Didn’t bother bringing it to the Guild Wars battle. If the team shows huge problems during my test run, I don’t take it to the actual match worth GW points!
1 Like
Oh yes, that absolutely makes sense. I am surprised that they didn’t introduced that in FIFA, NBA and NHL: whenever a match ends in a draw just flip a coin to determine who wins. It would TOTALLY make both sides feel good.
Seriously, introducing ANOTHER random factor to determine the scores is not what the game needs.
not only that but if a match ends 40:41 flip a coin too, the 40 one could still win by the coin
(sorry if the numbers dont match FIFA NBA or NHL scoring styles, i only meant it to give the general idea)
actually both sides should just flip a coin to get 0-1 additional score to begin with…
who cares if there was a tie or not? 
1 Like
I don’t know about that. The old system clearly had a preferred team comp. Now you can go for speed, or a slow methodical team that denies the other, or a looping team, etc. I don’t really think it’s arguable that the new system is more accommodating than the old. In fact, I’m still mostly using my old teams and doing about as well as before, but have been experimenting here and there and still doing well. That feels pretty good to me.
for what we know, there is no sign that this new system doesnt have and wont have a prefered team team comp.
it only didnt emerge yet as ppl are confused and tryign to figuure it out, but they will eventually figure it out and the prefered team should emerge
It is interesting that they care so much about differentiating the scores as I have heard of no situation when guilds’ scores were the same. Even on PC where top brackets scores are closer.
I don’t think that’s true given that the rules are orthogonal. That should mean that there are at least 2 mutually exclusive strategies. (Assuming the point contributions are balanced, which will likely take some tweaking).
I’d argue that we already have a simple rule as to what constitutes “good” play. It’s a guild effort, not a solo effort, so the number is wins is a perfectly good indicator. A guild that won 145 out of 150 fights played better than a guild that only won 141 out of 150 fights. There’s no need to split those 141 wins up into 37 “almost-but-not-quite” wins, 51 “quite-okay” wins, 19 “somewhat-lucky” wins and 34 “pretty-good” wins, then reassemble them into a score that possibly beats the 145 wins. Too complicated.
1 Like
yes but if one strategy proves much more effctive (time wise for example or by the difficulty to implement it or by rng-resistance factor) the it could be just one strategy stading as the best in the end
Yes it had and this one has too. To be honest it looks like this you could get a good score with different teams in previous scoring, you can get a good score with different teams with new scoring. So what has changed?
Well, what is considered a good score. Earlier when you went full color, with no troop lost you knew you where getting a perfect score. Now you get this score, or that score, or whatever because it is unclear what the rules are.
So in my view and many others from clear defined rules we got into a shady rules just so we can prevent from happening something that was not an issue.
3 Likes
Misread your formula 
.
So let’s assume the current max for (SURVIVAL_BONUS + SPEED_BONUS + MANA_BONUS + DAMAGE_BONUS) is 1500, what you propose is that you can’t have better than 2/3 of the 4 bonus or that you can ignore 1/3 of the 4 bonus.
It seems nice 
.
The only issue (like my variant) is that obtaining max GW points will be easier so more tie which wha devs seems to want to avoid.
Honestly, I don’t see other reasons for the devs to tweak the invade teams…
1 Like
Right, and how do you differentiate which guild did better when they both get 141/150 wins? Other than flipping a coin like you’ve suggested? Individual effort (or lack thereof) needs to be reflected in the team’s overall score somehow.
well ,whatever it is - the difficulty to reach max score should not be put in the “ability to estimate own performance”
it should be put in the actual performance
so in this case i would prefer to elevate the “amount” of required performance to make it “harder” - or add a very small random number tie breaker - if anything
agreed
So in fact, it’s me who miswrote my formula…
Not that:
FINAL_SCORE = BASE_SCORE + BASE_SCORE * (COLOR_BONUS + MAX(SURVIVAL_BONUS + SPEED_BONUS + MANA_BONUS + DAMAGE_BONUS))
but that:
FINAL_SCORE = BASE_SCORE + BASE_SCORE * (COLOR_BONUS + MAX(SURVIVAL_BONUS, SPEED_BONUS, MANA_BONUS , DAMAGE_BONUS))
Oh I think everyone understood what I mean, even with the typos…
Well, that’s the very purpose of the tie breaker. In those rare situations where result are close enough together to be considered the same, it has to pick a winner and a loser. No ties allowed, that messes up the reward and progression scheme.
There isn’t any single unit here. 750 samples in this context isn’t big, it’s gigantic. It will get you a standard deviation and 95% confidence range you can safely bet fortunes on. The number of participating guilds doesn’t change this in any way, a 95% chance to end up within a total of 93725 - 93775 bonus points remains the same.
I wasn’t trying to give one. Quite the contrary, if you look up my response you’ll find that I said it wouldn’t make a difference. In both directions, lower or higher, within reasonable bounds. I was just trying to correct the assumption that doubling a constant factor on both sides of an equation would change the outcome.
Let’s not argue statistics here, it’s a surprisingly complicated topic. 
Here are two changes to the scoring formula that would open up a couple of additional play styles:
(1) Any time a troop is healed or gains life, that amount is subtracted from opponent’s damage dealt.
(2) Any time a troop drains mana, that amount is subtracted from opponent’s mana gained. (Famine would be dangerous again on defense, since it drains mana and reduces that bonus. This should make Eika and Vangor happy.)
2 Likes
They both contributed the very same individual effort, they won 141 fights. There’s two way to resolve this:
- Flip a coin. Entirely random, entirely fair.
- Think up some secret criteria, e.g. “shorter guild name”, “higher total sum of kingdom power”, “higher damage ratio”. This is prone to get exploited, e.g. one could field a defense team containing a level 1 troop to keep the attackers damage ratio lower. It doesn’t reflect individual effort, it reflects the ability to introduce a weighted coin into the final verdict. And we all know how well that went with PvP.
I like the fair approach better, it’s an in-game solution, not a meta-game solution.
For sake of completeness, ties could also be resolved in a less random way by additional sudden death matches. This would be hell to schedule though, especially given the time constraints imposed by the next guild war.
I had quite the opposite experience. I like playing control teams, drawn out matches where you prevent the opponent from doing anything significant while you slowly beat troops down. This was okay with the old scoring scheme, you would get good scores if you didn’t slip up. The new scoring scheme will punish you severely for going down that road, it makes aggro teams mandatory if you want to score well. Throw everything you’ve got at your opponent, as fast as possible, and you’ll get about 200 extra points for each fight.
2 Likes
Interesting, I try not to go full meta so when people catch on I suppose I’ll amend it. I can’t seem to go much over 7k on a day and it doesn’t seem to matter much if I have a fast dominant performance or a tough match. I’d like to see a little less parody there, but overall I understand the ancillary affect of the scoring changes. Still waiting on a separate battle log and to see how the defender bonuses are implemented.
2 Likes
Anyone, can someone confirm or deny a score of 1500+ for either today or yesterday?
… Pretty please? Doggy eyes?
1 Like