I have added teams I am currently using. Not totally convinced about all of them (some feel too slow to generate mana). Will update if I find teams I like better.
I just picked up Queen Aurora. Feels like it is a terrible mythic (worse version of Forest Guardian??) but I will trait it up and see.
Arcane Dark two weeks in a rowā¦boooooo!
But looks like Guild Wars returns next week. Yayyyyy!
ok, hit 2250 gems this morning so bought 50 VIP chests and received 2x Mythic, but both Gardās Avatar. Still, I cannot complain about not getting Mythics anymore.
I thought I would get a kingdom to 8 stars and there is a bit of a trap there. Traits are reduced from 15 points to 10 points and levelling of creatures decreases until eventually it is only worth 2 points.
Something to keep in mind when you are planning to upgrade kingdoms.
Oh, good to know. I had not twigged that.
Meanwhile, I wonder what the developers are cooking up for Guild Wars? I assume that they are making a meaningful change given the length of time being spent - but that change might be about rankings, pairings or something that does not change the actual basic play style of a colour per dayā¦
ugh, I donāt even have most kingdoms at 5 stars yetā¦I really need to work on that.
I have been messing around with the Knightly Summons event in PvP this morning, itās kind of a fun challenge.
Guild Wars will return next week.
Weāre keeping it simple for now, just so we donāt have to do a client update, which means console, PC and mobile can all get the same update together. Weāre going to change the following 3 things:
* All battles are now worth 300 points, not 100 ā 500. The reason for this will become clearer below.
* Weāre altering the scoring system, from its current form where you gain points for winning, using colored troops, and not losing allies to something that takes a number of other things into account.
* Weāre reducing the weekly troop type bonuses from 25% to 10%
So apparently, in addition to CotD, these 4 factors come into play in score:
* Good players lose less troops (thatās the one we already have!)
Now we have 4 things contributing to a score in such a way that they each push a different type of troop into the metaā¦ Do we go for cheap kills? Slow games? Large AoE damage outputs? Or board control? Our hope is that the relative balance of these things ,and peopleās varying experience with them, cause a bit more variety to appear in the end-game meta for Guild Wars.
Also, no more sliding scale for the battles between 100-500, each of the 5 rounds has a base score of 300.
They are considering for a future update a test change to overall scoring where each guild only takes the top 27 scores each week (I kind of like this). But it might be a few weeks before we see that. They are also thinking about how to add defense into the scoring system in the future and expanding on defense. See the link for more.
Lastly, separate from Guild Wars, some upcoming graphic and UI changes, and a new dungeon system, that just looks like daily quests.
Edit: oh, I forgot to mentionā¦crafting
Interesting ā¦ I do like the potential defense changes, although itās hard to come up with one good defense team, let alone six. And the reduction in weekly troop bonuses is a welcome change so we donāt see another debacle like Orc week, hopefully.
Not sure how I feel about the general scoring changes. Right now itās pretty easy to figure out the ārightā approach to max out your scoreāuse all CotD troops and donāt lose any. I think the devs are trying to allow for a wider range of successful approaches, and anything that makes devour less painful to deal with is fine me, but Iāll wait and see here.
As far as the soulforge for crafting ā¦ does that mean weāll finally be able to create the troops we want? That would be pretty cool, assuming itās reasonably accessible to everyone and the requirements for crafting arenāt so high that only top-tier players (or spenders) can craft good troops.
So the point discrepancy is probably in the mana efficiency and damage efficiency parts of scoring. Since these are also comparative to your opponent.
Edit: I was averaging about 1700 per battle with Gorgotha, Enchantress, Famine, Moloch. I switched Enchantress out for Dracos in one battle and that was only 1350. Enchantress AOE damage is better for scoring.
Edit 2: Also, I realize my usual setup with Gorgotha up front and letting the enemy have most skulls works against the current scoring system.
Edit 3: @HolstenKnight What was your main setup this morning? It is interesting that you outscored me and were 4/1 and I was 5/0 with the above mentioned team. My guess is that since I run more of a control team, that is just not as efficient, even though I used all CotD troops.
My team: Gorgotha, Green Seer, Paladin, Gar Nok.
