My opinion is that the +% should be removed entirely. I’ve explained why. Since the whole mechanic of the GW is to use a single color, then do that. Either go full, or forfeit and play with whatever you want (or don’t play at all). It should go the same for the defense team too.
Brackets the way I imagine it, would be based on guardians’ power since that is the main thing.
Yes? For a fair competition? Remember, we are all pitted against each other and fighting for the same prize. So if a new, medium, or old clan but with younger members has a 0% chance to even compete for it, then what is the point? With a bracketed award system of course that changes.
Basically do we want GW to become a decent competitive thing? Or something for the top?
And how are we going to make it fair? By putting stats first like any mmo where it’s all about the stats? Or it comes down to choice of teams, way of playing and thinking in each match, arena wise?
Older players are the ones who can answer that but also the developers could go according to what’s fairest to the majority of the players. I’ve seen people say that the majority is newer players. Does this system accommodate them to enjoy it and be able to actually compete in it? Is it the older players? Then do the older players go for brute force (stat based) or will they enjoy it more with equalized stats?
My thoughts on this game is that it’s good to pass the time. PvP is fun despite the difference in stats. GW came as a tournament with prizes where we are all fighting for them. That’s why I believe this small part of the game should be like arena with either everyone having full stats, or no stats. In all cases though the +%bonus is unfair.
Hmmm… well no. I have to change my way of thinking. If everything is going by stats then it’s not unfair. It’s just another edge. Like in real life. Rich get richer. And either I deal with that or I move on.
Today I had what you mentioned - the bad starting boards & the AI cascades from hell.
I lost 2 battles back to back - one on the 2nd turn one on the 3rd. I never got a chance to fire a power, the 1st turn I lost my first 2 troops to skull drops alone (that’s quite a cascade as life + armour for the first 2 was way over 100).
Do I hate GW as a result?
NO
Apart from a certain amount of embarrassment seeing my very poor 3/2 for the day, it is still an extra feature that wasn’t there last week so thumbs up from me!
My biggest complaint about GW is the sheer number of cheese teams that include at least one of: Deathknight, Black Manacles, Wraith, Kerberos, Kraken, Bone Dragon. I still think BD is a little too powerful, but he’s not where my complaints primarily lie.
These ridiculous “roll the dice” mechanics of instant death take away from the game. I always disliked these mechanics in regular pvp, but me losing 5 points was the punishment so I didn’t really care. Now, my whole guild misses out when I can’t hold my weight due to crap luck mechanics. I can’t find it fun when I lose a battle due to a 50% devour eating my front troop and then that buffed enemy troop 1-2 shotting the rest of my team, or DM kills 1-2 of my troops. I think devour has its place in the game, but not with 12-15 mana cost dice rolls. Maw is manageable with his higher cost, these sleezeball “chance to devour” and deathmark defenses are causing my blood to boil. I also think that a grace period on DM of one turn could be the ticket to balancing (or just remove it from the game altogether, which is even better.)
The big thing: losing feels much more costly in GW than normal PVP, and losing to dumb luck rolls is not a good feeling.
Thank you for sharing this perspective! [quote=“Druss, post:164, topic:23071, full:true”]
Before someone comments the inevitable “top guilds wouldn’t look kindly” on 2 losses, I will point out that I’m in a rank 2 guild.
[/quote]
I want to suggest a constructive idea : average points.
Currently, if one guild has 3 players and the other has 6 players, the 6 players guild will generally make around twice the points.
This extremely large bias towards big teams makes small guilds give up, as they cannot get a compete with large guilds points.
The solution is simply to average the points over the number of players in each guild.
Please consider.
I also think the color bonus is too big, but that’s minor if you consider all small guilds are underpowered…
Someone else suggested this recently. It really doesn’t work. Why would half the guild bother fighting - just send the strongest or most dedicated handful of players in. And it isn’t fair imho - why should a Guild of ten players be entitled to compete with a Guild of thirty that took the time to recruit and manage a bigger team?
Of course they are.
I think the solution would be for small guilds to get bigger.
Merge with others if you want to compete. If you want to be a small friends group, don’t.
What you said is plain wrong, and it looks like you do not understand the concept of average.
With my average points system :
If you have a guild of 3 and each player does X points, the guild score will be 3X/3 = X.
If you have a guild of 6 and each player does X points, the guild score will be 6X/6 = X.
Now if a member of the larger guild doesn’t play, the average goes down to 5X/6 (which is less than X).
This just levels up the game, and not entirely so since the guardians still play a part.
I think you misunderstand what the other person was saying.
Why would guilds have 30 members if they could have 1 and average MAX points everytime?
