Jump to content

Photo

Feedback: Guild Conflict Improvements


  • Please log in to reply
225 replies to this topic

#141 fs_angiefc

fs_angiefc
  • Guests

Posted 04 July 2008 - 15:23

Honestly, as sad as it is to say, if a person is in your guild, even retired, they should be fair game. I'm not a fan of GVG in general but if you went by the retired thing then people could make all the members of the guild retired till the guild conflict was over and the other guild would have no one to attack except the guild leader ... though your idea about a time frame is decent ... and would prevent some abuse.

#142 fs_badjoe

fs_badjoe
  • Guests

Posted 15 July 2008 - 16:47

Here are some of the changes I like to see :

1- +/- 25 levels changed to 20

2- Minimum players to initiate conflict to 3 players

3- Players that haven't logged in within 5 days cannot be targeted (This will stop the abuse ppl are complaining)

4- Winners takes ONLY 0.01% of the loser guild (This is optional and not needed, but it might spice up the GvG)

5- We should have Guild Stamina for GvG (Deciever11 idea which i find it really useful)

6- Buffs effectiveness is lowered by 50% (Because buffs like DC + Wither + Deflect + etc..... are a real pain so all buff effectiveness lowered by that much)

7- Once all of the above are added / fixed then the cows should add this to ultimately spice up the GvG system : http://forum.fallens... ... uff reward

#143 fs_nthnclls

fs_nthnclls
  • Guests

Posted 15 July 2008 - 20:56

4- Winners takes ONLY 0.01% of the loser guild (This is optional and not needed, but it might spice up the GvG)


uh...do you mean gold? It would be hard to take part of a guild. :shock:

#144 callmeabc

callmeabc

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 16 July 2008 - 15:56

IF there is to be a rule about not attacking inactive member they should at least qualify as inactive (30 days with out logging in) but i don't think that rule should be imposed because the only reason 2 keep inactive members is for their GXP and if u don't like them being attacks you can kick them and open spots to expand the guild. but that is not why i am posting here this is the real reason

SUGGESTION FOR RP PACKS
Stamina Pack A: wither (level 150), conserve (level 150) death wish (level 150) 15 RP
(i suppose it could also be called leveller pack B)

Helping Hand A : Assist (level 150) Super Elite Slayer (level 150) shatter armor (level 150) 20-25 RP

Defensive Pack A : Force Shield (level 150) Constitution (level 150) Rock Skin (level 150) 5-10 RP

Gold Pack A : Treasure Hunter (level 150) Deep Pockets (level 150) Merchant (level 150) i imagine this pack would be expensive

Avatar upgrade - http://forums.hunted...showtopic=55576

GvG tracking ideas -

In the advisor - http://forums.hunted...showtopic=55250

In a building - http://forums.hunted...showtopic=53004

 


#145 fs_badjoe

fs_badjoe
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2008 - 21:10

IF there is to be a rule about not attacking inactive member they should at least qualify as inactive (30 days with out logging in) but i don't think that rule should be imposed because the only reason 2 keep inactive members is for their GXP and if u don't like them being attacks you can kick them and open spots to expand the guild. but that is not why i am posting here this is the real reason

SUGGESTION FOR RP PACKS
Stamina Pack A: wither (level 150), conserve (level 150) death wish (level 150) 15 RP
(i suppose it could also be called leveller pack B)

Helping Hand A : Assist (level 150) Super Elite Slayer (level 150) shatter armor (level 150) 20-25 RP

Defensive Pack A : Force Shield (level 150) Constitution (level 150) Rock Skin (level 150) 5-10 RP

Gold Pack A : Treasure Hunter (level 150) Deep Pockets (level 150) Merchant (level 150) i imagine this pack would be expensive


Why not post your buff reward idea here : http://forum.fallens... ... uff reward !!

#146 Ali

Ali

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 131 posts

Posted 24 July 2008 - 11:14

I have to regard the complaints about targetting retired/vacationing/inactive players in guild conflicts as so much self-serving hypocrisy. The same guilds who are complaining about the practice are only too happy to keep these people as part of their guild when it serves their needs - i.e., when their contributed guild xp helps boost their guild to the top. Now all of a sudden when those same players become a liability, they are screaming foul and claiming that, in essence, these players should NOT be treated as part of the guild.

