Guild War Feedback Wanted!

I’d like to suggest that there be more reward tiers in Guild War. The current ceiling sits at Legendary, which is pegged at seven victories. Any guild is eligible to enter fifteen wars a month, which means two things:

A. That a guild with a win rate of only ~47% can qualify for the highest reward tier; that’s hardly something I’d consider a legendary performance. (7/15=46.667 repeating)

B. Since war victories are a zero-sum game, the need to only win ~47% of your matchups creates the possibility of every guild attaining legendary status in the same month. I’ll make a quick illustration: suppose we have 1,000 guilds fighting 15 wars a month. That’s 15,000 matchups, which must necessarily produce 7,500 victories and 7,500 losses. But those 1,000 guilds only need 7 wins each- or 7,000 wins total- to have every single guild reach the legendary bracket.

Of course, in practice the victories won’t be equally distributed, but I evoke this off-hand calculation only to raise attention to the possibility. Nevertheless, I expect the number of guilds entering the legendary rank under the seven-win system to be close to (or exceed) half of all participating guilds on any given server.

The solution I’m proposing solves what I consider to be two issues: one, that guilds who win seven matches early in a month have to sit defending their titles for no reward for over half the remaining time, and two, that the barrier of entry into the top bracket would be too forgiving. It’s almost a punitive system for well-performing guilds: they are subject to more difficult match-ups for a strong early performance, earning only the pittance from the daily War mission, but likely having to spend noteworthy time and resources on fighting and sabotaging further enemy guilds.

If, for instance, there were twelve reward tiers, even the best guilds would only reach legendary status on the twenty-fourth day of a month, simultaneously bottlenecking the number of entrants to the top bracket and ensuring guilds who continue to win wars don’t see their efforts go unrewarded (except in this case for the last six days of the month).

I also have one separate point to make: the loser of a guild war should receive some incentive to actually participate. As it stands, losing is (I would imagine) quite an onerous endeavour, since the guild takes the blow of both the loss and the resource sink (sabotaging). I think a participatory box delivered to the loser contingent on the bracket the guild has attained would be quite a sensible solution, pegged at a fraction of the rewards given to the war’s winners.

2 Likes

Not being able to edit defensive lineups unless one is in a car is an extreme oversight. Everyone should be able to edit their lineup for war whether they are in a car or not. Only then can champions/ leader subsequently organise members into cars.

Now, members cannot edit lineups in their own time if they’re not in a car. They need to be online when leadership is online to get them to be swapped onto a car before they can edit, and only then can leadership decide if it’s worth swapping in

Extememly inconvenient for both members and guild leadership.

3 Likes

Pretty good analysis nupp, great work! Totally agree on the 47% win rate part. Too easy for any guild to get there…

i am raising a very important change request to the developers to restrict anyone from doing the extra attacks. this was raised before and i am bringing to the developers attention of this need.

do not allow any from using the extra attack. let the guild master or guild champions assign the extra attack.

we have back to back incidents from our juniors wasting the extra attacks. communication via guild chat, guild war, pm fell into deaf ears. we can kick the offenders but it would be much better if that temptation of doing the extra attack removed from anyone. let us the leaders make the planning and decisions

5 Likes

When it comes to recording matches for later replay, the folks running Halo figured out that by saving the game data inputs instead of the video that showed up on the screen, they could save a lot of storage space. The “replay” system, just re-input the saved data and the results came out the same. Something similar could work here if PerBlue was interested.

My biggest issue has been the matchmaking system. Only 4 out of our 11 battles so far have been close, most have been blowouts either way, but we’ll still get to legendary after this one ends. It’s a combination of team power & numbers. Even a difference of 15% team power level (by guild) was enough to make for big wins for the higher power guild. So sort teams by wins & losses first, but sort by team power level next. Sure you’ll end up with some small, lower power guilds making it to Legendary, but if they work hard for those wins they should be rewarded.

On Server 2, the matchmaking is so horrible that guilds with less than 30 members have somehow made their way to legendary, but guilds with 50 members all season still haven’t been able to get there.

All other sports and competitions don’t allow this to happen. Imagine the Patriots not making it to the playoffs, but a peewee team where half the kids have been out with the flu did.

This needs to be fixed. Punishing full guilds with bad matching is terrible.

Why should weaker guilds be rewarded when more powerful guilds get punished?

I don’t know. Maybe they thought the top guilds would rise above despite the MMR. There’s 15 battles a month, you only have to win 7 to reach Legendary. Mathematically everyone could get there.

Realistically, the matchmaking is busted and needs work to provide more entertaining, realistic battles.

No, it’s mathematical impossible for everyone to get to legendary, because matchmaking is made within each league. About 70% of the guilds gets to legendary after 15 wars.

Matchmaking is broken, but the league system makes it worse.

Your math is totally wrong. at most 55% of guilds will make it to legendary, as long as there is a no rebattle rule, but I think guilds can rebattle

Guilds can definitely rebattle, we’ve had two sets so far.

this current war is our 3rd time vs this guild

Same for us. 3rd time this month vs same guild and faced 2 times 2 other guilds also

Maybe missed something, was rather quickly calculated. Point is still that not all guilds can reach legendary.

Is your figured on 15 wars or 13 as we’ll get this season?

15 wars, and 50% win rate. but if everyone only wins 7 wars 55%ish will make it, but people are winning more than just their 7

Still broken matchmaking system regardless

1 Like

Very good point! I don’t see any advantages or disadvantages putting heroes of duty.
You force players to push every available hero to stay competitive in friendships and heist.
So if you force players to max every toon it’s out there no need to put them off duty :sunglasses:

I believe the off-duty heroes is to off set the sabotage. Basically the attacker have an advantage of sabotaging the defender. And since there’s no way for the defender to sabotage the attacker, this would balance things out a bit.

Don’t think of the heroes as off duty but more like they have been despatched to sabotage the defender and you’ll be able to appreciate it more.

It’s a completly oversight of a basic function. You’re so right in your conclusions. It’s very disencourageing for members who try to grow and want to be helpful to their guild.

Nothing really appreciatable about this feature. It’s too costly for FtP players and the use of it is very questionable and hidden behind some game formulas.
Or are you sitting there and calculating every sabotage effect it really has when you’re on the attacking side? No, you don’t. You just look to build an eligible team to defeat the line, sabotaged or not.
I think this whole feature is nonsense

PerBlue Entertainment | Terms of Use | Cookie Policy | © Disney