Would GW defense rework be enough?


#1

The current idea for the new GW defense is to give 500 GW points for each unique troops that one player will put in their defense, for a total of 12k.

500 points versus META team:
First at all, why reworking the GW defense? Avoid META teams on two ways:

  • multiple copies of a same troop in one team
  • using the same team several days

But are 500 points enough to make a change of mind? I don’t think so.
For example, Wisp/Wisp/Krys/Mab will make loose only 500 points so it will be a tradeoff between these 500 points and putting a well-known META (ie potential higher defense ratio). Let’s take the most extreme case: Paragon. This guy could be fought by the 30 invaders. And if someone loose against the Paragon defense team, this invader will loose at least 1000 points. Difficult to know how much META/not-META will impact the defense ratio. And note that loosing 500 points for the whole week will only make loose invaders for one day.

  • easy solution is to increase to 1000 points so it become even more difficult to see a benefict to put META teams.
  • another one is to put daily rule: if you put two same troops in your team on one day the bonus is cancelled so you will loose 500 more points than usual.

No 27 best scores
And it’s maybe why devs cannot push the “27 best scores” at the same time (if we assume that the defense bonus points are added to the player score). Because you can decide that your Paragon will be one of the 3 “in vacancies” players and so on, he could put only META teams. It’s not totally true: even if Paragon loose 10k defense points, he can still make a better score than another player with a perfect defense score.
One easy solution is to put the defense bonus points directlly to the total GW points of the guild (and not of the player). So even defense points of players “in vacancies” will count.

A new Luck factor:
Okay let’s assume now that you want to max your defense bonus points, we will tend to 6 META teams, META being more or less strong depending of the team. To who are you going to put your worst META team (ie Kraken or Wisp)? Let’s assume that guild names are hidden so no bully can be done (ie “several guilds put the most difficult META versus Guild X”).
But will your results not depend too much on how many easy teams you will face? We have already this luck factor about the schedule: you can face the top 3 of the previous week or none of them according to your schedule. And we can see a deviation on a same color day according to the guild that you’re facing (higher the guild in the leaderboard, harder the fights are). It’s maybe less and less true as now everyone are using META teams, but not every guild can maxed their sentinel.
So during a same day you will see some deviation between guildmembers according to the defense team difficulty (which is already the case now but it should be worst with the rework). In fact, if you’re super unlucky, you could face only META teams during all the week…
Here not so much solution aside raising your karma to be luckier :wink: .


#2

That seems like a good idea and it would be cool to see that in effect.


#3

First of all i would like to say i do not support this “anti-meta” rework. But i thinl you are right… I will gladly give up 500 points if, as paragon i can put up troll/kraken every day since i seem to be one of the few who can beat this team.

Second, this

Ummm… Really? This is a very peculiar potential allegation wouldn’t you say? I would think that for strategic purposes you would want to set your best defense against your best opponent. So you kinda need to see what guild you are setting each defense for. Besides, who would cheat by colluding with opposing guilds? Seems like something that would never happen…

I would actually prefer to face meta all week… I had only one non-meta team today and it was rock troll (i think) jarl b.manacles fire giant. That was the only team i had even a slight issue with. (My lead troop got whacked in that one)

The other 4 battles were all troll/kraken… I, of course, wookie stomped them lol.

So in conclusion, i think you are making a mountain out of a molehill brah…


#4

I didn’t say “intentional bully” (maybe bully is by definition intentinal in which case it will not be the good word… but I don’t see a better one :stuck_out_tongue: ). And you give the issue just afterwards:

Which guild is the “best opponent”? Surely, the guild which was 1st the previous week. So, according to your point, this guild will face the worst META teams for each day. No need for a collusion for that.
One can say that it could be a good thing (ie difficulty somewhat increases if you have a good last week rank), or one can say that it’s somewhat a sort of bully (maybe not the good word as said before)…

Yeah surely, but there is so few discussion on this forum… 1 hour of devs’s Q&A and only few comments on the forum…


#5

Cuz that would be wrong wouldn’t it…


#6

or the guild who got assigned the most vulnerable color towards that meta team this week
that way, assuming if whispkraken for example is most effective against (just shooting random color here) purple teams - the purple will get it, and so since every guild gets to be purple once - every guild gets it eventually


#7

The GW change still won’t affect my meta for PVP anyways. More options should be given to players.

Myself, i’d like to be able to list 5 troops I don’t wanna face (and can’t use) and the choice to check: I want to play with troops restricted to 1 or not.

This way I can customize my experience.
Some will say: oh Venar, you want easy mode!
You know what, if you like playing Kraken and Wisp all day, be my guest, keep your challenge.
With a list we could all enhance the game experience to our taste.


#8

just for my personal taste i think i could even agree to a gold % penalty just to ban some units


#9

Do you mean less gold won from the match? I can’t see that motivating any one. I wouldn’t care if I got 0 gold from a GW match. Gold is plentiful at mid to end game.


#10

Yup.
I share this game with my daughters. They both have started to play less, and the reason for them
is Mab .
If they could just play Gems of war without Mab, they’d enjoy it more.
Myself, it’s more the Kraken currently, I am forced to use a bottom impervious troop in all my deck.
It would be fun to be able to log in , and have a play session without the guy from time to time…


#11

I get enjoyment from figuring out ways of countering different troops. Mab, kraken, and wisp are all good troops but nothing is unbeatable. Finding ways of beating all those and then improving it to make it faster and easier is one of my favorite things.


