105 replies to this topic

[Zord]

...
We have now implemented the Guild Conflict Changes that were discussed in the Hunted Cow IRC Chat. As discussed before the changes we have made are as follows:
...

Erm, was there a discussion in the last few days, or was it an old one? In other words: there were two topics started due to the planned GvG updates, namely viewtopic.php?f=1&t=106569 and viewtopic.php?f=1&t=106633, and your post hints that the results of an IRC discussion was implemented so either those feedback threads were ignored or there was another new discussion which players may not be aware of.

The reason I am asking is that as far as I remember everyone was more than happy about the new RP awarding scheme i.e. promoting defending and also adding a benefit to do conflicts requiring more hits than the minimal 50, however the proposed level ranges as well as the limitation on the attackers resulted in a lot of debate which was rather unresolved, particularly when considering how small portion of the FS community commented on those topics.

In case there implemented changes were due to the result of an old IRC discussion, are you planning to revise the system in the (possibly more near than far) future, or is it stone-written?

[iambrad]

Any changes to the Rating system?

[Egami]

Someone who is level 750 from my understanding will only be able to target those who are in range from levels : 701 through 850 from here up so when you get to 701 make sure you have an awesome offline set lol =)

Actually I believe 750 would be able to hit 700... mute point, but let's make it easier to understand with an example ,oP

Let's say I am level 710.

I may hit up to 810 (+100).

However.... the limit is the lower level player. So I will only be able to hit down to level 660.

Why? Because the limit on a level 660 is 50 levels (301-700 is +/- 50)

Hope that's clear... also hope that's right, lol.

PS @Chazz... no swipe on quoting you... seen 2 great explanations so far. Thanks for helping people out (o0

[Windbattle]

Also, is gvg rating just for bragging right now? whats the point in it?

[tlthomasjr]

i am sorry to disagree with someone i respect so much, but beating on someone 100 levels of points, buffs, and gear below you, and even worse, one who might not even be able to hit back if they wanted to is just plain ludicrous.

If i hit someone, they should be able hit me back, and the reverse is also true. i can already see numerous ways to exploit this update, but what does that prove?

If the level ranges of a guilds members doesnt allow you to hit certain guilds then so be it, expanding the level ranges to the point that no one could possibly defend against the attack is not the answer, expanding your roster to allow more options is the answer.
It doesnt affect defending an incoming conflict, unless that is exploited as well by hitting a guild with only players too low to hit back, so the only limitation will be on the attacking guild.

[Chazz224]

Someone who is level 750 from my understanding will only be able to target those who are in range from levels : 701 through 850 from here up so when you get to 701 make sure you have an awesome offline set lol =)

Actually I believe 750 would be able to hit 700... mute point, but let's make it easier to understand with an example ,oP

Let's say I am level 710.

I may hit up to 810 (+100).

However.... the limit is the lower level player. So I will only be able to hit down to level 660.

Why? Because the limit on a level 660 is 50 levels (301-700 is +/- 50)

Hope that's clear... also hope that's right, lol.

PS @Chazz... no swipe on quoting you... seen 2 great explanations so far. Thanks for helping people out (o0

Thank you for the help still on my first cup of coffee here lol But your examples are good =)

[iambrad]

Dear hcs, will you please show examples of the crossover bands and how they work as there is confusion it seems. Please include examples on how hitting down and up in the bands work especially in the ones that are on the cut off levels.
Rating system? Will there also be any changes to this?

[Windbattle]

Someone who is level 750 from my understanding will only be able to target those who are in range from levels : 701 through 850 from here up so when you get to 701 make sure you have an awesome offline set lol =)

Actually I believe 750 would be able to hit 700... mute point, but let's make it easier to understand with an example ,oP

Let's say I am level 710.

I may hit up to 810 (+100).

However.... the limit is the lower level player. So I will only be able to hit down to level 660.

Why? Because the limit on a level 660 is 50 levels (301-700 is +/- 50)

Hope that's clear... also hope that's right, lol.

PS @Chazz... no swipe on quoting you... seen 2 great explanations so far. Thanks for helping people out (o0

Thank you for the help still on my first cup of coffee here lol But your examples are good =)

Thank You. makes good sense now. I must have missed that in previous threads.

[Spider0007]

Thanks for the update!

I was wondering if there was any change to how rating transfers? Also wonder if there was/is/going to be an incentive to actually gain rating or be in the Top Rated List? It seems to me that guilds that take pride in their GvGing should be rewarded!

Other than that, I really like the update!

[Lamium]

...
We have now implemented the Guild Conflict Changes that were discussed in the Hunted Cow IRC Chat. As discussed before the changes we have made are as follows:
...

Erm, was there a discussion in the last few days, or was it an old one? In other words: there were two topics started due to the planned GvG updates, namely viewtopic.php?f=1&t=106569 and viewtopic.php?f=1&t=106633, and your post hints that the results of an IRC discussion was implemented so either those feedback threads were ignored or there was another new discussion which players may not be aware of.

The reason I am asking is that as far as I remember everyone was more than happy about the new RP awarding scheme i.e. promoting defending and also adding a benefit to do conflicts requiring more hits than the minimal 50, however the proposed level ranges as well as the limitation on the attackers resulted in a lot of debate which was rather unresolved, particularly when considering how small portion of the FS community commented on those topics.

In case there implemented changes were due to the result of an old IRC discussion, are you planning to revise the system in the (possibly more near than far) future, or is it stone-written?

