In general avrg GW scores wouldnt be a bad idea. After playing good few GWs in b1 i have to say that there is always “something” getting out of control during the wars weeks. Avrg. the scores helps to eliminate that “real life” issue. But to count an average you need to drop the lowest and the highest scores in the guild to be fair. Taking only high scores benefits weaker guilds. Top27 is not the way to go.
Many players choose to join a certain guild because of its GW scores which prooves that it is managable to have this 30 dedicated players with backup plan in case of an emergancy.
The last i will show you an example how unfair it looks for 30 player guilds with your top27 high scores suggestion.
Guild A 27 scores 50k 3 scores 38k
Guild B 27 scores 49k 3 scores 48k
Do your maths now. With your “system” a better balanced guild would loose. Unacceptable.
Nothing more to say here.
I would say the 27 would actually benefit the top guilds. The only shot some guilds have is for the top guilds not have 30 players. It’s not a very good shot but I digress. Guilds are not winning because of 3 bad player? I think it is more like 10 or 15. I think the reason the Devs did not change to this is because Wars is every 4 weeks which gives plenty time to plan for vacations. They are using most of their time on new content. Not fixing old content that only some want changed. I’m fine with whichever way they decide is best.
This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
Hey, mostly-dormant mod weighing in here. I will let the topic open automatically, but I do not want to see it devolve into off-topic ad hominem again.
Thanks,
Lyya
This topic was automatically opened after 44 hours.
@Lyya May I mention that given your profile pic, it’s fitting you were the one to un-silrnce the thread?
On topic, I think one of the other problems is getting the average player invested in GW. It invokes a lot of strong reactions both for and against it. Back when it was the only guild event, it was a nice way to gradually build a gem stash and test yourself. It wasn’t perfect and bugs were plentiful, but it was enjoyable for many.
After Raid and Invasion, a lot of older players greatly despised those modes as p2w (which they are in terms of gems, potions only pushed it more that way). A new dilemma arises from needing to kick strong GW players as only once every three weeks did they help in a guild event. As old blood got replaced by inexperienced, slightly rashers players, it was clear that while they could meet a tower quota, or fight zuul, they could barely score past 40k or worse, even with multiple mythic.
The dilution also disengages gw favoring players and gradually, even they can get dulled like a blade trying to break a boulder for only a single piece of iron.
While highly unlikely without some other displaced cost, GW needs to be revamped, while that time as approaches, based on other guild modes, grinding, and p2w, I am skeptical of what they may do without truly asking their playerbase.
I’m not against the 27/30 to allow for vacations, emergencies, etc. but I fear what it will cost.
I mean, there’s only one description of what an even playing field is, and that would be all guilds’ scores based off the same number of people. We’re continuing to see the people opposing this idea using the terms “weak guild” or “strong guild”, implying that only a “weak guild” would want this because “strong guilds” are full. That is simply just not the case. We also keep seeing implications that this is about MY guild, and not the other 4-5 guild leaders who I’ve previously discussed this with as well. Please leave the personal attacks and vendettas out of this. A “strong guild” wouldn’t mind putting their best players up against the other 9 guilds’ (in their bracket) best players. That’s an actual competition. It’s not about MY guild, or somehow magically getting an advantage, it’s about taking away the automatic disadvantage FOR ALL GUILDS who are down a player or two. GW is definitely the culmination of how well a guild is run, I agree. ToD has become pay to win and is not a good indicator, as it doesn’t require skill, just based on who spends more gems. It does require a bit of organization, of course, as well as teamwork, but it is not on the same level as GW. @oninowon - you’re correct in questioning whether a guild should be rewarded for their efforts, and yes they absolutely should be. However, they shouldn’t be rewarded for another guild’s misfortune or handicap, and Top 27 would reduce that aspect immensely by making it more about each guild’s best players vs each other. It would also relieve pressure off of leaders and allow them to focus more on the event itself rather than the most important factor being whether or not their guild is full. Life events and weird stuff happens all the time, and it shouldn’t negate the efforts of an entire guild.
@IMMABAUS - Again with the “strong guilds” and “weak guilds” implications. A strong guild would welcome an even competition to truly test themselves. Why are you worried? There is no “punishment” by using Top 27, it’s in fact the exact opposite. It’s removing the punishment for random uncontrollable outliers and removing advantages that do not accurately depict the better team. It’s each guild’s best players against each other. That is true competition.
@Hemol - I personally agree that averaging the scores would be the most efficient way to change the scoring, but as you said, you’d have to remove the high and low scores. After discussing with other guild leaders and debating the possibilities, we determined that this would be more unfair and less fun in the long run because you’re eliminating the high scorer from each team, and it still doesn’t fix the problem of somebody leaving or being away on vacation. Again, you’re on the “weak guild/strong guild” bandwagon here, but where’s the logic in that? “Stronger” guilds will have higher average scores, and their top players will be better than “weaker” guilds, no? Why would a “stronger” guild have to rely on “weaker” guilds missing players? Why would a “stronger” guild oppose a fair and even competition??
