Idea for smaller guilds and guilds with uninterested players to still have a chance for high Tiers

Artminius
Artminius Member Posts: 524 ✭✭✭✭
edited January 2020 in Guild Wars Discussion
Suggestions for alternative way to handle Battle allocation for guilds that will not have 20 players doing 2 Battle each:
1) Each guild has 40 "Battle Passes"
2) Each member receives 2 Battle Passes at the start of a War.
3) The guild Leader receives all remaining Battle Passes a the start of a War.
4) After the fourth day of the War, any Battle Passes that have not yet been committed to a Battle are transferred from the member who has not committed them to the Leader.
5) Any member may give Battle Passes to another member.
apocolypsekillerPanda2406waddelltitusMrLuckyRealClareBLemmyKilllmisterkvdb17Raven2318SherryMerk91

Comments

  • Artminius
    Artminius Member Posts: 524 ✭✭✭✭
    Immediate concern: A guild with five "A Team" members might just always have them do all Battles. The leaderboards will become stagnant quickly, due to virtuous cycles of win = rewards = more wins = more rewards.
    But maybe that's a feature not a flaw?
    MrLucky
  • Stalker20
    Stalker20 Member Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Not possible, you can only do 2 battles each.
  • Artminius
    Artminius Member Posts: 524 ✭✭✭✭
    Read more closely: I am talking about a change to the code. I am well aware that 3-5 are not implemented yet.
  • apocolypsekiller
    apocolypsekiller Member Posts: 4
    Question, Regarding #5
    5) Any member may give Battle Passes to another member.
    Can those passes be used by a player that has played their 2 passes already? Or why wouldn't they just hold it till day ?
  • WellyLuga
    WellyLuga Member Posts: 3,259 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2020
    I get the concerns expressed by those who choose to be in a guild that isn't at full capacity. I don't think it's fair for those players to be able to play more battles and thus get more rewards as a result. How is that fair?

    It handicaps those that choose to play with as many players as we can and avoid those that are inactive :neutral:
    FirekidapocolypsekillerrogueDSPanda2406waddellignasBurmeliinis
  • Firekid
    Firekid Member Posts: 3,191 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Not a fan of this idea personally.
    apocolypsekiller
  • Artminius
    Artminius Member Posts: 524 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2020
    I'm not sure that I am a fan of it either. I'm thinking out loud. My immediate follow-up post was a negative.

    As for "fairness", let's not get too moralistic.
    * "Fair" in a competitive sense, in terms of leader boards (for whomever GAF about those), means "spends the most money for gold for healing and for top badges and gear". If you aren't in that group of players, you aren't in the "fair" league competitive to begin with.
    * "Fair" in the sense of "in-game rewards commensurate with opportunity and effort" then this mitigation idea goes a long ways towards that. The reductio ad absurdum is a 5-member guild, all doing all 8 Battles. That's 8x the time commitment; 8x the recovery commitment (gold); 8x the rewards in terms of RPs and Tier access in Guild Shop. Reads as pretty "fair" to me!

    In the second sense, even my immediate follow-up cannot make a perverse case: A 20-member team, but only 5 do all 8 battles. The other 15, sure, can *see* the higher Tier items in Guild Shop... but they got no RPs to buy them. As far as they're concerned, there is no Guild Wars. The real winners, then, are the 5-member Battle Team that gets all the RPs in GW... AND whatever guild rewards the other 15 earn in challenge. If they can earn in challenge without their heaviest hitters. And if their heaviest hitters ALSO rack up 2K+ stars during GW... well, shit, man: they're basically working a JOB, now! Let 'em have a pile of digital items. :wink:

    Again, I'm simply thinking about mitigation; and the OP is me just saying, "OK, let's do the math and figure the simplest code... based on what we know at noon ET on Day One... without seeing the actual Sector missions." I'm mostly considering the cases where maybe 5 folks in a guild just don't play it at all: 15 handicapped for want of an extra battle for 10 people!
  • Panda2406waddell
    Panda2406waddell Member Posts: 8
    I kind of like it. But if ur guild is not full it doesn’t say that you have to go to the guild wars. It is a choice of the matter. But u yourself don’t have to go either if u don’t want to just like it was last time. It just helps ur team out more if your other team players choose to take your passes. It doesn’t state that you or your team players have to play if u don’t want to. Plus it’s their choice to make if they want to accept ur passes.
    Artminius
  • Firekid
    Firekid Member Posts: 3,191 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I would say the worst situation would be to have 19 players which means that 4 Players who want to play can’t play two battles.
    ArtminiusTeamDeadmir
  • ATLAS-Z
    ATLAS-Z Member Posts: 6,693 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Artminius I have some fledglings in my guild who mention this thread. They didn't realize it was just a suggestion. Some of them are coming at me with rules and stuff I never heard of... I'm like no man that's just the guy on the forum who's making suggestions. Lol.


    #Zombrex (Neo / Horizon / Genesis / Prime / Elite) 

    Are you Lost? Alone? Looking for a killer team to have your back?
    Join ZOMBREX! We have a tiered guild structure so players of every level and ambition can find a home they fit in.
    Remember, search ZOMBREX FAMILY. 
    Our page :
    https://m.facebook.com/Zombrex2015/

    Send me a PM or message ATLAS#5063 on Discord

    ArtminiusShadowWalker
  • Artminius
    Artminius Member Posts: 524 ✭✭✭✭
    Maybe I shouldn't use "mitigation" for the title. I'll rewrite.
    ATLAS-Z
  • ATLAS-Z
    ATLAS-Z Member Posts: 6,693 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I mean I got it, but you know... Some more casual visitors might be confused. ;-)


    #Zombrex (Neo / Horizon / Genesis / Prime / Elite) 

    Are you Lost? Alone? Looking for a killer team to have your back?
    Join ZOMBREX! We have a tiered guild structure so players of every level and ambition can find a home they fit in.
    Remember, search ZOMBREX FAMILY. 
    Our page :
    https://m.facebook.com/Zombrex2015/

    Send me a PM or message ATLAS#5063 on Discord

    ToniStoraroArtminius
  • magic
    magic Member Posts: 197
    Firekid said:

    I would say the worst situation would be to have 19 players which means that 4 Players who want to play can’t play two battles.

    With a little organization I think it would mean 3 Players that are only able to play one battle. So the last battle, or the couple of last battles are probably the most risky to join.
    I am collecting badge crafting results. If you want to contribute please note down as much about each crafting as you can in the sequence you craft and send it to me. Recipe, effect and bonus condition is especially interesting.
    Discord server to discuss badge crafting: https://discord.gg/PvWYqaQ
  • LemmyKilllmister
    LemmyKilllmister Member Posts: 4
    There should be no rules at all. Free battles for everyone and everyone against everyone, 7 low levels against 3 high levels, whatever. I mean, this is no man's land, full of deadmans. As in real life, teamplay can defeat those with more muscles. Limitations narrow and decrease. Open the games and let the guilds compete against each other. The rest happens ... because it is no man's land ...

    ATLAS-Z
  • Artminius
    Artminius Member Posts: 524 ✭✭✭✭
    > @apocolypsekiller said:
    > Question, Regarding #5
    > 5) Any member may give Battle Passes to another member.
    > Can those passes be used by a player that has played their 2 passes already?
    Yes, that's the point: unused opportunity transferred to someone willing to use it.

    > Or why wouldn't they just hold it till day ?
    I don't understand this bit. Typo?
  • Governator
    Governator Member Posts: 4,647 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm not very good at motivating my guild...


    mack22Stalker20Deathwish19WellyLugaSCBMAbladgierzeekdogSPC_TORRESShadowWalker
  • mack22
    mack22 Member Posts: 1,263 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm not very good at motivating my guild...


    You did not hit the min star requirement...
    Eeny, meeny, miny, moe...


    Stalker20Deathwish19SCBMASPC_TORRESGovernator
  • Troublemaker
    Troublemaker Member Posts: 1,459 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Not trying to devalue your suggestion or disrespect in any matter, but this doesn't make sense at all.

    We all started on lower guilds or alone and had to struggle our way out into bigger guilds.

    It's like that in every team sport.

    And also the whole "The Walking Dead" story concept.
    TCBRITODeathwish19
  • Artminius
    Artminius Member Posts: 524 ✭✭✭✭
    It's a Beta.
    This is my suggestion for solving a problem that I saw in four separate guilds, last time, all but one of which was a sub-guild of a Major Guild. See, even in a Major Guild, the top tier "GW sub-guild" gets all the best players, and the lower-tier sub-guilds invariably have slackers (or grifters or folks who don't care about anything but challenge). I'm in a "serious GW sub-guild" and it looks like we won't get all 8 days of battle in. :smh:
  • Sherry
    Sherry Member Posts: 17
    Yes, I agree something needs to be done. I have 18 players in our guild. 5 of which give our best. 5 give a half effort. 5 that can’t play cause they are too new. And 3 who play on and off. We only have two days filled in GW..where as I know the 5 of us could tackle what the other 13 won’t. It’s extremely hard to motivate and advertising gets us very little...just frustrating that we can’t play to try to win.. we are doomed before we even start...
    RealClareB
  • JayZ
    JayZ Member Posts: 3,692 ✭✭✭✭✭
    One major concern: What prevents guilds from stacking each battle with only the top 5 players? We have some players in my guild that can score 2500+ stars. We have others that score closer to 2000. If the 2500 star players played every battle because the rest of the guild chooses to be “inactive,” then that’s unfair for those concerned about standings because it’s not a whole team effort.

    This isn’t an unrealistic scenario. I won’t name names, but during GW1, there was one guild that shared accounts amongst players so that the most skilled players with the best devices were playing battles for other members of their guild.
    Proud member of Mavericks OG, a top 3 global GW and challenge guild.
    Message me on the forums or on Line (ID: jayztwdnml) if you're interested in joining the Mavericks family of guilds.

    Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGSePrANMyf_S_YKJyfJodg
    Strategy compendium: https://forums.nextgames.com/walkingdead/discussion/41787/jayzs-nml-strategy-compendium
    TCBRITO
  • Artminius
    Artminius Member Posts: 524 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2020
    @Sherry , in your situation, perhaps your best play is to have your real participants sign up NOT in the same battle, and beg your non-participants to at least sign up, even if they don't battle. Y'all will lose, but y'all can reap RPs and Guild Shop goodies, at least. 18x2 gives you 32, divided by 5 gets you 6 of the week's battles. Go for maximum RPs amongst your core 10.

    In the absence of game code that does something like my OP suggestion, this approach is probably the best min-max.
    Infinite_M0nkey
  • JayZ
    JayZ Member Posts: 3,692 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Isn’t it better to have all the real participants sign up on the same day? I don’t see any tangible benefits to min-maxing, whereas combining efforts might result in a win for the day which would double reward/victory points.
    Proud member of Mavericks OG, a top 3 global GW and challenge guild.
    Message me on the forums or on Line (ID: jayztwdnml) if you're interested in joining the Mavericks family of guilds.

    Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGSePrANMyf_S_YKJyfJodg
    Strategy compendium: https://forums.nextgames.com/walkingdead/discussion/41787/jayzs-nml-strategy-compendium
  • Artminius
    Artminius Member Posts: 524 ✭✭✭✭
    6 days at 1x RPs each versus 2 days at 2x RPS each (maybe, if a win) seems preferable to me. Perhaps the 2-days approach nets higher gains overall if they are clearing a lot of Sectors...? I couldn't say without knowing the levels involved.

    But I wouldn't go all-in on 2 days hoping for battle wins to reap a total of 4x RPs instead of 6x.
  • Artminius
    Artminius Member Posts: 524 ✭✭✭✭
    JayZ said:

    One major concern: What prevents guilds from stacking each battle with only the top 5 players?

    See several of my posts above, in particular Jan 17.

    It comes down to what is the greatest good for the greatest number. I, for one, would rather enable guilds with low participation or membership than worry about some vaunted notion of "Winning" on a pointless, rewardless leader board. If that means that the leader board is filled with elite, 5-member teams... *shrug* Don't care. Everybody else--who have NO chance at that board!--gain goodies and maybe, just maybe, can reach the nosebleeds and be part of an elite, 5-member team to make a charge at it someday. As it stands, it's yet-another virtuous cycle in a game filled with them.

    But here's a 'half way': The max battles that any one member can do is 4 per war. At least then, the leader board is full of 10-member elites.

    Anyway... as I wrote above: It's a Beta; this is my suggestion. I doubt that the developers will weigh suggestions much by popularity, especially given the slant of forums (a fraction of the full playerbase). They'll be watching stats... and when they see, as I predict, a ton of incomplete battles (I wouldn't be surprised if it's, like, 40%+!) then they might reach for a solution like this one.
  • JayZ
    JayZ Member Posts: 3,692 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Artminius said:

    6 days at 1x RPs each versus 2 days at 2x RPS each (maybe, if a win) seems preferable to me. Perhaps the 2-days approach nets higher gains overall if they are clearing a lot of Sectors...? I couldn't say without knowing the levels involved.

    But I wouldn't go all-in on 2 days hoping for battle wins to reap a total of 4x RPs instead of 6x.

    6 days vs. 2 days don't matter. If you only have, let's say, 5/20 players playing, why would you spread them out? The total rewards are the same, because the number of attacks each player can make is finite. The only thing that can increase the "pool" of shop points is (1) more players play, which is not the question you were trying to originally address in response to Sherry, and (2) if scores can potentially be doubled. The math is simple here.
    Artminius said:

    It comes down to what is the greatest good for the greatest number. I, for one, would rather enable guilds with low participation or membership than worry about some vaunted notion of "Winning" on a pointless, rewardless leader board. If that means that the leader board is filled with elite, 5-member teams... *shrug* Don't care. Everybody else--who have NO chance at that board!--gain goodies and maybe, just maybe, can reach the nosebleeds and be part of an elite, 5-member team to make a charge at it someday. As it stands, it's yet-another virtuous cycle in a game filled with them.

    It's not about the greatest good for the greatest number. It's about what keeps players motivated and what helps pay the salaries of NG employees. The folks who spend the most money on the game and help keep the game going tend to be those who care about this so-called "pointless, rewardless leaderboard." You take away fair competition, and many of those players stop giving a shit and helping their guilds and communities. Plus, the people who "have NO chance at that board" are still getting goodies. In fact, the current setup ensures that everyone has the same access/shot at getting those rewards. If your guild isn't signing up for all of your battles, then you should move on and find people who are similarly motivated and as active as you are. That actually causes the greatest good for the greatest number.
    Proud member of Mavericks OG, a top 3 global GW and challenge guild.
    Message me on the forums or on Line (ID: jayztwdnml) if you're interested in joining the Mavericks family of guilds.

    Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGSePrANMyf_S_YKJyfJodg
    Strategy compendium: https://forums.nextgames.com/walkingdead/discussion/41787/jayzs-nml-strategy-compendium
  • Artminius
    Artminius Member Posts: 524 ✭✭✭✭
    RE 6-days v 2-days, it seems like you are disregarding the completion bonus; or maybe you're assuming that her battle-team strength will be high.
    Unless those two, 5-participant battle teams are going DEEP into the rows or columns, they'll run out of Sectors that they can complete before 100 attacks. Right? But if they can be the one real participant in a battle team with four 'ghosts', then they should easily clear 2 full Sectors plus a couple extra missions. Six times each.

    I feel like we're working from different premises or assumptions about Sherry's folks. :smile: Recall that I *did* start with "perhaps...". If her core-5 battle teams easily clear full Sectors (11), then instead spreading out to 1- or 2-participant battle teams and completing left and top Sectors should net more RPs. It's an easy enough, two-war experiment that she could try... if NG doesn't change the attack situation next time around. :lol:
    ---
    RE motivation = play = pay... I do not have sufficient sample size of the "10M+ Downloads" to suggest who buys what and why. My N of 1 (me) tends to buy Special Functionality packages. Maybe a bit of Gold for season events, if I haven't got enough to do 3 Distance resets (of Normal Distance, no less!). NOTHING to do with pushing high in Challenge or pushing deep into Guild Wars.

    But what would make me eventually just walk away? Yet another half a year of mediocre GW gains because of low participation. My current guild specifically recruited me on the basis of having space for me in a committed GW sub-guild. Promotions, relegations, and mergers later... I'm not yet seeing it. I'd love for me and the other 8 or so participants to be able to sign up for one more day and, thus, have our sub-guild compete all 8 days. Ain't gonna happen, as things stand right now.

    Maybe I should accept promotion out of Revenge Eh, the next time that I would qualify? :wink:
  • JayZ
    JayZ Member Posts: 3,692 ✭✭✭✭✭
    RE 6 vs. 2 days - that's fair. The first few maps are just sleepwalking for me, and I forget that not everyone is maxed yet. You raise a good point. If they can play 100 battles, they should consolidate. If not, then they probably won't win their match anyways, and in that case, dividing and conquering may be better.

    RE your guild (and guild families more broadly), there needs to be some way to indicate how interested you are in GW. Whether that is a survey or a simple Discord poll within a family. There are enough players in 10+ guild families that it would be quite easy to pool the hardcore GW players together in a few concentrated guilds. Perhaps that's something that guild leaders can report on and discuss further.
    Proud member of Mavericks OG, a top 3 global GW and challenge guild.
    Message me on the forums or on Line (ID: jayztwdnml) if you're interested in joining the Mavericks family of guilds.

    Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGSePrANMyf_S_YKJyfJodg
    Strategy compendium: https://forums.nextgames.com/walkingdead/discussion/41787/jayzs-nml-strategy-compendium