Two things: First, people do leave top guilds, either by their own choice (for any number of reasons) or by getting kicked due to inactivity. Guild leaders are always seeking to fill every opening with the best possible player, creating a demand for this migration. Second, and this is what I have been saying, introducing mechanics like this will create an internal pressure for guilds which are already fairly active and fairly well-organized to become more and more hardcore. I’ve seen it in my last two guilds: one was the #2 guild on PS4 and there was constant pressure on the guild leaders to try to push players harder and harder so we could catch up to #1 (never going to happen) and not be caught by #3 (happened anyway). Out of respect for my guild leader, I don’t want to speak too much about my current guild, but I think it is safe to say that the guild update has significantly changed the approach, to the point where we are essentially now a hardcore guild.
So basicly you are saying migration is already happening, and it will continue to happen because thats the natural order of things.
That was my point exactly.
As for fairly active guilds needing to be more hardcore, id ask that you explain this part to me. Why do you think this? Would it be more fair that any guild member could do any number of fights on any day? With that hardcore guilds would stomp non hardcore guilds. 5 battles a day is the way to prevent that.
Are you seriously implying that doing 5 battles a day is hardcore gaming?
Since it’s the natural order of things, we should introduce even more mechanics that encourage it?
Honestly, I’m beginning to think the problems with this game are insurmountable. People’s need to excel at the expense of everyone else isn’t something the Devs can fix.
I think they tried to separate those who want to be competitive and those who don’t, with the opt-in option. The only problem with this is of course everyone will want to opt-in if the reward for GW is worth it. But the flip side to this is they could have gone with a system that only allows in guilds that the Devs feel qualify, which would’ve literally been denying rewards to lower guilds. Obviously that would’ve been much harsher.
So in this way at least lower guilds can get some rewards, but definitely shouldn’t expect to get the top rewards.
I mean I keep going over every aspect of GW they have previewed for us, and overall it’s fair. Considering the system has to be implemented in the first place. The only 2 so-called “flaws” that I can see are the daily requirement and it puts pressure on the individual player instead of the guild as a whole. Much like guild seals do.
Like HK said, they are designing it to be fair.
But its a wae system, best guild wins. The one that attack the most wins. I am very curios to see how points will be earned. Maybe a guild with 28 attackers will be able to beat a guild that has 30 attackers because those 28 members used 4 color type troops and the enemy team didnt.
Sorry, I thought you were asking why people thought it was possible that players were migrating:
I don’t think we’re actually very far apart in our views. This stuff is already happening, but I’m saying that each major change is increasing the pressure on players and guilds to play more in total and more regularly. For myself, I’m feeling it and I think this will push my wife past the breaking point. I’m just feeling increasing tension between the desire for the good things that come with being in an active guild and the price I have to pay to keep them.
The problems are… hard to deal… because there is no way to put a competitive mechanic without making it competitive and setting rules that, while restrictive, are here to ensue fairness.
Simply leaving the 30 attacks for member at the time they want could be done, sure go ahead with it, but it wouldn’t solve the “pressure problem” that comes with a competitive mechanic.
I’m honestly inclined (<- See what i did there using the italic for the word inclined? 
) to see the devs leaving the 30 attacks per week all open just to see the more complains because i’m thinking that the issue is not just the five attacks but the competitive nature of it.
How on earth did you come to this conclusion? I think I’ve pretty much read every post that has been posted on the subject, and I don’t get this feeling at all.
You getting crazy on me Ivar?!
I think the “x” a day changes things to be more “hardcore”, just by the forced scheduling requirement, regardless of whether “x” is 1, 5, or 100. Let’s say I play a lot on the weekend, 1000 trophies, but can’t play during the week. The person doing 50 trophies daily (only 350/week) now gets rewards I can’t simply due to schedule. So in order to receive these new rewards, I would have to alter my normal schedule for/around the game. To me that’s hardcore, since the former was playing lots by choice, while the latter requires changing my schedule as dictated/required by the game. This is just a description/answer to why it could be considered “more hardcore”, not whether it’s reasonable or onerous.
Personally, I don’t have that big of a problem with daily play, that’s normal and required by most games (even if its not my preference). My personal opinion is just that in a guild/group setting it should be tempered with a little grace for unexpected events.
Well you explained it well, but which guild will dump their 1000 trophies earner just because they only play on weekends? I know we wouldnt 
I could be wrong, but looking back at the discussion, in the main thread posted by Sirrian, very few people took some time to consider that 30 attacks per week is not equal to 30 victories (I think Jainus commented something about the importance of the defensive teams, with Bone Dragon and such).
So in the end, it seems to me that people are already counting with the egss inside the chicken as if they would always win… While this is mostly true in PVP the only barrier they imagined so far was that five battles each day seems like “tirany” because it would be the ONLY THING preventing them to reach the elusive rewards. So if people are already counting on those wins i will not be surprised when the rest of the problems become the “rant festival” with threads in the lines of:
“Lost connection made me lose Guild War battle - OMGZ WURST DEVELOPERZ EVAR!!1one”
“Dokkalfar is too OP, how on earth am i supposed to defeat him?”
“As someone that played several successfull games since 2048 B.C i must say that the Guild’s War is a terrible failure because…”
TLDR: If people are already considering five battles a day a big issue, i can’t wait to see when some real issues appear…
I fear you called it right 
Yeah all of that is a definite possibility, but we already experience most of those kinds of posts now. 
I’m sure GW will increase them though. But overall I wouldn’t say anyone is shying away from competition because we knew Guild Wars would bring competition. I think most of us are looking forward to it, and the ones who aren’t are not concerned with the competition aspect.
I do see a lot of people concerned about loopholes and exploits though.
Either way I knew you weren’t crazy Ivar.
@DonBoba and @HKdirewolf i won’t even mention the high possibility that if we get 30 free attacks for each week and by chance some people leave to do it all at the first or last day of the Guild’s War some unfortunate server issue could happen… Of course, i trust the devs to make the right amends and compensations for it, but it could be also an unfortunate event like a storm or something preventing some players from doing the battles and the whole guild would be #$@%&! by losing, maybe, much more points than it would lose by missing just one day of five battles.
Or that any release of new troops, rebalance of old troops or a new Mythic could be exploitable due some bug to render all the cummulative battles unbeatable or just plain horrible like it was with Kerberus recently. (Now seriously. @Sirrian, i hope you guys and girls on the team consider this carefully, maybe it’s an unecessary call and the team already has this in mind, but it’s better to be safer than sorry. 
)
Nope, not even a word from me to make such unpleasant observations about how the suggested/desired freedom for the battles could also backfire in such majestic ways and is not so much better than the propposed five battles for each day. After all is just my opinion and nobody asked for it.
EDIT: All good points, Ivar. I’m tired and wasn’t thinking clearly, disregard my previous post. 
At least hopefully they are prepared for these issues, surprising or not.
I mean I get occasional error messages daily still it seems.
It seems like a close race, headache for the Devs… 
Well i can’t possibly know, and the devs maybe want to make the safer moves considering the last big issue with the servers and all the backlash from it. I honestly can’t blame then for it…
And i don’t know, people are plainly asking to make some risky moves i think… But ok, they are entitled to voice their suggestions/concerns as much as i do.
It’s not like as someone would be prepared with a lot of “I told you so…” images/memes for future posts… What? Why the funny look? I hope for the best and i prepare for the worst.
If the servers go down it won’t matter what day they go down on, it always causes a shit storm. I doubt GW would increase the shit storm’s size any more than it already has been increasing each time just due to the larger player base.
Nice iniciative, but the main problem with this is that the selection of subjects is totally biased (usually only the more active people visit these forums). Still, I have to say I’m surprised with how many people said they don’t this kind of system. Imagine how high those figures would go if all the casual players would vote as well…
So let me ask you something, why are you fighting so badly to keep the 5-per-day implementation? I’ve yet to hear a good reason for making it that way from a player (I understand Sirrian’s reasons, but he’s already mentioned alternatives that are just as valid though they would require some additional programming and GUI work).
My gut, knowing you to the degree I do, is that any delay in launching GW is something you’re going to fight against. I hope there’s more to it than that but I suspect that is a major pain point for you. Am I wrong? I’m serious, if you have reasons that you think the 5-per-day mechanic is superior to, say the 10 every two days (with tickets) or one of the others suggested by members, I’d love to hear it.