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

#141 fs_matto

fs_matto
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 17:10

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?

#142 ScarletTestAce

ScarletTestAce

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 465 posts

Posted 24 February 2007 - 17:10

true matto but itll cost the peoepl tamina to get to a protal and go to raid the other guilds...thus one guild unless people collenteer to go on vacation for a while they will have to used lost of stamina to get to prtals

#143 fs_costin

fs_costin
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 19:03

its a real good idea

Though your own Guild couldn't take part for another couple of dozen Guild levels... :roll:

Costin

#144 fs_azrail

fs_azrail
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 21:28

we'll see... if this works out as i see it i'll also leave the game.. i have already enough problems with "high level" guilds trying to steal our guilds members.. they have no honor, when ur opponent has no honor and u have, sooner or later u will be lying in a dark alley with a dirk on your back...

#145 fs_chaoszen

fs_chaoszen
  • Guests

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 ;)


I've read the whole thing... twice, at least.
...and I agree (more or less). It doesn't matter what level restrictions or whether those level restrictions are guild-based or member-based and it doesn't matter if attack groups/raiding parties are limited to 5 (or whatever) members, the top few guilds will always have a devestating advantage that would likely drive away a significant part of the other 90% of guilded players.

When you speak of balance, fairness, attack group sizes or level restrictions, it's only taking into consideration, a single attack or very few attacks... but, no matter how well-balanced any single or any few attacks may be, logic dictates that in the long run, the larger guilds will have larger numbers so they can rotate attackers more quickly, while smaller guilds are still trying to recover losses, repair gear, refill bank losses and rebuild structures. For small guilds, this could take a while, hours, days, perhaps even weeks for some, 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?).

This whole idea, overall, would serve no purpose other than to give already over-advantaged guilds a means to eliminate smaller guilds through repetative losses, untill there is nothing left in the bank to rebuild with... which could just as likely eleminate the players from the numbers of people who currently enjoy playing the game... period.

Personally, I wish this suggestion were posted last weekend so I could have held off on a rather significant support purchase, until I see how this whole thing plays out. Perhaps HCS would prefer to appease the top 10%, and the other 90% isn't needed... if that's the case, then it's a really good idea and should do the job of thinning down the membership a bit.

Plain and simple, people aren't going to want to spend as much in support, if the last tiny bit of security (knowing that what is stored away in the banks cannot be stollen), is now planned to (possibly) be taken away. If anything like this is to be seriously considered, then it should only be by mutual consent between warring guilds.

#146 fs_geoff

fs_geoff
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2007 - 22:36

ok, 1 more big problem that i see (there are about 10 major ones, and ive posted solutions to them on an earlier page. hoof will see them, but i will repeat if anyone wants to see)

surprise.
how are we going to know when theyre about to attack?
i dont see many ppl staying to defend, as its going to cost stam to get there and back. on top of that, we can't train in there! and no1 is gonna stand at the base waiting for the enemy to attack

SOLUTIONS:
-make the attack take an hour to arrive, and notify all members when one's coming

-make a new option under the world subsection, named guild base. click that and you're instantly transported to ur base.
this one should come with a 10 min delay for attackers, since we would still have to move into position, and we arent all paying constant attention to the game when we play.

#147 fs_geoff

fs_geoff
  • Guests

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?).


just wanna say, that made me laugh

some of our buildings cost over 500k
500k X 3 = 1.5M in damage! that + 10% of our bank stolen means that we'd be completely fucked if anyone beat us...
and unless theres a way we can defend whereby we get instantly teleported to the base, have time b4 they hit, AND ABSOLUTELY NO STAM COST, we would struggle to defend

#148 fs_hellsguard

fs_hellsguard
  • Guests

Posted 25 February 2007 - 02:01

I think it would be better if a structure had Durability Points like Items, therefore when a Structure is defeated it loses Durability Points,so when the structure has no Durability Points left this will disable the Structure Bonuses guild memebers recieve until the Stucture is Repaired which should appear under the Guild Menu which should cost Gold. Each Structure should begin with 25 Durability Points for each level and perhaps Upgrades on how much damage a Structure can endure which could be purchased under the Upgrades Menu.