Average might work but you would need a MINIMUM number of Players, and that minimum number would have to be close to 30, at least 25 or 26. Otherwise it is the opposite of fair to the larger guilds and trying to get 30 people to attack, while a smaller guild only needs 3?
I agree with you 100% as far as GW goes, but there is still the matter of completing tasks and getting 40,000 seals. With an averaging system, there might be a choice to be made about what the optimum guild size is. As it is, the optimum size is clearly 30.
Not gonna analyze his idea too much cause math is hard at this time. I do agree though that the smaller guilds part is something that has to be addressed somehow. People don’t feel invested only for the big clans but for the small ones too.
Anyways…
That smaller guild the way I see it would never be able to get the same rewards as a full 30 member one. You do make a good counter argument though.
I played against a similar team (Plaque was in the 4th position) and was doing great until Draak got his turn and that was the end of the it for me. Crimson held out, the TDS (But I don’t have it fully traited) and then Wight and Shegg went down
Good point, Aero.
This just means you can divide guilds into leagues - I’d suggest 4 sizes :
1-5 people guilds, 6-10 people, 11-20 , 21-30 .
Then the average points can be implemented.
Perhaps even add that the minimum for a guild to play in Guild Wars is 3 members.
I agree about the point distribution, it should be different. For the moment, loosing one match means loosing almost half of your possible points: too much pressure for nothing.
I know some of you like competition, but consider that we are jumping from the PVP mode to a mode where you have to: do a daily color team, keep all your troops alive and fight versus really difficult defense (in PVP nobody force you to go against the 3-trophies battles).
@Jainus I thought like you (increase by 100 for every match) but even that is too much. 100 points for each match is a good deal. I hope that devs can test easily other distribution so we can test next week or next next week another set of points.
Given I have a Masters’ degree in mathematics, I find this hilarious.
I will agree however it depended how you defined the averages, and whether all members had to participate making the denominator larger. This was not explicit in your first post and I misunderstood.
I would not support any system that penalised guilds just for being more successful, including having more members.
I don’t think a flat points per match works so well, there should be some level of increasing reward with the (slightly) increasing risk. I just suggest it should be linear growth, not the almost-geometric growth it has right now.
See, I know lots of math words. Just a bit ropey on those average things.
So here the 3 different propositions with the percentage of points for last battle on points for all battles:
50 100 250 400 750 48.4%
100 200 300 400 500 33.3%
100 100 100 100 100 20%
Of course, your proposition is better than the current one. But not sure if it will be enough ;-).
It depends. Yesterday, there was a huge gap between your defense team and the soldier who put a one-troop defense (that should happen in every guild).
I somewhat understand your concerns about the steap point increase of matches, and maybe it could be tweaked a little. But if GW loses that steap increase in points per game entirely, then GW will lose any appeal to me at all.
For example with 100points per each game, making every battle the same, it will literally just instantly become 5 more regular pvp matches i have to drone each day, that i will not care about in any way.
I want GW to have this edge, this risky feeling that makes me care about each single gem match with all the emotions attached to it, and yes that includes the mean ones too, that little shock when an unforseen drop-in happens or the suspense when things don’t go as smoothly as planned.
Else why would i even bother to play it? It is not like i do it for the rewards, and even if i was in a guild that played for the big gems, a hefty reward at the end won’t do anything for me if the matches themselves have no excitement.
The percentage that I provided can be read as “how much points will I loose if I fail the Paragon battle”. 20% or 33% is not a small amount of points. The game is nice but RNG can be hard with one player and so on, loosing half of your points because of a bad initial board is too much or cascade or whatever, I think.
I don’t see how it can change the difficulty of the 5 battles… but for sure it will change the frustration of the players.
All you said is also applicable to a smaller reward for the final battle. Do you really fight the 4 first battles like PVP? Because if you loose one match, no Paragon for you.
But yes I understand what you mean: less rewards, less glory?
What ? How did you read that into it?
And what i said is not about difficulty, it is about the suspense of the games. For me GW loses all its edge if the points per battle get normalized.
I lead with saying i understand your concerns i just wanted to offer another point of view.
The paragon battle simply being a bit harder by virtue of having beefier troops does nothing for me if a loss is pretty inconsequential: 20% less points cause i f’ed up ? shrug meh ok whatever who cares, people already lose more than that just by their lowerleveled Guardian statues.
I like the nature of the 5 battles being one bigger fight, that i have to focus for the whole thing, slipping once and pay for it dearly. With normalized points GW just becomes another daily chore for me, one i will gladly ignore from then on.
(that should happen in every guild).