Member Limit for Battles

Because a lot of guild members are not motivated to participate in battles and some sign up and don’t play, is it possible to lift the 2-battle a person limit? I think it would be more rewarding to leave it up to whichever guild members want to play and can play, so that participation is more dependable. Thank you!
maku11jrodrf2PasteNovell3vilrineTCBRITOKarajocaRedEnsignEmma79

Comments

  • PastePaste Member Posts: 371
    So if you snooze on the GW sign up someone will take your spot...
  • PastePaste Member Posts: 371
    If everyone gets the same chances to play two battles each, then they can earn the same amount of tokens for the GW shop, and they get the same experience. It's fair, and not a problem that needs to be fixed if you ask me. If your guild has members who doesn't want to play or you're not full, then you shouldn't be ranked the same as a full guild for GW

    The real problem in my guild is no shows or people who only play a few moves, causing the whole team to lose the battle, but that could be fixed by changing how the sign up works so leaders and elders can get more control.
    Novell
  • NovellNovell Member Posts: 83
    Every player should have 3 or 4 sign ups, but only 2 sign ups can be used at the same time. When you finished your first battle u can use your 3rd sign up.
    Firekid3vilrineTCBRITOreekookrPMTKarajocaSurvivor_Sheila
  • crystaluckcrystaluck Member Posts: 7
    For me, as a guild leader, I wish I did have some control over the signups (where I have rights to kick someone out of the war if I need to before it locks).
    Emma79
  • reekookrreekookr Member Posts: 205
    As a member of a quild, i wish the leader would not have the authority to do that
    Refusing to support pay to win games.
    Strategy game where the best strategy is to buy shortcuts with real money
    jrodrf2Paste
  • Survivor_SheilaSurvivor_Sheila Member Posts: 14
    I agree. If your guild has young players not yet able to play in the war that makes for smaller teams and those players don't have a chance to win that battle. Also throw in those players who don't actually play, etc. Again that particular team won't have a chance to win the battle which is frustrating. I like the idea thrown out that you can sign up for more battles after you've already participated in one. Gives us an opportunity to fill up the later teams and gives every team a fighting chance to win. Better yet, no limits on the number of battles you participate in.
    TCBRITO
  • ohpooohpoo Member Posts: 1
    I see a need for allowing a member to sign up for 3 Guild Wars. Some Guild members just don't want to be bothered with Guild Wars.
    TCBRITOEmma79
  • TJCartTJCart Member Posts: 412
    edited February 9
    Others have touched on this, but the main issue for signing up for multiple wars is the RP balancing for the Guild Shop. If you're allowed to sign up for multiple battles in a war, your purchasing power could be abused from NG's standpoint. A possible solution would be to only allow RP rewards to be counted from a player's 2 best wars, but there still are possibilities for minor abuse, such as a power player being in every battle to tip the balance in their guild's favor, thereby artificially inflating their guild's score and allowing access to higher level guild shops (not available in beta).

    While there are possible workarounds that would allow a player additional battles in a war, the programming conditions to allow such occurrences while keeping rewards balanced between guilds would most likely be too labor intensive to justify NG looking to implement any such feature, especially considering that the current system is SIMPLE and BALANCED from their perspective.

    Yeah I wouldn't complain at having ways to exploit getting extra rewards either, but when you look at overall game balancing compared to what works best for the individual, extra battles don't really make sense.

    EDIT: I would be in favor, however, of removing sign up minimums for wars, thereby allowing players to sign up by themselves to at least score a little RP with no chance of winning a battle, but there are issues with this on NG's side as well: server load, minor reward balancing, etc.
    MrChris
  • MacVMacV Member Posts: 136
    It's not about fielding 5 active players @echonap , it's about fielding 20 players to fill the 40 slots. That means if there is any reason 1 person can't play, or just doesn't want to, they are putting their guild at a big disadvantage. Life happens, and ppl can't always play. It's a shame an otherwise competitive guild can't field a full team when something comes up.
    Reading the other posts, seems like there would be ways for ppl to exploit or abuse this, but I wish NG would come up with something. Ppl should have the choice to play or not without it costing their guild.
    MacV (Trinity)
    "The two most powerful warriors are patience and time." Tolstoy
  • RedEnsignRedEnsign Member Posts: 5
    Give me a break with your whining about it's not fair if people play more. It's not fair of people have more money and buy their advancement in the game. If you want to play more and you can play more then what's wrong with that. Next thing you know you're going to want to limit people's play time because they're getting too many experienced stars or cans of tomatoes or challenge stars. If you don't have a lot of money but you have some spare time and can play more then it's more equal. But boohoo, what about the people who have lots of money and lots of spare time, that's not fair, boo hoo hoo. In the old Guild wars you could play three times per day now you can only play two times in 8 days. I'd rather go back to the old wars and play in 6 wars in 2 days.
    Firekid
  • TJCartTJCart Member Posts: 412
    edited February 10
    RedEnsign said:

    Give me a break with your whining about it's not fair if people play more. It's not fair of people have more money and buy their advancement in the game. If you want to play more and you can play more then what's wrong with that. Next thing you know you're going to want to limit people's play time because they're getting too many experienced stars or cans of tomatoes or challenge stars. If you don't have a lot of money but you have some spare time and can play more then it's more equal. But boohoo, what about the people who have lots of money and lots of spare time, that's not fair, boo hoo hoo. In the old Guild wars you could play three times per day now you can only play two times in 8 days. I'd rather go back to the old wars and play in 6 wars in 2 days.

    So you're looking at fairness from a player's perspective. From NG's perspective, which ultimately they are concerned with most, fairness is in ensuring that all players have an equal chance at getting the rewards without some in unusual circumstances being able to get all the rewards for free. You want to spend money for an advantage? Great! All the better from their perspective.

    After all, there is also a business aspect to the game

    EDIT: Thought I should add, now wherever fairness aligns both for the player and the business is generally the best solution in most developer's eyes. However, that doesn't always happen, which is why they have to consider what it is they deem to be the most acceptable solution.

    Point is, just because YOU think it's a great idea, doesn't mean it makes the most sense to the developer or even for the rest of the player base.
    MrChrisFirekid
Sign In or Register to comment.