Jump to content

Photo

Game Update v1.677


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
971 replies to this topic

#841 fs_goldilox69

fs_goldilox69
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2011 - 21:25

I think that you guys should lower the time limit for att the same guild again cause with the cost so high it is really hard to find another guild the u can gvg. So i say either keep the cost high and allow to gvg the same guild every like 3 days or lower the cost and allow to gvg the same guild in like a week. Because with both gvging is really hard.

#842 Unnamed One

Unnamed One

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 24 posts
  • Badge
  • United States of America

Posted 22 February 2011 - 21:26

+1!!! All of the top guilds in the game got where they are without GvG rewards. It takes time and effort and that's as it should be for then when you get there you know you have achieved something through the efforts of a group of dedicated and resourceful people. There are, as vamunre pointed out, many ways to achieve your goals outside of GvG. My guild did it and so did every other successful guild before big RP rewards ever existed.



And before RP-rewards and what-not ever existed, the big guild who "earned" it, didn't have the advantage, of being the first to sell newly introduced buffs, at VERY profitable prices??? How about Super Elite hunting in the early days when it was still profitable? Not to mention the HUGE advantage of being able to lure in other high level players, because of relics and structures allready maintained and sustained (those old guilds had the chance to be first movers on these things in the early days, and reaped the benefits)

People acting like the situation for a small guild now is the same as it was for the guilds at the top, that in most cases were created in an earlier evolutional state of the game (or at least the levels of the characters were gained then), are kidding themselves and refusing to accept the reality of the game. Now I've been around FS for 3 and a half years, with more or less activity. I'm in a solid midle of the road guild, not big, not small... And to me it's obvious that there's a problem here, that isn't solved by "just work harder and earn it".

Now that rant aside, it doesn't really matter if it's "earnt" or not, the fact of the matter is, that FS NEEDS an incentive for newer players to stay in the game. One of these incentives have for a while been GvG, because it gave players a way to improve, and learn that they can set goals for themselves, and achieve them, which in turn keeps them loyal to the game (or at least increases the chances of this happening). On the other hand you have the issues of new players being smacked around so much, that they leave the game. This update has not done much to help this.

Oh, and the whole "unfair" profit thing, I adressed this (a lot) yesterday around page 40 (+/-5 pages)... The profit is not unfair, GvG is a MAJOR (if not the biggest) gold AND FSP sink in the game. (Most of the profits are sunk right back into the game in form of upgrades of gear/characters), and the cost to game balance is relatively small, showing ONLY in the price of rp items... So this leaves me back to my original suggestion, that has been mentioned many times before. Make a minimum character level for participating in GvG at lvl 50. Lock it so at level 50 you can ONLY attack those level 50-75. And to those that says it unfair, because a level 50 will have fewer targets than a level 75, I say YES, you are also a target by fewer other players, so if you have a problem with it, level up.


I like this idea alot Elmo.. very good breakdown of exactly what I was thinking whenever reading most of the other posts. I posted something similar a looong time back, but didn't make it much past 1-2 extra posts. I agree with most of your points. I'm tired of the "I worked hard a looong time ago in the game, so did others, but they need to as well".. that attitude in general is incorrect on the situation. Times have changed significantly since the time when I started.

There are other ways to make FSP, sure.. but some require certain levels... or some require vast amount of BP spaces.. which as a starting character, you don't have in FS.

As for the minimum GVG level.. I like it.. make the minimum target you can hit 50.. I'm game with that.. I think it would be a good level to start off at.

I could not agree, more! That would eliminate most of the problems with GvG. Especially since you really don't start learning gear setups till around level 40, anyways. That would give the new players more than enough time to learn their gear and decide their path, on the game. It would also give them enough time to establish a significant bank, for any future repairs that need to be made, as a result of GvG/PvP attacks. This could definitely be workable!

Unossig.png


#843 Egami

Egami

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,863 posts

Posted 22 February 2011 - 21:38

Thanks out to coyotik for oh-so-conveniently including crace's quote in his sig... which is to say:

A simple 5 question test everytime you wish to post would do it. The first question being 'is there already a post on this?' The 2nd question - is there already a post on this... 3rd question are you sure...


That said, I haven't read the responses to this thread in the last day or day and a half... when I read the entire thing and refrained from spewing forth my immediate response without thinking about it.

Lack of thinking is a big problem for the world in general and, here in FS, we are no different. Opinions, not all, tend to range from the "comfortably oblivious because I need this for me" game play to the "comfortably obliviously informed but this is what I want" game play. Obviously, I have just dogged both and yet don't think what I am about to say detracts from either stance.... When I say that I support HCS' efforts I feel that, at this point in the post, I have effectively cast out anybody that wants to objectively analyze an opinion. I assume (yeah, we all know the response to that word) that I have weeded out any irrelevant responses to what I am about to say. I do hope that HCS.... sorry guys and gals... continues reading. In that context, if you as an FS player actually continues to read and have an opinion, please feel free to pm me in game. Let me know your response in this thread (time-date, page if possible appreciated as well) or just give me an idea... I'd like to read it... even (and perhaps "especially" if you don't agree with what I'm about to say) and I openly admit that after this post, I'm done with this particular thread....theoretically.

PREAMBLE DONE.

Despite my distaste for the ineffectiveness of a Forum mass response to ideas set forth, Kjeften's post (apolgies for mispelling), from I don't know how long ago was one I chewed over for awhile. I liked it and yet disagreed with it and I didn't respond because I had to think about why. It helped me to reach my general conclusion which is also a "spew" and begs for informed input:

My assumption with regard to this update is that HCS has two priorities (and please keep in mind that they provide a game that is free and that "rich players" provide monetary support for it... I don't want to get into that discussion here): 1. Reduce the negative reaction to the game due to the "side effects" of GvG. 2. Use premise 1 to create a gold sink (not going to explain that concept here... suffice it to say it benefits all FS players).

As I see it there are several reasons to participate in GvG beyond the pure gaming experience: 1. PvP practice. Yeah, I said that just to make you laugh... but I hope it makes you think because I'm completely serious. 2. Farming RP in order to make FSP via items, be it those directly acquired or the end result of items created. 3. RP buff opportunities. 4. GvG ladder (I completely ignore that there are rewards to being there... this might be something to consider)

1. With the regard to Kjeften's (?) suggestion of reducing costs based on GvG rating (or the GvG ladder, which actually hadn't been addressed) which was found "interesting" by HCS staff, I would be fully AGAINST this. Simply put... Guilds that engage in GvG are doing it for the benefits... they have no need, under the prior definition, for further benefits. Please keep in mind that this ideology is pre-update based... and things have changed. It's become more costly... but that's dealt with in the following:

2. The "current" reaction (and that's in quotes because thing are constantly changing and I haven't evaluated the latest updates) is based on the fact that the gold sink costs have increased. For the GvG guilds, this is totally irrelevant. Grant it, they don't realize it. They are busy complaining about the increased costs without realizing that, from an econ point of view, they should effectively pass these costs on to their customers. For Guilds that only do GvG for the RP buffs... the cost is "notable". The gold sink will quickly become unviable (if it wasn't before... I've seen some analysis by others that suggest it already was) and they will refrain from investing their stam in it. In this last case, it's going to be a very touchy balance... for the most part, based on the posts I saw, people agreed to an increase in costs... where that should be placed... I have no idea nor suggestion. HCS might consider here, instead of an increase in costs, a bonus for a draw on GvG. One RP, just a suggestion. Keep in mind that any reduction in stam is effectively, for the most part, a gold sink (less stam used in gold increase via hunting) and perhaps even an FSP purchase increase (dependent on many variables... but hey, it's possible)... Balance, balance.

3. When last I checked, HCS was considering the introduction of RP items based on GvG ratings (hope that GvG ladder is not being forgotten here)... Given that before this update, GvG guilds farming RP for FSP were content and that guilds not involved in GvG were discontent... I might suggest that this idea be applied to assuage both parties.

