How about everyone posting against someone else his/her change suggestion to at least keep it constructive, and post a suggestion themselves?
Shooting everyone who contributes down is way to easy on these boards, and will eventually result in people that do contribute not posting anymore.
So if you have the best interest of the game in mind, then contribute.
I think it’s quite difficult to find a good solution without reducing too much the difficulty…
But let’s try ;-):
.actually because monday is gw-free im doing nothing on monday,
i dont need to reach rank1 in monday or to do anything of what you listed, so nope you arent exactly right
i think monday is gw-free only for the servers encumbrance’s sake - since most of ppl do more intense pvp then + donate all that gold servers are obviously more busy at monday then any other day, but i agree that monday probably should remain gw-free at least partially:
i would go even further and set it:
one reward per week (per unit) for a successful defense including that unit
so then using 6 gw defenses that each has different team of 4 unique units where no unit shares more then one team (total 24 units) you would get 24 rewards per week, plus another 4 from pvp if the units didnt duplicate with the gw defenses
plus if you change defense mid week to something else you could score even more rewards providing same requirements are met
that also sounds sensible but i think there would be too little reward in the pool to bother, i mean can you calculate how many players is there? can you calculate how many rewards would need to be in the pool to make it sensibly attractive but to not give too much free stuff and not break the economy? if you look at ranking rewards that shring VERY FAST you will see devs do not like to flood “whole” community with sensible rewards to begin with, for few its fine but for majority its not, it would be the same in this case… some lucky low level player to use a silly card he/she pulled early will get lucky high rewards some time, but for the mid-game and end-game players i doubt it the rewards will be anything tasty enough to motivate them to experiment with defense teams especially not for guild wars
that gives me an idea, maybe there should be bonus points for using certain effect troops on invade (different for each day, or at least each week)
for example a “day of healers” - get bonus 20% (non cumulative) points when attacking with a unit that “gives life” or “heals”
“day of disease” - get bonus 20% (non cumulative) for attacking with a unit that applies disease in any way
brilliant 
pretty good idea, if we dont get better rank rewards overall (whcih i hope we will), (or a different system calculating who gets which rank) - then i would go for this at least
that could be a great way to make most players satisfied… but not really 
, the problem is - the lower brackets will loose some points (points from the lowest gw results that were in the end not taken into account) thanks to that while the high brackets wont loose any points - so instead of taking some weight off the lower brackets you putting more weight at them? if there was some way how to balance that and be fair to all brackets id go for it but i dont think its physically possible 
yup, pretty cool, would be great if it was tied to a day not to a guild, so ppl could sacrifice their daily win in hope for a better “bonus unit” in incoming days 
i think it could be exciting
i wouldnt mind heroes if there was better weapons to choose from, but right now the most efficient way to use heroes is the RNG instakill - plus some unobtainable weapons. no fun, not cool and not fair. i dont wanna go that way until they address hero classes and hero weapons properly
i actually like and liked that system, i wouldnt midn if whole guild needed to cooperate to take whole enemy guild down by choosing who will defeat who - its way more of cooperation within the guild, its teamwork! its great
i went for the rewards, but i guess if it was a hard requirement i wouldnt mind. but what would happen to the early players who dont own 24 unique cards? or even if they do own they cant level them…
another od the type i would like 
that would be “ok” only if the paragon (and probably all other gw ranks) was chosen by guild leader not by system. it puts too much weight/stress into a player to do it without players acceptance. also considering many ppl (including me) wants a nerf in sentinel invade bonus towards high ranks (so the bonus goes to lower ranks) it would mean the paragon has it hardest to attack so its even worse if the paragon doesnt want that extra points responsibility
makes sense
i thought it would be good but then i realised it would just emerge a slightly different meta, that goes around more instakill/devour like kraken which is good at defense and offense, i dont think it would increase variety much just shift the meta, feels too much restricted after a while - imagine you cant anymore play all the invade teams you want within a color, but only selected few from that? i dont think that would be fun
Yeah surely but it is still better than 2 different META teams ;-). Here you will one META team by day (if players put mono-color teams).
For the Devour I agree (even if there isn’t a good Devour troop for all the colors) but it’s not that simple… example:
You can because only one of your 5 invade teams will be used (20%). But yeah you will have to take the risk that one of your not-so-good-for-defense invade team become your next defense team. In the worst case, you just offer an easy win to the next week invader, nothing to be blamed.
