Top 27 Guild Wars Score Implementation

Its more the issue of trying to help the team as a group. I have had players ask for vacation time or a emergency has come up during GWs week. It makes them feel bad when they Can’t help there team out. Now iam sure most have had this happen to them to. Rather than have to rehouse a team player for GWs week or boot ia player this would help to fix it. Most know me heck i even try helping out guilds not in my Clan out to be full for GWs week. Also as i said beforehand players moving from lower brackets up are nervous as while they might score 50k+ in b7 its way different in B1 B2 or even B3 they sometimes struggle to even get 40k there frist time in higher-up brackets mostly because they are stressed to preform well & over think everything lol

1 Like

It’s my personal opinion that any guilds or leaders who are opposed to this idea want an advantage. They’re hoping that a guild has somebody leave, go on vacation, or whatever the case may be to put them at a disadvantage, so that they can have a competitive edge. They’re not about having an even and fair playing field.

You can have a guild full of 30 strong players, but if one person can’t play that week, you’re out of contention.

What if somebody gets in a car accident? That wouldn’t be a case of a guild unable to “retain players”, it’s a case of life happening. Not everybody can spend 24/7 on this game and expect 29 other people to do the same.

A small change of Top 27 is a fair, easy, and reasonable solution to many problems at once for many people. It would help make the game more fun and relieve some stress during GW week. No negatives!


I have read all pro and con arguments on this topic and support the idea. It would benefit all guids, new and upcoming guilds that are still trying to find members as well as well-established guilds. I think some may believe that another guild’s disadvantage could be an advantage for them but eventually they will also be 1 or 2 players short, missing a top placement, and wishing that this change would have been implemented.
This idea would mean fairness and better competitiveness for all


When including all 30 scores, GW is not only a skill-based or strategic challenge, but a logistical one as well, which I don’t think is meant to be the real or main spirit of the Event.

Including fewer scores could also make GW less stressful for some people – an unexpected loss (or bug, even) becomes less of an upset. I don’t think ‘less stressful’ necessarily equates to ‘lower stakes’ in this case either, since when competing for a particular spot, each of the 27/30 members’ points are important, and each move still matters.* (see N.B. below)

The number chosen should (imo) reflect how the Devs want the Event to feel.

  • 30 = tense, sometimes frustrating; satisfaction for a smaller few
  • 29 = still reasonably high tension, allowing for a single missing player or unexpected score/bug
  • 28 = moderate tension, maintaining high stakes with a little bit of room for give, but no more than two unexpected events
  • 27 = focus on strategy and point-making rather than unexpected events/calamities (missing people, bugs, fat-finger swipes)
  • 25 = full focus on strategy/points, players/guilds can start to opt for high-risk strategies, leading to a slightly different style of event with a little less focus on the whole guild’s performance
  • 1-10, etc. = not enough of a whole-guild focus

N.B. Stress ≠ enjoyable competitive tension

Tension due to excitement, potential to win incentives = yay
e.g. “Omg, who’s going to win? Is it us?? Ahhh, so close!!!”

Tension due to stress, impact of external negative events = not yay
e.g. Oh no, my game crashed! Gah, I’m so sorry everyone :sob:! Shit.


Very well thought out and articulated points!!

I couldn’t agree more, and your analysis of scores to tension is just brilliant.

There are also cases of people’s games locking up during a GW match, or their internet going out. Should the rest of the guild be punished for that?

Spot on, sir. Bravo!

1 Like

I thought this would be an interesting read for those that weren’t around for the earlier 2017 discussion about this topic.

Back then, it seemed like most regulars were in agreement that they should at least count top 27 (or less) only.

I recall the devs stating they weren’t going to do this request. But, it’s been too long. I don’t remember why they declined.


57% of the player base who voted thought 25 or 27 was appropriate. Only 24% thought 30 was appropriate, and the remaining 19% thought 10-20 players.

That should say enough right there.

There’s more than double the number of players who want 25 or 27 over those who want 30.

76% of the entire player base that voted were opposed to 30.

76% is a staggering win for this implementation. Let’s make it happen!

1 Like

Excellent idea. I totally agree.


I agree with this change in parts and explain. If it’s below top27 it would benefit only the biggest guilds and the smallest would never get to the top. I believe that at least gw should be held every 15 days, even if the prize pool was reduced or split between the two weeks with the top 27. As most agree, there is no better event than gw, which really shows who is the best. Real good player. But that would be another matter. On the other hand having a new player in tension, scared and with results below because of nervousness is part of what represents gw and its difficulty. This is what makes gw the most competitive event. Phereeks are experts because they know how to handle this situation with organization.

1 Like

Don’t think changing to 27 will make a difference,you can most definitely win a bracket with less than 30 as we have done it in the past in b2\b3. Bracket 1 is supposed to be the most challenging of all guild wars and changing the system will just cater to those that live there.

1 Like

pretty sure this is at least the 3rd thread on this topic. at least when i created the above thread i know it
wasnt the first.

It will definitely help B1, as well as all other brackets.

I agree that it’s more beneficial to the top 2 brackets, where it’s more competitive, but that’s the whole point. Keep it competitive. It’s not a true competition if even one participant is at an immediate disadvantage, let alone the majority.

If a basketball team has one person out due to injury, there’s players that come off the bench to replace them. We don’t have this option in Gems of War. We can’t replace a player that is unable to play.

This is a fair and reasonable solution that takes stress off of many players and leaders.

1 Like

Its not a fair solution at all when most guilds deal with it on a weekly basis.War doesn’t care if real life happens deal with it and take the losses like everyone else.The current GW system has worked for years it shouldnt need to be changed because your guild isnt full that week.

While I don’t care either way, this talk of evening the playing field sounds more like guilds whining because they can’t rise to the challenge. Someone earlier said that logistics should not be a factor in guild wars. I disagree. Just like any competition, logistics plays an important part. Guild Wars should be no different.


Well, I hate to break it to you, but it’s not real war.

It’s a competition on a game that allows no substitution if real life happens to get in the way of playing the game. The fact that most guilds deal with it on a weekly basis stresses the need for change. The system hasn’t “worked for years”, it’s been broken for years. It hasn’t changed at all, and that doesn’t mean it hasn’t changed because it’s perfect. The issue was addressed, by the developers, years ago, and was never rectified.

You seem to have some personal vendetta? I suggest you either put that aside and look at the idea without bias, or refrain from negatively posting because of your personal issues. Don’t try to make it about my individual guild, as every single guild would benefit from this change.


1 Like

This would also make higher ranked guilds more welcoming of players who are not end-game… I like helping a little guy out once in a while (I call it sponsor-a-noob) because I remember how exciting it was when I first got into a top guild. But, it’s not fair to other guild members who want to be competitive in guild leaderboards.


Every major sport has teams with a full roster.

Do each and every one of those players’ personal scores count towards the entire team?

Do teams get docked for injured players, or are they allowed to replace them?

If the starting quarterback throws for 320 yards and 3 touchdowns, but the second string QB has 0 yards and touchdowns because he didn’t get to play, does the entire team get docked and put out of contention? Do those 0 yards and touchdowns take away from the starting QB’s totals?

The simple answer to every question is no.

Again, the people opposed to this look to be trying to acquire every advantage they can because they seem to be less confident they could win if things were more even across the board.

1 Like

Really good idea.
A whole guild should not lose valuable places by a player dropping out or even family emergencies etc.
All the guild members who compete should do so on a level playing field so it becomes a game of skill and not luck.


This is a really bad analogy. Every team still has to have the exact same number of players on the field at all times. There is no “oh, our 1st string QB is on vacation and can’t play so you have to use you’re 2nd QB too”. That’s closer an analogy than yours.

“Evening the field” by only counting top 27 players is NOT beneficial to everyone equally as you claim. A guild with 30 players who all score 50k+ in GW is penalized because 3 50k+ scores aren’t counted vs the 3 30k scores of their opponents not counting. A guild that takes GW seriously enough to work that hard to be the best at it shouldn’t be penalized because another guild can’t or won’t. In the Olympics, they don’t throw out the lowest score for each competitor that I’m aware of.

The entire idea of guild wars is to be a GUILD event where logistics is certainly as important as each player’s skills & what troops/classes/weapons they have at their disposal. Why don’t we just even things out by saying that of the 700+ troops everyone can only use a specific list if 500 so everyone is on an even footing? Then let’s do the same for weapons. Then classes.

Why not? Because it would make anything that players work for to collect that isn’t on those lists useless. Just like the 3 people not being counted in guild wars would be - useless. And it would stifle creativity and drive.

For the record my guild floats between B2-B5, most often in B3-4. We just went through the issue of having someone bail on us last GW (lost his 1st battle & then didn’t play the rest of the week). While we were highly disappointed and likely could have risen a bracket had he played, we still finished in the middle of the bracket. So the argument there’s no hope if just 1 person doesn’t play isn’t accurate. And further down the brackets it’s even less accurate. The ONLY place the argument may actually be true is in B1-2, MAYBE B3.

If you couldn’t tell, not a fan of the proposal and would vote against it if a vote was taken and it actually meant something.

1 Like