Guild wars/ guardians

[Rylar]

In my guild, we had a long discussion about wether or not to buy guardians before the last guild wars. In the end I came to these conclusions.

1)Guardians would not increase our points gained during a fight. This is really all that matters to the war ranking system.

2)Wether or not we won a fight didn't really matter. Yes we get a bonus on points, but once we saw that we were losing we just sat out and let our energy regen so we could point farm the next one. Any time we scored low on a fight due to not being able to get past a higher level guardian, we more than made up for it next time.

3)How many points our opponents recieved for beating us didn't matter when it came to the rankings. There was no time when we ever feared that letting our opponents farm points for free off us would hurt our ranking.

4)Fusion boost rewards actually made it a detriment to use guardians. While they severly cut down on the fusion boost rewards, they weren't gone. This means that if someone killed our guardian, they could level up their armors making them harder for our members to kill them and we would get less points.



For us to buy guardians:

1) Guardians NEED to do something to help us get points. I suggest either bonus points while the guardian is up, or bonus stats while the guardian is up.

2) Winning every battle needs to matter. The bonus based on how many points you farmed is good, but there needs to be a set bonus on top of that that matters as well.

3) I dont see a solution, maybe smaller reward brackets would help. But also a better pairing system. Right now having 75th place and 95th place being the same reward means I don't really care how many points my opponents get.

4) I like the rewards for defeating a guardian, but don't reward them until after the battle maybe even after the war itself. Something that keeps track of how many guardians your guild defeated that rewards boost armors to everyone in the guild based on that would be awesome.

[deathexe]

1) Guardians don't increase the points you get, but it decreases the points your opponents get by a substantial amout. Following the boost given to the guardian's stats, guardians are significantly harder to take down now, making them slightly more useful especially against weaker guilds as compared to the during the first war where guardians were useless.

2) You get 50% more points as a bonus when you win, i would consider that quite a substantial amount.

3) I can't really grasp the concept of this point

4) Curretly fusion boost drops from guardians are sparse and seldom seen. This point would have mattered more if it was concerning the first war, where every guardian dropped two fusion boost armors.

[Bride of Eunuchorn]

As long as you know for sure you will win every battle, I agree, guardians are useless

[Rylar]

1) Guardians don't increase the points you get, but it decreases the points your opponents get by a substantial amout.

My point is, why would I possibly care if my opponents get points or not?


Following the boost given to the guardian's stats, guardians are significantly harder to take down now, making them slightly more useful especially against weaker guilds as compared to the during the first war where guardians were useless.

Not complaining about stats of the guardians at all. They were effective at what they did for their levels. Im complaining that what they did wasn't actually helpful to the war itself.


2) You get 50% more points as a bonus when you win, i would consider that quite a substantial amount.

It really depends, some times it was a bonus 5-10k for us, a good amount. Other times it was about 500 points, not really a big deal. Other times we would be 15 min into our battle and notice the other team had 5k points already and we were at 1k and be, ok we'll save energy for the next battle where we will win and our points will be worth 1.5 points each.

But, if there was a set 2-5k on the line plus 50% we may be enticed to try and win still at this point.



3) I can't really grasp the concept of this point

I'll try to explain. On saturday lets say we were around 80th place. We get paired up agianst a guild at 320th place. In order for this team to knock us down 1 rank they would need to get around 100k points from this battle. At this point it doesn't matter to us at all if they get 20k points. This point is very minor, since even if we got paired against the team that was 81st and they won bumping us to 81st place it wouldn't make a difference since there is no difference between the 2 ranks.


4) Curretly fusion boost drops from guardians are sparse and seldom seen. This point would have mattered more if it was concerning the first war, where every guardian dropped two fusion boost armors.

yes it mattered more in the "first" war. What Im suggesting actually pushes it back towards what they were trying for in the first war though. I like the idea of getting something for beating guardians.

[deathexe]

1) When you're against a guild that wants to win as much as you do, guardians would have played a part in who would win, though this applies more towards the lower level guilds and less towards the top tier guilds.
if you're saying that guardians have good stats, And they were effective for what they did at their levels, how are they not useful to you? Having good stats and being useful would mean that it would be hard to take them down and it woul mean less points for them to score and therefore an easier win for you.

2) you don't benefit from the bonus because you score too little. When my guild scores 200k, that's a 100k bonus just like that. The bonus is fine as it is, it's up to you to score more to take advantage of it.

3) we'll have to see whether or not Gree improves on the rewards further then.

4) during the first war the number of boosts guardians gave were way too much, it made using guardians pointless.

[Marco_]

- I think Android either rank 10 and 11 or 11 and 12 were about 1000 points apart. A single Guardian through point reduction or effort to take it down could possibly have been that difference. (you'd have to ask those guilds if they used guardians...)
- at the very top, most of the battles were against top 20 guilds, so it mattered quite a bit to the leaderboard if your opponent got points or not, so there it's quite different from the situation you described.

[Rylar]

When you're against a guild that wants to win as much as you do, guardians would have played a part in who would win.

Yes, guardians are helpful to a battle, but not to the war. That's my main issue.


Having good stats and being useful would mean that it would be hard to take them down and it woul mean less points for them to score and therefore an easier win for you.

Which would actually mean less points towards the war.


2) you don't benefit from the bonus because you score too little. When my guild scores 200k, that's a 100k bonus just like that. The bonus is fine as it is, it's up to you to score more to take advantage of it.

Designing a game solely on how the top .001% play is poor design. Even if that .001% is 5% of their gem profits.

Even if we were getting an average of 200k per fight, it would be easier when facing a guild with a guardian and an otherwise fair fight to just wait til the next fight and get 400k and an easy victory without facing a guardian.


- I think Android either rank 10 and 11 or 11 and 12 were about 1000 points apart. A single Guardian through point reduction or effort to take it down could possibly have been that difference. (you'd have to ask those guilds if they used guardians...)

Ok, at the top top it may matter, but only if those guilds are facing each other. One of the guilds probably faced a guild that didn't use one vs one that did.

But, the guilds that are at that top top tier probably just mow through the guardians. Not only that but dont they have all their elemental bonuses maxed already and nothing else to spend their gold on?