We're always looking to improve the game so let's give this update a try and if you guys don't like it, we're always happy to change things in the future :mrgreen:

[lawyergod]

I tried to defend a conflict based on the new rules, my target being a 792, well within the plus/minus 100 range for two 700-plus players. When I tried to attack, I was told that the level range was plus/minus 25, as with old conflicts; HOWEVER, the Logs then reflected that I was a participant in the conflict, as if the attack had gone through. Something is wrong here.

[Lamium]

I tried to defend a conflict based on the new rules, my target being a 792, well within the plus/minus 100 range for two 700-plus players. When I tried to attack, I was told that the level range was plus/minus 25, as with old conflicts; HOWEVER, the Logs then reflected that I was a participant in the conflict, as if the attack had gone through. Something is wrong here.

Can you please do a hard refresh and re-attempt this?

[gaa]

dislike... should have just left it the way it was origianally.... so if i hit a guild 25 and another does the other 25 and not miss any the defending guild can reach 50 and steal the rp? kinda stupid in my opinion

[lawyergod]

I tried to defend a conflict based on the new rules, my target being a 792, well within the plus/minus 100 range for two 700-plus players. When I tried to attack, I was told that the level range was plus/minus 25, as with old conflicts; HOWEVER, the Logs then reflected that I was a participant in the conflict, as if the attack had gone through. Something is wrong here.

Can you please do a hard refresh and re-attempt this?

Ok, working now.

[paingwin]

I honestly have no issues with the update. But, instead of changes to RP, changes to the rating system were needed. It's pointless almost to even be on the top rated list, bragging rights is nice, but who wants to spend 100's of FSP defending for bragging rights? I mean, do we do it? Yes, but that's only because that is the only thing that GvG conflicts are good for. Why not add some incentive to be competitive?? Extra RP gained daily for being the number 1, 2, and 3 guilds. Free buff packs, something. if any change like this is to be implemented though, a reset to the current rating would be needed.....a fresh start, a new beginning.

[Spider0007]

I honestly have no issues with the update. But, instead of changes to RP, changes to the rating system were needed. It's pointless almost to even be on the top rated list, bragging rights is nice, but who wants to spend 100's of FSP defending for bragging rights? I mean, do we do it? Yes, but that's only because that is the only thing that GvG conflicts are good for. Why not add some incentive to be competitive?? Extra RP gained daily for being the number 1, 2, and 3 guilds. Free buff packs, something. if any change like this is to be implemented though, a reset to the current rating would be needed.....a fresh start, a new beginning.

+1

[callmeabc]

I tried to defend a conflict based on the new rules, my target being a 792, well within the plus/minus 100 range for two 700-plus players. When I tried to attack, I was told that the level range was plus/minus 25, as with old conflicts; HOWEVER, the Logs then reflected that I was a participant in the conflict, as if the attack had gone through. Something is wrong here.

This has always been the case, If i start a conflict and try to hit a level 1 player it will count me as participating, even if i could not actually hit him. I believe this is because of deflect, just because the attack did not connect does not mean you did not try

[lawyergod]

I honestly have no issues with the update. But, instead of changes to RP, changes to the rating system were needed. It's pointless almost to even be on the top rated list, bragging rights is nice, but who wants to spend 100's of FSP defending for bragging rights? I mean, do we do it? Yes, but that's only because that is the only thing that GvG conflicts are good for. Why not add some incentive to be competitive?? Extra RP gained daily for being the number 1, 2, and 3 guilds. Free buff packs, something. if any change like this is to be implemented though, a reset to the current rating would be needed.....a fresh start, a new beginning.

I'm not sure I agree with you, Pain, since there's ALSO no special reward for being on the Top Guilds list in terms of level, or richest. Nor is there a special bonus for PLAYERS on the Top lists ... other than medals. Which hearkens back to a point that several of us, myself included, have made on and off in other threads: I think there should be Guild medals.

[Windbattle]

I honestly have no issues with the update. But, instead of changes to RP, changes to the rating system were needed. It's pointless almost to even be on the top rated list, bragging rights is nice, but who wants to spend 100's of FSP defending for bragging rights? I mean, do we do it? Yes, but that's only because that is the only thing that GvG conflicts are good for. Why not add some incentive to be competitive?? Extra RP gained daily for being the number 1, 2, and 3 guilds. Free buff packs, something. if any change like this is to be implemented though, a reset to the current rating would be needed.....a fresh start, a new beginning.

I suggested GP = Guild points instead, resulting in customizable buff pack for the entire guild for 6-12 hours (RP would be allocated as the new system states. this would be EXTRA). It would be a new reward for being in the top 10 or 20, but then GvG rating needs to be reset so everyone has a fair shot.

You could do gear, but the game has too much of that already. Potions are another idea, but not sure if that would lead to people abusing the top rated list or not.

It would be similar to RP packs, but people have suggested in the past that a custom pack would be better.

[Windbattle]

I honestly have no issues with the update. But, instead of changes to RP, changes to the rating system were needed. It's pointless almost to even be on the top rated list, bragging rights is nice, but who wants to spend 100's of FSP defending for bragging rights? I mean, do we do it? Yes, but that's only because that is the only thing that GvG conflicts are good for. Why not add some incentive to be competitive?? Extra RP gained daily for being the number 1, 2, and 3 guilds. Free buff packs, something. if any change like this is to be implemented though, a reset to the current rating would be needed.....a fresh start, a new beginning.

I'm not sure I agree with you, Pain, since there's ALSO no special reward for being on the Top Guilds list in terms of level, or richest. Nor is there a special bonus for PLAYERS on the Top lists ... other than medals. Which hearkens back to a point that several of us, myself included, have made on and off in other threads: I think there should be Guild medals.

+100,000 to guild medals. a great idea but never implemented.