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”.
5 Likes
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.
6 Likes
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.
5 Likes
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.
7 Likes
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. 
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. 
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”,
3 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
4 Likes
This is why I used (attemped anyways) the sports analogy. A player in a team goes down during the game it is just what happens and the rest of the team still must compete. Plenty of examples in soccer and red carded players being sent off and the team having play on a ‘man down’ etc.
Yes, you could argue that in that scenario the ‘short’ team still has a chance at winning whereas in GW you don’t but that is the parameters under which GW is scored. Even if there was a 27 member max it doesn’t help if the guild has 4 members away.
@efh313
Yep ‘respect for life’ things is all good, however the below isn’t. Discounting losses shouldn’t occur.
2 Likes
2 points I would like to make:
-
Discounting losses DO count for the DAILY Battles victor (50 seals, Bonus EXP), just not for the FINAL WEEK total (Gems, Exclusive Troops)
-
The RNG loss thing is actually something that doesn’t bother me personally, but was a strong reason for the creation of the thread and so I opened with it as a strong #1 point. (Of course you couldn’t know that as you can’t read my mind… Or Can You??
)
Well, if they have 4 players away in any given week, that’s kind of excessive. Hard to compete when you have THAT many players gone. I’m not in favor of excessive leniency - three (or even 2) seems like a decent number.
The sports analogy, even with red cards in soccer, doesn’t really work because teams have starters and a bench. If we used that approach in Guild Wars, the effect would be that a guild could (for example) select their 25 best players and if one of them loses, they could take them out and put in one of the 10 reserves. For obvious reasons, this would never work.
For me, it comes down to what happened to my guild - we were down ONE player (due to a bug no less). With him, we likely would have finished first and moved up a bracket. Instead we finished 3rd. One player made a huge difference. Something has to be done to remove that because you can’t expect 30 players to play every week, real life happens.
That being said, I’m not in favor of making the number any lower than 27 and I’m definitely not in favor of discarding losses. It needs to be based solely on points so that inactivity (0 points) is the first thing to get discarded. Otherwise, the whole argument that this is for “quality of life outside the game” is bogus.
7 Likes
Hehe I can see us going around again on the sports thing, so I’ll drop it, instead of round 3 (or4).
Then the results will be skewed if I’m interpreting this correctly and the points will not add up at the end of the week? Mass
confusion will occur!
And no I can’t read anyone’s mind for that matter.
As I said in that other thread So as Guild Leader, I'm Just Plain SOL if Someone Disappears 2 Hours into Tuesday, Right? - #31 by Jainus I am not excited by this idea. I wouldn’t be upset if the devs did it, but I really don’t consider it a priority change that needs making. It’s just as unfair to everyone, which rather makes it sound fair. Dev time should be spent fixing GW bugs (like wins counting as losses, participation updating correctly in time, etc) rather than changing GW mechanics. Just sayin’.
Irksome though that I find myself agreeing with @drathas which I don’t think has ever happened before. Bizarre.
7 Likes
100% agree, bugs must be fixed ASAP.
But this is a change that addresses something that “feels” like a bug. This week in Mean Machine, we had a member leave us just at the start of the week, no time to recruit, not gonna happen. So after a dominating performance in Bracket 3 we end in Bracket 1 with an equalized color bonus which means we ACTUALLY have a shot at the top spot. WHAT!? 
Except… we don’t… because we are competing with 29 members to others 30. 
So just like a bug, I am being “denied” opportunities by something completely out of my control.
2 Likes
No that is incorrect. You can (Football, soccer, basketball, baseball, hockey, track)
There is always a bunch of folks on the sideline that can fill the spot of the 12 / 8 / 6 whatever the ‘team’ size is. Even track. If I was injured I had a backup. But that Backup was NOT required to participate unless something happened to me.
The only two sports I could think of that you can’t - Tennis and Golf. Even swimming, you can replace.
2 Likes
This sounds like getting the excuses out there for the fact that MatchMasters is currently kicking yo ass today… and I say this knowing full well that I am greatly increasing the chances of the scores being turned over by 8am tomorrow and me looking very foolish…
I think any of the top ten guilds would have ‘dominating’ performance in Bracket 3. Depending how you define ‘top’ of course. And not intending any insult to those great guilds and people down in Bracket 3, of course. Sidles nervously towards door…
Last week we had three members out or on holiday, and another joined too late to be registered, so we only had 26 operational… somehow we clung onto 7th place on the Bracket table and didn’t get relegated. Shame in some way - whilst rewards are less, I wouldn’t minded the less stressful task of easier battles and dominating Bracket 2. Probably.
5 Likes
Just as an FYI I played competitive team Golf back in the day. We had about 2 dozen teammates. Only the best 6 players were chosen to play the round against the other team. After 18 holes ONLY the lowest four scores from each side would be tallied.
So if someone gets hit with a ball in the head and has to go to the ER, the team continued on with 5 players. No replacing, but there was a chance to win.
3 Likes
Tennis and Gold aren’t team sports.
Good luck with that. Hoguns is in bracket 2.
4 Likes
While I can’t “like” your post for obvious reasons…
Mean Machine is the one true MM in GoW!! 
I will defend my honor and say, no excuse intended, just stating facts, as it would be a statement of fact to say that with 4 additional players Match Masters would have certainly placed higher.
1 Like