Jump to content

Photo

Game Update v1.652


  • Please log in to reply
435 replies to this topic

#121 donalde

donalde

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Finland

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:12

On GvG, there is no practical way to defend against carefully executed attack, since attacker allways has edge. Attacker can select targets, attack multiple targets in 2 mins and then redo same. While defenders have no way to know who are targeted.


pay attention to who is online on attacking guild..you can usually see who is attacking due to -10 stamina here and there plus buffs they have one..now look at everyone in their 25-/+ attack range in your guild. check their durability. if its not full then buff them up..try to buff up all the suspected targets at once to throw off the attacker so they don't notice just one or two with buffs and then they start checking before each attack..a couple loses is all you need to win


Yeah, fine way to spend stamina instead of leveling.. 10 targets is nothing too uncommon, so buffing FS and LD + couple of other buff... Whee, 1k stamina gone! ... and for what, to get RNG a chance to kick in and save guildies A$$, and gain one victory.

Other thing.... to find out 4 possible attackers... lets see, it takes 2min 10 sec to determine who attackers are per each active attacking player, so in that time they have executed 10 to 40 attacks, before one even starts buffing. So attackers have easy to do 50 wins, and then defenders have burned more stamina than attackers. If they retaliate later, they end up burning roughly 2 times more stamina (defensive buffs + attack buffs on retalation + stamina spent on attacks) than original attacker. I call that unfair.

#122 mickabooth

mickabooth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Badge
  • United Kingdom

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:13

Hi all,

In todays update we have made the following changes

- Upgraded the front page to make it more appealing to new and existing players.

- Fixed an issue with the Ice Maiden Elite sometimes not dropping items.

- Increased the minimum size of a guild for participating a guild conflict. (4 members)

- Increased the minimum number of participants required for a guild conflict to 4.

- Updated the log message at the end of GvG's to show the final score of the conflict.

- Change the cost to initate a guild conflict to be based on your guild XP lock rather than your GvG rating.


- To resolve the issue with players potentially being trapped in a guild if the guild store is full we have implemented a 'Guild Mailbox' which will store items for 48 hours after a members leaves or is kicked if the guild store is full and they have tagged items. Any guild member can transfer these items from the guild mailbox to the guild store.

~ The Fallen Sword Team



thanks hoof for the changes to the GvG issues as are guild dose not do GvG i cant comment whether it is good or bad i would have liked an option where a guild could lock out all GvG for a long period say a month with no one being able to start a GvG of be attacked as GvG and have it time locked so once it has been activated it has to run for a full 720 hours (( for a price say 1 FsP ))

as for the guild mail box what happens when a member with 140 Back Pack slots and a full guild set active decides to leave the a guild with limited free space all the items will be lost or have to be sold ????

i agree with some control on items in the mail box but a time limit to clear the mail box or the guild items will be lost is not good for guilds

#123 Uralus

Uralus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 199 posts

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:13

But some guilds want to to cover more than 1 aspect of the game. We have players that like to level, others like to PvP/GvG. Now this combination won't work anymore, because it costs almost half a mil gold to initiate a conflict. We can't pay that. These GvG players will be forced to start their own little guild and farm RP for cheap.

#124 Sustortias

Sustortias

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,214 posts

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:13

Okay that makes more sense :)

Thanks!

Posted Image


I just gotta say, I laughed so freaking hard when I saw your sig! All my other cares disappeared! Lollercaust! Posted Image

Ignition_Honda_410x200_zps03cc040c.png


#125 fs_kodok

fs_kodok
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:14

hmm more complicated :D lol

why titan guild hunter got RP+ (why don't change it to the gold or something else)
beside the winner got titan item

1 gvg conflict => min 500 stam => 10 RP >*< titan hunter get more RP

result of draw conflict 50 vs 50 (nothing effect = no RP) why don't change into 1 stam/turn better than waste 500 stam without nothing gain

conflict price change based on guild XP *_* wew maybe we must change into XP conflict not GVG anymore

#126 dar

dar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 197 posts

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:15

I'm also in agreement with coyotik's post. I stated before this whole mess began that titan points and GRP should in NO way be interlinked....and look what's happened since then....

There will be a plethora of 4-player guilds forming now...multi heaven! That can happily farm higher level guilds at their leisure...as the higher level guild will have to pay an arm and a leg to actually initiate a GvG. These "new" guild's do not seem to level, in the main, so this update will actively encourage this GRP-farming-proliferation...in fact some Guilds seem to contain very PvP/GvG-knowledgeable low level players with recent join dates.

This update makes completely no sense to me.

#127 MsClaire

MsClaire

    New Member

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 34 posts

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:15

- Increased the minimum number of participants required for a guild conflict to 4.


A one participant GvG was initiated against us @ 17:52 03/Feb/2010. I trust this will go to a draw since it was after the update?

#128 lurkindoc

lurkindoc

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 25 posts

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:15

conflicts based on guild xp lock is not fair , what if your in a guild that was strong and a a lock of 100,000,000 but now only has a few members with a total guild xp of 50,000 , how are they expected to pay 300+k to have a conflict ???

