381 replies to this topic

[Removed94]

Guild conflicts should reflect exactly that. This needs to be changed so that a minimum number of active participants is required to complete a specific number of hits each. Stop the days of player vs guild.

That would be awesome; it's the biggest adjustment needed.

Allow sealed to randomly select 1 buff that won't be active for that round of combat instead of all buffs. This takes away the overpoweredness of the buff but still allows for some exciting activations because you never know which buff it might disallow.

And this appears to be one. I quite like this idea. What do others think?

Is this a different 1 buff possibly disallowed per round of combat; or just 1 buff disallowed for the entire combat?

[Molehunter]

I suggest (and have suggested) quarterly ladder resets;

Not a bad idea. Would also get rid of the inactive Guilds which are cluttering up the GvG Ladder.

Any feedback from others? Do these ideas sound good?

I fail to see how resetting the GvG rating quarterly or randomly will improve GvG.
We are in this sorry state because folks complain about being farmed to death.

If the rating resets on a regular basis, it will only encourage all active GvG guilds
to start farming again just to race to the top spot. How would this do the all those
guilds that want to be left alone?

[LLAP]

I suggest (and have suggested) quarterly ladder resets;

Not a bad idea. Would also get rid of the inactive Guilds which are cluttering up the GvG Ladder.

Any feedback from others? Do these ideas sound good?

I fail to see how resetting the GvG rating quarterly or randomly will improve GvG.
We are in this sorry state because folks complain about being farmed to death.

If the rating resets on a regular basis, it will only encourage all active GvG guilds
to start farming again just to race to the top spot. How would this do the all those
guilds that want to be left alone?

Hopefully encourage them to defend, or atleast to there best ability.
If not, I would get a good chuckle from there failure- Yeah, I am a lovely person.

[iambrad]

well, if it is the squeaky wheel...i will try again in any forum i can:

GVG: There has been interest in making there be more than one hitter during a gvg. But how to make this work without giving either 4 person or 100+ person guilds a huge advantage. The issue with more than one hitter is that certain guilds then may have an advantage by having members in certain ranges that can hit more guilds and other guilds may have only limited amount of targets to hit effectively draining their potential /to hit/ guilds that they could initiate on. Don't go down this path, it is a nightmare.
Keep the 'to hit' situation the same but add something like: A guild can still use one person to complete gvgs but for every additional member that gets 10 hits in then the guild receives 5 extra RP if they win. cap it at 20 extra RP or 4 additional members. So a win could get the base 10 RP and for up to each member who COMPLETES 10 hits another 5 RP up to 20 extra total or 10 base +20 potential=30 possible RP per conflict.
Besides this , just change the
1. initiation fee to be even across the board or less for guilds with higher rating(to drive away RP farming guilds, this has been explained in another forum discussion.)
2. change rating again or back to old way so that the gvg guilds can actually gain rating again. And no matter what, a guild should gain some minimal rating for winning a gvg.
3. If you want to make it a reset (which i dont), it has to be for several months to actually show the true top rating of a gvg guild, not just some quick push by a guild to grab top spot for one week then fall away.
4. change RP base +potential RP/number of hitters as explained above.
5. If you lose a gvg, you lose 5 RP no matter how many hitters.
6. Make it ten current active members to initiate a gvg. It is GUILD versus GUILD after all. And this will help remove multi RP farming guilds.
7. How much more do you have to hear before you make changes. We have had lots of input on this and the current gvg system is viable, challenging, and fun with just a few changes (as mentioned above). It should not be hard to implement these few changes and get GVG rolling again.

[ripplelady]

Making sealed only work on one buff doesn't make sense we already have spell breaker and spell leach. A better idea is make it not work for gvg

[Maehdros]

Making sealed only work on one buff doesn't make sense we already have spell breaker and spell leach. A better idea is make it not work for gvg

Spell Breaker and Spell leech *remove* a buff The idea is when sealed activates a SINGLE random buff will be negated for the combat. (not ALL buffs, and none are removed)

We can discuss it on the *sealed* thread if ya wanna

[evilbry]

A couple of other things for BG to consider:

1) encourage guilds to complete all their hits. This can be done by awarding partial RP to each guild for a draw. Possibly a lesser amount for completing all hits with a close loss.
My thinking is
- 10 RP awarded for a win.
- 5 RP awarded to each guild for a draw
- 2 RP awarded to a guild for completing their hits with a final score no more than 3 less than the winners. Example final score of 47-50 would return 2 RP. 45-50 would return 0.


