255 replies to this topic

[yotwehc]

Nice thing about the proposed changes is once a guild crosses the baseline rating or 1k- they open themselves up to full gains against them. The 1k serves as a threshold so those wanting to not fall subject to farming / non participants are less profitable to the initiating guild.

True. I guess that serves as encouragement to participate in that aspect of the game. As long as you top tier guilds don't mind, it's all good

[LadyJ]

^This

 

I believe this might be the solution to satisfy both sides. Create a global/seasonal event that focuses on the competitive part of GvG while leaving the current one alone for those that are more interested in the profit side.

 

 

Also, this is my opinion, but if a global competitive GvG is made I don't think players showed be allowed to use High Guard, Golden Shield, Dispel Curse, Invert, etc.

I personally dont agree with this, considering the fact that the highest level buffs that can be cast on offline members to defend is 192, and with all the chests/composed pots around that give such high level buffs, the only way to challenge the massive stats is by using those chance buffs, that, when activate once can cause a loss or an unresolved hit, otherwise anyone can just calculate stats and drink enough potions to beat those stats without having to provide for the times these buffs activate.

 

EDIT: The only buff I personally disagree with is Dispel Curse, as a 38.4% chance of dark curse not activating is high enough to make the attacker provide enough attack without relying on the Dark Curse buff, which has made it completely obsolete

Edited by LadyJ, 27 April 2017 - 14:57.

[Emperor Sidd]

I will no longer derail my own idea by engaging with those with negative feedback. They believe they know better, so can start another idea thread, or present their ideas in my thread (totally cool with that) The idea, and cross examination by the players will sort itself out over time. I will comment and reply to questions as I see fit.

I reaffirm my intention in presenting this idea is for the global betterment of the GvG venue overall. I am not doing this to serve a personal agenda.

 

Negative feedback would have been saying/spamming  "I dont like it get rid of it", your idea was cross examined and the changes proposed by you were analyzed for the possible implications with explaination on a game and the community from a neutral point of view rather than your own view which as you said is to make gvg more competitive. I like the overall idea but disagree with some of the changes being beneficial, but as Spider said an addition to GVG or something similar would be good.

 

You can say that but the idea seems to be one you would gain the most out of, quite convenient huh. I don't blame you though since you came up with it, it can happen but you keep bringing it up now, feels like I touched a nerve there. 

[Pythia]

One thing to remember in all the talk about this is not to set it up so a small guild gets hits so many times in one day that all they do is deplete their banks to repair gear.

 

FS can not afford anything like that, the player base is steady right now but not nearly big enough to offset something like that.

 

The overall idea is good, but people tend to revamp things to a whole new level of self interest. So be cautious here.

 

Just something I don't want to see happen.

[wil72]

Sorry, I have no idea what a "small Guild" is. Are they the ones that have all their members wearing Epics when offline? The ones that just let GvG hits slide? The Guilds that will never gain RP after a reset? If they have low RP would they be targets in a GvG world where the aim of Guild conflicts is to qualify for an invitational tournament based on how much RP a Guild has gained. Hitting "weak" Guilds would be pretty pointless during Rye's GvG scenario as they would have low RP and yield little to none of the afore mentioned. Ryebreds suggestion may do more to protect "weak" guilds than the stupid cap and the two player hit rule ever did.

 

Cheers.

 

wil72

Edited by wil72, 27 April 2017 - 21:07.

[Ryebred]

Negative feedback would have been saying/spamming  "I dont like it get rid of it", your idea was cross examined and the changes proposed by you were analyzed for the possible implications with explaination on a game and the community from a neutral point of view rather than your own view which as you said is to make gvg more competitive. I like the overall idea but disagree with some of the changes being beneficial, but as Spider said an addition to GVG or something similar would be good.
 
You can say that but the idea seems to be one you would gain the most out of, quite convenient huh. I don't blame you though since you came up with it, it can happen but you keep bringing it up now, feels like I touched a nerve there.

You helped me more than anything. Gave me more to think about, and I truly appreciate that. I have amended a few things based on community feedback, and highlighted some feedback aspects I felt served the majority of players in game while bolstering the theme of competition in op. Thank you

[Pythia]

Well Will,       To me,

 

A small guild is one with few members online at any time because real world doesn't allow for much game time.

 

A small guild is one trying to rebuild after having most of their members and gear walk out, yet still managing to grow. Slowly.

 

A small guild is one with few members but will still accept new members even if that player turns out to be thief, and they then must replace what was taken.  A guild with complete trust in each other can still be taken for a ride by a new outsider.

You'd probably say they deserved that for trusting.

 

I know of several like that, and sometimes hold potions and gear for one or another of them, buffing when needed.

 

Real world first, then game world or there will not be a game world to play in.