I think to Intiate a Guild Raid it should be under Guild Menu, and should cost Stamina Points.

#149 fs_hellsguard

fs_hellsguard
  • Guests

Posted 25 February 2007 - 02:11

It would be exiting if there were encounters from creatures as well as players. Just say a group of frost dragons invaded Guild, you could assemble attack group and fight it.

#150 fs_hellsguard

fs_hellsguard
  • Guests

Posted 25 February 2007 - 02:35

I think the Bank should be more difficult to Destroy than the Stuctures.
I also think you should only be able to Plunder up to 8% of the total Guild Gold. and the minumum should be 4%.

#151 fs_borisdrago

fs_borisdrago
  • Guests

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


agree with everything with exeption that hoof said that abilities of deffenders on one square stack together so 100 lvl 20 divided beetween 10 buildings will be 10 lvl 20s stacked which will woop a lvl 78 ass no matter how cool he is + building stats so as long as i got that aspect of defence right 5 lvl 78 would get their butts handed to them by 100 lvl 20s but 15 lvl 20s would just die very likely

#152 fs_borisdrago

fs_borisdrago
  • Guests

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.


i've been out of college for several years now and know enough about statistics to know that they are bull because ppl who answered this poll are the ones who actually care about the issue and the rest of server population doesnt have an opinion either way othervise they would come and vote so unless there is only 400+ ppl play this game this poll reflects only oppinions of ppl who feel strongly about this issue the rest didnt respond. Its only ppl like you who whine all the time who post all these answers and people like me who want more content to the game. The rest dont care. And even then my point was that either way there is just as many people who want this change as thouse who dont. I voted that i dont like the idea when i read initial post but with all the changes that hoof proposed this system should work with some minor modifications that can be worked out.
So the only thing that reamins is your dumb comments about my age and understanding of the issue at hand. And that makes me wonder about your age and maturity level.

#153 fs_borisdrago

fs_borisdrago
  • Guests

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


thanks this is exactly it

#154 fs_borisdrago

fs_borisdrago
  • Guests

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.


god you are dumb the people that dont feel strongly about this one way or the other still have the opinion on the issue therefore its not random
go back to school and get your GED

#155 fs_borisdrago

fs_borisdrago
  • Guests

Posted 25 February 2007 - 05:00

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


no a bad idea especially concidering none of us know how this whole thing will work out should it be implemented

#156 fs_borisdrago

fs_borisdrago
  • Guests

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


this is why i said that if only 3% play then it is still 6k + people please dont take my words out of context its not right

#157 fs_borisdrago

fs_borisdrago
  • Guests

Posted 25 February 2007 - 05:05

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


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

#158 fs_borisdrago

fs_borisdrago
  • Guests

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


first problem is resolved as you can only attack a specific guild once /week so to keep it ccupied you need 160+ allie guilds aand if you got that i dont see you getting attacked

2nd is a problem but you are handicapinng yourself already and its your decision to handicap yourself further ( and it is likely you dont seek a dominance of the game and therefore dont havve alot of high lvl / exepencive buildings to protect

#159 fs_geoff

fs_geoff
  • Guests

Posted 25 February 2007 - 05:22

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


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

possible defenders:100
-30 inactives.
now - about 50 players who would not be on at the time (timezone differences), and wouldn't want to waste stam to get the the guild base and back.
now, - those of us that are training at the time, and temporaroily AFK.

we're left with about 10 defenders... possibly a couple more.

that against 5 lvl 78's (more if we're allowed to upgrade it)
we're about screwed...

#160 ScarletTestAce

ScarletTestAce

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 465 posts

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?


eh nvm no real comparison..but in WoW there are gaurd towers and stuff with attack,hp,defense stuff like that...just reminded me of it


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

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