Please fix point system for winning guild fights

[JStarbux]

Seriously, this ridiculous now.

The point system being random is pathetic. You can score more points beating a commander then a guild master sometimes. There is no consistency, no structure, and its frustrating because it can cost you a battle victory during frenzy if you get unlucky with points and things need to change.

I suggest the following structure:
1) If you fight a position higher then your current position (C < HC, HC < GC/GS, GC/GS < GM), then you should get a bonus to your point results, the same way that a + ### points displays during frenzy. This doesn't penalize the officers because I'm not suggesting you take points away for "attacking down" I just think that there should be a reward for "attacking up" because you suffer a stat disadvantage between officer levels.
2) Use the point system from arena where lower level players beating higher level players yields a bonus. AND display it in the window such as + ### Level bonus. Ex - (200 + 30 knights defeated + 50 Level bonus). This one won't affect the top guilds in anyway who all have 100+ players but it will help 95% of guilds who have a variety of player levels.
3) Limit the points you get when you fight the same player twice. The point window would show 225 + 30 knights defeated - 50 points repeat fight. I'm just suggesting you give less and less points for "farming" the same player. It's terrible that as a whole guild, you could lose because a single player is attacked repeatedly by a "gem spender" for 30 hits in the same battle. This isn't a "game" anymore when you allow something so stupid to happen.
4) My wish would be that you should cap the number of gem re-fills per battle somehow. Whether that be 1 refill per 5 minutes, or 10 refills per player. This really gets out of hand when a guild with 1 player scores 10k points because they spent there way into the top reward. There should be a clear difference between Arena and Guild War. Arena is 1 on 1 fighting. Guild war is Team vs Team... You could still make money off refills but this is non-sense to allow unlimited spending during the same battle.

If you even implement 1 of these options, I think it will greatly enhance the satisfaction of the community with Guild Wars.

The random point distribution is inexcusable GREE.

[Tachycardia]

I'm all for fixing the randomness of the point system, but capping gem spending ain't ever gonna happen

[Eunuchorn]

The only fix needed is a flat win bonus

[Bluntman]

I agree with eunuchorn a flat point system would be better than the random pt system. In response to #2 a pt bonus for beating someone higher level wouldn't be a bad idea. But in response to #3 thats just ludicrous if you got minus pts for repeat attacks a guild with only a couple of members would have the advantage in any fight outside of the top 100 since the other guild would have to repeat attacks against the same person. #4 get real a cap to gem spending come on do you think someone would turn down money if you do than you are just stupid

[Daenerys]

Completely agree on all points :-)

But the randomness on scored points is really painful. In the same battle, my guildmate beat the GM for 163 pts, while a HC gave me 360 pts.

Makes no sense at all.

[-Solo-]

2) Use the point system from arena where lower level players beating higher level players yields a bonus. AND display it in the window such as + ### Level bonus. Ex - (200 + 30 knights defeated + 50 Level bonus). This one won't affect the top guilds in anyway who all have 100+ players but it will help 95% of guilds who have a variety of player levels.

No. There should not be any bonus for level deficiency. Lower leveled players shouldn't benefit from 1. Playing the game a lot shorter or 2. Focusing on leveling armor instead of character level or both.


3) Limit the points you get when you fight the same player twice. The point window would show 225 + 30 knights defeated - 50 points repeat fight. I'm just suggesting you give less and less points for "farming" the same player. It's terrible that as a whole guild, you could lose because a single player is attacked repeatedly by a "gem spender" for 30 hits in the same battle. This isn't a "game" anymore when you allow something so stupid to happen.

This doesn't make it fair for guilds who worked hard to get a higher guild level and recruited more players.


4) My wish would be that you should cap the number of gem re-fills per battle somehow. Whether that be 1 refill per 5 minutes, or 10 refills per player. This really gets out of hand when a guild with 1 player scores 10k points because they spent there way into the top reward. There should be a clear difference between Arena and Guild War. Arena is 1 on 1 fighting. Guild war is Team vs Team... You could still make money off refills but this is non-sense to allow unlimited spending during the same battle.

Limiting Gree's income won't happen.

[Tachycardia]

As a suggestion TS, next time use paragraphs to break up ideas aand key points.

Makes it easier on the eyes and easier to read.

You would be surprised how many people will ignore a post when it is a wall of text

[Eunuchorn]

Someone had the idea to force you to win against each player in a guild by blacking out the name after defeat. Taking out a full roster would be a huge point bonus. At 4 attacks per refill, 40 members, Gree will be raking in gems. No more +50% win bonuses. & make Champ/Sent Rank bonus halfway between GM & HC. Right now GM is only difference.

[Nec772]

Someone had the idea to force you to win against each player in a guild by blacking out the name after defeat. Taking out a full roster would be a huge point bonus. At 4 attacks per refill, 40 members, Gree will be raking in gems. No more +50% win bonuses. & make Champ/Sent Rank bonus halfway between GM & HC. Right now GM is only difference.

I still really like this idea. It would make it more interesting then having to just find the weak link and slaughter they guy over and over and over.

[template]

Honestly, with all the complaints about spending, maybe there should be a non-spending tier for GWs where the rewards are absolutely crap but there's no permitted gem spending at all. That way, the non-spending guilds can figure who is the best without trying to sneak in a way to get rewards.

[Tachycardia]

Kinda like the hardcore ladder in Diablo?

[JStarbux]

Some responses to the feedback

1) If you have a disadvantage in statistics, I think that should equate to the bonus. If a commander beats a GM, that is 10% stat bonus difference and I think it should be rewarded. Whoever said that beating a GM gives 50% is just wrong. I've scored more points from beating a commander then beating a GM before and it wasn't even close enough to chalk it up to a random low point off GM before bonus.

2) I was talking player vs player level difference not guild vs guild level difference. Also, to clarify, all players > 100 would count the same like Arena does it. And it wouldn't be a bonus for 99 fighting a level 100. It would be like 10 level (10 - (player level / 10) * 10%

3) The repeat attack system is a real problem. Those of you at the top maybe don't see this as much because you have all strong players. Once a weak link is exposed, its usually attacked 90% the rest of the battle. I think adding a point reduction to limit this abuse is completely fair. And for those of you saying you should have to beat the whole guild, that was my idea earlier posted in #2 of this post here: http://www.funzio.com/forum/showthread.php?63071-Important-things-to-know-in-quot-Upcoming-Guild-Wars-quot&p=981204#post981204

I don't believe I suggested a point bonus for beating the whole guild but that would be a very nice add to this concept.

4) Thank you to the other player that realized even if you cap or limit the gem spending, Gree is still going to make a lot of money. I'm just suggesting that you limit the way a single player is able to win a battle by spending 100 gems when they would clearly lose the battle. I don't have any idea what the appropriate cap would be (5 refills per battle?) but certainly if there are still people out there hacking in this game to get free gems then it would put an immediate end to that BS that is still going on.

Flat points is a very boring system. There would be no sense in ever attacking a high commander or above with a flat point system. For those of you supporting it, why would you ever attack an officer with this system??? Pride? To rub it in? Now that is real stupid idea here.

[Marco_]

Someone had the idea to force you to win against each player in a guild by blacking out the name after defeat. Taking out a full roster would be a huge point bonus. At 4 attacks per refill, 40 members, Gree will be raking in gems. No more +50% win bonuses. & make Champ/Sent Rank bonus halfway between GM & HC. Right now GM is only difference.
If Gree would still want to rake in big bucks, they could make it a time bonus (like some games have a bigger bonus the faster you clear a level) and end the battle once one side defeats all of the other side. Would RR be able to rack up 1000 battles in a war that way? ;)

[Marco_]

Some responses to the feedback

1) If you have a disadvantage in statistics, I think that should equate to the bonus. If a commander beats a GM, that is 10% stat bonus difference and I think it should be rewarded. Whoever said that beating a GM gives 50% is just wrong. I've scored more points from beating a commander then beating a GM before and it wasn't even close enough to chalk it up to a random low point off GM before bonus.

iOS apparently has some bonusses to killing leadership positions. Android doesn't.

[Harbear]

iOS apparently has some bonusses to killing leadership positions. Android doesn't.

There should definitely be a bonus for defeating opponents in leadership positions. "You can even earn additional points for defeating guild leaders and tougher opponents" is clearly stated under the guild battles descriptions in "guild help". Unfortunately, I don't think this has been implemented yet for Android.

[Rylar]

I think it needs to be a flat amount when you win. getting 50% of the points one attack from the next is silly and makes this all about luck. While I agree there could be a bonus for leadership there shouldn't be a bonus for level difference or armor difference. If your level/armor sucks that's your fault fix it or deal with the uphill climb.


An idea how to kinda cap gems. Each player may only refill up to 5? times. But players who don't have gems can que for an attack and other players can spend gems to let them attack. Sounds kinda wacky, but it would make players work as a team rather than one player carry the team (even though they are still carrying the team via spending).

[philthy1]

Anyone who is against lowering points after multiple hits on the same player, is a wuss that is to scared to have to work for there points amd just wants a easy for sure win, grow a pair. The whole it would hurt us vs the 10 man guilds is 100% bs ive fought in every single war and never seen one that small, and worst case you would meet up with 1 during a whole war, way less of a dissvantage then havingone or 2 of your players af the bottom of your list getting attacked 40-70 times in each war for 250-350 points a pop, thats the stupidest thing ive every seen in a GUILD type war game, its turned into a find the weakest player game

[Eunuchorn]

Android is lucky. IOS has turned into a 1knight Friendly GM borefest. Not to mention less overall points for gems spent. Thanks Ziploc, GM of #2 IOS guild, for discovering & abusing this to the point of almost breaking the game.

[Meepo]

Some responses to the feedback


4) Thank you to the other player that realized even if you cap or limit the gem spending, Gree is still going to make a lot of money. I'm just suggesting that you limit the way a single player is able to win a battle by spending 100 gems when they would clearly lose the battle. I don't have any idea what the appropriate cap would be (5 refills per battle?) but certainly if there are still people out there hacking in this game to get free gems then it would put an immediate end to that BS that is still going on.


I think the reason that a single player can win with 100 gems is that energy refills don't cost enough. The cost should be doubled so that it takes at least two people spending 100 gems to win against a whole guild.