Nice analogy 
.
3 Likes
Tigerclaw, PVP 9, bracket 2, bracket 1, bracket 2, bracket 1… has also had members quit over GW. We’ve tried to make it less stressful with a “just do your 5 don’t care how you go” approach to GW. Personally even as GL I am stressed when I don’t win a fight in GW feeling I’ve let the guild down - and I have absolutely no excuse to worry I’ll be kicked!
As others have said facing the same killer defence teams makes it both boring and stressful 
.
I actually do like the added spice/stress, but not 6 days out of 7.
15 Likes
To me the greatest problem with GW is that it’s out of place.
I don’t know what older players were expecting from it, but the end result is something alien.
When I play a game that I find fun and casual, I can’t suddenly go serious even for a small aspect of it.
I’ve read people saying that they enjoyed 30 minutes fights etc. Good for you of course but was that ever the “purpose” of the game? I’m not one of the developers 
but I doubt it.
I’ve read that people enjoy the “challenge” of single colors. Good for you again of course but was that ever (even remotely) the way to play the game? Wasn’t it always to use all the colors so you won’t handicap yourself? And at the same time leave the opponent free to use whatever he/she likes?
People have said that they enjoy this aspect too, cause it made them “think” what teams to use. In my opinion it’s a restriction and restrictions are never good. It’s essentially the exact opposite of event weeks which are a good incentive to use different troops and teams. If you didn’t use different troops and teams while free to use everything, then you didn’t want to use different troops and teams.
The schedule of the whole thing. I can understand that the developers want us to play more often but going from a “play whenever” to play ESPECIALLY on Sunday 30 matches (if you skipped the rest of the week)… again restricting and alien. This shouldn’t even have to be this way. There is the SKIP button so we should be able to play the whole 6 days’ matches from day 1. If the enemy still hasn’t set up his defense teams, then that’s hes “bad”.
The sense of “obligation” that it adds to the player. Before GW, one (or at least I) would play as much as he wanted. From a lot to not at all. However not playing, in the worst case scenario, would only hurt you, if for example you didn’t reach the guild’s goals for the week and got kicked. Now you do “hurt” the team, even if you play all 30 matches, with a poor performance. Sure most guilds don’t care about it but still do you enjoy being the lowest score contributor?
And that adds to the “shame” feeling that GW adds to the players. Before rankings never meant anything. Now however your performance is suddenly closely watched and for everyone on the guild to see. Just like the kill/death ratio in a fps game. Seeing that on a casual game is out of place and makes you conscious of it.
I could add other issues that I have but the most important one (to me) as I stated, is that GW feels alien to the rest of the GoW game.
13 Likes
I agree that if someone has a weekend commitment the entire Guild should not be penalized.
Allowing players to pre play their matches should be allowed. The developers could chose to NOT include any pre-played future battles in the daily ‘wars’ mini score (like past ones don’t count). They would only count for the weekly Guild grand total.
9 Likes
Delinquent if you don’t understand why then you have missed the whole point of the post. Playing in PvP and you lose is no big deal. You can play any team you want - no restriction to one color. You can skip a day without penalty. And no one else is depending on you to win Today for daily and this week for weekly bonus. And by the way, it is 6 days a week. Time spent to make you team, test your team, build your defense, test your defense and play your matches. I have been playing daily for over 7 months, and yes now with the start of Guild Wars am considering alternatives.
5 Likes
Obviously, there are those with a more competitive mindset and approach to these sorts of things.
Those with this sort of mindset punish themselves for not reaching their personal expectations. (And they are personal, I’ve not heard any guild mention that winning 5 out of 5 matches every day is a requirement.)
Guild Wars is a requirement in my guild, but I’ve taken a reassuringly lax approach to the whole thing that even I’ve gotten over whether or not I lose. Sure, I’ll be upset and kick myself for unpredictable RNG in the moment, but I’m not dwelling on a single loss so much that it cripples my overall enjoyment.
I think losing once or twice is important for something like this as it eases the expectations on yourself. You can only learn from failure, but those who stand at the top aren’t giving themselves such freedom. In essence, the game hasn’t become more stressful, it’s the self-restriction to not fail that’s made it more stressful.
That’s all easier said than done, of course. Casting away or lowering one’s expectations of themselves is an internal issue and not one that can be settled by a simple match-3 game. So if there could be a more casual resolution to Guild Wars, I’d be all for it.
5 Likes
Taking a solid 3/2 to the chin on red day does wonders in that regard, i would know 
5 Likes
5 Likes
Makes my occasional 4-1 feel a bit better. But I cheat by using normal teams. I get fewer points, but my games take less than an hour of tortuous finger-crossing…
@Nikosxi an interesting and thoughtful post. I mostly agree. The challenge I think many of us have hit with GW kinda changing the rules is:
- for most this is more collection game than strategy competition
- it’s also fun, interesting, maybe relaxing to play
- players (many) want to win matches in a variety of ways while efficiently gathering and improving stuff
GW introduces an environment that isn’t relaxing, and for some, isn’t even fun. The minute the game becomes a chore, it slips aways as we only have so much free time to burn between the not-fun of life and work.
7 Likes
Yups… pretty much done with it here.
To me, instead of being fun, it bring out the worst of gems of war.
It puts all the annoyances and unfairness of gems of war on the table, clearly visible for all to see.
And where you could shrug them of before, now everyone gets confronted by it.
Enemy devours 3 out of 3 times… my devour fails 4 times in a row… sure… rng… fun stuff.
So why work my ass of and try my hardest, if it all comes down to rng anyways, plus you still lose the day even if you work really hard, because not everyone in the guild plays on the days themselves, so even if you win at the end of the week, no daily reward.
I actually stopped caring about it all together now.
I got pitted against the exact same opponent to after the match I lost (nice coding), and after he immediately devoured again, I just left the match.
And is it just me, or are the devs awfully quiet about the whole guild wars thing?
Guilds breaking apart…
People quitting all together…
No comment?
8 Likes
If there was a problem with retention and game metrics I expect 505 would trigger some rapid reworks. They haven’t. Thus I assume in the vast majority of players GW has had a positive (or not negative) effect. Only the higher levels may be hitting the frustration some of us feel, and only a few of those are here and vocal…
Personally I’m doing the basics and putting up with it. Waiting for crafting mode.
10 Likes
Just my 2 cents mate.
If the devs wait for a large majoity of players to get vocal/drop the game, then they are taking unnecessary risks.
My guild (bracket 1) lost 6 members, all veterans, due to GW @madking
Aside from all that has already been said, i dislike the wall of shame effect (while losing in PVP is whatever, in GW everyone can see how much you suck/unlucky you are) even for points, and also takes the gap from the “have” players and the “have not” players to the next level.
Often my guildmate say stuff like “Use famine! Drakuulis is solid in this team! Abyssinia does wonders here” My reply is always “I do not have them”. And that makes me angry, cuz every week i am forced to think hard to not let my guil down.
Also, even if this is just speculation, i think that GW can potentially drive away veterans and big spenders for simple psychological frustration. Imagine you are vip Lv 1X, you have all the card in multiple copies. GW forces you to play oddball teams against safe meta defenses, and whenyou lose you start to think “Why I cannot win? I have the cards, i have the skill! But this stupid rules+rng are an unbeatable opponent!” Keep repeating this to yourself, and suddenly you want to quit.
8 Likes
Sheesh, the problem here attempting to counter Devour with Devour is making the battle of a race to fill first. Hence, a revolving door of your own making! 
If you counter the devour, there is nothing to worry about.
Before you say, ‘but blue has very few impervious troops! 
’ then switch up to a safe team and foregoe the carrot of colour bonus. You’d certainly score more points with 5 non mono colours wins than going 2-3 attempting it.
The player has a choice, you are not forced into anything, regardless if you perceive you are.
5 Likes
Fighting devour with devour isn’t a race to fill first unless you’re using Maw. I could fill Kerb (example) 5 times before the opponent and get nothing, then when they finally fill their’s they get the devour. That’s the issue. RNG is not fun. Nor is it a good way to determine who wins the battle. Sorry, you done nothing wrong but we’ve decide you should lose this time around for no reason other than sheer bad luck.
(Yes, I know you can use mana drain).
The using a non mono team again goes back to the whole letting your guild down (which most guilds I imagine don’t care). However that’s the psychological thing about it. Going 2/3 doesn’t look good in the results, however seeing two people go 5/0 but one has 17000 points and the other 14500 doesn’t look great either.
4 Likes
I don’t agree with your statement.
I’ll say it again. Counter the devour and all you’re up against is a high cost 35+ damage spell.
If you were able to fill your Kerberos 5 times then, with a differently built team you would have possibly won already or be very close to it.
Personally, I don’t think it’s a smart way to play by attempting to counter RNG with RNG.
3 Likes
tell me about it.
If i kill the first position death knight, 92% of the time (actual statistic, not made up numbers), i lose at least 2 troops in the next 2 turns. If my death DM all opponent team the scenario is the following: Common: no one dies, 2 troops recover instantly. Uncommon: 1 out of 4 dies within 3 turns. ultra rare: (happened yesterday for the fist time) 2 troops die! i could not beleive my eyes, cuz no matter how many ppl i dm, they always recover, since my team seems to have a stockpile of coffins, just in case, lol
1 Like
Too small a sample size to have ANY statistical validity, sorry. 
2 Likes
lol, ofc i can only tell the tell from my side, and based on my esperience.
just my 2 cents, mate
2 Likes
I was going of the point given about using devour to fight devour. No, it’s not a good idea. But it highlights the problem of RNG in the game.
I wouldn’t do it myself because none of my troops that have a chance to devour have any teeth, so it would be a huge waste of my time. I’m still waiting to cast Maw and the game to just say no. Sorry. 100% isn’t good enough.
I’m a fan of using mana drain against devour.
1 Like
I can see that some players don’t like it (RNG that is) but I’m meh about it, especially when it can actually be easily countered. This game has RNG all through it. We can’t escape so we need to become comfortable with it.
Look at Sand Shark, he’s got RNG on top of RNG!
As someone said before the real deciding RNG factor is what board you start with rather than 50% devour here and there.
Yes but both of those 5-0 have done their best (2-3 may have too, given their cards etc) so players shouldn’t get too hung up on it! That’s my advice.
3 Likes