Guild Wars Proposition

FacetiousMike

(I post this in a player capacity and my position of Senior Moderator is irrelevant in regards this post)

To all fellow players that play on Greifental.....

As we all know, the "tactic" of using "ghost guilds" is ruining GvG for all of us and is sucking the enjoyment out of playing and is costing us all dearly. The support team cannot interfere as it is not strictly against the rules, which personally, I think is a huge mistake by the Innogames managers, no disrespect of course, just stating my opinion.

I therefore propose that we, the players, make a stand and agree together not to use this under-hand and enjoyment sucking loop-hole and I would therefore ask guild leaders to consider a GvG Treaty - like a FoE version of the Geneva Convention if you like!

Because of the extent of this problem, it won't be any good having one or two guilds sign up and see who signs up first, we need to make the decision together to create a fairer, more enjoyable game for us all. For guilds with "Sister Guilds", for example, Kingdom Hearts 1, Kingdom Hearts 2, etc. The entire guild must sign up if they choose to do so; it would defeat the objective to have 2 out of 4 sisters guilds sign up.

To be clear, my proposition is to boycott the use of creating a guild that is used to besiege an owned sector with the intention of releasing the sector from ownership by all guilds. This action provides no advantage to the attacking guild and is utilised purely to damage other guilds with virtually no cost. This is NOT an alliance proposition and any guilds that sign up may be attacked by any established guild. Players that break this agreement can be publicly named and shamed and I would suggest that any player breaking the agreement be ejected from their guild and signed-up guilds refuse to recruit that player to their guild.

Together we can stand up and ensure a fairer and more enjoyable GvG experience for us all.

For now, this thread is to guage the potential of this agreement and if there is enough agreement to make it feasible, then a new thread will be created to officially sign guilds into the treaty.

Please post below if your guild would be willing to join this treaty and post any other conditions you would want to be considered. Please can we stick to guild leaders/founders posting to ensure someone of suitable responsibility is expressing this intention.
 

matthious

One thing has always been true, all is fair in love and war.. Quite the contrary to what you say, I think this tactic makes things more interesting. Now larger guilds can no longer bully smaller guilds without having to face the possibility of those smaller guilds teaming up to give them a nice run through.. Let the guilds work those sort of treaties out for themselves in the game.. that's my opinion.. have a nice day :)
 

ScurvyRat

Warrant Officer
The Damn Dirty Rats have signed up to this accord on Cirgard.


One thing to add, considering the importance of this, this or something similar must be posted in the main forum sections otherwise it will be lost. It needs to be in the spotlight for all to see and not lost in the world posts.


play fairly.png
 
Last edited:

matthious

What makes this "proposal" so funny is the silver swords (who's leader started this topic) had members involved in a ghost attack against another guild just last night... Are you scared now of retaliation? sounds like it..
 

dreadrass

This is what im talking about Mike. You try to do one thing and then they say were scared. One man takes out a load of sectors and resources are unlimited. Yeah i'm sure being scared is part of it *shakes* then *laughs*

Dread
 

FacetiousMike

What makes this "proposal" so funny is the silver swords (who's leader started this topic) had members involved in a ghost attack against another guild just last night... Are you scared now of retaliation? sounds like it..
Actually I have refused to have any involvement myself in the GvG feature a week after it was launched because of this very problem. I have therefore left it to the other leaders within the Silver Swords to manage the GvG activities.

This proposition comes from recognising that this problem is removing the enjoyment from many players in recent weeks and this has become more prominent from my discussions with other players over the last couple of days.

One thing has always been true, all is fair in love and war.. Quite the contrary to what you say, I think this tactic makes things more interesting. Now larger guilds can no longer bully smaller guilds without having to face the possibility of those smaller guilds teaming up to give them a nice run through.. Let the guilds work those sort of treaties out for themselves in the game.. that's my opinion.. have a nice day :)
It's larger guilds that employ this tactic more, smaller guilds tend to focus on their own development rather than the destruction of another guild.


The fact is, many players commit time and resources into GvG to help their guild which in turn provides rewards to all guild members. It can take days to gain 1 additional sector, and yet 1 player can start a ghost guild and remove 3-4 sectors in a matter of hours. Anyone that has suffered this knows it is demoralising and how can anyone 'enjoy' the GvG feature knowing 1 player can remove weeks of hard work? Many players have already quit GvG, those that remain are under constant threat from ghost guilds and the majority of guilds retaliate using the same method as you simply can't beat a "cheating" (in my opinion use of ghost guilds is cheating) guild using fair methods, you simply could not keep up and before you know it your guild no longer has any sectors on the map.

