Best Of
Re: Guild Wars - What's happening
> @Achilles4200 said:
> I completed 1-C and 2-C by myself and got 424 VP
I think the completion bonus goes straight to the guild total. I think that's why there was such a difference with individual scores and guild totals this morning when I 1st logged on .
> I completed 1-C and 2-C by myself and got 424 VP
I think the completion bonus goes straight to the guild total. I think that's why there was such a difference with individual scores and guild totals this morning when I 1st logged on .
5
Re: For guilds that don't have enough players participating in all battles...
One thing lost in this discussion is rewards fairness. The more battles you play, the more rewards you can get. Now we are all at a level playing field, we all can play a max of 2. If someone is allowed to play more than 2, then they have an opportunity to get more rewards. Why should a guild with less than full participation be allowed to get more rewards per person than guilds with full participation?
Also, everyone seems to be thinking of GW as it's own separate game and expecting to be able to play alot. If you start thinking of it as a game within a game, then you wouldn't really want it to be more than it is. Between the Distance (which you can play twice), Challenge, Outpost, Scavenging, Season modes (when active), Story modes (when not fully completed) and now GW, there is plenty to do and fill your time.
Also, everyone seems to be thinking of GW as it's own separate game and expecting to be able to play alot. If you start thinking of it as a game within a game, then you wouldn't really want it to be more than it is. Between the Distance (which you can play twice), Challenge, Outpost, Scavenging, Season modes (when active), Story modes (when not fully completed) and now GW, there is plenty to do and fill your time.
Hershal
5
Re: For guilds that don't have enough players participating in all battles...
I don’t want to leave my guild or be forced to join a huge guild family just to have enough actives to play gws twice based on the beta. I love my slackers. 😂
NG is testing and will probably be changing and tweaking things as play and feedback continues. For solo guilds with normal activity this setup isn’t ideal.
NG is testing and will probably be changing and tweaking things as play and feedback continues. For solo guilds with normal activity this setup isn’t ideal.
Jenng
7
Re: For guilds that don't have enough players participating in all battles...
The most prevalent topic/complaint during this GW beta has been from people in guilds where not everyone is participating. Those people want to be able to play more than 2 battles per war. I have my own reasons why I think that is a bad idea, but that's a discussion for another time and place.On paper, that sounds great. In reality, it isn't. My guild is casual and all 20 players are active (100 star min), but I have a few that aren't chatty or even interested in GW. I'm not going to boot them just because they don't want to play in on specific game mode to maximize the GW battles. I'm resigned to the fact that we'll never max out the battles. But, for those who do want to play GW in my guild, they may not get to play 2 full battles because of the players who don't want to play. That's why I suggested that there be no minimum. If we only have 4 slots filled, so be it. We'll take the loss but at least we'll earn some points regardless. I think that's the best solution for less-than-full or 100% "active" guilds.
My question is: Why not move on to a different guild or try to create a more active guild?
I've seen so many new players on the forums complaining about their guilds not being active enough (welcome to the forums, by the way, it's great to see new faces!).
So why not identify the 5-10 players that ARE active, and create a post in the Guild Recruitment forums to try to combine forces? Something like "6 active GW players (~600 stars each) looking to join forces with other dedicated players."
You can meet new people and play with folks who are just as dedicated as you are. You will also probably be able to earn more stars and rewards during the challenge because I'm assuming inactive GW players are also generally less active in the challenge.
Not trying to be rude or anything. I'm just genuinely curious because that seems like the logical solution to me.
Re: Most useless and boring GW i ever seen
I just sat calmly for the first day of GW spectating. My initial thoughts is the present GW is definitely an improvement over the last one.
Yes, there are some dents which needs to be straightened out. That's why NG introduced the GW as a beta.
My first suggestion which is also being voiced by the other players is the number of attacks per GW. 20 is indeed a very low number looking at the tiers in the GW. Incase other team members are inactive, you would exhaust them in a jiffy and would achieve nothing.
Second suggestion is why restrict a players to just 2 wars. Let all the players participate in all the wars. However for points purposes, the scores of only top 5 players may be counted.
NG made us wait for GW. However, it was worth the wait.
Yes, there are some dents which needs to be straightened out. That's why NG introduced the GW as a beta.
My first suggestion which is also being voiced by the other players is the number of attacks per GW. 20 is indeed a very low number looking at the tiers in the GW. Incase other team members are inactive, you would exhaust them in a jiffy and would achieve nothing.
Second suggestion is why restrict a players to just 2 wars. Let all the players participate in all the wars. However for points purposes, the scores of only top 5 players may be counted.
NG made us wait for GW. However, it was worth the wait.
zeeblack
5
Re: Most useless and boring GW i ever seen
Uhm... i like the 20 attacks....20 attacks is also “democratic”... in the way that guilds have to demostrate how they are really better than others with the strategy andnot win the game buying more Attacks and more gold to heal... how is actually the Challenge
capibara
11
Re: Most useless and boring GW i ever seen
If you think it could be improved @Huricane444 thats great and give some constructive criticism, don’t be a dick about it after 1 day. I think the general consensus is that 20 attacks isn’t enough, this is why they released it on beta and have asked for feedback and have also said that things may change.
NG have clearly been working hard on this and trying to take many of the main issues people had from original guild wars and improve those.
NG have clearly been working hard on this and trying to take many of the main issues people had from original guild wars and improve those.
Firekid
5
Re: Weekend Event! Jan 24/27 - Evento de Fin de semana! - Enero 24/27
Love these vids! Better late than never! 
Leader must be able to kick non-participants and open the key to anyone who shows up
Subject line says it all.
The mechanism of allowing another to fill in is more complex. I concede that.
I'm literally watching my folks lose a battle they would win if anyone would just show up and kick ass for 20 minutes.
Perhaps that's an intended consequence.
Hard to watch.
The mechanism of allowing another to fill in is more complex. I concede that.
I'm literally watching my folks lose a battle they would win if anyone would just show up and kick ass for 20 minutes.
Perhaps that's an intended consequence.
Hard to watch.
Re: First sugestion for the new guild wars
The thing I don’t like is you need all 20 guild members to participate to max out the potential battles. But here are the problems with that format.
Guilds with less than 20 members or have at least on inactive player are screwed. Some active members will only get to play one battle because of the math. One battle day won’t fill up and those players will miss out on earning Reward Points for the Guild Shop.
Basically, some folks will get screwed out of getting a nice reward through no fault of their own. That blows.
To fix this, allow whoever signs up a chance to play. No player minimum. I’d be OK taking a guild loss just to harvest some Guild Reward points. Or, allow more than 5 to play in one battle. To keep it fair, just average the total based on 5 players or not count the lowest or highest score.
Just don’t penalize active players by not giving them a chance to play.
Guilds with less than 20 members or have at least on inactive player are screwed. Some active members will only get to play one battle because of the math. One battle day won’t fill up and those players will miss out on earning Reward Points for the Guild Shop.
Basically, some folks will get screwed out of getting a nice reward through no fault of their own. That blows.
To fix this, allow whoever signs up a chance to play. No player minimum. I’d be OK taking a guild loss just to harvest some Guild Reward points. Or, allow more than 5 to play in one battle. To keep it fair, just average the total based on 5 players or not count the lowest or highest score.
Just don’t penalize active players by not giving them a chance to play.