My suggestion is that these new RP possibilities be (possibly, but not necessarily) automatically Guild tagged as far as the ingredients for the making of the new items. And that these new items are also DEFINITELY be GUILD BOUND (something beyond tagged which can be undone), meaning not only that they can't be sold, but also that they can't be taken from the Guild they are created in. I realize that this would need tweaks to programming to enable Guild Bounding (something which would make detagging impossible) which may be no small feat... however... here are the benefits I see:

Gold sinks which benefit all players will get a boost: All of the top guilds will sink gold to get the items. Some of these items could be Arena based, hence enhancing the gold sink via that game option.

GvG participation will be enhanced. Stam waste benefits both HCS profits, player satisfaction and all levels of play, including RP buffs as Guilds have more possibilities to fight back at no cost to themselves.

As opposed to current RP items, costs won't be passed onto FSP and hence anul the gold sink. Item costs related to bound items cannot be passed on. Negative for HCS profits, perhaps a net positive for profits based on player satisfaction. To compensate (somewhat) HCS, perhaps ingredients could be unbound and end items bound.

TO SUM UP: I really hope that HCS and the "thinking players" in FS read this post. I will openly admit that I support HCS and applaud them for what I see as a constant attempt to satisfy a global group of players with distinct opinions on everything and, at the same time, help the underdog while, what I see as both necessary and obivous in providing a "free" game environment for everyone, still being capable of improving profits.

That said... there are several past aHCS decisions that I don't agree with. I have lost several friends based on HCS decisions. Some of these have been based on my friends' decision to "fight the system", others have been because the players in question simply decided that HCS wasn't responding to what they thought was important. I truly support my friends' opinions but I also still support the decisions taken by HCS (even when I don't agree with them). In RL, I left a country I didn't agree with to escape to one I agreed with "more", knowing full well (and has since been more than proved) that it was a temporary flight to safety. If I have continued in this game for more than 3 years... well... guess my opinion is obvious... otherwise... wouldn't I have left?

That said... and I hope HCS doesn't condemn me for my opinion... if you don't like something in this game... express your opinion when appropriate. Keep in mind that nobody respects your whining complaints if you don't state some rational line of thought... Keep in mind also that your rational line of thought might not be considering what is involved in providing a game for players worldwide... Keep in mind also that the majority doesn't know what is good for them. I've been around long enough to see the most altruistic gold sink suggestion for a structure that has ever been suggested by HCS that would have cut into their current profits like nobody's business and also cut down on the costs of FSP for the most destitute of FS players (over 13 of course and then some) thanks to the "me me" attitude of the world in general. To make it perfectly clear: FS player greed, envy and ignorance shot down the best opportunity I've seen to make FS more affordable to all FS players... a suggestion made by none other than HCS.

PLEASE IGNORE THE FOLLOWING AND SORRY FOR THE AGRO EDIT

PS: and this is part of my agro edit: Any one of you that complain about the "unfair advantage" that "wallet packers" have in this game.... Go get a friggin job... You are so competely obtuse that you make me vomit. I admit that I have donated to this game but I don't base respect on money. Most of my donations have gone to my Guild... what you all fail to acknowledge is real life.. I'm not going to agree that it is "right" that people that have money rule the world. What I am going to state is that all of you whiners that complain about all of those people that spend real cash on this game are avoiding reality. Next time you start to complain... please immediately sell your computer, disconnect your Internet and proceed to immediatly donate all that extra cash to the starving children in Africa.

YOU MAKE ME SICK


Back to reality: most likely, nobody has read this far down... sorry for those that have, because the summary isn't for you:

If parents of the world united and made dessert a vegetable... kids all over the planet would be a lot healthier.

Prosperous smacking (o0

#844 Trecar

Trecar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 189 posts

Posted 22 February 2011 - 21:55




I like the min lvl 50 as well....make people level up the multis before they rape the game with rp farming



Granted most people will still complain it doesn't take long to get to 50, or probably I'd guess 75 would be the next level, but it would at least protect players enough that by the time people are level 50, they can at least get into a decent set, or most guilds will have decent sets to give them.

