Thanks for the posts here so very good points made to back up the change that Is needed
Look at the power difference we have had TWR 4 times the war it’s a instant lose. Don’t mind having them once or twice not 4 times
3 Likes
I’d like to give an update on this from server 2. #4 guild in power with very active participation. Couldn’t make it to legendary not because of war performance but lack of diversity in teams and war opportunity throughout the season due to the matchmaking. Our MMR puts us 6th overall but we are the sole guild of the top guilds to not make it. The next closest guild in our tier has 28 members in it and is ranked 68th. I hope when you read this @Polaris you dont take this as a guild with a pretty complaint about not getting the highest tier. It is us trying to show how the matchmaking clearly affected team matching distribution and has a clear adverse effect. Our power and participation clearly should have us in the next tier but the SYSTEM prevented that. The math is wrong. The rules, the matching: not ideal.
This wouldn’t matter to us if rewards weren’t attached to tiers. We dont care about the poster. The automated messages you send us with our support tickets I find unsatisfactory. We understand why you say you changed it but the evidence shows it isnt doing what you say it should. Every other guild in the top 25 made it into legendary but we couldn’t because of the 3 war rule, mmr as the singular value of matching, and how it screws the 4th guild. Changing the number of wars you are immune from getting the same guild again will just affect another guild the same way it did to us. It is not a solution. As another poster said, we were over 3 tiers away at one point in a war with someone who had already reached legendary when we were in gold. If you continue to attach reward thresholds to tiers, the tiers need to matter in matchmaking. It’s far more fair to use mmr as a secondary calculation and use number of wins/tier level as the primary means, as you initially had it.
This is the power differences between our guilds. Unless half the overpowered guild is asleep or disinterested, there is no strategy that overcomes this. Matchmaking matters. Please do something about the matching system. Please do something about war in general. There are tons of good ideas in this thread.
4 Likes
Poor your guild, I can see your guild, with Surtados (top 10) and my guild (top 15) in stuck together but we’re really lucky when reached legendary rank at last minute 
. Hope they will change the way to pair soon …
1 Like
@Polaris. Bumping this topic up again. The state of Guild War is pathetic and needs to be addressed. The eye candy of this new update will distract many for a week or two at best, but shouldn’t mask the deep flaws in this game mode for those truly paying attention. Like I said above, give us Invasion and then take Guild War offline and fix it.
4 Likes
Until today, this thread was mostly a gripe about facing the same teams over and over and incleded some theories about how it might affect guild status. Now it’s been proven. The 4th ranked guild on the server, in 6th place by MMR, will not be getting top tier rewards. FIX IT PB. This is not just us complaining about how unfair life is- you made a mistake; own it and correct it
8 Likes
Some great feedback here thanks for posting your thought hopefully we are listened too
Not looking forward to another war season of this rubbish
March wars for #3 guild:
Vs #1 4x
Vs #2 4x
Vs #4 2x
Vs #5 2×
3 other wars against guilds in the top 10.
I get that #3 prolly shouldn’t battle #50, but the above rotation cannot continue. Guild War has been the breaking point for too many people. There’s all kinds of little irritations in the game and nobody is gonna be happy with everything, but GW pushes players across that tolerance line. Too many now are sticking around for the friends they’ve made (which won’t last long because PB ensures we have other ways to keep in touch) and to see about Invasion. The problem there is that there is no way Invasion is gonna live up to the hype.
So along with the rant, i will offer solutions/possible fixes that are likely doable.
- If this is the matchmaking system that seems the fairest to PB, then decrease the number of wars; one a week leaves it as a resource for tokies, but has less likelyhood of burning players out. You could even incorporate a system to let the guilds choose which day war starts. if warring guilds don’t agree, it doesn’t need to be simultaneous - this could also lend toward guild strategy, something we currently have little control over.
- Wars need to be balanced by guild member numbers. Guilds with 1-5 members fight same, 6-10 in another group, etc (or groups of 10 instead of 5). Holding inactive players at that point is a downside, but may still be done by some (again, strategy).
- Team balancing. This one is trickier - or maybe not; I’m unfamiliar with coding. Individual battles should be balanced toward the attacker IF the attacker has a lower team level. Lvl 107 with four O4 toons and one O3 attacking lvl 110 maxed: The lvl 110 team should be balance to lvl 107 power. Badges, discs, skills can remain maxed, but at the 107 level. This would help make up for the power gap in top 5 guilds that have forced very predictable outcomes. And leveling the attacker to a lower attackee is something to consider, but that removes the advantage the higher team has earned, so i don’t like it- others do.
- If leagues do not matter for choosing an opponent, then they need to be eliminated. Straight 1-500(or whatever) rankings and rewards.
***when the distraction of Invasion launches would be the perfect opportunity to pull GW and fix it.
@Polaris some things to consider.
3 Likes
Excellent suggestions! There are just too many wars right now. The never ending monotony of war after war gets old. And the fact that higher ranked guilds really can only face other high ranked guilds (and usually the outcome is determined prior to the war starting due to power levels) it is turning so many off to this part of the game.
The idea of a war a week is a great one. Being able to plan for a few days prior to it. I also like the idea posted higher up about switching the bonuses cars award so guilds need to switch up their defenses. Having to always take down a Roller Diva to win just ensures that guilds stack that car while neglecting the cars in the middle row.
3 Likes
The excitement of the non-game mode updates last about a week. The same main issue always remains…people are bored. War continues to be stale. And because many are fed up with the lack of a new game mode in Server 2, the monotony is leading them to quit.
I hope Invasion lives up to the hype and delivers. But I really hope Per Blue reads the many great ideas posted above and fixes Guild War. Take it offline for a bit and put some thought into it, the potential is there to make it fun for everyone to play.
4 Likes
So how much data has your team collected, @Polaris? The amount of complains is presumably more than the so called ‘collection of data’.
C’mon, stop keeping mum and give the community the answer they need: will there be further revision to the guild wars matchmaking system?
2 Likes
All I know is so far the system is basically worse than the previous iteration. It either needs to be changed back or severely tweaked.
On Server 5, top4 guild wasnt able to reach legendary. An other guild, with one (!) inactive (!) member was in legendary.
Obviously the old system was more fair.
I hear you, and we’re still evaluating the game data on all the wars, alongside your feedback. We aren’t planning any immediate changes, but we are having discussions about this.
1 Like
@Polaris. I really hope that Per Blue is looking at the many ideas suggested above to fix Guild War…matchmaking alone is not the problem.
Wow…so many many suggestions and complaints about a very specific issue (plus some other amazing suggestions to improve QOL for the war system) and the response is we hear you but we’re not going to do anything about it. I’m surprised you didn’t add an emoji with the tongue sticking out.
1 Like
Ugh…
Polaris said that they heard what you are saying and are discussing what to do about it. However, they also said that perblue is not planning anything for (evidently) the next update.
They only recently tried to fix war. No sense in running into another seemingly sensible solution only to find more problems.
Note, Polaris never said " We hear ypu but are not doing anything about it. "
Polaris said, " I hear you and we’re still evaluating the game data on all wars alongside your feedback
1 Like
I’m sorry. There’s no need to defend a company that’s really only in this for the money. Which is understandable. They are a company and need to look for ways to maximize their profits. But they also need to remember that weare their customers and they should provide more than a sentence in response to issues that multiple people across multiple servers are saying is one of the major issues of the game. If they are only going to respond with a dismissive, one sentence answer, they are going to lose customers and money.
1 Like
It was two sentences. I may not be the voice of Perblue, but I was actually just poi ting oht what was already said by Polaris. all companies are in it for the money. That is why they make these games, and that is why they have purchases. To make money.
Perhaps, you are misinterpreting what was said. I did not see Polaris’s post as dismissing. they were actually creating it to show that they were listening to your ideas here, which is something they did not have to do.