I’m happy with anything above 7k at this point.
1 Like
If knowing the exact formula is not something that will be given, how about a compromise?
Let us know what the max theoretical and/or practical points for each GW fight. If a fight is 300 base points, and if a player were to score maximum scores for each multiplier, let us know what that number is, 1400, 1500, 1650, etc…
Just a thought.
1 Like
Why shouldn’t the exact formula been given? There is nothing that justifies that.
2 Likes
I don’t think that’s a fair or accurate statement. The devs have given their reasons, such as a reduction in support tickets. While many of us would give different weight to the deciding factors and make a different final decision, that doesn’t mean they haven’t thought this through or justified it to themselves (and the portion of the community that agrees with the secrecy).
1 Like
That is a good point. When the new scoring was announced, I was conscious of exactly this type of decision. For example, if I was ready for the deathblow on the AI’s final troop, do I take the 3 skull match to end it quickly or take the available 4-matches to max out my mana? It’s a fair question, but realistically, the impact of such a choice is going to be really minimal - like a reduction of 3 points for speed if I take the mana first, with a miniscule increase in mana bonus. And the only way that anyone would ever be able to calculate the difference in mana bonus is to somehow track all mana collected by both sides all the way through the battle. Who’s got time for that?
This is something that I’ve seen multiple people say, but I just don’t see it myself. If I use less than 4 x-colour troops, there is a big impact on the score, but that is predictable. If my battle takes a long time, I see the impact. If I squeak out a win where I take a lot of damage or the other team was able to loop a few times and get a lot of mana, I see the impact. Maybe it has something to do with the teams I use, but I just don’t know. I use a different strategy just about every day and the scores always seem reasonable to me.
The Devs gave us enough hints and info, seriously don’t expect them to spell everything out for you… oh and stop crying.
3 Likes
if you dont have a good idea how the scoring works by now I would suggest the exact formula is not going to help you much.
for those who have failed to pay attention in order of importance.
Mono colour
not losing troops (more than one)
fast
not losing any troops
damage (lots more than opponent)
mana (lots more than opponent)
All these hypotheticals people are throwing up… are you seriously telling me after fifteen actions you know how much mana you have collected, how much much mana the AI has collected?
If you dont know the above the formula is not going to help. If you do know the above you have probably worked out the formula by now.
seems like people have decided there is an issue of transparency and just fixated upon it.
One of my guiding principals in life is everyone is incompetent (myself included). GOW devs let bugs through… so does Blizzard… so does microsoft… so does everyone.
overall the GOW devs are pretty competant.
more important is that they are genuine and they are clearly trying to make the game better. They have avoided pay to win and have done a great job of managing the game.
they do a good job and we should not forget that!!!
end rant
3 Likes
Personally, I don’t care about the code - I want clarity. I want to know how we can improve rather than just guessing. I want to know what I did right so I can help others. I want the points to reflect objective skill rather than subjective forms to finish a battle. That’s what sickens me and may result in quitting playing this game.
4 Likes
but it is objective skill. Build a fast team get a better score.
I saw something about four matches being a better indicator… and in some ways it is but it will just change the meta to gem tranformers. Is that better?
Personally I would say it is just different and personally I will continue to welcome any change to scoring that shakes up the meta teams.
1 Like
This is a double edged approach.
They haven’t given us all the needed details and info (the formula itself is wrong, or incomplete), seriously, they shouldn’t expect we will be fine with it.
… It’s our opinion and is just as valid as of those who do not care about GW or their performance. But we do.
Crying is defined in a different manner.
2 Likes
I really like this game, but I have lost the will to play in the last month. Guild Wars, it’s very confusing for me. Please listen to the players, and improve this.
2 Likes
No, it is not. How many moves you need to win a battle has nothing to do with skill.
The single most powerful factor deciding if a game can be won fast is the starting board.
If I run a super strong purple team like Hellcat - Infernus - Elemaugrim - Queen Aurora, it makes a huge amount of difference for how fast I can win the battle if there is a purple match-5 to be made on the first turn, or if there is no yellow or purple match to be made to fill hellcat. The first will allow me to immediately get my loop going and win the game super fast, but the second slows me down considerably.
But it’s the same team so this isn’t about my team building skills, this is just about the RNG giving me a good or a bad roll with the starting board.
3 Likes
agreed it is a random game.
just makes it more skillful not less over 30 games.
you need to have a team that profits from a good starting position, an ok starting position and a bad starting position
1 Like
It’s very clearly a combination of skill and luck. There’s absolutely skill involved in crafting a team and playing the board well. There’s also luck involved in starting board and sky falls.
That’s what you get with puzzle quest. Don’t like it then the game isn’t for you.
I agree but this is Gems of War brudda lol
Compare it with GW 1.0 - that had very clear rules. I have no problem working the RNG element. It’s just that I want to know what I’m doing since it’s so many factors into it at the moment.
2 Likes
That’s not the point I’m trying to make. What I am trying to say is that if the troops used are the same then a good starting board will always win a battle quicker than a bad starting board. Obviously Hellcat - Infernus - Elemaugrim - Queen Aurora will still be quite succesful with a bad starting board. That’s not the point. The point is that the inclusion of “speed to win the battle” in the GW score increases the RNG influence on the competitions result because of the influence of RNG on the starting board. So essentially this part of the GW score measures RNG luck far more than player skill.
2 Likes
That is an opinion which I disagree with.
Good vs bad starting board is like 40 points and usually corrects within 5 boards.
Terrible starting board and sky falls equals loss and that is 1400 points. This is the biggest source of variance. This is the same now and previously and is just part of the game
A “fast” vs “slow” team is 150 points per day with good vs bad player generating similar
And with a good starting board I can often prevent the AI from making many moves, thus decreasing its chances of getting a huge cascade and consequently I’m not losing the battle. Which is basically just me being lucky gettng a good starting board and winning the game fast so the AI doesn’t make a lot of moves…
2 Likes
But the diisappointing thing about this topic (because I like the discussion so far quite a lot) is that the topic is already three days old and I’ve not seen any developer response. Very disappointing IMHO (and quite a shift from maybe a year ago when developer presence on the forums was way more visible)…
Tagging them again…
@Sirrian @Nimhain @Andrew @Vexx @Saltypatra @Alpheon @GoldPhoenix0
3 Likes