Can you clarify exactly what you think is being kept secret? I know there are some very specific wrinkles in terms of what gets counted as damage or mana, but they’ve been very clear about what the 4 components are and explicitly stated the formulas. It was so clear that people were able to identify 2 bugs in the formula which the devs quickly corrected (the famous “mid-week correction” that happened in the first 12 hours of the new system being out).
2 Likes
And i sent you a response
I’m not in a position to judge your relative competence. In this case, given how much effort you have put into studying the GW scoring system, you might have a leg up on him.
In any case, having a discussion of “what is fair?” is fair. The maximums of 4x ratio for the damage and mana calculations is at least somewhat arbitrary, but any number would be. Increasing the ratios would favor certain play styles while penalizing others. Reducing the maximum ratio would do likewise. There will be no system that everyone agrees will be perfectly fair. I’m content with a system where scoring is relatively predictable but the outcome is subject to the same randomness that every battle is subject to. Over a reasonable period of time and sufficient battles, the random noise of lucky drops will equalize and the cumulative scores will reward those who plan and play better under whatever system is in place.
Edit to add:
This is another area where the existing system is somewhat arbitrary. The devs have chosen to reward finishing a battle with 4 troops. You appear to value finishing the battle without losing any troops as a show of quality. I can see that side of the argument, but I also find it impressive when one of my wife’s teams takes an absolute beating from an opponent but is able to continuously summon and resurrect to replace lost troops until she grinds the opponent down to nothing. In those battles, the AI would be reduced to tears from frustration if it had any feelings. Which approach is better in terms of being a “good player”? I don’t know, but I think ending a battle with 4 troops is a reasonable compromise on that front, so I wouldn’t take anything away from you for losing a troop that you were able to replace.
3 Likes
That’s exactly what I believe is a good course of action.
… Because right now - players have no idea what they are aiming for. Which means - it is not fair. Being awarded more points for “unknown” factors is … probably not fair. But I don’t think it is fun, if anything.
And I absolutely agree with you, @Stan . It’s hard to say who is a better player. And that’s why I think promoting fast teams was not a good thing to do.
But now - even the good players have no idea if they are still good or not. This time, it’s more like… beating your opponent and still having no idea if you won or not. Even if the point differences are not as huge, they can add up. And while they haven’t had the time to become visibly important, the time may come one day.
3 Likes
Right, and I think the devs agree with you, so they diminished the importance of speed by increasing the turn count from 50 to 30. And I know that Sirrian said that they increased the importance of speed, but by taking the counter from 30 to 50, they now allow for a player to get a 50% bonus in 25 turns instead of 15, or a player that finishes a battle in 5 actions will now get a 90% bonus instead of 83%. They may have also increased the relative weight of it, but that’s a different story.
Peterix, I love the work and effort you’re putting toward this. Just had to say that cause I know what my response would have been at this point.
1 Like
Speaking for myself, not necessarily for my guild. I find it ironic that so many shot down the “boycott spending” thread, and yet are in favour of effectively boycotting GW by colluding. I’m very disappointed that the scoring is not more transparent, and whole-heartedly support a call to have the details revealed. But I don’t think the suggested “protest” is the right way to address things, nor do I believe some of the other claims being made (that the new system is worse overall, or that the devs didn’t listen to our feedback). All I want to see is more transparency and two-way communication, and the rest will sort itself out.
1 Like
Not sure if I understood correctly.
… You mean … like … Seeing the data? I mean, I don’t see a problem with that, but I think I cannot really paste the file here. Some people already asked me for it - but I had to share it through different platform.
I’m still kinda new to features of this forum, so if there is a way, do tell … I don’t see why not =)
Otherwise, I guess I’ll have to resolve it through PMs as I tried with our bruda @Vangor.
The lack of transparency bothers me greatly. I don’t mind getting a poor score, but I need to know why I got the poor score.
Today my scores varied between 1320 and 1460. My highest scoring match was the only one where I lost a troop.