This will also open up many guilds to allow lower level members I believe. I know as a higher up GVG guild, we would like to bring in newer members, but don't want to open ourselves to abuse by level 40 players. I remember we brought in 2-3 new players over a couple months earlier last year.. and each time we did.. we were initiated against within 20 minutes of bringing them into the guild by RP farmers who were level 25


I know what you mean, we scrapped all gear below lvl 100 and have a strict no players under 100 policy, we have not been farmed since


I'm very disappointed by these posts. We constantly bring in new players, level 5 to level 10, and are very proud to bring these enthusiastic new players on to become a great asset to the guild. The ones that make it (yes, a lot fall by the wayside during training) are very knowledgeable, loyal and active.
The excuse, oh we don't bring in new low levels because they get farmed doesn't wash. Sorry, but you don't bring in new low levels because you won't commit the resources to protect them properly. With the proper defense, you can AND SHOULD bring new players in to the fold.
This is one of the problems, a lot of new people only have two choices. Join a low level, poorly equipped guild or join an RP farm. If you can't put in the effort to bring new blood into your guild, not only the guild but the game will die. Make a commitment to protect the ones you take in, you CAN do it and we've proved it.
It is your responsibility as much as anyone elses to provide a home for new people or you'll find there soon won't be anyone making it as far as level 100 for you to take on......

#845 fs_troyannn

fs_troyannn
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2011 - 23:08

I dislike the update. 500k gold per conflict is a problem for many guilds.1fsp+100k it is possible for many guilds.Pleace change it!!!!About the level-75 it will be ok

#846 jerk973

jerk973

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 22 February 2011 - 23:56

[quote name="Kittles"][quote name="Spaz2"][quote name="Jerk973"]I dislike the update. 500000 gold per conflict is a problem for small or poor guilds. Also it takes forever to recruit players that stays in guild along with doing the GVGs. Please change the update to the original play before the update. I got a suggestion tho. Instead of limiting the level to 100, limit it to 50 or 75 as when my small guild started off in October, I had literally alot of GVGs comin at my guild due to poor equipments, so rp was easily taken[/quote]

Setting it to 75 would be a great idea I think, not a very good level to be at for GvG at all tho. Minos, Nolands, Deep, Nuadas...along with Epics all in range of it x'D Would give them even further incentive to level to 80/85 or 100onwards to GvG with higher sucess/better equipment lol..[/quote]

I agree completely.. 75 definitely isn't a very good level.. but I could see people sitting and planting themselves at 54.. so they can hit up until level 79.. but even then at least there's some chance to defend.. and I could see many people leveling up to 80 or even 100 - 115 to take over GVG'ing at that point in time..[/quote]

115 is a beautiful level to GvG at.. Or atleast the gear is, at 125(although at 127 because of Quests at the moment) now for a nice armor for offline. So I wouldnt really blame them, just blows for defending unless they fork out for an Iwaos+ Nuadas all the time which would alsl include the vital 24/7 KE+NMV(I think lv.100 is for that tho, not 115..) ... Perfectly capable of GvGing buf-less in Sildorah.. Can't say that for many players. lol.

I can't recall any significant differiencial items other then Bothild through thr 54 to 79 levels.. Other then the Bothilds ofcourse, they're shweeet items lol[/quote]



I GOT THE BEST IDEA =D
HunteCow should just . . .

LET US PLAY ! STOP CHANGING THINGS AS CHANGES SOMETIMES WORSEN THINGS

#847 fs_goldilox69

fs_goldilox69
  • Guests

Posted 23 February 2011 - 00:51

May i ask why it costs 500k to initiate a conflict with a guild whose rating is only 100 less? Ima go on a rant here and just say that while trying to help new players, you are making this game worse for current players. I was gonna make a gvg guild today, me and my friends planned it for months. Well now i cant do that anymore because of the new update, which means ima just quit the game because i only like doing gvgs.

#848 fs_conando

fs_conando
  • Guests

Posted 23 February 2011 - 02:17

i dont understand that if you have something good working, why change it? i thought it was personnally ok, i can understand about the low lvl guilds and being in a conflict, i agree to change it to 50 or 75. The cost of initiating is crazy, people are worried about getting farmed, get better gear and work at it, thats what our guild did, we were at 880 gvg rating and now we are a top 30 gvg guild. if they cant beat you than why worrie about it, and if they can, invest in better gear and do something about it. you win some and you lose some, but why go to ridiculus expectations, i for one have to disagree with the change. go back to the way it was. since i have been playing this game has changed its rules on different things of the game and is taking the basis and the fun from it!! hope it works out hunted cow!!

#849 fs_charliem

fs_charliem
  • Guests

Posted 23 February 2011 - 02:43

I still think the initiation costs are too high, the time between one conflict and another against a same guild is too large, and the lvl 100 minimum requirement is too high (the 2nd and 3rd, particularly, can't be together, and they don't have to co-exist as they do the same thing: limit the number of available targets to limit the gvgs. ONE of them would be more than enough, or you limit that by the guild level OR by the time between conflict, never both at the same time)...

1 fsp + 100k, 7 days between one conflict and another, and guild lvl 50 would be totally acceptable

also, if finding targets are harder now (due to the 2nd and 3rd complaints i made), HCS need to enhance the guild searching... put some devices on the "a-z list" where you can filter the guilds by guild lvl, number of members, last activity and such stuff... like what you did in the auction house

#850 olescruffy

olescruffy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts

Posted 23 February 2011 - 02:51

Everyone keeps talking about the player's minimum level to GvG and you're missing the point I think.

It is a Guild versus Guild and the guild's ranking should be the determining factor. Not the members.

Otherwise you'll have players get to level 115 or so and outfit themselves in Shildorah and hit everyone that comes within reach. We'll have the same problem as before but just further down the road when the farmers level up. Then they'll be hitting everyone they can between level 90 and level 140 or so. Not a good fix at all if you think about it.

I still say a guild's rating is the best way.

A cap of 500k cost is fair. At least to start with, it could even come down if need be.

I'd really like to see guilds be refunded all the FSP they used for more conflict slots beyond the one all guilds start with. And a structure system put in place. Call it a Siege Tower because that's exactly what's happening.

1st level 1 extra conflict, 2nd level gets 2 extra conflicts, 3rd level gets 4 extra conflicts, 4th gets 8 extra conflicts. Completely maxed out the structure would give a guild 16 possible conflicts counting the first.

If they want to farm RP then they should have to pay for it. The market on the RP items will even out and it will still be somewhat profitable to GvG. Just not at the expense of noobs.

Please don't just say this idea sucks. Tell me why.

#851 fs_satoki

fs_satoki
  • Guests

Posted 23 February 2011 - 03:37

Ok, the guild level requirement is ok, but you seriously NEED to get rid of increased cost for hitting guilds lower rating than yours. It penalizes the people who win, and encourages losing, or making side deals to LET people win in order to decrease your own rating.

Its ridiculous that it costs 20k more to hit a guild 26 rankings lower. This has completely killed gvg for me since Its extremely difficult to find guilds who both have a higher ranking than me and have players I can attack, that the guild has not already attacked recently.

The cooldown time between attacks is something I would not mind if it were not for increased costs for hitting lower ranked guilds, but with that rule as well, the cooldown time is horribly long. 10+ days between attacks, when I dont even have enough targets as it is...

The problem that 'newbies get farmed' is not the problem with the game, its a problem with their guild. Guilds need to protect their newbies! I joined my guild at level 3, got invited minutes after I joined the game, and they protected me! Gave me great gear and taught me how to play, like a guild should. I got hit a few times in gvg, sure, but the money I made from monsters, quests, and leveling MORE than paid for the cost to repair my armor.
If HCS thinks its a problem, instead of killing gvg, they should give new players enough backpack slots to TAKE OFF their armor when they are offline so they dont get hit a million times and have it all break. =.= THAT would be a good solution!

At the very least, HCS needs to get a better guild search function so I can find active guilds around my guilds rating to hit easier.

