I use the Hero class on occasion, other players do too. Unfortunately your selection needs to stay locked in to a class.
But the “$5” fee is silly when you are attempting to make money. They sell Hero weapons for $5 but if you want to change it to a different one your already have (or just purchased) that’s 50 Gems or $5.
Fun Analogy:
Its like if you go to a restaurant and if you want to order something different from the menu rather the exact same thing you had the last time, they charge you to “change your order” and to pay for the meal.
You are not getting the point, at all…
The intention is to divide ALL the original ranks from Sirrian’s Table into Brackets with 5 Ranks each.
I just used the original 5 Ranks AS AN EXAMPLE.
The Top 100 ranks from Sirrian’s table to be converted into 100 Brackets with 5 Ranks each, making a new total of 500 ranks, earning SOMETHING unlike leaving it concentrated to just the TOP 100 ranks in the current mode.
That’s the whole point of having more brackets with a better distribution, and NO, it WOULDN’T stop at 100 Brackets, it could certainly be stretched to 1000 Brackets (with 5 Ranks each) making a total division of 5000 ranks where the guilds could climb week by week.
Yes, as Sirrian already stated it would leave the rewards dilluted, but comparing just the amount of gems earned by the Top 1 from Sirrian’ table, 1.500 for a single guild, making it 45.000 gems if the guild if full, against my lazy math where the redistribution would end up with a total of 60.000 gems for 5 guilds we have a more moderated prize reaching more guilds as a whole.
An increase of 15.000 gems to benefit four more guilds seems like a good deal. Having much more space for mobility in each bracket instead of the few Ranks from the Sirrian’s table seems also much more interesting, to me, at least.
For several hundred thousand dollars I could have travelled to Australia and explained to the devs what players really want the Guild Wars to be. And then bought a lot of pizza and beer. I mean a LOT of pizza and beer.
I’ve been thinking about this again, Guild Wars. There should should still be a leaderboard each week to show what guild got the most points during the week, but that should not reward anything or at least not the bulk of the rewards. Those should come from getting top places in your bracket, since again these are the only guilds you’re actually fighting.
Just trying to think of every aspect as to why they would want the leaderboard. I think it could still remain, and make everyone happy at the same time.
I think putting the bulk of the rewards and pressure on the guilds you’re fighting against each week is better. Making it more global I think makes it lose that sense of pressure. IDK just the ramblings of a mad man again…
I want to be excited about this, and as it stands right now I really don’t see myself participating. Which would probably lead to me letting down my guild and furthermore maybe having to leave said guild. (again)
Even if I sign up just to get the free troop each week, i’m really not participating.
It’s funny because with the daily battles (bonus points if you use troops with the daily color), you should want to use a different class of our Hero for each different day… So if you do your 5 battles every day it’s okay. But if you’re late, you could have to pay the fee to use properly your Hero…
Devs should put in-game polls to know what players want to pay for…
Here’s a small question: do the guilds participating in each week’s war form closed groups, or open?
Ex: Does everyone in ranks 1-7 battle against each other, then everyone in ranks 8-14; or does rank 1 battle against 6 guilds from 2-20, rank 2 against 6 from 2-21, etc.?
I like the idea of a league table, say with 50 guilds in each league. With champions at the end of each season (maybe 1 or 3 months per season) and the top/bottom 5 guilds or so promoted/relegated to the next division. So, much like a football league.
Someone mentioned this before so I’m not claiming this is my idea, just an idea that I like. It would keep guilds interested and might generated some excitement/anguish about guilds moving between divisions. Of course, we should keep the reward structure such that the top guild from a lower division doesn’t get more than the bottom guild from a higher division, to guilds gaming the system.
@Sirrian Your ideas on guild wars will work great on consoles. Why not bring guild wars to consoles first so we can beta test? Then once the bugs / complaints are worked out, then release it on mobile/pc.
How long will devs not comment again in here? Becase there is so much comments against and im not seeing any responses anymore? We know you are reading them.
Just had this thought. If for players (most of the posters in here) around level 1000 that have pretty much everything, this prices are too big, i cant imagine how big they look like to people without everything at levels bellow 500 (isnt that majority of player base?). Those players aint going to buy diamonds to throw them on GW, think about it.
if im still not getting the point then please explain boldly what purpose would splitting it into 3 brackets actually serve?