#12

Too much hassle. I mostly want the brainless-after-work-chill-bashing.
Only for GW I have to activate ‘thinking’; in regular pvp I don’t care about losing… I don’t lose often anyway.
And on days like today (red GW day) I only needed to think what two red troops to put under Wisp and Wisp xD Some random high dmg dealer that just must fit the colors (means no purple) and clean what Wisp can’t reach anymore. I actually thought to counter Famine with Desdemona (double true damage and extra turn) but the ever-casting Wisps killed Famine before I even needed extra damage from the actual damage dealers.

Red and Purple days are covered by Wisp/Wisp/random/random - brainless team
Green and Blue days by Krys/Krys/random/random (one random with purple) - not so brainless, since the enemy actually gets more turns to have luck; but rather easy
Leaves Yellow and Brown. Have a half decent brainless team for Yellow but Brown sucks.


#13

Maybe a bit on or off topic depending on perspective. However, cheating between guilds is a noted fact. 505 is just trying to find a way around it without needing to do harsher measures. And those cheating should feel happy about that. Blizzard would have banned those doing it quickly, with no issue. And they have in the past. So 505 is trying to take a kinder approach. Honestly GW should not be based on collective points. Over points for just that day when fighting a guild to determine a victor. This would also effectively remove tiers. And instead a way the system could randomly match other guilds is based on various factors that it can average. IE activity, trophies, levels, averaging a members maximum troop strength possible, etc. Then combining these into a basic new stat called Guild Power. Then using Guild Power matching your Guild Wars with similar other guilds of similar power levels. And since no more tiers there would be little point to cheat between guilds. As cheating without total points or tiers would be essentially pointless. And few would do something if in the end it had no point. Guild Wars should be a fun and competitive thing. Not something we get rewards from. Or the urge to cheat. Most I think would hate me for suggesting removing rewards, but the rewards is what cause guilds to cheat as well. So no rewards, no tiers, no total points. And usually players hate my suggestions so I welcome the comments. Though my comments are always made with the best intentions in mind. Even if some may not pause for a moment to notice it.

To a developer players are effectively like kids. And as such, and at many turns, need to be treated like it. You can not always seek nice or being their friend. You have to be the parent first, the buddy second. 505 lately tries a bit too much to be the buddy. If I let my kids run my house it would be peanut butter on the ceiling and chocolate for dinner every day.

@Nimhain


#14

Well thought out, brilliantly written, and i agree 100% @NekrosLucem


#15

There is not enough incentives to this system… Not even close. And it almost begs as a method to use towards collaborative means with total opacity.


#16

I’m sorry but this topic is about the new GW defense system and if it’s going to fulfill players’s expectation, not about “cheating” in GW.
If you want that much to talk about that, feel free to open your own thread :wink: .


#17

The developer-player relationship is not the same as the parent-child relationship. Your children have no choice to be anything but; your customers can always choose to walk away. Children cannot be trusted with complete freedom as they lack the life skills yet to stay out of trouble; players are (often) grown adults who happen to be in the role of consumer, but are often at least as business, tech, or administration-savvy as the dev team is.

Developers sometimes make simplifying assumptions about their players, as they are not “in the trenches” with them (particularly, they don’t experience their own game the way an endgame player does). Players make simplifying (and sometimes comically oversimplifying) assumptions about the developers, seeing the landscape through their limited vantage point. But while there is some overlap with the familial relationship, treating these as equivalence classes is a great way to lose the respect (and revenue) of your dedicated fans.


#18

I do love the idea of using 24 unique troops but as stated using a linear scale (500 pts each troop) is nowhere near enough incentive to prevent someone using a double Wisp or Kraken for one of their days. Some sort of non-linear scale should be used so that the first few dual or triple copies REALLY hurt your defense score then it smooths out. One of the math whizzes here can figure it out :wink:


#19

Evidently you missed the point bruh


#20

@Lyya There was a lot in that point. And I have run my own business for years in real life. It doesn’t make me an expert by any means. However, me and my boyfriend have been branching out into virtual worlds to expand that capitol. And customers really are like children. And I did add in a modifier to that relationship, maybe I was unclear, or it was missed. I wrote ‘like kids’. ‘Like’ affords the concept of having some similarities to, but not fully. IE ‘like children’ is a statement of having some capacity like children. I have run into people skipping modifiers before, so it is nothing new. I think people just see certain words and their brains trigger on it and skip the modifier. So in that regard do not consider everything of a child in one basket and apply it to my comment. Or you have steered far off course. Though again its also very human for people to take the greater extremes (or hand picking apples out of that basket) as priorities to what ‘like’ is fully in reference to. When ‘like’ is often a comparative to the general subject and not a hand picked apple. So do think in general. And do think in the factor of ‘like’ which is a modifier of likeness not exact. And you will hopefully arrive at my train of thought. If not then no further discourse is needed. As that would eclipse the scope of not only my original comment but this thread.

@Vangor -Pokes you-