Top 27 Guild Wars Score Implementation

You wouldn’t be punished by having the three bottom scores thrown out, you would a have a higher and more accurate average of scores.

When calculating averages, outliers are often discarded to give a more accurate depiction.

Guilds are punished when one player (or lack thereof) can negatively impact the entire team and negate their efforts. There is no punishment for using the top 27 scores.

As we stated earlier, GW isn’t directly generating revenue, but why do people level classes, kingdoms, max their doom weapons, and collect all troops? Typically it’s to perform better in Guild Wars. GW is the only competitive event in the game. Why would you oppose leveling the field a bit for all?

1 Like

Outstanding idea. One person missing a single game should not negate an entire guilds efforts

1 Like

It kind of would be a punishment if you spent the time to get together a group of 30 solid players, for only 27 scores to count, just because other guilds were down a player/can’t retain players.
So I see Killscreens point. In saying that, 27 scores at this point in time would selfishly help my guild, not gonna lie :wink:

That wouldn’t be a punishment at all. Nobody is losing rewards.

It would actually create a little more competition among guild members to not be in the bottom 3!

There’s literally thousands of reasons why a guild could be down a member or two, and it’s unfair to the rest of the guild members. The idea was brought up two years ago for a reason, the reason is that there’s an issue with the current scoring system. The same system that was in place two years ago and hasn’t changed at all.

Let’s not forget the almighty RNG factor! Sometimes people just have bad luck. The whole guild doesn’t get punished for one or two people having horrible boards.

There’s literally no negatives to this scoring system being implemented. We’ve all been in situations where somebody left on GW week, went to Thailand, or maybe just wanted a break from the game. What could possibly be negative about giving a little breathing room? The stronger guilds will maintain, and the other guys will have a shot at becoming stronger. Win-win.

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