255 replies to this topic

[Melons]

I didn't say anything about adding more rewards that can be sold, I mentioned a point currency that can be used for exclusive buff packs not items. 

 

Ratings are a buffer, even if you are 1 rating above rank 3 you are still rank 2. Buffer meaning if you are 100 above rank 2, you can mess up 2-3 GVG before you drop below to rank 3. Yes I mean you mess up since you wont lose rating unless you lose a hit, draws means no change. You lose more and gain less is to allow guilds to catch up and keep the rating ranks competitive. Wouldn't be fun it was like the gold hoarder medal right ? So don't complain about losing rating, you only lose more because you are up there and if you are lets say 'legit' you can hold down and even come back to it if things go wrong. or you're whining cuz you can't accumulate rating and sit comfortably with your proposed rewards huh. 

 

See the idea seems good on paper because it will increase activity between the top 3 or lets say the dedicated GVGers, but in reality it will push away all the casual GVGers and the ones who do it for profit. But you cant seem to see that since it, as I said makes the game suit the way you like to play not the way GVG was meant to be.

Whining? Where did I whine about losing rating? I simply pointed out that guilds that aren't in the top three can easily knock our rating down significantly. The reason why this isn't happening is because there aren't many other guilds that actually try to get into the top three. Nowhere in my statement did I say that this was unfair to us. Instead of trying to twist my words, why doesn't we focus on the proposed rewards since we actually seem to have common ground there?

 

I think we both can agree GvG means Guild versus Guild, right? So, do you consider 2 people from a guild doing all the conflicts GvG? In my opinion, that's not. What I hope GvG changes into is that requires more of a group effort where the whole guild gets rewarded for their effort and not just two or three people. 

 

As for rewards, adding point currency seems like a good idea, but we might as well add more buff packs for RP then. The problem I see with this is that there is no reason for guilds to hit back or defend themselves. The reason why I'm saying top x amount of GvG guilds in a system should get the rewards is so guilds actually have to spend time and resource to fight for the spots. If you just add rewards more rewards to the current system nothing really changes. Sure, you get more activity but it's just gonna be a matter of time before it dies off. 

[Ryebred]

I feel you missed out the the last sentence of the comment you quoted. Let's say your guild is a success story as well as LWS as both have mentioned their efforts to overcome the weaknesses that come with larger guilds. As you mention yourself, the top three guilds love it without pay and it doesn't have to be bet on, its fact. But top three is NOT the majority. How would you like to be just facing 5 guilds if a GVG system was so demanding that if you wanted to GVG you either go small or be a success at large guilds like ND or LWS which isn't for the casuals who aren't involved with bigger picture of the game.
 
While it may not be yours, OPs or anybody's intention, most people that agree with the original idea are in the top 3 gvg guilds and a simple reset system with added rewards is not going to fix anything, it's more of an attempt to get the game to reward you for the way you like to play. 
 
I have mentioned two flaws with the original idea and counter solutions with points to back it up:
Instead of simple reset of rating, Introduce guild size brackets to really level the playing feild 
Don't mess with RP gain, Introduce new Reward currency for more exclusive buff packs
 
Neither OP or anyone else has brought up much opposition to the ideas

I want to hear more about the guild size brackets, how they would increase activity or make things fair. How do you scale that, and code it to be fair across the board. I at one time ran a large guild, and demonstrated playing the same way, under the same mechanics that size doesn't matter. Strengths, and weaknesses​ exist in both and my experience from within the venue tells me it's more a convenient point of emphasis for those who are lacking to argue upon then anything. I'm not here to oppose your ideas, want that then make your own thread. I'm here to support, and back my own ideas. If I comment on a suggestion favorably it's probably because I'm willing to compromise to find common ground. You seem to have some ideas, not sure if the goal is to ensure no changes happen or that the Honeypot keeps flowing so the majority you represent don't up and quit game. Post a thread explaining your fix, overhaul, tweaks. If I like it I'll support it. Too much fortune telling going on, you nor I know what our proposed changes would really bring. You represent what you think is the venue's intention of making the majority of participants an income source through casual play. I represent the competitive minority who believe the intent of GvG was to pit guilds against one another to demonstrate a perceived excellence when operating as a team. My character and idea will kick the @$$ of your character and idea in my opinion....Only thing left to do is prove it, so come up or I'm coming down

[Ryebred]

Oh forgot to LoL so two people who don't know one another can see the sarcasm, and not take the word fodder too seriously.