No area damage, not too fast. I was lucky with my first opponent (around 1000 rating and some low level creatures). I won that in around 6 rounds and got around 2500 points, while only 1300 for my last match, and that was a beast of a match and I won with no dead.
I will read your link (thanks), but I donāt like the changes at all so far. At least we need some counter (like number of turns, number of damage, mana collected etc.).
i have dug through the whole (very long and enlightening) thread and must say communityās judgement on the new scoring system seems to be clear.
itās a desaster!
personally iām very disappointed.
letās hope for future corrections and tweaks!
If I understood everything correct in the gow forum, together with my experience so far, the major key to a high score is to win fast (not time, but as few actions as possible).
This way you will score for fast play, most likely more damage, and, as your opponent canāt collect much mana, hopefully a good mana balance.
And this is just stupid. The best and most fun matches are the long nailbiter, that should be rewarded! Not just the luck to encounter a weak opponent you can crush fast (like my first match today).
What should be noted is that āas few actions as possibleā include 4 or more gem matches and extra turns from abilities, as they also count as action (this is so stupid, I hope I got it wrong, a punishment for 4 or more gem matches??).
Devour and deathmark should also not be used, as they donāt count for your damage balance (WHY?). Drain mana on the other hand seems to be very good for your mana balance.
I respect the devsā desire to shake up the meta a bit, but Iāll agree with everyone else whoās posted so far: these changes stink. I do have faith that weāll get a well-balanced solution eventually, though. The amount of attention paid to this game is part of what drew me back in.
Yeah, I am not concerned about it long term. I donāt even mind trying to figure out a setup for a higher score the rest of the week. Just as long we donāt get a permanent state that punishes anything other than full on aggro. But I am ok if it takes a couple weeks to get right.
Iām still struggling to put together CotD teams, and kind of Iām wondering whatās worth using and avoiding. My yellow team was:
Great Maw*
Borealis
Ranger*
Infernus***
I averaged about 1100-1500 on the first 4 games, and switched to a non CotD team for the last battle. Ended up with 932 points on that one.
After reading that thread, I am a little disappointed to realize that 4-gem matches actually hurt me and devour as well. Please post any tips that you can think of to help max score.
Also, do you think we should put in low HP teams on the defense so they canāt get damage bonus?
@Diane I donāt think any of us know what to do this week for sure, and I am personally not going to worry about it too much, as my understanding is that things will be adjusted for next week.
On a separate note, reading those threads on the forum, people are saying that they win with the AI taking only between 1-4 turns. I am not even sure how. What kind of troops do they use for that? It takes me like 20 turns to win on average.
@kennfusion, Iām not sure if this is the kind of set up theyāre referring to in the forum, but I generally give the AI only 0-4 turns, though it takes me many turns to kill them all.
Hellcat
Alchemist**
Goblin Rocket*
Goblin Rocket*
I guess I totally donāt get the points, because when I try to switch it up for more, I get less. My last two matches were against heavy blue, and I really thought those would be higher points with the setups I went withā¦but no:
Carnex, Moranthiās Will, Ferit, Spirit Fox - 1,414
Carnex, Drake Rider, Hellcat, Moranthiās Will - 1,373
Carnex, Hellcat, Cresendo, Drake Rider - 1,404
Moranthiās Will, Hellcat, Spirit Fox, Amira - 1,344
Moranthiās Will, Drake Rider, hellcat, Amira - 1,308
And the interesting thing about the two 1400+ scores, in round 1 I never used Ferit, I won too fast. In round 3 I never used Cresendo, I had it powered up late and then just never needed it as I was holding it for a sure kill and then won on the power of hellcat and drake rider.
newest consent in the GoW forum seems to be that ultra-long matches can bring the most points.
and it seems that some corrections and fixes have already been made behind the scenes.
nearly all scores in the 1350-1400 range now.
Yep, all my scores after my first 2500 score in my first match win were exactly in the range of @kennfusion posted scores. It didnāt even matter if I lose some creature. In one of my last matches I lost 4 and won just as close as possible with a newly summoned, Score: 1297. my first match today was total and fast domination, score: 1307.
This is not much fun, lets hope they change something soon 