Jump to content

Photo

Further Guild Conflict Tweak


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#41 BandLaw

BandLaw

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts

Posted 23 February 2010 - 17:22

Hi all,

What was everyone's thoughts on changing it to a 'snapshot' of the full guild list for potential targets (within level ranges of course), rather than just a list of current partipants who have left?

Important Note: This doesn't mean all target guild members would be classified as participants, but it would mean thar guild members who were in the opposing guild at the start of the conflict would still be targetable until the conflict is over.



Do it! That would be the best solution and not highlight just who's attacking. :-)

#42 BandLaw

BandLaw

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts

Posted 23 February 2010 - 17:23

luisspamer,

You think all 4 should have to be active?


Having the min. # of 4 participants when 3 of them are lvl 1 or inactives basically negates having the requirement at all, so yes.

#43 lordthade

lordthade

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 529 posts

Posted 23 February 2010 - 17:59

I agree. At least 4 ACTIVE... potential targets... players.

I've noticed several small guilds with 2 or more of the players going inactive. Seems to defeat the purpose.

They're tricky-smart these guys. :wink:

#44 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,956 posts

Posted 23 February 2010 - 18:34

luisspamer,

You think all 4 should have to be active?

Yes. It still favors smaller guilds. But having a mandatory minimum 4 attackers makes GvG sound more like guild against guild then PvP in disguise for huge rewards and no penalty. I think the 50-0 fights will be less common because more players will invariably come online during the 24 hr period interrupting attacks. I like this!

I also like the balance it brings between smaller vs. larger guilds. Larger guilds can much more easily defend/take relics giving huge bonuses. It's more then 20% btw. See ticket # PHR-473927. Thx.

So looking at the big picture, it's a step in the right direction.

They're tricky-smart these guys. :wink:

This couldn't be more true lol

[Signature removed]

 

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” -GRRM


#45 boeffie

boeffie

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 977 posts

Posted 23 February 2010 - 21:02

Reading this topic, the first changes were made based partly on the responses generated on the FSIRC, during the publicised appearance of Hoofmaster there. That appearance, and subsequent mention here, gives it at least some real feedback relation. The appearance being around 2am it would of course be somewhat biased, areawise, but over all I should think a lot of opinions were being heard.

I had understood for all the Guildmembers to be fixed at the time of Initiation, for both guilds, and continuing to be possible targets on either side, even after kicking or leaving, and was all in favor of that.

There had also been support for there to be a minimum amount of teamwork, involving more than one active participant.
Due to my getting banned during this discussion, I didn't see the outcome of it, but had liked Hoofmaster's suggestion about the % of hits to be divided over the participants. No mention of that is made here, which is rather disappointing.

As it was proposed, that would have meant at least 4 active attackers doing 25% each, unless initiated with a higher amount of participants. How the defense side of it was arranged I am sorry to say I can't remember, due to the amount of input, and of course no subsequent logs, but the whole idea was interesting, and seemed to get quite a bit of support too, so why isn't there some discussion based on that here?

#46 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2010 - 04:40

I agree that attackers should have to have at least 4 active members in their guild. I also think they should be at least level 25+, preferably level 50+, and the guild should be a minimum of level 50 itself.

Before anyone starts screaming that I'm biased against the little guy, none of the above is hard to do. It takes, maybe, a week to get to level 25 with a smidgeon of intelligence. Two, if you don't want to invest in the game at all. Getting a guild to level 50 is just as easy.

As is stands right now, a single player with the intent to circumvent or exploit existing game situations can create a guild and start GvGing with it in about 30 minutes flat. That is not a good thing.

My one reservation is that defending guilds should not be forced to attack back with at least 4 players. They should have the prerogative to use as few or as many hitters as they wish, up to the maximum allowed by the conflict.

#47 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,956 posts

Posted 24 February 2010 - 04:55

My one reservation is that defending guilds should not be forced to attack back with at least 4 players. They should have the prerogative to use as few or as many hitters as they wish, up to the maximum allowed by the conflict.

I have no problem with this... The burden should be on the attacking guild. They instigated the attack.

#48 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2010 - 05:00

My thoughts exactly.

#49 fs_philip333

fs_philip333
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2010 - 05:25

if you put a limited on what members that can be attacked to lvl50. Then GF to the crsytal items and legendary items below

#50 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2010 - 05:34

Que? They can still be attacked, they just don't count towards the 4 member minimum requirement to participate in a GvG.

#51 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2010 - 05:36

So, essentially, if you have 2 level 100 players, 1 level 400 player, a random level 367, and 4 level 10's, the level 10s could still participate and be attacked in GvG's...but if both level 100 players, and the level 367 left, the guild would no longer be eligible to participate in conflicts.


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: