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

#121 fs_matto

fs_matto
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 02:59

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.


Wow man, how old are you, 12? Ever heard of statistics? Well when you hit puberty and get a chance to learn about them, you will have the pleasure of testing a sample population. It's a process where you ask a question of a smaller percentage of a target population called a sample group which represents the overall group. The reason this data is considered sound (and this process is used by EVERYONE!) is because short of a complete census, it accurately records the opinions of a larger group without having to complete said census. It's a proven fact that even a tenth of a percent of a population surveyed can accurately depict what the overall population would think. Considering this, the poll would in fact be accurate once 200+ people have voted, and guess what, currently 260 have voted. Therefore, through statistics, we can assume with great accuracy that the results of the poll reflect the opinions of the fallensword community.

#122 fs_geoff

fs_geoff
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 03:56

^^
well, post how it could be fixed
if we all do so, they might consider changing the crap parts of it...

#123 fs_geoff

fs_geoff
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 04:20

one problem with 'opting in'... i would love to be part of this...
but having my buildings destroyed to do it would be BS...

better to change it so that buildings either A) arent destroyed or B) cost a small amount to repair (but still the same amount to buy).
this way, everyone could participate and have fun (which is what this game's all about...) without having to worry about most guilds opting out due to the extremely high costs of it!

#124 fs_revenant

fs_revenant
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 04:41

Personally I am for the system however I feel that the incentive for opting in should cover all aspects of the game not just the PvP ones, if you dont want in then you dont get the extra bonuses but equally those players cant really do much to you either. This encourages people who are wavering about if they should opt in or not to participate in the GvG system and means that those who choose not to while they arent at the mercy of those who GvG they dont get the bonuses that the guilds who will participate do. Also once you have opted in your in forever and cant opt out later.




Possible bonuses for guilds who opt in

+1 max level to all structures which are currently capped (at a fair increase to the cost of maintaining them ie about 50% more than the current upkeep) note that deleveling means this is actually very fair to everyone involved

Increases to stamina gain over time (once again due to the expected stamina usage within the GvG system its fair)

New buildings that give good bonuses and require a certain GvG rating

The opting in structure provides the same bonuses as having some of the more popular buildings (health shrine, armory etc) and cant be destroyed


Bonuses for those who dont opt in

no stamina loss due to guild battles

no deleveling of structures


Sorry all for the Long post but I felt that I should put my 2 cents in

Oh, so if you don't opt in you get jack sh*t...oh, that's fair. :roll:

Like I said earlier, in order to be fair there must be rewards for both opting-in and opting-out...not just "if you opt-out you don't lose stamina from opting-in" That's not a bonus...that's like saying "Hey Jimmy, I'll give you a dollar if you fight Johnny" and "Hey Johnny, if you don't fight Jimmy I'll not take a dollar away from you."
Getting to keep what I already have is not a reward.

#125 fs_geoff

fs_geoff
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 04:44

^^
good point. i hope hoofmaster sees it ;)


but as for jimmy and jonny...
you should have offered 100 dollars instead of one...
that way something exiting mighta happened in this thread...

#126 fs_revenant

fs_revenant
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 06:00

The benefits of playing along, on top of those you mentioned are:
The thrill of battle, the excitement of planning a strategy, the glory of engaging your opponent, the fame or infamy that comes along with a high GvG rating, the spoils of war as a moral booster not just gp booster, and there are others...
As it is so far, the winners have a chance of gaining quite a bit, plus the chance of causing havoc amongst the defending guild. On top of that, winners get upgrades.
All the benefits can only be gained by opting-in.
These benefits will assuredly make the winning guilds even stronger, and able to rise up higher in rank.
As it stands, guilds who would opt-out, if that option is given, will not just simply not gain anything, but will ultimately lose out. In essence, by only granting benefits to those who opt-in, you are forcing any guild who wants to remain competetive to have to opt-in.
I have a decent PvP rating, but really couldn't care less about being in the Top PvP...I enjoy playing the game better than PvP, and am more interested in trying to get into the Top 50...
Our guild feels pretty much the same, we would like to hopefully get the #5 spot in the Top guilds, but could care less about GvG...but as it stands, in order to do so, we would have to opt-in in order to get the benefits to keep our rank...I just don't enjoy being forced into that.
By granting a benefit for those who choose to opt-out, guilds can still be competetive in the over-all ranking.

#127 fs_matto

fs_matto
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 07:42

Matto that would imply that this is a representative method of taking a survey, which it isnt as only those people who feel strongly either way about the issue will read the thread or post their opinion on the issue.

So while an accurate statistical summary can be obtained from a survey of 10% or less or a popluation. The survey method itself must also be analysed to ensure that it is a random sample of the population. In this case it isnt random by a long shot as people choose to post and arent randomly presented with this in anyway and that this sample is representative of the whole population. In this case also false due to the lack of randomness and the strong opinions about the topic. So techincally the above poll is not in anyway representative of the opinions of the players of Fallensword and isnt really that important.


Actually, it is random. Not all the people who feel strongly have posted, and about 40% of the people who have taken the survey have exibited that they don't feel that strongly one way or another. You're saying people who have posted.... what does that have to do with it? Not everyone who took the poll posted, and my response was based solely on the people that took the poll.

It's also proven that no survey can be determined to be 100% random. By trying to make it random, you in fact alter the results. Therefore, an anonymous poll that is based on choice alone with no pressure from outside elements to complete it, means this is as close to random as any survey can get.

#128 fs_costin

fs_costin
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 08:56

I can understand some people do not want to participate in the guild raid system. If you give the option to stay out of it - It should be a one time only option. If you give guilds the option to stay out and then say pay a price to go back in. You are going to just set up guilds that opt out to build up strength and then opt in to do raids and as soon as the raids are over, opt back out again.

That's why the system should be opt-in and not opt-out. To opt-in, you build a structure - perhaps the Teleporter - and ONLY the Guild Founder can make that decision. If you don't want to participate anymore - you have to destroy the structure... and maybe you have to suffer a month long cool off period where you can't rebuild it or something. Anyway - the option to opt back in should continue to exist, because the Guild might lose it's Founder and they may be replaced by someone interested in Raiding.

Costin

#129 fs_costin

fs_costin
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 09:21

since when is sounds ok to me means i dont care ? people who dont care dont post...

'Sounds OK' is the middle ground - the people who care enough to vote, but don't care either way if the idea gets implemented or not. If they had a strong opinion either way, they would have gone for one of the top or the bottom options. So, you can ignore the 'Sounds OK' voters - or add them to both sides... your choice.

And you can't start extrapolating this out to 200K registered users because a substantial portion of those aren't even playing (they join for a day or two and then lose interest), many are probably Alts and the remainder obviously play just to play - if they had an interest in developing the game they would have read the news and come here to vote and voice their opinions.

So... the Care Bears are still winning...

:wink:

Costin

#130 fs_geoff

fs_geoff
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 10:40

why dont you just make it that this only applies to lv 70+ guilds?

this is gonna mess things up the most for lvl 70+ guilds...
our structures cost a hell of a lot

#131 fs_dapredator

fs_dapredator
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 12:10

try spacing it out more

#132 fs_geoff

fs_geoff
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 12:16

yeah...
sorry havoc, but im too tired to try to understand all that lol.

add in paragraphs, and make it a little less congested and ill try again in the morning

#133 fs_dapredator

fs_dapredator
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 12:28

well i get it now and i get the point but i don't really like it...

#134 fs_valenza

fs_valenza
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 13:20

Lot of player seem really want the battle guild system. But another lot of people seem not want it too.

For answer to the both opinion, why not oofert to a guild the choice of be maybe attack or not? I explain:
- If my guild will build the raid portal structure* - because we want to attack other guild of course. So, with the this portal raid in out guild, that allow other people to attack our guild too.
* structure who can be destroy when build, for not have abuse problem of build and remove after an attack of course.

But a guild without purchase this portal can't attack AND be attacked in guild raid.


I'm not agree with the guild raid idea like it sound at first. Just in PVP, with equal equipement, be attacked by a guild who have 2x or 3x the amount of cuilding that we had in our guild, that is not easy to win in PVP.

In PVP, for avoid abuse, you can boutnty the person. a PVP is a personal attack. Now the guild - that is not easy for grow up. Our guild was created just after Christmas, we trim hard for improve it - that is our challenge. I lost 4 day of Xp and LVLing just for be able to kill some elite and sell item for bring fsp to my guild. That is a part of the game, I don't have anything against this.

This idea seems only another way to let us buy more and more fsp...i think you already are billionaire, want become trillioner? guild raids sucks


We work together hard fo improve our guild, that is a part of the challenge. I would be ready to pay real money for some fsp for improve my guild more quickly. But when we heard of the idea of guild raid previously, I wait before involve real money in the game. I'm agree to spend some money for improve our quality of our play for me and my guildmate, but not for try to make my guild survive - I want spend money for have fun, not for be stressed to play.

We are not a PVP guild at firs,t we are a merchant guild, neutral guild. I haev nothing agaisnt the current pvp system, that is a part of the game, I was killed, I killed too in the past. But I prefer lost my own XP/gold than the guild worktime.

#135 fs_costin

fs_costin
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 13:46

...make further suggestion that are deep :twisted: :!:

:?: :?: :shock: :? :?: :?:

Costin

#136 ScarletTestAce

ScarletTestAce

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 465 posts

Posted 24 February 2007 - 13:49

sounds great the TDS better watch out lol they have millions in their bank...but high lvl players to boot :P

#137 fs_thelastdj

fs_thelastdj
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 14:39

I originally voted "Don't like this...", but after reading most of Hoof's posts, I've begun to think that this will be cool. Constructing a building that would make it opt-in, attackers being limited to 5 attackers... it doesn't seem all that bad. It would be interesting, hell yeah. And I mean, it's not like we'll be losing FSP... unless you sell them for $, deposit cash in guild, and your guild gets raided... But once you pay the 75 FSP for a building, you still have that building space.

Also, it would have to be an organised attack, and it seems like it's going that way. Attackers would need to give some serious thought into this. "Should we raid the bank? Or should we try and kill their best structure? Or are we just trying to tick them off, so we should go for the weakest building?" and so on.

If I could, I'd change my vote to favor the guild raids.

#138 BSPollux

BSPollux

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 24 February 2007 - 15:04

(sorry didnt read 20 pages of replies, so this might have been said before)

I see one HUGE flaw in this system and its this line: "Note also only one guild can raid another at any one time. "

This brings up 2 problems that will ruin the whole thing, in my opinion.

1st: blocking a guild, saving them.
Allies can start raid on each other all the time to protect themself from real foes, basicaly stopping this idea for having any effect at all

2nd: This helps big guilds and weakens small ones.
If your guild is small for a reason and you wnat to stay small, maybe cause you are playing with your friends only, this system works against you. you cant team up with others to defeat a bigger foe. If a bigger guild (note: more members not higher level) threatens you you cant get any help. its just forbidden.

I have chosen a negative vote cause i think these flaws are that bad that the whole thing cant work this way

#139 ScarletTestAce

ScarletTestAce

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 465 posts

Posted 24 February 2007 - 17:09

eh hoof said they would have something like that...but what you say looks like WoW lol...

#140 fs_matto

fs_matto
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 17:09

1st: blocking a guild, saving them.
Allies can start raid on each other all the time to protect themself from real foes, basicaly stopping this idea for having any effect at all


I like that, good strategy, allied guilds can set up a guild raid, and be safe for 24 hours, and just never attack each other... a sigh of relief to us who don't like the idea, so if it gets implemented anyway, we have a way out, brilliant! :)


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: