i wanted to reply to you then i changed mind, and proceed to the next subject totally forgot who i was originally replying to XD sorry
2 Likes
Because I believe Champons only get max 75% bonus (while Paragons get 100%), based on this:
1 Like
Agree, and canât wait to see something official about this. For now everything is just our speculation.
[quote=âhtismaqe, post:282, topic:21506, full:trueâ]
If Player A beats Player B, they get 800 base points. But if Player B beats Player A, they get 1200 base points.[/quote]
If this is the case, then the top guilds would have no incentive to level up the sentinels, since they would already have a superior team which would likely win, and they wouldnât want to give up additional potential points. So youâd be in a situation where weaker guilds would âneedâ to upgrade sentinels for a gamble at competing but very little likelihood of winning. But optimal play for the top guilds would be to save their gems. Sounds totally counter to both what the devs have indicated they wanted, and it basically kills the business model since nobody with realistic chances of success will be incentivized to purchase gems.
Unless they really did create a scoring system which is totally counter to the sentinel system, which I guess is possible? But Iâm still just speculatingâŚ
2 Likes
I tend to agree that there will likely be a decent amount of shuffling, and I definitely want to see how things play out in practice before I cast judgment about the designs weâve seen.
I suspect that this âbracketsâ idea isnât as big of a deal as many people think. For the top guilds that are really competitive, theyâll be battling for the top 50 or top 10 positions or whatever. Most other active guilds arenât nearly as competitive and will likely be battling over not dropping into top 500, into top 1000, or out of top 1000. I can see how brackets would make things more âlocally competitiveâ but I still donât see why everyone is so fixated on the brackets idea. There are still good incentives to win and land in a given reward bracket now. Itâs basically just fewer brackets.
I also think only the most hardcore guilds will invest in all sentinel levels, those guilds will fight one another, and it will scale down to where the really small/weak guilds donât invest much if anything and fight similar guilds. If you look at the rewards, you can choose to spend no gems, or some gems, or max out, and in every case you can come out ahead as long as you donât over-spend on gems relative to your guildâs ability to land in the rankings. That just means its incumbent on the guilds to self-manage, which I donât think is a bad thing. It seems like everyone has this fear that a Top 500 guild is going to get smashed by a Top 10 guild and I canât imagine theyâve balanced it that way.
1 Like
The reason I think people are concerned about brackets is because of the way PVP works now.
For all intents and purposes, the highest rewards are completely out of reach of the average player.
When I finished 17th overall, I played over 8 hours a day all week, as I mentioned before. What I didnât mention was that the top 5 players that week all had over DOUBLE my points. Which means even if I had played 15-16 hours a day, I would have not been able to crack the top 5.
Most people I know play PVP only for the gold. Nobody outside of a few hardcore are even interested in where they finish the week in the rankings. If Guild Wars ends up being top heavy like PVP is now, the same will happen - nobody will care. Weâre getting more and more game modes where people have no incentive to really excel. Just read a few threads about the new event system - most people are finishing the 3rd or 4th milestone and then quitting because going further is just too much of a hassle.
They have to do something - really anything - to make sure Guild Wars doesnât end up being top heavy. Otherwise, the divide that we have now (real or percieved) has a real chance to straight up fracture the user base.
10 Likes
Which means the whole reason for setting up the gems to make money doesnât work.
No one thinks that in the literal sense, but if they have a global leaderboard like the pvp one, thereâs a really good chance those smaller guilds have no chance of getting those rewards. Theyâre being compared to the bigger guilds which should never happen. What we donât know is how the points are calculated and how much of a chance these other guilds really have. The system so far isnât terrible, but it definitely has flaws. If they can make it better, they should try to.
The brackets are the best way to go for competition period. For those that value competition, they should want as close to the truest form possible. Take the pvp leaderboard for instance, if you make it to the top you may say wow iâm 1st in the whole game. But in your mind you know not everyone cared enough to play, so you beat the most competitive people in the game. Which is great, and yes bragging rights are earned either way. But the number of people you beat was insignificant, itâs about how many truly competitive guilds did you beat.
So on the local level, yeah it should count and we should all want that. Being paired up with the best in your bracket should force competition and guild spirit.
As a guild-mate of mine said @efh313[quote=âefh313, post:246, topic:21506â]
If My guild dominates out of my group of 7 and yet my guild places 200 out of all guilds. I will absolute feel slighted.
[/quote]
Whatâs the point of trying to be #1 in your bracket if you are #200-1,000 on the leaderboards?
But before assuming much more we need to know how points are calculated and is it really fair to all involved.
1 Like
I understand the problem with PvP but this is a very different situation. You can only play a max of 30 battles/week. Thereâs no option to grind for 16 hours/day.
That said, I donât think you can avoid it being top heavy (albeit for different reasons than PvP) and I donât really understand why people expect otherwise from a Guild Wars system. Shouldnât the strongest and most organized guilds always win? I would honestly be very upset of if Iâm in a top guild of 30 hardcore players and a casual guild of 20 players has a chance to compete with me on the leaderboards.
Itâs my expectation that the Guild Wars rankings will look fairly similar to the current guild leaderboards. I think there will be some really fun surprises though. Iâm sure there guilds that arenât generally thought of as âtop guildsâ b/c they donât have big hoards of trophies (because theyâre newer and/or donât have hardcore PvP grinders) that will actually have a chance now. It seems like some of the âelder, casual playersâ will actually benefit from this system since it isnât just about putting in a ton of hours like the current PvP system.
2 Likes
The stongest and most organized guilds donât get that way from within GW, they get that way from within the existing PVP system, which has no limitations. Sirrian even said they wanted to use the PVP ranking system as the âblueprintâ for GW rankings, which sends off alarms in just about everybody here.
Like I said before: âreal or perceivedâ.
This problem may end up not being a real problem at all. But if thereâs a PERCEIVED problem, itâs going to hurt GW in a very real way. The same way that PVP and the event systems have been hurt - namely by players saying **** it and giving up.
4 Likes
Actually I was wrong. It is neither 0.5 or 0.375. It is about 0.47 (0.46875). Not sure if that helps 
I updated my original post.
Okay, Iâve read through most the responses here and here is my proposal. Some of this will probably be a bit unpopular, so bear with me, but for the good of everyone, I believe this makes the most sense.
First, ditch the extraneous rewards. No gems. No gold. The gems are a huge dividing point here. For nearly everyone, gems = troops = content. They arenât some extra premium currency, they are the main way you get things you both need to progress in the game and keep the game from becoming stale. Guild wars should not be reduced to a gem gambling station. The way it is shown in this preview, nobody stands to lose a significant amount of gems, and a very very very small amount of people will gain an amount that is, in the grand scheme of things, would be a lot for most people but end up being rather insignificant⌠to them. Everyone else has potential to get a small bump, and some people will be sad to see that go, but really, it is holding the entire design of this mode back.
Now that extraneous rewards are out of the way, divide every guild into brackets. The higher brackets would still get better rewards for even competing in the bracket that they are in, but those in lower brackets would have a better chance at decent rewards.
So what is the ultimate reward, then? Well, still troops, but not quite. A new currency would be introduced - Guild Wars tokens. For a certain amount of tokens, you can purchase any past or current guild wars released troop. In keeping in line with how other troops are released, we could go as far as halving the cost of the most recently released troop, or restricting previous warsâ troops from being purchased until four weeks after they were initially put into rotation. Since the rewards is troops and you have a choice of where to spend your tokens, you could go for mythic on a troop you like and mythic versions of these troops would be accessible to everyone⌠albiet not every mythic at the same time, youâd have some choices to make.
So how does this generate revenue? Well, just sell the guild wars tokens. Simple as that. Cut out the middleman, for people that donât care about the pseudo competitive mode at all to still access the content (troops) that it brings to the table. Those that arenât competing (and winning) in higher brackets will never reach mythic on every troop unless they spend money. This may not be popular, but the way that is structured now, those that arenât in the top five probably wonât ever be ascending these guild wars troops to mythic regardless. To keep in line with Guardians, these these purchases could be capped weekly so that nobody is outpacing the top dogs in guildwars by just dropping some money.
While we are at it, lets give the option for at least a few people that arenât going to participate within your guild to âopt outâ, which would of course affect which bracket you were placed in overall, versus guilds with the same amount of members fighting. Said opted out member would still get the rewards (everyone gets less for being in a lower bracket already), but we could have, for example, 25 vs 25 wars if we canât muster a full force.
As for sentinels, with gem rewards being taken out of the equation, lets halve the cost for leveling them across the board. If people still want the big stat advantage, it has to come out of their supply of gems, no recouping. Less people would be willing to do it, but every gem spent here is sunk from the economy. Those more willing to actually spend the 170 gems in the first place would still not likely to be getting them from the cash shop considering the overall cost, but given no chance at recouping them but maybe more troops, I personally might chip in to a couple of the stats if I could get my guild to at least participate in the wars (of course, I wouldnât force anybody into chipping in gems, still, but if I were Paragon that week and I thought it might help, I might do it).
1 Like
And to be clear no one is saying the top guilds shouldnât have the chance to earn the most rewards, itâs just about structuring it in a way that makes sense for all guilds. So if they went a tier system route, say Tier V. Has all the top hardcore guilds in it and thus placing in the top is worth the most rewards.
But I go back and forth on the leaderboard idea. If you go a tiered system it funnels the rewards directly into those top guilds, but technically with the leaderboard system every guild has a chance at the rewards.
Now we donât know how true that is, but on paper thatâs most likely the idea.
Again we need to know how the points are awarded.
1 Like
Its funny how little we really know after 6 Sneak Peeks.
14 Likes
Iâm totally against this part, and the highlighted portion in particular⌠UghâŚ
Giving the players the chance to assign the best among their ranks while also giving rewards to those that did nothing at all feels simply wrong. Itâs even exploitable as forging two new guilds, like St. Patrickâs Skulls and Clover Gems, with 20+ strong members that are assigned and setup against smaller guilds that will have no chance at all on that respective bracket. All of that while they are âfeedingâ the other members of lower levels that opted out. This ensures their domination and if by chance any of the âbig brothersâ eventually canât play no worries, they have those âleechsâ that are still better than any player on that respective bracket.
I can see that the intention is to give some space to players that might need to deal with issues IRL without putting the guild at a huge loss, but you might always consider how some people can twist even the best intentions.
3 Likes
Edit: Ugh, I just annihilated my post by continuing an edit after the page refreshed. The basic gist of it was that there would be little way to exploit given what I had proposed, except at personal loss. Real reply below.
Yeah, but if we start throwing values i can assume that:
- If the difference among the brackets is too huge people will still cry out loud how only the top guilds have the best thingsâŚ
- If the difference is more moderated the players will more inclined to like it
(because it appeals to their sense of self-importance, after all, they are the protagonists of their lifes, itâs ridiculous to assume that they arenât the bestâŚ)
On the second case i can see how people would certainly be comfortable dominating a given bracket at the expenses of everyone else below. You see, if they canât always be Number One of the first bracket they might pursue being the Number One of the Fourth Bracket while, again, feeding some reserve members to ensure their dominance.
I was about to write this in the previous post, but i judged it would make it too longâŚ
The only way brackets work is if you win a bracket one week, you automatically move up to the next bracket the following week. If you lose a bracket, you are relegated to the next lowest the following week. Depending on how big the brackets are, maybe 2 or 3 at the top and bottom would move.
If you get to choose your bracket, its too open to manipulation. With automatic promotion and relegation, people will find their own level.
4 Likes
I am going to say, off-topic, that is a lot of replies in 24 hours, nearly 300 in one day.
Based on everything stated in this preview, really, how is that any worse than it is now? There is very little functional difference between places 101 and 1000 per Sirrianâs table.
Iâll bullet out my main points here:
- Troop tokens instead of troop rewards, to choose what troop you want to develop. Troops are only useful in certain multiples, and getting, for example, 41 copies of a troop twice does you absolutely no good at all if that particular troop isnât coming back around again.
- Troop tokens are buyable in limited quantities to generate revenue, and give everyone a chance to get ascensions.
- Brackets to maintain the illusion that there is some sort of competition going on. Although I really donât have much interest in either, its pretty easy to see that vying for the top of your particular woodpile is a lot more interesting than vying for 142nd place vs 141. Rewards would be, overall, meted out similar to how is proposed.
- No gems rewards. Current gem payouts are small for almost everyone. Those competing for the top are essentially just gambling gems, and likely on a fairly safe bet.
- More reasonable sentinel costs. No recouping, so overall more gems are removed from the economy. If you want the bonus, its out of your own pocket (figuratively, as I still donât think people will be buying gems with cash to put toward this)
Being able to opt out was more of an afterthought. If the brackets were automatic, guilds that field roughly the same amount of players week to week would settle into a given bracket over time. Iâm okay with that, too.
My worry there is the Devs might see that as too many moving parts to implement, but there has to be room for movement in that design.
With the leaderboard obviously they could just, âset it and forget it.â
Iâd like to hear if this is even possible for them to achieve. Which we know Sirrian said they thought about a bracket or tier system before, but what we donât know is if guilds were permanently locked in or not in that design.
1 Like
I agree that it is a lot more difficult to manage, which is doubtless why they chose the approach that they did.
Everyone seems to be assuming that the âtopâ guilds will win this every week, but if the points work similarly to PVP (meaning that the stronger player is expected to win), then the âtopâ guilds might be at a significant disadvantage on this leaderboard. In other words, a top guild winning all of its battles (as expected), might earn fewer points than a lesser guild winning all of its battles, including a few upsets. The guild having a good week and punching above its weight might be the winner. Weâll have to wait and see how the points work.
1 Like