TL/DR:
my purpose is simple: i want to increase the amount of guilds who will be satisfied and motivated (within their difficulty and efforts they wish/can give) as those are the characteristics needed for a long term fun.
i understand that you want to give a positive “spike” to 3 guild league zones, the best ones middle and weaker ones offering them a peak reward for each of their league but you are missing something:
what matters more then the competition itself in here is the actual motivation to join that competition and the satisfaction for the efforts given, the mitivation could be measured in gems+units reward and the degree of difficulty to reach them
with a steady single bracket/league - if the rewards are just moved to give more on lower ranks it would would cover a lot more guilds motivated and possibly satisfied with the result
with your 3 bracket spread it totally doesnt make it.
yes you spread the rewards to 3 brackets making them lower but it doesnt solve the issue of difference how much is in the few top ranks of each bracket and how little is on the lower sides, so with 3 brackets it still runs down very fast to being not motivating cosidering the amount of gems+units offered vs the difficulty
your top1 is as high as original top3
and your top 5 is as high as the original top 7-10
you gradually lower the motivation by two “reward brackets” therefore lowering the amount of ppl who will enjoy the guild wars by that much, example:
lets assume, for higher standard players, they are interested in getting at least 300 gems:
the original table would make only 10 ppl happy, more or less 20 ppl actually motivated to fight for it,
in your 3-brackets table there will be 6 ppl happy, more or less only 12 ppl fighting for it
assuming, for lower standard players, they are interested in getting at least 100 gems:
the original table would make 50 ppl happy, more or less 100 ppl fighting for it?
how many ppl do you think your table would reward with at least 100 gems? by my rought estimation by th look of it, it could be 25-30 ppl?
if you use analogy for the lower ranks - how is that better for the community overall?
how many more gems/units do you think devs would give to supplement the lacks of your 3-bracket system?
dont you see you are only rewarding and giving fun to very few ppl?
*by ppl i mean guilds
im not against the 3-brackets system in overall. i just dont want the method gems are distributed in it.
but again, i think one bracket would make much better results, if only it had the gems distributed better, which i suggested in:
in this i offered to lower the amount of higher standard (300gems) guilds happy to only 6, but instead the lower standard (100gems) guilds happy would increase from 50 to 100! thats a whole 50 more guilds being decently rewarded
do you really think giving a selected few guilds of lower standards a chance to win their top bracket rewards is worth making a tone of guilds lacking that rewards when otherwise they could get something?
im telling you - in neither of your 3 brackets it will be fun, it will be savage like the top pvp just spread a weird way and most of community will not bother to stress over trying to get that top few
if devs decided to give out more gems in total, i wouldnt put the extra in top5 (like you did) of any bracket - i would put them to lower ranks, possible r101-200 (and then respectively give more to lower and lower ranks) to make my suggestion even better for more guilds
and about ruining the fierce competition game for the top 5, top 10… (or 3x top 5 in your case) by lowering their gems rewards in my proposition - nope they wont get any competition ruined! just look at pvp ranking: the rewards are pathetic for the efforts given yet they are all motivated and have a fierce competition. lowering guild rewards for the top will not harm them as they will always be satisfied with a title itself anyway (plus even with the lowered rewards as i offered its still pretty high compared to lower ranks)
i hope more ppl open eyes and admit that the more guilds will have actual fun and satisfation - the better for game life and community as a whole
guild war can be more then just a rat race on the top.
(rat race will ofc stay too regardless)
also success of pvp lies not in ranking rewards but in the tier rewards. the tier rewards is what gives motivation and satisfaction from pvp for most of community. without it, the pvp would turn, again for most of community, into a frustrating place due to the ranking reward table.
since we dont have tier rewards for guild wars, i hope at least the ranking rewards will get more fairly spread for more guilds to compensate/minimise that frustration effect
Isn’t it about time that we all just let this go and focus on playing the game instead of complaining about the rewards for features that aren’t even in the game yet?
I mean, let’s wait and see what @Sirrian and the other devs come up with in the finalized version of Guild Wars before we start running to the shed to go and get the pitchforks and torches, OK?
