They would have to ban the majority of active players who are still here then as pretty much everybody has ghosted at one stage or another now. It's been within the rules to do this for months, despite all of the complaints about it, then all of a sudden it's against the rules, and those who did the damage in the past get away with it? Not a very good solution.
Titans and Titans Part Deux sectors aren't mine to release.@DO: To be honest, the only people joining the demolition guilds are members of Titans and Avengers:M@chines - guilds that have lost sectors in large numbers, or other members who benefit by ghosting OoB and other guilds who are not a part of the 'Alliance'.
And all this under the premise of forcing the game developers' hand to make changes to GvG. This in effect amounts to blackmail really..
If you really want to clear a map, why not start by releasing all Titans and Titans: Part Deux sectors then? That's half the job done, isnt it? But no, you wont do that will you?
'Currently the majority of members are from guilds which were enemies of your own guilds, so of course the main targets are your guild line.' - That in effect, says it all doesn't it? We took out your sectors, this is an easy way to extract revenge under the guise of wanting to bring about change..You think those who continue to play the game as it stands are happy with the way GvG works? But we follow rules.
And if you say ghosting and demo guilds are within the rules, I think not. Look closely at Rule 6 of the In-game rules - REPORT A PLAYER WHO IS ABUSING THE SYSTEM. And ghosting is definitely an abuse of the system!
So mods, take note!
Change is definitely required. But demolition guilds are NOT the solution. Just because its possible to do so, doesn't mean you should. Act responsibly. Like I mentioned to you before, its not like the developers are unaware of whats going on - they are working on a solution. After all, they would not want to see players leave the game in droves now, would they? Play fair in the meantime.
Clearly I know that, clearly others know that, but clearly inno don't see it that way. I've been going against for long enough, and all I've been told is that it's not against the rules, despite the above quote of my post quite clearly showing that it is against the rules. Feel free to send a support ticket, you'll get the exact same response as every body else. It's not classed as rules breaking, end of story.HQ cannot be granted freedom however removing all defence from the HQ sector means the sector returns to an NPC sector and the HQ is put onto another sector owned by the guild. There are now guilds leap frogging from one sector to another to work their way inland with very cheap siege costs by taking a second sector and then releasing HQ so they can continue forward. If a HQ sector can't be granted freedom then why can it be freed simply by removing the defences. This has opened up a ridiculous loophole for guilds to exploit.
Surely this has to be a bug and would be classed as bug abuse and, therefore, against the rules?
The above quote shows that this IS rule breaking. This may not be classed as a bug but it is a fault. Rules have been broken and players have knowingly exploited a fault.
@Laxhill, find me a difference between a ghost guild and a demolition guild please? A ghost guild is temporary, a demolition guild is permanent, that is the only difference. the actions they take are exactly the same.
@wurdsmiff, you agree that the change is needed but say we are bullying people into agreeing with us? You shouldn't give into peer pressure so easily if that's the case . Clearly you agree that change is needed, as do many others. Developers choose not to listen, we choose to make them listen. The more people who get damaged by these demolition guilds, the more that will come to the forums and complain. Anybody who dislikes demolition guilds obviously shares the opinion of the members in The Elite, that opinion being that change is needed.
@Gate2, agreed, you can't please everybody all of the time. However your view on these sort of guilds being a way of adapting to GvG Is still something I disagree with. This is not adapting to GvG, not GvG that people expected at least. What you have done is not to adapt to GvG, but to adapt to the bad design that GvG has. You said yourself that the reason you took this route was because you were tired of being on the butt end of others doing the same thing. That to me says that you shared the original thought, of what GvG was going to be, as the rest of us had. You planned on playing in that manner, then you had to adapt to a different way of play because GvG turned out to be a farce.
Ghost guilds, demolition guilds and all the rest of it exist because of the siege costs in GvG. Without these sort of guilds, GvG stagnates because of the siege costs. Kill to birds with one stone, change siege costs. These guilds no longer exist, and GvG doesn't stagnate due to the loss of them.
So I wanted to drop in here as there are developments going on behind the scenes, there has been a very large amount of player concern in regards to the ghost guilds, and now demolition guilds. We have received a huge amount of feedback from you both here in the forum and via the support system, which we are taking notice of.
I realise at this point it may seem as though we are telling you yes we understand, yet there are no changes so it feels as though maybe it is falling on deaf ears - I assure you this is not the case.
There has been a lot of discussion in regards to this with the various team members on different forge of empires servers not just our own, so I can say at this point the issue is well known, and as such it is being reviewed. You will never see an immediate change of this type as planning needs to go into how a change can be made. Do we alter the game so that certain things can or cannot be done, or do we introduce a rule to prevent this, for example.
So please do rest assured, this is well known at all levels, and a lot of discussion and planning is taking place, but at this point I cannot say yes or no a change will be made as this would be subject to change.
@death ouron lol I don't have to - you are a tail trying to wag the dog (FOE) and in such cases there is usually only one winner. I will humour you one final time however. You are seeking to defend the indefensible. You know full well the difference. Ghost Guilds, while many do not like them, are a tactic used to acquire and keep sectors. Demolition Guilds merely seek to wreak havoc by going through vast swathes of sectors conquering and releasing as they go. The two are completely different as you well know. The actions they take are not the same. Ghost guilds do not seek to destroy Guild Wars while you openly admit to wanting to do exactly that. Hiding behind saying the actions ghost and demolition guilds take are exactly the same is delusional. You may continue denying the obvious to your hearts desire lmao.@Laxhill, find me a difference between a ghost guild and a demolition guild please? A ghost guild is temporary, a demolition guild is permanent, that is the only difference. the actions they take are exactly the same.
I think players want to have fun but the excessive goods required once you have had some success diminishes this so now you have players finding alternative ways to enjoy the GvG feature. GvG could have been so much more than it is but there is a noticeable lack of creativity from the developers.I keep wondering what exactly people want out of GvG? There's been a lot of comments about tactics that people don't like or think are unfair and not in the spirit of the game, but what do you want? It often sounds like you want a rule-bound type of warfare where evenly-matched guilds compete on the right maps at pre-arranged times; the kind of warfare where two armies did line up and wait for the generals to give the signal to fight.
I'd still be here! :cool:They would have to ban the majority of active players who are still here then as pretty much everybody has ghosted at one stage or another now.
To me that comes out to "everyone knows there's a problem but there's been no decision about whether to change anything." Is Kimba and/or Tracey can clarify what that statement was supposed to mean, that would be great, please and thank you kindly.So please do rest assured, this is well known at all levels, and a lot of discussion and planning is taking place, but at this point I cannot say yes or no a change will be made as this would be subject to change.