#129 celendais

celendais

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:16

and still no incentive to defend or fight back........ << this is the MAIN problem imho unless you are one of maybe 20 guilds that cares about gvg-rating as such

#130 fs_citizenx

fs_citizenx
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:17

I just gotta say, I laughed so freaking hard when I saw your sig! All my other cares disappeared! Lollercaust!


rofl!

Thanks Posted Image

#131 fs_ganjalf91

fs_ganjalf91
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:18

i dont know if its related with this update, but i logged out to see the front page and i cant log in...i only see a black page...if i do other things like reset password the page displays, but i cant log in :(

#132 fs_flandore

fs_flandore
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:19

So say Hypothetically I make a 4 player guild with 3 allies of mine and all we do is gvg. We never hunt and gvg prices always stay dirt cheap? 4 high level players never hunting so xp lock stays pretty danged low.... Ummm sounds nice! but sure as heck isnt fair.


Well we want to cover all the angles so one I speak to hoof tomorrow (he's off home for today) we could look at changing the new pricing to stop abuse of this kind.


If you tie the cost of the conflict to overall guild XP lock, at least make it more along the lines of the previous GvG rating prices. In other words, the cost is directly related to BOTH guild's XP. Here's my thoughts on how this could be accomplished:

Use some type of level range to determine costs. The CLOSER the other guild level is to your current guild level, the cheaper the cost. Make the minimum cost for conflicts a range of....ohh idk, 50? 100? levels.

For example, a level 250 guild attacks another guild within 50 levels up or down from their level...minimum cost. If that guild wants to attack a guild that is level 5, or level 500, then the conflict initiation cost is gonna be higher. The further away from that guild's current level the more expensive the conflict will become.

#133 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:20

It costs our guild 366000 to initiate ANY conflicts now, even if we took on Resurrection, Stronghold, or Ryozanpaku. But a guild formed yesterday, with 3 multi accounts and 1 level 150 player, could start with us for 10,000.

THIS.

IS.

BROKEN.

#134 fs_deljzc

fs_deljzc
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:22

I really don't understand the higher price for bigger guilds.

BTW... Middle Earth is level 486 and our fixed cost is 243,000 gold (for those interested in making a graph of the costs).

I thought part of the recent updates and issues the game designers had with GvG was the growing number of small, GvG-only guilds. That specialized guilds like this shouldn't have such an huge advantage over everyone else in any aspect of the game.

With this update, small guilds now gain a huge cost advantage in addition to their advantage of many targets vs. few targets.

Is this really the intent? Honestly?

#135 fs_knc

fs_knc
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:22

costs us 800k....wouldn't it make more sense to tie it to GvG rating or current RP balance?

#136 nyklos

nyklos

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:23

This update is a typical example of "we had an interesting idea, applied it completely wrongly and now that players started using it in a way we did not expect, we'll have to spend serious efforts at crippling, because we don't want to admit that the core mistake was the original implementation".

I wouldn't be saying such harsh things if it were the first time - but it's the second time in a few weeks time.

First case - PvP prestige. Instead of rewarding PvPers with something that's nice for them, they invented a "must-have" for levellers. Result - everyone is trading PvP prestige like crazy just to stay competitive. Fix? Make it harder/slower to trade prestige. Result? People still trade, only they have to spend more effort and form larger trading rings.

Titan rewards. Sure a nice idea. But why bother with something like new "titan" points when we already have RP? Let's make a mess of these two. First result - all GvGers start complaining like crazy that it's not fair that they needed so big effort for each single point and titan hunters get so many. Fix? Increase GvG rewards tenfold - and apply it to past victories (so instead of annoying GvGers, they annoyed titan hunters because some guilds instantly got thousands of RPs that were quite often gained by farming inactives.). Result? People start trading RP. Fix? Spend hours on implementing various restrictions and fixes... annoying all kinds of people in the process, possibly increasing workload... forbidding people from offering Free RP in PMs? They must be kidding. How long will it take before people agree on some kind of code? Or communicate outside FS?
These restrictions are just ridiculous - and todays changes represent a lot of wasted developer time that could and should have been aimed somewhere else - at fixing the CORE of the issue - and that is cutting the new stuff from the old RP to titans only.



Absoultly agree.

Imho lets make thinks better ... :wink:

#137 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:23

costs us 800k....wouldn't it make more sense to tie it to GvG rating or current RP balance?



O.o

WOW. That's bawls. No more GvG for FFS!

#138 fs_sollimaw

fs_sollimaw
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:23

How about 100k per conflict? Nothing for anyone to complain about.

#139 fs_nimav

fs_nimav
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:23

- Change the cost to imitate a guild conflict to be based on your guild XP lock rather than your GvG rating.


Thank you , it was needed in order to prevent guilds to lose on purpose , Great Update :)

#140 fs_mihaajlo

fs_mihaajlo
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:23

@Radneto, simple "yes" n "no" question: is this update which will fix gvg trading (friendly gvg, farming RP or whatever you call it....)???
1 man guild problem: make it that defenders can hit back with let say min 5 players always, whatever is the number of attackers, problem solved (easy)....
guild itembox= nice update, agree with that....
The only way to make it fair is that you make defending in gvg worth, you lose gvg, you lose something (I really think -5rp for losing, 3Rp each side for equal is fair), to implement this, simple disconnect RP from titan hunting and gvg....
Do all this have sense??


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: