You do have tools to measure. You’ve got weeks, months, and years to experiment!
2 Likes
You’re definitely not wrong here 
Hi again friend! Maybe i am wrong but it seems to me that this is a design intent and not a design flaw. Its the part that promotes diversity and creativity! I think its wonderful!
Terribly sorry to interrupt, please proceed! And have a fantastic day my friend!
6 Likes
Just to be clear, I think this is absolutely fantastic (though I think it’s misleading to say 4/5 gem matches are “bad” since there’s also the issue of mana efficiency and speed, but the underlying point remains solid.) I think this is exactly what we want.
It’s a good thing that there’s not “one best way”. It’s good that it accommodates multiple approaches. It’s good that we have the flexibility to experiment with different strategies and find what suits our style best. Everyone complained horribly when there was “one best way” b/c it led to a stale system that only some people liked and that was clearly gamed and that encouraged some very bad behaviors. That will always happen with a “one best way” approach. Down with one best way!
5 Likes
I agree 100% on this. People just need to make a mental transition from trying to achieve a perfect score every time to trying to consistently achieve a good score.
6 Likes
I’m quite confident we have the exact data nailed down now. This also answers my original question, with Valk and Mab both ready to cast, Valk able to create a 4-match and Mab able to kill all opponents, would it be better to cast Valk followed Mab, or just Mab? It’s a situation where both moves appear viable, one of them will cost you quite a few points though. And keeping that information secret in a no-retries competition just doesn’t feel right, it’s purely deterministic and has a direct influence on what you would chose.
2 Likes
Hi again! I just took a break from moving around the pretty colored dots for a sec to try and be helpful!
In youe excellent example scenario i have an idea for a solution! This battle try one option, and remember your score, then next time try the other and compare scores! Then you will know which option suits you better😄
Hope this helps! Bye friend!
3 Likes
Off the bat, I couldn’t name a single game that pits you against other players and keeps the scoring rules secret. Game mechanics? Yep, sure. Scoring though? Like playing Counterstrike and having the number of steps taken, emotes spammed and ammo preserved determine the winner? Educate me. 
@Vangor Glad to be at your service, Sir. The thing is - the approach is technically a temporary peace. Once people get their data - they’ll find the best sooner or later. Which will result in the same scenario as if the formula has been disclosed. The only difference is - Guild Wars has changed into a testing competition for the highest guilds.
@Delinquent
If there is no “better” - why hide the formula in the 1st place? Why not just make the numbers so that focusing on 1 element is not worth those 20 points? There’s a huge audience here, ready to jump in, test for the developers and tell them their view on the best option. There’s a mass of information here. Why not use it?
They obviously do not know where to put the numbers themselves. Hence the ninja-fix. Hiding them just makes no sense. This is rather a time bomb when a new exploit comes out. They could have thrown 1 public test week - without affecting the boards … To give players an opportunity to exploit. Then, they could just adjust those loopholes and set a working pack of numbers.
Because right now - we have no idea whether or not are we in a position where “everything works”. If everything works - that’s great. But I’m just waiting for a moment where someone exploits it with “something”.
And now it’s basically a race who will find it 1st and hide it. Because “skill” is being determined by exactly this race.
5 Likes
Hi! I cant help but notice that you are ignoring my idea! Why? Is it a bad idea? If it is, i am terribly sorry! I will try and think of a better one!
Thanks again friend!
1 Like
Isn’t that how it should be? Shouldn’t players be rewarded for experimenting and figuring out how to best capitalize on the system? Doesn’t that appeal to hardcore players?
3 Likes
I know it appeals to me but i just like playing with the pretty dots😄
1 Like
I understand both sides. I see the potential benefits of keeping it under raps from their perspective. But there always seems to be bugs and unintended oversights, players may feel the points are too random or unpredictable.
My personal preference would be for much more transparency. Outlining the criteria ratios to allow players the ability to know how to score well. Obviously, adding on screen counters at the top.
Its fine to modify the ratio/weighting slightly every week, BUT tell the players in the ‘Events’ tab of any changes at the reset. For example: It should not be a secret that next week ‘4 troops alive’ might be worth a random amount more.
