Jump to content

Photo

Official Topic: Guild Raids


  • Please log in to reply
228 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you like this idea? (70 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you like this idea?

  1. Hell Yeah - bring it on! (131 votes [32.91%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.91%

  2. Yeah (20 votes [5.03%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.03%

  3. Sounds Ok (48 votes [12.06%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.06%

  4. Don't like this (54 votes [13.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.57%

  5. Awful idea :( (145 votes [36.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 36.43%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#101 fs_geoff

fs_geoff
  • Guests

Posted 23 February 2007 - 23:35

ok hoof, u wanna know how it could be worked so that everyone's happy?
ill post the solutions to each of my earlier points:


-buildings are expensive. having them get damaged is a TERRIBLE idea!
if we were attacked and had 3 buildings damaged, that could put us up for OVER 1.5 mill in damages! mayb guilds like TDS can afford that, but there's no way we'd be able to!
__________________
make it that the damaged buildings arent affected after the raid is over!
that or, make all the buildings cheaper! with this, they'd have to be back down to under 50k each MAX for the HIGHEST levels of the best buildings.


-attacking the guild bank is even worse! that would take over 100k of gold from us. upkeeps are WAY too expensive to lose that much bcoz some guild decided to rack up a win!
_________________________
make it 1% of the guild bank, with a max. steal of 50k, or scrap it altogether the whole point of the bank is that it's meant to be safe! how am i supposed to convince everyone to deposit as much as ppossible to the bank every day if its gonna get stolen any time someone attacks!?



-when we stand on the buildings, do we have to stay there? or can we train, while still defending the building?
if it's the first one, ANOTHER S*** thing about it... not many people are going to stay on the sqares when they can be out training. if the enemies attack at a time when everyone's online and training, we're all screwed!
there's 1.6 mill damages and plundering...
_____________________
make it sort of that we have 2 chars. one that stays in the guild map, one that is in the normal world...
that way, we can defend our base, without sacrificing the rest of the game to do so



-this only caters for guilds with a few good high lvl players. those guys could come in, kill all of us no prob, and we wouldnt be able to stop them!
meanwhile, what do they have to lose!?
one of their tickets? a bit of stam? both will be regained automatically ultra-fast!
___________________
make it so that if they fail, something happens to their buildings!
if it has to be realistic, say that the defenders launched a counter offensive with mercenaries while the fighters were dead, and that the mercs destroyed buildings, and pillaged money from the guild bank to pay for their services



-take a guess at how many members are going to leave for guilds who are winning? let me tell you, it will be A LOT!
ive played other games where there are wars...
many of my members have left for the guilds that are winning more often... andd in sum of those games, three arent even really bad consequences for losing!
____________________
no real solution here...
implement my above suggestions, and the effect would be lessened



-as i've said in this forum MANY times before, the FIRST thing to think about with any new update idea is the possible negative effects!
this idea sounds really fun, and would be great for the low lvls who can pay 5k to repair their buildings, and dont need to worry too much about guilds with top 50 players...
but what about the guilds who have a heap of buildings, and have worked hard to get them, but would be devastated by their loss!?
__________________________________
same as above

#102 fs_geoff

fs_geoff
  • Guests

Posted 23 February 2007 - 23:54

^^
no, i just have a large vocab sometimes and can make stuff sound like that (yeah, sometimes... sometimes i cant be bothered :P)

but if you actually knew the members, you'd know that they arent bad people...

some weaker guilds just like to say that they are, because they dont like seeing another guild so far infront of them...

#103 fs_costin

fs_costin
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 00:11

Stop saying how bad it would be!! ITs a G A M E it is meant to be exciting and dangerous not a walk in a peaceful park lmao. Bring it on!!

Note to others: posting this idea is crap is not at all helpful - please post what you would like modified to make it work for you.

Just for reference, and balance, posting 'I like this idea, bring it on.' really doesn't help either. If you love the idea like nothing else and would happily sell your right kidney to see it implemented yesterday, post what you think could be modified to make it work for those people who don't like it.

:wink:

Costin

So, ellomoto - what's your constructive idea?

