Guild Wars Reforged Feedback

Official News
492

It’s already terribly mismatched though so it’s loss mitigation at this point. This is trying to navigate the least bad.

If it were possible (and I don’t think it is?) to recalculate ELO and subsequent matchups on a daily basis, it would cut the time down even further.

The other question of note-- how many Tysons are out there in this iteration of GW? On PC/Mobile, I would put the number as being surprisingly low. Former high bracket GW guilds are a mixed bag on how they’re approaching this version. Let’s say there’s ~32. (Edit: was going to do a bunch of math here but it would make this post way too long. Essentially following an exponent of 2 to illustrate how quickly the top would find themselves versus today)

32 guilds are going to have a rotten time assuming none of the Tysons match each other.

All the Tysons go 4/0.

Next month, the only ones who will even have a chance to face a Tyson are the ones that went 4/0 which, assuming a bell curve of performance, would be a relatively small number. The Tysons then again go 4/0.

The following month, the only ones who will have a chance to face a Tyson are the ones who 1) Also went 8/0 by beating another non-Tyson 4/0 guild, never faced a Tyson previously and assuming the same bell curve, the number gets smaller again. The Tysons then again go 4/0.

Month 3, the only ones who would have a shot at facing a Tyson would need to 1) Go 12/0 by beating a guild that was previously 8/0 (who themselves beat a 4/0 guild) with neither having faced one of the Tysons.

Ad infinitum with each subsequent set requiring more and more outlandish circumstances to come true until the top guilds naturally find themselves.

Or we leave it status quo where it’ll take the high powered guilds beating the stuffing out of their opponents month over month to never make up any ground since the ELO is so inelastic.

Basically, today since the top GW guilds aren’t necessarily the top trophy guilds, you’re FAR more likely to see those Tyson guilds randomly sprinkled throughout the leaderboards than if you were to pull a random guild out of a hat.

Someone is going to draw a short straw. There’s no avoiding that. This is strictly about minimizing the damage. Compare that to a GW Tyson that was, say, 500th in trophy count and how long it would take to find their footing and how many guilds are going to have really bad times along the way.

4 Likes
493

I wonder how gw looked like when it first introduced with no filters at first. Was it the same carnage like it is now?

494

Was before my time as I “only” started in 2020. I imagine the total number of guilds was also significantly smaller at the launch of GW 1.0 so it would have theoretically taken less time to sort out a hierarchy as there wouldn’t have been so much noise.

495

You do realise this thing happens in every sport, that has any type of competition.

Tennis. 1st seed can get amateurs
Snooker 1st seed can get amateurs
Soccer prem league can get non league.
Any type of athletic event. Big countries like Germany can compete against Samoa.
This is classed as real competition, the underdog always has a chance.
The only place in the world, competition isn’t encouraged is the USA .

No relegation, no losers.
In NFL,NBA,NHL and baseball.
All one top league, closed off, to anyone else.

So I can understand your point if your American, if your European, Asian African or oceanic. I don’t understand it tho.

496

A youtuber, who can’t rip a paper bag, an amatuer.
Called fake Paul, beat Tyson :joy:.

497

It’s. One. Metric. JFC. We’ve been begging this company to take our feedback into account and then when someone comes along to ask what we think - this is what they get?

4 Likes
498

Some of us are old enough to remember Tyson in his prime…

…and the allowance I wasted buying Buster Douglas Boxing on the Genesis/MegaDrive

3 Likes
499

Very much in favor of a reset, if the rounds after the reset can sort us to fair rankings reasonably quickly. Possibly run a Swiss-system tournament for initial ranking, then switch to ELO?

From my casual end of the rankings, the problems I see with the current model are:

  1. Seeding by trophy count was a very poor proxy for GW performance: it skewed the seedings strongly towards (a) longer-established guilds and (b) guilds that focused on trophies.
  2. Defaulting to opted-in was a mistake: we’re getting matched against a lot of dead or inactive guilds that are opted into GW but which have no GW defense or attack participation.
  3. Too much faith in “ELO will get us to fair rankings” – yes, it will, but only in the very long term.
  4. Matchmaking has been rough and opaque; nobody knows why they’re being matched against some opponents; there aren’t brackets any more except there are but we can’t see them…

(The other thing that strikes me is that the ELO algorithm specified here uses only win/lose/draw, i.e. 1/0.5/0 results. Win/lose/draw is great for chess, but not necessarily the best fit for us? GW draws are very rare; and GW matches are scored. At the moment winning by 1 point has the same effect on ranking as winning by 10,000 points; this feels like we are throwing useful information away.)

11 Likes
500

There were brackets of size 10, so you would at worst get matched against someone 9 ranks higher. Initial placement by trophies was a pretty good compromise for existing guilds, it just didn’t work out well for new guilds interested in Guild Wars. This was usually mitigated by searching for an abandoned guild, taking it over and inheriting a reasonably high rank.

2 Likes
501

Agree 100%…but it would mean a pivot away from ELO altogether and I’m sure part of the draw was that ELO was a “tried and true” (read: easily copied) formula. :upside_down_face:

2 Likes
502

Our guild had kinda close matches this gw, matchmaking was way better then it was in the previous wars, no ghost or dead guilds, no top guilds, lost 3 days out of 4, but those looked fair losses. My opinion, matchmaking mechanic is on the right way, and just needs some more time and little tweaks may be, no reset. Voted for keep as it is atm. Guild postitions was 109 in the guild war roster, whatever this number means.

503

Would also just be cautious about confirmation bias. 2 months ago we had a similar scenario with all 4 days being close enough to feel “right”. This month wasn’t close as all the guilds we faced were well below us and were essentially walkovers.

In each case our sample size is really limited and it’s easy to draw conclusions that may not be correct.

3 Likes
504

Yea I’m old enough.
Fury,Joshua,parker,usyk . All babies compared to iron Mike.
At the age of 19 , he was a animal. Best boxer since Marciano.

1 Like
505

This whole thing, whilst the ELO stuff is not great, is missing the point.

The point is, the battles are so much harder than old GW because the devs have given every advantage to defenders. When teams can field an almost 24k teamscore with 3 Takshakas and a random hero, 50% of the time, maybe 80% of the time depending on what happens on turn 1, it’s a loss. Add their 15 or 20% bonus, they 1 shot 99% of the playerbase, by filing up befrore their turn…

We also need to address those fundimental issues where instead of a 3-5% loss rate, it’s 50% or worse. And it’s that stuff that causes players to leave, not compete, be empty or half empty guilds.

Please review the whole feedback given, not just the ELO, it will sidetrack and if most of those changes requested are not implemented, we will see a lot less people playing in our guilds.

10 Likes
506

110% agree that the matchups aren’t an end all be all and there’s not going to be a single fix that will do all the things.

That said, the motivation behind a reset would be to get the guilds that are full of 3x Takshakas finding each other (and thereby avoiding the lesser equipped guilds) more quickly. 3x Takshaka is a minefield. Trying to make that minefield cover the smallest possible total area meant for just those that have something resembling an answer to 3x Takshakas would be the goal.

So again, not solving the issues as much as minimizing the collateral damage.

3 Likes
507

Yeah I’m wiith you with everything re the matchups/rankings/initial ELO.

We’ve calculated a little, have some educated maths people, and it’s not ideal from the original makeup and got worse before the recent fix.

However we also need to not forgot other issues that magnify and exacerbate that ranking issue. I won’t repeat my feedback request again, but it was early in the thread. :smiley:

I know it’s potentially not the developers mindsight, but they have to consider making the experience better, and not just with rankings. By and large our rankings have been very well matched, 3,4,5 and 7 3rd time, 6, 33,1 and 24 last. My opinion, the battles were nonsense.

The last thing I’d want tbh is actually take up the ELO only and completely miss the opportunity to attempt to fix other core issues with the released content. If it’s not a priority for the devs, they will know soon enough as players will continue to leave.

4 Likes
508

Option 4. Scrap the whole thing and go back to the drawing board. This guild wars took all the worst things about the last one and amplified them. Its a failed mode.

In all seriousness one of the major things that needs to be addressed is rewards changed to battles fought than won. As it is people just fighting the gate is a problem and i dont blame them when they are restricted to blighted lands against 3 takshaka lol

3 Likes
509

You could also, make an area, un fightable, once you beat it.
So players, once they win gate, have to move on, and so on.
Each area, can only be fought once. If it’s beaten obviously.

1 Like
510

Only 63 voters for the poll, a very poor result, which is normal, the poll is buried among dozens of posts, it’s even complicated to find it in this jungle. Most of the forum readers haven’t even seen it.

511

I made a new post with a link to the poll. That might help with visibility. :blush:

1 Like