Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, elit eget consectetuer adipiscing aenean dolor

Make GWs a Fun experience for ALL Brackets!

Exactly. The flat rewards structure outside of Bracket 1 never made any sense to me.

For upwardly mobile guilds that can climb and compete, promotion is a reward, since they are working toward accomplishing something bigger, but once you’ve reached a bracket where there is fair competition, then there is no point to the struggle anymore.

4 Likes

im not understanding this table at all :roll_eyes::thinking:
someone please explain to me - i do want to like this idea!

In that example, which I do not profess as balanced, the first number, which diminishes, represents the inter Bracket reward for placement within the bracket.

The second number, which is a flat 500 for all, is the static reward for making it to that bracket. In this example, climbing to Bracket 1 awards 500 gems.

Those two numbers combined would provide the end of week total reward for GW victory.

Does that help?

1 Like

so it was 500+ for all? xD

Yes.

10char

Edit- except for 10 Place who earn 0 additional gems. They “only” get 500, no +. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

1 Like

what a fun, lol

anyway
seems the total gems distributed to guild wars (all below the default 10 gem reward) is:

1401 500 gems
i hope someone can incorporate a sum around that into a reasonable suggestion
(unless i made mistake in calculation)

Calculations

rank-rank - gems distributed
1-9 - 126 000
10-19 - 54 000
20-49 - 104 400
50-99 - 147 000
100-199 - 222 750
200-339 - 298 500
400-999 - 449 250
126+54+104+147+222,75+298,5+449,25 x 1000= 1401 500

9991030 = 299700
1401 500 - 299 700 = 1101 800

perhaps it is rather a:
total of 1101 800 gems plus 10gem to all

1 Like

i think i would like something along the likes of:

bracket - gems
1 - 250+10guaranteed +up to 50 for rank1
2 - 200+10guaranteed +up to 50 for rank1
3-4 - 160+10guaranteed +up to 50 for rank1
5-7 - 120+10guaranteed +up to 50 for rank1
9-12 - 90+10guaranteed +up to 50 for rank1
13-19 - 60+10guaranteed +up to 50 for rank1
20-49 - 10+10guaranteed +up to 50 for rank1
50-99 - 10 guaranteed +up to 50 for rank1
100+ 10 guaranteed

Calculations and train of thoughts

50% of gems distributed “within bracket” and 50% “depending on bracket number”

so

within bracket rewards:

rank. gems

  1. 50
  2. 30
  3. 25
  4. 20
  5. 15
  6. 10
  7. 5
  8. 5
  9. 0
  10. 0

this way in brackets 1-99 is distributed total of 480 000 475 200 gems
(brackets 100+ gets no “within bracket” rewards since extra gems werent predicted to stretch unlimitedly - unless devs feel generous and add them? - but they do get their guaranteed 10 gems for participation)

depending on bracket number:
(supposed funds: 621 800 626 600 gems)

bracket - gems (total gems distributed, not counting guaranted 10 gems)
1 - 250 + guaranteed 10 gems (75 000)
2 - 200 + guaranteed 10 gems (60 000)
3-4 - 160 + guaranteed 10 gems (96 000)
5-7 - 120 + guaranteed 10 gems (108 000)
9-12 - 90 + guaranteed 10 gems (108 000)
13-19 - 60 + guaranteed 10 gems (108 000)
20-49 - 10 + guaranteed 10 gems (87 000)
50+ - guaranteed 10 gems

75+60+96+87+108+108+108 x1000= 642 000

Scrapped, too many gems in total :(

1 - 300 + guaranteed 10 gems (90 000)
2 - 250 + guaranteed 10 gems (75 000)
3-4 - 225 + guaranteed 10 gems (135 000)
5-7 - 200 + guaranteed 10 gems (120 000)
9-12 - 150 + guaranteed 10 gems (180 000)
13-19 - 100 + guaranteed 10 gems (210 000)
20-49 - 50 + guaranteed 10 gems (435 000)
50-99 - 10 + guaranteed 10 gems (147 000)
100+ - guaranteed 10 gems

if somewhere i made mistakes please correct me
i can say i do understand why devs prefered to just give load of gems to few ransk alone, the numbers dont look bright
but i still would like them better than what it is now , i think

I do t think the issue is with the total amount of gems being given away across all guilds/brackets. That’s not generally how balancing is done. The challenge has always been how you can create meaningful differences within and between brackets for thousands of guilds.

1 Like

i do believe the rewards should be distributed to the % of whole playerbase rather then a fixed number of competing playerbase
since - if playerbase grows - donations also grow - so giving “more” total freebies should be fine

but until the system is not remade to reward % of population but a fixed number i can work only with this :frowning:

ive been asking, countless times, to recalculate rewards/ranks to reward a % of population in pvp and guild ranks even before guild wars were released.

nobody listened to me. :unamused:

so @efh313 now that you see the numbers, in a “supposedly realisic approach” to your idea (i tried my best), what do you think?

1 Like

I would like to support the author. All guilds make a lot of efforts to defeat the peers. But do not get a decent reward.

We do not have the best cards. We are forced to invent our own decks
to overcome the standard decks of protection. But in the end, we get the
same thing as the loser.
Now because of the imbalance of rewards, leaders after become leaders
once become almost inaccessible to others. You talk about the
competitive spirit, but you kill competition.
It seems to me, it is necessary to introduce a gradation of rewards
at low levels. This will create a small competition for small guilds.

1 Like

If I am understanding your example, which I think was based on Bracket 1, then the first place team would receive

310 gems (250 for Bracket + 10 for GW Participation + 50 for 1st place)

This is a substantial reduction in gems and I think it is more than fair, though I would try to get the number closer to 350, which would be enough to purchase all the JEWEL offers for crafting, but still decent first attempt! :wink:

1 Like

if you take away 5 gems from the “within bracket reward” from rank8
it should suffice to change bracket 1 into 290+10+50

but then leaving all other bracket sunchanged it would make a big jump from bracket 2. 200+10+50 …

i suppose it could be still ok

or could even take another 5 away from rank7 too, and implement it to bracket2 +20gems and bracket 3-4 +10gems?

so it would be:
bracket - gems
1 - 290+10guaranteed +up to 50 for rank1
2 - 220+10guaranteed +up to 50 for rank1
3-4 - 170+10guaranteed +up to 50 for rank1
5-7 - 120+10guaranteed +up to 50 for rank1
9-12 - 90+10guaranteed +up to 50 for rank1
13-19 - 60+10guaranteed +up to 50 for rank1
20-49 - 10+10guaranteed +up to 50 for rank1
50-99 - 10 guaranteed +up to 50 for rank1
100+ 10 guaranteed

rank. gems

1 50
2 30
3 25
4 20
5 15
6 10
7 0
8 0
9 0
10 0

looks better, i think your suggestion was good :smiley:

1 Like

I still think they should redefine how the brackets work, and pattern them after the ranks in guild wars. The original brackets were a last minute addon.

Every month, generate an alliance from the brackets, to tie more players together.

10 Paragon Guilds, 20 Champion Guilds, 50 Herald Guilds, 80 Vanguard guilds, and the rest Soldier guilds.

Then every month have a campaign where 1 guild from the top 10 is paragon for the alliance, 2 guilds from the 11-30 are champions, etc.

This would link the players across the game more together.

Just a different perspective.

I’m part of Bracket 1 & don’t find GW fun at all! It is very stressful & I can say honestly the worse part of my day (obviously I’m not currently working!)

Even being one of the “lucky” ones I also agree that a fairer distribution of prizes makes more sense.

4 Likes

HERE HERE – I have actually had more fun down in the lower brackets and not having the pressure to play. Just I want to now skip WISPS… not even bother. TOO much RNG there.

1 Like

QFT. Thank you for saying this.

QFT!

I like this idea a lot.

QFT.

You realize everyone was affected by the nerf, right? Why should one guild be able to earn 6000 gems per month, while other guilds get 200 per month? Don’t they also want the new mythic? No matter how hard every single guild tries, having a payoff THAT massive at the top is ridiculously unfair.

Exactly. I get the same pathetic amount of Gems whether my guild comes in 1st or 10th in our bracket. Why aren’t all brackets treated the same as bracket 1? There should be more competition than just for the #1 spot.

Yes please. Make GW worthwhile for people outside of bracket 1, please.

Me either. With tens of thousands of players, it doesn’t matter how hard everyone tries or how well everyone plays, only 300 people will ever be in bracket 1. If GW are designed to be a reliable source of gems to help offset the task nerfs, there needs to be something worthwhile available to more than just one bracket (or to just one guild).

3 Likes

@Arelana i don’t say other bracket don’t deserve better rewards, what i say is the reward for bracket 1 are ok like this, they should just adjust lower bracket rewards

1 Like

It’s easy to say “rewards are fine” when you’re at the top. It’s easier to see how top-heavy the rewards are when you’re not. The lowest place in bracket 1 currently gets 300 gems and the top place gets 1500. That’s 5x difference, which is crazy.

I like the idea of having a base reward amount per bracket and then adding a bonus based on your rank within the bracket, but this would need to be balanced in a way to avoid players dropping a bracket to get a better reward.

I also like the idea of changing the reward type at whatever arbitrary points. If the concern is flooding the economy with gems, why not include other rewards? For example bracket 40 only gets 25 gems as it is - why not give glory or keys?

Say brackets 1-10 gem prizes, brackets 11-20 event keys, brackets 21-40 gem keys, brackets 41-60 glory keys, brackets 61-80 glory, and brackets 81-100 gold keys, with the rewards staggered by rank within each bracket. Rewards could also take the form of multiple types of currency the higher you go to help offset the closer staggering, if need be. For example brackets 1-10 could also receive some event or gem keys, brackets 11-20 could receive some gem keys or glory, etc.

Sample gem distribution:
Bracket 1 - 500 base
Bracket 2 - 450 base
Bracket 3 - 400 base
Bracket 4 - 350 base
Bracket 5 - 300 base
Bracket 6 - 250 base
Bracket 7 - 200 base
Bracket 8 - 150 base
Bracket 9 - 100 base
Bracket 10 - 50 base

Sample in-bracket division:
Rank 1 - +50
Rank 2 - +40
Rank 3 - +30
Rank 4-5 +20
Rank 6-8 +10
Rank 9-10 no bonus

Using these numbers, #9-10 of one bracket and #1 of the next lowest bracket would have the same reward, but no value in a lower bracket would be higher than the lower ranks of an upper bracket. This doesn’t bother me so much as the bottom 2 ranks of a bracket get demoted already, I believe.

The usual disclaimers apply, the amounts are only suggestions, etc…but it’s an idea.

1 Like

I got a better idea, why not give 1500 gems to everyone? After all, #1 dont deserve it.

Feel free to suggest an alternative that doesn’t maintain the order of magnitude differences we currently have. Having a factor of 5 difference within the same bracket makes no sense when other brackets give everyone exactly the same amount.

#1 deserves the highest prize. No one has disagreed with that. What is being discussed is the order of magnitude of disparity in bracket 1 when compared to everyone else.

Look beyond bracket 1 for a minute and realize that what players are asking for is for there to be actual competition and motivation to improve for other brackets, too. In my current bracket, I share the same prize with 29 other guilds. That’s messed up, putting it nicely. Moving to the next prize tier gives us…25 more gems. Seriously? That’s not a reward so much as a pity prize. Don’t say “try harder” because as mentioned previously, no matter how hard any guild tries, only one can be #1, and once you start falling below 7th, the amount of gems you earn vs the time you invest trying to win quickly becomes “meh, why bother?”

If you want guild wars to be truly competitive and not just the same few guilds mopping up absurdly large piles of gems every week, you need to motivate those in lower brackets to want to push higher. If you’re ranked #3, there’s a huge motivator - you can double your gems if you move up one rank. If you’re ranked #50, you’re on the borderline between 100 and 125 gems. There’s zero reason to put any real effort into trying to win at that point.

I get it, you don’t want to lose your free 1500 gems each week because you don’t want to risk missing out on a mythic. But do you understand that those in lower ranks than you also want to be able to get new mythics as they’re released, and that no matter how hard everyone tries, there’s only one 1500 prize?

The problem isn’t the 1500, it’s how fast the rewards dwindle down to relative uselessness. I could have used numbers like 1500 for #1, 1400 for #2 etc in my example, but I’m trying to be realistic - if GW rewards get altered, I doubt that the publisher would allow that level of gems into the economy, so I came up with a suggestion that only “nerfs” 20 people out of tens of thousands.

4 Likes