• 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 in to 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:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Don't forget to check out the current contests here.

New Content Guild versus Guild

Hippocratia

There is no ingenious enhancement or concept lurking in the ideas forum.
I think the trouble is that people are quite good at coming up with ways around whatever is implemented. A certain amount of people will play as envisaged and some will want to push the boundaries.
 

DeletedUser1081

So having read through since my last post I can see there is still concern, understandably. While it has been going on for months as some one stated, changes have been made already during this time. We had the limit introduced so guild members may only grant freedom to x amount per day, as well as the 7 day guild rule in response to the ghost guilds.
... How in the world were either of those things supposed to reduce ghost-guilding, please? I find it impossible to believe they were ever intended to do that - especially since those changes were accompanied by the elimination of any need for troops to set sieges, which is an obvious aid and encouragement to ghost guilds and demolition guilds.

Unless I have it all wrong, any given guild member can grant freedom to four hexes per day, right? How does that stop or slow down a ghost guild? It just means a ghost guild might need more than two members, but most of the ones I've seen have that anyway.

And while the seven-day thing has some effect on guild-hopping, that's a totally different thing. When ghost guilds dissolve the members can disperse to allied guilds or start new ones - so what if they can't return to their guild of origin for a week??

The FoE developers definitely have the intelligence to see right at the drawing board that neither of those things would deter ghost-guilding, so it baffles me that anyone would say they were aimed at doing that. One seems like a partial deterrent to saboteurs and the other was probably aimed at limiting FP-free trading (who knows why) - but not ghost guilds.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser1081

Obviously it's not their responsibility, but the same could be said about the players. There is no ingenious enhancement or concept lurking in the ideas forum.
Smile: And if there were, what difference would it make? A lot of very good suggestions were made in the beta forum, but no one paid attention. Even I had some ideas about a much more interesting form of inter-guild competition where we'd use the territories we won to build guild cities, complete guild quests, etc. But who listens?! :rolleyes:
 

DeletedUser99445

I think the trouble is that people are quite good at coming up with ways around whatever is implemented. A certain amount of people will play as envisaged and some will want to push the boundaries.
Pushing the boundaries is part of the human spirit and not to be put down. Flying, its strictly for the birds unless you are human and can push the boundaries. I won't go on as the examples are way too many to list. Suffice to say that pushing the boundaries is a good thing and FOE wouldn't even exist without it.
 

Hippocratia

Pushing the boundaries is part of the human spirit and not to be put down. Flying, its strictly for the birds unless you are human and can push the boundaries. I won't go on as the examples are way too many to list. Suffice to say that pushing the boundaries is a good thing and FOE wouldn't even exist without it.
I'm not putting it down, just saying it will always happen and apparently it will upset some people too. :D
 

DeletedUser65431

Even I had some ideas about a much more interesting form of inter-guild competition where we'd use the territories we won to build guild cities, complete guild quests, etc. But who listens?!
:rolleyes: Can't believe they didn't send the Innocopter stuffed full of diamonds. ;)
 

DeletedUser99445

I was convinced that we would be building Guild Cities. It was the biggest surprise to me that we were not.
I Honestly thought that all the Blue Prints we had over were to be Used to build GB's in Our Guild Cities and that the only way to level them up would be with More Blue Prints. How stupid was I?
 

DeletedUser1081

I was convinced that we would be building Guild Cities. It was the biggest surprise to me that we were not.
I Honestly thought that all the Blue Prints we had over were to be Used to build GB's in Our Guild Cities and that the only way to level them up would be with More Blue Prints. How stupid was I?
Same stupid as I was! I imagine the devs also had more creative ideas that wound up on the cutting room floor as impractical or not commercial enough or whatever. They should go back to them. The whole attraction of pre-GvG FoE was that it wasn't a war game, it was (by the head designer's own say-so) a city-building game with a little PvP thrown in to spice things up.

:rolleyes: Can't believe they didn't send the Innocopter stuffed full of diamonds. ;)
I know! Isn't it strange
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser11899

There is still one thing I really cant understand.
They implemented the 'Grant Freedom' limit options in order to avoid whatever they'd want to avoid.
I dont really know why they did it though because -unless I'm totally wrong- a player still can 'Grant Freedom' a sector by deleting all armies of that sector, whenever he want, without limits nor penalties.
So, for all those who dont really want to own any sector, the Grant Freedom limits will be never a problem.