You can skew the “maths” to fit your narrative, but why don’t you try using the math in context? You feel as if GUILD B is the more balanced team, correct? Now use all 30 scores for GUILD A and remove any 1 player from GUILD B. Now, the team you deemed as the more balanced guild would lose (not loose) instead. That is what’s unacceptable. The 29 players that did put in the effort, work together, and have an overall more balanced GW score didn’t win because of being at an automatic disadvantage regardless of their teamwork or effort. They didn’t lose because the other team was better, they lost because they were missing a player. Now if the Top 27 was in place, GUILD A wins because their Top 27 was better than GUILD B’s Top 27. Even playing field for all guilds involved, including the other 8 guilds not mentioned.
I can’t stress enough that this isn’t about MY GUILD, and the majority of the people opposing this need to realize that and put aside their personal agendas. This is about Gra - a guild with many great GW players who will always be in the top 5 even if they’re missing a player or two, but could easily take 1st or 2nd if they’re full. It’s about The Legion Kings - who struggle with bouncing between B1 and B2 because he often has players leave right before or during GW. It’s about Kell and GoT who just dropped a bracket because 3 people didn’t play last GW. Penguin Dizzy and the Misfits who also bounce between brackets due to similar circumstances. Santadrix and Nemesis who have the same issues. EVERY GUILD AND GUILD LEADER who experiences THE SAME ONGOING PROBLEM for years on end now. It’s a common problem that’s in desperate need of a solution.
I remind you all, again, that this idea wasn’t mine. It was thought of before I ever played the game. I presented this idea to many other guild leaders and asked if they were experiencing the same issues. It was a staggering YES from each and every one of them. It’s an issue that needed to be rectified years ago and still persists today.
Why would anybody fear to put their best players up against any other guilds’ best players? The only reason the rest of us can think of is that you’re not that confident in your players, and/or you’re banking on other guilds to be down players so you can rank higher. That’s not competition, that’s trying to stack the deck in your favor and take advantage of a flawed scoring system. Don’t fear a fair competition. Embrace it, welcome it, and encourage your guild to do The Best they can.
Or we could just have the Paragons fight it out, like Brad Pitt in Troy. One battle, winner take all.
My vote is 30/30, and my guild hasn’t yet had more than 22 warriors fight all their battles. We’ll get there. Or we won’t. Regardless, I never cared much for orange slices. As Captain Freedom said, Code of the Gladiators.
Good luck on your quest.
Why do you think 30 is the appropriate number? Would you care to elaborate?
“Code of the gladiators”?
While we all understand the concept of kill or be killed, and agree with it to an extent, it doesn’t seem to translate well to the GW event in Gems of War:
“Too bad, guys, somebody’s internet went out. You don’t deserve to win!”
“Vacation?! You take that vacation, and your whole team suffers! How dare you?”
“Hospital? Suck it up, buttercup, it’s GW week!”
“GW week!? My alt is going to set all firebomb defenses and not play a match. Try to win now, sucker!”
“Oh, the GL wants to win at GW? Well, see how he does when I leave on day 1 and they can’t replace me. That’ll show them!”
It’s the only skill-based competitive event in this game. An entire team shouldn’t lose, forfeit rewards, or suffer because of things out of their control. They should only lose because the other teams played the event better and had a higher score. The most crucial determining factor shouldn’t be troop count, it should be the score.
If you disagree with this analysis, please explain why 30 is the most accurate depiction of a team’s efforts, and support that claim with something other than backhanded insults or insinuations.
All guilds deal with those issues, so I don’t see it as a negative if one, or even several of my members took of during the week prior to Labor day.
For newer guilds navigating through the morass of dead guilds, it appears we jump more brackets when we score 130k than when we score 110k. And while we’ll have no chance to beat a top guild that earns a higher score bonus from their godlike sentinels, we might have a shot if half of them are off celebrating Bastille Day.
If it’s top 27, I still envision the bottom five not fighting all their battles, expecting either their scores not to count or not to make a significant difference.
I prefer 30/30 and let the devs focus on other things, but respect your attempt to change something I don’t feel needs changing. Good luck. 
So you just feel that your only shot to beat some of the higher ranking guilds is for them to be missing members?
Top 27 still gives you leeway because 3 of your missing members wouldn’t negatively count towards your overall team score, and while some guilds in your bracket (I don’t know which bracket you’re in) may be playing with 23-30 players, your scores aren’t based off of 30. It will make each position in the bracket more closely contested, in all brackets.
Say you had 22 members as you previously stated. In the current scoring system of all 30, you’d be at an 8 player deficit. With Top 27 you’d be at a 5 player deficit. The current scoring system almost doubles your disadvantage.
You may personally not care too much, as it seems GW is not your guild’s focus, but do you actually think 30 is a more accurate depiction of team efforts and the most fair way of determining who the better GW players are?
I understand you feel you don’t have a chance unless other teams are missing players, but that is exactly the reason it needs to be changed, and you seem to be overlooking the benefits of this implementation for all guilds.
We’re in Bracket 47, not B1 tho. Last Wars we had our first real competition since B88, another 30 person guild. I don’t know how many active players they had, but I was 10/7 as Champion on defense, and my brother as paragon was 16/4 as Paragon. So they only had 4 players go 5/0.
I think your proposal requires too much to implement, as some players fight their battles on the weekend. The top 27 scores for the entire week wouldn’t be known until after reset. Only the top 10 guild scores are visible after reset, so the other guilds wouldn’t even be able to verify if the tallys were accurate.
I prefer to see a daily total; I prefer to know every point matters. If I logged in on 1st day of Invasion to find my guild in 2nd after spending all week in 1st, I would not feel good. I feel the current model is the most fair and accurate method for determing the winner, and the most transparent.
IF really wanna see which guild got the best playerS (noticed the capital S i hope) then shareplay should be made impossible/bannable.
Pretty sure tho that then that some of “top guilds” will be mad.
However, no point bother waste time here either seen is basically a personal (or maybe of 2 ppls) request for personal reasons too.
Kinda hilarious any sport comparison, yes there’s the bench/reserves but pretty sure i’ve seen matches where the teams wasnt of same number and not for this they stop the match.
@ChunkyMono - The totals for GW is always calculated at the time of reset on Sunday/Monday. That’s how it works. Reset is the deadline for finishing all of the matches, and if somebody doesn’t finish by reset, their score is taken as-is. You can see your guild’s individual scores and your current bracket for the entire next week after GW, so everybody would be able to see their results, and of course they would be accurate. Why would the scores not be accurate or transparent if we implemented the Top 27?
The total at the end of the week is what matters. Some people can’t play until the weekend. The team that always finishes first in B1 (Phreekz) tend to play the majority of their matches on Sunday. Lots of people work and are unable to put the necessary time and effort into these matches during the week. The end result is what determines the winners. There are currently small bonuses for winning the day, and a constantly updated daily total screen you can see in your GW menu.
The devs did previously mention a client update would be needed to implement, but that was two years ago and still isn’t outrageous to consider when making the game more enjoyable for the majority of the player base.
@Micio - Why would shareplay take away from teamwork? Sports comparison is a good analogy because you won’t see a basketball game with 4 on 5. You can’t have an American football game with an unequal amount of players on the field. In Hockey, it’s common, but this is called a PENALTY, and is only temporary.
If we were able to substitute players in Gems of War for people who were unable to play (for whatever reason) that would solve the problem as well. However, that could lead to more manipulation of the system and the inevitability that people would find a way to use it to their advantage would just create more problems down the line. Implementing a Top 27 scoring system seems to be the most fair and reasonable way to account for personal issues, internet problems, malicious intent, and evening the field to make an overall more enjoyable experience for the players.
Again, it replaces filling your guild as the #1 determining factor in your opportunity to win with actually focusing on teamwork and strategy. The event is supposed to be all about teamwork and strategy. If your strategy is to gain every advantage possible and encourage misfortune among your opponents, I think you’re missing the point of a competition.
ive always wanted a 5 player bracket 10 20 and 30
We tossed around this idea too.
It would be fun for a very occasional event, but overall we think that using only 2/3rd or less of your team takes too much away from the team aspect of GW.
For something maybe every 3 or 4 months with massive rewards? I think that would be an awesome idea to take your top 5, 10, or 15 against the other guilds’ top players! Definitely something to consider in my opinion.
While I was out and about, I realized I was wrong about the bracket scoring. If the score was based upon the top 27 scores, then I imagine that score would be the one listed and not the score of everyone in the guild. (up to 30)
Also, I must acknowledge that it would be easier to beat a more established guild under the top 27 score proposal.
And lastly, if, hypothetically speaking, dead guild bracket winners currently jump 1 bracket per 100k pts, then perhaps they would hypothetically jump 1 bracket per 99k pts on a 27 person score implementation. (Hypothetically)
GW still wouldn’t be fair; it can’t be. My guild could fight the worst six guilds while your guild fights the six best. We could fight back to back wars and not fight each other. Good on you @theBest for trying to come up with a more fair system.
I’m not sure it would be “easier” to beat a more established guild, as their Top 27 scores would likely be higher than less experienced players’, but the point is that all guilds at least have an equal opportunity at first place. Rather than the amount of players who are able to play that week being the most important and determining factor, it puts more emphasis on the scores of those who played.
Thank you for clarifying your previous messages and for the compliments. Again, though, I can’t take credit for coming up with this idea. It was suggested before I even played the game. I’m just advocating for the many other guild leaders who feel that this implementation would be The Best solution to the ongoing issue with the current GW scoring format.
Cheers!
Brackets definately need to be 6 guilds not 10. Also another solution which would solve most but not all issues would be to allow someone to join gw later and fight wars that have not been fought.
Say your at 30 beginning of the week and someone leaves day 2, then you could bring someone in to finish, etc etc.
We believe that although being able to replace a player would definitely help the situation, it would only be a band-aid fix that could potentially bring on its own problems.
We haven’t really discussed reducing the amount of teams in each bracket, so I can’t speak for the others, but I personally don’t see 10 teams per bracket as an issue.
The most glaring issue seems to be the scoring format.