The game is clearly dying
These numbers are so full of 
.
50 guilds on Xbox at 30 per guild.
Alone is, 1500 players.
My guild is ranked 74, I can see ten higher and ten lower.
I can see how many in each guild, thereās more than 1500, just on Xbox, and Xbox isnāt the main playerbase.
Pc and mobile is., those numbers are fake news.
Wherever you got them from, Iād not use that site anymore.
Ps. Unless itās average players, every hour.
Because as Australia goes to sleep, Europe wakes up, as Europe goes to sleep, the Americans wake up.
Rinse and repeat.
Itās exactly on target with my argument. Pairing the #1 guild with one very much lower in ranks is setting up a stomping. The server doesnāt know that the very much lower ranked guild picked this time used to be ranked higher in the old Guild Wars system.
It depends on the rank itself.
In the old Guild Wars, even just bracket 1 (rank 1 - 10) and bracket 2 (rank 11 - 20) were worlds apart in strength. The guilds in bracket 1 could almost always hold their ground, for years, and bounce back quickly in case they had a rare bad week. Pairing them with anything other than bracket 1 guilds is trading āmonotonousā for āsteamrollingā. When you are at the very top, there just arenāt many options for a challenging fight.
The further down you go, the less important difference in rank gets. I imagine that around rank 1000 it doesnāt matter much whether your opponent is rank 900 or rank 1100. I do not know what a good floating range would be, thatās really something those running the game should be able to answer, preferably based on some thorough analysis. What I can tell is that applying the same range everywhere has broken Guild Wars to an extent that an increasing number of guilds wonāt even show up again.
3 Likes
Those numbers looks like the Steam game statistics. I believe there isnāt any more reliable source to be found, some game companies even base their employee bonus payout on it.
2 Likes
Yea but we all know, anything on the net can be manipulated to look good or bad.
Steam, is definitely not a good site, you can pay for good reviews, for bad games.
You can sell unfinished games, for 99.99 if you feel like.
Steam is like Amazon, thereās no sheriffs, itās the wild west.
Iām just using basic maths, from what I can see.
Players in guilds.
Ps. Like I said tho, if thatās an hourly average, just on pc mobile. Then Iād be happy with that.
my issue is ELEMENTALIST in every team. i would like to see the class on defences restricted to that of its type
3 Likes
From what we saw early Monday (roughly 6h past reset).
Playing one battle in pvp and earning ~65vp, my brother went to place 1949 in the global leaderboard (also on Xbox). So at least 1948 other players already played pvp on Monday and got more vp than him.
From my understanding this is how leaderboards work. And everyone rank 1950 and below either got less vp or didnāt play this gamemode yet.
All Iām saying is, almost 2000 players were active this Monday in pvp alone on Xbox and I doubt the numbers for Steam (in the screenshot above) are correct.
Or there are some magic-shenanigans going on to calculate monthly averages.
2 Likes
As this is a fairly new mode since the revamp it was a poor decision to start with weak kingdoms as the restriction. Too many of the battles are just roulette hoping you donāt get caught in an unrecoverable loop.
1 Like
Steam charts usually show the number of users playing a specific game at the same time. Thatās less than the number of users playing that game at all, unless all of them remain within the game 24 hours each day. 
2 Likes
Like I said, you actually could.
Times any of them daily numbers by 24 hours.
Then half.
And it would be closer.
Thereās players that play ten minutes, players that play 2 hours, and players that play 10 hours and grind 2000 PvP battles per day.
The game obviously isnāt dieing,isnāt on life support and isnāt even got long COVID , just because army like guilds, canāt get 2 players here and there.
Intact, the game is so fit, itās doing the decathlon 
Ps. My 2nd 5-0. And I beat. Prismatic, takshaka,takshaka, empowered convertor. At the palace. Easy week, if you play it like chess, and not like draughts
5 Likes
Not a fan of the clear imbalance in restrictions. Having to use weak regions, with no great troops, and go against teams with some of the most powerful meta troops, is incredibly difficult. Itās doable for some, especially if youāre already a high level endgame player, but for everyone else itās enough to put them off this game mode. Why bother playing if you know you canāt beat most enemy teams?
And all too often it comes down to RNG. You get a bad board, you give the enemy a turn. Their RNG gives them exactly what they need, they steamroll you. You lose. Nothing you can do about it. Imagine playing chess, and you move a pawn or knight, and get told the enemy has you in checkmate already, because they got lucky. Youād think chess was a stupid game.
3 Likes
This is not necessarily true, but speaks more to the baseline āpairing systemā and itsā nuances.
The world of competitive chess uses the ELO system, both at the elite levels and down among the more ordinary patzers who play an occasional weekend tournament. For the really big āopenā tournaments using the Swiss-style pairing system, a matchup like the one youāre citing is actually commonplace and expected. Because that system? When setting the pairings for a round, it takes everybody with an identical score and tosses them into the same pool; then it sorts those people by their ELO rating, splits the list in half, and starts pairing. So if you had 60 players with that same score, 1 would play 31, 2 would play 32, et cetera. (Leaving aside how āre-matchesā are not permitted under any circumstances, so there might be some adjustments in later rounds to accomodate that.)
That being said, a 1 v 31 matchup shouldnāt happen in Guild Wars; for a four-day āwarā, you really should want the ābubblesā to be 16 guilds. (At most.) And even then, guilds should be paired against opponents with āidenticalā results ā e.g., a guild that goes Win-Loss-Win on the first three days ought to be paired with another guild that went Win-Loss-Win on Sunday.
3 Likes
Come at it from a different direction mentally.
Your aim isnāt to win 5-0 or 4-1.
Your aim is to get better points, than your enemy guild, who is using the same troops as you, against the same meta defences.
Itās not old GWs, itās not about 5-0, itās about beating your opponents, you and everyone else , has to change there way of thinking.
You still win, without 5-0s.
1 Like
It doesnāt seem to be doing that well.
Only half as much activity as two years ago. And itās not something that can be blamed on āoutdated gameā, numbers were consistently going up for many years before that. If the trend continues, there wonāt be players left by 2027.
Quite interestingly, there was a big bump in activity around June 2024. Thatās when PvP alliances got released. And there was also a big decline in activity over the next weeks, possibly when alliance rewards got nerfed into the ground and players realised just how much of a slog the PvP pass and VP resets are. A shame the powers in charge are entirely unwilling to learn any lessons from this.
5 Likes
Hourly average amount, for a free to play mobile game.
That can sell, keys for 99.99.
I think itās doing damn well dude, this game cost nothing to make, and makes bank.
And no game keeps its high numbers, for years and years.
Compare this game, to say diablo 3, there numbers will average a lot higher years ago.
Anyways, both are opinions are valid
1 Like
Your aim is to maximise points, in terms of guild score. Sure.
Your aim is to go 5-0, in terms of individual rewards. Since some of the better rewards are gained from the individual reward path, and that requires you to get a specific number of wins, you ARE aiming to maximise your wins. And when higher level battles are against teams that are super risky to play against, that might mean you decide to play the easiest battle 5 times, and get a very low score, rather than play against harder enemy teams and risk losing a battle and missing out on a reward you wanted.
And as far as score goes, firstly, you score the most by progressing to the last battle and beating it, rather than playing against easy enemies over and over. So, if youāre trying to maximise your score, yes you do need to aim for 5-0 and battling 5 different teams. And secondly, since the game gives a big boost for your team beating every location once, you should be aiming to target areas with the lowest wins, which are usually going to be the hardest battles. So, while trying to score 5-0, youāre having to target insanely difficult matchups against troops that can one-shot your team with a little tiny sliver of luck on their side.
2 Likes
No your aim is to maximise your score, but if you get a 3-2 and a opponent gets a 2-3. Your still winning. GWs.
But all your posts, sent about points, there actually about the meta defenses, the exact same meta defences that your opponents face.
Your stuck in the I have to win 5-0 brain set, and if I donāt win 5-0. Il blame the defences being meta.
But I REITERATE your opponents fight them defences to, so itās fair. Itās actually way more farer, than the old book defences.
Ps. 1381 PTS today and 1376 PTS yesterday.