I don’t really see how that would be an improvement. The Paragon is likely a lot tougher than a Soldier, why would somebody pick that fight for essentially the same amount of points? Especially after already having received a beating four times?
that doesnt really convince me as a “fun improvement”
its like saying i dont need to use full color team, nothing to be blamed… i dont see much difference between giving less points to my own guild and giving more points to the enemy guild, one is just more obvious but for a player who cares about gw ranking both are important. i could accept a bonus points for x type of troops (as long as its just 1 troop like that not whole team required) around a daily/weekly schedule, but having to build a team to win defense and offense is too much of restriction to me, defense possibly uses totally different strategy then offense, with a defense team strategy i wont have fun, how many players do you think will? have some mercy and let gw be fun!
the improvements are suppose to enchance the fun (and lower boredoom/stress factors) in it, i dont like idea that changes one inconvenience to another. i would prefer to stick to a boring/repetitive/broken enemy but have more freedom on my attack team then the other way around.
edit: i like the idea to put some consequences on the defense team choice, im just not sure to what it should be alternatively to my previous ideas, especially if we are talking about not locking defense team (by the way your idea also kinda locks it, i dont mind locking defense but i saw strong resistance against it in the forum so far)
(one of the ideas in past: lock the defense team at tuesday, and according to the defense team give extra % bonus points to correspoinding invades vs corresponding guilds if certain requirements, for example use x troop/type troop on defense, are met - the requirements can be different for each player and/or each day thus creating variety)
that may seem so, but especially at lower brackets the paragon can have surprisingly weaker team, also sometimes simply “different team” then the one you lost to can work, even if with some extra stats
its good to have a choice between two players, since you can choose which team you might have more chance against choice between two is better then no choice
Ok well… I can see that my opinion is not welcome here amongst the chorus of “MAKE GW SAFE AND EASY” voices. An opposing opinion does not want to be heard so i will leave you all too it. I just hope the devs have more sense than most of the “suggestions” here.
Go ahead and continue making arguments for how the game can be made easier and when/if GW comes back and is all whimpified i will be leaving GoW for good.
Now i am muting this thread. Please continue without fear of the “big bad contrary opinion”
Enjoy your echo chamber
In most cased the Paragon will be stronger though, especially due to the stat bonus. And, knowing players, they’ll just pick the most prestigious (read difficult) one and then feel unhappy due to losing once again.
Other ways to handle this:
Every time you lose a daily fight you get a free reroll for one of your remaining daily fights. Don’t like the team you are set up against? Reroll for a different opponent at the same level.
Every time you lose a daily fight your pick selection gets expanded by one (up to three maximum, like in PvP), every time you win a daily fight your pick selection gets reduced by one (down to one minimum, like currently in GW). Gives you a choice of opponents at the same level if you’ve received a beating.
Personally, I like the second approach better. The first one can backfire, the second one gives you more of a choice.
actually around bracket 4-5 i had few cases where higher rank enemy was easier then lower rank (almost all the cases when i lost to 2nd or 3rd enemy were like that), so if i could advance and skip the low rank enemy that i am loosing to - i would take it
and im still relatively high in the bracket so i expect this much more frequent for most of gow playerbase
if you are in first 2 or 3 brackets you imagine the paragon to be strongest since you see whole guild having the same team, but lower down the brackets ppl actually have different defense teams and often (actually im nost cases) the units in those defense teams determine the strength, not the sentinel bonuses
The biggest issue I’ve read so far seems to be level the playing field. A lot of people feel as I feel. Any time there is a bonus that is applied to your stats that is based off guild level it will unbalance the board and give an unfair advantage to bigger player. Simply put my guild could win every battle for every day using all 4 troops of a like color and a higher up guild could do the same but have 1 player lose a single battle and still cause my guild to lose simply because they have a higher bonus because they have their statues at a higher level than my guild does. To me that’s simply an unfair advantage that creates a stumbling block.
Its been said several times before, but take the sentinal’s and reverse them. I’m the Paragon most weeks and I have no qualms about maxing them all out. However its a waste to do it because my upgrades do nothing for anyone below me.
I like what I hear about lessoning the amount of battle over the course of the week and adding a more battles for the day. Doing 5 battles isn’t hard but I have a lot of noobs that will do 2 or 3 days then just stop. To that effect I would also say quit giving away the daily bonus and base the bonus off the whole week. As well as do something other than give away 100% exp bonus. To me it’s a junky way of trying to get everyone to 1000 faster. I want progress at my own pace and not drop a level every 10 minutes.
In addition to what Annaerith said about player choice, there’s another reason I chose the numbers as I did: 20% is a nice round number, and I didn’t want to bother trying to find the number between 10 and 20 where I felt things balanced out.
@Annaerith I agree with everything you quoted and said. Except that a gw loss should force you to move up. That leaves no chance of any wins for lower lvl players.
Instead as @Grundulum cleared up later, a loss should give you a choice between moving up and fighting another fight of the same rank.
Forcing is bad! Choice is good!
Same with defense teams. Forcing bad. Rewarding good.
Other than that small thing, it all makes perfect sense! Thank you so SO much for combining all the sensible suggestions in one post! I applaud you!!
but i agreed to the choice move up or stay, didnt mean to agree to being “forced” to move up, oh my where did i write it? i need to edit 
Sorry if I misread it!!
@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.
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
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.
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.
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.