used troops = the lowest or no rewards
but with some thought to it you could create new meta that is shifting every week much more then currently:
- reward teams depending on combination of: “weekly gw-evented troops”, weekly released troops and enemy guild color
3 Likes
That’s a great idea Annaerith!
Another one I and one of my guildmates came up with is possibly “punishing” common defense teams. The idea is that for every famine (or maybe for every Horseman past the first one), the attacker can potentially earn more points for winning. A bonus of somewhere around 200 extra points per troop.
So if you go up against DK, Famine, Famine, Death, you can potentially earn (normal win points) +400.
Any thoughts?
1 Like
@Esoxnepa also had a nice twist: If you face off against a meta team then you get way more points for a win.
I’m honestly not sure which is better but I think the key is that the defender knows this, very clearly, in advance.
One of the supposed reasons for introducing GW was for guilds to talk, share strategies and advice, etc. The obvious result of that is that teams are sharing ideas on what is working and using similar teams. I’m seeing weaker members of guilds trying to put up the same version of teams as their paragons and champions, even when they don’t have the traits to support them. In org theory, it’s called mimetic isomorphism. There tends to be a convergence on a structure that is perceived as beneficial, even when that structure may not be the reason for success or possible to implement in a different context.
People already want refunds. They already mistrust the company and won’t make any more purchases because of the way things are right now.
I don’t think your objection holds much water but that’s just my opinion. Something HAS to change.
First 3 GW matches today.
DK / Famine
DK / Famine
DK / Famine
Throw in Death or Psion and that’s GW
3 Likes
Ok apologies upfront for the forthcoming wall of text.
I’ve been doing some brainstorming and that’s always dangerous… 
What if Arena actually MEANT something in the long run? What if Arena was the training ground for PVP?
How could this work when Arena is designed to be random and PVP/GW is about fielding your best?
Simple. The Arena team structure becomes the gold standard by which all “competitive modes” are modeled. Every team in PVP / GW must be comprised of a
- Common/ Rare
- Ultra Rare / Epic
- Legendary / Hero
- Legendary / Mythic
This would not necessarily eradicate the meta combos as they can still exist but in a lesser state.
Alternatively devs could create a numerical system in which each base rarity is given a point value. Then teams can be built to maximum point total.
SAMPLE
Common-1
Rare- 2
Ultra Rare- 3
Epic- 4
Legendary- 5
Mythic- 6
Team Max- 18
Really want double Famine? Ok you only have 6 points left. Legendary and a common to fill out the team, or two UR troops?
Thoughts?
1 Like
I think all 5 of my GW matches had psion/famine but one, which ran wraith in the front instead if psion. Other troops in the mix were death, khorvash, DK, moloch. Yay variety. I played 5 games and saw literally 7 total unique troops mixed in the defending armies.
2 Likes
People will say it limits player choice too much.
1 Like
Says who? Where are all these refunds and how do you know about them? Do you work at Apple or something?
All I hear is the same whining over and over again from the same people. And I see the dev team responding when and where they can. You’re like beating the ground where the dead horse once was before it was beaten to non-existence. Enough already, holy sh*t!
As @htismaqe already mentioned, this would limit choice too much. Also, as I mentioned in another thread, the levels don’t mean much. For example, Valkyrie is the most used rare and Giant Spider the most used UR, and you’ll see them currently in the top tier meta teams without any “numerical system” forcing the issue. If the cards are going to be weighted, it needs to be done in a more intelligent way than rarity (the best suggestion I’ve seen is put in groups based on amount of use for the previous period). Also, rather than limiting to certain teams, a reward by giving more points for using lesser or non-meta teams would be more welcomed (bait players into changing, don’t force them).
2 Likes
This makes a lot of sense. What kind of bait would you like to see?
I know that people have talked a lot about stat boost for defense troops but I’m thinking that a more tangible worm might need to be on the proverbial hook.