I beat palace twice,
PPS youve just wrote about the 5-0 again, yes your trying to win 5-0, but if you donāt, then itās ok. Because your opponents will also not all get 5-0. I understand itās a lot harder for the older top 10 GWs guilds, to change there way of thinking, because of being used to winning 5-0 every day. But until you do change your view, youāll be unhappy. And why bother being unhappy, when itās not going back. I hope you can come to terms, with the new way of playing. Itās actually a lot more fun. Than book defences every day.
3 Likes
Iām also going to add on a personal note.
The old GWs. Iād leave GWs till the very last thing I did each day, because if I even lost once, Iād want to uninstall the game. Thatās how important and how stressful the 5-0 old GWs was.
Now new GWs, I go into each battle, knowing itās a guild score focus, I also go into each battle, thinking I may lose, but if I lose itās fine, because a guildie, can get the 5-0. And I also love beating teams, I shouldnāt beat. For me. Itās way more fun, way less stressful.
3 Likes
Sure. I beat the gate 3 times, I get 300 points. They beat the gate and the next battle, scoring 250. I got 50 more points for my guild than one enemy.
Firstly, that only works if everyone on my guild plays (nope), everyone on my guild wins more battles than one person on the enemy team (not always), our guild has more players than them (not always), and their guild doesnāt earn enough 1000 point bonuses to offset that 50 point lead I have against that one player. Hell, if 19 of our players beat theirs by 50 points, but they get one more 1000 point bonus than us, we still lose the day.
Yes, because scoring points requires going against those defenses. And no, not the same defenses. My guild sets ours and their guild sets theirs. If my guild players have less powerful troops, our defenses are weaker. Thatās entirely fair, and Iām not complaining about that, but if we go against a guild where more players have meta troops, we need to perform better on attacking to win the day, obviously. And to perform better, we have to win more. And that means being forced to win against tougher battles, that can be against troops that are way too tough for a reasonable meta team within the restrictions we have.
No. As I said, the individual rewards table says we have to win 18 out of 20 battles over the week. Iām in the āI want those 18 battles to get the best score for my guild, so we win as many days as possibleā mindset. And, as I keep saying, getting high scores means going against opponents with teams that are way more powerful due to the unfair balance between defender restrictions and attacker restrictions.
And itās not about them being meta. I expect them to play the best they can, within their restrictions. Itās about the options weāre given for defenders and the options weāre given for attackers, being wildly unequal.
Define āokā. Because it can mean not getting rewards you want, which many players would say was not ok.
Guild wars has two sets of targets. Wins and score. Missing wins means losing rewards, directly. But all youāre talking about is score. Is winning the day. Youāre basically saying āwhy care about half the rewards in this game mode, that are guaranteed for wins, when you could try for the other half, which are not guaranteed even if you win 5 battles?ā.
And that affects whether they win the day. It doesnāt affect whether I get the wins for rewards.
Oh, not even close. Iām in a casual guild, ranked somewhere in the 80s. And yeah, I sometimes went 5-0 in old guild wars, but not every day, and not every war. I focused on scoring high and doing my best for my guild, and didnāt care if a lost a battle here and there, because I didnāt lose anything for it. The only penalty was scoring less. In THIS guild war, thatās NOT the case. Losing even three battles over the week blocks you from a reward. So losing one battle a day is already too many, for anyone who wants that top reward. Personally, itās a shiny token, so I donāt care, but many players do, and theyāre not gonna risk playing harder battles and losing out on those rewards. Thatās what Iām saying.
I donāt want it to go back. The old wars sucked, too. I just want more freedom in making attacking teams, or more limitations on defenders. Something that 100% could be changed, and might in the future. Otherwise, this new war is fine.
OK, thatās a sucky mentality. And yeah, Iām glad thatās gone. But that doesnāt make the new system perfect. We can still push for improvements to the new, better system.
4 Likes
Look at PvP. Can you point to a region where your options are different the team youāre attacking? No, obviously, because attacking teams and defending teams can use the same troops, the same weapons. And that makes it fairer (obviously the attacker has advantages, due to the nature of the game, but ignoring that, itās fair).
So, why does guild wars require players to pick from a set kingdom with terrible troops, and expect them to go against some of the most powerful troops and weapons in the game, by virtue of the restrictions available in several locations for defenders to choose from?