Again, if you give the same rewards for everyone in each bracket then it just encourages people to do poorly so they can drop down into a lower one and get the better rewards. I don’t know why people would want a system where the best guilds are encouraged to half-ass their performance so they can beat up weak guilds every week. That seems no fun for the good guilds and really awful for the not-so-good guilds. The comparison to boxing is a bad one.
On the other side of the coin: I vote for the “whiners and cryers” on console to keep waiting as it has been since the beginning.
Not really, i would be more than happy if Consoles could get the content just as fast as we on PC/Mobile can. But simply calling others “whiners and cryers” because their concerns and/or suggestion does not interest you and they might or not delay the feature is plainly wrong. The devs haven’t stated anything else if they are going to look for another way to do the GW, so we migh as well keep posting here either you like it or not.
4 Likes
You already spent your vote on whining and crying.
Console players are ready!
Oh, and any console players that aren’t, message me with platform and alliance and I’ll set up a discussion.
Ready to wait for us to discuss it, beta-test it and sometime later have it. Gotcha! 
3 Likes
Devs can we please have this troll UKresistance removed from our discussion? I already flagged it for your attention.
I mean he really is just a disgusting individual.
4 Likes
Truer words and all that…
I posted something similar in another thread. They’re trying to turn a single-player social game into a competitive multiplayer game.
2 Likes
Yes, remove the trolls.
Console players are ready and willing to start guild wars! Xbox players have united into the largest multi guild xbox club and we’d love to start guild wars without whiny crying drama.
Well I think that’s because it’s been that way since the beginning. The player-base is split. I think competition in the long-run drives up more sales than casual play does. So maybe that’s why they’re focused on it?
I.E If I have the attitude that I can get a troop by waiting then no need to buy it, but if I need a troop to keep up with the meta i’m going to spend like crazy. Gems, keys, etc.
Just guessing.
But i’m a bit biased in this position because I like the guild/competition aspect of this game. Love it actually. I still recognize that’s not what everyone wants though.
2 Likes
It’s sort of endearing actually, he thinks that we, MIGHT PLAYERS from PC/Mobile plataforms have so much power over the development of the game that our discussion is holding Sirrian’s entire office “hostage” on their next decisions. I honestly keep checking here more interested in any ideas that could be discussed, even if they haven’t any weight or chance to be used anyway.
5 Likes
I don’t think I have the time and energy to develop a 1 to 1000 system for you, but here is what I would start with if I was designing something. All my tiers will have 42 guilds in them (a beautiful number which is divisible by both 6 and 7). The smaller the number, the more “fair” the match-up, but the more that you’d face the same guilds week after week. On PS4 where I play, the ideal number is probably 7 or 14 at the top of the leaderboard, but could be larger further down. I can’t really say.
In the first week, all guilds that opt in would be ranked by whatever is available, let’s say total trophies, and then sorted into tiers of 42 (or whatever number is chosen) guilds. Within that 42, every guild is randomly assigned 6 other guilds from their tier to battle against that week. They do their battles, points are assigned however and at the end of the week, those 42 guilds are ranked. The top 1, 3, 5 or whatever are promoted to the next tier for the following week and the bottom same number are relegated to the next lowest tier.
For rewards, only the top tier is eligible for “epic” rewards, but each tier would have a nice reward for finishing in the top 3, and each tier’s reward structure would be slightly more favourable than the one below. The important thing is that the rewards for every tier but the top one are modest enough that there is no incentive to tank your results so that you can get easier matchups the following week. Personally, I’d probably keep gems/gold/traitstone rewards epic in the top tier as an incentive, but spread the new troops around as the reward for winning any tier (with the consequence being that you have to compete in a tougher tier the next week). With the promotion/relegation system, guilds would tend to find their level over time, and it would be possible for a growing/developing guild to work their way up.
This would be a really complex system to manage because guilds can choose to opt in or out week-by-week, meaning that the promotion/relegation system might not result in the same number of guilds being available for each tier. You also have a problem with what to do with new guilds or guilds opting in for the first time once the system is running. I think you would need to have a developer acting as guild war commissioner to move guilds around and populate the tiers, which is probably why they went with the system they did.
4 Likes
Imagine that… people using a discussion forum to actually (dare I say it) discuss a topic. The horror!
8 Likes
You can discuss all you want once console gets guild wars first.
I’m not sure who you think you’re speaking for, but you’re not speaking for me.
9 Likes
Ps4. Meh.
Go ahead and sabotage guild wars like the mobile steam players are. I’ll rally the xbox players the best I can.
I could see why an Xbox user would want to be first…
For once.
1 Like
2 Likes
This honestly doesn’t feel that different from the current system. It would basically be like rewards for rank 1, 2, 3, 4-42, 43, 44, 45, 46-84, etc. The only issue I see is that they presumably don’t want to give EPIC rewards to everyone in the pool from 4-42 so they’d put the rewards at like 200 gems for everyone in that pool. They’d then run out of rewards to differentiate with very quickly. Something like this:
- Rank 1 = 750
- Rank 2 = 500
- Rank 3 = 300
- Rank 4-42 = 200
- Rank 43 = 200
- Rank 44 = 175
- Rank 45 = 150
- Rank 46-84 = 125
- Rank 85 = 125
- Rank 86 = 100
- Rank 87 = 75
- Rank 88-126 = 50
- Rank 127 = 50
- Rank 128 = 40
- Rank 129 = 30
- Rank 130-168 = 20
- Rank 168+ = 10
Effectively, only 168 guilds get any sort of difference in rewards outcomes and most are worse off. That seems worse to me than their proposal. You could delay it a bit by making the differences even less but then there’s less incentive to win. You’d also still run out pretty quickly. Maybe you’d get to like 4x the ranking (i.e., rank 672+) if you did it 10 fewer gems at every rank. But then it’s pretty meaningless if it’s only 10 fewer gems with each rank.
1 Like
Like I said, I haven’t tried to allocate rewards at all - I just don’t have enough information (or time) to even start. What a system like mine would address is the feeling of hopelessness/pointlessness for guilds that are outside the very top few. If you had a group of similar guilds that you could compete with week after week, and the feeling of being able to progress upwards by climbing a ladder, it would have a different feel than the single leaderboard system that is proposed. I said it above, but I don’t even think the rewards matter at all.
The problem with the PVP leaderboard is that there is no sense of competition for any but the top 100. The single leaderboard does the same thing to Guild Wars (even if hours played isn’t the primary determinant of ranking).
7 Likes
This game isn’t competitive, so I’m curious what you mean when you say you love that aspect. This game is a casual game that rewards being casual and also rewards power gamers. It’s kind of amazing.
But there’s no competition.
Success in guild "competition’ (namely, trophies) gives you like an extra 200 gp per day, which is utterly meaningless.
That’s because you’re misunderstanding competition. Competition isn’t about rewards at all. It’s about trying to be the best, or achieving something faster than others. 5 starring kingdoms, #1 on the leaderboard, being the first to have a Mythic and having more copies, fully traiting all troops, etc. As long as there is a goal to reach, there’s competition. A leaderboard just enhances that.
The trophies aren’t about rewards, they’re about bragging rights.
So yeah, the game is competitive. Just like playing tic-tac-toe or jumping rope can be competitive.
And it’s not always about beating others, you can have a competition within yourself to see what you can achieve.
5 Likes