eh hoof said they would have something like that...but what you say looks like WoW lol...
never played wow, never will... but what's the comparison?
Posted 24 February 2007 - 17:10
eh hoof said they would have something like that...but what you say looks like WoW lol...
Posted 24 February 2007 - 17:10
Posted 24 February 2007 - 19:03
Though your own Guild couldn't take part for another couple of dozen Guild levels... :roll:its a real good idea
Posted 24 February 2007 - 21:28
Posted 24 February 2007 - 22:18
uum , great idee :?
Ill pass, what about low lvl guild , one attack from a lvl 78 player and there down , and then if we finally have enough money for a building ... it get raid ... for 10% , think ... we can't afford that , weve worked hard and played hard for this money and 1 attack and his all is gone ... no i hate this idee cause now only the top 10 guilds will be strong and the other players don't have a chance of defending thereselfs ...
Read the whole thing please before posting
Posted 24 February 2007 - 22:36
Posted 24 February 2007 - 22:42
while in the top 10 guilds, they could likely afford to replace all buildings, repair all gear and deposit enough gold to cover any and all losses, before it's even time to attack (in the next hour?).
Posted 25 February 2007 - 02:01
Posted 25 February 2007 - 02:11
Posted 25 February 2007 - 02:35
Posted 25 February 2007 - 04:27
i don't like the idea because there are ways that the system can be misused
for example the guild leader could be level 76 and the followers level 20 or below, that guild would have very little chance of defending itself against five level 78s (i don't care what anyone says 5 level 78s should not win against 100 level 20s, one at a time fair enough, but not all at once)
i would much rather see a percentage of stats from all the guild members going into attack and defence of the guilds, that way it would be wise to build up your guild to start with (increase members etc)
co-ordinating members into defence or attack is difficult because all members are scattered all over the world and not on at the same time
would also like to see a failed raid lose things too (cos they were daft enough to start a raid in the first place) there has to be some sort of risk to raiding and not just raid tickets.
portals should be two-way also so you can portal back to where you were prior to the raid (unfair to ask people to spend stamina to wander back to their hunting grounds, especially defenders because they weren't asked to be attacked (defenders should get portalling free, attackers should have to spend stamina to attack), for example i'm currently in burning abyss level 2, it costs 25 stamina to portal out to the guild then a hundred plus to wander back to the abyss, theres no shorter way to get there, and i'm sure there are players that would have to wander further
Posted 25 February 2007 - 04:51
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.
Posted 25 February 2007 - 04:54
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.
The more important thing is what people on both sides of the fence actually would like to feel the system is in some way fair which is actually what the admins are attempting to obtain.
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
Posted 25 February 2007 - 04:59
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.
Posted 25 February 2007 - 05:00
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.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.
Costin
Posted 25 February 2007 - 05:02
since when is sounds ok to me means i dont care ? people who dont care dont post...
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
Posted 25 February 2007 - 05:05
this is gonna mess things up the most for lvl 70+ guilds...why dont you just make it that this only applies to lv 70+ guilds?
our structures cost a hell of a lot
Posted 25 February 2007 - 05:12
(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
Posted 25 February 2007 - 05:22
possible defenders:100this is gonna mess things up the most for lvl 70+ guilds...why dont you just make it that this only applies to lv 70+ guilds?
our structures cost a hell of a lot
but im sure your guild can protect themselves against even 5 of the top players in the game all hoof needs is a teleporter system that will allow you to go back to protect your guild b4 you logout each day
Posted 25 February 2007 - 06:07
eh hoof said they would have something like that...but what you say looks like WoW lol...
never played wow, never will... but what's the comparison?
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users