73 replies to this topic

[Arioche]

Hello everyone!

 

Some time back, this forum thread gave us some ideas about what we could do to revitalize GvG. We decided to take some of these on board, and we are thinking about running a trial to see how it goes.

 

Below are some of the things we will be aiming to implement:

 

• Notification System for upcoming conflict

​Just like the Relics, we believe this will give Defending Guilds a chance to prep, and allow Guilds to strategize before the conflict begins. 

 

There was some talk about how much notice a Guild should be given before a conflict begins. There have been a few suggestions thrown around: 1 hour, 2 hours, though we believe 1 hour will suffice for the trial period.

^​

This preparation time will be separate from the 24hr Conflict Window.

• Reducing the offline time for AFK targets

The current activity timer is 7 days. We are open to reducing this to 48hrs during the trial period.

• Guilds must meet the Level Requirement and be over 7 days old to initiate a GvG
   
• Expand Level Ranges

Mostly to boost activity in the middle-late ranges. Currently, the plan is to expand these ranges after the trial period.

• Update RP Packs

Long overdue for some sort of update. We will post again with the proposed change to allow some time for feedback!

 

As these proposed changes will affect many of you, we urge everyone to give us their thoughts and opinions! 

 

Thank you! 

 

~ Fallen Sword Team

 

[Maxiums]

Since we are discussing the revamping of GVG, many players and or guilds still do not like to participate in GVG or latter combat. I think the mechanism for GVG should be able to be turned off or opted in or out like the latter. This could be a founder's control as the founder would know the pulse of his guild insofar as GVG participation.

[Cestus]

Since we are discussing the revamping of GVG, many players and or guilds still do not like to participate in GVG or latter combat. I think the mechanism for GVG should be able to be turned off or opted in or out like the latter. This could be a founder's control as the founder would know the pulse of his guild insofar as GVG participation.

I think this would raise a whole lot of ruckus, but I would go along with it, as you said Maxiums, lots of guilds do not like to participate in gvgs.

[Maehdros]

Durability damage to gear is all that occurs. No gold loss or xp. The same thing can occur when leveling or hunting etc. No need for a gvg opt out in my opinion.


With regards to the main post, updated rp packs are nice of course , but what about updated rp items and recipes etc? What are the new level ranges? And how rp is awarded and so on? Post seems very vague.


Cheers~

Edited by Maehdros, 14 March 2023 - 13:44.

[Arioche]

Durability damage to gear is all that occurs. No gold loss or xp. The same thing can occur when leveling or hunting etc. No need for a gvg opt out in my opinion.


With regards to the main post, updated rp packs are nice of course , but what about updated rp items and recipes etc? What are the new level ranges? And how rp is awarded and so on? Post seems very vague.


Cheers~

 

Hello Maehdros!

We will make another post with more details about the RP Packs, and any other plans we do, such as new items or recipes! 

As for Level ranges, we feel we'd introduce these after the trial period, but we will of course keep ourselves open to trying it out sooner if need be! 

[Chooma123]

​I think given the change to reduce the offline time for AFK targets, you should add the increase to the level brackets for the trial alongside it. With the reduction of targets that comes from reducing the offline time, you risk making already pretty dead brackets even worse. I think the previous suggestion of increasing the level bracket by an extra +/- 25 levels for every 1000 levels, alongside the current brackets, would be a good starting point - and can always be changed during/after the trial.

 

As an example for my level, at 3492:
With no level bracket increases (+/- 100 levels): 9 targets (Pretty dead considering a cooldown of 10 days per guild)
With the suggested +/-25 levels per 1000 level addition (+/- 175 levels): 18 targets (Much more acceptable)

On the offline time, I assume you plan to follow the current behaviour. Right now, a player can become inactive during the conflict. So if you start a GvG, and someone in the defending guild has been offline for 6-7 days, at some point during the 24 hour period (assuming the GvG lasts the full period) - they will become afk and unattackable during the GvG.

 

Given the changes will also help guilds defend better, I think the chances of GvGs lasting longer, even to the full 24 hours, are much higher. So to guarentee that targets do not become untargetable during the GvG, you would have to ensure they have logged in within the last 24 hours before starting, which IMO is too little. To resolve this I would suggest 1 of 2 options:

 1. Increase the afk time to 3 days and preserve the current behaviour.

 2. Change the behaviour so that the afk time is only checked at the start of a conflict, and once the conflict has started, targets cannot become untargetable by crossing the afk threshold.

Edited by Chooma123, 14 March 2023 - 14:36.

[EpicPiety]

Since we are discussing the revamping of GVG, many players and or guilds still do not like to participate in GVG or latter combat. I think the mechanism for GVG should be able to be turned off or opted in or out like the latter. This could be a founder's control as the founder would know the pulse of his guild insofar as GVG participation.

Totally disagree, quick way to have 0 participation. You don't lose XP so don't see the need to opt out.

[EpicPiety]

While i think some of the proposed changes are good. One of the big problems with Ladder is the ELO system. It does not reset and it becomes very hard to climb ladder once you have the advantage of sitting up top and defending. Any plans to have ladder resets and rewards for top guilds every so often?

It is very stagnated due to this.

[Lsrpm]

I honestly think the timers need to swap. Meaning Guild A launches an attack on Guild B, both Guild A and Guild B get ~24 hours to prepare/respond. Both guilds agree to a specific server time(or one is set based off when the launch happens), both guilds fight until 1-2 hours are up. Most successful hits wins.

Probably rough to do this since not everyone can be on at a certain time, but I think the biggest offender is having ACTIVE targets to hit.

That being said though I think GvG needs to sway away from PvP and go more in the direction of guilds challenging other guilds. It says a lot when Titan hunting certain titans feels more like GvG than GvG.

[Belaric]

As founder of a guild that often gets farmed, and we don't much care, (once in the bluest of blue moons someone decides to hit back and make a contest of it, can't remember last time we had a draw, let alone a win) I do not think an opt out is needed. Yes it's annoying having your gear chipped away/occasionally trashed, but that's what gold is for. Even guild gold, but I've never used it for that purpose. 

 

48 hour activity will restrict targets. Widening the ranges in response in GvG seems fair. Especially in the ranges mentioned. The problem remains fewer fish in the sea, but that's a structural issue. I'd love to know population numbers for the game now, and how many players are exclusively mobile.

 

Agreement on server times? I can see the appeal, but I think the initiating guild should still have some advantage, and negotiating a time could be like herding cats with guilds wanting their guys from X timezone on, and the other guild, that has done its homework, deliberately wants to avoid them. Agreements might be hard to come by!

 

Let's see how the 1 hour warning and time to prep (if you want to) shakes out. (I think that is a bit short, as I'm on a lot, but will still miss most 1 hour windows in a 24 hour period, especially when working, but don't mind trialling 1 hour at first. If it is insufficient, it can always be expanded.)

 

Thanks cows for working on this, and being open to a trial period. I'm up for giving it a shot. Trying something, tweaking it, trying again gives us all a chance to curate the experience so everyone has a chance to enjoy the game.

 

Look forward to the Arena tweaks and trials later this year! (Just for you, Shindrak, LOL!)

[MGH HiddnNinja]

To the guys wanting an "opt out" option.  That will destroy GvG in total.  If they could implement a 0 durability(unbreakable) to defenders of GvG it'd be better!  The offensive attacks could still get durability taken away.  Just a  thought.

[EpicPiety]

To the guys wanting an "opt out" option.  That will destroy GvG in total.  If they could implement a 0 durability(unbreakable) to defenders of GvG it'd be better!  The offensive attacks could still get durability taken away.  Just a  thought.

No, gear breaking is part of the strategy of GvG. Not another way to buff GvG Defense.

[Lsrpm]

 

 

Agreement on server times? I can see the appeal, but I think the initiating guild should still have some advantage, and negotiating a time could be like herding cats with guilds wanting their guys from X timezone on, and the other guild, that has done its homework, deliberately wants to avoid them. Agreements might be hard to come by!

 

Thats where the initiating guild can get the advantage, by already knowing which timezones are most active before they launch an attack. Also herding cats sounds part of the strategy. If a guild couldnt get their ducks in a row in a ~24 hour notice, then they should have prepared better. Theres already many elements in the game similar to this.

[MrValdac]

Personally, I think most of these ideas are terrible. Expending the level range is going to be dependent on what the new level ranges would be. That one could go either way. 24 hour notice to defenders sounds nice on paper, and I get the idea behind it... but in practice, it's just going to make GvG even more of a slog than it already is.

 

Furthermore, if you reduce the AFK timer from 7 days down to 48 hours, that's the worst idea on this entire list. It's just going to mean that almost nobody has any viable targets, unless the expanded level ranges are intended to try and compensate for this. There are a LOT of semi-active players who still log in once or twice a week, but would no longer be viable GvG targets.

 

I would much rather you guys be looking at ways to try and make GvG more rewarding or engaging, instead of gutting it and making it even more frustrating. It's barely worth it as it is, and a lot of these suggested "improvements" are going to make it so nobody will even bother.

[callmeabc]

A notification / wait time before a conflict takes away any edge the attacking guild has and really stacks thing in favor of the defending guild. As it is any guild who cares about their rating already is able to turn the tide in their favor pretty quickly. I don't like that idea as an attacker and as a defender I have the app telling me as soon as a guild decides to hit us and am normally on top of figuring out who is hitting and buffing the right people so I don't need an hour to prepare. 

 

Why are you not trying to implement ideas that we GvGers are putting forward?

Can we add a level to the scout tower that lets leaders track who is doing what? It seems crazy to me that hunting titans I can get a report on which guild members have inflected how much damage on each titan but noone know how many hits have been done by whom in something that is strictly a guild thing. 

Titan hunting can be done by anyone guild or not and since many guilds pay their members for participating to encourage participation. 

 

Can we please visit RP packs that are beneficial to PvP? While its nice to got some conflicts and use the RP to give the guild leveling buffs seems like we should have rewards that are exclusive to GvG to help with doing the conflicts. like before starting 20 conflicts to buff the guild with stuff to help defend and or attack in the conflicts with.

 

For the people who want to opt out of guild conflict - give a system like opting out of random PvP - you can pay to protect your gear (like you can pay to protect your XP)  

 

[yghorbeviahn]

I agree with everything since it starts on a trial basis.

Expanding the ranges should go along with the reduce time for "inactives", otherwise you gonna reduce the available targets way too much to make the trial viable.

And I like the idea of a Ladder system for GvG, maybe create a separate area for it? So Guilds can still battle for an overall Top GvG guild, but in another area Guilds can fight for the Ladder part? Maybe with prizes/perks?

[Morgwyn]

For what it is worth, my 2 cents...

 

Overall, don't go for the changes that you suggest. It really won't help GvG.

A notification won't help, guilds that care and are active will respond to the guild log of initiation and start buffing and gearing up. Guilds that are not active or do not care, well they won't regardless of any earlier message.

What is next? We change PvP that way aswel? "Look out, player X will try to attack you in 2 hours!".

That will take the fun out, the unexpectedness is part of GvG/PvP.

 

Adjusting the activity timer, what exactly does it solve? An player that is offline for 36h is not very likely to come online because of a GvG notification. If he would even get that message while being offline.

 

Expanding level ranges could help a bit as there would be more targets and therefore more opportunities to initiate.

 

But it all depends on wether the targeted guild/players are interested in GvG.

Whatever you tweak, it will not do anything to those that are not interested.

Thus the ONLY solution is to make GvG interesting. And the ONLY way to do that is by making the rewards interesting by adding RP packs (though I think that adding buff packs only won't do that much), and adding more RP inventable items/epics that are good enough to compete with what is already out there.

 

Another option is to make the defensive RP gains higher than the attacking RP gains. The attacking guild is always into GvG, it is the defending guild you need to get interested. If the RP rewards are worth it and you get more RP by defending, then you have an incentive to actually defend. And maybe, just maybe get the players/guilds aboard that are currently not interested.

 

 

*edit* As I want to add something.

Probably not a very popular thought, but instead of having to add more and more powerfull buff packs and epics (unless you want stam gain to go up and up), you could consider being able to buy guild upgrades with RP. Not sure how much that would hurt the games income, though I would suspect most bought fsp is sinked into gear and personal upgrades rather than guild upgrades.
But it could remove some headaches on how to get more/better use for RP.

Edited by Morgwyn, 14 March 2023 - 21:13.

[IVANIDAS]

 

First and foremost, thank you for focusing on GvG. It’s been long and awaited section many players like myself have been hoping for. 

 

Notification system: Doesnt seem to be a good idea. 
Attacking guilds have always done the method of waiting for the "perfect time to strike", with this new system it wouldnt work anymore.
For defending guilds, an hour is way more than enough time to pot up, switch gears and stay on throughout the beginning of the gvg. 
 

RP Packs: Doesn’t matter, just happy new packs will be hopefully added.
-a pack with cloak/deflect would be ideal
-a pack with enhancing items such as enchant helmet, rune, etc would be ideal. 

 

Level Ranges: Glad ranges are getting an increase. I know some ranges are “dead zones” so with an implement of ranges added, I hope to see more gvgs being done. 

 

Inactive time: 7 days seem fine, at most 3 days seem great aswell but like mentioned, leave it at 7 days if possible. 

 

Rewards/Accolades: GVGs have always been been a source for profit but recently it hasn’t. Atm some epics aren’t worth making or there’s too many ingame, so some rp items don’t have a value like they used to. Hope to see new epic worth grinding for. (Hope to see other current rp epics get an upgrade like the others)

For being number one place I hope to see a type of reward, maybe an achievement? Top rating get stamina gain or max stamina. Make a reward that would make guilds attempt to get the throne. Also I know some long timers wanting a gvg medal, maybe add a medal for gvg wins. 

[shindrak]

GvG isn't alright when you just see a small guild of 5 players dominating it or farming RP of other guilds with minimal effort...

 

I understand numbers shouldn't always win and it is more about how experienced you are.

but it is clear a lot of players here are worried about their benefits rather than worried about the game's aspect itself is dead.

 

GvG needs Rejuvenation as suggested in Toreth's Thread https://forums.huntedcow.com/index.php?showtopic=77829

 

I would like to see a trial of those changes to see if that will increase the activity

 

A good GvG guild should adapt to any change regardless

Edited by shindrak, 14 March 2023 - 21:57.

[IVANIDAS]

GvG isn't alright when you just see a small guild of 5 players dominating it or farming RP of other guilds with minimal effort...

 

I understand numbers shouldn't always win and it is more about how experienced you are.

but it is clear a lot of players here are worried about their benefits rather than worried about the game's aspect itself is dead.

 

GvG needs Rejuvenation as suggested in Toreth's Thread https://forums.huntedcow.com/index.php?showtopic=77829

 

I would like to see a trial of those changes to see if that will increase the activity

 

A good GvG guild should adapt to any change regardless

Well Im open to changes, regardless on what happens, hence stating that I want others to attempt to become number one. Lately SOME guilds take the hits when online but can't even bother to defend.