Oh you mean see how fun it is like a preview video? Yeah we’re waiting on that.
2 Likes
When did you become the spokesman for all console players? 
10 Likes
I’m trying to figure out which time you’re talking about. 
I play about that much every week without going for the leaderboard, and the time that I did I made it to 8th. -#humblebrag Which of course this is insignificant to anything, just wanted to know.
My concern with the current structure is the fact that every guild that cares about this will require players to play it, including ours and it’s a hot mess right now. The cherry on top is it doesn’t even seem fun in current design.
They’ve created enough of a “carrot on the stick,” that GW is now a big enough part of the game. I’d rather stick to playing pvp, where I have a better time. This is of course if nothing changes.
Which is fine, I don’t have to play it. As long as the majority enjoys it. 
While I appreciate your humor, if memory serves, aren’t you in one of the TOP Console Guilds? The people, that have been the quickest to say, LEAVE IT AS IT IS, have been players in TOP (meaning 1-5) guilds, regardless of platform. And I don’t blame you, the carrot is AWESOME for YOU. For the other 30k players behind you it’s another mode that creates a feeling of “Never gonna happen…”
And the more experiences of “Never gonna happen” a player feels, the more likely they decide to invest time and money in another app/game/etc.
That is why we keep addressing this so vocally.
I direct you to my earlier suggestion[quote=“Delinquent, post:402, topic:21506”]
This is a discussion about Guild Wars where this is a hard limit on how many battles you can do. It’s irrelevant.
[/quote]
You are correct. Which is my one lingering hope for GW, but the PVP ladder is so… “corrupt” (harsher word than I want) that we are hoping that we can prevent the GW ladder from being seen in the same light. And as it currently is dsigned, IF a guild is capable of performing consistently well into the Top position, the distribution of rewards is designed to create an ever widening gap between that top performer and other guilds, meaning it will be EASIER for them to secure top spot and harder for others to compete with them.
I for one think the rewards for GW need to be a pat on the back. Base it off of the 7 guilds competing. Rank 1-7, there will be a lot of Rank 1 winners, one for every Weekly War put together by the devs. And, hell, reduce the reward of Rank 1 to 300 gems. Thats right its a loss of 40 gems if you max out Sentinels and take top honors! Why? Because those 40 gems were worth donating for the bragging rights!
That’s what this is really about, isn’t it? The ability for people to say, within their guild, Hey we Kicked A$$ this week! Great Job, Guildies! That is a feeling that EVERYBODY should have and would have if ranks were based on the ACTUAL weekly war opponents, but if the only RANKING assigned is out of ALL Guilds, the devs are missing out on the best human nature motivator they have, and its free! 
You do that… and then you can STILL have an overall Leaderboard, that most people wont care about, like PVP, but you will generate a feeling of accomplishment in 1000s of players who based on current design, wont give a flying F about GW… imho…
7 Likes
I agree about scaling up the accessibility of rewards. Right now I typically rank something with five digits, and that’s still playing something like 8-12 hours per week. It really feels quite out of reach.
(That goes for both current and future systems - PVP and Guild Wars and so on…)
3 Likes
Again, this doesn’t work. You’re telling me it’s okay if guild #1000 gets first place and gets the same rewards as guild #1?
I really want to see someone build out a better system than what’s proposed and actually works across all groups.
All these systems are better than the current design. Are you saying #1000 gets first on the leaderboard? If so, then yes. The leaderboard is insignificant.
@efh313 was speaking to the rewards inside your own actual bracket. The guilds you actually fight each week.
I haven’t had time this week to read all of this thread, but as a Guild Master of a top 80 guild, I feel the need to chime in.
If that’s really the reward payout, I’m going to have a hard time justifying adding a requirement that our members put resources into Sentinels. The difference in rewards for 21st place vs. 200th place just doesn’t feel like much. My gut says that you are not going to see this monetize well. For all but the top 20 or so guilds, I see little incentive to spend resources (especially gems) to boost Sentinels. And those top guilds will likely get their gem investment back anyway between the rewards and guild tasks, so it’s not like they will actually be buying gems.
The only way I see this making money is if you directly sell a pack of the Guild Wars troops. Maybe like the Guild Seals purchases, you can only buy it once a week (so that nobody gets the troops Mythic right away). $10 for 20 of the previous week’s troop or something like that.
