My guess is that some of the 1-member guilds might be players who want to play alone (not in a guild), and then make their own guild to get at least a little bit of bonus.
From my viewpoint: I hope things are mixed up a bit more than that. It’s bad enough that most of my PvP matches are against members of the same five guilds, who almost all play soul-destroying BD/Courage meta annoying defences (makes me wonder if it’s their policy). I wouldn’t welcome the extra 30 matches a week (or eating 30 of my PvP matches depending on play-time) being dedicated to those same opponents.
In most sport leagues, the top teams don’t play each other constantly… So in MatchMasters we are the number 3 guild on the LB, and were top 10 in the recent quarterly LB. I’d like to see a distribution of our six matches something like:
- 2-3 matches are top 10 Guilds
- 2-3 are top 30
- 1 per week is top 50
This creates variety for everyone. It gives the top guilds the odd easier day, so to speak, so less hardcore players can look at the scores and maybe take a breather, or newer members can go back to exploring for stones, whilst giving the lower but dedicated guilds a crack at the top ones now a few times a week for bonus points.
@sirrian is this something you can comment on please?
Just for a counterpoint, I actually do hope I play that “same group of top opponents”. Facing random guild #1042 just because they’re different doesn’t really appeal to me. In general, the top guilds are more active, more competitive, and more likely to have other forum members for some friendly rivalries and chatter. As for your analogy, yes, sports LEAGUES have the top face the bottom. But most sports leagues are limited to a small number of teams, and they use multiple leagues to separate teams of different levels, so your analogy is a bit off the mark. If you look closer at the sports league model, they’ll have a limited number of teams in the “majors” (or “premier”) pool of opponents you could be paired with, and then additional levels like “AAA” or “AA” (or “First Division” and “Second Division”).
So following that pattern, and having guilds put in groups and can play anybody in their group, that would make sense to me. For example, assuming a group size of 30, #1 could face #30 (the lowest ranked opponent in the group) but not #2000, since they’re simply not at the same level (group) as the others. Also, since these rankings (and thus the groups/pools) would change each week, it would ensure that the most active/competitive teams would get to play with each other. Whether the groups should be 20 or 50 or 200 teams is all just details/tweaking. Overall I would consider that sort of system a benefit rather than a problem like you indicate. But I’d love a dev comment on this too
I thought guilds could only be matched up to other guilds with around the same level of guild statues as them? Has this changed?
Based on that I would assume the battles are against those guild’s members, but maybe not?
Actually your suggestion isn’t far from mine. Perhaps my example was unclear (or you skim-read it, who knows )
My point was that the core ‘nearest peers’ group of guilds should be wide enough (say 20+ guilds) based on ratings etc, so that each week isn’t against the same 5 guilds over and over again.
They’re important details, mind. 20 sounds fine. 50 may be too wide. 200 creates the non-competition you are rightfully against.
Oh so you were just curious as to how wide the net they cast is. I would think since it’s based on guild statue levels, 10 point difference=fine, 20-30 may be pushing it. So however many guilds are around a 20-30 point difference, which I gotta say probably wouldn’t be many.
Just depends on what their opinion of what’s okay is really. Probably somewhere in the ballpark of 30 different guilds, just guessing. You have to have a good amount of guilds for those with level 200 statues to fight, since they’re in a league alone basically. Otherwise yeah they could be fighting the same 5 guilds. lol
Cool, sounds like we are very close @Jainus. I guess the fundamental difference I was noting is that you indicated a seemingly top-heavy weighting for your matchups, while I’m suggesting a more random/open matchup across the group. But I thin our concerns and goals sound the same, just different ways to achieve them
I agree, was just using it more to illustrate that the model could be easily (and significantly) tweaked just by changing that one variable (group size). Looking at the actual data available (Top 50 Guild League Table History , from @actreal), I’d make the group size 30, but that’s only based on that incomplete data (there are likely a bunch of very active guilds that simply haven’t been around long enough to make the top 50 yet).
But again, I’d be interested in hearing the official view
I herd Guild Wars got delayed, is that true ???
In all seriousness the TL;DR answer is “Yes” but since the devs never gave an official release date, the longer answer is “Maybe?”. Right now, the last I heard, the devs were hoping for somewhere in between late March/middle April. I’m not sure if that’s the latest, though.
That’s about were we’re aiming for currently but we don’t have an exact eta at the moment.
Is the plan (which of course could change) to have console / mobile get 3.0 guild wars patch at the same time?
i also would like very much if there was a mechanic preventing same guilds from fighting each other more then once per week
(dont want a situation when top 1-5 fights each other all the time widening ranking points difference between them and the guilds below)
I believe Sirrian said in one of the previews that all the matchmaking is done at the start of the week, so I doubt this will be the case.
@wskill: You must be trolling right? If you would have read the explanation you would know that as long as you fight 1 (one) battle you get the troop. I hope you find the energy to do that.
On another note, yes I am member of a top 5 clan (Vn4ever). I play 3 to 5 hours each week…
Around the same time I currently play the game.
Sure, I might not get those troops to mythic, but at least unlocking them isn’t a big deal.
I was wondering about the Defense-Team. Is it the same as in PvP? So do I have to battle those bone dragons on every red-day (Courage) and the khorvash on every blue-day (Justice)? Do I simply have to be quick, so my opponents haven’t had time to switch Def-Teams? I wonder… There was something like only the attack-team gets the colour-bonus, so maybe it will only be bone dragons
Me too. I expect the Sentinels tab is to do with that.
@sirrian where’s the next preview?
Too many questions!
i assume you will see bone dragons all the time for entire 6 days (well, maybe not since it suppose to be nerfed the same moment guild wars are out)
but you could see more counter-type of troops on specific days, like amira at blue days and desdaemona at yellow days
but to be more sure lets wait for sentinels tab preview
I’m a bit confused about the daily bonus and when it’s calculated. A previous preview stated that we could bank energy and play the earlier battles. So if this works the way I think it does, the daily bonus is calculated based on the “current” battle only. However, this means if your guildmates were slow to battle and the other guild was winning at the end of the day, you will not have the daily bonus but you could still come back and win against that guild correct? Or if you’re on (battle) day 2 do your battles against the first guild count toward your daily total against the second guild? In summary, is the daily reward calculated on all battles that day regardless of opponent or is it all battles against that day’s opponent only (hence the skip button)? I’m pretty sure that it’s the latter but confirmation/clarification would be helpful.
I wonder if these 6 single color troops will trait like commons (1 arcane) or like Guardians (30 arcanes), I’m guessing the later.