Should Devs reduce number of GW battles?

It has been suggested in other threads that when competing in GW, getting 30 of 30 members participating is a bit daunting.
Add to that the fact that guilds are currently dealing with members leaving because of GW reqs and the issues with reset, rewards, and newly added members being ineligible, and the request seems more and more warranted.

The Suggestion:

@strat points out: [quote=“Strat, post:18, topic:23466”]
For example with the Guild chests you can get a max 40,000 chest with 27 people

Taking that into consideration, apply the same logic to GW that the devs, rightly, applied to Guild Chests. All 30 guild members are entered and are eligible to participate, however, only the best 27 battles are tallied for the purposes of points.

The Benefits:

  1. Up to 3 players per week can be assigned a “vacation” by their Guild Leader.
  2. If all are participating, it would allow for up to 3 unlucky RNG losses to be discarded each day.
  3. It allows for life to happen within a guild which was the reasoning for the change to Guild Chests.
  4. If a Guild Member drops mid week, the whole guild is not punished for one persons behavior.

Truth be told the benefits are manifold, and the fact that the devs already set the precedent of understanding that the few should not punish the many with Guild Chests, I believe this is a natural step for Guild Wars to take in the weeks following.

Should the Devs reduce the tallied battles from 30 to 27?

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

Share your thoughts below!


All for it personally! There are weeks where I have vacations planned so I can take a break and not feel guilty about it.



Thanks for posting this @efh313. :smile_cat:

I truly hope the devs will consider this change. It would solve so many issues for the guild as a whole and the individual player. People quitting midweek, vacations and illness happen all the time. People shouldn’t have to feel guilty they are letting their guild down when RL situations come up.


Today is my birthday and this is my birthday request.
+1 A++++++ poster. Would agree again!

But seriously, this just makes so much more sense for everyone involved. Players can take breaks, Guilds can remove and add players, players don’t have to sweat every crappy RNG loss that’s out of their control, the player base would be happier which means the Devs lives would be easier!

If anyone can think of a legitimate reason why this idea would be bad to implement, I’d love to hear it. The only negative I can think of is that it’d obviously take additional dev time to implement.


No - in (most) other competitive team sports during play you don’t just get to bring in a new player mid game.

Why should this be any different?

Guild Wars should include the entire guild, otherwise rename it 90% Guild Wars.



Great feature request write up!!! Glad you did it, I tend to be too pithy.


I disagree.
American Football for example, is a game played by 22 players, yet each team brings 53, just in case something happens. MOST professional sports have a bench.
If anything, since most competitive guilds have started forming their sister, or Farm League teams, then devs should allow free swapping between sister guilds midweek to compensate for players “injured”.

To further drag out your metaphor… :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


I can get “pithed off” too…
oh wait… that’s not what you meant… :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


In all other major sports you carry a roster of X number of players and only a percentage of them are “starters”. So by using competitive team sports as an example, you’re actually supporting the suggestion you’re against.


You’re joking, right? Almost all competitive games have extra players that may or may not play for that game. It’s hard for me to think of any multi-person sports that don’t, in fact.


What? Every single competitive team sport I can think of only fields a certain % of their team at a time for gaining points.

This is a great idea. It has literally zero negative consequences for anyone and drastically reduces stress on guild leaders.


Thats why I said most. :wink: NFL is a special case in my mind…

Disagree with what you say about the bench. AFL has 18 players and 4 on the bench that rotate throughout the match, for a total of 22 players. Teams also have in addition they name three emergencies who can take a place if one of those 22 is injured BEFORE the game starts only.

30 players in Gulld Wars already includes this ‘bench’ as all members are effectively playing in the ‘War’.

Seeing as the devs are Aussie too, rules should follow our major game. :grin::+1:t2:

1 Like

So what you really meant is there’s one specific sport that doesn’t allow this behavior but the vast majority do. Sure let’s go with that one just because…


I would rather see this number at 25 or a little lower, this would also allow non-full Guilds to participate.


Nope I only used one example.

You trying to tell me that during a basketball game if 5 players get injured on one team, they just bus in a couple more during the half time break?

1 Like

It’s not an exact parallel to team sports, though. Everyone in the guild is still taking the field, but at the end of the day, the lowest scores would be ignored.

In a way, it sounds more like the practice of eliminating the high and low scores in certain judged sports (like figure skating, diving, freestyle skiing, etc.), though the concern here would be to compensate for things outside the players’ control, rather than corruption/bias among the judges.


Yes this more of the model some others appear to to be wanting.

1 Like

The AFL still has a 4-person bench. You continue to contradict yourself.

The NFL, MLS, MLB, NBA, all of the equivalent college sports, as well as international soccer/football all have benches. There is never a time when all players on the roster are playing at the same time.

GW is nothing like any of them. Ever.


Lol you know you’re wrong, we know you’re wrong, basic common sense knows you’re wrong. Pick a different battle; perhaps one where you don’t immediately invalidate your own argument.

Thxs for the lolz though. :slight_smile:


Devs, pleaaaaase give us this. It would be a bandaide on several issues at once. Furthermore, it seems like it would require less coding than the alternatives? Like Aero, my preference would be for 25, but 27 would be great too.