The zero-sum will not work for the fair game. We might imagine a situation: If the 3 alliance, Guild B help Guild A this week, Guild C help Guild A next week, with that loop ,Guild A will become the eternal hegemon. Thus, the game will become a social game between the guild and will deviate from the theme of the game.
Thank you for the reply~ We hope the first and third point will be implemented as soon as possible
THIS! THIS! 10000x THIS!
Give each Bracket a flat Gem reward based on Bracket and then EVERY BRACKET receives scaling Gem rewards based on placement within their Bracket:
Here is a link to a thread where I explored this in more detail.
No… I CAN’T…
THAT is why rewards need to be reworked. With the gem nerfs in place, only the players winning top 1-2, maybe 3, can actually spend 1360 to max sentinels and still make a profit, which means, that in a tight bracket like B1, the top Guild will have a propensity for STAYING there because they can boost their troops when other Guilds simply CANNOT.
And though the Sentinel boost is not a guarantee for victory, it will make a difference in a handful of matches throughout the week, which in B1 is really all that separates most of the participants.
+1 for OP From DruidsGlade
NowayJoe2Go
The question has already been raised several times, but what do you consider as unfair and what are you able to detect?
Sorry if I sound offensive, I am just genuilely wondering. The recent problems with Wisp or Fizzbang for example have led many players to wonder how much experience your team has of what the endgame is. I think it has even been asked in a Q&A streaming. Would you be able to detect that a team has no synergy and, for that reason, is weak, for example?
+1 from Anonymous.
This question has been answered between the lines. They have no way of detecting it when done subtle enough, they understand it may have significant impact on results, all they can do is ask us to play fair. The catch is obviously that even when composing six good unique defense teams, those teams won’t be equally strong due to limited choices. When knowingly facing a sister guild, would you expect members to rather set a stronger or a weaker of those teams as defense?
Unfortunately, with the actual system of 24 unique troops, its impossible to prove a cheat/collusion between 2 guilds if done with just a little subtlety.
Thats why all guilds name should be hidden when setting up the 6 defense teams on Monday. Only colour can stay visible. No more risk of collusion with this system.
Here you guys are again talking about fairness in a pay to play game sad
If you have paid money to acquire everything in the game and you get mad at people (imagined or real) who don’t have these resources that try to find other ways to win (other than hack) then you need to take a hard look at yourself my friend cuz your irony is showing 
I’m f2p and I could care less that others have an advantage over me
If you want a fair and even game go play chess
Tyrant just want dev create a rule to forbid cheating.If a guild REALLY not cheat,they will support our idea instead of let us “stay out of the forums”.
By the way, there is a guild cannot reach 1st and score less more than 30k(it means about 15 MORE lose) when it’s sister down to bracket 2,it’s funny,right? I don’t know the reason, somebody can tell me?
By the way again, after the rule in use, guild can still reach 1st is the best way to prove not cheating,right?
I have no problem with your suggested rule. I live by it daily. Your baseless, false and insulting insinuations are another matter. Apparently you have different definitions of civility and courtesy.
As I stated above this rule only serves to benefit the top guild by giving them easier match. I am pretty confident that there is not one player that puts a team on a color other than red day that is not based on the opponent. If I am fighting a rival guild I can’t stand or a top guild they get the harder team to fight period and everyone else get the teams that are left over.
As its imposible to prove/detect any cheat between 2 guilds with the actual system of 24 unique troops if they made it with just a minimum of subtlety, I find a little stupid to ask for hard evidence about that.
The important thing to understand is that the actual system allow impossible to detect cheats and it should be changed for the good of GW. And to set up the 6 defense teams on Monday without knowing the opponents is a possible solution.
It totally depends of your strategy. As some others already said, you could want to give difficult battles to the guilds close to your rank. If you put your stronger troops against them, only remains weaker defense teams. And there is usually a rank gap between sister guilds.
ROFL so you’re basing that there’s collusion based on 1 week result? How stupid.
Take a look at this 3 out of 5 last GW and tell me which scores looks so fishy that you would assume there’s collusion going on?
On topic: as I said I don’t care if they’re going to change the schedule, scoring, or anything related to Guild Wars. Do it if you think it’s necessary. But as @RiverSong said “Your baseless, false and insulting insinuations are another matter.”
To moderator: devs have heard suggestion loud and clear and have said their piece so I think it’s better to lock this thread down before it going wild and unproductive like similar thread in the past. And oh please don’t tell me “I don’t see anyone breaking any rules here so no need to lock the thread down”. Thanks.
I believe most of people here really love GW and have done a lot for it so far. We are talking about a problem that no one is to blame for it.
Strong guilds help weaker ones develop. Adjacent guilds compete each other for rewards. Everything is natural but it goes somewhere wrong once combined together. Gems are resources for living in nowdays environment and GW is the best way to gain gems. It is more for devs to do to balance the profits rather than endless arguments between players. Investigating afterwards could not cover loss especially when the loss is much beyond gems. Simple but effective methods to end these suspects are what I expect from devs, for trust for devs and love for this game.
Interesting choice of weeks.
Go you pick/post your week of choice.
Your response is direct but effective for destroying my suspects, to my comfort.
It seems Zoo beat me to the punch, but I have even more data to back up his claims.
First off, though, let me introduce myself. I am Zuboki, gentleman scholar and previous statistician/record keeper of Intrim 1, now GM of Intrim 2. May I say, it’s nice to see some members of Tyrant taking to the forums. Glad to see you talking, but it’s an absolute shame that this is what you choose to say.
Let me show you a little chart I made in response to your claims.
In the first column is I1’s weekly GW scores from the past 6 weeks, since the defense bonus system came live.
The second column shows whether the guild won first place, or “lost” to 2nd.
The final column displays whether I2 was present in B1. It’d be better if there was more data without us in B1, but somehow, every time we fall to Bracket 2, we demolish them completely and pop back up. Of course, that must be a coincidence. There’s no way we could be good without Intrim 1 in our bracket, is there? /s
That aside, as you can see, there’s no correlation at all in their final scores and our presence. They had worse weeks and better weeks than the 1,586,300, and they’ve won with worse scores than it.
I doubt this sates your desire for assurance of fairness, you smug ghouls. But it’s the best I can come up with in short notice, and I kinda want to post before this thread is locked from how witch-persecution-thingy it’s getting up in here. It’s kinda tiring being accused all the time when several of our players get 30/0s and still end up as Heralds. But don’t worry about us, we’ll still survive and be a thorn in your side as long as we can!
Cheers,
Zuboki