What's make the difference?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser13082

@Tankovy, no offence mate but that is complete nonsense. What does a ghost guild do? They take a sector and then release it after, what does a demolition guild do, they take a sector and then release it after. There is no difference other than one of them is permanent and the other is temporary, it's that simple. The intention of the guild doesn't change the actions of the guild, they still do the exact same thing.

Just because people have suddenly decided to call a permanent ghost guild a demolition guild instead doesn't change it. They was never hidden before, they just wasn't called demolition guilds, they were called ghost guilds.

@wurdsmiff, I don't want people to agree with what we're doing. That's the whole point. Getting more people to complain and proving that something needs doing is the whole aim of the guild. What you're doing now by coming here and complaining is exactly what we was aiming. Call it bullying, selfish, immoral or whatever else you want, fact of the matter is, you wouldn't have been on these forums making these complaints if it wasn't for the demolition guild we created. Our goal was exactly that, we're getting the results we're after.

@Laxhill. Walk me through, step by stop, what a ghost guild does, then do the same for a demolition guild. Not their intent or the reasons behind them doing it, just exactly what they do and how they do it. Then find me a difference.

@hippo, I think what pretty much everybody wants is a fair game where cheating isn't possible and everybody has a fair chance. Due to current siege costs, that's not the case. Unfair play is enabled because it costs next to nothing to do it. Unfair play is inevitable because a guild progressing well get hit by guilds not progressing well and it costs them 10x the amount of goods which takes weeks to gather up. Change siege costs and problem solved, everybody has the same fair chance as everybody else, nobody is left at a disadvantage at any point.

@Kimba, the limit on releasing sectors makes no difference, a player can just delete the last army of the sector to release it anyway. Also, with just 10 people you can release 40 sectors. It really didn't make any difference. As for guild cool-down time. That simply stagnated the game for those who helped allied guilds so they could all fight more often. It did nothing to ghost guilds other than push them into a more permanent state (demolition guilds) as we said it would before it was introduced.
 

Kimba Lioness

@Kimba, the limit on releasing sectors makes no difference, a player can just delete the last army of the sector to release it anyway. Also, with just 10 people you can release 40 sectors. It really didn't make any difference. As for guild cool-down time. That simply stagnated the game for those who helped allied guilds so they could all fight more often. It did nothing to ghost guilds other than push them into a more permanent state (demolition guilds) as we said it would before it was introduced.
Yes I understand - these changes were made, they have not worked, hence there is a new idea but until this is confirmed I really cant elaborate. I promise you faithfully it is being looked at.
 

Hippocratia

@hippo, I think what pretty much everybody wants is a fair game where cheating isn't possible and everybody has a fair chance.
That's a lovely concept, and I'm in agreement with it. However I'm not sure it's possible to create that; people will always find ways to play that others consider to be unfair or cheating. The only way to get a completely fair game is if everyone agrees to play one particular way; that could have happened with either the original version of GvG or with the recent changes. Unfortunately people play in different ways.

Hopefully any changes made will produce a more balanced GvG feature, but that is also up to the players taking part; if no one uses any 'unfair' tactics then it won't be a problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser13082

Yes I understand - these changes were made, they have not worked, hence there is a new idea but until this is confirmed I really cant elaborate. I promise you faithfully it is being looked at.
I get that it's being looked at. It's been under observation since the complaints started, hence all the failed attempts to correct it. What I don't understand is why those failed attempts happened to begin with, we all said they would fail. Instead of limiting the grant freedom option, why not just disable the ability for a player to delete the final army of a HQ sector, unless it is the only sector remaining on the map.

By doing that players wouldn't have the ability to HQ hop across the maps doing the damage that they do. How is that so difficult for devs to realise? We've been saying it for ages. That on it's own would fix majority of the issues that surround ghost guilds, demolition guilds, HQ hopping etc. The only remaining issue would be that ghosts/demolition guilds can still hit coastal sectors and do damage, but that's not half the damage they could do before.

For a total fix it all. Change siege costs to fixed prices per the value of the sector being attacked.

1. A demolition guild can no longer attack 100's of times until they take the sector whether the owners of it break their sieges or not.
2. A ghost guild is now pointless because the guild could attack the same sector for the same cost anyway so they might as well just make the attack from their own guild.
3. Stagnation due to the loss of the above mentioned type of guilds doesn't happen because active GvG guilds no longer have to wait weeks to be able to afford a siege.

The only people who are going to complain about that are the people who are using GvG as a way to just gain PvP points rather than actually compete. But the fact of the matter is, GvG is meant to be competition where guilds compete, not somewhere for people to go and rack up PvP points by damaging the guilds that do want to compete. If they want to fight in GvG it should costs them the same as everybody else.
 

DeletedUser13082

That's a lovely concept, and I'm in agreement with it. However I'm not sure it's possible to create that; people will always find ways to play that others consider to be unfair or cheating. The only way to get a completely fair game is if everyone agrees to play one particular way; that could have happened with either the original version of GvG or with the recent changes. Unfortunately people play in different ways.

Hopefully any changes made will produce a more balanced GvG feature, but that is also up to the players taking part; if no one uses any 'unfair' tactics then it won't be a problem.
We managed it for a pretty long time on E world, keeping to fair play only in GvG. Now we're all bored cause of stagnation caused by goods costs, so turns out that with GvG the way it is, ghost guilds are needed. If ghost guilds are removed, then goods costs need changing to avoid the stagnation.
 

DeletedUser2989

1. A demolition guild can no longer attack 100's of times until they take the sector whether the owners of it break their sieges or not.
2. A ghost guild is now pointless because the guild could attack the same sector for the same cost anyway so they might as well just make the attack from their own guild.
I do find it interesting how you say my description of the two being different makes no sense and then yourself show there is a difference. This is one thing I did miss in my post, where the players have come from. The temporary membership of a ghost guild usually came from a larger guild seeking to take the soon to be released sectors where the permanent membership of a demo/annoying guild takes sectors from all just for the points and releases them so that they can keep gaining points cheaply.

@Tankovy, no offence mate but that is complete nonsense. What does a ghost guild do? They take a sector and then release it after, what does a demolition guild do, they take a sector and then release it after. There is no difference other than one of them is permanent and the other is temporary, it's that simple. The intention of the guild doesn't change the actions of the guild, they still do the exact same thing.

Just because people have suddenly decided to call a permanent ghost guild a demolition guild instead doesn't change it. They was never hidden before, they just wasn't called demolition guilds, they were called ghost guilds.
While both physically do the same thing (take a sector and then release it) there are differences behind why they do it. Most (if not all) ghost guild activity is a direct challenge to the limitations in place, demo/annoying (and I say annoying only from the point of view of a permanent guild) guilds are not seeking to circumvent limitations and are simply after the points on offer (or after the entertainment of the fight).

From this you can see that implementing certain actions could penalise those who are not trying to break the "rules" (intended spirit?) and are simplying playing it one way that is on offer.
 

DeletedUser13082

I do find it interesting how you say my description of the two being different makes no sense and then yourself show there is a difference. This is one thing I did miss in my post, where the players have come from. The temporary membership of a ghost guild usually came from a larger guild seeking to take the soon to be released sectors where the permanent membership of a demo/annoying guild takes sectors from all just for the points and releases them so that they can keep gaining points cheaply.



While both physically do the same thing (take a sector and then release it) there are differences behind why they do it. Most (if not all) ghost guild activity is a direct challenge to the limitations in place, demo/annoying (and I say annoying only from the point of view of a permanent guild) guilds are not seeking to circumvent limitations and are simply after the points on offer (or after the entertainment of the fight).

From this you can see that implementing certain actions could penalise those who are not trying to break the "rules" (intended spirit?) and are simplying playing it one way that is on offer.
I don't argue the fact that the intent of the 2 guilds is different, but what the 2 guilds do is the same. One can't be considered as unfair play if the other isn't, because both of them are taking the same course of action, just with a different goal in mind.

You can't say that somebody is no longer allowed to do this if their intention is that of a demolition guild, but those with the intention of a ghost guild are allowed to do it. If that was the case, those with the demolition guild mind set would just claim their intention is that of a ghost guild and then they could carry on doing it. The reason they could do that is because they are still doing the same thing.