2 Likes
My bracket is the top 6 guilds in the game. Your bracket is guilds ranked 1000-1006. You absolutely should not get the same rewards for being first in bracket 1000 as first in bracket 1. That creates a horrible system where people are encouraged to do poorly and not upgrade so they can get into easy brackets for the best payouts.
1 Like
As I said, they can keep the overall leaderboard, and if they feel like giving a reward according to that IN ADDITION, fine. But if the GW points are structured in such a way that guilds that compete and win all 30 battles. (Remember if I beat you @Delinquent, it does NOT count as a loss for you.) So EVERY guild could potnentially win EVERY GW Battle, then you are talking about Guild 1 and Guild 1000 could very well have only a nominal amount of difference in points…
If I’m only 100 points behind Rank 1, but am listed as Rank 101 and am getting close to 1/10 of the rewards… I see that as a distribution problem. (Rank 1 gets 1500 gems, Rank 100 gets 100 gems, iirc)
2 Likes
Ohh yeah I agree, sorry misunderstood you. Lots of us have already covered that though, they could do a tier system bracket. Those toward the top tiers get the chance at more rewards than the bottom tiers. That’s the only way to keep it fair.
Edit- Well after reading @efh313’s post, he’s correct too. 
We don’t know how points are added up, so we can’t say who is better than who.
Why would a weak guild beating up other weak guilds get as many points as a strong guild beating up other strong guilds? Again, that creates a horrible system where you’re encouraged not to progress so you can get easy match-ups.
I am perfectly fine with tiering rewards based on guild levels, or brackets, if those brackets are appropriate in size.
I still don’t see how a tiered brackets system works. Someone please break it down for me with an actual example from guilds ranked 1 to 1000 that doesn’t encourage guilds to deliberately do poorly so they get easy match ups.
I can’t be bothered too read your soliloquy.
However, I’m so rich I can’t become richer. Loot means nothing to me, I just want new content. But the whiners and cryers seem to be putting there best effort to delay it.
So I invite a delay for guild wars to pc/mobile and instead prioritize console.
If console players disagree, then state your platform and why. Otherwise I will work towards us getting guild wars asap. Mobile / steam can wait.
If you win in your tier one week, you automatically move up to the next one the next week. If you lose, you move down 1 tier the following week. Is a way it could work, but that’s if the Devs could actually implement that system.
If you make it to Tier 1 or whatever the highest is, then you belong there and you have a chance at the highest rewards.
1 Like
Consider Boxing:
A welter weight champion is just as much a champion as a heavy weight champion.
They just fight people of the same size.
Ergo: GW
6 Likes
Thank you for proving my point, you WILL get the new content 200 copies in 2 weeks, the other 95% of the player base will have to wait YEARS for the same content? But I suppose you’re perfectly fine with that?
Please correct me if I am misinterpreting here…
4 Likes
I can’t believe I missed this the first time through the thread, so I’m replying now. I’ve never had to “compete” over a limited number of anything in Gems of War up to this point. You have the option to with the PvP leaderboards, and when that was revealed, I wasn’t big on that either - because Gems of War is not a competitive game. Gems of War is a single player long haul collection/progression puzzle game with a large amount of content designed by an online playerbase (eg., their defense teams) and large amount up to the player themselves (their invade team).
That is to say, Gems of War is not currently a competitive game. In the end, ranked leaderboards were tolerable (after the early numbers where you lose more points on defense than you could gain on wins were changed) because I could easily pretend they didn’t exist and go about my merry way while still having the same access to content as the next person, and the people competing were doing so for the sake of competition (or just play GoW a whole lot, or were bots) and the rewards gained were by in large stuff that I could get in another way (the fact I could get them faster by exploring was less of a factor here than the fact that I could just go get them any time I wanted).
Guild Wars will mark the first time you have to compete for something in Gems of War if you want access to it at all, and that, by in large, is the problem. Guild Wars, of course, only marks a part of the game, but this is the second competitive feature so far (after PvP leaderboards) so I really hope this isn’t the direction the game is headed overall.
6 Likes
But that example is a bit off in this case. Lower guilds will not face the toughest opponents, and they also most likely won’t have a full guild. Nor will they most likely be as active.
They should definitely be included, but there’s no way they can be compared to the “big dogs.”
200-400 gems would be insignificant to us, but not to them anyways. So rewards would still scale nicely for them I believe.