Time for me to retire from GW for a while.
4 Likes
Look, personally, I don’t mind the new scoring. I forgot they changed the base score and was a bit miffed when I got 1,20xx. Maybe I was slow. 
But, it appears to still function as a ranking system.
I like that more weight is again placed on the later battles.
I think people are also thinking that they’re maxing the mana/damage bonus easily, when they’re not. In a battle where I kill 4x with 100HP each, if the AI gets a Krystenax (30AOE) cast off plus some skulls, the max damage ratio is quickly lost.
The real issue with the scoring is that it’s incredibly hard to rank players on skill when it takes so little to actually succeed in the first place.
As I’ve said before you can’t take RNG out of this game, it is built around it. 
4 Likes
Were you aware of the change in scoring that Sirrian announced in the weekly event thread? Base scores now go from 250 to 350 (increasing by 25 each time) per battle, so there should be variation (progressively upward) even if you had 5 identical battles.
1 Like
@Stan the dev have stated on numerous occasions that they will not disclose the exact formula that your score is calculated. There are other variables they are keeping secret.
4green last night got me 1250. No troop loss or damage received. Very quick game. Thought that was Crap for the game I just played tbh.
Next battle decided to go seer spider kracken x2.
1 Like
1450 points with 3 troops loss and kracken my only survivor. Yep this scoring makes perfect sense. Lmao
2 Likes
Couldn’t have said it much better.
Myself and a few others tried many different configurations last week to break down the scoring system.
What baffles the fk out of me is how I can use less troops of the day’s colour and finish the battle with only two troops remaining, coming out only 100-200 different than if I played a strategic game using all of one colour and keeping all alive.
How the fudge is that rewarding my skill with using troops of the one colour like it was originally cast??
Let’s face it, glad it’s back, but the scoring has been fudged so that the key mashing, 4x speed players can still come out on top without pausing to use one’s head.
Way to break what was imo, the best aspect of GoW… and there are those that are chiming up in this post that we can point a finger to for having this system as it is now compared to how GoW was.
So… cheers people.
1 Like
Next battle 4 green no troop loss back down to 12**. Shakes head
1 Like
What do we know and what do we not know?
We know:
Base score for winning (300 last week; 250 to 350 depending on progress this week);
Bonus for using # of troops of daily colour (stated by devs to be unchanged from previous system);
4 factors used to determine other bonuses (speed, damage ratio, mana ratio, # of troops still standing);
Speed formula (counting down from 30 actions last week, 50 this week);
Definition of an action (any spell cast or gem match where the player has to act - doesn’t count cascades);
Damage ratio (maximum bonus if player damage inflicted is 4x greater than AI damage inflicted);
Mana collection ratio (same as damage ratio);
Number of troops still standing (bonus increases to a maximum of 4, presumably a minimum of 1 if you won).
What don’t we know:
Relative weighting of bonuses;
Whether damage inflicted is counted before or after damage reduction/damage bonus traits;
Whether spillovers of either mana or damage count;
Whether a couple of specific instakill traits (Archer and Assassin) are treated like Deathmark (counting for zero damage) or whether they count as maximum damage.
I may be missing a few things on the list of things that we don’t know. If I am, please share, but the list of things that I do know is plenty for me to plan and execute my battles, and my results for the last few days have been well within a reasonable range of what I expect. Small sample, I know, and I’m sure I unconsciously use a particular play-style that will tend to limit the range of possibilities.
@Stan ask a developer the exact formula. They will refuse you point blank. Reason I know is I asked saltypetra straight out to tell exactly what the formula was and hisanswer was they where not going to tell the whole formula. So go ask a dev see what they say.
If they told you, you’d share right?
And you would believe them right?
Because its competitive right?
And linked guilds and player pooling thats part of the competition too right?
Clear where I go wrong lol
2 Likes
The OP is an collective effort, not individual. Keep focus on that rather than anger towards a specific guild.
5 Likes