Say… upon changing your PVP defense each day you receive an in game mail containing a resource package. 1,000 gold and 100 souls.
If you manage a full week of 7 different PVP teams then you receive an in game mail resource package that contains: 5000 gold, 500 souls, 5 maps, and 5 of the crafting resource.
I think something like that would be very enticing for players to continually change their defense. 
Here is the original idea for usage based bonuses in Defend teams.
By using usage based criteria you are CONSTANTLY factoring and adjusting for the the meta. Not just “changing it at random” to get mail rewards… unfortunately that would just get people to use the exact same meta team in a pattern.
I’m sure this idea I posted would have drawbacks if implemented. But by encouraging lesser used troops by offering rewards for usage it can’t help but change up a few players teams.
1 Like
I posted a few ideas on how to encourage weekly changes in defence teams in these threads:
Variety in all PvP, and especially GW, would be a great addition to the long term appeal of the game. Even the most devoted fans get tired of playing two or three teams in every match…
I dislike the ideas of boosting troops or rewards based on frequency / infrequency of use. That feels artificial and probably leads to weeks of random crap, and ages studying this week’s unfashionable bracket to see what could almost make a team there.
2 Likes
Well that’s amusing because its my idea… and I don’t love it either. But it would work, I’m sure of it. And without going the Troop ban/ hard limitations that often gets thrown around. So if you ignore it there really is NO change what so ever to those players at all, but if you take advantage of it you’ll get more rewards… so some will change their team, and some will run grief. More variety.
I’d be up for many of the other purposed options others and you have put forth too, and any of the developers own ideas too (that’s their job after all). All to try and shake up the defend teams.
2 Likes
My GW ideas were summarized earlier in this thread (Guild War Variety - #13 by beanie42). I think the main way to encourage people to use other defenses is to make other defenses viable, widen the meta. Other ideas like multiple event bonuses (@Jainus idea) could help with that as well.
Otherwise, it mainly comes down to making defense affect scoring. The main idea has been to get points based on your defense, but there would need to be some sort of constraint such as colour to modify the scoring enough that simply winning compared to team composition was a real trade-off (same as with offense). Alternatively, weighting the cards and giving them point values could work, but as mentioned I think use-based would be best (I think @Strat first suggested this in another thread).
Another scoring idea I had is a bit off the wall, but it’s to use the number of colours of the defense team as a modifier against points prevented. Haven’t put a lot of thought into exactly how it would work or actual numbers, but here’s a very early draft:
- Defense would have a daily colour, but different than offense (so blue offense day might be green defense day).
- The MODIFER would be ((2 * daily colour used) - non daily colour used), with a min of 1. As will be seen, the non-daily colour actively penalizes mythics on defense, which might be a point of contention. As examples, Kerb/FG/GS/Kerb has 2 purple and 6 other colours so it’s modifier would end up being -2 so it would be set to 1. Psion/Fam/Fam/Death is 2 purple and 9 other, so it also would end up with 1. But using 4 dual-colour purples (say 4x Amira) would be 4 purple and 4 oher, so a modifier of 4. Something crazy like 4 single-colour commons (say 4x Myzmer) would end up with a modifier of 8.
- The TROOP VALUE would be the bonused value of each troop assuming a max offense using the offense formula (the final 25% each). So for the first battle each troop surviving ends up being worth 30, and for the final Paragon battle it’s 150.
*For each troop the defense kills, they get modifier * troop value points. So if the Kerb team wins the first battle he gets 120 points or as paragon it would be 600. But if the defense kills one troop but loses, it would still get 30 or 150 points respectively. Alternatively, if it was the Myzmer defense (and your battery died?), it would get 240 points as a soldier or a whopping 4800 points as paragon.
*Obviously an early idea that didn’t have much flesh until this post, and could use a lot of improvement. But general idea is to reward defense for their success but with a bonus for doing so under constraints.[/details]