In guild wars, i understand the bonus points for wins, and for colour of the day.
I am not a fan of the point bonus to remaining troops. I think it blocks some strategy (like sacrificing troops) and increase the impact of 1-spell kills in defence (Devour and DM)
What if you could get a score modifier based on the difference in Troop value?
Basically, give teams a score (similar to the PVP value), where a team full of 3-traits Mythic is worth more points then a team of say, commons.
You get a score difference. After the win, your points are slightly modified by a % reflecting team-value difference.
So, for example, if i beat a big team using mostly common cards, in an obvious uphill, underdog battle, i get a score bonus.
But, if i use an overkill super-team, i may actually get a score penalty.
This would mean that attacker would maybe try to win with unusual, less powerful troops, for more points, and, it also means that maybe some defenders would pick less strong team, that are easier to beat but allows less score, or even a penalty.
It would add more strategy then the current: use same colour and dont lose troops.
Its a great idea to propose changes to Guild Wars, as it does need some. And ultimately your trying to reduce the DM + Devour silliness (insta kill), a great goal.
I don’t see this idea improving GW at all. I’d rather figure out a 4-color team to deal with a powerful all mythic defense than using an all common team.
This sounds like it would punish players for developing their collection. Eventually they’ll have ascended and traited all troops, locking them out of fielding teams worth the most points.
I can see what you guys are saying.
I meant a new value system based on “basic rarity”
So, a Goblin, evolved to Mythic, is still considered to be “common” in value and would have lower value then, say, a Death, which is of Mythic value.
What i was trying to do, is add more to the gamble.
I like Troop building, and i like the current strategy, but it could be more.
Example.
Right now, Red day. I have a very good all Red team, and an unbeatable 3-Red team.
As i scout the opponent, i decide: do i use the all Red? Am i almost 100% sure to win? If not, i’m better going with the 3-Red team, score less but guarantee the win. (since losing is so much punishment)
Now, imagine that, in addition to that, Troop value could do very small point changes. So, you see that the defence is average, and decide to go with all Red. But then, you also notice that putting Crimson Bat instead of Draakulis would mean a little more points for a slight decrease in power… sure, why not!
But then you also notice that you could switch out the Dragon Soul for something of less value that also explodes gems for same colours, say a Flesh Golem. But then you lose major AoE damage. Your team takes a big boost in score-possibility, but loses a lot of power.
It’s a gamble. Lower your chances to win, but get more points a win.
The problem with static modifiers based on rarity is that under that system Jotnar or War would be worth more than Krystenax or Gorgotha. Worse, some of the really good lower cards like Giant Spider would be multiple levels below those and thus gaming the system would be fairly easy. Further, once players determined the optimal strength to points ratio, it wouldn’t encourage changing the teams again. So effectively it would provide a one-time adjustment to the meta, after which it would settle back in and continue to stagnate. Having a point system that is based on player usage (like the one @Strat proposed) ensures that “actual/playable value” is considered rather than just rarity, and also ensures that the meta would regularly change. The idea proposed in this thread is an improvement over what’s currently in the game, but I’d prefer a solution that’s more than just a temporary jolt.