 

I have said in several posts, Rye's  op is good. I just don't want to see to many twist it all out of shape til it's not useful or helpful.  I would like it to work they way it should.

Edited by Pythia, 27 April 2017 - 21:18.

[Ryebred]

Well Will,       To me,
 
A small guild is one with few members online at any time because real world doesn't allow for much game time.
 
A small guild is one trying to rebuild after having most of their members and gear walk out, yet still managing to grow. Slowly.
 
A small guild is one with few members but will still accept new members even if that player turns out to be thief, and they then must replace what was taken.  A guild with complete trust in each other can still be taken for a ride by a new outsider.
You'd probably say they deserved that for trusting.
 
I know of several like that, and sometimes hold potions and gear for one or another of them, buffing when needed.
 
Real world first, then game world or there will not be a game world to play in.
 
I have said in several posts, Rye's  op is good. I just don't want to see to many twist it all out of shape til it's not useful or helpful.  I would like it to work they way it should.

Have you had a chance to see the amendment in op? I think you'll find the changes really considered the interest of those who don't GvG as well as those desiring a more competitive venue. It would certainly be a major improvement on the current state of GvG for both mindsets alike.

[Pythia]

Yes, Rye, I read and I agree.   You put a lot of thought into this and I hope it takes off.

[activeh1]

If you have so much disdain for the game and for the ideas of players (and staff, as I have observed now and then), why even show up?  Such negativity can only be toxic for the rest of us.  

 

Keep in mind that 250-400 online players doesn't mean it's the same players 24/7.  This is a worldwide game, and I'm sure ALL of us sleep, eat, have real life stuff to do.  

 

Only the cow gods know how many actual active players there are in total, and "online now" only reflects how many of those are here NOW, which is kind of self explanatory.

 

I may or may not agree with suggestions made in this forum, but I try to keep an open mind, as I know it's not all about me.  

like i said it is one persons opinion ,i know lots of players who gvg ,myself have never done it or want to ,was just putting my thoughts across in a forum open to all ,saying i have disdain for the game is a bit over the top ,but hey its one persons opinion again .

 my mind is open to this idea ,just cant see it helping the gvg grow

[lapdragon]

what i see this doing, is bringing life back to an aspect of the game.  THE WAY it brings it back is the RESET of the ladder.  so possibly at the end of the span, will it still be the same 3 in top position??  possibly.  BUT, a loss for any of us can put someone else up higher...or maybe LWS wants to just sit back and defend...and we dont climb up the ladder.... BUT there is also the addition of NEW buff packs bought with RP...that in and of it self will help with players not being on line, etc. 

 

i personally think that just a reset every few months and addition of better buff packages would help out.  in our guild, we have very few who actually do the hitting.  but we ENCOURAGE all to help out, and as a guild, we bond we grow, we learn.  so i am pleased to see that there is the addition of the 1k "cut line"  for those guilds that just dont want to do this. 

 

would be interesting to have a "trial" run, with HCS implementing their "cutting down of OP buffs/pots", and see if it DOES make a difference and to what extent does it make the difference.....

 

im all about anything in game that brings a guild closer....but what many seem to forget...that GVG can actually make many guilds become friends or just gain respect for each other...or even put a healthy rival between guilds as well.

 

my one thing i disagree with, and i only disagree cuz i do love me some medals..is the changing of hands of said medals...i feel they should be tiered...and NOT because i like them...but lets say there is ANOTHER guild breaking top 3.  even if they only do it once and get a medal.....we all know, once you get a medal...you need to upgrade it...LOL, so tiered medals like all of our other ones, are the way to go...IMHO!!

Edited by lapdragon, 28 April 2017 - 14:55.

[Ryebred]

what i see this doing, is bringing life back to an aspect of the game.  THE WAY it brings it back is the RESET of the ladder.  so possibly at the end of the span, will it still be the same 3 in top position??  possibly.  BUT, a loss for any of us can put someone else up higher...or maybe LWS wants to just sit back and defend...and we dont climb up the ladder.... BUT there is also the addition of NEW buff packs bought with RP...that in and of it self will help with players not being on line, etc. 
 
i personally think that just a reset every few months and addition of better buff packages would help out.  in our guild, we have very few who actually do the hitting.  but we ENCOURAGE all to help out, and as a guild, we bond we grow, we learn.  so i am pleased to see that there is the addition of the 1k "cut line"  for those guilds that just dont want to do this. 
 
would be interesting to have a "trial" run, with HCS implementing their "cutting down of OP buffs/pots", and see if it DOES make a difference and to what extent does it make the difference.....
 
im all about anything in game that brings a guild closer....but what many seem to forget...that GVG can actually make many guilds become friends or just gain respect for each other...or even put a healthy rival between guilds as well.
 
my one thing i disagree with, and i only disagree cuz i do love me some medals..is the changing of hands of said medals...i feel they should be tiered...and NOT because i like them...but lets say there is ANOTHER guild breaking top 3.  even if they only do it once and get a medal.....we all know, once you get a medal...you need to upgrade it...LOL, so tiered medals like all of our other ones, are the way to go...IMHO!!

I may of not been clear LD. The medals would not change hands, and they would tier. The trophies with the stam gain boost would be the only things changing hands as I see it.

[Chooma123]

I personally don't feel RP should be awarded for failed efforts on initiated conflicts. Defense efforts should be rewarded with RP, but when initiating losses and ties should get nothing. This will further increase Rp's value, as well as add incentive to defend, and waste the efforts of would be farmers.

Why do you think this though? If its a draw, surely both guilds deserve an even share of the reward, no?

[Ryebred]

Why do you think this though? If its a draw, surely both guilds deserve an even share of the reward, no?

My opinion of draws on conflicts initiated is they are a failure. Failure should not be rewarded in my opinion. It further protects the interest of the global community to a degree, by now presenting just one more incentive to partake knowing an individual effort made to defend for a draw could halt the repeated visits of would be farmers through wasting their investment. To those living off RP, the fortunate byproduct of the often foreign concept of competition is the value of RP will rise.

[Chooma123]

how is a draw a failed conflict

 

although I know you think it will make more people take part in gvg, which is at the end of the day what we all want, it will make a higher number stop, and in fact would worsen the problem for those who don't gvg at all, and simply mean any initiated gvg on anybody but the lowest possible guilds a waste of time, as you know they are going to defend, wasting your resources

 

I agree there is a problem with the current system but i dont think this idea is a viable solution even with the changes, its just an idea to squeeze out a few more rewards for your top gvg guild, forgetting about anyone or anything else

[yotwehc]

My opinion of draws on conflicts initiated is they are a failure. Failure should not be rewarded in my opinion. It further protects the interest of the global community to a degree, by now presenting just one more incentive to partake knowing an individual effort made to defend for a draw could halt the repeated visits of would be farmers through wasting their investment. To those living off RP, the fortunate byproduct of the often foreign concept of competition is the value of RP will rise.

This idea has merit. Will really encourage folks to fight back. Especially those frustrated by being farmed. They would have great motivation to stick it to the attacker by fighting back and stripping their chance for rewards.

[wazzimoto]

No offence intended.....BUT....I do not think "RA" is the best GvG Guild in the Game......OFF TOPIC..the best GvG Guilds in the Game are the top 2 and 3 Guilds....as they have numerous targets available to all of FS to hit....

RA has 5 active members ??  Seriously??  try holding number 2 and 3 spot with a bigger Guild like Lap and I do....LOL  w0w...Best GvG Guilds in the Game are LWS and NoD...??

 

 

Point is.....Guilds with low members rate (5-10) members...ARE going to have an advantage and that will have to be addressed...  ??   thats my opinion...other than that...i have said before..I LOVE this idea!!

Edited by wazzimoto, 29 April 2017 - 00:20.

[Melons]

I agree there is a problem with the current system but i dont think this idea is a viable solution even with the changes, its just an idea to squeeze out a few more rewards for your top gvg guild, forgetting about anyone or anything else

I agree with Rye on this, and please don't jump to the "it'll benefit your guild or playstyle excuse" right away. The last time we had a GvG day we hit around 12 guilds and only 1 tried hitting back. The others didn't make a single effort to defend. If I really wanted the extra benefit, then I wouldn't even agree with the idea in the first place. 

 

Giving the defending GvG a better reason to actually try to hit back might increase GvG participation for defenders. 

Edited by Melons, 29 April 2017 - 07:10.

[Melons]

.

Edited by Melons, 29 April 2017 - 03:02.

[Ryebred]

No offence intended.....BUT....I do not think "RA" is the best GvG Guild in the Game......OFF TOPIC..the best GvG Guilds in the Game are the top 2 and 3 Guilds....as they have numerous targets available to all of FS to hit....
RA has 5 active members ??  Seriously??  try holding number 2 and 3 spot with a bigger Guild like Lap and I do....LOL  w0w...Best GvG Guilds in the Game are LWS and NoD...??
 
 
Point is.....Guilds with low members rate (5-10) members...ARE going to have an advantage and that will have to be addressed...  ??   thats my opinion...other than that...i have said before..I LOVE this idea!!

I love your passion for GvG. I won't debate who's best, or list advantages and disadvantages of guild size. I have solid experience in big guild GvG as well, and with extreme success.

In my proposal the tournament play month could really limit small venue specific guilds through self inflicted target limitations. RA is recruiting, but Odisious quite honestly may be the games worst recruiter :-P