If variety of Invade teams was their goal with this change. They could even add a 5th bonus criteria based on using weekly Event troops. So to obtain extra points you couldn’t use the exact same Blue Invade team every single week.
Communication goes a long way to increasing player satisfaction. If perfect scores aren’t possible fine, great. But secret changes are aggravating to players that are trying to do well.
GW in theory was supposed to be a competitive game mode. How do players truly compete when the rules for scoring are not full known?
7 Likes
For me - it kind of is.
… But to be completely honest …
I really believed that GoW will be a gaming experience for me. Now, I’m sitting behind 3 open Excel windows tracking Mass Data; Step-by-step, damage-by-damage, action-by-action data; and my personal notes.
And I’m spending hours upon hours looking at them. Holding a calculator in my hand.
(And I’ve already come down to some stuff.)
Sincerely? I wouldn’t have EVER guessed I’ll be forced to do this instead of playing a game. And I like doing it. But the idea the game forces me to do it makes me semi-nauseous.
EDIT: And why? Because someone up there refuses to write the numbers.
… But you can be sure that once I get the exact numbers - and they decide to reveal them afterwards/because of it … I’ll share my story. And it won’t be a pleasant one.
4 Likes
apologies if it’s mentioned already, but the surviving bonus and the damage bonus grant points almost in the same way. so you are either double rewarded or penalised. For example, if you’ve lost 2 troops then you have suffered enough damage to not be able to max the damage bonus and probably be closer to 2:1 ratio since more or less, life and armor stats are the same in the end-game (apart from the exceptions like having troops with one digit life).
Seems their main reason was to penalise over usage of devour and deathmark, as if they are not valid strategies. At least these strategies are balanced out by the speed bonus which you’ll probably get!
The way I see it from the 2 day trial period, speed bonus has the biggest weigh so finishing off quickly with accepted damage - no devour, deathmark could be giving the highest scores. It’s just my theory though so more testing tomorrow!
I hope i’m wrong though. GWs are not PvP. Number of actions shouldn’t come into play. Unless they are trying to delay the end-gamers due to max kingdom stats and sentinels. Just a thought I had 
1 Like
Only within the system. We get told what troops and spells do. We are supposed to beat up some other troops. Now consider these two situations:
1.) We win if we beat those other troops.
2.) We win if we do some unknown actions, like intentionally not beating up those other troops, even if we could.
The first situation let’s us experiment with the information available, which troops work well together against other troops. The second situation requires us to play a meta game, to figure out what the game actually wants us to do. We are no longer playing a Match-3 game, we are playing a logic puzzle set in a Match-3 universe. That’s quite interesting for me, I’m somewhat good with numbers, it doesn’t appeal to a lot of other players though. Most are happy to be given a hammer and get told to go whack a nail. They tend to become a lot less happy when they repeatedly fail to realize they actually were expected to grab the hammer by the business part and whack the nail with the handle instead.
4 Likes
Took something almost everyone enjoyed (guild wars) away for two weeks just to make a much more complicated system and say “we prefer simple” (we just do the opposite). Punishing people for using abilities they added to the game is F****** B*******. Way to make the one thing I enjoy about your game less enjoyable or even available.
If there was a thumbs down button I would give that last guildwars change that.
4 Likes
Speed bonus seems to be able to get you 540 points at most, minus 18 for each action, which you’ll defenitely need several of. Damage and Mana contribute much more, 750 points each, and are fairly reliable to maximize with the right team. For details, see Guild Wars, Point-Scoring for Battles, and You! - #417 by Fourdottwoone. It’s a guesstimate that hasn’t been confirmed officially, all data points seem to match though.
2 Likes
Thanks for your reply!
I’ve been testing this method today with looping team, having definitely gained 4x opponent’s mana and allowed a 3-match and 7 damage to gorgotha so damage bonus was also maxed. i couldn’t get more than 1,400 points!
Of course we have to bear in mind any bugs creeping in (or code errors) making any accurate calculations impossible!!
I think we will have the same type of discussions next Tuesday
This topic is temporarily closed for 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.