Jump to content

Photo

Feedback: Guild Conflict Improvements


  • Please log in to reply
225 replies to this topic

#121 mikkyld

mikkyld

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 857 posts

Posted 28 April 2008 - 23:43

Be Able To Set Up Who Joins and who isn't allowed...this should be able to be accomplished by guild founder only, or those who have permission to do so

Would Make My Job Easier :D




Good idea :D


agree - so you can stop the ridiculous advantage that a small guild has over a large one among other things. Frankly a one person guild who knows what s/he is doing ought to win almost every such conflict (and tie the rest) for the simple fact that some member of the larger guild is a shoo-in to fail an attack. Then the best they can do is 49/50 while the one man guild gets to 50 easily

3 on 3, 5 on 5, 10 on 10 - any such would be just fine for regulating these

Another way to do this would be to have a much shorter time limit, such that a small guild might have problems doing 50 attacks. EG, 1 hour

#122 fs_badjoe

fs_badjoe
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2008 - 14:13

OK guys NOW you can call me crazy/stupid for this new buff pack i added just now :lol: :lol: :lol: !!

http://forum.fallens... ... sc&start=0

#123 fs_vonsteuben

fs_vonsteuben
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2008 - 20:50

See my comments and suggestions here:

http://forum.fallens...pic.php?t=56365

#124 fs_ecolitan

fs_ecolitan
  • Guests

Posted 17 May 2008 - 19:36

Be Able To Set Up Who Joins and who isn't allowed...this should be able to be accomplished by guild founder only, or those who have permission to do so

Would Make My Job Easier :D




Good idea :D


agree - so you can stop the ridiculous advantage that a small guild has over a large one among other things. Frankly a one person guild who knows what s/he is doing ought to win almost every such conflict (and tie the rest) for the simple fact that some member of the larger guild is a shoo-in to fail an attack. Then the best they can do is 49/50 while the one man guild gets to 50 easily

3 on 3, 5 on 5, 10 on 10 - any such would be just fine for regulating these

Another way to do this would be to have a much shorter time limit, such that a small guild might have problems doing 50 attacks. EG, 1 hour


So, with time limits - GvG would turn into Time Zone Roullette right? Just find the offline guild and start conflict. Oh, you guys were asleep? Sorry. I am not opposed to conflict participation being a tag that is part of either the guild rank system or some such. Just don't change the time limit. I think the 24 hour time limit is set for avoiding time zone problems and should stay. I would hate to see my guild lose a conflict because we had 1 hour to do 100 attacks and the only person awake couldn't do it.

#125 fs_whiskeyjim

fs_whiskeyjim
  • Guests

Posted 04 June 2008 - 22:36

Our Guild fights ALOT. Here are our suggestions.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND PREMISES

1. GUILD GvG IS A SECOND LADDER / SCORECARD. Many FS players don't understand the meaning of this statement. Most people see GvG as a distraction to leveling up. This is not true. While the Guild ladder measures Guild XP, let's face it, most guilds will never hope to be in the top 10 (even though my guild went from rank 150 to 100 in 1 month..lol).
The Guild GvG scorecard allows many of our Guild members to have fun in FS in another way. It's just another scorecard to have fun with ! I'm sure the other top ten Guilds in GvG would agree. Twinky, one of our star guild members, has made his reputation fighting.

2. ATTACKING INACTIVES IS OK. This follows from Premise 1. If your guild is so anal about the XP ladder that you keep inactives, then either get them terminated or suffer the consequences. In this way one scorecard acts synergistically to clean up the second. That's good. I am conflicted by attacking people on vacation, so much so that I almost suggest being able to attack only those players who are online. It's more fun anyway. Ultimately though, the concerns outweigh the benefits. The present rule is fine the way it is. Don't change it.

3. NO GUILD CAN OPT OUT OF GUILD GvG. FS is a game of swords and shields. This also follows from Premise 1.

4. GUILD GvG IS SEPARATE AND DIFFERENT FROM PvP. I see many comments that confuse the two. They are different and should be treated as such; one is team and the other is individual.

SUGGESTIONS

1. ALTER UPGRADE APPROACH. Do away with the current upgrades regarding the number of participants. Set up new a new Guild GvG structure that becomes a new gold sink for the game and legitimizes the Guild GvG ladder as a desirable alternative to the XP ladder. Here's some ideas on the structure and upgrades:
a.) A structure that allows control by certain ranks (e.g., like untagging gear or mass messaging works) of who can participate in Guild fights. We would be much higher in the Guild GvG ladder if we could better control the excitement of our new players! :D
b.)

I think a structure that repairs inactives' gear

Maybe this is an upgrade.
c.) An upgrade that gives you 2 hours warning before a guild conflict will begin. The merits of this upgrade are debatable.
d.) Other...

2 PROVIDE CONFLICT CHOICES

Also how about different modes of Guild Conflicts.

Neutral Conflict
*5 stamina use an attack
*No losses/damages to the enemy - except guild rating

Hostile Conflict
*10 stamina use an attack
*Enemy guild suffers experience loss to their guild if they lose (not players)

Wagering
*Both guilds must agree to the conflict
*Both guilds put up a certain amount to bet, winner take all.

BTW, have you noticed Baine always has good ideas? I would leave the Hostile Conflict out for Premise Number 1; they are two different ladders and Guild GvG'ers already pay a huge stamina price in the XP ladder for fighting. The default would be the Neutral Conflict. You can not opt out.

3. PARTICIPATION RULES DON'T WORK. First, maybe I'm dumb, but I can only see what guild members are participating from MY TEAM! it doesn't matter; everyone ignores them anyway. Second, you shouldn't be able to choose who the enemy attacks. I'd do away with it.

4. 1 VS 1 IS NOT GUILD GvG. Currently the most effective way to stay in the top 5 GvG ladder is to carefully choose 1 person GvG's against guilds that have no good player to fight back. I believe this is a flaw, since it's a Guild fight, not customized PvP. I would make the minimum at least 2 or 3.

5. DC POTS CAN DESTROY GvG. Powerful DC potions should not work in Guild GvG. It kills the fight.

6. GUILD CONFLICT SCREEN IS CONFUSING. Currently the number of fights are together, and the win / loss for your team are together. It is intuitively easier to understand (especially for newbs) if you would put their stats under each team. Example: Them: 15/16 34 remaining Us: 5/5 45 remaining. The whole screen could be more clear though.

7. +/- 25 LEVELS SHOULD BE REDUCED. Especially for lower levels, there is NO way a level 25 player can defend a level 50 player. End of argument. Reduce it to 5 or 10.

8. IMPROVE REWARDS. BadJoe really is onto something, although his rewards are too high. But the costs to GvG are already very high, and if we want more Guilds to take the GvG ladder seriously, the rewards must be more significant. We don't need more penalties for losing (XP loss is enough), we need more rewards for winning. I like his imaginative buff scenarios though. Current RP rewards are fairly lame:)

By the way, using Deflect in GvG is lame!

Hail the Kings and Queens!

#126 fs_badjoe

fs_badjoe
  • Guests

Posted 04 June 2008 - 23:01

Nice post whiskeyjim. About my thread, true the rewards is a bit unrealistic and some overpowered but it doesn't mean that if the HCS will actually add those rewards, they might tweak it and might add or remove rewards to suit their taste.

Also I suggest that DC / EW 1000 / Deflect should not be available in GvG. On top of that the rewards we get for RP should not work in GvG.

#127 fs_whiskeyjim

fs_whiskeyjim
  • Guests

Posted 04 June 2008 - 23:12

...About my thread, true the rewards is a bit unrealistic and some overpowered but it doesn't mean that if the HCS will actually add those rewards, they might tweak it and might add or remove rewards to suit their taste.


I agree. I thought your ideas were great. I especially liked your approach; very well thought out IMHO.

And Baine's also.

I'd like to get more people's thoughts from the top 50 GvG guilds on this forum. I see we already have alot of commenters who hate GvG and don't seem to understand it:)

#128 fs_ryozanpaku

fs_ryozanpaku
  • Guests

Posted 05 June 2008 - 09:14

Whiskyjim made a few good points.

1) Guild is a scorecard - 100% agree! The top guild is known for having a lot of players who like to level up, those in the top GvG is known for guilds who are more adept with pvp overall. Top guilds may have all the best equipments and maxed structures, but with their horrible GvG rating, it's apparent they simply use it to fight enemies who won't fight back.

2) Attacking inactives is okay - Cannot argue with that. If you like to hold on to players for sentimental reasons then that merits us to beat on those who used to be a higher level than us at one point for the sake of nostalgia.

3) No Guild can opt out of of GvG - Only happened once with us. We got 50/50 and another guild was 10/13, so instead of sucking up the loss they disbanded their guild. I personally don't care, since it gives my guild a -1 conflict, which makes us the only GvG guild I know with it. :lol:

4) GvG and PvP is seperate - The only difference between a GvG and PvP is the fact that during a GvG you don't lose Xp or gold... that's it. Your armor will still be damaged, and there are some cases where the GvG is set to 1 on 1, like those rare instances where there's only 1 available target for both guilds... so can't really agree with the team effort concept.

