Top 27 Guild Wars Score Implementation

@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.

2 Likes

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!

1 Like

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.

2 Likes

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.

Actually they do exactly that!! in the olympics and in many competitive sports… where for example an athlete gets 3 runs and each is scored, but for the final tally they factor only the top 2 scores and throw out the lowest score… lmao

1 Like

That may apply to individual sports, but rarely in team sports. Gymnastics Team All-around is the only one possibly that leaves out the “worst” scores.

If a player on one team becomes unavailable - regardless of the reason - during a game, the other team is not penalized by forcing a player on their side to not play (or worse their effort to not count). The team with a loss must figure out a way to win. Football (not the American kind) and hockey are just two examples of sports in which shorthanded teams must continue playing.

Back to the OP… my view is that this proposal is totally unnecessary. GW scoring is about the overall team and not individuals. Every guild is at risk to losing or missing players any given week. The proposal does not “even the playing field” since it is already even. It actually penalizes full guilds by disallowing scores that should be counted.

6 Likes

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

If a player on one team becomes unavailable, they are able to be replaced. We can’t do this in Gems of War. Again, have you ever seen a basketball game played 4 on 5? Why not? There’s 12 players on a basketball team, but do all of them have to play? If 1-3 players score 0 points, does it negatively effect the team? In American football, there’s up to 53 players on a team. I’m sure you get the point, no? In Soccer and Hockey, as stated earlier, one team being down a player is referred to as a PENALTY, and is only temporary. So, even in your example it’s literally called a “penalty” to be in a situation where the other team has more players.

Do you believe 29 vs 30 is even?

Where is the penalty? The team with 29 or 30? The guild with 30 players is not penalized in any way. The team of 29 players is penalized for somebody leaving, going on vacation, or whatever the reason may be.

If 4 teams are based on 30 scores, 2 based on 29, 3 based on 28, and 1 based on 27 - how is this even and fair? If the scores were based on the Top 27 players for EACH AND EVERY TEAM, where is the penalty? How is this uneven?

I agree 100% that GW scoring should be about the whole team and not individuals, that is the entire purpose of changing the flawed scoring system. One person missing has too much effect on the team’s score and end ranking in GW. 29 players get penalized too much for a single person not contributing, for whatever reason.

Would you not welcome a fair and even competition? Do you have to rely on other guilds missing players for your guild to rank higher? Please try to see the bigger picture.

I do agree with some of your points to an extent, though, and that’s why I personally believe 27 is a better solution than 25. There comes a point where having too many players missing should be a detriment. 1 player missing just holds too much weight in the current system, and it takes away from the purpose of the event. Filling your guild is the #1 priority and the most crucial determining factor under the current system. It shouldn’t be.

1 Like

You keep using the word “fair” when “fairness” is the last thing you care about.

And about the “shareplay = teamwork”, i wonder then why Verstappen dont qualify with both cars every race (ik last race Albon did well but was quite an exception)? would be completely fair and just a good example of teamwork, at least from your way of thinking.

In every game (ok, was different kind of game, mostly mmorpg’s, but same thing, guild vs guild) i played so far every GvG was LOT less Fair and with way less “even playing field” than we got there.

Let alone it’s called WAR also, not “The Best “Fair” Basketball Tournament With Custom Rules” (like, my team is Russell Westbrook and 4 clones of him ;3) and on wars **** happens.

1 Like

Why do you keep flagging my posts best? Just because what I say makes sense and you don’t want my opposition posts to be seen?

This change won’t go through and nobody agrees with your gws dreams and wishes. Just give it up and spend your time getting ready for the next war rather than trying to ram your ideas down everyone’s throat.

@Micio - please explain to me how advocating for an even scoring format for all guilds is evidence of fairness being “the last thing I care about”.

Shareplay is teamwork. I’m not sure how it can be seen any other way? Would you care to elaborate on how this doesn’t equate to teamwork?

This isn’t real war, it’s a game. Real life happens and 30 people can’t realistically be expected to always be available every GW, nor can we always be punished and penalized for malicious intent beyond our control. These are not my “rules”, it’s a proposal to change the scoring format, and it’s not even my idea. There is no proposed rule change. The idea was initially presented two years ago, before I played the game. Obviously the current system (still in place years later) is flawed and it was recognized before I had even made an account. It has nothing to do with me or my guild, but rather the same common problems almost every guild leader faces come GW time. I’m not sure how you arrived at cloning players and stacking teams, but nothing even remotely close to that has ever been suggested.

@IMMABAUS your flagged posts are flagged because they’re off-topic and ad hominem. Once you google that phrase, maybe you’ll understand? @Lyya specifically stated she didn’t want this thread to devolve again into off-topic ad hominem.

Many people agree with this proposal that was presented and agreed upon years ago. In fact, 76% of the voting player base agreed. The 4-5 guild leaders I presented a similar idea to are the ones that made me aware of the Top 27 proposal from years ago, and suggested that WE stick with that, as it seemed the most fair and reasonable way to solve a lot of issues. The majority have already posted their support. Those opposed are clearly just hoping for that last bit of leverage they can take advantage of to rank a little higher and get a few extra gems. Well, in all honesty, most opposed just don’t like me and are putting their fingers in their ears and sticking out their tongue like children. This is why there is no logical debate, just selfish spam posts littered with weak insults and insinuations.

Let’s recap:
-NOT my idea
-MANY agree
-NOT about my guild
-29 vs 30 is uneven
-27 vs 27 is even

If you want to even make an attempt at having an actual discussion or debate, address the points I’ve made and tell me where they’re flawed. Use your big boy words, try to use some logic, some reasoning, and refrain from the childish banter. Set aside your obvious intent and make a case to keep it the same rather than change to Top 27.

1 Like

I did not read every post so maybe it was mentioned

But has anyone thought about how it’ll work daily vs weekly
Say 29/30 do it Tuesday with the 30th on Friday

Does the 29 total count for the daily win, or do they take out 2 lowest scores and then add in the 30th accordingly later
Or do they count as the full score until Sunday when it does a mass calculation

I’m all for the change, but the logistics need to be planned out carefully ahead of time
I’m sure it’s

The details still obviously need to be worked out, but we should probably leave that type of stuff to the developers. They may have to do it in a particular way due to software or something we don’t know about.

In theory, it would just update as you go, as it currently does, but will only take the top 27 scores. The daily win will be based off of whichever team scores higher by reset on that day, just as it does now. If your 30th guy plays Tuesday’s match on Friday and scores in the top 10, it won’t count for the daily win bonus, but will obviously count for your daily totals.

As it is now, you can lose the day (the bonuses) by having a player or two not completing their matches on that particular day, but still end up beating that team once all your players finish if your scores are higher than theirs.

Does that make sense?

Sure
I’m not saying I’m confused
I’m saying it would take a lot of forethought and programming
So people just need to think of the whole picture
It’s easy to say we want 27 top scores
But we need to think about implementation and side effects, less some get mad when it isn’t implemented quite how they expected
Get it right the first time if u want the full potential of a positive change

NOT my idea
-MANY agree
-NOT about my guild
-29 vs 30 is uneven
-27 vs 27 is even

Ok I will debate all of your points.

#1 - you can’t say that it’s not your idea when in fact you created this thread with the proposal.

#2 maybe many do agree, but many more obviously disagree

#3 it is about your guild because dothraki is constantly down a member half way through the week. For obvious reasons.

#4 this is the only one that is correct 29/30 is uneven. But let’s not penalize other guilds who have all 30 players playing and take away the bottom scores just because a guild doesn’t have reliable players. Life isn’t fair and not everyone gets a participation ribbon.

#5 27/27 is not actually an even number. Even numbers end with 0,2,4,6,8.

1 Like

@Micio @IMMABAUS

Let it go. You’re not going to budge him and he hasn’t heard a word some of us have shown, with math mind you, that there IS in fact a penalty to guilds that maintain 30/30. He’s responded to every critique or opposing opinion with a verbatim set of talking points. His 51 responses make up more than 1/3 of the entire “discussion” and shows how strongly he’s set on convincing everyone.

This is all the evidence you need that he’s completely written off any opposition and won’t accept any opposing debate:

For the record I’ve never interacted with the guy prior to this thread, but any excuse to discredit opposing view points I guess.

Finally, I’ve realized we don’t have to defend 30/30 so ardently anyway, so we can just walk away. Seeing that the devs created the system to be 30/30 and it has yet to be changed, the 27/30 crowd has the uphill battle & burden of proof as to why it should be changed. Not the other way around. If it hasn’t been changed in the last 2 years or due to the last several threads of this kind, i’m not expecting this one to be the catalyst that brings the change about.

Let this thread fall into obscurity like all the others before it. It’s run it’s course. Time to move on.

6 Likes