Guilds Must Have A Set Minimum Amount Of Active Members To Participate

[Blitz Epidemic]

I'm sure this has been brought up dozens of times, but it needs to be brought up constantly until Inno fixes this abuse.

In order to stop 'ghost' guilds from being a constant pain to the GVG maps, and ruining it for active players and diamond users, many of whom have given up entirely on GVG, this rule needs to be adopted.

A minimum set of active members needs to be a requirement for GVG. 'Active' players should be anyone who is in the green, or only a minimum of 1 time in yellow a week. Red players should never count as active. I recommend the minimum number of active members be 30, because let's face it anything less than that is worthless on a competitive map.

All current guilds that have less than 30 active members would lose the ability to participate, their sectors would stay though.

 

[DeletedUser96901]

-1

 

[DeletedUser16828]

+1 for idea

30 members is little too high but anything under 10 active members is usually just destruction of the game.
In GE guilds cant participate till they don't have at least 3 members, but in GvG that old problem was never solved

 

[Agent327]

- 1

 

[Emberguard]

-1

there's really no point to this other then to create a elite that can't be touched by certain player bases and preventing newer guilds from being able to build up their lvl's.

If a guild can't afford to maintain hexes they're attacking then they're already not a threat to the top guilds. There's only so much a small guild could possibly attack anyway due to troop drain and resources necessary. Short of being a one man army with 600+ troops of that era able to be produced from unit buildings I don't see a small guild being a giant problem to any seriously competing guild with a high ranking. You don't have to keep the border hexes if it's too expensive to do so, just remain inland like the top guilds already do on some maps.

In the end no matter what the game or situation is the top players in any field will always be playing an entirely different game from the rest of the community. Removing smaller guilds won't stop that from being the reality, it'll only destroy any chance of rapid growth in smaller guilds given GvG are where the major points are for lvl'ing a guild.

 

[Blitz Epidemic]

-1

there's really no point to this other then to create a elite that can't be touched by certain player bases and preventing newer guilds from being able to build up their lvl's.

If a guild can't afford to maintain hexes they're attacking then they're already not a threat to the top guilds. There's only so much a small guild could possibly attack anyway due to troop drain and resources necessary. Short of being a one man army with 600+ troops of that era able to be produced from unit buildings I don't see a small guild being a giant problem to any seriously competing guild with a high ranking. You don't have to keep the border hexes if it's too expensive to do so, just remain inland like the top guilds already do on some maps.

In the end no matter what the game or situation is the top players in any field will always be playing an entirely different game from the rest of the community. Removing smaller guilds won't stop that from being the reality, it'll only destroy any chance of rapid growth in smaller guilds given GvG are where the major points are for lvl'ing a guild.

I don't think you understood my Idea. This is not to keep new active guilds from participating, this is solely to keep one-man ghost and dead guilds from participating.

On my two worlds i've seen the same tactics used over and over. It is a simple tactic that can devastate any strong guild in the game. Said ghost or dead guild conquers one or two sectors, powerful guild reconquers sectors, ghost waits a day or two and conquers a sector or two, powerful guild reconquers sectors. Rinse and repeat, over and over. There isn't a single strong guild that can sustain this over time, their Treasury will be depleted, no matter how many L80 Arc s they possess in that age/era. Obviously a guild with a dozen or less sectors won't feel the effect from such a tactic, only the strong active GVG guilds suffer from this.

Ghost guild - Guild with one or a few members who create a new guild for the sole purpose to depleting the Treasury of another guild.

Dead Guild - Guild that is filled with players who've abandoned the game long ago, but has a part-time Leader who will invite a fighter that'll use it as a ghost to deplete another guilds Treasury. Anybody who participates in GE will see 1000s of dead guilds.

I've been in near constant GVG war since starting this game, mostly on one of my worlds, and I can tell you i've seen lots of Diamond users abandon GVG over this one reason.

30 active members may be too high, particularly if a guild wants to only specialize in one age/era, but I don't see how lowering it down much more will affect any guild that is attempting to build itself.

 

[Agent327]

GvG is free to play for everyone the way they want to. If the big guilds would not coördinate to dominate there would not be any ghost guilds or dead guilds. Big guilds take a big part of the map, just to release sectors others can't reach to start their point harvesting. How about we take care of that first to see if that will take away the reason for ghost guilds? Till that time, let them attack whatever they want. They have my support.

 

[Emberguard]

I get what you're saying, it annoys you to have players target your hexes over and over because it's not the expectation you have of how exactly your enemy should look like.

At most I'd make it the same as GE with the 3 player requirement, but certainly no more restrictions then that without creating an entirely new GvG map for "ghost guilds"

In the end what you're really asking for is to control how other players play the game purely for the benefit of those on top. It's upto the bigger guilds to decide how much territory they can maintain. There's nothing wrong with a hit and run tactic. If anything it actually makes the game more enjoyable then everything being predictable as to who's going to succeed in taking what. Not every ghost guild is there simply to deplete other guilds resources. Many would be players simply trying to have fun that don't have the benefit of a bigger guild to support them.

It would be a gross injustice to the little guy to tell him he can't play because those that were established before him wants a closed club of people that do things a specific way


And ok, there's not a single strong guild that can sustain it over time. Well that's not a problem. They can sit back, recover and then take the land back. Those ghost guilds can't keep it up forever either. Especially the ones that do that with the intention of retaining land in the long run. If the only way for a small guild to get in is to weaken the bigger guilds first then there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed. Just because bigger guilds have been there longer doesn't give them the right to retain that land forever

 

[DeletedUser96901]

only the strong active GVG guilds suffer from this.

how can a guild be strong if they can't handle an one man guild

so actually weak guilds suffer from this
because they are not strong enough

so you should use the word "big" or "large" instead of "strong" in the future

Obviously a guild with a dozen or less sectors won't feel the effect from such a tactic

so they are stronger than guilds with 20 or more sectors

On my two worlds i've seen the same tactics used over and over. It is a simple tactic that can devastate any strong guild in the game.

BIG guilds

because it can't devastate a strong guild

I recommend the minimum number of active members be 30, because let's face it anything less than that is worthless on a competitive map.

I would suggest a maximum of 30 members

anything more is worthless because they can't handle one single man

and sitting on 30 sectors and doing nothing is not competitive
it is being lazy because doing nothing never can be competitive

And ok, there's not a single strong guild that can sustain it over time.

BIG guild

because if they would be strong they would sustain it

---

still -1
because it only helps big guilds to sit lazy on their sectors

 

[vikingraider]

5 of each good per siege v 1000 of each good per siege

 

[DeletedUser96901]

5 of each good per siege v 1000 of each good per siege

and where is the relation of that to the guild size (in members) ?

does it make a difference for that if a guild has 29 or 30 members ?
because this idea would allow 30 members to attack but 29 not

 

[Emberguard]

5 of each good per siege v 1000 of each good per siege

That's not a problem. On my own I can produce over a 200-300 wool in a single day while still in Iron Age. Nevermind a guild with 30+ players in addition to arcs/obs donations. That makes it plausible to produce more then 1k of each good type across the guild in a day if you were all focusing on a single era. (of course higher eras this might be a little different)

And I've still been able to have the attached units to fight several rounds in GvG without effecting goods production

Recovering it aside there's nothing stopping you from releasing some hexes to retreat back, observe what the other guild intends and then fight back when that other guild has increased their own costs while yours has now dwindled to peanuts.

BIG guild

because if they would be strong they would sustain it

Yeah my guild in the main world I visit never had a problem with ghost guilds being unsustainable to fight against. Especially as most ghost attacks don't actually land. The biggest threat as far as one man armies/ghost guilds are probably would be the one man army guy that was producing 680+ attached units in his city, and simple strategy easily allowed us to retain our ground without it effecting our stocks too much. He was the only "little guy" that was actually serious with ploughing through big/strong guilds. All the other smaller guilds merely try to sustain a 1-3 hexes and don't really go after the main guilds that much

What would make it unsustainable is if there's a continuous barrage while you're trying to take more land then the amount your members can produce for the treasury, and no ones observing the situation of how much is being spent, how quickly land is being taken and aren't reacting in a way that would be able to adapt to that​

 

[Blitz Epidemic]

It is quite obvious to me most commenting against this Idea don't have a clue. A single person with a fast computer can defeat 80 armies in a matter of minutes. It only cost them a few goods while costing a large guild potential 1000s to reclaim it. Anybody with a high level Traz and the proper fighting GBs can sustain these attacks for a very long time. I have easily 10,000+ troops on both my world, more than enough to wreck any guild single handedly.

The only thing that makes sense here is the players against the Idea are the ghost or are in weak, dead guilds with little to no participation...or they're professional arguers who argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[vikingraider]

I've been on both ends of this argument. It's a hard one as both sides have valid points.

 

[DeletedUser113110]

-1

 

[rjs66]

5 to 10 dedicated high end players with high boosts (both military and goods) in a guild will destroy a guild of 80 mediocre players on the battlefield, so the number of players in a guild has little relevance to the guilds ability to do GvG

build up a team of players who want to fight and work as a team to advance, don't try to change the game every time you hit an obstacle

the game rewards those who play it most and make good decisions - it is called Forge of Empires for a reason

Empires are built by struggle, determination and hard work
Forge (in this case) implies hard work, determination and battling against the odds

 

[Emberguard]

It is quite obvious to me most commenting against this Idea don't have a clue. A single person with a fast computer can defeat 80 armies in a matter of minutes.

I know. I've seen this and if they're geared correctly a single [extremely persistent] player can get through the defences faster then 3 or 4 defenders.

However it's still no more of a problem then if you were facing an equally large guild. The attacker has limits to how much they can take and the goods cost changes on both ends. If you can't afford to keep the edge hexes, release them, you've lost nothing and can advance in a more desirable location. If they continue to pursue then it's obviously not just a ghost but rather a serious opponent

If you can't handle a single player opponent how do you go about dealing with the larger guilds who can plough through far more territory in a more efficient manner then the little guy?

 

[DeletedUser96901]

It is quite obvious to me most commenting against this Idea don't have a clue. A single person with a fast computer can defeat 80 armies in a matter of minutes. It only cost them a few goods while costing a large guild potential 1000s to reclaim it.

maybe you are the clueless

I can still do that with a 30 member limit

I search a guild with enough members which is not doing GvG
say: can I join a week (long enough to do GE). I do GvG. kick ass everywhere. in that time I give everybody 190% sponsoring, accept all fair trade (more bla bla)

and I can be in a different guild every week and still do it

so do I have a clue ?

I have easily 10,000+ troops on both my world, more than enough to wreck any guild single handedly.

you are too lazy
sitting there and doing nothing instead of using your troops

The only thing that makes sense here is the players against the Idea are the ghost or are in weak, dead guilds with little to no participation...or they're professional arguers who argue for the sake of arguing.

my guild is place 3 in my world
I wish we would have more action

so yes I am in a weak dead guild which is doing too less and only sitting on our sectors

 

[Blitz Epidemic]

5 to 10 dedicated high end players with high boosts (both military and goods) in a guild will destroy a guild of 80 mediocre players on the battlefield, so the number of players in a guild has little relevance to the guilds ability to do GvG

build up a team of players who want to fight and work as a team to advance, don't try to change the game every time you hit an obstacle

the game rewards those who play it most and make good decisions - it is called Forge of Empires for a reason

Empires are built by struggle, determination and hard work
Forge (in this case) implies hard work, determination and battling against the odds

...and what exactly does this have to do with my Idea? Please think first.

 

[Blitz Epidemic]

maybe you are the clueless

I can still do that with a 30 member limit

I search a guild with enough members which is not doing GvG
say: can I join a week (long enough to do GE). I do GvG. kick ass everywhere. in that time I give everybody 190% sponsoring, accept all fair trade (more bla bla)

and I can be in a different guild every week and still do it

so do I have a clue ?

I can play the 'What If' game too and come up with all sorts of unreasonable situations, thing is we all know most of the guilds are dead. There are apps out there that help point this out, likewise you can simply see for yourself each week playing GE. There have been uncounted weeks where we'd score 110% and 2nd would score 4.2%. Good luck on finding a Leader of a guild that doesn't do GVG or GE even bothering to respond to your messages or even knowing how to give you Trusted rights. You're just debating for the sake of debate now.