Suggestions
1. I like the whole idea of setting ranks that can participate in GvG, most of the time it's the recklessness and the lack of discipline which causes most guild's losses. On a side note I find it utterly hilarious for the top guilds who like to brag about their structures (FFS) in particular saying they maxed out the max number of participants and conflicts for GvG, yet they are too much of a crybaby to actually participate in it.... just another case of a big guild trying to show off their buying power but still gets slapped by guilds like ours. :lol:

Conflict Choices
Neutral Conflict - I like the idea that less stam is used... this will eliminate the crying and whining about slowing down leveling.

Hostile Conflict - I would love to see this! But realistically most of the top guilds will just moan and whine since they suck at GvG and will stand to lose their ranking.

Wagering- Seems like a good idea but not realistic. I think it's much more practical to have the guild leaders or members make a wager and leave it up to them to pay.

3. Participation rules don't work - can't really follow what you are trying to get at... doing away with participation means getting rid of the whole concept of GvG... and I like the fact you cannot tell who's attacking who, because it elevates the excitement. Nothing more fun than trying to race to figure out who to buff before the max attacks are met.

4. 1 vs 1 is not GvG - I see your position the same way I see attacking inactives. If guilds are willing to keep their weak players then it gives us the green light to attack them. To be on the top of the GvG you not only need knowledge, but quality players as well.

5. DC Pots can destroy GvG - Completely disagree. This may sound rude, cut if you don't know how to overcome high level DC then you were not meant to be on the top GvG list.

6. Guild Conflict Screen is Confusing - Got to disagree with you there... if they cannot understand the current system, then why give them an extra statistic? Less is more :)

7. +/- 25 LEVELS SHOULD BE REDUCED - I can only agree to a certain point. I'm not sure if you're guild was into GvG at the time, but there was a guild called Army of Two who rose to the top 5... with only 2 level 25 players.. As far as I know, only 2-3 top guilds managed to beat them, and it took a whole lot of effort to do so. Even in the bounty boards, you see instances where a level 60 beats a level 200+. From my standpoint, I have to support the +/-25 levels... when you get to the higher levels your targets are severely limited and you won't get to enjoy a GvG. I see the whole concept as dividing the players into specific classes, and every underdog has his or her day. :)

8. Improve Rewards - I completely agree!! I've said something on this same forum awhile back but it fell on def ears I guess. My suggestion was at least make the buffs at a higher level to compensate the stamina we loss. Like AL lv 300, Lib lv 300, and Conserve lv 300 as a pack. We seriously need worthwhile rewards such as that to make the GvG more appealing. You give better rewards then more guilds will want to participate, which leads to a gold sink.

Deflect is probably the most useless buff! - All it does is delay the inevitable. From a fighter's perspective, if you're on the bounty board do yourself a favor and don't cast deflect on yourself.... most players and guilds are advocates of the buff but it's really counter productive. Just ask yourself, if the whole goal is to get you off the bounty board as quickly as possible, why would you do something that will keep you there longer? I see even the most experienced players do it.... which is probably why they are better at leveling than fighting. With deflect you have a higher chance of losing XP simply because you're leaving yourself exposed to more and more bounty hunters... this buff should be done away with seriously.

#129 fs_bugeye33

fs_bugeye33
  • Guests

Posted 11 June 2008 - 22:40

Just that there should be a level restriction on what guilds can you start a conflict with, ain't fair for a level 200 guild take on a level 30

i agree with him but i say the level of all the members rounded up except instead of being a 5 level differance make it a 50 or something

#130 fs_sleepsalot

fs_sleepsalot
  • Guests

Posted 11 June 2008 - 22:44

The Guild level has nothing to do with it at all and the combatants have to be within 25 levels up or down of the player attacked I have seen new low level guilds with all members over level 150 so Guild level does nothing if the members are not in the right range

#131 fs_ryozanpaku

fs_ryozanpaku
  • Guests

Posted 12 June 2008 - 09:16

I agree with what godtiger is sayng, because my guild lost to guilds with players that are at higher levels.


Levels don't mean a thing in GvG. In case people forgot Army of Two was a guild made up of 2 level 25 players who rose to the top 10 GvG list. If you lost then it simply means that some or most of your players are not suited for battle situations.

#132 fs_gatticus

fs_gatticus
  • Guests

Posted 25 June 2008 - 23:18

I love the whole GvG system. I think HCS really got this one right (and I tend to be rather crtiical). They just need enhance the rewards for GvG, but not too much, just slightly. Like extending how the buff packs last for and maybe adding one or two buffs to each pack. BUT THAT IS IT. :!:

#133 fs_badjoe

fs_badjoe
  • Guests

Posted 27 June 2008 - 15:53

I love the whole GvG system. I think HCS really got this one right (and I tend to be rather crtiical). They just need enhance the rewards for GvG, but not too much, just slightly. Like extending how the buff packs last for and maybe adding one or two buffs to each pack. BUT THAT IS IT. :!:


Are you INSANE !! The whole GvG system is totally unbalanced and many players are complaining about it and you say its great ? You better re-red several pages back to see players complaints b4 saying something nonsense !!

I already took cared of that here : http://forum.fallens... ... uff reward !!

#134 fs_badjoe

fs_badjoe
  • Guests

Posted 27 June 2008 - 15:55

So Hoof now that PvP Arena is finished when will you fix the GvG system for us ?

#135 fs_gatticus

fs_gatticus
  • Guests

Posted 01 July 2008 - 02:46

Still think it's great, with some very minor exceptions. I had read the posts before I posted, including others like me that don't think it needs to be completely reworked at all, just tweaked. I just wasted my time be reading them all again at your suggestion. :roll:

#136 fs_badjoe

fs_badjoe
  • Guests

Posted 01 July 2008 - 19:25

I'm in a brand new guild (I believe) with only six members... no one high level yet. While our leader is on vacation for a week, we have been attacked by a guild 58 levels higher than us with 62 members.
I don't believe any of us are into PvP (that I've heard of) but we still have to deal with the damaged gear from all the attacks.
This doesn't make any sense to me...
I realize that they will get something out of beating us but we have pretty much no chance of a win out of this and as far as I can tell, we'll be very lucky to even manage a tie... where's the equality in this system when we have no chance of any kind of gain here...


Thats impossible, guild can only attack other guilds within -/+ 25 level of their guild.

#137 fs_sleepsalot

fs_sleepsalot
  • Guests

Posted 01 July 2008 - 19:30

No Joe it is players within 25 levels + or - Guild level has nothing to do with it at all

I'm in a brand new guild (I believe) with only six members... no one high level yet. While our leader is on vacation for a week, we have been attacked by a guild 58 levels higher than us with 62 members.
I don't believe any of us are into PvP (that I've heard of) but we still have to deal with the damaged gear from all the attacks.
This doesn't make any sense to me...
I realize that they will get something out of beating us but we have pretty much no chance of a win out of this and as far as I can tell, we'll be very lucky to even manage a tie... where's the equality in this system when we have no chance of any kind of gain here...


Thats impossible, guild can only attack other guilds within -/+ 25 level of their guild.



#138 fs_cristobal7

fs_cristobal7
  • Guests

Posted 03 July 2008 - 14:01

i think that is just a stam waste because if you want a war against a guild you want to see them in the bottom there should be a war that affects the GXP and the guilds gold ( maybe ) and not the members


He is right, it should affect Guild XP(not gold in guild) ... thats what i think... and a person wrote that its not a waste of stamina cuz you get guild RP, I think that's wrong cuz you need, as example, you need to win 10 conflicts(10 RP) to get doubler, librarian and Adept Learner for ONLY 4 HOURS...its like wasting 20 fsp (1fsp and about 90k each conflict) only for those buffs...waste of FSP, time and stamina...

#139 fs_deciever11

fs_deciever11
  • Guests

Posted 03 July 2008 - 19:07

maybe they could implement something like GUILD STAMINA that can only be used during conflicts.. maybe 100 gain per hour and an upgrade that allows guilds to gain up to 200-250 guild stamina per hour.. and only members with the permission can participate in the conflicts and use the guild stamina.

#140 avvakum

avvakum

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,655 posts

Posted 04 July 2008 - 12:16

The fundamental task is to get big guilds with a lot of gold involved in the GvG system. :arrow: Big guilds and their members hold a lot of gold and they are more interested in leveling up because the GvG system is not rewarding. Also, the GvG rules are not fair to the big guilds as they need to spend tons of stamina and resources to protect more members from incoming attacks... in addition there is a lot of retired members in the big guilds.

Guild Structure -> "Guild Guards" -> a list of members that can be attacked in GvG conflicts. If an attacking guild has at least 1 member in a range of levels that is covered by Guild Guards it can attack only members that are on that list... if the list of guards doesn't cover the whole range of levels in the guild the rules stay wild as they are now.

As for motivation and gold sinks, it can be GvG Tourneys -> just normal GvG conflicts + the draw format..


2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users

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