And the Guild Challenge is............. Exactly what it says on the tin!
Match up - Leveling out the playing fields.
I hear what you are saying, but let me put it another way. I would say a fully active guild of level 30 players is better than a guild of 13 active level 30's, 1 inactive level 60 and 11 inactive level 1's, but the current format makes that challenge unwinnable for the fully active guild because they can never get the last point. There's no strategy involved in that, it's just a guy who started his team earlier.
I used to play an email based game(okay I'm old) called Ultra-Cricket whichhandled this pretty well. There were multiple level leagues, but the stat max for any player was the same regardless of league. If players didn't get trained they slowly deteriorated in quality. Unless Sweet Nitro look at some sort of similar solution the new player either needs to fork out cash at the end of every season for 12 months or forget about ever being seen as 'any good' at the game.
I used to play an email based game(okay I'm old) called Ultra-Cricket whichhandled this pretty well. There were multiple level leagues, but the stat max for any player was the same regardless of league. If players didn't get trained they slowly deteriorated in quality. Unless Sweet Nitro look at some sort of similar solution the new player either needs to fork out cash at the end of every season for 12 months or forget about ever being seen as 'any good' at the game.
TheGoid :
I hear what you are saying, but let me put it another way. I would say a fully active guild of level 30 players is better than a guild of 13 active level 30's, 1 inactive level 60 and 11 inactive level 1's, but the current format makes that challenge unwinnable for the fully active guild because they can never get the last point. There's no strategy involved in that, it's just a guy who started his team earlier.
I hear what you are saying, but let me put it another way. I would say a fully active guild of level 30 players is better than a guild of 13 active level 30's, 1 inactive level 60 and 11 inactive level 1's, but the current format makes that challenge unwinnable for the fully active guild because they can never get the last point. There's no strategy involved in that, it's just a guy who started his team earlier.
The fully active guild could still win this challenge if they successfully defended just 3 games. Finding a match up system that keeps everyone happy would be very difficult, but Sweet Nitro have responded to the changes requested by players on this Forum. Surely this new system is better than the old one and we should at least give it a chance?
All I am trying to do is get a true reflection of top guilds a top guild isn’t a guild that has all top lvl players because they have been playing the longest (I’m not taking anything away from you guys actually loads of respect)
Keep the 3 point win system it is awesome. Just the matchups should be based on guild strength not factors that don’t affect the strength ie fans or number of wins.
If you have the best strategy in the game and you play a guy 20 lvls above you with an average/bad strat you will lose 98% of the time because you can’t keep up with the speed and you can’t tackle a guy 100 stars above you. It’s like a under 15 side playing against the national side.
There is no chance for a fare matchup. What the point system is going to do is the top10 sides are only going to play against each other then the next 10 sides play against each other and so on. You will see the guys at the top of the GC table will be the guys with the most high lvl championship players(oldest players)
Really hope this is making sense
Just because you in the top lvl championship doesn’t mean you the best. It means you have been here the longest or paid to jump levels (nothing wrong with either of those).
Give the guys who started after you who have solid guilds and strategy’s to get noticed. The last 10+ seasons we have had 20+ guys in the top 3 every season jumping 2 lvls
I will say confidently that 90% of the time our guys will beat teams 10-15 lvls above us. We have worked hard on our strategy’s and have helped everyone in the guild our stats will back up what I’m saying.
But yes just typing to get a better matchup system for everyone.
Keep the 3 point win system it is awesome. Just the matchups should be based on guild strength not factors that don’t affect the strength ie fans or number of wins.
If you have the best strategy in the game and you play a guy 20 lvls above you with an average/bad strat you will lose 98% of the time because you can’t keep up with the speed and you can’t tackle a guy 100 stars above you. It’s like a under 15 side playing against the national side.
There is no chance for a fare matchup. What the point system is going to do is the top10 sides are only going to play against each other then the next 10 sides play against each other and so on. You will see the guys at the top of the GC table will be the guys with the most high lvl championship players(oldest players)
Really hope this is making sense
Just because you in the top lvl championship doesn’t mean you the best. It means you have been here the longest or paid to jump levels (nothing wrong with either of those).
Give the guys who started after you who have solid guilds and strategy’s to get noticed. The last 10+ seasons we have had 20+ guys in the top 3 every season jumping 2 lvls
I will say confidently that 90% of the time our guys will beat teams 10-15 lvls above us. We have worked hard on our strategy’s and have helped everyone in the guild our stats will back up what I’m saying.
But yes just typing to get a better matchup system for everyone.
There could be 2 rankings:
- One based on the result of the guild as a team (= gc challenges). The 3 points system is great. The above suggestion is very interesting.
- One based on the individual performance of each player to the group/guild (e.g. your ranking in a championship gives x points to the guild, your performance in tournaments gives y points..)..
I wouldn t say that a guild who has 25 players at a lower level who win their respective championships, is somehow weaker than a guild full of level 70+ who finish last in their championships.
It would also be a way to:
- motivate low level/new players as they could reach the top of this ranking.
- motivate guild leaders to coach all their teammates and reward the guilds who are super active and collaborative..
- One based on the result of the guild as a team (= gc challenges). The 3 points system is great. The above suggestion is very interesting.
- One based on the individual performance of each player to the group/guild (e.g. your ranking in a championship gives x points to the guild, your performance in tournaments gives y points..)..
I wouldn t say that a guild who has 25 players at a lower level who win their respective championships, is somehow weaker than a guild full of level 70+ who finish last in their championships.
It would also be a way to:
- motivate low level/new players as they could reach the top of this ranking.
- motivate guild leaders to coach all their teammates and reward the guilds who are super active and collaborative..
This all feels like an attempt to make one's own guild be listed as the top guild and not an objective search for reality of top guild. Should my beer league be considered the best league in the world because I can put together some equation and give my team enough mathematical advantages and in turn prove we would crush Leinster and the crusaders?
Not surprising that this is what you feel.. as you always think in a selfish way. Hence when someone suggest an idea, you assume he thinks in the same way than you.
I would be very happy to see many guilds have better results than us as it would mean they are very active, and all players help each other.
Also it s a good way to motivate people from level 1.
But eh, one day you will discover what team spirit means. In the meantime, grab your beer, and have fun in your selfish world..
I would be very happy to see many guilds have better results than us as it would mean they are very active, and all players help each other.
Also it s a good way to motivate people from level 1.
But eh, one day you will discover what team spirit means. In the meantime, grab your beer, and have fun in your selfish world..
I'm selfish, my guild is no where near the top. I think we should have the top guilds be the top guilds and I don't get why anyone would want a not top guild to be a top guild.
And I love how people who disagree with you obviously have no team spirit and don't have the rugby spirit, don't bring up your past, we remember.
Because “top guild” doesn t mean anything.
Being at level 65+ doesn t mean you have a better strategy than a player at level 40.
It means you have been playing this game for longer and have players who runs faster..
There are some really good players at lvl 65+ and some weaker/inactive players..
And it s funny how your “logic” has no logic.
In one thread you will be moaning that it takes 3 years for a new players to get to the top so it n not motivating for him.
And now you re like.. eh who cares about motivating new players, we want the players who started 3 years ago to be at the top of the ranking.
So with your logic, it s also better to keep an inactive level 73 in your guild, rather than a having a super active level 35.. (the super active level 35 player will not win a gc game against a level 73player who stopped playing).
So the current system also creates some rules where several guilds only recruit people at a specif level (or previously with ‘x’ number of fans min.). A low level player who has a very good strat will not be accepted in a guild full of high level players
Allowing new players to contribute to the guild performance would be very motivating for them.
The guilds would be more mixed in terms of levels, and experienced players could then share many tips with them, instead of staying only between high level players just to stay at the top of a virtual ranking.
PS: it s a game.. maybe i am mistaken but you don t get a professional Rugby Manager contract when you are ranked #1.. it s more about having fun with your guild and not focusing on the level of your teammates.
Being at level 65+ doesn t mean you have a better strategy than a player at level 40.
It means you have been playing this game for longer and have players who runs faster..
There are some really good players at lvl 65+ and some weaker/inactive players..
And it s funny how your “logic” has no logic.
In one thread you will be moaning that it takes 3 years for a new players to get to the top so it n not motivating for him.
And now you re like.. eh who cares about motivating new players, we want the players who started 3 years ago to be at the top of the ranking.
So with your logic, it s also better to keep an inactive level 73 in your guild, rather than a having a super active level 35.. (the super active level 35 player will not win a gc game against a level 73player who stopped playing).
So the current system also creates some rules where several guilds only recruit people at a specif level (or previously with ‘x’ number of fans min.). A low level player who has a very good strat will not be accepted in a guild full of high level players
Allowing new players to contribute to the guild performance would be very motivating for them.
The guilds would be more mixed in terms of levels, and experienced players could then share many tips with them, instead of staying only between high level players just to stay at the top of a virtual ranking.
PS: it s a game.. maybe i am mistaken but you don t get a professional Rugby Manager contract when you are ranked #1.. it s more about having fun with your guild and not focusing on the level of your teammates.