It shouldn’t be unrestricted. That would be crazy as you mentioned.
My contention is that it should be restricted at the GUILD level, not the player level. If a guild has the resources and wants to have have 25 people participate, great.
And if a guild wants to leave it up to their 4 or 5 most-active members, that should be a viable strategy as well.
Lot’s of games in this and similar genres have “hero” concepts. It’s not like my suggestion is coming out of left field or something.
Also, this has nothing to do with challenge, it has to do with artificial restrictions being passed off as challenge.
Nothing but PVP 8+ hours a day. My average is like 1.5M a week and I usually end up right about there most weeks.
My job is bulk-loaded so there are times when I work 16x7 and there are times when I literally have nothing to do but wait for the phone to ring. So I have weeks where it’s 700K and weeks where it’s 2M+.
Your passion for the game has led you to a reaction I understand but do not agree with.
Let’s agree to disagree and move on.
I won’t take up anymore public space with this back and forth.
I agree with you, that those two endsof the scale probably wouldn’t be affected a lot, but the part in the middle… I’m not so sure.
There are plenty of semi-active guilds out there that will likely be forced to group themselves with either the “top” or “bottom” guilds - namely requiring battle participation as a “guild req” or not.
To me, it bears the risk of splitting up the player base in “GW-Players” and “Non-GW-Players”, each having about half as many guilds available for them as they have atm… So I guess in the end the question is… is this what’s intended?
#HalfConsciousRamble
It’s already that way to some extent. My concern is that GW is going to make it even worse - that it will remove all the grey area and leave a binary choice - you’re either an active guild made up of all active members or you’re “one of the rest”.
That being said, it is still REALLY early so there’s no sense in freaking out just yet.
This is my last post because this sentence from @DonBoba ties a nice bow on it for me.
My ONLY concern is that “less rewards” becomes “no rewards” due to a restriction that precludes participation.
If it turns out exactly as Sirrian has suggested that rewards are given to everyone with only the quantity being decided upon by relative success or failure, it should be fine.
That is completely fair. 
I must say that i fear some exploits in this case scenario: People jumping into minor/sister guilds in order to make both grow up at large steps. Let’s say that 10 overperformers players from “Not Exploiting LOL!1 Guild I” could change places with members of “Not Exploiting LOL!1 Guild II” to guarantee max rewards for both guilds and maybe doubling their own resources.
Sure, some steps could be taken to prevent that, but it would require more complexity in the codes while it’s already sorted out, i assume, as safe with the restricted number and time for attacks. This is my conjecture on how and why the devs decided to proceed based on the experience of a similar model they already experimented with the Guild Seals.
Again i must exaggerate trying to make a point: Can you join the Olympic Games just for “lolz” if you want to? No, because there is a restrict number of participants for each country, and people wouldn’t want to put someone in without making sure he will perform as the best representative of a given sport. It’s an artificial restriction as well, but it has been placed to prevent the countries that are waaaaayyy more developed and that can produce waaaaayyyy more and better competitors than other less fortunate countries at each category.
While it’s not a 100% accurate comparation, until this point, let’s say that if you would allow USA to bring 6 runners, but only one can compete on the Olympics while Brazil has only 2 runners and also only one can compete, and by an accident at the openning ceremony two of each country runners were hurt and couldn’t compete. Then USA would still have 4 competitors to gather medals while Brazil would have to suck it up as well… It was more inclusive by allowing the bigger countries to bring more men/women power wouldn’t you say? But was it really fair as a whole?
So, the guilds that have overperformers players could certainly finish all the “scheduled battles” in two days, but would it be fair to the lesser guilds that is more an average casual guild that could just as well have people missing the five battles a day?
Liking it or not these artificial barriers, that aren’t very high, do serves a purppose, and also provides a measure to avoid a lot of “draws” or “ties” for the title of Top Guild at the Guild Wars.
The Olympics aren’t a valid analogy because the pool of participants is already limited. We all know that.
The only way the analogy would be apt is if they said “open tryouts, everyone is invited” and then said “sorry, you can’t throw the shotput” arbitrarily.
For me personally, the whole “Top Guild” thing is silly. It’s a gem-matching game, it’s not Call of Duty. The competitive nature of it should be inclusive, not exclusive. Of course, you have to account for human nature and we all know what competitive online multiplayer looks like these days…
Trophies and glory are good: PvP points and ranking, meh. As long as guilds are not actively penalized for having members who won’t participate, fine. Otherwise, casual guilds may become the contemporary version of the leper colony in Krystara. 
Since it looks like we will be making 6 new teams to try to get the top score, and maybe 6 teams to use for defense, can we get more slots to save team setups?
I got all my slots filled to counter various enemy team setups.
What if the limitations were a bit different:
Numbers can be obviously adjusted (especially for smaller guilds), I just used the daily limit provided by @Sirrian. It solves a number of things:
Or maybe both daily and weekly limits for players (e.g. max 10/day, 30/week) - it becomes a bit more complicated though and I’m not sure it’s necessary.
EDIT: it’s so obvious I forgot. It also solves the main (I think) problem discussed here:
4. It gives players freedom to play whenever they want within the week. Of course to some extend, limited by their guildmates play time.
Thats a nice suggestion.
Oh btw about your point no 1.
All members that participate are registrated on Sunday l, so guild jumping wont do anything 
Limitations are a simpler form to control results and avoid disparities while evening the field. Making it too much inclusive invites can also lead to much more inbalance if you can’t control the highest performers while the average and lower performers are still being undermined and crushed under the unattainable goals.
Guild A, B, C and D joined the Guild Wars, all those guilds have 30 members.
Each guild can do 150 battles per day on Monday with no restriction on the number of battles for each players respecting the limit of 150 battles on each day.
With the proposed limitation of 5 battles for each guildmate on each day and assuming the same scenario for the previous guilds we would have:
Only guild B and C have a glaring disparity in the results because we are not assuming that the rest of the guild could make some effort instead of relying on their overperforming members, wich is by itself an alienating behavior as much, or even worse, as you think “forcing” everyone to play 5 battles would be.
OK. I must’ve missed it while I didn’t miss someone’s concern over the matter. Thanks for clarifying.
This isn’t the Olympics. It isn’t even really a competition.
It’s a single-player game with some Guild mechanics. There’s no reason to limit or level the playing field.
I understood that the Guild was registrated, and that limiting the battles each day would be “The Thing” avoiding exploits of changing guilds. But anyway, the more you know…
Actually, what I understood when I read Sirrian’s posts, was that when you register on monday, then your members get set. This would allow recruiting to still happen on monday without excluding anyone. Maybe Sirrian even said it happened on tuesday at reset, when the schedule for the rest of the week was decided. Can’t really tell atm, we have to wait for more info on that.
Sigh…
Then why all the cards and resources aren’t handed out from the moment we join the game?
To give us some feeling of achievement while making progress, and without any sort of restriction creating a challenge, as much artificial as it is, any new feature will never become interesting if it’s an “All you can eat buffet for free, no strings attached and you won’t even get fat or have an heart attack while doing it” (Who said that eating bacon isn’t radical? )
I honestly believe that i’m defending a standing point that will prevent you (and others) from making the new feature uninteresting for everyone, you included, because it seems that when you read Guild Wars you are interpreting it as “Kumbaya singing sessions”… From the starting point it was clearly some sort of competition, or am i crazy?
I gonna ask an specialist: @HKdirewolf, you are the most well-balanced crazy person that i know here. Am i crazy? 