#852 paingwin

paingwin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,075 posts

Posted 23 February 2011 - 03:55

to tell you the truth i havent been playing much at all in the last month or so. i come on to talk to a few peeps and then of i go again. if you ask me this update is going to do one thing and one thing only, force people out of the game. it seems like here lately that any change made to the game has forced people out, both good players and bad ones alike. no update that is made will be liked by all the players, or disliked by all of them either. raising the GUILD level requirement isnt a hard trial to overcome. hell hire 2 level 700's to hunt 2 or 3 times then resume with your rp farming, be sure to keep your guild bank stocked with the increase in prices for rp items. this game in its design promotes farming of all types. pvp rating, rp, plants, boredom call all be farmed in this game and that will continue as these seem to be the things that draw people to this game. when i started playing this game 3 years ago it was great, kinda fresh and a joy to play. now all that is fresh in it is the things in which people can bitch about. there hasnt been anything NEW brought into the game in so long because the dev team is constantly using their time to tweak and fix existing things ALREADY IN THE GAME. would you please let them focus on new ideas and quit the mindless bickering back and forth about things that cant be fixed to suit everyone in the game?

#853 BalianRW

BalianRW

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 755 posts

Posted 23 February 2011 - 04:01

Hi all,

We've just pushed two small Guild Conflict hotfixes live. These are

- Capped the cost to initiate a Guild Conflict at 500000 gold.

- Increased the guild level requirement to 100 to take part in Guild Conflicts.

We are still reviewing the feedback on Guild Conflicts and hope to post an official suggestion in the near future.

~ The Fallen Sword Team


Ok I've obviously missed something there. I thought the gold cost to initiate a conflict was a fixed 50k. When did it become variable? What is the formula to determine how much it will cost?

#854 Kae1712

Kae1712

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 374 posts

Posted 23 February 2011 - 04:05

Hi all,

We've just pushed two small Guild Conflict hotfixes live. These are

- Capped the cost to initiate a Guild Conflict at 500000 gold.

- Increased the guild level requirement to 100 to take part in Guild Conflicts.

We are still reviewing the feedback on Guild Conflicts and hope to post an official suggestion in the near future.

~ The Fallen Sword Team


Ok I've obviously missed something there. I thought the gold cost to initiate a conflict was a fixed 50k. When did it become variable? What is the formula to determine how much it will cost?



it became a variable with the first update, there was no limit and it was based on how much lower the targets rating was below yours

#855 BalianRW

BalianRW

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 755 posts

Posted 23 February 2011 - 04:24

Hi all,

We've just pushed two small Guild Conflict hotfixes live. These are

- Capped the cost to initiate a Guild Conflict at 500000 gold.

- Increased the guild level requirement to 100 to take part in Guild Conflicts.

We are still reviewing the feedback on Guild Conflicts and hope to post an official suggestion in the near future.

~ The Fallen Sword Team


Ok I've obviously missed something there. I thought the gold cost to initiate a conflict was a fixed 50k. When did it become variable? What is the formula to determine how much it will cost?



it became a variable with the first update, there was no limit and it was based on how much lower the targets rating was below yours


So then kinda back to the way it was. Is it based on guild level or guild PvP raiting? What is the formula? (i.e. 10k for every 50 difference)

#856 Kae1712

Kae1712

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 374 posts

Posted 23 February 2011 - 04:26

its based on the guild PvP rating, and idk the formula, i can probably find it though

- We've increased the cost to initiate Guild Conflicts against guilds whos GvG rating is 20 points less than your guilds.

I'm going to guess some amount of money for every 20 rating, not sure though

#857 fs_shadow9987

fs_shadow9987
  • Guests

Posted 23 February 2011 - 06:16

And now everyone is spamming the featured guild box with "initiate gvg with us plz!!!"

#858 centurion

centurion

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,238 posts

Posted 23 February 2011 - 06:31

at least they are wasting stam abd gold on hitting each other lol

#859 olescruffy

olescruffy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts

Posted 23 February 2011 - 08:02

Ok, the guild level requirement is ok, but you seriously NEED to get rid of increased cost for hitting guilds lower rating than yours. It penalizes the people who win, and encourages losing, or making side deals to LET people win in order to decrease your own rating.

Its ridiculous that it costs 20k more to hit a guild 26 rankings lower. This has completely killed gvg for me since Its extremely difficult to find guilds who both have a higher ranking than me and have players I can attack, that the guild has not already attacked recently.

