DeletedUser
I am so indignant with frustration and anger that I feel I must reply to this, first of all....YAWN.....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
-
Dear forum reader,
To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account, you need a forum account. You can REGISTER HERE!
Please ensure a translation into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
I am so indignant with frustration and anger that I feel I must reply to this, first of all....YAWN.....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
DeletedUser12348
Yeah lol nuff said.
DeletedUser
Obvious solution to the "loophole," creation of phantom accessory guild to launch cheap attacks, guild hopping back and forth between main guild and phantom guild:
Place a one week hold/freeze on the ability of any new person who joins a guild to contribute to new guild's gvg treasury, to contribute troops to new guild's sectors, and to trade goods with new guild members. No rule change needed with this fix, and it is fair to all.
Place a one week hold/freeze on the ability of any new person who joins a guild to contribute to new guild's gvg treasury, to contribute troops to new guild's sectors, and to trade goods with new guild members. No rule change needed with this fix, and it is fair to all.
DeletedUser12348
DeletedUser276
create a thread in the world forums that the guilds are in. The point of PnP is to sway public vote to your opinion. You may mildly insult the guild (with evidence) but you cannot insult individuals within the guild. No swearing or calling them idiots etc. It must be tasteful and funny images do help.
DeletedUser99588
Personally I think if Ghost Guilding is deemed undesirable in the game you need to look at removing the benefits rather than imposing restrictions after the damage is caused. If you put a delay on returning to the guild it still might be seen as worth while and you haven't stopped the ghost guilds. In fact I could see the scenario of many mercenary guilds popping up from this kind of action.
The easy solution is to make it so you cannot grant freedom or delete last defence of a sector until the clock has reset. Including being unable to dissolve a guild until the reset. This will remove the ability to move across the map quickly causing destruction at a cheap cost as well as stopping the HQ moving which many have complained about. Fairly easy for the developers to implement as the coding is already in place for protecting a sector from attack until the clock reset. This won't remove the use of ghost guilding completely but reduces the benefits that can be achieved with it. If a ghost guild is going to attack several sectors it will need to pay the goods or wait a day every time it wants to take a few sectors. Plenty of time for the defending guild to defend its sectors or attack the ghost guild.
It also allows what is common practice of non GvG guilds to have trading partners or sister guilds who they visit from time to time without being penalised because of actions taking place in GvG. Lets not forget there are probably more players and guilds not participating in GvG than those that are participating. Their game has already seen some upheaval from GvG so lets try not to impose any further changes that will adversely affect them. For many it is more about the social aspect which needs to be maintained not restricted.
There will always be players looking for an advantage but isn't that part of game playing. Pitting your wits against others and seeing who can be the most innovative and tactically astute. The developers need to ensure that balance remains but walk a tightrope of allowing innovation in game tactics versus to many constraints that stifle it.
Subtle changes need to be implemented with considered thought to the whole game not just individual aspects of it.
The easy solution is to make it so you cannot grant freedom or delete last defence of a sector until the clock has reset. Including being unable to dissolve a guild until the reset. This will remove the ability to move across the map quickly causing destruction at a cheap cost as well as stopping the HQ moving which many have complained about. Fairly easy for the developers to implement as the coding is already in place for protecting a sector from attack until the clock reset. This won't remove the use of ghost guilding completely but reduces the benefits that can be achieved with it. If a ghost guild is going to attack several sectors it will need to pay the goods or wait a day every time it wants to take a few sectors. Plenty of time for the defending guild to defend its sectors or attack the ghost guild.
It also allows what is common practice of non GvG guilds to have trading partners or sister guilds who they visit from time to time without being penalised because of actions taking place in GvG. Lets not forget there are probably more players and guilds not participating in GvG than those that are participating. Their game has already seen some upheaval from GvG so lets try not to impose any further changes that will adversely affect them. For many it is more about the social aspect which needs to be maintained not restricted.
There will always be players looking for an advantage but isn't that part of game playing. Pitting your wits against others and seeing who can be the most innovative and tactically astute. The developers need to ensure that balance remains but walk a tightrope of allowing innovation in game tactics versus to many constraints that stifle it.
Subtle changes need to be implemented with considered thought to the whole game not just individual aspects of it.
DeletedUser12348
Ermm WOW, pretty amazing and sincere thanks for that. Fantastic that we can now have some real competitive banter and taunting between us. Great for the game and great for guild wars !
I have never seen this in a game before and sincerely, again, hope it isn't abused ! Good stuff !DeletedUser12348
Some great points there bud and to quote "Pitting your wits against others and seeing who can be the most innovative and tactically astute" MUST be part of guild wars. I would salute from the highest roof top the guy (spy) who managed to infiltrate my Guild, gain our trust and then wipe out our sectors, as an example. We could only blame ourselves lol. That scenario is tactically astute and actually deserves some respect for the time, thought and effort that went into it. This is completely different from exploiting a loophole or taking advantage of a game programming error. Being beaten by someone more tactically astute or more innovative than ourselves would only make me smile ( after I kicked the cat ! ).
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser2989
To the problem of mercenary guilds, It's actually against current rules to mercenary yourself out (i'd imagin that would also cover guilds that mercenary themselves out) because it would involve requesting payment to attack other players. I'd think that if this happened even in GvG the mercenaries would be banned.
As for your solution deleting troops won't be possible soon and I'm not sure I see the reason for stopping the "grant freedom" ability until the next "day" or clock reset. Leapfrogging will be stopped by being unable to delete troops and the most blocking the grant freedom ability does is make the ghosts visible, they'll still be painful and gone the next day to continue inflicting pain. When attacking guilds with many sectors just taking 1 is painful enough and taking 4 is still pretty cheap.
I'd prefer something like what buckaroobanzai suggested: "Place a one week hold/freeze on the ability of any new person who joins a guild to contribute to new guild's gvg treasury, to contribute troops to new guild's sectors, and to trade goods with new guild members. No rule change needed with this fix, and it is fair to all."
Admittedly the prevention of trading goods is too much but if you put a hold on players just entering guilds/newly formed guilds (mainly the formation of new guilds) from participating in GvG it would affect only GvG people and only those seeking to use the ghost guild function. If your forming a new guild and wanting to participate in GvG seriously then waiting a week (or 48 hours) is not that bad same thing for a person joining a guild that is seriously involved in GvG.
I don't want to restrict people innovation and tactical ability, but I do want to help make suggestions to improve GvG and remove things that seem (or are) against the intention of the design of GvG. The costs to seige go up for a reason, we are not suppose to avoid it so this is why I suggest changes.
Note: I do think the costs go up too high and that there isn't enough encouragement to attack guilds equal to your own rank but that's a different issue.
DeletedUser99588
[QUOTE Leapfrogging will be stopped by being unable to delete troops
[/QUOTE]
My suggestion is because I do not think the above should be implemented. It is actually detrimental to the involvement of smaller guilds who find themselves trapped between much stronger guilds without the ability to give up their sectors and try again on a different part of the map. It isn't all about big guilds and any possible solutions need to be looked at in depth before implemented. Knee jerk reactions/solutions are unlikely to be the best ones.
So far most solutions that have been suggested are like hitting a problem with a hammer. Subtle changes need to be made and ones that aren't detrimental to non GvG guilds/players who appear to not enter most minds when proposing solutions. Totally fixated on their own personal dilemma in GvG and not of the continued success of the 'WHOLE' game.
Remember the game isn't just about GvG so changes made to help GvG should have minimum impact elsewhere in the game. Changing the mechanics of guilds just for GvG isn't IMO minimum impact.
The developers should be applauded for holding back and seeing how things evolve. I only hope the final solutions they implement to any problems they deem detrimental to the game do not end up spoiling other elements of it.
[/QUOTE]
My suggestion is because I do not think the above should be implemented. It is actually detrimental to the involvement of smaller guilds who find themselves trapped between much stronger guilds without the ability to give up their sectors and try again on a different part of the map. It isn't all about big guilds and any possible solutions need to be looked at in depth before implemented. Knee jerk reactions/solutions are unlikely to be the best ones.
So far most solutions that have been suggested are like hitting a problem with a hammer. Subtle changes need to be made and ones that aren't detrimental to non GvG guilds/players who appear to not enter most minds when proposing solutions. Totally fixated on their own personal dilemma in GvG and not of the continued success of the 'WHOLE' game.
Remember the game isn't just about GvG so changes made to help GvG should have minimum impact elsewhere in the game. Changing the mechanics of guilds just for GvG isn't IMO minimum impact.
The developers should be applauded for holding back and seeing how things evolve. I only hope the final solutions they implement to any problems they deem detrimental to the game do not end up spoiling other elements of it.
DeletedUser8813
they tore the game apart to implement GVG...so that tells us it is all about gvg..the introduction of gvg certainly had a huge impact on the rest of the game..
DeletedUser2989
I share your concern about being trapped in an undesireable place and being unable to delete your last sector to move to a more open location. They aren't addressing that yet but if they implemented a "Free HQ" button that was ONLY avaliable IF the HQ is the last sector in the province then they could prevent leapfrogging and guilds that feel trapped can remove themselves and land elsewhere.
Also I don't believe any of the changes I mentioned would affect those not involving themselves in GvG as the only "holds/restrictions" would be placed on GvG actions.
As for the developers holding back, I like that they are thinking of ways to fix problems with code/mechanics and not just coming up with rules. It's better to remove the ability to cheat rather than punishing offenders after they cheat. As GvG is relativly new I think we may still see some changes that affect other aspects of the game too (like the GB rebalance or further troop/good rebalancing), but it's unavoidable without completely seperating GvG from the game.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser100341
With the introduction of GvG. I'm not able to compete in PvP. It seems players that are fighting in GvG get more points per battle then against my neighbors. I'm currently in HMA and our guild has no presence in GvG HMA. I have also abandoned most of my EMA goods and all armies to build HMA units so I could advance the continental map. I do get points for that combat but I've completed all of that and have just started LMA map. When combating my neighbors I only fight other that are similar strength. I don't beat up on those that are lower era or only defend with 2 spearmen because I'm trying to maximize the points I get per battle. However, I'm never able to get enough points to rank in the top three. Top players seem to be almost one order of magnitude greater than me. I feel as though GvG has totally ruined PvP. I would suggest GvG combat go toward GvG and anything else toward PvP. That's what has happened with the new Observatory, it benefits GvG but not my city. Maybe I'm wrong but it seem coincidental that I battle quite a bit but can never rank high.
DeletedUser15432
Well, I disagree with you there TWE, it is still possible to compete in both GvG and PvP and I find that I get higher points from PvP battles than GvG battles
DeletedUser100341
It will be possible for me to compete in GvG when I can advance my city and military units to LMA, but in the mean time I'm in limbo. And there are a lot of players who are disgusted with GvG and are back to building their city. This also puts them on the sidelines for GvG. Another reason I believe my neighbors are battling in GvG rather than PvP is they're not attacking me. If I take their point count divided by the number of battles its much greater almost double mine. I suspect there's a boost to their points from GvG battles.
DeletedUser1081
Why couldn't a guild in that position just leave one army in place and ask a neighbouring guild to take the hex?
DeletedUser7719
Either
1) The neighboring guild is scared that another neighboring guild will defeat siege
2) Goods cost is too high, and that sector isn't worth taking yet
DeletedUser2989
Also the neighbouring guild may not want to do them favors. In any case it would be nice not to have to rely on others just so that you can relotate your landing.
DeletedUser14414
Seems to me for what it is worth, that the cost of goods is far too high...its killing the game off. I compete in Iron Age, which to a degree is a backward step having lost numerous rank points. The cost of supplies means you have to scale down to build supplies for that age and hence going backward in rank. Seems to advance i must now need to come out of gvg. One thing i will not be doing is spending any more money on this until it is sorted. My guild, those that fight in Iron Age are all a bit fed up with the cost of supplies to fight. I thought that if ypu won you retained your goods......would make it more competitive....seems not
DeletedUser100341
Seems to me for what it is worth, that the cost of goods is far too high...its killing the game off. I compete in Iron Age, which to a degree is a backward step having lost numerous rank points. The cost of supplies means you have to scale down to build supplies for that age and hence going backward in rank. Seems to advance i must now need to come out of gvg. One thing i will not be doing is spending any more money on this until it is sorted. My guild, those that fight in Iron Age are all a bit fed up with the cost of supplies to fight. I thought that if ypu won you retained your goods......would make it more competitive....seems not
@smiddy2959 our guild was only able to muster enough to establish a position in EMA and LMA. I had just entered HMA when GvG started and found myself stuck with EMA stuff. City stagnant, goods depleted and no where to go since there was nothing I could do in HMA GvG. Myself and others in the guild felt the same way. So we walked away from GvG and went back to our cities. When I get established in LMA (not there yet) I'll try to rejoin the fight for the PvP points. I think this is a very common problem with the GvG idea.