@beanie42 That is a very interesting idea. I would like to see some incentive for defenses for sure. And if Im being perfectly frank, I really don’t care what so long as it generates more variety! lol
But since “in the spirit” has been the buzz phrase lately, something like this where a defense’s successes are rewarded with more GW points and bonus points for operating under color constraints, makes a heck of a lot of sense and definitely feels 100% “in the spirit” of the game!
KUDOS! 
I think this is way over thought and any monocolor team on defense is pretty well free points to a human player regardless of any bonuses given to it. The biggest issue like many of the gw topics regarding grief defenses is people need to learn that losing is part of the game. I choose to not play a meta on defense and other players can as well, but they won’t due to the competing pressure and nature of the event. There’s no incentive to change especially at the top tier of play.
And here you are beating it too. Nice work, you’re bringing attention to something to which you don’t want attention brought.
Here’s a clue for you. I’m tired of seeing the same 6 troops over and over. When that stops, I’ll stop. So get over it and move on.
Or by all means, keep drawing attention to it. You’re doubling my efforts every time you respond.
In the entire time of GW, I’ve lost 3 battles. That’s three.
Losing isn’t part of the game and not wanting to see the same teams over and over has absolutely nothing to do with losing.
But his first point is correct. Colour bonus would have to be massive stats increases on the par with Warlord 4 for troops to be even viable. I certainly run a defence that is most guaranteed to either win or kill some troops in Guild Wars.
Even if a carrot is used to generate variety, you won’t see it in Guild Wars where the big benefit of winning a defence is there by limiting the amount of pts the opponents can make.
It is part of the game and it does absolutely have to do with losing. I’ll explain, in more depth.
Guilds are rewarded by lessening opponents potential points thus metas with higher RNG win rates are applied. As well the ai on PC/mobile isn’t that great so options are few.
people don’t like to lose hence there’s five billion nerf this nerf that Boohoo posts flooding the forum.
This is as much a community issue as or rather more than a coding issue. Were snow balling into a perpetual waste of time with a cycle of nerfing and empowerment of cards and abilities until yes we have a line up of four peasants because as we’ve learned having just one on defense is game breaking…
Bottom line is any changes made will undoubtedly bring new metas and with it more requests for changes. I’m not saying entirely there isn’t a need for some balance issues but its pretty well community driven with how metas work.I like the challenge presented with monocolor offensive teams where as in ranked PvP its pretty dull less than 1% loss rate. There is no incentive nor should their be to tank a defense to appease the vocal minority in a competitive event. And the suggested amendments cited do just that.
[quote=“Gilgamesh, post:42, topic:24867, full:true”]
I think this is way over thought and any monocolor team on defense is pretty well free points to a human player regardless of any bonuses given to it. The biggest issue like many of the gw topics regarding grief defenses is people need to learn that losing is part of the game.[/quote]
I agree that monocolor won’t win very much. But what about 3 of that colour (I could name a top meta team like that), which would be a possibility under what I described. And that isn’t the only way to do things, but the main point is there has to be an encouragement (carrot) to do something other than the big 3 teams. Right now the only thing that matters is if opponent loses troops. If there were a decision like “normal bonus for killing troops” vs. “double bonus for killing troops with team that’s half effective”, there would be options.
It doesn’t, it has to do with variety. I don’t want a bunch of teams weaker than the current meta to become part of it thus increasing my win rate due to a weaker average team, which is what you seem to be claiming. I want additional defensive teams that are on par with the meta teams, which means my winrate won’t change, but I’ll be losing to different and more varied opponents.
[quote=“Gilgamesh, post:46, topic:24867, full:true”]
This is as much a community issue as or rather more than a coding issue.[/quote]
If the devs provided 30-40 troops that created a dozen teams that were on par with each other, people would use them. As it is there are less than a dozen regularly used. Balance the cards better, the meta will be widened. Meta will always exist, but if you have more cards with parity the “levels” will have larger troop pools. I’ve seen it in work in other games, and I’ve also played games were there is that one magic card. But players only notice these things by observation, they don’t create these imbalances, we can only play with what we’re given and according to the rewards/rules we’re given (or not told about 
) . The devs control the cards, the devs control the meta - this isn’t a community issue, except to raise dev awareness and beg for something better…
you admit that GW is an unmitigated failure that wasted a year of developer time, eat crow, scrap it and move on.
Ah come on. It wasn’t a failure! It gave you fuel for your schadenfreude. “I’m…I’m so angry, and it feels great!”
Guild wars is absolutely not a failure in my opinion. It’s certainly added some much-needed intrigue and suspense to the game! At least for 5 matches a day 
I also don’t think we’ll get stuck in an endless cycle of buffing and nerfing. In the end, there is an equilibrium and this issue is on the devs plate (while not a very high priority it would seem). Besides, if one has such a nihilistic view of the game, why even play?
Losing is absolutely a part of the game. I don’t mind losing; I actually learn a lot from it. My issue isn’t against losing, it’s against playing against the same 10 troops in a field of hundreds.
One aside: How do you directly quote someone? I’m new to these forums and I can’t for the life of my find the “quote” button.
You block the text you want to quote like show on the picture above.
i do not like any form of “punishing” to enforce a variety
plus with the current “broken” rules that “giving gw points to the enemy is not forbidden” this wouldnt even hurt the high ranks, instead it would hurt the bracket 2 and 3 where they cant meet enough of bonus points to break through back to bracket 1
i dont see it working well, ever
With the new(and probably the old mysterious ones too) bracket movement rules 2 guilds will allways move up to bracket 1 regardless of how much more points could possibly be made in that bracket.
I’m one of the most vocal people here when it comes to things like Bone Dragon and Famine. Unless you’re telling me that you know my mind and motivation better than I do, you’re incorrect.
I went 5-0 without losing a single troop in GW this morning. 3 of those teams were FG /Kerb teams and the final one was Psion / Famine / Death / Famine.
IT IS NOT ABOUT WINNING OR LOSING, IT’S ABOUT A COMPLETE LACK OF VARIETY.
That being said, I’m not in favor of creating artificial restrictions on team composition outside of 1. Base Mythic cards should be just that. 2 or 3 Famines in the same deck should not be allowed. It doesn’t fit the “spirit of the game”.
i hate them too but with less variety i know what to expect and what to counter everyday without spending too much time. winning gw with color of the day no longer an issue.
however, i do welcome more new troops that are fit with the competitive nature of gw such as ability to target and deal extra damage to stealth unit, damage to middle troops, reflect spell or cheat death. also more movement troop and stun troop.
I know it’s hard for some to believe , but for me, and many others, it’s not about losing. It’s about frustration, and repetition.
Here is a somewhat strange metaphor.
A game we all played: Mario Bros.
I hate water levels. Can I beat them? Yes. No trouble. But I find them frustrating to play.
I put up with it, I face the "challenge " of the 2 water levels in each new Mario game.
But, would I play a Mario game with 75% water levels?? Heck no!
Not because I can’t. Not because I die. Because it’s not fun.
So yeah, less water levels please. 