While I know this would be rough for a while, I would honestly love this in the long-term. Total trophies earned was never a good benchmark for guild wars rank and I think it’s going to take an unreasonable amount of time (possibly even years, by some of the calculations) to unpack that and get to the correct equilibrium.
If you can get this past the higher ups, I’d be all for just starting over and putting everyone at the same level and then allowing guilds to rise/fall naturally. I know it’ll be some initial pain but if done right, I think it would be really beneficial in the long run.
Not this GWs but the one last month.
My guild didn’t set defences, because. It’s 2 days notice.
And the notice is like sending out postcards in a digital world .
No one realised it was a GWs week.
Your suggestion would only work, if we get a massive pop up every day, starting a week before GWs defences can be set.
My guild loves GWs, we just need more notice.
Put in better places. So we all see it.
Ps I will also add, I used to get all my information of upcoming events from Taransworld.
Since this has been gone, I’m in the dark, which means my guild is in the dark.
And no I’m not going on random discords.
Also the monthly event schedule on here, gets lost very very fast.
Okay, so I dug this up because…well, I just like keeping a record of data. And with all the chaos of the Guild War updates, the devs forgot 2 very important aspects.
Does everyone remember this? Yeah, those books aren’t used anymore, but it might bring back nightmares.
We need to know how our defenses did to see if they’re effective. The white number that you see at the bottom of these old images should be displayed to the entire guild. (Maybe on the “revised” guild leaderboard idk).
I understand that under both the current system and the proposed reset it will take time to sort guilds properly.
I think the reset is a bad idea because it means we’re not doing some third thing that actually improves the situation immediately. I honestly don’t think most guilds have the patience to wait for X more cycles.
One idea would be a one-time elo adjustment based on points earned in the last war. My guild always scores around 45k, and we’re regularly matched against people who score 15k. We should at least be playing guilds with 100% GW participation, scoring 30k+. Point totals are very reflective of how many people are participating in the mode, not player skill, at the moment.
Edit: And the other problem is that the mode just lacks everything that made people like old GWs, like internal guild ranking and defense stats. Fixing that will make the top guilds more interested in competing, and improve the “bracket 1” experience. Then you can quarantine them off, eg ranks 1-10 can only compete with each other.
is this a joke? You want to change guild war based on the opinion of forum visitors? Are you sure that’s representative? Seriously? Since you sent an email to get feedback (sadly the link is unclickable and unselectable), why don’t you at least do the same among active guild leaders? Send a letter to the leader of active guilds and let them decide their guild and the leader will express either his opinion or the opinion of the entire guild.
As mentioned, purely asking for feedback and creating a discussion.
Also, asking for feedback on the community forum, is exactly where feedback is discussed.
There are also more active people on the forum, than the amount of people who took part in the survey, or more active people who have reach to talk to their own Guilds, than the reach the survey has.
moskow never sleep have “fighted” with a Germs of War at a sunday. Our opponents haven’t set any defence at all and obtail a 500+ points for a whole guild, so it will take some time to collect data and set a leaderboards. As for me the solution could be just wait till a couple of gw’s occures and then divide a leaderbord for a 2 leagues - above 250 first places and below. Like diamond and ruby. And every war ten guilds rotates. If we will reset a leaderboard now we will lose the last 4 gw (almost half of a year results) and would have to wait for another year to make the places reasonable again.
For axample when we’ll reset results guild rated as 1 and rated fo 2 for now will fight. One guild will win and have a first plase, the next will drop to the bottom and then there,ll be a couple of months tomake a correct rating. So my point is leave the current rating be. We’ll have to wait for a half-a-year anyway
This is great and I hope there’s more polls/communication like this in the future! Not that devs should do things based solely on forum opinions, but a great place to spark conversation, as you said.
I voted to leave it as it is but I don’t quite want that.
I think you should quadruple elo gained/lost for 2-3 GW. Then triple it for 2-3 GW. Then double it for 2-3 GW. Any system will need time to sort itself out. This would speed up that process. (and is long enough that a single bad event isn’t the end of the world)
Finally, to quicker sort out new but serious about GW guilds, make the matching algorithm target a higher bracket if you repeatedly win all of your GW matches. Obviously with an exception for the top bracket.
I think it will sort itself out, especially as the scoring has been fixed.
Most of the complaints have been about getting hammered by a much higher ranked, or cruising vs a much lower ranked. That’s not a ranking problem. It’s a matching problem.
If there really is a need to sort all guilds, setting everyone to the same score would probably put us further away than we are now.
Just run a 1-off ‘GW Ranking’ next GW event.
4 different maps on the different days.
Devs set all defences for each day. Ranging from easy day to OP Sunday.
Everyone fights the same (dev) guild. Preferably get a reasonable but not too easy attack restriction.
Rank the guilds and calculate ELO by their 4 day total.
First i would make guild wars rewards be for battles fought rather than battles won. This would improve participation, especially for newer players, who can then fight the gate 5 times and get some great rewards.
I really like the idea previously mentioned of having different leagues, diamond, ruby etc, with of course the ability to move between these depending on performance.
For initial placement you could amalgamate all points scored so far in the new guild wars. The data gathered so far is at least the best indicator we have of participation, though of course not perfect. In any elo system it takes a while to settle, but is quicker with seed data, which guild wars points so far would provide.
I also expect this will also continue to be a problem even after a leaderboard reset as long as you have an individual reward track is purely based on wins.
I suspect this might be an exceptionally bad idea.
Imagine signing up for the amateur teen boxing contest, then meeting Mike Tyson in the ring. The contest may have mentioned something about surprise guests, you’ll probably still switch hobbies after getting out of hospital.
You never, ever want to pair significantly mismatched guilds unless you intend to alienate your whole player base:
1.) It’s boring for the strong guild, unless they are only in for the winner rewards.
2.) It’s miserable for the weak guild, not only are they bound to lose a majority if their battles, they also miss out on the rewards they would have received if there had been a fair pairing.
Making everyone the same for pairing purposes means significantly mismatched pairings will be the norm. This won’t balance out in one, or even ten Guild Wars runs, because reasonably sorting a list of several thousand entirely random entries requires many passes. Current pairings are already causing players to quit, having even more unfair pairings for the next years is unlikely to go down well.
This won’t help. Whoever pulls the short straw (by receiving an opponent much stronger than them, entirely out of their control) gets punished in multiple ways. They get battles forced on them they can’t reasonably hope to win (which costs time and input devices) and they’ll have nothing to show for it (because the winner takes it all).
What would be needed for this to have any remote chance at working out is to reward participation, not winning. If half the guilds are supposed to serve as random punching bags for the other half, for many upcoming runs, there has to be some adequate compensation for volunteering to get punched. Otherwise the punching bags won’t show up at all, which will just cascade the situation to whichever guilds remain.
.
it’s been mentioned a fair bit, for different reasons