I’d just like to point out that I have conducted a fair amount of research. I’m not sure you want to call me on this. I wouldn’t risk that.
We have rules. People just don’t have the curiosity or patience to figure out what teams will get them the best scores.
You fundamentally DO NOT need to know the rules. Experiment for a week and figure out what is working best for you. Same result.
It’s been a day. Why does anyone expect to have perfectly mastered a system in a day?
1 Like
I don’t recall where it was exactly but we were told that the color bonus stayed unchanged but the bonus for living troops at end of match was reduced from original scoring. That’s why it doesn’t feel like you’re losing a lot of points for that.
2 Likes
on a side note the “300” displayed under each enemy could be deleted 
we are getting gw points nowhere close to 300 or anything that would even seem like being with any connection to 300
i sure know its used for calculations but why show us that one “Static” while hiding so many of other static and variables? 
i would have prefered for example if it displayed a max possible point result or a range min-max, if anything
6 Likes
300pts…
6 Likes
My hope is that they need an update to switch it back and enable players to move on to the next battle when they lose. I still think it makes sense to get more points for each successive battle.
1 Like
fair point
Dude - if you’re in a competitive guild and you want to get top prizes or advance, you don’t have the luxury of experimenting. This isn’t like before where we could test teams in PVP - now there is no visibility into how a top performing team will do with new scoring without taking a risk. This is clearly a terrible step backwards.
3 Likes
No reward without risk.
3 Likes
It’s not broken down though, like for the other bonus components. It likely reads something like this:
Number_of_correct_color_troops * guild_statue_bonus * E%
E would be set so that 4 * 50% * 0.5 = 100%, for a maximum contribution of one BASE_SCORE.
If my guesstimate based on the revised formulas is correct, the maximum theoretically possible points for a single fight would currently be 2922. This requires you to win with your very first action. And it would need the division by zero bug to be fixed, otherwise you would only be credited 1422 points.
1 Like
Problem is, from what is known so far there no longer is any “works best for you” approach. The new scoring system currently shoehorns us into a highly specialized troop composition in order to perform well. If you happen to own a certain mythic, you’ll consistently score about twice as high as players without it.
Hi everyone! So glad to see you all today! There are some excellent opinions here. Personally i think the impossibility of achieving the perfect score is a desired effect! In theory it should encourage diversity and ingenuity in invade teams thus keeping GW fresh for everyone!
I for one get weary of using the same team constantly so i chamge it up every now and then😄
Thanks for listening and have a fantastic day!
9 Likes
So if I choose to also max my gold/souls during a gw battle and make extra-turn moves just for that purpose (matching 4s and 5s with Alchemist or Valk when I know I have already won bc the enemy has one troop with like 2 hp) am I a bad player?
Shouldn’t it be the number of turns as in when the turn goes to the enemy, and not the number of actions?
3 Likes
As far as I can tell, they’ve reduce the impact of looping teams on your final score for Day 2 after people pointed out how serious of an oversight it was. Literally the SECOND sentence in the original post is: “I say “this week” because we will no doubt tweak the formula as we see it in action…” People are losing their minds over Day 1 of a major scoring change (and one that’s only half completed until we get the 3.1.5 update that fixes it).
In the end, you should experiment with different team comps and strategies and figure out what works best for you based on the available information. You know the factors, so now it’s up for you to figure out how you can best exploit them. For some people that will mean speed and loops, for some safe and slow, for some all 4 colors and for others less than that. That’s as it should be. There’s absolutely no reason anyone has to know the full details of the underlying system.
5 Likes
Great post Vangor, 100% agree with you. 
1 Like
Yeah. Pretty amazing how seriously people would take it. Going to the point to organize entire teams of people to cheat and exploit then abuse the whistleblowers both online and IRL. All while at the same in the forums politicking, lying to people, dropping red-herrings and misdirecting.
People take this game pretty seriously, to the point where they sacrifice all personal integrity so they can keep their guild up in the ranks.
2 Likes
Quite the contrary, there’s absolutely no reason anyone should not be allowed to know the full details of the underlying system. Consider it the difference between casual and expert players. Casual players won’t care about any details, they’ll just push gems around and feel happy whenever they see a victory screen. Expert players want to know what causes the victory screen to show up, how to improve their chances to arrive at the victory screen and how to maximize the rewards handed out as part of the victory.
Hiding the scoring criteria essentially makes it part of the game to figure it out. There’s a huge benefit to be gained from learning the details. However, this is a 3-match game, not a hacking contest or a math challenge, so not disclosing the scoring rules feels like a very odd decision. I’d even call it unfair towards players that want to perform well but don’t have the required investigation skills.
6 Likes
Hi @Fourdottwoone! How are you today? I am super! I just wanted to comment here if you will indulge me…
I personally dont feel the need to know the exact formula. I am perfectly happy with the information i have available to me!
Thanks for listening and have a fabulous day friend! I am off to push pretty colored dots around the screen of my phone now! Goodbye!
5 Likes