[Paladineguru]

We used as high a level as we could afford if we even could by the third day. And yes the difference between 8-11 was very small less than ten k, less than 100k between 12-7, guardians helped when we fought other top 10 teams mostly because the ladder was so close that any delay to the enemy scoring was worth it. And a high enough level with long enough delay could win the bonus that made the difference on leaderboards.

[busteroaf]

Yes, guardians are helpful to a battle, but not to the war. That's my main issue.

Which would actually mean less points towards the war.

Designing a game solely on how the top .001% play is poor design. Even if that .001% is 5% of their gem profits.

Even if we were getting an average of 200k per fight, it would be easier when facing a guild with a guardian and an otherwise fair fight to just wait til the next fight and get 400k and an easy victory without facing a guardian.

Ok, at the top top it may matter, but only if those guilds are facing each other. One of the guilds probably faced a guild that didn't use one vs one that did.

But, the guilds that are at that top top tier probably just mow through the guardians. Not only that but dont they have all their elemental bonuses maxed already and nothing else to spend their gold on?

I think you're misunderstanding some of what Aiden is saying. Either that, or we're just totally misunderstanding what you are saying.

By limiting the opponents points (through guardian use), it makes it easier for you to win. When you win, you get your bonus. For many guilds, points from win bonus ends up being ~33% of their total points. When that is true, anything you can do to help secure a win, helps. And the more you win, the better you do. I don't see how you can say the guardian is helpful to the battle but not the war. The more you win, generally the better you do.

As for the bonus, if everyone got an base extra 5k for wins... everyone would have 5k x wins. I don't see this changing the stats in one direction or the other. This isn't a .001% vs the other .999%. The way the bonus system works right now is fair. If you win with lots of points, you get a healthy bonus. If you win with a few points, you only bonus a few points. You bonus relative to what you scored. Always 50% of your total. The margins between lower ranking teams is the same as that between the high ranking teams. It just looks like a bigger gap because we score more points.

[deathexe]

1) Guardians are supposed to be useful for a battle and not for a war, that's the whole point of being able to hold 60 guardians.

2) i really have trouble understanding where you're coming from

3) I was giving an example. You could easily earn around 20k in a battle if you coordinate your guild well enough and that would be a 10k bonus. A 50% bonus would be more suitable because it works for both low end guilds and top tier guilds.

4) it doesn't work only at the top 10. In any case, a guardian would be able to deter guilds from scoring points and that would mean a big difference for guilds when every win counts.

[Rylar]

If 33% of a guilds points come from win bonus that means they win 100% of the time. It is impossible for most guilds to do this. That being said, Probably around 25-30% of our points were from wins. When we saw we were going up against a guardian that was too strong to reasonably take out or when we saw the other team was using multiple gem users when we were in regen mode we just opted out of the fight letting them have the win. We could have still won, but there was no reason to try to. We just saved our regen and any gems we wanted to spend 'til the next battle. For my #2 point, I'm suggesting that we simply make every battle count, instead of just battles we invest in.

Right now there is no point in having a guardian. Seems silly to me to have a feature in the game that there is no point in having.

[busteroaf]

If 33% of a guilds points come from win bonus that means they win 100% of the time. It is impossible for most guilds to do this. That being said, Probably around 25-30% of our points were from wins. When we saw we were going up against a guardian that was too strong to reasonably take out or when we saw the other team was using multiple gem users when we were in regen mode we just opted out of the fight letting them have the win. We could have still won, but there was no reason to try to. We just saved our regen and any gems we wanted to spend 'til the next battle. For my #2 point, I'm suggesting that we simply make every battle count, instead of just battles we invest in.

Right now there is no point in having a guardian. Seems silly to me to have a feature in the game that there is no point in having.

So, if 33% is unreasonable, how did you manage 25-30? 2 losses? Anyway...

What I quoted above in bold. This is where you lose me. Up against a guardian that is too strong... you opt out. You realize, if you were the team on the other end, this is where the guardian benefits you. You stopped fighting against someone with a strong guardian. They got an easy win off you. Reverse that, and you just got an easy win off someone. How is that hard to understand?

Then you say you still could have easily won. Well then, why didn't you just go ahead and win? Did you give up, or was it close? If it was, and they still had the guardian up, well, the reason it was close was because the guardian was making every battle you fought worth less points.

And currently, every battle DOES count. Each one is worth what you are willing to put into it. If you don't fight, you don't win. If you are meaning that every battle should be worth 1 million points so it is "worth something" then... you just raise the numbers that everyone who wins gets. You don't gain anything over anyone else.

[Meepo]

So, if 33% is unreasonable, how did you manage 25-30? 2 losses? Anyway...

What I quoted above in bold. This is where you lose me. Up against a guardian that is too strong... you opt out. You realize, if you were the team on the other end, this is where the guardian benefits you. You stopped fighting against someone with a strong guardian. They got an easy win off you. Reverse that, and you just got an easy win off someone. How is that hard to understand?

Then you say you still could have easily won. Well then, why didn't you just go ahead and win? Did you give up, or was it close? If it was, and they still had the guardian up, well, the reason it was close was because the guardian was making every battle you fought worth less points.

And currently, every battle DOES count. Each one is worth what you are willing to put into it. If you don't fight, you don't win. If you are meaning that every battle should be worth 1 million points so it is "worth something" then... you just raise the numbers that everyone who wins gets. You don't gain anything over anyone else.

I don't think you fully understood him. You'd get a lot more points if you were up against a guild without a strong guardian. If there is a strong guardian, you spend energy and gems attacking it, which you could have used to attack other players, which gives more points.

My own thought about guardians is that it can get you an easy win, but I don't think the loser gets punished enough for being defeated. They can just hit someone a few times, save energy and declare again immediately afterwards. I also think that each guardian you invest in serves primarily to decrease another guild's points, rather than to increase your own.

[deathexe]

I don't think you fully understood him. You'd get a lot more points if you were up against a guild without a strong guardian. If there is a strong guardian, you spend energy and gems attacking it, which you could have used to attack other players, which gives more points.

My own thought about guardians is that it can get you an easy win, but I don't think the loser gets punished enough for being defeated. They can just hit someone a few times, save energy and declare again immediately afterwards. I also think that each guardian you invest in serves primarily to decrease another guild's points, rather than to increase your own.

