Guild Wars Beta Season 3

ATLAS-Z

What if...

We went back to 8 days on (6 days off)

But we let players pick x3 days?

And keep it at 18 attacks?



Talking to the Elites here... would you guys like the trade off? Play one extra day but get 6-days off?

ATLAS-Z

And what if...

The weekly challenge ran Thursday - Sunday

4 - days

With the Master mission at +4? Or even +3?


This would leave a day open between end of GWs and start of challenge for guild movements.

Both the day before the 8-day guild wars and the day after would be free in this format.

[Deleted User]

no no no
need 1 week breake between every war in season

ATLAS-Z

6 days is nearly a week?

[Deleted User]

"no no no" that for 3 fight per war

ATLAS-Z

> @Crocodile said:
> "no no no" that for 3 fight per war

It would be 3 fights over two weeks man.

So you think the current Beta is to much also? Yes?

You know, since it's 4 fights in two weeks.

maku11

I think these are necessary.
1.Master mission at +3 or +4.
2.Guild Wars have a week off.

We haven't finished first Guild war season yet, but already two of my guild members have dropped out due to being too busy and exhausted.
Please lower the load.

ATLAS-Z

I think my proposal above is pretty reasonable. It's more Guild Wars than beta 2 but less busy than beta 3...

[Deleted User]

current format gw not bad but need one week off between wars

ATLAS-Z

Karajoca

One insane match happened on friday... Match was long awaited and due to little fight that happened in this thread between guilds involved in this battle, i thought you guys would like to see conclusion. Both guilds gave their best, and this kind of matches i look forward to, and hope GW goes in that direction (Just not every week, continuously please @Fluxxx )

Karajoca

And i felt free to make a parody about all this, hope you guys @SektorPriz @JayUGin take it as a good joke, and slam me back when you have your re-match, and i am sure it will happen soon

https://captiongenerator.com/1862382/Wild-Walking-vs-Red-Machine

MoreCowBell

I didn't know @Jayugin was a girl. Lol Legendary video @Karajoca

Jens_KF

> @JayZ said:
> Can’t even agree with that @Jens_KF. Spreading over 8 days was better for me. Having a half week break in between matchups was much welcome. The pace of this version is too much for me...

I didn’t talk about the break. Just about the 6 days. I also would appreciate a 1 week break in between.

grzechExp

I'm back here with the current matchmaking conclusion.
We've tried this week 5x8 approach as @Fluxxx stated that probability of uneven setup is very low

Guess what?
Day 1: 8 vs 9
Day 2: 8 vs 9
Day 3: 8 vs 8
Day 4: 8 vs 8
Day 5: 9 vs 10 against Greek Survivors so a match where 18 attacks difference is a automatic defeat.

3 out of 5 we were in disadvantage. It wasn't even that some times we have advantage and sometimes no.
60% chance of uneven setup in current MM.
I think for the next War or season it shall be reworked. Teams inbalance shall be in place only if there are 2 tier difference between teams.
Otherwise only valid game setup is 4 x 10.

And i agree that one week off between wars would be nice. Especially for the guys planning the War and supervisioning it for 2 or more days.

Goptus_kf

One week off between the wars would be much better.
Many players really like to spend a lot of time in playing the weekly challenge and distance.
In addition, two participations in GW battles per week are quite hard imho.

[Deleted User]

I'm thinking about boycott next season GW if still will be beta

MrChris

Goptus_kf said:

One week off between the wars would be much better.

Many players really like to spend a lot of time in playing the weekly challenge and distance.

In addition, two participations in GW battles per week are quite hard imho.

I was thinking about it. Summer is coming, which means vacation and trips even if we have tough times for it.
Current numbers - two participations with 10 people teams, but two weeks for a war instead of one.

JayUGin

> @MoreCowBell said:
> I didn't know @Jayugin was a girl. Lol Legendary video @Karajoca

Dint’t quite get why you have to decide I was a girl. Are you misjudging for the humor? You didn’t know @JayUGin was a funny guy either. Check my IG acc

JayZ

Damn @JayUGin why you have to give yourself Bullet Dodge though?

JayUGin

> @JayZ said:
> Damn @JayUGin why you have to give yourself Bullet Dodge though?

That bruiser used to look versatile just cause I have 80% damage reduction, so the survivor has a slight chance to ‘Neo’ bullets when you play missions like ‘Handrails’. Yet, Follow Through might be even better, IDK.

MoreCowBell

I'm very sorry. @JayUGin My mistake. In the video that karajoca made after you guys lost to Wild Walking, you were a female with wet eyes.

JayUGin

> @MoreCowBell said:
> I'm very sorry. @JayUGin My mistake. In the video that karajoca made after you guys lost to Wild Walking, you were a female with wet eyes.

You must have a very long rough cow-like tongue deep in Karajoca’s butt, lick-spittle.

JayZ

JayUGin said:

> @JayZ said:

> Damn @JayUGin why you have to give yourself Bullet Dodge though?



That bruiser used to look versatile just cause I have 80% damage reduction, so the survivor has a slight chance to ‘Neo’ bullets when you play missions like ‘Handrails’. Yet, Follow Through might be even better, IDK.

Just messing with you. Funny vid bro. I like it.

Good battle yesterday.

grzechExp

Burmeliinis said:

I think the scoring is still not perfect. My impression is that the team's score will not actually vary that much. Putting in that extra effort to clear maps at your max level is simply not worth it, as every loss is very costly both in victory points and gold (for healing).

For me a relatively doable max is sector 5-F (lvl 39-41) and gives 618 points, split between 368 for missions and 250 for the node. I would rarely lose a mission here. But going up to the next level (5-G, lvl 40-42) is much harder, and will probably take a lot more tools and gold for healing between missions. The reward is 384 points for missions and 265 for the node, in total 649 points, which is only 31 more points. Losing even one mission more means a net negative score. This is even more negative, if you factor in the node bonus (265/12=22 pts/mission) since losing enough missions mean you might lose out on a node bonus.

So the current scoring heavily favors doing missions that you are not going to lose. Taking a risk on max levels is simply not worth it, and that potentially negative payoff comes with the cost of expensive healing and tool purchases.

I think the current scoring was made like this to discourage stacking/doubling, but I think it went too far.

Your calculation is practically wrong.
Why?

Because there is not a choice to do 5G or 5F. 5F you will do always. The choice is actually where to put your spare attacks. You can for example put them at 4C.
Here the difference is huge between possibility to do 5G and 4C.
That's why there is around 200-300 difference between the teams doing 5G and not doing 5G.

ATLAS-Z

My phone has 5G... supposedly, but it always says 4G at the top?

I think I need to call my cell carrier.

Burmeliinis

grzechExp said:

Your calculation is practically wrong.
Why?

Because there is not a choice to do 5G or 5F. 5F you will do always. The choice is actually where to put your spare attacks. You can for example put them at 4C.
Here the difference is huge between possibility to do 5G and 4C.
That's why there is around 200-300 difference between the teams doing 5G and not doing 5G.

I'm sorry but you can't make a blanket statement like that. There are a lot of teams that don't do 5F, so my point is valid for all of them. For a team that always does 5F, you might instead have the situation that you can choose between 5G or 5H. 5H is one level harder than 5G (41-43 vs 40-42) and that nets you a measly 31 more points. Again, a very low increase compared to the increase in difficulty. So going up one level in difficulty is only worth it if you can do it without losses.

The main exception is really the top 10 global teams, that run out of worthwhile maps, i.e. they only do 4D and higher maps. But I would say that there is a quite small amount of guilds that have this problem.

Karajoca

I agreed with both of your posts @Burmeliinis @grzechExp because both of you have some good points.

I think what grzech trying to say is, every guild has some must do route(whatever that is) and near the end of battle you are left deciding between one hardest sector on top of all, or safe points/easy sector

Now there is a big difference in points and only matters how many fails you could afford while completing that hardest sector. Usually only 2 are enough to make it not worthwhile...

I can tell you "the secret", and that is experience in playing this maps. You should be able to recognise which sector is more doable. Sometimes even 5-H can be easier then 5-G,no need to go for both.

I still think VP for completing sectors must be increased slighly(like 5% for hardest ones) or i have this feeling because 4C/4F are bugged with 8 maps and bring more pts per map then they should.

jrodrf2

Hey @Fluxxx it was my understanding that with the current matchmaking system, if your team had one player less than the other, then your opponent is supposed to be picked from 1 tier below your own. Is that not the case?

grzechExp

Yes Yes Yes @Karajoca. You got my point.

And i completely get what you mean with recognizing the sectors.
Yesterday we had 4G without any Kill All Zombies, with 4 times Search For Clues, couple of Kill XX Zombies, and on all of them had 3 specials. Usually Spike and MetalHead.
That was complete nightmare. 5G even with +1 difficulty looked a little bit easier.
Maybe that's also a part of good strategy. Don't go blindly for points. Look where you go.