[Emperor Sidd]

Whining? Where did I whine about losing rating? I simply pointed out that guilds that aren't in the top three can easily knock our rating down significantly. The reason why this isn't happening is because there aren't many other guilds that actually try to get into the top three. Nowhere in my statement did I say that this was unfair to us. Instead of trying to twist my words, why doesn't we focus on the proposed rewards since we actually seem to have common ground there?

 

I think we both can agree GvG means Guild versus Guild, right? So, do you consider 2 people from a guild doing all the conflicts GvG? In my opinion, that's not. What I hope GvG changes into is that requires more of a group effort where the whole guild gets rewarded for their effort and not just two or three people. 

 

As for rewards, adding point currency seems like a good idea, but we might as well add more buff packs for RP then. The problem I see with this is that there is no reason for guilds to hit back or defend themselves. The reason why I'm saying top x amount of GvG guilds in a system should get the rewards is so guilds actually have to spend time and resource to fight for the spots. If you just add rewards more rewards to the current system nothing really changes. Sure, you get more activity but it's just gonna be a matter of time before it dies off. 

 

Oh i'm sorry, I didn't mean to twist words, when you wrote "do you realize" I though it was a big deal issue. My apologies.

 

From my own guilds experience, its not that we aren't trying to reach for rank 1, Its just well defended and hard to achieve which is ok, and we can work on that.

 

I agree about the guild vs guild experience, maybe a guild war instead of conflict that involves 1 day of formation of participants followed by hits. Its just that if we change it to they way it should be which is in a way not as easy as 2 people hitting offline targets, harder or more demanding means less people will be gvging and if the whole point is to increase activity, you know ..

 

I was thinking a seperate currency could be a factor to lure in other guild to try since it could be 10-20 buffs in a pack sorta thing. I'd be okay with a participation reward since if you look at the ratings, at least the top 150 guilds have a positive rating so people are trying even if its winning more for rp than rating lol so they is potential for competition to get into top 25. Also a top 5, top 10 and top 15/20 would be fairer for proper spoils of war. But yes I'm glad there is common ground to atleast establish the fundamentals of a rework .

[Emperor Sidd]

Too much fortune telling going on, you nor I know what our proposed changes would really bring. You represent what you think is the venue's intention of making the majority of participants an income source through casual play. I represent the competitive minority who believe the intent of GvG was to pit guilds against one another to demonstrate a perceived excellence when operating as a team. My character and idea will kick the @$$ of your character and idea in my opinion....Only thing left to do is prove it, so come up or I'm coming down

 

Sure you can call it fortune telling if you want, the venue's intention wasn't to create an income for the casual players but the reward or the selling of the reward was created to source attention and activity towards GVG. 

 

You know whats funny, I was thinking of something similar earlier, you instead of reword you said new idea for those who love competitiveness, You might not have even seen me comment more than once lol. Which might be something you should think about instead of a rework, a new idea. I'll be sure to meet you there if the idea gets implemented.

 

Also with every comment there is truth so word fodder or not, just know I am prepared so come down whenever

[Chooma123]

I rarely get paid for GvG.  This is not to say that Windy doesn't pay us, because if we let him know, he does.... I feel it's something I do to benefit my family, and I just don't ask for payment.  I'm sure many do it for profit, and that's fine, it's their way to play, but that's just not my style.  After all, 1 level of critters earns a big chunk of gold, and if I do hunt regularly, FS sustains itself in that way....  why should my guild have to pay me for doing my part?

 

their not paying you, you're making your own guild profit lol

and if decline payment then dont moan about repair costs

 

best thing they can do for gvg atm is stop gvg from damaging the defenders gear, because its fairly apparant no change is going to happen, cows dont care about pvp/gvg much anymore =)

[Chooma123]

and from the perspective of a guild that farms a fang a week, we make BANK you should join us

 

lmao

 

 

Also, I think he is saying that the only reason you suggest rewards for the top three is because you are a dedicated gvg guild, i dont mind that but then it needs to be made an even playing field so that leveling guilds like ours can still have a chance at those rewards

 

its the same as the ladder level brackets

your not going to put a level 49 against EOC

Edited by Chooma123, 25 April 2017 - 19:46.

[Chooma123]

maybe another idea is a system where guilds can elective gvg representatives, say up to 10 people, who then can only hit each other in gvg fashion, although this sounds like a lot of problems with target selection

[BadPenny]

their not paying you, you're making your own guild profit lol

and if decline payment then dont moan about repair costs

 

best thing they can do for gvg atm is stop gvg from damaging the defenders gear, because its fairly apparant no change is going to happen, cows dont care about pvp/gvg much anymore =)

A.  I'm in no way whining about any costs..... just stating a fact... 

It's not what my guild can do for me, but what I can do for my guild.... They are my family.

B.  GvG is a good way to promote solidarity and teamwork within the guild.  And we all benefit from RP packs which are used frequently for the good of the entire guild...

C.  GvG is SOFT PvP as it is, it needs no further dumbing down for the faint hearted....  But it does need some long overdue attention.

Edited by BadPenny, 25 April 2017 - 19:57.

[Melons]

 Too much fortune telling going on, you nor I know what our proposed changes would really bring. 

+1 In the end, we need to remind ourselves that any proposed changes can either boost activity or be a completed disaster. While an idea might be good on paper, to implement is another. 

 

Oh i'm sorry, I didn't mean to twist words, when you wrote "do you realize" I though it was a big deal issue. My apologies.

 

From my own guilds experience, its not that we aren't trying to reach for rank 1, Its just well defended and hard to achieve which is ok, and we can work on that.

 

I agree about the guild vs guild experience, maybe a guild war instead of conflict that involves 1 day of formation of participants followed by hits. Its just that if we change it to they way it should be which is in a way not as easy as 2 people hitting offline targets, harder or more demanding means less people will be gvging and if the whole point is to increase activity, you know ..

 

I was thinking a seperate currency could be a factor to lure in other guild to try since it could be 10-20 buffs in a pack sorta thing. I'd be okay with a participation reward since if you look at the ratings, at least the top 150 guilds have a positive rating so people are trying even if its winning more for rp than rating lol so they is potential for competition to get into top 25. Also a top 5, top 10 and top 15/20 would be fairer for proper spoils of war. But yes I'm glad there is common ground to atleast establish the fundamentals of a rework .

No worries, people tend to twist my words on the forum at times, so sometimes can be frustrating when trying to reach common ground on a topic. 

 

Anyways, back to the topic, a "guild war" does sound interesting. I'm not sure if you meant like a weekly or monthly event though. Personally, I like that idea. We can keep the current system, so people who want to profit off GvG still can. In addition, we can have a monthly or weekly "guild war" event where it appeals to those who are competitive. 

[Chooma123]

A.  I'm in no way whining about any costs..... just stating a fact... 

It's not what my guild can do for me, but what I can do for my guild.... They are my family.

B.  GvG is a good way to promote solidarity and teamwork within the guild.  And we all benefit from RP packs which are used frequently for the good of the entire guild...

C.  GvG is SOFT PvP as it is, it needs no further dumbing down for the faint hearted....  But it does need some long overdue attention.

im not aiming that directly at you, just quoted you as you replied to my post =)

i am saying in general gvg costing you a bit of gold when someone hits you is no reason to be anti-gvg

and like i said before taking part in gvg full time and being paid still makes more than doing the odd gvg for free

gvg team here at TRIP makes about 250fsp a week for the guild, id say thats helping the guild

 

i agree we use the buff packs too for leveling weekend days which are mostly beneficial for the newbies, i think this idea of unity could be accented with new rewards which i made a post about months ago but got pretty much no replies

 

the only reason i say to remove gold costs for repairs for gvg is because so many people complain about it, if it was removed many more people wouldnt mind gvg

[Emperor Sidd]

 

Anyways, back to the topic, a "guild war" does sound interesting. I'm not sure if you meant like a weekly or monthly event though. Personally, I like that idea. We can keep the current system, so people who want to profit off GvG still can. In addition, we can have a monthly or weekly "guild war" event where it appeals to those who are competitive. 

 

It was an idea just while I was writing so the details need to be worked out,

 

Guild A initiates against Guild B war last 48-98 hrs - CD would be 7 - 15 days ( not sure if CD can be a big factor)

 

First 24 hrs

- Guild A declares attackers ( each attacker is given 25 hits) and maybe a sub incase someone doesnt show up

- Guild B Can see which of their members are going to/can be targeted 

- This gives time for planning and also allows for the participants to prepare for the next 24 hrs ( should involve a log notification)

 

Second 24 hrs ( this could be longer due to the increased awareness and people wanting to take less risk)

- Both guilds know who is attacking and can check when same with the ones getting attacked to buff and defend

- Defending target's were aware of being attacked and guild has agreed to buff them with atleast UB (LOL) 

 

Then vice versa, I'm not sure if it would better to allow guilds their own period to make hits or if it should be simultaneos like conflicts. Which will still work out just more hectic for participants

[Ryebred]

It was an idea just while I was writing so the details need to be worked out,
 
Guild A initiates against Guild B war last 48-98 hrs - CD would be 7 - 15 days ( not sure if CD can be a big factor)
 
First 24 hrs
- Guild A declares attackers ( each attacker is given 25 hits) and maybe a sub incase someone doesnt show up
- Guild B Can see which of their members are going to/can be targeted 
- This gives time for planning and also allows for the participants to prepare for the next 24 hrs ( should involve a log notification)
 
Second 24 hrs ( this could be longer due to the increased awareness and people wanting to take less risk)
- Both guilds know who is attacking and can check when same with the ones getting attacked to buff and defend
- Defending target's were aware of being attacked and guild has agreed to buff them with atleast UB (LOL) 
 
Then vice versa, I'm not sure if it would better to allow guilds their own period to make hits or if it should be simultaneos like conflicts. Which will still work out just more hectic for participants

I like a lot of this idea, but GvG must include all viable members in two opposing guilds to partake. Guilds make a choice to cripple themselves. Preparation, protocol, sacrifice by many to serve a goal oriented group purpose is part of GvG. If not, what you propose is a weekly PvP tournament where each guild can enter top players for chance at a sharable prize for guild.

[Emperor Sidd]

I like a lot of this idea, but GvG must include all viable members in two opposing guilds to partake. Guilds make a choice to cripple themselves. Preparation, protocol, sacrifice by many to serve a goal oriented group purpose is part of GvG. If not, what you propose is a weekly PvP tournament where each guild can enter top players for chance at a sharable prize for guild.

I guess we can go full out war system, What do you think about stat scaling, obvious there are going to be crazy ones like TED v FFS V MOM full of level 3Ks with stat set planning options but In other cases say a level 300 ends up vs a 3000 for what ever reason, the level 3k will only have 10% (lower level/higher level) of stats in battle. That way serious guilds who all equip up can deffo beat a 3k offline in epics but obviously a equiped and buffed level 3k will have 10k stats after the scaling.  Would it work better scaled up ?

The other option is the war is performed in rounds ( we can apply stat scaling to this too) , Guild leader places members in order of battle and the game performs combats 1 v 1, If you win you lose 10% stats for next round, if you die the next person in battle order come, all the way till one side has no one left alive.

[Chooma123]

i dont think the numbers would work out but its a good concept

[Subject]

+1 for making GvG active again. Really like Ryebreds idea .. Really like the thought of GvG being something worth while again. Has really took a turn for the worse over last couple years. Not sure if anyone Truly knows who the #1 GvG player in the game is though no disrespect to Rye or anyone in RA. Not sure that can ever be debated due to no stats towards that kind of play style. Anyways I really believe GvG needs a change for the better and the idea's made in this thread have been great.
Well thought out

Hope HCS does not overlook this and toss aside like they do most ideas.

Edited by Subject, 25 April 2017 - 22:38.

[Chooma123]

Not sure if anyone Truly knows who the #1 GvG player in the game is though no disrespect to Rye or anyone in RA. 

...im right here?

[Leos3000]

Posted Today, 00:24

Subject, on 25 Apr 2017 - 18:38, said:

Not sure if anyone Truly knows who the #1 GvG player in the game is though no disrespect to Rye or anyone in RA. 

...im right here

 

This is 1 thing that has confused/annoyed me about GVG in this game. It should not be about who is the best player at it as the premise of GVG is supposed to be Guild vs Guild no?

 

 

I think you would get a lot more participation across the guilds in FS and maybe some more comradery if it really was guilds vs guilds.

 

Closest thing I have seen in the game where it has been guild vs guild is in relic wars. Where you have the guilds taking a majority of their active members and battling against the other guilds active members. 

[BadPenny]

Leos, we're not ALLOWED to battle over relics anymore, remember?  It's against ToS, player abuse or something along those lines....

 

And you're right, GvG should be about the guilds themselves, not any one player (personally, I think Spidey is the best GvGer, but that's cuz he's always been my biggest challenge.... I loves him

[Subject]

I agree 100% GvG is a team thing. i was simply replying back to this " I'm still one of the games best GvG players inside the games best GvG guild " ... indeed RA is #1 GvG guild Rating shows that.. but best player wise theres no statistics to show proof of best and what not I have know some Incredible PvP / GvG players like a friend of mine that's currently retired cgsabs from Keep of The Four Winds which before they died out was ther best GvG guild. I also know active players that GvG insanely well and have knowledge of the way buffs work like ive never known but As i said in prior post im not taking anything away from RA or Rye they have a hell of a system there thats hard to contest with.

Anyways not trying to take this off topic


GvG needs a change
Rybreds Idea would surly bring that and should be supported.