Should Devs reduce number of GW battles?

Well your top Y would still run into problems with guild that haven’t reached the max potential member limit yet. It’s been a long time but I think brand new guilds start with a max of 10 members? And it goes up slowly from there. I’m not sure how many of those low level guilds are playing GW though.

Not sure it’s “my Top Y”, I thought somebody else suggested it, I was just agreeing with it. As for guilds without max members, if Y was 27 guilds with less than 27 would have problems same as they do now. But guilds with 28 members would actually benefit by being able to compete with guilds of 30, and guilds of 30 with 1-3 members on vacation would benefit as well. Those who wouldn’t benefit are guilds of 30 with nobody absent whose bottom 3 get above average scores compared to other 30 man guilds. Currently they have an advantage and would lose it.

Contrasting that with the “Bottom X” proposal, there are no advantages for it except for guilds of 30 with nobody on vacation whose bottom 3 perform below average (so the only advantage of Bottom X is to reward worse performance).

Oh man, plus five billion for this suggestion. It would solve so many issues with Guild Wars in one fell swoop.


I’m in favor of this idea, but maybe it would be more flexible disregarding the 5 lowest scores or counting only the top 25 scores. I think it gives some more room for “Life Happens situations” as people could get sick, relatives got sick, husband+wife in the same guild, holidays in some countries and such.


I am in favour of this idea - specifically that the lowest 5 scores are dropped. This would not only deal with members having holidays/leaving/a real life but also take the pressure off a guildie having a nightmare/unlucky war that day.


I’ve been discussing this with some player from some guild too. I’m in favor with this idea too.

When the guild chests first were proposed at 45k that assumed all 30 members in the guild would have to contribute max seals to get the chest. This was changed to 40k which then allowed guilds to max their guild chests even when not all 30 members could max their seals. This same idea should be applied to GWs. Not everyone in a guild wants/able to participate, others may have RL circumstances like vacation that would preclude a member from participating, or a guild is shorthanded which results in a guilld being at a disadvantage in GWs. Changing the number of participants to maybe 25 would allow for the above circumstances and also give guild members a break from GWs if they need it.


Upvoted this earlier, but just want to state I am strongly in favor of this too.

There is a huge pressure right now in most of the upper guilds to perform as perfect as possible. Giving a 5 battle grace for each individual player would help a lot in reducing the pressure of guild wars.

All that would need to be done is give an additional 5 thunder bolt things on the 1st day of guild wars that can be used at any time of the week. This would allow people to progress to the final battle of a given day even if they lose on occasion. Then at the end of the week (or constantly shown), eliminate the 3 lowest scoring members of a guild from the total.


That’s just a matter of presentation. Here, look at it this way: “Being one of the 3/5/whatever members who had bad luck in matches, or who had a RL issue, or who just couldn’t get the fights done for some reason, and yet still didn’t hurt the entire guild’s standing or progress would be a huge relief!”


Its not like you don’t still have an advantage for fielding 30 members versus someone fielding 27, unless you are all routinely getting perfect scores all the way around. A guild with 30 is allowed a few mistakes,

I don’t think anyone here was suggesting that the bottom three scores be removed out of however many participants you have. The whole point was to allow some breathing room in the event they need to not participate, so that would defeat the entire purpose. I always read it as “the bottom 3 scores out of the thirty possible”, whether or not actually have 30 people participating. So yeah, going with “keep the top 27 scores out of the possible 30, no matter how many members are actually currently in the guild or participated” is technically more accurate. Its good that we be clear here, lest the devs get the wrong idea of what is being requested.

No worse, I’d imagine, than the feeling of costing one’s guild points for a poor showing or having an unexpected absence in the first place.


I would rather have Guild Wars be an event that takes 2 weeks instead of 1 week to prevent burnout.

1st colour - Monday and Tuesday
2nd - Wednesday and Thursday
3rd - Friday and Saturday
…Sunday rest day…
4th - Monday and Tuesday
5th - Wednesday and Thursday
6th - Friday and Saturday
…Sunday Rewards and preparation…

So basically players have 2 days for each war.
Or heck go even further and only play 1 battle each week (1 colour per week), for a 6 week schedule instead of 1 week.


Exactly. I completely agree.

Further working on the sub analogy that @Drathas tried to make which was immediately shot down…

I don’t know if I agree with this point. I get that most major sports have a bench to be used, but if one of your starters has a bad day, you can’t just disregard that and restart the game with one of your bench players in there. I would agree with assigning 3 players to sit out from guild wars that week and their scores will never be used. Getting all 30 members to participate and then throwing out the lowest 3 scores doesn’t seem right.

EDIT: Now that I’ve read other threads and thought about this more. Just discarding the bottom X results is the simplest way to solve this issue. Denoting which members aren’t participating is just more work for the GM to have to ask the guild who wants to sit and then to push some button to allow that. People can still ask to sit out, but their 0 score will always be the lowest and be thrown out.

That’s exactly how I see it.

I don’t think anyone in my guild will be saying “damn it, my 3 losses won’t count against my guild this week”.


While commenting on the main topic you’ve mentioned something new that is very different and maybe not obvious. Sorry to be the guy picking apart semantics in this thread, but it should be highlighted. Only counting the top scores, whether on a daily or weekly basis, is very different from a “thunder bolt” retry button. Put a different way, keeping the top 27 “groups of 5” scores each day, is very different from “groups of 5, or 6, or 10 if they use them on the same day”.

And with that clarification, I personally hate the idea, and like the current single attempt at the gauntlet each day.


Right, so eliminate the negative from losing a battle… You might as well go play PvP…

This is supposed to be a competitive mode between guilds. Removing some negatives is totally counter competition, what you are advocating for is basically the rigging of results.

Throughout these whinge threads I sense that there is a very pervasive ‘sense of entitlement’ that rewards should come on a silver platter and basically handed to the player.


No way should players get a mulligan (or 5). The tension of “must-win” battles is what makes GW so much fun, at least for me.

That being said, I do like the idea of doing 90th percentile scoring or some such so that guilds don’t have to worry about illness, vacation, or loss of internet connectivity.


Yes, but if they do go to a 90% model then the other 10% should not be included at all for the week. Because it has the same effect of removing some of the negatives associated with losing battles.

Which was the point I have been attempting to make earlier. :wink:

Using the 40k chest as an example where the devs have done this, is not a similar situation because there is no impact on other guilds if one guild obtains 40k seals or not. I hope this logic makes sense, it does to me. :rofl:

1 Like

I think because most of your comments have been so confrontationally worded and so energetically in favour of no changes that some of these specific points may have been missed. And I totally agree that players need to be entirely counted or ignored, not just pick/choose each day which scores will count, which is why I prefer something like “top 27 player scores for the week” rather than things like “for the day”, “top X battles”,


It actually does make sense to me @drathas, I just disagree that my guild getting its worst 3 scores thrown out will not make a huge difference because YOUR guild will also get their worst 3 scores thrown out. It’s just a “respect for life” grace feature that the devs have already determined was necessary to keep guild members happy, and not jumping ship because of the feelings of “letting their guild down”.

As for the arguments about the bottom 3 being thrown away for ALL guilds regardless of size… I cannot agree. This is not the precedent that has been set by the devs. A guild of 10, then would only have 7 scores count for GW each day. By the same reasoning a guild of 10 should reach Level 6 chests with only 10,500 seals.

A smaller guild already knows that they are at a disadvantage, once they grow and develop and become a full sized guild trying to manage a full roster, then they receive the grace of bottom three scores removed, as well as, 3 players not needing to contribute to seals to attain Level 6 chests.



On your first point, I absolutely agree. In fact, I wasn’t suggesting it should be daily and if I implied that, I wasn’t being clear. I would be in favor of tallying only at the end of the week and then doing the percentile analysis, not before.

As for the other points, yes it removes some of the negatives potentially but it also allows a few people in each guild to have a “week off” for whatever reason, IRL. It also (unlike the do-over idea) doesn’t remove ALL of the negatives associated with losing battles. For example, someone who goes 30-0 but uses only 2-color teams won all their matches but will likely get thrown out because of low point totals.

Right now if you’re down 1 person, it could be the difference between 1st place and 4th place. That’s just not reasonable in my eyes.