Costin

#104 fs_kaldirris

fs_kaldirris
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 00:12

Sorry I am a little late to this Debate, and have just read through the discussion,

I am amazed by the amount of people who protested this idea without even reading the initial post by hoof.


You yourself have stated that you entered the fray late - and THEN you blithely assume that people were protesting without reading the initial post?
The "initial post" you so glibly referred to has been edited & modified twice already.
So, my question is this: How the fardlin' hell do YOU know who did & did not read said *initial post*?
If you're entering the discussion late, perhaps you would be better served keeping quiet about whether or not people have "read the initial post" before posting their opinions, either for or against.
Or, if you MUST comment on something you (most likely) don't really have all the facts on, perhaps you could word your assumptions in a less inflammatory style?
Just a thought, of course, but this DOES seem to be a rather hot topic, so I can only think that we would ALL be better off if we were to refrain from making sweeping generalizations about the motivation (or lack thereof) of our fellow gamers?
That being said, I freely admit that this post could & most likely WILL be construed as leaning toward inflammatory, possibly even confrontational.
And, for the general purpose of this forum thread, I STILL like the idea of guild wars, but I've yet to be convinced of the wisdom in razing guild structures. HOWEVER, I DO want to see the "opt out" option.

That's it for THIS run of "my not-terribly humble opinion" - stay tuned for more exciting adventures! roflmao

#105 fs_costin

fs_costin
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 00:16

It is not important saying that to me either?... i was saying it to wake everyone up why dis agree with it? it is meant to be exciting not safe and boring.

And your constructive comment about how to make this idea work for people who don't want to participate is?

Costin

#106 fs_costin

fs_costin
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 00:21

I just stated my constructive comment... it is not my fault if you do not have the brain to understand it...... there is no reason for people to dis-like the idea of it because it makes the game MORE enjoyable.

But that isn't constructive. The people who don't like the idea don't believe it will make the game more enjoyable. So, if Hoof implements the Guild Raid system for the third of the game (c. 35%) who like the idea - what would you like to see done about the half of the game (c. 48%) who don't like the idea and think it would make the whole thing less enjoyable?

Costin

#107 fs_revenant

fs_revenant
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 00:22

I think it's a good idea to allow those guilds who wish to not participate to be able to opt-out completely. I think it's a good idea to allow those guilds who do want to do this to be able to. I do not think that one should be punished for making either choice.

Rewards for those guilds who wish to participate: Better upgrades to be used for defense and PvP.
Rewards for those guilds who wish to not participate: Better upgrades to be used for PvC.

Guilds should have a one-time choice of whether to raid or not, to be made when the new game upgrade is implimented, or upon creation of the guild, and then have a 25fsp cost to change from passive to active, and a 50fsp cost and one week of non-agression to change from active to passive. If a guild has not been raiding, it should be fairly easy to start, but if a guild has been raiding, it should be harder to stop, (See Iraq for more info...)

And that solves pretty much everything that I would worry about...everything else sounds okay...


That okay Costin? :P

#108 fs_kaldirris

fs_kaldirris
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 00:22

I just stated my constructive comment... it is not my fault if you do not have the brain to understand it...... there is no reason for people to dis-like the idea of it because it makes the game MORE enjoyable.


Actually, your comment wasn't at all constructive. A CONSTRUCTIVE comment would have been to say *I like it, and is why.* Hope you have the brain to understand it. :wink:

#109 fs_revenant

fs_revenant
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 00:34


Just because you don't get a reward, doesn't mean you are being punished.

Think of this: If your parents gave you 100$ if you got an A, and 80$ if you got a B. Then when you get a B, and get 80$ you aren't getting punished, you are getting rewarded.


While I appreciate your analogy, I think it is not correct to use it in this situation given that a student can't choose what grade he/she is going to get. The opt out/in is a choice, and as such any "reward" outside of the GvG setting can be seen as forcing people into GvG, and might cause players to leave their own guilds for others that promote GvG.

Exactly, how about this anology, parents give you both $500 and you get to decide whether to buy a sword or a playstation...

