Where exactly did anyone state anything close to that? I haven’t seen anyone state that a tiny guild should get more rewards than a top guild. Whatever system the devs use will most assuredly still give far more rewards to stronger guilds versus weaker ones.
I’m not sure who you were responding to so I just want to make sure it wasn’t me because I agree with all that. I think Guild Wars should be open to casual guilds and should entice them to play but to really get the most out of it, just like Guilds in general, you’ll need to be more than a casual participant.
Likewise, GW should be open to casual guilds, and I expect that any casual guilds that participate will be matched against similar guilds (in terms of number of members, level, # of trophies, etc.). Maybe there will be some kind of league or ladder system where a guild can move up or down based on the previous week’s success. Anyway, things should be able to sort themselves out so that the most hardcore guilds will be battling each other for big rewards and casual guilds will be battling each other for modest rewards.
@ogunther i was apeaking in general.
I want an actual addition to the game. Not play pvp as you do usualy, and get extra rewards on the end. Im not in it for rewards, i want a little change in scenery. Now I understand that playing pvp as usual is the way to earn points. But if we dont fight each other between guilds, whats the point?
That being sad, i feel stupid to contine talking here, because i realized i know about 5% of information about GW, so until we get more details, im out of this topic. I wont even read comments anymore until we hear from Sirrian.
But what if those rewards were…
…wait for it…
A NEW DRAAKULIS!!!
Not so quick to be all Mr. Idontneedrewards now, are you! Mic drop
I would love to see a “Gauntlet” type of system. We could do it weekly and have weekly rewards etc…
How this Gauntlet System will work.
Each WAVE of this gauntlet will be pre-designed with what troops, strength etc from the dev’s.
You enter the Gauntlet with your Team of 4.
You will be given WAVE 1, if you are defeated, you can try again at wave 1 with the same or new team.
If you are successful in winning, then you will move on to WAVE 2. Wave 2 will have a different team and possibly a little stronger troops.
After each wave, your troops reset back to normal.
I would hope that ALL the waves are exactly the same for each person.
However once you lose in guantlet, you can try again with the same team at the same WAVE or you can restart completely from WAVE 1 with a new team.
After each week, rewards can be given based upon how many WAVES you have completed. Maybe showing a leaderboard for the hardcore.
Each week will have different troops in each wave, and possibly different rewards.
Each completed WAVE will offer a minimal reward and possibly 1 trophy for low WAVES and increase up to 3 trophies per battle for harder WAVES. Once your reward/trophy has been given for a Certain WAVE it will not be given again if you start over with another team.
The game should get to an “IMPOSSIBLE” level, where it is unbeatable and you will only win by extreme luck to push those hardcore players.
I forgo any rights of my idea and allow Gems of War to use it royalty free and without recourse of legal action.
I see your idea and raise you this:
Rather than a full heal between Waves, you get a cleanse and a partial heal… say 30% of armor/life restored?
I say full heal because if you lose, you can resume at same wave with back to normal troops.
How this will eventually hurt you, is the troops/teams on the other side will not be able to be matched against for weaknesses, and eventually your team if its specialized will end up coming up against a bad match.
This helps keep peoples teams more balanced.
Also, the leader board for this will increase the “END GAME” aspect, where people are saying, I completed WAVE 80… etc… and others may still be in the 70s. It generates some competition.
Also having the teams your against different each week, will make other teams maybe more beneficial, and not always the same team will do the best.
Eventually it should get to an impossible stage, maybe WAVE 200 or whatever the Devs decide on, they can start lower and if people max the waves they can increase it accordingly.
I would play it… for sure!
as would I.
I would love a competition like this, where everyone faces the same teams/waves and the Most strategic person will usually end up on top.
Love this idea so I started a thread for it:
Lets take the convo over there @AeroCloud!!
Just as said, i can only speculate on what the devs were about when they suggested five battles a day:
Easy to be done, while restrictive and can sometimes backfire due external issues let’s be honest: It hardly poses as a challenge but it puts conditions to be met and some constant coordination inside the guilds on a daily basis as losing a few battles pressures people to get better and look for advice inside and outside the guild. Yes, it can rubs people in the wrong way, as i see it, if they can’t accept that they lost because they need to improve one or more aspects of their gameplay*.
A new measure/metric of a player’s skill and dedication. It’s not very effective as i can assume that some players are more active during the weekends when they can be totally dedicated to meet the guild’s requirements. But maybe some average player just need the right push to become more engaged with their own guild.
If i correctly recall when the Guild’s War were announced people said: “Guild chat is not enough as a form to consolidate bonds, if it even works at all, as we don’t have activities that requires involvement.” “A guild is just a group of individuals doing individual stuff alone and gathering resources…” As i said that’s what i remember and i may be wrong, but we could certainly forgive the devs for following some mixing signals from the past.
*Gameplay in general is sort of in disarray… As the progression seems to be scaling in different levels than it was in the past. We have stronger than ever troops, much more resources for the regular/average guilds and the constant release of troops so a newbie can have access to stronger/rare troops wich is good, but the fact that some troops are in some sense overpowered comparing to the old ones colaborates, in my humble opinion, to certain undervelopement of skills as it keeps the game dull/easy… You just fill Khorvash/Bone Dragon/Famine and fire it, repeat until you win… Not that a match-3 game should be complicated but… Still seems in disarray mostly because the power curve of some troops allows the “faceroll”…
But i imagine that people now lost the “gently push” to get more involved in the form of the five daily battles, not arguing if it would be 100% effective just explaining one possible reason for it, and maybe the short-term rupture of some unstable guilds was avoided, but a long term “below the expectations performance” of some guilds will do a bigger harm to good players…
This is true regardless of if the losses come daily or weekly. If player A wins 30/30 and player B wins 20/30, player B needs to step up his/her game.
As I’ve stated many times, I despise any system that punishes me because some random player who isn’t me isn’t playing the game the way the devs want. That’s just bad design; some of the worst really.
Our guild, which admittedly is already pretty cohesive, is collaborating even more due to GW and it hasn’t even released yet. You don’t need daily battles as an excuse to do this.
Not true for us; see above.
[quote=“Ivar, post:506, topic:20320, full:true”]
Just as said, i can only speculate[/quote]
Your last post had me totally captivated until this comment.
Still patiently waiting for new and useful posts from the dev with REAL info…
But it’s up to your guild to find a way to make the whole guild act in conformity. I can understand someone not doing the same progress as you because he can’t simply login during Mondays let’s say. In a case of pure lazyness the player in question would keep being kicked out of guilds if he can’t meet the new conditions.
If your guild, with your pristine modus operandi, would be () the lowest of the lowest, the stinkiest of the stinkiest guilds that were ever assembled and all the rest were way above in the sky over you poor miserable guild ( <- funny emotes strategically placed to avoid unecessary misinterpretations)…
Then sure, this would be a waste of an effort. I believe they were aiming at guilds that need a wake up call to become more engajed. Having players playing the game and getting engajed is how they make money, so i can’t really blame then for any new attempt they make in this sense. Can you?
A snarky and yet well educated comment. I shall present my rebuttal: At least it wasn’t a long read.
I’m guessing this was just poor word choice and not indicative of how you feel but I do want to point out that I’d have a hard time accusing anyone of being “lazy” for not playing a game. From my experience people stop playing games or underperform on games for many reasons but laziness doesn’t rank very high.
It’s possible but that is just conjecture on your part since the devs tend to not reveal their specific motivations for adding different features. My guess, though, is that GW is supposed to engage both casual and hardcore players and all those in between. Casual players for the reasons you mentioned and hardcore because they risk leaving GoW from boredom when they run out of content.
Yes, but boredom and laziness are not out of the board. The very essence of a casual game can lead to underperformance and laziness simply because they don’t feel motivated because of many factors:
- Already have almost everything -> End-gamer.
- Things were intense at work today. -> Busy person.
- The movie i’ve been waiting for is on today. -> Also busy person that has other interests as well.
Perhaps… Just now i’m realizing that “laziness” seems to be a “taboo word”. Everytime i mention it people seems to get antsy and i really don’t know why. Could it be that the meaning of the word is not lined up with my “sense of intensity” of the said word? English is not my first language after all… Maybe unmotivated would be a better and fitting term.
@HKdirewolf i require your assistance. Because science! When i say:
- You are a lazy excuse of a person.
- You are an unmotivated excuse of a person.
Which one is more hurtfull?
“Lazy” definitely has a negative connotation, and many people will take insult to that as it speaks to a person’s worth. “Unmotivated” on the other hand is more neutral because it speaks to a person’s desires (or lack there of). If you call someone unmotivated and they think you are implying that they are lazy, they can take offense…but they may also think you are simply implying that they have lost the desire which would (most of the time) not be offensive.
So, if you replace “lazy” with “unmotivated” in your examples then I would be more inclined to agree with you.
I see, then it’s more like a case of cultural misusage of translated words. Here, in Brazil, we can honestly say that someone is “lazy” without meaning it with such intensity or ofensive tone.
Usually even the nastiest words of our vocabulary have a friendly/jesting touch that can’t be obvious in “pure text form” without using the proper synonyms.
Yes, what i’ve been meaning to refer to were unmotivated players in general.
So… You mean… no more pitchforks?
(I detect it is safe to meme as this thread seems to have simmered down)