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:
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
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.
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…
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.
A lowly level 50 player should never have to face a high level 1000 player with fully traited teams. Despair ensues.
Reward guilds based on how they finish in their bracket so they actually try to win.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Unsure if this has been said before, but one of the big reasons Deathmark and Devour are so big in Defense is that surviving troops are counted. Perhaps a different statistic needs to be taken into account, like total damage dealt. Ofcourse that might warp the meta as well.
Similar defenses will be a problem regardless. From the guild’s perspective, if there is a single overwhelming defense it would pay to have everyone use it no matter what the matchmaking system…
I’m not sure that the costs for sentinels pays off in any bracket in a strict economic analysis. The only reason to upgrade them all is to enjoy the slight extra chance to win, not to gain more resources.
Simplify the scoring, keep the basic battle values at 100, 200, 300, 400, 500. Daily color bonuses should not be based on statue value as that gives the older guilds a bit of an advantage. Color bonuses should be set at a specific point value, for example 20 color bonuses should be given for each surviving troop of the days color, defeat points should be 10, 20, 30, 40, 50
If you go bi weekly, make it a 9 day war so we have the opportunity to play each team in our group
One defeat per day, no more guaranteed 5 battles, this puts an emphasis on winning the battle