If you spend gems and energy attacking the opponents without taking out the guardian, you only get less than 50% of the points you would originally get, as that percentage increases the higher the level of the guardian.

If you really want to be competitive and go for as high a placing as you can, every battle would count, whether or not a guardian is present. If a guardian helps deter your opponent from even spending energy to fight, I'd say that it was effective since it basically secures your win. Not only would it make things easier for you, because your opponent has lost out on scoring potential points, your guild also earns more points.

[gnolaum]

Are you fighting for medals/ribbon A? Then buy guardians.

Satisfied with <=Ribbon B; then don't bother

[Meepo]

Are you fighting for medals/ribbon A? Then buy guardians.

Satisfied with <=Ribbon B; then don't bother

I guess so. Guardians would probably have more impact when you are higher up because there are fewer guilds for you to worry about --> lowering their points would matter more.

Guardians are a waste for the majority of guilds though.

[Unresolved]

I guess so. Guardians would probably have more impact when you are higher up because there are fewer guilds for you to worry about --> lowering their points would matter more.

Guardians are a waste for the majority of guilds though.

They have less of an impact really. I don't recall RR or Cent using guardians, and I know we didn't use them either. The top 3 guilds are capable of getting so many points(ie. a ton of potential attacks) that buying a guardian to waste a few energy has an insignificant impact. Not to mention that top guilds generally have better armor, so it takes less energy to take down a guardian. Is it worth spending a few million gold to waste a few energy of a rival guild that you may or may not be paired up with? Probably not.

[-Solo-]

We didn't use them either.

Gold is better spent maxing bonuses and since some guilds last war exploited a bug to get max bonuses, they maxed their guardians to lv10. I won't mention any names...*cough* cheaters :o

[Marco_]

As for the bonus, if everyone got an base extra 5k for wins... everyone would have 5k x wins. I don't see this changing the stats in one direction or the other. This isn't a .001% vs the other .999%. The way the bonus system works right now is fair. If you win with lots of points, you get a healthy bonus. If you win with a few points, you only bonus a few points. You bonus relative to what you scored. Always 50% of your total. The margins between lower ranking teams is the same as that between the high ranking teams. It just looks like a bigger gap because we score more points.
The current bonus system is silly. It encourages waiting for the next battle if at the start you estimate the odds of winning below something like 40-45%, since the only "loss" is the energy you spend at 100% value instead of 150% value.
Though something like a win streak bonus would probably just skew things further towards the bigger spenders...

[Marco_]

Then you say you still could have easily won. Well then, why didn't you just go ahead and win? Did you give up, or was it close? If it was, and they still had the guardian up, well, the reason it was close was because the guardian was making every battle you fought worth less points.
They probably didn't go ahead an win because the points per energy would have been terrible for that battle. It's all about the points per energy you score.
Majestic vs 1-person guild that was only worth about 150 points per energy? Well, I don't think we scored more than 2000 points + win bonus on that round; just enough to prevent maxing energy regen.


If you really want to be competitive and go for as high a placing as you can, every battle would count, whether or not a guardian is present.
No. It's "pick your battles wisely, so you get the most points out of your energy".
I think in Majestic's case 90+% of the other top teams decided to not pick a fight and just wait out the hour.
If you are in a non-spending guild I'd imagine it would be best to manage your energy in such a way that you at most have to waste 1 energy on a battle with too low odds of winning.
If you are in a moderately spending guild it's probably "go super big on 1 or a few battles that are easy and bring very good points and don't care much if you win or lose the other battles".

[The Pale Rider]

I buy and upgrade guardians solely to fulfill the make a guild purchase quests. They yield a lot of guild XP (currently we get 187XP for 30 purchases) and if you're buying level 1 guardians are relatively cheap. I was buying all level 1s but that was a drawback in the last GW as I had to level them a bit to have them be useful and you don't have the option to not use a guardian if you have one. This time I'm going to 30 and then leveling each one up to level 3. That's about 13 million GP, or half of one bonus level up (to 7%). But it also represents a guild level. I think once you get all the bonuses to 7% it's a pretty small percentage of the gold you have pouring in to buy guardians when the quest comes up.

6 of one half dozen of the other -- I could take or leave guardians.

[busteroaf]

They probably didn't go ahead an win because the points per energy would have been terrible for that battle. It's all about the points per energy you score.
Majestic vs 1-person guild that was only worth about 150 points per energy? Well, I don't think we scored more than 2000 points + win bonus on that round; just enough to prevent maxing energy regen.

So, while you were paired up with a 1 person guild, the other teams were likely catching up to you. You gained maybe... 40k-80k of "free energy" points for the next battle? (40 people x 4hits each @ ~250-500 a hit, and that is IF all 40 are online at once) Get unlucky or complacent and you could possibly, lose a few rankings while others come up from behind.

Also, unless they have different scoring systems, a 1 man team, aka GM only, was always in the ~180-360 type range for iOS. And that is before the 50% bonus, plus 30 point Knights Killed bonus, bringing it up to anywhere from 300-500+. These were perfect for those players that often had difficulty farming large guild GM's with 3 maxed out epics or the always swapping GM. I don't feel that any target is a bad target. Was there a different scoring system? I wouldn't think so, but I could be wrong. Anyone know about this?



No. It's "pick your battles wisely, so you get the most points out of your energy".
I think in Majestic's case 90+% of the other top teams decided to not pick a fight and just wait out the hour.
If you are in a non-spending guild I'd imagine it would be best to manage your energy in such a way that you at most have to waste 1 energy on a battle with too low odds of winning.
If you are in a moderately spending guild it's probably "go super big on 1 or a few battles that are easy and bring very good points and don't care much if you win or lose the other battles".

So it sounds like the other top guilds rolled over and played dead for you? That seems pretty boring. The only guilds to fight were the non-top guilds? Man. No one wanted to try and knock you off?

I get it, the likelyhood of beating the top guild = slim, so conserve your energy. Yeah, happens all the time. But, with the way the wars play out, if you are waiting for that next "easy battle" to blow your energy on, everyone might not be on the same page, or miss the "hey, this is the easy one guys" memo.

[Synovia]

Are you fighting for medals/ribbon A? Then buy guardians.

Satisfied with <=Ribbon B; then don't bother

Meh.

We finished in the top 10, and only used a handful of guardians.

Guardians serve more to decrease your opponents points than increase your own, and in my experience, top guilds only have one or two close battles each war. Its decided very quickly whether its worth fighting each one, and most guilds will back off if the other starts to pull ahead. Its just not worth spending energy/gems unless you're pretty sure you're going to win.

Frankly, for Guardians to be useful, Gree needs to give incentive to winning ALL your battles. Right now its profitable to spike points. IE, put up 500K against a guild you're sure you're going to build, and then 0 against the next one, rather than putting 100K up against 5 guilds in a row and risk losing one.

I think a flat bonus for winning a battle would do that pretty well.

[-Solo-]

Also, unless they have different scoring systems, a 1 man team, aka GM only, was always in the ~180-360 type range for iOS. And that is before the 50% bonus, plus 30 point Knights Killed bonus, bringing it up to anywhere from 300-500+. These were perfect for those players that often had difficulty farming large guild GM's with 3 maxed out epics or the always swapping GM. I don't feel that any target is a bad target. Was there a different scoring system? I wouldn't think so, but I could be wrong. Anyone know about this?

Like I said before, on Android, you could score as low as 100-120 points for a GM. Yes, that includes bonuses. I am talking about TOTAL points.

[Mr Spock]

They probably didn't go ahead an win because the points per energy would have been terrible for that battle. It's all about the points per energy you score.
Majestic vs 1-person guild that was only worth about 150 points per energy? Well, I don't think we scored more than 2000 points + win bonus on that round; just enough to prevent maxing energy regen.


No. It's "pick your battles wisely, so you get the most points out of your energy".
I think in Majestic's case 90+% of the other top teams decided to not pick a fight and just wait out the hour.
If you are in a non-spending guild I'd imagine it would be best to manage your energy in such a way that you at most have to waste 1 energy on a battle with too low odds of winning.
If you are in a moderately spending guild it's probably "go super big on 1 or a few battles that are easy and bring very good points and don't care much if you win or lose the other battles".

My guild placed 220th vs 83rd in the first war. The difference was me spending 100 bucks. I am generally the only player powerful enough to take down the guardian and sentinel on my shift... Many times this costs me gems...it was ok when I was getting fusion boosts it was not ok when I was not getting them....a number of times I just told the team to forget it...we have a strong player from Europe and one from Australia....Who during their shifts were arriving at the same conclusion...Winning was not the sole reason to play before...but this last war it really was as the prizes in no way justified paying a nickel for mediocre guilds like mine

Bottom line Gree lost money...Bring back the fusion boosts for guardian battles or you will see more revenue loss and less overall interest in playing....

[BethMo]

Gree needs to give incentive to winning ALL your battles. Right now its profitable to spike points. IE, put up 500K against a guild you're sure you're going to build, and then 0 against the next one, rather than putting 100K up against 5 guilds in a row and risk losing one.

Bingo. This is EXACTLY the problem with the current scoring system. And it's a problem even if you ignore Guardians.

[busteroaf]

Like I said before, on Android, you could score as low as 100-120 points for a GM. Yes, that includes bonuses. I am talking about TOTAL points.

If that is the case, then something funky is going on with the Android side of scoring. I'm pretty sure all the ranks fell into a point spread for each rank, regardless of size or level of guild, for iOS. I could be wrong.

If the GM was giving out 100 points at a time, I agree, I wouldn't waste the gems on it either.

[Rylar]

When going against some 15+ players guilds I couldn't get a score above 150 from any kill. Sent, GM, Champ etc.. I rarely scored over 200 points. Another top player was constantly getting 1.5-2 times my score per kill against the same target. Scoring really seemed all over the place.

[knights]

I think a flat bonus for winning a battle would do that pretty well.

There's a 50% point bonus if you win a battle....

[Synovia]

There's a 50% point bonus if you win a battle....

That only exacerbates the problem.

You're significantly better off winning one battle with 200K points, and just giving up on the next one, than winning one with 100K points and losing the next one with 100K.


Example:

Battle 1: Team A - 200,000 pts. Team B - 100,000 points
Battle 2: Team A - 0 pts. Team B - 100,000 points

Team A - 300,000 points after winning bonus
Team B - 250,000 points after winning bonus.

Both teams scored the same amount of points, but Team A got a significant advantage from laying down in the 2nd battle and pumping all their gems into the first.

Whearas if its a flat bonus, they both end up with the same amount of bonus points because they both won one battle, and lost one.


Right now, the optimal strategy is to spend ALL of your gems for the entire war in one battle that you know you're going to win, as it assures all those points get the 1.5x bonus. I think the game would be better if it incentivized using gems to win battles, not to pile on.

[-Solo-]

If you go by that strategy and using it in KnD GW, you can say Team B was unable to gauge how many gems they were able to use to get 100,000 points and lose. I agree with what you are saying though, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's better.

[Rylar]

but it doesn't necessarily mean it's better

What doesn't mean what's better? If you mean the strategy of putting all your eggs in one basket "doesn't necessarily mean it's better" than spreading out your attacks/gem spending, you are wrong. It is best strategy in guild wars currently.


So, if 33% is unreasonable, how did you manage 25-30? 2 losses?


If 1/3rd of your points came from win bonus, then you won every single fight according to basic math. Win bonus is +50% of the points for the fight, if you got 100 points +50 bonus, 33% of your points came from winning.

I think we won a little over twice what we lost. Dont have that information for sure.

How we managed 25-30% of our points coming from win bonuses is simple. We didn't compete in any we lost. Losing a battle we scored a couple hundred points. Winning we scored a couple thousand. Let's say for example (not exact number as I don't remember them and no longer have access) losing battles were average 500 vs winning average 5000 and 2 times as many wins as losses. In 30 battles, 20 wins = 100,000 points earned, 50,000 bonus points, 10 losses = 5,000 points earned. Our of 155k 50k is bonus points. That's 32% yes we probably had 30-32% now that I actually do the math.