Face it, people - you can't have it both ways. Either they are guild members, with all the consequences, positive AND negative, that this implies, or they aren't. Now if you want to create a rule that says inactive members are not counted in the guild experience totals, fine - they can be shielded from attack in GvG. Of course that wil never happen, since at least half of the top 25 guilds would drop off the Top Guilds list entirely overnight.

As to suggestions/improvements, I would like to see some meaningful rewards added to the list. The existing buffing packages are basically useless unless you have all of your people sufficiently close to the same time zone that most of them can arrange to be on at a given hour. For those of us with international memberships, no matter WHEN we use our RPs, a decent percentage of our membership is going to be left out. Make RPs redeemable for X amount of reserve stamina for every member of the guild - that would be a reward that would benefit everybody. Or allow guilds to redeem a RP for a percentage reduction in maintenance costs on their guild structures for a week. Figure in RP totals into the equation when determining whether or not a guild is able to capture or defend a relic. There must be many more ways that RPs could be used to benefit the entire guild which wouldn't totally unbalance the game.

#147 fs_willy74

fs_willy74
  • Guests

Posted 24 July 2008 - 13:39

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.

I agree with this.. and the staement above is true....we dont complain about the inactives however.. we boot them.. this had been a recent tradition and has been needed for some time.. better more active base of players and less attacks in GvG on inactive player..
There needs to be rewards from GvG such as actual damage to the guild in some way be it gold or some stamina number to be denoted...and this structure idea is best yet

#148 fs_naterich

fs_naterich
  • Guests

Posted 31 July 2008 - 20:05

well, no gold should ever be lost in guild conflicts. Never.

i like the idea of the exp loss from the guild. But it is a conflict and something else should happen, how about the loss of durability for every guild locked item of the guild?

Haha, I'm ingenious!

I also am for the guild medal idea(s).

#149 fs_saryne

fs_saryne
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2008 - 00:38

to initiate a conflict should mean X% are online at the time it's started. Else lower level guilds will just pick off inactive guilds, or a large member guild will lay waste to another, semi active guild, etc.

The rewards system could be looked at also, as the guild conflict effects seem tad....gimp

#150 EJames2100

EJames2100

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,387 posts

Posted 05 August 2008 - 13:24

13:22 05/Aug/2008 keevtara I tried to attack, but I got the message saying I was too high of a level to attack that person. Then Guild Log said I was a participant.

So he didn't actually get to attack and can't attack anyone, yet it still counts him, a bug I think.

#151 fs_generica

fs_generica
  • Guests

Posted 06 August 2008 - 02:48

I have to regard the complaints about targetting retired/vacationing/inactive players in guild conflicts as so much self-serving hypocrisy. The same guilds who are complaining about the practice are only too happy to keep these people as part of their guild when it serves their needs - i.e., when their contributed guild xp helps boost their guild to the top. Now all of a sudden when those same players become a liability, they are screaming foul and claiming that, in essence, these players should NOT be treated as part of the guild.

Face it, people - you can't have it both ways. Either they are guild members, with all the consequences, positive AND negative, that this implies, or they aren't. Now if you want to create a rule that says inactive members are not counted in the guild experience totals, fine - they can be shielded from attack in GvG. Of course that wil never happen, since at least half of the top 25 guilds would drop off the Top Guilds list entirely overnight.


I absolutely agree with this. Either they are a member of your guild, or not. Any player on the member list is fair game.

#152 fs_dyrnuth

fs_dyrnuth
  • Guests

Posted 01 September 2008 - 05:18

I'd like to see the GvG revised to allow all members of a guild to participate and find some other way to scale/upgrade the system. The worst part of GvG as it currently stands is: Ya! It's fun and it gets all your younger guild members whipped up in a patriotic frenzy and ready to go and then when the whistle blows you discover that only 2 members of your guild can actually participate in it... Well where's the fun in that? Plus your other overeager members have then gone on and attacked anyway only to find that it had no effect on the conflict and instead they just got put on the bounty board by 3 members they never meant to really attack anyway... Then they quit the game because people are mad at them.

Instead how about running a conflict for 24 hours, make every member able to participate and scale the number of victories you're allowed to accumulate, or scale the bonus to GvG participants Attack, Defense, etc.

GvG has so much potential, but it's just not enough fun to be a serious part of the game. My guild tends to ignore it completely because of this.

#153 fs_carbo1020

fs_carbo1020
  • Guests

Posted 02 September 2008 - 02:00

when in a GvG....Guilds shouldnt be allowed to kick members..If there is only 1 particepint allowed in the conflict and they have only 1 target and the target is kicked becuse they are being hit will result in an insant lose

#154 fs_dyrnuth

fs_dyrnuth
  • Guests

Posted 10 September 2008 - 05:28

bump

#155 fs_kingminos

fs_kingminos
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2008 - 00:33

There is really no point in GvG as it is now. Inactives and small levels are always the targets and the participants very few. Its a waste of stamina and FSP which are paid to initiate the conflict..

There could be a 1 hour duration and attacks only with 10 stamina amongst any members..The xp loss can me summed up and the winner would be the guild with the minimal xp loss..And why this is fairer? Because higher lvl players lose more xp when hit..So all high lvls will be encouraged to participate..And of course, CANCEL the particioants limitation!!!

#156 RebornJedi

RebornJedi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,449 posts

Posted 18 September 2008 - 14:19

if the rewards were plentiful and most excellent. you would see a drastic rise in GvG. guaranteed.

whats the point of doing something if its just for pvp rating and the rewards are :roll:?

i dont see why there hasnt been any expansion to the rewards in ALL this time GvGs been live. its most likely a quick addition and theres already been a great deal of reward ideas that the players of Fallensword have put together.

please just take some time to add this. then you will find out how to tweak the GvG system itself. more people will start doing conflicts and you can find the exploits that need to be gone and little rule changes.

its a very simple way to bring something back to life. pvp in general can have little changes that can dramatically change it for the better in sense of more activity.

#157 RebornJedi

RebornJedi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,449 posts

Posted 20 September 2008 - 14:49

Please keep the comments coming - we are listening :)


this was 8 months ago and the last comment from HCS in this GvG thread....are you guys still listening??? :?

theres PLENTY of GREAT suggestions yet nothing has been done in over half a year

#158 RebornJedi

RebornJedi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,449 posts

Posted 09 October 2008 - 05:39

*yyyyyaaaawwwwnnnnn*

#159 avvakum

avvakum

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,655 posts

Posted 24 October 2008 - 12:30

wow, well done O.o

Didn't take you very long at all o.O


maybe because only 20 or so guilds actually participate in this lame part of the game? HCS should really work on GvG.


The system would need a complete change as it currently stands only guilds meant for GvG or in the very least incredibly small have any chance of winning.



well, I have to ask you both...

DOA4LIFE, how many guilds would participate in this part of the game if PvP rating was a part of GvG combats? Also, how many guilds would make +Max Participants and + Guild Conflicts upgrades due to increasing interest to take pvp of other players without being bountied?


Vetoe, how would the GvG tactics change if the players with high PvP were main targets in the GvG conflicts? It's a small change to the system, but with huge impact... It will not be about finishing your attacks quickly on offline players, as some of attacks better leave till the deadline of GvG conflict...

#160 Dark Developer

Dark Developer

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 503 posts
  • Badge

Posted 24 October 2008 - 18:11

Bringing up the old. RP points need to actually DO something. As of now they only help lower level guilds. Could make more packs available as your guild grows with members/levels and stronger buffs. Packs need to last longer. GvG needs to take very little stamina 1-5 and players can only be hit if they were online in the last 24 hours. This would give purpose to having a guild level at all. In the result of a tie neither guild wins nor loses. PvP points should be available to earn in small amounts based on the player you are attacking WITHOUT them losing their PvP points. Not sure if you can still set how many attacks you want out but the more attacks are required the more RP you can get starting with 25 attacks as 1 RP and moving up at some rate.


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: