Spring guild war changes

First impression is that Spring guild war changes suck for guilds like ours. We have a core of high level players who would fit into any top guild then we have a range of newer players finding their way in the game . There is some turnover there.
Previously we were able arrange guild war teams to maximise our returns. with 25 battles the top players could rally boost our score.the only quibble was not having 27 which would have been optimal for completing sections.
This format cuts down the ability of good players to influence the battle and will ultimately cut down the choice of days people have.
as leader I was just becoming confident that I knew how to manage a campaign and a battle for the best outcomes for our guild and now the learning process will have to start from scratch.
I may be wrong but I think that the only people that will benefit from this are the hardcore guilds
CallasMrChris[Deleted User]romeoWalkerslayer82SektorPrizSgtSalami
«1

Comments

  • MrChrisMrChris Member Posts: 181
    One war per week and 3 battles per war means about 12 wars per month instead of 4. Even if there are 18 attacks per battle it may be too much for a lot of players who have work, kids and lot of other responsibilities. It may be too much even for working nerds without lot of responsibilities like me. I am afraid that there will be lot of fights in guilds like mine who do ~35000* per chall but with half of players who doesn't have so much time.
    I only hope that there will be reduced healing time for GW, so it won't affect chall results too much. This idea looks more like a gold mine instead of change which will increase game play experience and fun.
    Husaria guild member.
    Discord MrChris#3324

  • FirekidFirekid Member Posts: 2,976
    @MrChris its till only 2 battles per war.
    Pasteromeo
  • PastePaste Member Posts: 799
    edited May 2020
    If that's the case this means it's not possible to play the max number of players all 6 days?

    Edit: Yes. This is confirmed now.
    If you want to get better at this game, join Discord and learn badge crafting and much more: https://discord.gg/cDhgv3AJ89
  • rogueDSrogueDS Member Posts: 611
    Its 3 to 10 players per battle
    Rohlikzauchem
  • BillbamBillbam Member Posts: 1,152
    rogueDS said:

    Wasn't this part of issue with 1st war. I thought that was main reason for making numbers of people in battles less.

    That was when all teams started at the same time, servers could not handle it. Now it is still spaced over the course of a full day.

    image
    15 Guilds cover all skill levels & game motivations
    Entry level Boot Camp & Badge System 101 Chat
    Our top 3 Global Guilds form a team of 60 Top 20 in Elite Mid 20 in Recon and Bottom 20 in Hellcats
    Private Message Billbam or Red111 to reserve your spot!

  • MrChrisMrChris Member Posts: 181
    > @Firekid said:
    > @MrChris its till only 2 battles per war.

    Makes it even weirder. But maybe there's a receipt?
    Husaria guild member.
    Discord MrChris#3324

  • rogueDSrogueDS Member Posts: 611
    It still is another beta. I hope their is tiered rewards.
    romeo
  • PastePaste Member Posts: 799
    We'll see, but I doubt it. I don't think tiered rewards need much beta testing. They can just look at the results after the beta and set the tier breakpoints and guild shop limits appropriately. Meanwhile with tiered rewards in beta testing people would get upset if the breakpoints or guild shop limits were not good enough.

    What we've have now is probably the equivalent of a high tier guild shop reward, so I don't mind getting more of it.
    If you want to get better at this game, join Discord and learn badge crafting and much more: https://discord.gg/cDhgv3AJ89
  • TransmuteJunTransmuteJun Member Posts: 2,171
    I just don't understand why we're playing less, but not all of the battles can be played. It seemed to me that the servers held up just fine with the load from the previous wars. Why the change?
    CallasSgtSalami
  • TJCartTJCart Member Posts: 412
    edited May 2020

    It seemed to me that the servers held up just fine with the load from the previous wars. Why the change?

    Maybe, maybe not. There was still quite a few issues within the 1st hour or so of battle starts on some days. Some of this seems to be unrelated to server load as they went in and "fixed" it a while after the bug reports came in. Other times it just seems like the map/scores were just updating reeeeeeallly slowing which would definitely be due to server load.
  • GrendelGrendel Member Posts: 305
    I'm very disappointed that they didn't implement a save/do-over/mulligan option so we could attempt tougher maps.

    By lowering the attacks and increasing the number of maps in an area, they did exactly the opposite. Now there is even more incentive to not take any chances and to only play maps which you are 95% positive you can defeat. (Which is insanely boring.)
    Silverhawk
  • GrendelGrendel Member Posts: 305

    I just don't understand why we're playing less, but not all of the battles can be played. It seemed to me that the servers held up just fine with the load from the previous wars. Why the change?

    We are actually playing almost 50% more.

    Previously: 2 battles over a 2-week war, 25 attacks per battle, = 50 attacks per two weeks.
    Now: 2 battles each 1-week war, 18 attacks per battle, = 36 attacks per week = 72 attacks per two weeks.
  • PastePaste Member Posts: 799
    I doubt they will do wars more frequently just because the time period is shorter. People need that time to get a break.
    If you want to get better at this game, join Discord and learn badge crafting and much more: https://discord.gg/cDhgv3AJ89
  • GrendelGrendel Member Posts: 305
    Paste said:

    I doubt they will do wars more frequently just because the time period is shorter. People need that time to get a break.

    From the announcement, it looks like there will be 4 weekly wars over the course of a 4-week season. Sign up on Monday, play Tuesday-Sunday.

    GW season duration reduced from 8 weeks to 4 weeks.
    The number of days in a war has been reduced from 8 to 6 days.
    Battles will run from Tuesday to Sunday
    Registration opens on Monday morning (UTC) instead of Friday.

    ATLAS-ZPaste
  • PastePaste Member Posts: 799
    Oh. That'll be intense.
    If you want to get better at this game, join Discord and learn badge crafting and much more: https://discord.gg/cDhgv3AJ89
  • 3vilrine3vilrine Member Posts: 259
    Grendel said:

    I'm very disappointed that they didn't implement a save/do-over/mulligan option so we could attempt tougher maps.

    By lowering the attacks and increasing the number of maps in an area, they did exactly the opposite. Now there is even more incentive to not take any chances and to only play maps which you are 95% positive you can defeat. (Which is insanely boring.)

    "Shortcut Sectors
    There will be shortcut sectors on the map that are already unlocked. Players can complete these sectors to directly unlock some of the harder sectors, allowing players to jump into harder missions earlier, instead of waiting for them to be unlocked."
    romeo
  • BillbamBillbam Member Posts: 1,152
    Grendel said:

    I just don't understand why we're playing less, but not all of the battles can be played. It seemed to me that the servers held up just fine with the load from the previous wars. Why the change?

    We are actually playing almost 50% more.

    Previously: 2 battles over a 2-week war, 25 attacks per battle, = 50 attacks per two weeks.
    Now: 2 battles each 1-week war, 18 attacks per battle, = 36 attacks per week = 72 attacks per two weeks.
    But we are only playing for 4 weeks per war rather than 8 so same number of battles.
    image
    15 Guilds cover all skill levels & game motivations
    Entry level Boot Camp & Badge System 101 Chat
    Our top 3 Global Guilds form a team of 60 Top 20 in Elite Mid 20 in Recon and Bottom 20 in Hellcats
    Private Message Billbam or Red111 to reserve your spot!

    romeo
  • GrendelGrendel Member Posts: 305
    Billbam said:

    Grendel said:

    I just don't understand why we're playing less, but not all of the battles can be played. It seemed to me that the servers held up just fine with the load from the previous wars. Why the change?

    We are actually playing almost 50% more.

    Previously: 2 battles over a 2-week war, 25 attacks per battle, = 50 attacks per two weeks.
    Now: 2 battles each 1-week war, 18 attacks per battle, = 36 attacks per week = 72 attacks per two weeks.
    But we are only playing for 4 weeks per war rather than 8 so same number of battles.
    No, because the next season should start within the 4 weeks.

    Example assuming 2-week break between seasons:

    - New version -
    Week1: 36 attacks
    Week2: 36 attacks
    Week3: 36 attacks
    Week4: 36 attacks
    Week5-6: Between season break
    Week7: 36 attacks
    Week8: 36 attacks
    Week9: 36 attacks
    Week10: 36 attacks
    ===============
    288 attacks in 10 weeks

    - Previous version -
    Week1-2: 50 attacks
    Week3-4: 50 attacks
    Week5-6: 50 attacks
    Week7-8: 50 attacks
    Week9-10: Between season break
    ================
    200 attacks in 10 weeks
    Billbam
  • GrendelGrendel Member Posts: 305
    3vilrine said:

    Grendel said:

    I'm very disappointed that they didn't implement a save/do-over/mulligan option so we could attempt tougher maps.

    By lowering the attacks and increasing the number of maps in an area, they did exactly the opposite. Now there is even more incentive to not take any chances and to only play maps which you are 95% positive you can defeat. (Which is insanely boring.)

    "Shortcut Sectors
    There will be shortcut sectors on the map that are already unlocked. Players can complete these sectors to directly unlock some of the harder sectors, allowing players to jump into harder missions earlier, instead of waiting for them to be unlocked."
    The shortcuts are great, but they don't help with the issue. Players are still strongly incentivized to play it safe and stick with maps they are certain they can defeat so that they don't lose VP for their team. This makes Guild Wars boring.
  • tallinietallinie Member Posts: 396
    > @Grendel said:
    > Players are still strongly incentivized to play
    > it safe and stick with maps they are certain
    > they can defeat so that they don't lose VP
    > for their team.

    You can expect top ranked teams (edit: added word ranked) to invest piles of money in "tools" to get them through even the hardest missions with ease and getting crazy scores. Just wait and see.
    Burmeliinis
  • GrendelGrendel Member Posts: 305
    tallinie said:

    > @Grendel said:

    > Players are still strongly incentivized to play

    > it safe and stick with maps they are certain

    > they can defeat so that they don't lose VP

    > for their team.



    You can expect top ranked teams (edit: added word ranked) to invest piles of money in "tools" to get them through even the hardest missions with ease and getting crazy scores. Just wait and see.

    I agree.

    I don't care about rankings; honestly, I don't really care much about winning.

    I would rather lose 50% of my attacks trying to push it to higher levels than win 100% doing safe levels. But I can't play that way because it would hurt my team overall. (They do care about winning).
    miori199373
  • Double it here

    how it's work @Fluxxx?

    "Upgraded level of equipment is also taken into account for Guild Wars missions offset calculations"
  • FluxxxFluxxx Staff Posts: 1,085

    This format cuts down the ability of good players to influence the battle and will ultimately cut down the choice of days people have.
    as leader I was just becoming confident that I knew how to manage a campaign and a battle for the best outcomes for our guild and now the learning process will have to start from scratch.
    I may be wrong but I think that the only people that will benefit from this are the hardcore guilds

    I'll use part of my reply from the other update discussions thread:

    The idea behind this format is that it offers flexibility for different guilds while staying competitive. Based on data from the pre-update format, we found that the vast majority of players played GW on the earlier days and much less during the weekends (even when they had battles left), meaning that most likely, even more players would’ve wanted/been able to play on the early days, but couldn’t due to the 5 player limit.

    After the update, you can go 4x10players and you’ll be done with a weekend to spare, you can also spread it out over the week depending on your time schedule. The hope here is that top guilds will still be able to coordinate well, while still being able to do guild movements on Mondays. And mid-tier guilds and early guilds that are close to 20 people can have more participants with the 10 player limit.

    Keep in mind that we've also added the shortcut sectors that let high level players start from their desired difficulty much sooner, so their ability to influence the battle shouldn't be hindered. Of course, we’re don’t want to shut any doors, so we’re still collecting feedback and data, and we’re open to making changes :)
    romeoPasteSarge_Silverhawk
  • PastePaste Member Posts: 799
    If you want to get better at this game, join Discord and learn badge crafting and much more: https://discord.gg/cDhgv3AJ89
  • SektorPrizSektorPriz Member Posts: 49
    Why did you shorten the days of war and increase the number of participants? But I doubt that there will be one in one team. And this is not fair. If there are many teams a day with 5,6,7, 8,9 and 10 players, someone will get 10 by 8 and so on. As it was in the first wars. By reducing the days you take away the opportunity to choose preferred days for players who work all day. The format of 8 days for 5 players is excellent. Why was it changing? There is always the opportunity to change if something has changed and 5 are more easily cooperated than 10. Now there will be more mess.
    miori199373TCBRITOromeoSgtSalami
  • JordanYukiJordanYuki Member Posts: 149
    I like that we can have more participants/day. In the last wars we had to wake up early to join in the first 2 days, if not, we’d end up in teams of 4 or with players less interested in the GW.
  • FirekidFirekid Member Posts: 2,976
    @SektorPriz i assume you’ve not see the post 2 above yours from Fluxxx which answers your questions?
  • SektorPrizSektorPriz Member Posts: 49

    I like that we can have more participants/day. In the last wars we had to wake up early to join in the first 2 days, if not, we’d end up in teams of 4 or with players less interested in the GW.

    What early rise are you talking about? Registration began on Friday and you had a lot of time to take days. If we are talking about rotation, then what are the problems so that only those who do not rotate in the early days play? If you are not organized, then an increase in players in the war will lead to even greater disorganization
  • SektorPrizSektorPriz Member Posts: 49
    Billbam said:

    rogueDS said:

    Wasn't this part of issue with 1st war. I thought that was main reason for making numbers of people in battles less.

    That was when all teams started at the same time, servers could not handle it. Now it is still spaced over the course of a full day.

    You say that it was before, but the servers didn’t always manage in the last war, and sometimes we lost fights because the fight was not considered completed and this is when playing five people in a team. And now the load will be one and a half times more at least. Now these problems can be joined by new problems with server overload
Sign In or Register to comment.