[quote=“Sirrian, post:1, topic:21506”]
But all those little extras from players on lower ranks can effectively add +25%/+50%/+75%/+100% to Vanguards/Heralds/Champions/Paragons if every member of the guild upgrades their SentinelsIn order to do that, the “higher rank” bonuses become larger for players who are in the top ranks… in the example above, you can see the “higher rank” bonuses for someone who is a Champion. They would be smaller if I were only a Vanguard. Don’t worry if that’s a little confusing - you don’t need to worry about it too much - I mainly had there for anyone attempting to do math with the values, just to say “you won’t quite get the correct answers”.
[/quote][/details]
let me see do i get this right?
according to this, in a full 30 member guild where everyone upgrades the bonu to lv5:
Paragon would get:
+0,5 x 2champions x100% /2 = +0,5
+0,5 x 4heralds x100% /4 = +0,5
+0,5 x 8vanguards x100% /8 = +0,5
+0,5 x 16vanguards x100% /16 = +0,5
total bonus paragon gets from other members = +2 ?
champion:
+0,5 x 4heralds x 75%/4 x = +0,375
+0,5 x 8vanguards x75% /8 = +0,375
+0,5 x 16soldiers x75% /16 = +0,375
champion total bonus = +1,125 ?
herald:
0,5 x 2 x 50% = +0,5
vanguards:
0,5 x 1 x 25% = +0,125
as a maximum of what they can possibly get that doesnt seem right at all
maybe im just not getting your calculation but otherwise there is a huge flaw in it? xD
blame it on me if i dont understand it id like more explanations then
If you do well enough in your bracket you move on to the next one. If you fail dramatically you get placed back. You’ll always be in a spot of competition and the goal of getting to tier one bracket would keep you wanting to compete, while also triggering fair competition throughout the brackets because you shouldn’t ever be so far out of someone league that it’s steamrolling.
I strongly think we should go towards the brackets route and make it work rather than just placing everyone together. I’d be excited for guild wars if we had brackets.
I think as members of guilds that have been established for so long, we forget that starter guilds go without the full 30 members for quite some time as they go up in trophy count (please correct me if this has changed in the past 6 months). I don’t know the exact figures but my first guild was limited to 12, then 18. A guild of 18 members could win every single match against every difficult opponent, using the specified teams for maximum bonuses and still lose. Still be below even the top 100 or more. Just by a restriction built into the game. Why shouldn’t they be facing guilds with the same restrictions? And what incentive do they have to open their wallets so that the best they can do is below budget? This one of the arguments for more brackets
Personally, I wouldn’t even mind if the good rewards were limited to just the top bracket. I mean, you could get the ‘participation level’ rewards in all brackets, and a little bonus if you win or place in a lower bracket, but leave the big carrot for just the top tier. I think this would encourage a spirit of competition for everyone at their own level instead of a spirit of “who cares” for everyone but the top few.
I think, going back to Sneak Peak 1 or 2, that was approximately how the weekly war would be set-up. Guilds would face off against other guilds that are approximately fair matches, but there is only one leaderboard for results. You only directly battle 6 other guilds each week, and these ones should be chosen from guilds that have similar numbers and levels. At least, I think that’s what they said…
Right, but if the overall leaderboard is based off points per win, and you are limited to 5 matches a day, these guilds will obtain less points by default. They can put in maximum effort and results and still have less points. And be in the same rank tier as higher level guilds with less effort.
I’m not saying they should get the best rewards, or even different rewards, but the results at the end of the week would dishearten them and turn them off of GW altogether. If the goal is maximum profits by the company, this does not accomplish that. Read my own comment somewhere in the middle of this giant thread for a fuller look at the thought process.
i didnt try to calculate your chart to see how many gems it actually would give in total, to see how close to Sirrian’s it is but i tried my own based on total gems and troops given (as i assume that is the main concern for devs why not make more brackets)
how about spreading troops a little more “equally” so that ppl dont feel its unfair? also top 1000 i think should get a decent amount, but all i maaged to do is raise it by 1, still its something!
proposition:
Rank1 40troops (saved 60)
r2 35troops (saved 35)
r3 30troops (saved 20)
r4-6 3x25troops =75 (saved 48)
r7-10 4x20troops =80 (saved 48)
r11-20 10x17=170 (saved 70)
r21-50 30x15=450 (saved 150)
r51-100 50x14=700 (saved 100)
r101-200 100x12=1200
r201-400 200x9=1800
r401-1000 600x7=4200 (spent 600)
total troops given = 69 more troops then the original table
i would still take the “drastically reduced rewars” if it meant overall many more guilds feel like they can earn something and join the competition ( not just best 20 guilds fighting fot top 10 )
I thought we were only ranked against other guilds we were actively battling against…
so…we have to get 4th or better in the ENTIRE GAME to recoup the gem amount? yea…I am never EVER buffing the Life of troops, especially it it doesn’t effect how many points I can get.
Based on those numbers, and how much the rewards are…it just doesn’t make any sense. Also…rank one gets 100 event troops, but 200th gets 6? ummm…not a good spread imo.
You ask, I try my best. Don’t complain about the wall of text and numbers
It can certainly be flaws in my calculation, and most probably I’m terrible in explaining easily what I mean. And I for sure don’t know if this is the way the calculation is really done.
Just to stress what I tried to explain, it was the number “0.5” in the first picture, in the text “+0.5 for higher ranked Guildmates.” I tried to show how that number would make sense in a 11 members guild. In a 30 members guild, it would then be another (lower) number than 0.5, as I will show.
The whole calculation depends on that also in smaller size guilds, the Paragon will be able to get 100% bonus, etc.
So the calculation I did was not so much to find out how much max bonus they will get (because that we know), but how much each of them will provide to each other.
Anyway, I will try to explain what I mean by using your 30 members guild. (By the way, there will only be 15 soldiers in the guild to add up to a total of 30 members.)
Lets say everyone updates Magic to 5 points. We already know the max Magic bonuses everyone will get:
1 Paragon: 100% → 5 bonus points
2 Champions: 75% → 3.75 bonus points each
4 Heralds: 50% → 2.5 bonus points each
8 Vanguards: 25% → 1.25 bonus points each
15 Soldiers: 0% → 0 bonus points each
These points will maybe be rounded off to 5, 4, 3, 1, 0 bonus points, but lets just keep decimals in all calculations under.
Now we will calculate how much each member provides in bonuses to the higher ranked Guildmates:
29 members provide in total 5 bonus points to the Paragon: 5/29=0.17 points each
27 members provide in total 23.75=7.5 bonus points to the 2 Champions: 7.5/27=0.28 points each
23 members provide in total 42.5=10 bonus points to the 4 Heralds: 10/23=0.43 points each
15 members provide in total 8*1.25=10 bonus points to the 8 Vanguards: 10/15=0.67 points each
(This means a total of 5+7.5+10+10=32.5 Magic bonus points in total for the whole guild.)
Now we can calculate the number X in the text: “+X for higher ranked Guildmates” for the different ranks:
Paragon: Will provide nothing, as there are no higher ranked Guildmates.
Champions: “+0.17 for higher ranked Guildmates”
Heralds: “+0.45 for higher ranked Guildmates” (0.17+0.28=0.45)
Vanguards: “+0.88 for higher ranked Guildmates” (0.17+0.28+0.43=0.88)
Soldiers: “+1.55 for higher ranked Guildmates” (0.17+0.28+0.43+0.67=1.55)
If we add these bonus points that each member provides, we should end up with the same number 32.5 calculated over as the total bonus that the guild would get:
151.55 + 80.88 + 40.45 + 20.17 = 32.43
Seems correct if we account for that I had to round off the numbers.
So a Champion in a 30 member guild will have the number 0.17 in the text where a Champion in a 11 member guild will have the number 0.5. That is IF the numbers mean what I have guessed.
To expand further on why gems being the huge “get” is a bad idea for this mode, I’d like to bring up a few other things:
The more gems you have and have spent, the less inherent value each gem has.
