It sounds like this is really only an issue in Bracket 1.
So when you say something like “we as players yada yada yada…”
What you really mean is “us 300 people in Bracket 1 GW.”
Please don’t hijack the rest of us into your crusade.
I for one would prefer the devs devote their time on issues that actually affect the entire player base.
Not being in Bracket One or even close does not includes me into such “I don’t care.”
I care because it’s not a matter if it affects my guild or not.
I care because it’s the right thing to do even if i don’t like GW.
And i think WE should care if some great players are missing their chance to compete in fair ground because two or more groups of scumbags, i mean… guilds… decided to rig the competition everytime they are paired together.
Honestly i have to wonder why the devs simply doesn’t add a small code to hide, completely, the names of the guilds, players and teams you will face each week? If the players can’t be trusted to chose what is right, then it must be enforced for them…
Lol… So if it only effects 300 players and not the rest. F them then right?
Awesome mentality man. Kudos to you on that.
I can only hope that’s what they intend to do in the next update.
But there’s 3 different platforms with different gw systems. That’s 900 people. The op isn’t on my platform, but there are people in console land who worry about this too. Even if the other console has no suspicions, that’s still 600 players. When it you add it up that’s a big enough number whose concerns deserve to be heard.
I’m in bracket 1 and I won’t miss guild wars at all. Hopefully the raids will give us yet another new way to play, mono is pretty stale, I want to build fun teams to use. Like what can deal the most power or last the longest.
Since you haven’t interviewed everybody who plays, you’re wrong.
I personally refuse to access the GW feature to its fullest because it is so broken and exploited by collusion and obvious exploits that I see no point.
So now I just pound my way through with no thought at all to performance, because I feel it is an utter waste of time. I cannot tell you the number of times I’ve been screwed out of the rightful benefit of my thoughtful and time consuming play.
Collusion and direct cheating has ruined the part of the game that players are required to participate in, as most guilds require GW play.
I know fighting fire with fire is a valid tactic in many things but to project one’s own feelings and presume to speak for a larger group in an attempt to condemn someone else for the same behavior seems somewhere between ironic and hypocritical. But I’m leaning toward hypocritical…
You have virtually no way to prove anything. Except the most ridiculously obvious.
If the cheater weighs the same as a duck, that means they are made of wood.
And, therefore?
A cheater!
Good point. I’ll make changes to my original post!
The collusion by others has stopped our Guild from ever having a chance at anything higher than 5th place in Bracket 1. Guilds we easily beat play against their sister guild, shoot past us in scoring, and we lose 100-500 gems. So, Devs, we are getting hurt. Furthermore, when you look at the weekly results, and a guild loses 25-35 games per day, but then only loses 4 against their sister guild, maybe you can see what the rest of us know. Finally, why don’t you hide the guild names when we set up our defense teams for the week? Lock it in. Stops the colluding. It is simple.
They could also show what each guild scores for each day instead of just a weekly figure
I feel you @awryan and I read your letter with the respect that a big veteran of this game deserves.
This week I happened to lose matches where I could make only one move, it’s not great indeed.
But, quoting @eika a game is made of winning and losing and endgamers wouldn’t lose if not because of crazy RNG hurricanes or hideous goblin loops, IMO.
I agree. It’s hard to find a really good balance to keep the AI challenging.
Guild Wars isn’t decided by wins and losses though. It’s decided by total points. So they could make the AI in that department only… Less of an Ahole. Which will increase in the amount of wins for everyone. But the people that score the highest in points will be based on player skills and troops build. Rather than those who randomly get luckier than others. And therefore, actually more competitive and engaging than the present model.
Sadly it wouldn’t help too much… In general players would surely have more wins and points if we would have a dumber/unlucky A.I. It would mean that everyone, even skilled players would lose less points and not be hindered by anything. There is a limit for skill in this game and it’s not very high…
If GW would require more planning and skill it would need a really great rework, basically a new game by itself with things such as:
Not to say that people don’t plan and try to be specialized inside their own guilds, but even that kind of dedication and skill have a limit, and that means others can only reach the same level of skill but not go beyond because there are few variables and it’s an one side battle, players versus AI…
I think, even if collusion only hurts the top 1%, it’s important. That top 1% represents the most passionate players about the game and I am certain most of them have spent more money on the game this month than I intend to spend in my life. If they quit, some bad things trickle down to everyone. I don’t like that the devs might be distracted by something I’ll never participate in, but this is kind of indicative of a lot of problems we have in society: “I’m not in that group” doesn’t mean I benefit if they suffer.
I don’t like player bans, dissolving guilds, nerfs, and many other ‘easy’ solutions for things that happen via emergent gameplay.
It is clear players want to form guilds that are larger than 30 members. I think it’s also clear guild rewards get weird if we let 60-player or larger guilds exist. Too many players in guilds and the current seal/task structure breaks. So players are splitting into “sister” guilds. Suspicion of collusion happens because these sister guilds can face off against each other.
Maybe players should be able to form “alliances” that consist of multiple guilds. Guilds within the same alliance won’t be paired with each other in GW. Somehow, ranking would have to be adjusted because this gets weird as “guilds close in rank” should probably face off against each other.
Maybe guild rewards should be adjusted to allow 60+ members. The current structure works OK for 30. Maybe being a 60-person guild should introduce some new level of tasks that’s more expensive but yields better rewards. That’d encourage dumb people to make mostly-empty 60-person guilds, but hey, it’s a problem we already have with 30-person guilds and probably doesn’t have a solution.
I like these approaches better than witch hunts and accusations because long-term, it is easier for the devs to try and find a way to support larger-than-30-person guilds than it is to investigate every screenshot and transcript for evidence of collusion.
This is a “growth issue” for GoW. Maybe at some time, 30 was a good limit for guilds based on the game’s size. It’s clearly bigger now, so it’s time to reevaluate.
The reason I’ve ventured away from the “Collusion debate”… Is because the devs said they have a plan to keep it from ever happening again. All we can do right now is be patient and wait for the update that will reveal that plan. It also helps to hope that those that cheat burn in hell. Hope those couple extra hundred gems are worth it “bro” (females can cheat too).
Alliances could work but only if all guilds would start each week with no bracket and no score, a “ground zero” and make the climb as they can. Otherwise these alliances would just be an “acceptable collusion” .
60 players guilds would be “sort of easy” to adapt from the devs point of view, but it would be incredibly hard to be managed by the players i believe.
The players who already use out-of-game logistics to coordinate rigging Guild Wars? 
I’ve watched people manage dozens of players over months to produce a single ship in EVE Online. If we hired online gamers to be people leaders, we’d have fewer shitty managers haha.