You are 100% correct
To clarify:
Nothing would change in regard to UI. Battles would occur as they are now, but the bottom 3 point values each day would not be calculated. Battles not fought would go first. Up to 3.
To further clarify:
This would NOT affect Daily War Victors as those have be determined by the battles fought that day. But only for the purposes of end of week totals. Otherwise people waiting til the end of the week would gum up the whole works!!
Instead of a complicated system like this just drop the bottom 2-3 scores a day. Every guild would have the same math and people on vacation would count towards this deduction since they would have 0 points. Also eliminates some of the stress issues associated with the RNG massacre that can happen.
I think they should keep the number of battles the same. Those guilds willing to push, and have sister guilds to swap players up to the main guild will have an advantage. That advantage is balanced out with the amount of work it takes to juggle multiple guilds and the risk of knocking the sister guild down in rank.
I accept then when one of our players needs a vacation and canât play their GW matches, it will annoy me. At the same time, I know it will only annoy me if I start putting too much weight on this game.
This is the best and simplest solution so far. Less work for Guild Leaders as well, as its an automatic system.
Itâs a simple solution that doesnât solve the problem. So under that proposal, if somebody goes on vacation, you would still be down a player and lose points. And if youâre in the same situation, why bother changing anything.
Iâm in favour of using just the top 27 scores, since that would allow for âlifeâ to happen for some players without affecting guild. But I also understand the argument that as it is now is fine, since all guilds will encounter that (and those that work around or ignore real life, maybe they deserve something for such âdedicationâ), so while not my preference I could live with that too. Removing the bottom X scores is the worst of the options IMO, since thereâs no benefit.
Iâm missing something: how is keeping the top Y scores any different than losing the bottom X scores if everything else is the same (i.e. Assuming 30 members)
Requiring everyone to manage the 30 battles each week is potentially stressful, granted.
At the same time though⌠being one of the three members who doesnât count would be the worst.
If you keep top Y, then for 30 players you have top 27 and for 27 you have all 27. If you remove bottom 3, then for 30 players you have top 27, but for 27 players youâd have top 24, so still a reduction. Top Y compensates for missing players, bottom X doesnât.
Well your top Y would still run into problems with guild that havenât reached the max potential member limit yet. Itâs been a long time but I think brand new guilds start with a max of 10 members? And it goes up slowly from there. Iâm not sure how many of those low level guilds are playing GW though.
Not sure itâs âmy Top Yâ, 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 wouldnât 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 âBottom Xâ 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.
Iâm 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 âLife Happens situationsâ 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.
Iâve been discussing this with some player from some guild too. Iâm 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.
Thatâs just a matter of presentation. Here, look at it this way: âBeing one of the 3/5/whatever members who had bad luck in matches, or who had a RL issue, or who just couldnât get the fights done for some reason, and yet still didnât hurt the entire guildâs standing or progress would be a huge relief!â
Its not like you donât 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 donât 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 âthe bottom 3 scores out of the thirty possibleâ, whether or not actually have 30 people participating. So yeah, going with âkeep the top 27 scores out of the possible 30, no matter how many members are actually currently in the guild or participatedâ 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, Iâd imagine, than the feeling of costing oneâs 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
âŚSunday rest dayâŚ
4th - Monday and Tuesday
5th - Wednesday and Thursday
6th - Friday and Saturday
âŚSunday Rewards and preparationâŚ
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 downâŚ
I donât 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 canât 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 doesnât seem right.
EDIT: Now that Iâve 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 arenât 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.