So then by your definition of good, every player, 100% of the player base is good. Since the difficulty of the game is so low that is is practically impossible to lose, there has to be other factors that can determine which good players are better than other good players.
then you obviously havent played high bracket gw? xD
but sure i agree some extra criteria, besides the win, are needed - just not this complicated criteria 
something ppl can actually work with.
edit: @Formaggio below me nailed it 
1 Like
not at all. give us color requirements, kingdom requirements, any sort of similar stipulation. i welcome that. give us a challenge and we will find a way. i dont hate losing either!
but to say a “good” player doesnt lose troops, or should only take x amount of turns, or only so much damage…it just doesnt make sense to me.
why have troops that devour their own team? why have troops that buff their own team? those moves are contrary to putting out damage and using less turns.
2 Likes
These troops aren’t good troops and good players avoid them 
You are working on an assumption that all troops are just as good as other troops, which is just false.
are you serious? lmao i honestly cant tell right now!
1 Like
Yep, the new system punishes those that like to lockdown opponent with silences and summons. Pushing for fast play. Which isn’t really my favoured style.
I too would like to see extra bonus with using same kingdom troops etc. But that is how I like to play this game. Others differ. 
EDiT: Black Beast teams are fun!!
4 Likes
I’ve asked once before, but didn’t get many answers. Since you don’t like the metrics they have chosen, What metrics do you think think they should be using?
in my humble opinion the system shouldn’t push for any play style, period. they made the troops we have, if they dont like it then it is on them, balance/fix/nerf/buff whatever.
also, your last comment was amazing =)
1 Like
Since you are asking I’ll repost this here. Word of caution, this may look “extreme” at first glance, I’m quite convinced it would work very well for almost all players though.
The score needs to consist of three components:
1.) A skill component. Not just everybody should get points, you need to win. I propose 1000 points, awarded for getting to the victory screen.
2.) A variety component. Using the same team all the time gets boring, there needs to be an incentive to not always use the same four troops. I propose 125 points, awarded for each troop within the team at the start of the battle matching the daily color.
3.) A tie breaker component. Something that pulls scores apart whenever several players perform equally well. I propose a random number in the range 250 - 500, awarded on reaching either the victory or the defeat screen (no points for quitting).
This will make players get at least 250 points for each fight, 2000 at most. It’s easy to understand, allows any play style players may wish to follow, with a very clear goal. Win, no matter how.
What about the random factor, isn’t that possibly unfair? No, it will filter out, in the long run those winning more often will get the better total score. Statistics. You don’t really need to understand it, you just need to ask yourself one question:
“Would I have noticed if scoring had already been changed to contain such a random component?”
A complicated, multi-layered calculation based on components not known to the player is nothing but a random number for all pratical purposes. Keep it simple.
For changes requiring a patch, introduce a daily tribe (e.g. Human, Dragon or Rogue) in addition to the daily color. Same scoring rules, adding troops of the correct tribe to your team also grants an extra 125 points each. This will spice up variety even more, making each Guild Wars week unique for a long time.
2 Likes
Yeah would have liked them add another bonus to team composition, either via troop type or kingdom bonus, rather than the less turns metric. Keep the damage and mana gathering to a certain extent.
I think this then rewards team building more.
For example: Green Day is also Forest of Thorns day.
So a team I like to run in PvP would get full FoT bonus and almost all green.
Aurai
Green Seer
Rowanne
Sylvanimora
It can be fast too with a nice start.
Having this type or kingdom switching every week would certainly keep team builds fresh. So for example this week is purple daemon, next week its purple dragon or something. I would advocate slightly less bonus for identical troops, to reward unique troops choices more.
But poor Troglodyte and Sharkey would suck on Merfolk brown day… 
2 Likes
i must admit im kinda hating any “random” points in scoring formula 
but at first glance you make a lot of sense
i would hope the tie breaker could be done with extra criteria of kingdom type/troop type rewarded the same way like color bonus - but separated from the color bonus?
and if that fails well… make it just 1-10 random points? 250 is not needed, the difference of random points shouldnt be worth as much as one and a half of color troop imo
edit: @Drathas
merfolk brown day would reveal the true pros! 
2 Likes
Finally someone with a well thought out answer.
One problem however. you have no way for defenses to deny points other than getting the win. This will inevitably lead to the same problem we had before with a single ‘best’ strategy and a stale boring meta.
The system and metrics they have chosen give defenses the opportunity deny some points even if they lose. Even better, they provide several different ways to deny those points, leading to more variety on that end of the game.
EDIT: Guild wars isn’t only about your attack team. Defenses play an integral role as well. Any system need to take that into account and not limit what is good or useful so as to not stifle variety.
Out of curiosity, how does this differ from what we had originally, other than the surviving troop bonus has been replaced with a random number bonus? (which if you ask some people is the same thing when facing Devour teams 
)
1 Like
well generally old system was/is stil better then this new one
7 Likes
absolutely
Whilst I understand the premise, unfortunately in reality the way to still deny the most points is still for defence to:
- win
- kill troops
1 Like
That’s technically beside the point I’m mostly just enjoying reading the systems people come up with and seeing all the different ideas, and staying out of the whole old vs new debate.
I’m just curious as to how @Fourdottwoone’s system differs from, the original system other than what I pointed out.
1 Like
There have been many suggestions and requests regarding GW but, apart from the fact that losing a battle was too penalizing, which has been adressed with the 300 base points per battles, it seems to me that scores were the one thing about which there were only very few complaints… and yet it is the only thing that has been changed so far.
I don’t understand what the devs are trying to do and why they have asked for suggestions.
4 Likes
hopefully we will later get the answer about defense meta in form of rewarding defense troop uniqueness,
it can be added to any of the point system, or work independently to it
edit: @Ozball it differs by the point weight i suppose?
1 Like