The cooldown time between attacks is something I would not mind if it were not for increased costs for hitting lower ranked guilds, but with that rule as well, the cooldown time is horribly long. 10+ days between attacks, when I dont even have enough targets as it is...

The problem that 'newbies get farmed' is not the problem with the game, its a problem with their guild. Guilds need to protect their newbies! I joined my guild at level 3, got invited minutes after I joined the game, and they protected me! Gave me great gear and taught me how to play, like a guild should. I got hit a few times in gvg, sure, but the money I made from monsters, quests, and leveling MORE than paid for the cost to repair my armor.
If HCS thinks its a problem, instead of killing gvg, they should give new players enough backpack slots to TAKE OFF their armor when they are offline so they dont get hit a million times and have it all break. =.= THAT would be a good solution!

At the very least, HCS needs to get a better guild search function so I can find active guilds around my guilds rating to hit easier.


Are you actually saying that because my guild is weaker that we should expect to get hit on guilds lkie yours? Your guild has farmed mine at least 5 times I can remember. Let's take a look at both our ratings and our equipment shall we? Can you honestly say that you should only pay 50k for a guaranteed win???

All you are doing is hitting other players in combat you know you CAN'T lose and getting FSP for it. You say that there's no loss to the target? I'll tell you that is BS. Try logging on to 2+ pages of guild conflict kills and how you loose interest in the game. Think of how much fun it is to spend all the gold you make by leveling in fixing your stuff. Think of someone other than yourself.

You cleverly found the easiest way to make fast FSP in this game. There was a time when SE farming was the best. Farming plants was top for a bit. Inventing Epics. Working the AH. Farming Legendary events. All of those were top way to make FSP and when they got changed lots of people cried and moaned. Some even left. The ones that adapt are still here and prospering. Are you saying you're not capable of adapting? Try finding a way to still make it work.

This is a role playing game not tic tac toe
Like that so much I'll make it my sig

#860 llona

llona

    New Member

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts

Posted 23 February 2011 - 08:08

Few ideas (some have already been proposed by other members)

Conflict costs: go back to 1 fsp + 50k for all guilds, don’t penalize success please.

Guild minimum level: Level 100 to start is good, it can be changed if needed. It is important to introduce a guild xp decay system, so guild’s don’t hire a leveler to get them just over level 100.

Minimum level to take part in GvG:

1. Like the idea of a minimum player level of 50 or 75
2. Could be interesting to allow all players to participate, but lower the GvG range for players under level 100 from (+)(-)25 to (+)(-)10. The difference in stats at low levels is huge , specially under level 50. Very hard for a new player under level 10 to defend against someone using a Plague Set, or a level 18 defending against a Deathspinner set.
3. Do not change the item durability for low level players, item durability is good for GvG (can make a tough GvG at the beginning easier at the end, also allows a defending guild to notice if an offline player is being hit), if you want to protect them, lower their repair costs, make them so it is cheap for them to repair.
1,2 & 3 can be combiend also.

Trading RP points:

With the new rules, we have started to see the “start against us please” messages.
Could be an interesting idea to force players to hit back. If your guild is a target in GvG you must complete the outgoing attacks, if you don’t, you receive a penalty of -5 RP points, how does this affect the guilds:

If you are a real GvG guild, it won’t affect you much, you already hit back every time, even for a draw (you’ll now need to complete the attacks even if you misss one).

If you are a farming guild, you will now need to hit back or lose 5 RP points, if you want to trade wins, it will cost you 1000 stamina instead of 500. If you pay your players to GvG for you, you will need to pay them to return fire, even for a draw or a loss.

If you are a non GvG guild this does not affect you, you already have 0 RP points cause you don’t GvG

To make it easier to complete the required attacks on smaller guilds, the minimum number of active players in a guild participating in GvG should be increased to 10 or 15 active players.

Multiaccounts: This is your job HCS, the only thing we can do, as some of us do, is send in a ticket when we see something suspicious, but not more than that. Here it is you who need to take actions. Just one question, when deleting the secondary accounts, why don’t you always delete the main account too? That main account that you are keeping, maybe hoping you have a donating customer there in the future, is the responsible for many new and old players quitting the game.


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: