The equivalent analogy to your injury department would be if a guild had 5 players not participating and 2 of the people that had opted in were on holiday, 2 of the 5 reserves would step in to keep the total at 25.
By default, all 30 guild members are “starters” in guild wars, which as was said, is wholly unlike any other team sport on the planet.
Agreed but that was his choice of comparison, not mine. GW also isn’t cooperative like most team sports except for the final daily score. Players can’t help each other directly or do anything to affect the others ability to score points so his analogy is pretty weak sauce to begin with. 
This would be a great stress reliever too. We have one lower-level player in our Guild who produces a lot of trophies but is really struggling in GW because his collection is no where near as extensive as the grizzled vets. He’s been having a bad time of it worrying that he’s suddenly become deadweight.
After a little thinking back and forth I came to my conclutions that in the end of the day most guilds will have some forms of absence for the Guild Wars, so its really fair as it is. I am neutral about this idea, but again I am just feeling that we humans yet again is trying to reach for the perfections, there most likely will be something wrong with a such system as suggested above too. I am no coder, but this might or might not even be easy to implement. Again I am neutral. It is not needed for my sake.
In many way having one person argue against this idea just raises awareness and increases its visibility resulting in a greater probability the developers will implement it. 
Of course I’m biased in this matter…
I didn’t even remember who opened that analogy, but the figure skating comparison occurred to me when the discussion started in the other thread. And to be clear, I’m in favour of this idea, or anything else that will allow people to balance a little bit of real life with their Gems.
Thought: would the chat filter censor us if we were trying to discuss an analogy?
This is NSFW!!!
lol I’ve forgotten how bad that chat filter is we’ve been moved over to Discord for so long. Nothing like typing a long message only for part of it to turn into jibberish. 
I think the XBox filter would have replaced my entire sentence with *********************************.
But we should get back to discussing team sports.
Haha, very true. @Drathas, I’m sorry. Come back and explain again how wrong we are.
Again lol
Basketball teams have more than 5 players brudda… Jus’ sayin’
I think he meant, if 8 players get injured (in which case, the team would play shorthanded).
In some hockey leagues, if both goaltenders get hurt, they can strap the pads on anyone and send them in. Goalie coach, trainer, retired player, kid from the stands. Anyone.
As a guild leader of a guild that’s right now in bracket 1# we would also love this change.
I can’t see any drawback for players, but i can see a lot of avoided frustration.
@Stan in that example if i were the hockey coach i would look for the fattest guy i could find to block more of the goal… O wait that would be me… Dammit
To get somewhat back on track: Premise: guilds that are able to field 30 members every week should be rewarded for that by not having their bottom X members’ scores thrown out.
Okay!
So the OP wants members to be involved in the war and then have their performances discounted/disregarded towards the team result if they were poor enough or non-existent.
I disagree. All members scores should count, for the reasons stated above, I’m fine with players that join mid week not being able to participate or gain rewards. I’ve used a professional sports analogy due to the fact I’ve seen a lot of players complaining on this forum as if they were actually earning an income from it…
lol I’d complain a lot more if GW was my job so count yourself lucky.
That is a gross misrepresentation of my intention. What I want is for Guilds and their loyal members to not suffer from feelings of guilt over not being able to play because “life happens”.
This topic was discussed in great lengths when Guild Chests were released and the original price for level 6 chests was 45,000 seals. After much deliberation the devs settled on 40k or 27 members. So that set a precedent that the devs believe 27 of 30 always for life to happen. Therefore the same should apply here.
IMHO 
@efh313, I got a little confused by the initial wording so this may be what you’re thinking, but I imagine it’s easiest if they just don’t count the bottom 3 scorers. It’s more work if they have to create UI where you select who’s (in)active and therefore we’re less likely to get it (and certainly not as soon).