A starting player might be able to spend, for example, 95 gems and get a new troop or two out of it. A player a few weeks in probably already won’t get anything useful out of that level of expenditure. A player at midgame missing a few legendaries has a very very very slight chance of getting the one they want. A player at endgame missing a few mythics has a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent chance to pull something useful, and a player at endgame missing no mythics just has a bit bigger buffer to not get screwed when they dump massive amounts of gems on the next exclusive mythic.
Losing a few gems any given week has far more of an impact than gaining them.
If I were to put out for example, even a couple hundred gems per week from my stash, I’d be below what I estimate as the “even chance” category for obtaining the next exclusive mythic. Gaining a couple hundred per week would hardly help me at all in the short term or the long term. Short term, I cap out how much I’m willing to pay on the next exclusive mythic, and adding a couple hundred gems to that wouldn’t even significantly alter my chance when I’m already spending 4k+ most of the time, and long term… well, general mythic drop rates is beyond abysmal, where the average price tag to pull a specific one randomly is now in the tens of thousands of gems. I can’t afford to lose any gems, and gaining more does me very little good unless it is in orders of magnitude.
Both of these factors considered, the cash price of gems is quite frankly absurd to all but the beginner level looking to scratch out some starting troops.
The value of a gem is not equal at all levels and is an integral part in both unlocking content and progressing in the game. Attempting to even get in the ballpark of a full collection, not even counting mythics, using glory keys and gold keys alone is a hellish affair that would likely wear on even the most patient of players.
In the past, the economy has been rebalanced around what is possible by the top earners.
I’m not just talking about the guild task retune, but also the removal of legendaries from Glory Packs and putting them as event key only for one week, nowhere for four weeks, then making the only way to get them for the following ~5 months after is the abysmal common drop pool. Any type of currency can never be claimed as extra so long as there is a threat that the bar will be moved again.
Putting those points together, if you are one of the people sitting back and salivating at the prospect of all those extra gems for reaching one of the top spots, chances are, you probably won’t ever be getting one of those spots. If you are in range to recoup, fully upgrading sentinels with gems is pretty much going to be a wash for ranks 3-10, and 11-20 would already be taking such a big hit that they probably wouldn’t consider fully upgrading on following weeks.
In the end, troop tokens make far more sense because the odd amount of guild wars troop payouts and the inability to get them from anywhere else means that, bare minimum, you’d have them stuck at whatever ascension you obtained them at for least six weeks, presumably forever at some point when their rotation ends. Being able to pick up content you weren’t around for initially is also pretty essential for new people coming into the game.
A reduced sentinel cost with no chance of recouping the gems means that people in the top guilds with 20k+ gem stashes can funnel some of those earnings into guild wars for a stat advantage if they want to (so they have an easier time using a more homogenous color team and therefore get more bonus points and higher ultimate rank). Underdogs can funnel some of those gems here and there if they feel they need it and it will give them a better chance (probably still wont, but it would be more considerable if the costs were more reasonable). Those that are beyond the reach of reliably targeting mythics but can still reliably get every legendary might even consider it, but only if the costs were more reasonable. But at least the ultimate reward wont be more gems to funnel back into guild wars in a cyclical manner.
Plus, I’m almost certain far more people would be willing to just straight buy troop tokens to ascend x or y troop to the next level a bit early than would buy gems and then funnel them into sentinel bonuses to gain a slight advantage (or be at slightly less of a disadvantage, depending) for thirty personal battles per week that contribute only 3% of the total score that will eventually determine your guild’s ranking. When you spell it out like that, it almost sounds absurd that anyone would even consider taking that path, especially when 340 gems is $20-30 “worth” of gems.
Correct. Overall general troop drop rates are another issue for another time. For now, guild wars prize troops seem to be common comparable, and they are given out to literally everyone participating in small quantities regardless, so just unlocking them is never the issue here (unless you missed a given week, which could be fairly crippling to newcomers after a certain point, since they do belong to kingdoms and therefore contribute kingdom points).