I'm suggesting an incentive to win every fight vs the incentive to hold back and go all in. This to me means they need to drop the +50% and make a set value bonus. The higher the bonus the more value there will be in stocking up on guardians and trying to win every battle. Also, if both teams are trying to win every fight they could make the battles much more fun. I know the more fun battles we had were ones where both teams had a few thousand points on the line and thus were both trying to win.

[-Solo-]

What doesn't mean what's better? If you mean the strategy of putting all your eggs in one basket "doesn't necessarily mean it's better" than spreading out your attacks/gem spending, you are wrong. It is best strategy in guild wars currently.

No, that isn't what I was saying. I was referring to their supposed fix to the problem of that strategy. I know what the best strategy is, but thanks for trying to tell me what is...

[Rylar]

I misunderstood your pronouns. I'm sorry. As for helping you with strategy, you are most welcome.

[Synovia]

If you go by that strategy and using it in KnD GW, you can say Team B was unable to gauge how many gems they were able to use to get 100,000 points and lose. I agree with what you are saying though, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's better.

What do you mean it doesn't necessarily mean its better? The optimum solution for the current guild war is to only use any points you would regen over the course of each battle, and then dump everything in the last battle. IE, 99% of each guild war is meaningless if you play with the optimum strategy.

Thats a really poor model.

A good model would have the top guilds going after each other, and having incentive to beat each other. The optimum model would put some strategy in balancing whether you blow all your points and go into the next battle at 0/4, or save a couple.

[-Solo-]

Huh? You just repeated the same thing...

[Eunuchorn]

I'm rather confused by these arguments but we gem hard all the time & so guardians are useless. The only unobjective observation I can offer is bonuses cap at 10%, guardians go on forever

[Synovia]

Huh? You just repeated the same thing...

No, I didnt. You should read more carefully.

[-Solo-]

Dumping everything in the last battle is dumb because 1. Not everyone will be on and 2. You won't be able to use all your gems (if we consider the amount the top teams use). That can never be the optimum strategy currently unless you have everyone on and you can spend your gems fast enough.

As for your balance fix, you just explained how energy works. Gree doesnt care if you have 0/4 energy going into another war. To them, every war holds the same weight, and they just want you to refill with gems. Your incentive to beat the other team is already there, but currently it's not game changing enough if they hold back and save up for another war since war lasts so long, whatever they lost in 1 war vs you is just made up in another. We've already established that.

[busteroaf]

Well, for those that DON'T gem 24/7... Yes, ideally you could skip half the battles and gem your life away on the rest, but like Solo said, there is the point of not being able to spend all your gems in one shot, and not having everyone on to make that "all or nothing" effort worth it.

As far as flat bonuses, or even reduced bonuses: I think if we were to take all the data, with wins, bonus points earned etc, and did the math, it really wouldn't affect any scores that much unless you have the cluster of guilds like there was in the battle for top 10, where they likely had many close battles between themselves, and where a win bonus of 50k would vault someone in or out of the top 10. I don't have the figures in front of me, but I bet they all still stay in the same cluster, no other guilds entering or leaving that cluster. This would happen all down the board.

For the lower level guilds, you will just see scores inflated all around by the same factor of xBonus, say one of the ones I've seen, 5k. Say a guild wins 1k to 300. Then the guild with 1k now has say 6k. Woo! Giant point boost right? Well, all those other winning guilds just bumped up their scores by 5k each too. There is really no giant gain until you reach that "next level" of the higher level ribbons and have a majority of people active for most of the war, and even a few gemmers boosting the scores. This becomes even more trivial at higher levels where you can see the play style is completely different, and a bonus of 5k, on a 200k win is negligible.

The only way I see "each win matter" is with an additional set of prizes, based on straight wins. Tiered Win Prizes. That way, you would want to push for each win, and not just give up that easy loss, only to go hard next time when the matchup fits your setup.

[Meepo]

Well, for those that DON'T gem 24/7... Yes, ideally you could skip half the battles and gem your life away on the rest, but like Solo said, there is the point of not being able to spend all your gems in one shot, and not having everyone on to make that "all or nothing" effort worth it.

As far as flat bonuses, or even reduced bonuses: I think if we were to take all the data, with wins, bonus points earned etc, and did the math, it really wouldn't affect any scores that much unless you have the cluster of guilds like there was in the battle for top 10, where they likely had many close battles between themselves, and where a win bonus of 50k would vault someone in or out of the top 10. I don't have the figures in front of me, but I bet they all still stay in the same cluster, no other guilds entering or leaving that cluster. This would happen all down the board.

For the lower level guilds, you will just see scores inflated all around by the same factor of xBonus, say one of the ones I've seen, 5k. Say a guild wins 1k to 300. Then the guild with 1k now has say 6k. Woo! Giant point boost right? Well, all those other winning guilds just bumped up their scores by 5k each too. There is really no giant gain until you reach that "next level" of the higher level ribbons and have a majority of people active for most of the war, and even a few gemmers boosting the scores. This becomes even more trivial at higher levels where you can see the play style is completely different, and a bonus of 5k, on a 200k win is negligible.

The only way I see "each win matter" is with an additional set of prizes, based on straight wins. Tiered Win Prizes. That way, you would want to push for each win, and not just give up that easy loss, only to go hard next time when the matchup fits your setup.

You are only considering a single battle. If there was a flat bonus of 5k, the guild that wins 60 battles gets a total win bonus of 300k, whereas the guild that wins 30 only gets a total win bonus of 150k.

[busteroaf]

You are only considering a single battle. If there was a flat bonus of 5k, the guild that wins 60 battles gets a total win bonus of 300k, whereas the guild that wins 30 only gets a total win bonus of 150k.

I'm not considering a single battle. Take away 33% of the top 3 guilds points, and add 5k for each win they had, and I can wager that the top 3 stay top 3, in the same order, and top 10 stay pretty close as well.

The point is that any "bonus" just inflates people's scores across the board. How many guilds won based on their win bonus?

Also, 300k out of 11 million? ~3%.
A guild scoring 1k and getting a 5k bonus is getting 500% bonus points.
A guild scoring 200k and getting 5k bonus is getting 2.5% bonus points.
The math for shows that people will fall anywhere in between, and that a flat rate bonus benefits the lower guilds more, or benefits you more the less you score. The higher up you are, the more negligible the win bonus is. That seems fair right? So that leads even more to the "go all out in as few battles as possible because your bonus points don't really matter" unless you're in the lower tier.

Also, a low level guild could win 20 battles with a 20k points and 5k win bonus, while a top level guild could likely still outscore them with only 5 or 6 large 200k + wins... Is that fair? Not really.

Again, this is where an additional "wins" prize tier would be beneficial for all guilds, though it would be unlikely they would give the best rewards in this tier, as it is too easy to manipulate with lower level guilds.

[Meepo]

I'm not considering a single battle. Take away 33% of the top 3 guilds points, and add 5k for each win they had, and I can wager that the top 3 stay top 3, in the same order, and top 10 stay pretty close as well.

The point is that any "bonus" just inflates people's scores across the board. How many guilds won based on their win bonus?

Also, 300k out of 11 million? ~3%.
A guild scoring 1k and getting a 5k bonus is getting 500% bonus points.
A guild scoring 200k and getting 5k bonus is getting 2.5% bonus points.
The math for shows that people will fall anywhere in between, and that a flat rate bonus benefits the lower guilds more, or benefits you more the less you score. The higher up you are, the more negligible the win bonus is. That seems fair right? So that leads even more to the "go all out in as few battles as possible because your bonus points don't really matter" unless you're in the lower tier.

Also, a low level guild could win 20 battles with a 20k points and 5k win bonus, while a top level guild could likely still outscore them with only 5 or 6 large 200k + wins... Is that fair? Not really.

Again, this is where an additional "wins" prize tier would be beneficial for all guilds, though it would be unlikely they would give the best rewards in this tier, as it is too easy to manipulate with lower level guilds.

That's for top guilds only, most guilds are below 1 million. The number 1 guild on iOS is not representative of the entire population. A large guild outscoring the lower level guild is perfectly fair. I'm not trying to close the gap between average guilds and top guilds. The flat bonus is aimed to make a guild that wins 20 battles be ahead of a guild that wins 5, considering all else is equal. You use biased comparisons, comparing a top guild to an average guild.

[Rylar]

Here is another idea. Instead of the current 50% bonus per fight you win, have each win bonus be % based on the number of wins you have had. Thus after 1 win you get 1% bonus and after 50th win you get a 50% bonus. Thus a guild would need to rack up wins and points to score.

[Meepo]

Here is another idea. Instead of the current 50% bonus per fight you win, have each win bonus be % based on the number of wins you have had. Thus after 1 win you get 1% bonus and after 50th win you get a 50% bonus. Thus a guild would need to rack up wins and points to score.

I really like that idea. Would the win bonus reset if your win streak ends?

[-Solo-]

His suggestion had nothing to do with streaks.

[Meepo]

His suggestion had nothing to do with streaks.

Mmk. Just asking whether he thinks it should or not.

[Eunuchorn]

It would be a more interesting way of promoting win streaks than just adding a guild quest like the other games. Though the rewards in the other games are more OP/growth enabling. We need more armor variety really.

[busteroaf]

That's for top guilds only, most guilds are below 1 million. The number 1 guild on iOS is not representative of the entire population. A large guild outscoring the lower level guild is perfectly fair. I'm not trying to close the gap between average guilds and top guilds. The flat bonus is aimed to make a guild that wins 20 battles be ahead of a guild that wins 5, considering all else is equal. You use biased comparisons, comparing a top guild to an average guild.

The flat bonus still does not guarantee that a guild that wins 20 battles will be ahead of a guild that wins 5. The only place that would happen is in ... ding ding ding... the tiered wins rewards that I proposed many many many times over. That is the issue with the current system, and not even including the bonus system.

As long as they have any sort of option where a guild can score any sizable amount of points, this argument is totally worthless. Unless of course the win bonus is something ridiculous to where a guild would get a sizable jump from a win, you know, like 5 million, and keep the standard scoring. That way there is a clear "we won (more than you), you didn't." With that big of a bonus, you couldn't just gem the crap out of each battle to get points and catch up without winning.

[Meepo]

The flat bonus still does not guarantee that a guild that wins 20 battles will be ahead of a guild that wins 5. The only place that would happen is in ... ding ding ding... the tiered wins rewards that I proposed many many many times over. That is the issue with the current system, and not even including the bonus system.

As long as they have any sort of option where a guild can score any sizable amount of points, this argument is totally worthless. Unless of course the win bonus is something ridiculous to where a guild would get a sizable jump from a win, you know, like 5 million, and keep the standard scoring. That way there is a clear "we won (more than you), you didn't." With that big of a bonus, you couldn't just gem the crap out of each battle to get points and catch up without winning.

Please tell me where I said it was meant to guarantee anything. The flat bonus is only meant to serve as an additional factor that influences your final score at the end of a war. I never said it would be the only factor.

It is not meant to guarantee that a guild with 20 wins comes out ahead of a guild with 5 wins in every single circumstance, because there are other factors determining a guild's placement in guild wars. What I said is that all else equal, it would mean the guild with 20 wins places ahead of the guild with 5 wins.

Here is something to aid your understanding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus

[busteroaf]

Okay, you didn't say guarantee. My apologies. So, if all else is equal, why wouldn't the % bonus have the same effect as the flat bonus? If wins is your only variable, then it wouldn't. Am I right? With other variables, like you said, there are other determining factors in a guilds placement. So then because of that, there is no all else equal.

Maybe it is because it's 4am, but ... I'm not seeing any difference in having a flat bonus vs %, outside of having a larger effect on lower scoring guilds than higher scoring guilds.

[Meepo]

Okay, you didn't say guarantee. My apologies. So, if all else is equal, why wouldn't the % bonus have the same effect as the flat bonus? If wins is your only variable, then it wouldn't. Am I right? With other variables, like you said, there are other determining factors in a guilds placement. So then because of that, there is no all else equal.

Maybe it is because it's 4am, but ... I'm not seeing any difference in having a flat bonus vs %, outside of having a larger effect on lower scoring guilds than higher scoring guilds.

I'm just saying that if a flat bonus were added, it would be one of the variables. I am aware that there is rarely an 'all else equal' situation. It is just a necessary assumption in order to determine how much changing a single variable would change the end result. Think of it as a science experiment, where all other variables are controlled in order to determine the impact of the independent variable on the dependent one.

Here is an example, with all else equal, to show the effect of a flat bonus vs. a % bonus.

Two guilds, equal in level, number of active players, gemspending amount, etc. Guild A uses 6 energy per battle for each player, winning each battle with 10k points before any bonuses. Guild B uses 3 energy per battle for each player, winning each battle with 5k points. Both guilds use all their energy before it hits max, meaning no wasted energy. However, since guild A uses twice the energy per battle, they are only able to win half as many as guild B.

In the end, guild A wins 20 battles, each with 10k points and guild B wins 40 battles, each with 5k points, before any bonuses are applied.

In the current system, where the win bonus is 50% of the points scored:

Guild A's final score = 20*10000*(1+0.5) = 300000
Guild B's final score = 40*5000*(1+0.5) = 300000 --> the exact same score

In a system where there is a flat bonus of 5k (5k is only an example):

Guild A's final score = 20*10000 + 20*5000 = 300000
Guild B's final score = 40*5000 + 40*5000 = 400000 --> a difference of 100000

Using the ceteris paribus assumption lets us compare the effect of number of wins (independent variable) on guild war score (dependent variable).

I agree with you that it has a more significant impact in small guilds than on large guilds, but I don't think it will break the game. Small guilds would still stay below big guilds. I believe the fact that it is mostly insignificant for top 10 guilds is not a huge issue. When you gem 24/7, the amount of gems you spend should be the main factor determining your placement.

Edit: Also, I'm not saying the flat bonus needs to be the only bonus. A combination of a flat bonus and a % bonus could also work. Try working out what would happen in the above example if it were a flat bonus of 5k, combined with a 50% bonus.

[Eunuchorn]

A flat bonus would be much better towards establishing realistic point values for the top 100 guilds, imo. The win % is too huge a point jump most of the time

[EljayK]

The biggest difference in a flat bonus would be when a guild such as RR, Cent, or Un, goes up against a guild in the lower end of top 25. These guilds are currently able to run rampant on higher ranked members and end up with larger % boosts because of it. A flat bonus would make a fight between even guilds more worthwhile. The frenzy would be important, but not as much. You would be eager to win for that flat bonus, but less disappointed at a 1,400 point loss in a battle that ended 114k to 113k. (which is exactly what happened our first battle with Point Blank last war.).

Either way I think a flat bonus would widen the gap between top 10 and the rest. Top 10 guilds are capable of a higher win%, and without 11-25 guilds being able to go 'all out' against the few guilds they are able to, their win% will not allow them to compensate as closely against the massive spending and win% of the top 10s.

My personal opinion is that guild rewards per battle should be based in DPC keys and fusion boost armors. Instead of points. If you win you get a reward based on your rank and participation in that battle. Screw over the ones that sit at the back end of the guild doing nothing the whole war. Sure they'll get the reward at the end of the whole war, but they miss all those rewards they could have gotten each battle.

[Rylar]

So, if all else is equal, why wouldn't the % bonus have the same effect as the flat bonus? If wins is your only variable, then it wouldn't. Am I right? With other variables, like you said, there are other determining factors in a guilds placement.

Lets say there are 2 guilds, both Guild A and Guild B have 1000 gems to spend over the corse of 10 wars. And for aguements sake all gems= 10 points. An hours worth of regen is also worth 1000 (due to # of actives) points. Guild A blows their load in one fight gaining 11,000k points in the first fight winning that fight and 9,000 during the rest losing them all. Guild B spreads theirs out gaining 2k per fight and win 5 of the 10 fights. This means half both of these teams points comes from gems. This is likely the case in the 100th place range.

Current reward system
Guild A: Wins (11k+5.5k)=16.5k + Losses = 9k Total 25.5k
Guild B: Wins (10k+5k)= 15k + losses= 10k = total 25k

Flat Rate of 1000 Points:
Guild A: Wins (11k+1k) = 12k + losses = 9k Total 21k
Guild B: Wins (10k+5K) = 15k + losses = 10k = 25k

While it doesn't make a huge difference in the outcome of the scoreboards, what it will really do is make the battle themselves matter. This is what I want to see, battles being important.



My personal opinion is that guild rewards per battle should be based in DPC keys and fusion boost armors. Instead of points. If you win you get a reward based on your rank and participation in that battle. Screw over the ones that sit at the back end of the guild doing nothing the whole war. Sure they'll get the reward at the end of the whole war, but they miss all those rewards they could have gotten each battle.

I can support this. I really just want to see any reward for winning battles. Make the battles matter.

[BethMo]

Very nice example, Rylar. I agree that a flat bonus would make battles a lot more interesting.

[Mr Spock]

The biggest difference in a flat bonus would be when a guild such as RR, Cent, or Un, goes up against a guild in the lower end of top 25. These guilds are currently able to run rampant on higher ranked members and end up with larger % boosts because of it. A flat bonus would make a fight between even guilds more worthwhile. The frenzy would be important, but not as much. You would be eager to win for that flat bonus, but less disappointed at a 1,400 point loss in a battle that ended 114k to 113k. (which is exactly what happened our first battle with Point Blank last war.).

Either way I think a flat bonus would widen the gap between top 10 and the rest. Top 10 guilds are capable of a higher win%, and without 11-25 guilds being able to go 'all out' against the few guilds they are able to, their win% will not allow them to compensate as closely against the massive spending and win% of the top 10s.

My personal opinion is that guild rewards per battle should be based in DPC keys and fusion boost armors. Instead of points. If you win you get a reward based on your rank and participation in that battle. Screw over the ones that sit at the back end of the guild doing nothing the whole war. Sure they'll get the reward at the end of the whole war, but they miss all those rewards they could have gotten each battle.

I agree especially with the last paragraph.... Gree needs to find a way for weaker guilds to participate....

[busteroaf]

I agree especially with the last paragraph.... Gree needs to find a way for weaker guilds to participate....

Cough cough tiered win leaderboard prizes cough cough...

60+ wins = z prize
50-59 wins = y prize
40-49 wins = X Prize
And so on...

[Eunuchorn]

Cough cough tiered win leaderboard prizes cough cough...
60+ wins = z prize
50-59 wins = y prize
40-49 wins = X Prize
And so on...

They'll never do this. We will prob see consecutive win guild LTQs

[Mr Spock]

Cough cough tiered win leaderboard prizes cough cough...

60+ wins = z prize
50-59 wins = y prize
40-49 wins = X Prize
And so on...

This will work Buster....and best of all I would actually spend money....

[Meepo]

Cough cough tiered win leaderboard prizes cough cough...

60+ wins = z prize
50-59 wins = y prize
40-49 wins = X Prize
And so on...

As much as I would like it to happen, wouldn't there just be many many many guilds with 60+ wins? They wouldn't give us such easy rewards =(

[busteroaf]

Lets say there are 2 guilds, both Guild A and Guild B have 1000 gems to spend over the corse of 10 wars. And for aguements sake all gems= 10 points. An hours worth of regen is also worth 1000 (due to # of actives) points. Guild A blows their load in one fight gaining 11,000k points in the first fight winning that fight and 9,000 during the rest losing them all. Guild B spreads theirs out gaining 2k per fight and win 5 of the 10 fights. This means half both of these teams points comes from gems. This is likely the case in the 100th place range.

Current reward system
Guild A: Wins (11k+5.5k)=16.5k + Losses = 9k Total 25.5k
Guild B: Wins (10k+5k)= 15k + losses= 10k = total 25k

Flat Rate of 1000 Points:
Guild A: Wins (11k+1k) = 12k + losses = 9k Total 21k
Guild B: Wins (10k+5K) = 15k + losses = 10k = 25k

While it doesn't make a huge difference in the outcome of the scoreboards, what it will really do is make the battle themselves matter. This is what I want to see, battles being important.

I can support this. I really just want to see any reward for winning battles. Make the battles matter.

How often does this scenario actually play out during guild wars though? How many of the guilds are blowing everything they have in one battle vs spreading evenly out over the course of time? Isn't this likely the same as the amount of guilds that go balls out every war, and only taking minor breaks?


As much as I would like it to happen, wouldn't there just be many many many guilds with 60+ wins? They wouldn't give us such easy rewards =(

There were only 72 hours for the last war, meaning the most possible battles, with 0 minutes lost for matchmaking, was 72.

I've added the small list below to show time between battles, and max amount of battles per 3 day war (Time between battles in minutes / # of possible wars)

0 /72
5 / 66.5
10 /61.7
15 / 57.6
20 / 54
25 / 50.8
30 / 48
35 / 45.5
40 / 43.3
45 / 41.4
50 / 39.3
55 / 37.6
60 / 36

So as you can see, the more time you spend between battles, the lower your max battles actually is. If you spent more than 10 minutes between battle, you'd only be able to get 61 battles in, and you'd still have to win all but one to reach that top tier. As you can see, not as easy as it sounds.

Why include all these times? Lets take it a step further:

40 minutes between battles is the perfect break even, full war energy each battle time, for non-gemmers. This is assuming no time lost per battle, and you use all 4 energy at the exact moment the battle starts, allowing you the full 60 minutes + 40 between battles, to regen back to full war energy for the next battle. As you can see, in a perfect, no time loss situation, you still sit at only 43 possible battles, meaning you could only lose 3 to even stay in the 3rd tier of wins in my example.

So, back to your question, "wouldn't there just be many many many guilds with 60+ wins?" It is unlikely that many guilds even had 60 battles to begin with, let alone won all of them. So... my guess is at most 3: RR, Cent's and Untouched.

Easy rewards = not as easy as it sounds

[Meepo]

How often does this scenario actually play out during guild wars though? How many of the guilds are blowing everything they have in one battle vs spreading evenly out over the course of time? Isn't this likely the same as the amount of guilds that go balls out every war, and only taking minor breaks?

Once again, this is not a scenario, but just something for you to understand how a flat bonus would affect the number of wins as a variable. If you want, I can easily prepare a few graphs for you to visualise it...

[Harbear]

I seem to remember in the last Android war that we have to use a guardian for a battle(if we have one) and we do not have the option to select 'no guardian'. Am I remembering this correctly?

[Meepo]

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be an option not to use them. Guardians are also lost regardless of whether they die or not I think.

[Rylar]

How often does this scenario actually play out during guild wars though? How many of the guilds are blowing everything they have in one battle vs spreading evenly out over the course of time? Isn't this likely the same as the amount of guilds that go balls out every war, and only taking minor breaks?

Anyone not taking strategy or not caring about where their guild falls on the leaderboard will spread them out over time. As it's currently set up any guild who doesn't have the resources to go full out for the full war should blow all their gems on a few battles and then play casually with their regen for the rest of the time.

[blueyes]

So basically having leveled up guardians is pointless?

[Synovia]

How often does this scenario actually play out during guild wars though? How many of the guilds are blowing everything they have in one battle vs spreading evenly out over the course of time? Isn't this likely the same as the amount of guilds that go balls out every war, and only taking minor breaks?

Pretty much all of them do.

We had battles where we put up 5K points, and battles where we put up 400K in the last war. And so did pretty much everyone else in the top 10. Its pretty easy to see on the leaderboards.

[Sparkle_DPA]

2)Wether or not we won a fight didn't really matter. Yes we get a bonus on points, but once we saw that we were losing we just sat out and let our energy regen so we could point farm the next one. Any time we scored low on a fight due to not being able to get past a higher level guardian, we more than made up for it next time.


Im sorry, maybe someone can convince me otherwise but i COMPLETELY disagree with the statement "winning the battle doesnt matter"(assuming the guild is filled with gem spenders, if yer f2p thats a different story), especially when your fighting for top 5/10. I dont really see anything complicated about it, should be simplistic thinking. You can save as much energy as you want for the next battle, you can "spread out yer gems" all you want as well, but when u see a guild stack up over 1m points per battle and thats not even including win bonus, yer gonna be in trouble and it will be required for u to gather every single member you got and go all out in a battle to take advantage of that win bonus to maximize points. I know so many people that think that all you gotta do is sink in all the gems you have and your good to go, which is far from the truth. Hopefully that little rant was actually related to what you were saying, otherwise i apologize, lol. Had to read through quickly.