So yes, I recognise most guilds are utilising this, but the purpose of this proposal is to make a stand and commit to one another that we won't be doing this in future and therefore encourage FAIR and ENJOYABLE play. If i lose 5 sectors to a guild that beat us fair and square, then hats off to them, they deserve it. Ghost guilds, are simply destructive, demoralising and those that support it, in my opinion, lack the skill and/or organisation and/or patience to play fairly.
 

sj007a

just found some one ghosting User:gabriel777 sector 26,55 EMA,this is not good those who play fair
 

jameseyryan

Private
It's larger guilds that employ this tactic more, smaller guilds tend to focus on their own development rather than the destruction of another guild.
I'm from a small guild, one of the few who have been able to get something successful going in GvG. Small guilds only focus on their own development because they know that if they go into GvG, they'll get their a$$es handed to them by a guild with a few people in modern age with Alcatraz's.

If the bigger guilds feel that ghosting is hurting them well then I have very limited sympathy.

How about putting a cap on what eras individual people can fight in, say their current level and one level below for example? Then, you could even go so far as to reduce the goods costs quite a bit so that guilds aren't incentivised to ghost. Those 2 changes would make GvG a lot more active as people growing through the eras mean a guild's strength in an era will grow and decline with its members and if a guild is strong in an era it's because they have a lot of members in that particular era, not because they have a few guys in Modern era who can dominate most of the maps at once.

It may be that the people further on in the game spend more money and they are always going to get listened to by the developers more because they pay he bills, but while ye are whinging about ghost guilds, the rest of GvG sucks for everyone else and is really turning people off the game as a whole.
 

ByeOrDie

Emperor
Actually I have refused to have any involvement myself in the GvG feature a week after it was launched because of this very problem. I have therefore left it to the other leaders within the Silver Swords to manage the GvG activities.

This proposition comes from recognizing that this problem is removing the enjoyment from many players in recent weeks and this has become more prominent from my discussions with other players over the last couple of days.
Wait, so is your guild going to stop this tactic? If not, I don't see why you would make this proposition unless you join a guild that doesn't...
 

Killgar II

Corporal
It's all about Goods cost. The more hexes a guild owns the more they pay. Agreed some might strike out on their own and come back. No good.

The higher your age the less times you can switch guilds. ME...once a month.
 

matthious

those that support it, in my opinion, lack the skill and/or organisation and/or patience to play fairly.
I think that was directed towards you dread... your own guild leader says you lack the skill, organization, and patience to play fair...
 

FacetiousMike

If the bigger guilds feel that ghosting is hurting them well then I have very limited sympathy.
This for me is irrelevant, I believe ALL players should be able to enjoy the GvG without having to put up with ghosting.

Wait, so is your guild going to stop this tactic? If not, I don't see why you would make this proposition unless you join a guild that doesn't...
I have never supported the use of ghosting and yes, Silver Swords will not be doing it. As i said before, I have not been involved with GvG for several weeks.
 

jameseyryan

Private
This for me is irrelevant, I believe ALL players should be able to enjoy the GvG without having to put up with ghosting.
It's only irrelevant if you have bigger guilds ghosting to take out smaller guilds, but given the proportion of sectors held by big guilds vs small guilds, it's much more likely to happen to bigger guilds.

Ghosting is only of benefit to those limited by goods costs. Most, if not all small guilds aren't limited by goods, they are limited by troop amounts.

So for me, solving the ghosting "problem" is basically suiting the game to the needs of the bigger guilds by solving their problems first but ignoring the underlying problem with GvG which is that a small number of guilds dominate most of the maps.

That GvG only suits high level guilds means smaller guilds are discouraged from playing so it's big guilds against each other on every map. Ghosting is a solution to the wrong problem.
 

thanatos100

Monarch
It is all in the perception of the beholder. When I look at ghost guilds, in military terms, I'm seeing the equivalent of the SAS. A guild gets their top fighters and sends them in to enemy territory to cause disruption, chaos and damage. It maybe annoying for those targeted but the name of the game gives it away 'Guild WARS'.

These are tactics used in war and I appreciate that many find it unsavoury and we all have different things we find acceptable. Personally sending in spies to other guilds to grant freedom to the sectors doesn't sit well with me but I have to acknowledge it is a tactic and one that relates to war so I can't really complain. It's just a tactic I won't use myself but doesn't mean I have the right to take the ability away from others.

Just to be clear I haven't been part of a ghost guild attacking sectors so I'm not trying to defend something I'm doing myself. If truth be told what most are really complaining about is the fact they have lost untold of goods by the actions of ghost guilds not the fact they lost the sectors themselves. Winning and losing sectors is what it is all meant to be about.
 

Bartimaeus46

Second Lieutenant
It is all in the perception of the beholder. When I look at ghost guilds, in military terms, I'm seeing the equivalent of the SAS. A guild gets their top fighters and sends them in to enemy territory to cause disruption, chaos and damage. It maybe annoying for those targeted but the name of the game gives it away 'Guild WARS'.
The name is actually "Guild versus Guild"