Also you mention the intent of ghost guilds, which I agree with for the record, being to release the sector later on to the original guild they came from. So what they are doing is attacking sectors to lower the defence so they can eliminate the risk of their expensive siege from the true guild being broken and costing them more goods. Now the idea of GvG is that you siege a sector and have to take control of that sector before your enemy defeats the siege(s) and your guild run out of resources to continue the battle. A ghost guild is a way of getting around those costs, Costs which were deliberately put in place for the intended design of the feature. If that can be justified, then a demolition guild taking the same action, but not with the intent of helping another guild avoid their costs and making it easier for them, in my opinion, is the lesser of the two evils.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

wurdsmiff

The basic difference between a Ghost Guild and a Demolition Guild is that for the originating guild, a ghost guild is a constructive mechanism, and a demolition guild is by your own admission intended to undermine the structure of the game, and is destructive. I am against both, as they are exploitative mechanisms which lie outwith the intended structure of the game. This is not against the rules since no rule has been devised to counter it, but in moral terms it is cheating. My specific objection to The Elite is that they are attempting to promote their ethic as a positive action intended to improve the game, but are actively supporting and protecting their original guilds in a contradictory manner. In effect they are just another ghost guild set up to promote the interests of the parent guilds, no matter the rhetoric of its founder.
 

DeletedUser99445

so what do we all think of the Big Player (lets pretend its me) who goes to another small guild for a week and helps them gain sectors on the map that they are not capable of getting.
Then moves on to another guild and does the same. Uses their goods and his armies, collecting masses of points as he goes.
then on to the next guild and maybe even back to a guild he was previously in.
A mercenary if you will. Should they be allowed? we have one in Dinegu. When he leaves the guild he is working for I go and take them out again.
What do we all think of this then? Right or Wrong?
 

DeletedUser13082

The basic difference between a Ghost Guild and a Demolition Guild is that for the originating guild, a ghost guild is a constructive mechanism, and a demolition guild is by your own admission intended to undermine the structure of the game, and is destructive. I am against both, as they are exploitative mechanisms which lie outwith the intended structure of the game. This is not against the rules since no rule has been devised to counter it, but in moral terms it is cheating. My specific objection to The Elite is that they are attempting to promote their ethic as a positive action intended to improve the game, but are actively supporting and protecting their original guilds in a contradictory manner. In effect they are just another ghost guild set up to promote the interests of the parent guilds, no matter the rhetoric of its founder.
As already said, we attack all guilds. We have no alliance with any guilds and are free to attack anybody we want. Players at the moment have chose to attack their old guilds enemies, that is their own choice. The fact remains, if we want to attack other guilds who we were once allied with then we can/will. Just 2 days ago one of our members was attacking The Unforgiven on the modern era map. He chose to attack them and that was his choice, nobody argued it and nobody cared, we attack whoever and whenever.

so what do we all think of the Big Player (lets pretend its me) who goes to another small guild for a week and helps them gain sectors on the map that they are not capable of getting.
Then moves on to another guild and does the same. Uses their goods and his armies, collecting masses of points as he goes.
then on to the next guild and maybe even back to a guild he was previously in.
A mercenary if you will. Should they be allowed? we have one in Dinegu. When he leaves the guild he is working for I go and take them out again.
What do we all think of this then? Right or Wrong?
Personally I have no issue with anybody who chooses to be a mercenary. They get what they want (points and personal rank) and the guild they help get the sectors they want. Pretty much the same as having allies who hop from guild to guild helping each other. They help each other get what they are after and at the same time everybody gets to enjoy more action in the game. That was killed unfortunately by the idiotic guild cool-down time. Cause obviously alliances were more of a problem than ghost guilds and demolition guilds, hence why they removed the cost of units for sieges at the same time as the cool-down was implemented. They thought ghost/demolition was good for GvG, now they're getting the backlash of complaints when players retaliate and take it to a higher level.
 

DeletedUser2989

so what do we all think of the Big Player (lets pretend its me) who goes to another small guild for a week and helps them gain sectors on the map that they are not capable of getting.
Then moves on to another guild and does the same. Uses their goods and his armies, collecting masses of points as he goes.
then on to the next guild and maybe even back to a guild he was previously in.
A mercenary if you will. Should they be allowed? we have one in Dinegu. When he leaves the guild he is working for I go and take them out again.
What do we all think of this then? Right or Wrong?
You must be careful when using the word mercenary, as you are not allowed to ask for or to be offered in-game content in return for attacking other players. However the action of moving from guild to guild and fighting for them without payment would be within the rules. Yes that player is gaining points but that is from his/her own actions and not a payment from others.

As a player I'm fine with someone going around fighting for various small guilds, I also think it's pointless for the small guilds to accept the help as they probably can't hold the sectors without the help. But if they want to have the help to gain the sectors and someone is willing to help then fine.