Guild Wars Change Suggestions

@Vangor
Player a loses battles 1 and 2 but wins 3, 4, and 5
Player b wins all 5 battles
Player b ends with 6300 points
Player a ends with 5600 points
How is it fair that player lost 2 battles but scored almost as many points? Why would i put in the effort to win all 5 battles when i can lose 2 and still get almost full score…

This seems perfectly fair… 6300 > 5600, as it should be. Since the losses were incurred in the low-point battles, they still earn appropriate points for defeating paragon, etc. If a player wasn’t skilled or teamed appropriately, they would lose the paragon battle also.

In your scenario, a player lost 2 battles (against low ranked enemies) and scored almost a full score as they were able to defeat the paragon battle and other high ranked battle… This solves the “Unlucky RNG cascades” issue. If the attacker were truly not skilled, they probably wouldnt win the paragon battles either.

1 Like

TL;DR i want consecutive wins to be actually rewarded in gw (the way it is now) but i dont mind if they are rewarded a little less then they are now

how about:

case 1 - old rules apply, cannot advance rank unles won
case 2 - new rules apply, can advance rank even afters a loss

(ill skip color bonuses etc for faster calculation so ill just sum it to base points from enemy offered)

A - win/win/win/loss/loss - 3wins - case1 600 points / case2 600 points
B - loss/loss/loss/win/win - 2wins -case1 300p / case2 900p
C - win/win/loss/win/loss - 3wins - case1 600p / case2 700p
D - loss/win/loss/loss/win - 2wins - case1 300p / case2 700p

under old rules, players who win more fights are rewarded more

under new rules it wouldnt matter at all, just get the “more rewarding enemy” to be rewarded more

earlier i was thinking maybe allowing to advance would be cool, but when comparing those numbers i think its not fair, often the last enemy isnt “that much harder” as the points difference - more hard is to keep a consecutive victory - and those extra points are reward for that

so i think the old rules should be rather kept, but instead the points could be changed to more gentle increase?

for example only 50 points difference:
200 / 250 / 300 / 350 / 400

or even smaller, just 10 points difference:
280 / 290 / 300 / 310 / 320

i think rewarding consecutive wins is great to be included in the gw revarding system, even if for now the rng is making that rule quite undair - its the rng mechanics that should be adjusted (to make the actual gw fights based more around strategy and less rng) - not this :slight_smile:

1 Like

I’ve never understood why people assume that those who are good at winning offensive battles would also be good at building defensive teams.

I also think there are two different sorts of guilds in the game, and balancing it for both is hard. Some guilds are made up of players all around the same strength. Others are made up of a few really strong players, and a few really weak players. It’s much harder to make GW work for the latter.

4 Likes

Actually I wonder if just letting people choose who they are going to battle at each level would solve the problem
Then you could try to avoid the teams that drive you most insane…

It would however mean you would need to have a way to opt out of GW, otherwise if someone went on vacation for a week everyone would fight their blank teams.

1 Like

I’d also like to suggest a feature allowing a replay mode where you can view past battles; OR, failing that, it shows a battle log, (e.g., Famine killed Queen Mab); OR, failing that, at least show the basic outcome.

Example:

Team A lost using troops Orc, Drake Rider, Cyclops, Gar’Nok, (summomed) Drake, (summoned) Orc.

Team B won using Ragnagord (deceased), Stonehammer, Famine, Elemaugrim.

I really, really want to be able to refine my strategies and get creative, but that is very difficult without knowing how a battle went.

2 Likes

There has been some serious pushback before when I have suggested detailed battle logs. Lots of people feel like they have “secret” attack teams they don’t want others to know about…

But yes, having a separate GW battle log that shows number of troops summoned/killed/left at the end of the battle, and points scored by the attacker would be very useful:
http://community.gemsofwar.com/t/gw-defense-log-------/27369?u=jeff

IMO giving people detailed feedback on their defence teams will just help them to construct a meta team. I do think that wins/losses is fair enough though

1 Like

Has anyone suggested the idea of a battle royale system where you fight a preset defense and you keep fighting until you lose? Like once you defeat the first set of troops another group moves in and you fight until you lose all your troops. The points would accumulate until you did lose. That way, everyone ends up losing but who can last the longest ? You could even have a backup team you could pull a replacement from if needed. Would defiantly give guild wars a more “epic” feel to it

Yes many times, it was a good idea then, and it still is. Not really for GW but for a new mini game/mode.

3 Likes

That would make the golden cog a must have.

Here’s another suggestion.

We know that guilds of mixed ability struggle (as @Jeff has pointed out). How about letting players choose a difficulty level between 1 and 10 for each GW or maybe even each battle?

This would probably require that team scores are re-worked to calculate stats as well as just rarity, traits, and levels

Level 10 gives teams worth between 9,000 (soldier) and 10,000 (paragon), with the same reward points as we have currently.

Other levels are proportionately lower.

This allows players that don’t want the stress to play on a lower level. They’ll still win but if everyone on their guild does this they won’t be in the top brackets.

Doesn’t the color bonus do that now? If you’re afraid of a team, you can just take in your strongest team regardless of color to get a win but fewer points…

1 Like

To some extent, yes. But this would allow someone that hates GW to completely neuter their opponent, win all their games, and still get some points.

Which is, as I understand it, what many people want. But unlike other suggestions this allows the top GW guilds to still compete at the current, more competitive level

I think right now the easiest and quickest fix would be to allow 6 tries in 5 battles . It would allow for the bad luck factor. Also, if you don’t use them, at the end of the week the could be exchanged for a reward like arcane stones, something valuable.

1 Like
  1. A lowly level 50 player should never have to face a high level 1000 player with fully traited teams. Despair ensues.

  2. Reward guilds based on how they finish in their bracket so they actually try to win.

  3. Sentinel costs need to be changed so players who upgraded all statues are not in the red even if they finish top of their bracket. See 2.

3 Likes

I would love to see rewards based on placement within the bracket, with the rewards scaling up as you go into higher brackets… This would allow the low end brackets to have some reason to try (as they would get a reward for being the top of their bracket)

This has been brought up multiple times, mostly when GW first came out. I’ll say the same thing I said then.

Allowing players to move on and progress to higher fights puts all the weight of winning on the Paragon. If the only significant way to earn points is in the 4th and 5th battles, then GW basically becomes a 3v3. Who’s top 3 can rack up more defense wins than the other?

By making a loss stop you from fighting the Paragon, a Soldier can effectively take away a third of the persons daily score. That makes every member of the guild feel more meaningful because every battle has the chance to limit a large amount of points. If you can progress, the best a soldier can do is take away 1/15th of the daily points.

1 Like

People in lower brackets need to realize that they can’t upgrade their sentinels all the way. They need to look at what rewards they can earn and where the sweet spot is as far as leveling. I’m currently in Brackets 6-8 so I only level all sentinels to 3.

I would assume that most people in lower bracket GWs only do bracket 1 or 2, if any at all.

2 Likes

I’ve thought about this too, but it will just lead to guilds mandating that everyone use the same defense. While that’s not really enforceable we’ve already seen this to some extent.

2 Likes

Wait, this means that if I just let everybody else in the guild do the work, I’ll get all the Guild Wars rewards everybody else is getting, plus a significant extra due to saving up my battles? I don’t think this is a good idea.