Well I ‘liked’ yours, even if this:
is clearly nonsense. MatchMasters was the number one Guild on the table for a very long time. It’s gone downhill since I joined, which I view as an unfortunate coincidence, but that legacy lives on. As does the ONE MILLION trophies. Once Mean Machine has that many, we can re-open this debate 
Davis Cup. Ryder Cup. Only the most famous examples for each sport, but both have multiple examples of team competitions.
PVP isn’t a team sport either, so something like Davis Cup might be a better analogy than all of this football/basketball nonsense (where success is actually based on collective performance). If you’re unfamiliar, each participating country puts forward its best players that play a series of singles and doubles matches against rival country, with the winner of each match earning points and the team earning the most points declared the winner and moving on to the next round.
Sure, but in that case, the Cups are comprised of only the top players. If we’re going to equate them to GW, then the proposed solutions only make more sense.
I don’t really have a strong opinion on this, I understand where it’s coming from, but I would lean towards no. Getting everyone to participate is a challenge each guild is facing. Feels like if a guild can organize 30 people to participate, they should do better than a guild that can only get 27 members to do their part.
Truer words have ne’er been spoken…
And for complete transparency: I have mad respect for the other MM and @Jainus, this is friendly ribbing that comes along with “competitive” gaming. 
I trust most of you know that, but there are some…
Agreed. I like analogies a lot, but I recognize their limitations. There are no perfect parallels in this case.
Overall, I still like the original idea, not that it will end up affecting me much one way or the other. My current guild has a 50 trophy minimum, so unless something drastic changes there, participation in GW is going to have to be pretty much optional.
The sports analogies have to stop!..JK … or am i?
No but seriously, replacement players in sports exist due to the very probable risk of physical injuries and therefore this concept does not apply to an online game.
If a football player decides to read a book or just sit down and watch the other players in the middle of a game, he may be replaced once the game gets paused, but he will also not be rewarded or credited for the games outcome, he most probably also will have to look for another job when he has finished his book.(Making the point to stop terrible sport analogies with a terrible sport analogy like a Boss!)
Now having said that i am indifferent to the 27/30 idea and there are surely good points for and against it to be made. Just terrible sport analogies aren’t any of those 
I wish I wasn’t out likes for the day. 
Although this request would probably help the guild I am in to have a better chance at rival guilds (purely down to participation), why should it?
In my opinion, if a guild can get 30 of its members to participate in the war, compared to a rival of 27 active members, they deserve to win.
Theoretically, a guild with 30 members will beat one with 27 members almost every time.
Why?
Because the top 27 in the 2nd guild would include their worst performances as well as their best. The 1st guild gets to toss out their 3 worst performances.
The guy that finances my game progression with his relentless guild contributions, nice to meet you here! 
Yeah, we love some friendly ribbing, especially when we are winning… and if we are losing, I am so muting this thread…
Be patient, please.
Oh, I’m patient. As soon as possible is supposed to imply time required until it is actually possible. But modern vernacular has reduced it to a vulgar DEMAND for things now.
After today I really would love to see it not be such a hard requirement.
Number of battles and number of people required. I have the next three weeks as crunch time. 6k loss can cost us our slot. Imagine someone getting sick, or have to go to a funeral…
And how is your guild affected more than mine?
Why should the Devs adjust things externally just to solve a guilds normal internal problems?
Keep it at 30 players. It is Guild versus Guild. It’s supposed to be Guild Wars, not a guild massaging community.
Just an opinion.
Confirmed for 3.2.!
Following on from my previous comment and being constructive – here are some thoughts:
A1: The way to beat other teams/players is to have attacking teams that score points for ourselves and our guild. On the other hand our defence teams allow us to hinder our opponents in gaining their points by either removing troops or by defeating them and making them lose all their points for that particular battle.
An easy way to show defence progress is to include a column on the right hand side of the Points column showing in the screenshot below:
A2: For the first week the guild war ranks were allocated by Hero Levels. The second week they appear to be allocated by numbers of trophies gained through PvP grinding. My suggestion is that the Guild Master should allocated the ranks themselves. In this way they can anticipate problems and put those sick or whatever into the two or three non-guild war ranks at the bottom of the list.
In addition having defence data in an additional column will help guild-masters allocate the correct rank for their players. If there is a tie for attack points then the defence points can be the tie breaker.
A3: If there is a worry about any shenanigans by the guild master then the Devs can automate the process on Mondays and allow the guild-master to tick a box against the two or three names of those who are not included for the wars (and rewards) for that week. Edit: or if the wars remain at 30 players then allow guild-masters to mark those 2 or 3 players to be placed at the bottom of the rankings for that week.
Tldr
I don’t think it should be that the scores of the bottom 3 don’t count. It should be guilds choose 27 players and the scores of those players count.
How you choose players, maybe that’s the GLs decision.
Should it be 27 or 25 or whatever, not sure, but somewhere there
No.
Nuff said.