I also think that the comparison to PVP is complete nonsense. All @Sirrian said was that they based the rewards on the PVP rewards. But considering the fact that Guild Wars will be a maximum of 30 battles every week whereas PVP is just playing as many games as possible (maybe with multiple people sharing the account if you want to end up near the top of the leaderboard), that is the end of any reasonable comparison between PVP and Guild Wars. So let’s just end the complaints about the rewards for Guild Wars until Guild Wars actually arrives in the game, OK?
I do have a couple of couple of other concerns about Guild Wars that I haven’t yet seen answers to in any of the sneak peek threads (though admittedly I’ve skimmed a lot of this topic after the complaints became repetitive):
A - In one of the previous sneak peaks @Sirrian stated that communication with guildmates is very important to Guild Wars. Does that mean that the chat function will be fixed ('cause right now it’s a disaster). Or are you going to “force” guilds to communicate outside the game (using discord for example) ?
B - Is a players regular PVP defense going to be also the Guild Wars defense? Because if that’s the case then all I’m ever going to see are Bone Dragon teams (or once that’s nerfed Khorvash-Valkyrie-Justice-Mab). And that’ll become boring really fast.
C. Is Guild Wars going to include a fix for the fact that a players defense team influences the power scores of the given options to attack? Otherwise it’ll be pretty easy to “manipulate” the strength of the opponent in Guild Wars (assuming that it is not completely separate from PVP).
D. I realize that this is probably something that guild will need fix for themselves, but I can imagine situations that not all players of a guild being able to play a given week, but: Has there been any consideration given to the possibility to just use the 25 best results of players of any given guild for the final outcome of a Guild War? That could take some serious pressure of many guilds. I’m in Marthos Guardians, the #5 guild on PC/Mobile and even in a top 5 guild there are massive differences in activity of players. So even in top guilds using all 30 players results might be an issue.
E. Is Guild Wars going to penalize long-time, high-level players the same way that PVP does? (i.e.: Beating another high level player in the 3-trophy slot in PVP just gives me 31 PVP points (with very rare exceptions giving more points), forcing me to play at least 43 3-trophy PVP matches to get to rank 1, whereas other, lower level players, can get to PVP rank 1 in just 25-30 battles… Which essentially means that I, as a high level, longtime player, have to play more to get the same rewards than a newer, lower leveled player…
This still strikes me as one of the strangest designs I’ve seen in 25 years of playing computer games, because penalizing players for staying with the same game for a longer period of time just seems counterintuitive to me (I’ve never seen it in any other game actually).
Just my two (or five) cents about Guild Wars…
I’d love to see some feedback on this @Sirrian, @Nimhain, @Saltypatra
nope, this is exactly time and place where to discuss features that arent released yet, in order to give a proper feedback so that devs can develop them better. after these kind of big features are released there is not this much elasticity in changing them, and changing them after could possibly cost them more time then right now at their given stage of development
i know even devs themselves said they like a feedback before release, if i find the quote later ill give it to you
Don’t bother with that. I am in complete agreement. I just think that after 350 posts rehashing the same narrative the Devs have a clear idea of what a small very vocal group of the players think about guild wars rewards. There is really no need to add another 350 posts saying the same thing.
Thanks for the quote about the defense. I complete missed that post…
The devs, if they opt out for a bracket/league system in this SKETCHED model would need to make a whole better reedistribution.
And i just tossed some numbers on the first three ranks because i was mainly explaining that the highest rank on any inferior Bracket/League should earn the same rewards as the lowest rank from a superior Bracket/League because after the end of the week they could be able to ascend into that superior Bracket/League and if they can’t move beyound the lowest rank (five in the example) they just shouldn’t get less than what they were earning.
At the same time, the guild at the lowest rank of a higher Bracket/League are on the brink of being demoted to an inferior Bracket/League, but they wouldn’t instantly lose any reward as they would be droped to the highest rank of the said inferior Bracket/League.
I’ll have to remind you that i just sketched a simple, short model… It’s up to the devs how much “somethings” they want/feel like they should put as rewards so i didn’t put a lot of thought because they could still ignore it completely and stick to their plan for any number of reasons they might have.
Even if i could elaborate a perfect universal equation to solve it by losing three nights of sleep being fueled by coffee and obssession they could still just say. “Thank you for your suggestion, but we already have it all setup.”
So… i sticked with something short and simple, based on @Stan’s idea, and called it a day. Sorry if it wasn’t much clear before.