2) Certain players are well known to start conflicts against guilds their Ladder opponents are in. This prevents ladder activity until the guild conflict attacks are completed. Ensure there is a way that ladder takes precedence over guild conflict like bounty does.
To a lesser extent(and much less popular) it would be good to also have a page asking if you want to partake in a conflict or if you want to do a pvp attack. Once you are a participant in a conflict, you can't do pvp hits (except bounty and maybe ladder) until your outgoing hits have been completed. Guilds are known to initiate a conflict with no intention of even starting their attacks. Simply forcing the target guild to complete hits if they want to PvP any of the initiating guilds members.

3) In one of the last changes to gvg (many moons ago when BG was just a wee lad aka about 12-18 months ago) the amount of rating won/lost was significantly nerfed. When we had guilds up around 2000 rating, they used to lose 40-50 rating for a loss. Now it's only about 12-15? going back to the old rating system would provide more variety and movement on the GvG ladder. It will also lead to guilds making more of an effort to defend against a potential loss.

I suggest (and have suggested) quarterly ladder resets;

Not a bad idea. Would also get rid of the inactive Guilds which are cluttering up the GvG Ladder.

Any feedback from others? Do these ideas sound good?

You will have to be careful how you do this. I would take another approach. Randomly (every 4-6 weeks) reward those in the top 5-10 with additional RP. maybe 100 for first, 75 for second, 50 for 3-5, 25 for 6-10.
This will promote competition and you will have more guilds vying for the top 10. The amount of RP should be enough that it rewards those who make the effort, but not so much that it gives them an unfair advantage.

If the number of active guild members drops below the threshold for being able to initiate a conflict or be initiated against, they should be removed from the list and their rating reset. If they then have the enough active members they are able to engage in conflicts again but need to build their rating up. This will only be successful if a more intelligent pricing structure is in place. Why not just set a flat rate for everyone?

[Sethurus]

I suggest (and have suggested) quarterly ladder resets;

Not a bad idea. Would also get rid of the inactive Guilds which are cluttering up the GvG Ladder.

I also suggest a small reward for the top 5. Something simple, little extra RP for 5 -20, 4 -40, 3rd -50, 2nd - 100, 1st - 150.

Again, not a bad idea.

And update the RP packs.. I appreciate the last one..think selection of buffs could of been better...but you can do better...make it pricey...have it support the venue it spawns from. This is my 2 cents, hope it is heard.

RP packs will eventually be replaced with bound Multi Buff potions that'll be delivered to each player in the Guild. This will mean that members of the Guild will not miss out.

I've an idea about this. Why not remove the 50/50 cap, include inactive guild members, and shorten the time limit.
Removing the 50/50 cap would discourage selling off 'instant wins'. It would also encourage more participation within each guild rather than leaving the conflicts up to one or two members.

Guilds often retain inactive members that I've often found would be within the 25 level target range were they active, but aren't because they've gone inactive or offline past the seven day mark. If inactive members were included, guilds would have to search for more active members.

Noted.


Any feedback from others? Do these ideas sound good?

7 days or more inactive and players cant be hit in guild conflicts, that should remain the same imo.

I still disagree. large guilds with large amounts of members that have gone inactive for 7 or more days keep them, because its safe in doing so. Were they to be included in conflicts as well. Fewer guilds would be keeping any members that go dormant after 7 days. I keep running into this. Making all guild members targets for a gvg attack is what we do need.

[Trecar]

I still disagree. large guilds with large amounts of members that have gone inactive for 7 or more days keep them, because its safe in doing so. Were they to be included in conflicts as well. Fewer guilds would be keeping any members that go dormant after 7 days. I keep running into this. Making all guild members targets for a gvg attack is what we do need.

Why? So that after a week of their stats being degraded by RP farmers, you can come along and actually beat them? Quality, you're the man....

[evilbry]

I do not see why people keep saying the current GvG system does not take team work. Um it takes a lot of team work

What team work. Our peaceful guild keeps getting hit by 1 member of a high level guild who flys through the 50 attacks with the greatest of ease, usually on our lower level members since that person doing the attacking can't be hit by our higher level members. So again, what teamwork? Get rid of GvG being declared against a non gvg guild.

The bolded part is just another part of Guild conflicts which needs to be fixed. I start to wonder if BG realises the pandoras box he started to open, by saying he is going to look into GvG.

[Billybob]

How about requiring a guild structure in order to do GvG, either attacking or being attacked? That way guilds which do not chose to participate can opt out. Set the minimum level to build to eliminate guilds being formed just to farm rp.

[LLAP]

How about requiring a guild structure in order to do GvG, either attacking or being attacked? That way guilds which do not chose to participate can opt out. Set the minimum level to build to eliminate guilds being formed just to farm rp.

Or, instead of having to cash out 75FSP+Gold to create said scructure/remove an existing one ect but to instead have a minimum of other structures, eg 5. A guild has to then reach Lv.100 and have 3 structures then buy and make a further 2?

Something along those lines

[BigGrim]

Is this a different 1 buff possibly disallowed per round of combat; or just 1 buff disallowed for the entire combat?

I reckon it'd be 1 for the combat though 1 per combat round could be interesting.

[Necra]

if it activates? or every round of combat?

[evilbry]

Is this a different 1 buff possibly disallowed per round of combat; or just 1 buff disallowed for the entire combat?

I reckon it'd be 1 for the combat though 1 per combat round could be interesting.

BG, this is overcomplicating things. Assuming you are talking about sealed.

Most of the buffs fire at the start of combats so the only ones which will then maybe be impacted would be the likes of poison, ignite, Force Shield, shockwave, stun and Last Ditch. Let it deal with one buff at the start and that is all it does.

Essentially it would cripple armor sets, giving a big advantage to def users.

[Maehdros]

Is this a different 1 buff possibly disallowed per round of combat; or just 1 buff disallowed for the entire combat?

I reckon it'd be 1 for the combat though 1 per combat round could be interesting.

BG, this is overcomplicating things. Assuming you are talking about sealed.

Most of the buffs fire at the start of combats so the only ones which will then maybe be impacted would be the likes of poison, ignite, Force Shield, shockwave, stun and Last Ditch. Let it deal with one buff at the start and that is all it does.

Essentially it would cripple armor sets, giving a big advantage to def users.

+1


When sealed activates, if it is tweaked to negate ONE buff at the beginning of combat , thats fine. Anything more then that is complicated.


Also have to decide the activation rate? would it still be 0.1% activation chance per skill point? ( 17.5% chance at level 175 buff) or should it be changed into a simlar chance like savagery,golden shield, high guard and shatter armor @ 0.05% chance per point. ( 8.75% chance at level 175 buff level)

[Leos3000]

+1


When sealed activates, if it is tweaked to negate ONE buff at the beginning of combat , thats fine. Anything more then that is complicated.


Also have to decide the activation rate? would it still be 0.1% activation chance per skill point? ( 17.5% chance at level 175 buff) or should it be changed into a simlar chance like savagery,golden shield, high guard and shatter armor @ 0.05% chance per point. ( 8.75% chance at level 175 buff level)

If you plan on making it just take 1 random buff away that is fine, but also lowering the activation rate seems like you are nerfing it a little too much. If it only takes 1 buff away it is essentially the same buff as Dispel curse, but with more randomness and probably less effectiveness at the same time. So if anything is done to the activation rate is should be to make it the same as Dispel Curses rate at .2% per point since they would almost be the same buff the same activation rate only makes sense

[Maehdros]

If you plan on making it just take 1 random buff away that is fine, but also lowering the activation rate seems like you are nerfing it a little too much. If it only takes 1 buff away it is essentially the same buff as Dispel curse, but with more randomness and probably less effectiveness at the same time. So if anything is done to the activation rate is should be to make it the same as Dispel Curses rate at .2% per point since they would almost be the same buff the same activation rate only makes sense

I was curious whether it stays at 17.5% or do players want to lower it a bit. Increasing it isn't necessary in my opinion.


Dispel curse is MEGA powerful and finally brings a bit of balance for defense sets against dc225,237 or 259 ( when distilled), that doesn't mean we should keep making other chance buffs more and more powerful as well Giving chance buffs higher activation rates just takes the fun away from designing pvp sets , and fighting others, taking the true skill out of pvp.

[insaner6]

Sealed buff is not the problem on GvG.
leave that buff as is.

as metioned before, give us the choice to be able to attack someone
either for GvG or for the pvp ladder, or for the bounty board or just plain pvp.

cause while u are involved in a gvg, u cant attack someone for pvp purposes.