And if you want the benefits that bad, then engage in the risk and join the GvG system!


Nope. ;) I just don't want my guild to pay the price of a badly designed game feature. PvP gives me enough headaches as it is... If that can't be handled correctly, what guarantee do I have that GvG isn't going to be just as bad? And then, what next? Create a bounty system for guilds to try to balance out the whole thing?



#110 fs_baine

fs_baine
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 00:35

...I suggest an option for the defending guild:

To hire mercenaries to defend their base!

So basically a weaker guild could hire 1 or more high level players, pay them in gold or fsp, to defend their base. I think that would add a whole new dimension to GvG battles! You would never know if the defending guild hired some high level player to guard them so attack could easily fail if they have.
Also the defending guild should be able to call their allies to help them defending their buildings. So it wouldn't be guild vs guild anymore, it would be guild vs guild+allied guilds+mercenaries! Basically it would be much harder to be defeated.


I think that'd be an awesome way for guilds to defend theirself, considering the raided party has a lot more to lose.

#111 fs_kaldirris

fs_kaldirris
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 00:37

Jebis who shoved what up where to you?


what's a JEBIS? And is that supposed to make some kind of sense?
If you're asking why I seem to be irritable in my above post, the answer's simple. Sweeping generalizations ALWAYS get my panties in a twist.



#112 fs_kaldirris

fs_kaldirris
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 00:49

Oh, my bad, sorry. Haven't watched cartoons in about 10 years...and never really watched the simpsons much anyhow...always seemed I had to work when it was on.
And, for the record, I have an EXCELLENT and highly developed sense of humour. I just need to hear something funny, first, is all. <>

and Jukaz? the "busily unbunching" comment was ALSO meant to lighten the mood. Guess you don't have a sense of humour either. Great, we can be hissy together. Ah, together at last!

And now, back to our regularly scheduled thread....sorry 'bout the hijacking all. (wanted to see how a hijacker lived!) ROFLMAO

#113 fs_matto

fs_matto
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 00:49

First off, I just want to say Costin, you're awesome man, I don't even know you and wish you were in my guild.

Second, I hate this idea, yes, HATE. I've noticed mostly members of big guilds saying they love it and members of smaller guilds saying they hate it... mostly. I'm a member of a Top 3 guild, and I hate it.

For constructive criticism... what do I think? Well, I hope you scrap the idea all together.

If that's not an option, if I'm forced to see this implemented, make an option for guilds to opt out. There should be no agrument to this, just do it. A lot of people have asked for it, why not. Spare the dozens of low level guilds who will get stomped for having one member at level 50 and all the rest under lvl 25, just because another guild has all members level 45-50 who can gang up on them. Just put in an 'Opt Out' option. That would solve about 20-30% of those 48% people who protest this idea.

How else can you make it better? Eliminate the ability to raid the bank. Yes, I realize a bank is something, that in real life, can be looted. However banks have really good security. So if you must make it a physical structure, give it 150 times the amount of defense as the rest of the structures. Meaning if a structure has Armor of 1000, the bank would have 150,000. Extreme? Yes, but that WOULD be more realistic, which seems to be what you're going for.

More ideas? Yeah, as with group attacks you can participate from anywhere, make it so you can guard structures from anywhere. Why not! If magically you can add your stats to another player 10 levels better than you on the other side of the world, why not do the same to guard structures. Seems fair to me.

And just for the record, I spent the last hour reading every single post of this 16 page thread, just to make sure I was up to speed. I think there are a lot of whiners and a lot of a**holes in here. I won't point any fingers, but I do agree with the majority... this is a bad idea, it does favor the strongest guilds, and if I can't convonce you to scrap the whole idea, you must at least implement options to appease the 48% (statistically) of people who play this game who agree with me.

#114 fs_revenant

fs_revenant
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 01:00

What so you think about the mercenaries idea?
Basically ppl from weaker guilds are complaining because they couldnt defend against stronger guilds. If they could hire or invite stronger players to defend their guild this problem is solved, right???

Are weaker guilds going to then be paying extortion...??? Can weaker guilds afford it?


Exactly, how about this anology, parents give you both $500 and you get to decide whether to buy a sword or a playstation...


Actually neither... a high-end graphics card would be acceptable though... :twisted:

Lolz!

#115 fs_borisdrago

fs_borisdrago
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 01:39

No offence but what about other 50% of the players that like the idea and are looking for more content then hack and slash ?
why is it the whiners like Costin and Kage72 and Narex and the rest of yu carebears out there should get your way?

Ah... before you insult us 'care bears', take a moment to get your maths sorted out. As I post this, the poll stands as follows:

Hell Yeah - bring it on! -- 31% [ 71 ]
Yeah -- 4% [ 10 ]
Sounds Ok -- 15% [ 34 ]
Don't like this -- 16% [ 37 ]
Awful idea :( -- 31% [ 70 ]

People who don't like the idea amount to 47% (16% + 31% = 47%); people who like the idea amount to 35% (31% + 4% = 35%); and the other 15% don't care and effectively can be discounted from the whole decision (they abstain from making a decision).

So... half the people in the game don't like the idea and roughly a third like it... Care bears seem to be winning (along with the people who spend the time to work out the maths of the situation).

:wink:

Costin


since when is sounds ok to me means i dont care ? people who dont care dont post and if you take that math you got 200k registered players / even if only 3 % of them play that is 6000 ppl my friend and only 250 or so ppl voted so if you do your math ppl who are against are less then 2 % of ppl who play this game and so are the ppl who are for it.

#116 fs_thanos

fs_thanos
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 01:51

I believe that this though would have been a good idea at the beginning when all the guilds actually had an equal chance, however as it is now instead of this system I would prefer to see some sort of war system that could be implemented to where there are terms that would have to be met in order to stop the war. As in forcing someone to destroy parts of their guild, giving money, expulsion of certain members that have caused bigger issues. Something along those lines......

#117 fs_geoff

fs_geoff
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 01:52

yes: 42%

no: 48%

NOTE: i've added half of the 'sounds ok' votes to yes.
IMO, saying 'its an ok idea...' means they dont feel too strongly... as such, i feel that it's reasonable to add half of their vote to yes


no is winning...

#118 fs_geoff

fs_geoff
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 01:54

I think it has its up and its downs, just like everything in life... yeah it would be fun, but then again higher leveled guilds would constantly be raiding the guild one or two spots below them. It would be very hard to level up and you'd lose all your money and xp, but those are the only two flaws i can see so far...

I stand neutral on this idea.

PoLC wouldn't pick on smaller guilds. the only time we'd attack a smaller guild would be if this was added, someone attacked us, and we suddenly needed over 1M to get our buildings back...

#119 fs_geoff

fs_geoff
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 01:57

^^
yep...
that would even kinda suck for us...
we have a lvl 76 member, which means that someone with 5 lvl 70+s (or more if upgraded...) could probably do a lot of damage unless we all permanantly stayed in our guild and never trained or did anything fun....

#120 fs_deztr0

fs_deztr0
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 02:51

I don’t like it :wink:

Not good idea((( Big guild f**k small -i think NO


Big guilds wont be able to attack a guild that's 10 levels lower, unless you attack them first.

So you should be quite safe.

:?: And where in the first post does it stand unless it’s reedited to "to

- You can only send attackers in 2 levels above the max level of the defending guilds highest level player.

"
:)

Posted: 24 Feb 2007 02:25


agreing whit alodadix, ore make it that the guild dont loos the xp if he is leving the guild as the guild woud haw gained wisdom from him and that the player is revarded a % of that xp to the new guild he enters in to as it woud be guild exp :?:

the next is that the Rading strukture shoud only count in GvG batels : and monsters ore if the player hase a PvP of 1350 ore higer as that is a old PvP req fore a quest :D so that the a player that do PvP in the guilds that do not do GvG, cant hide behind the Guild :)


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Font:
Arial | Calibri | Lucida Console | Verdana
 
Font Size:
9px | 10px | 11px | 12px | 10pt | 12pt
 
Color: