how to stop the stalemate in gvg

[DeletedUser]

I'm fine with that as long as the smaller guild has somewhere else to go where they can compete against guilds at their own level. Currently that is not the case.

There's always somewhere to go if a guild gets whiped off as the province is full of landingzones However, I can't agree that a guild should get a new sector served on a silver platter just because they are small. If they are active enough they have a good chance to take a new sector that will become their HQ, and if they are not, well then they will simply have to get stronger

Let me know when you think 10 of 15 guilds can get together to organized a coordinated attack, hard enough to get players in 1 guild coordinated. Also consider the case of a top guild with say 75 sectors backed into the bottom corner of the ME map. It is unlikely that the guild will be bordered by more than a handful of other guilds not the 10-15 you are talking about. Similar situations can occur on several of the maps along large mountain or oceancoast(non LZ)

I did not mean that 10-15 guilds would get together in a coordinated attack - that is not even necessary What I meant was that all guilds that are actually interested in participating in GvG will continue to fight for their first sector untill they get it. And if 10-15 guilds does this against a larger guild that is currently dominating they will manage to get a sector, even if they don't coordinate their attacks with each other

The thing is: no guild has an enough large support pool to fill up all of their sectors to 50% boost if they are also dominating the province. This means that smaller guilds without any province will easily be able to set their siege against the sectors with 0% boost. If the guild is active, they will manage to take the sector, and keep in mind that other guilds may do this at the same time. The attacker needs to focus on 1 sector, the defender needs to focus on multiple sectors. And once that smaller guild has taken 1 sector, that will become their HQ which will have a very strong boost.

However 5 or 6 guilds out of 50 each with 30-40 sectors could and after a time will likely get tired of attacking each other and the statuesque sets in.

Yes, and why is that? It's because of the high costs. A guild that controls 30-40 sectors will have a siege cost of 1000s of each good. And keeping in mind that it's much easier to defeat a siege than to defeat the defense, I'm not surprised that it leads to a stalemate Now instead consider that the cost for this guild would be 100 of each good, then they would most likely start to attack each other, because now it's simply affordable

I direct you to read my post number #12 where i provide the specifics of my reset idea. I specifically mention that at the time of reset there will be rewards paid including repayment of a portion of the goods costs for the sectors held at the time of the reset.(on top of decrease in goods costs to start with) " Presuming there were still goods costs for gvg sectors some amount of goods would have to be paid back at the reset. " Included in my proposal are added daily rewards and reward sectors which would help offset the costs of gvg. " Instead rewards will consist of the daily reward sectors, some daily rewards for guilds by ranking in each gvg age, and a large reward based on a guilds ranking in each individual age at the end of the gvg tournament cycle."

Yes, I understand, but why? What does we gain by reseting the province? Instead of a strategical war we will see another race of which guilds that can more quickly rush through the province and secure X amount of sectors. And this will be repeated forever, just like the PvP-towers. The stalemate will still occur when the costs get to high

My proposal also includes a limit to the number of sectors a guild could take in an age to offset the function of the siege goods cost which would be eliminated with goods costs being decreased drastically(this would force the top guilds with the max number of sectors to plan and attack more based on sector power values instead of just accumulating as many sectors as they can). It also would limit the number of ages a guild could fight in at a time, so those smaller guilds would likely have a place where they can go in the lower ages and not have to compete with the top guilds.

I hate to say it - but I do not like this suggestion. Why should the largest and most active guild get punished? If the players in that guild work hard enough to control so many sectors, shouldn't they get rewarded for it instead of having a limitation where they can't take more sectors?

In my opinion the strongest guild is the one that should rule, and in order for other guilds to compete, they will need to become equally strong. That is what creates the entire competetion between guilds, right? And of course I'm not saying that smaller guilds should not have a chance - but they will There is no guild that is strong enough to control an entire province if there's other active guilds that are also interested in that province

Hence - let the balance come by itself. Start out with just a tiny adjustment and see what happens After a few weeks, adjust it again if it's not good enough. It's much better to do like this than to make large drastic changes

 

[DeletedUser96867]

@falcon93
1) I'm not suggesting guilds would get a new sector handed to them on a silver platter. I don't see that in my proposal there would be any difference between how hard it is for a guild to takes their first sector compared to now. A guild trying to hold 1 or 2 sectors is complete pointless as the rewards of doing so will never amount to anything. Holding sectors with a combined total of 150power it currently takes about 12 months to reach level 10 reward where the guild would get 1fp back. What i was suggesting there is if we remove the goods restrictions which limit the top guilds now, the small guilds would be pushed off the maps, we should at least make sure those small guilds are able to compete in the lower age provinces and not have the same top guilds full of 100k -5million point players dominating in Iron Age as well. You suggest the small guilds need to get stronger. How long will it take guilds full of players who have been playing 3 or 4 months to compete with the guilds full of players who have all been playing 1year+? What i'm trying to do is create a gvg feature which will also be accessible to new players not after they have been playing for a year.

2)You are forgetting that all the landing zones aren't controlled by one guild so the 10-15 guilds attacking will have their attacks spread across a good many guilds not all focused on one. Also many of the top guilds have moved away from the landingzones so they aren't the ones being attacked by these 10-15 guilds attacking the LZ. Again i must ask what is the value of a guild being able to hold just 1 sector? You seem to think a guild holding 1 sector means they are succeeding wonderfully in gvg.

3)Most of the small guilds are full of players with very minimal attack boosts. The small guilds are going to often have as much trouble attacking a 0% boosted sector as the top guilds full of players with 90% maxed attack boosts will fighting the small guilds HQ if they gain a foothold.

4)There aren't currently 5 or 6 guilds holding 30-40 sectors each because of the high goods costs have prevented that. That is what will happen if the guilds costs are reduced and no other feature added to limit expansion of the top guilds. With the low costs of a max of 5x100 like you proposed first they would wipe most of the small guilds off the map(easiest to do), and then they might start attacking each other unless/until they became satisfied with the balance in that age.

5)With the rest we would see advancing strategies with each new cycle as guilds came up with new/better ways to advance and to cut off other guilds. Areas which became known as prime realestate in the last cycle would be more heavily fought over in the early stages. What is the strategy you think exists now? As far as i see the most strategic part of gvg would be the advance into the new npc maps. In my reset proposal the goods costs are greatly reduced and expansion reduced by other factors so the goods costs will not get to high. A 8 week cycle would see the first 2 or 3 weeks of great activity followed by a few weeks of little activity with what i would expect an increased in activity near the end of the cycle to gain power or take away power from other guilds before the cycle ended.

6)I don't see this as being punishment for the largest and most active guilds. It is a measure which would even the playing field to some degree as the advantage of the players who have been here for a long time is far to much for the newer players to ever overcome. The limit of the number of sectors per age would a)would be the restriction on guild expansion as a replacement for the current goods cost which currently limits expansion but would be removed by far lower siege costs. b)I think it would reduce the stalemate as the top few guilds in an age would likely all reach their max. This would force guilds to create a strategy based not only on how to defend their sectors but how control the most sectors with the highest power. I expect this alone would cause the top guilds to begin attacking each other for the control of the most valuable sectors. With the top few guilds all very near each other in terms of sector power it would be close enough they'd be willing to fight to gain/keep their ranking.

The limitation on how many ages a guild can fight in are on the assumption most of the top guilds would choose most of the highest ages leaving the lower age provinces for the smaller guilds. This would give them the opportunity to hold more than the 1HQ sector which you seem to think is a great accomplishment and only goal of the smaller guilds.

7)I agree that strongest guild should rule, and they still will with what i propose. The top guilds can focus on the power 96 sectors in ME and other higher ages, while leaving the power 2-6 sectors in IA to the smaller guilds. The strongest guilds would be more likely to fight with each other instead of beating up on the small guilds. The strongest guilds can fight to control the reward sectors i proposed and take them from the weaker guilds.

"In my opinion the strongest guild is the one that should rule, and in order for other guilds to compete, they will need to become equally strong. That is what creates the entire competetion between guilds, right?"

Yes they need to become stronger but how long will it take a guild full of IA-HMA players to be able to become equally strong as the guilds with 30+ players at the end of the research tree? Competition between guilds is great, competition between players with 90% attack boost, a full expanded city, an Alcatraz, and nothing else to do, against a player with a 9% attack boost, less than half the expansions no alcatraz who still has to devote resources to the research tree, and the continent sectors, well that is no competition at all.

In a perfect world adjustments to fix the stalemate would have been attempted in the gvg testing to see what worked and what didn't work. Seems they are starting to try a few things. With 1.20 the rebalanced the GB's i don't think that had any real effect. A short time later they 'corrected' the incorrect calculation of the support pools which cut most pools by about 80%. Now with 1.22 they've changed the the max sector defenses. I think this last change was at least in the right direction. I don't see any of these tiny adjustments making much of a difference. We could of course try your max of 5x100 goods siege cost, and nothing else. And if after a few weeks all but 5 or 6 of the guilds have been wiped off the map where do we go from there?

Got a question for you. In the worlds you are taking part in gvg where are you on the research tree and what is your attack boost? How does that compare to most of the other players in your guild?

 

[DeletedUser96867]

Looking at En6 the top 2 guilds have already reached level 10(after 1 month), as things stand guilds 3-11 should reach level 10 by the end of 2 months, guilds 12-20 will mostly reach level 10 after 3 months. Guild 30 will take close to 8 months, guild 40 about 18 months, and guild ranked 50 around 6 years. The problem with gvg isn't that the top few guilds need to hold even more sectors. The defense pool boost already gained by the top guilds from the rewards is more than many guilds full of 6-8 month players combined have managed with their defense GB's. As those top guilds rank up the rewards faster they get an even greater advantage over the small guilds.

Sorry adding an additional post instead of combined with the other.

 

[DeletedUser]

@fischh

1) Yes, but if that guild manages to take 1 sector, they will propably be able to take 1 more, and 1 more, and 1 more. If the other guilds are too strong, they will simply have to go to a lower province and try there instead. What I mean here is that there shouldn't be any special limitations just to help smaller guilds.

Also, this would attract players into grouping up into bigger and stronger guilds instead of spliting it up on very many small guilds, which is good in my opinion. The current small guilds will propably never be able to compete with the large guilds, but that doesn't limit them from joining a bigger guild instead, which is stronger. And that is how it should be, shoudn't it? Instead of guilds with 4-6 people, we would see an increase of larger guilds that counts between 50-70 players instead. And a large guild with small players will easily rule the lower provinces as their most of their players are in that era and thereby puts all focus into that era


2) Yes, I agree, but I wrote that as a response to the scenario where a top guild would take the entire province If 1 or 2 guilds control the entire sector, then they will have a hard time to defend all sectors. And yes, the more guilds that currently are on the province will of course make it harder for further guilds to join, but then this problem doesn't exist, right? Because if there're many guilds on the province, then we don't have the problem of 1 or 2 guilds taking the entire province. And the harder the competition on the later provinces gets, the harder it will be for top-guilds to disturb lower provinces


3) Yes, absolutely, but these smallers guilds should not compete on the most attractive provinces then Depending on their size and strength they should seek to less attractive provinces where they can take enough sectors to actually make a difference

And this is where the automatic balance comes in, because even the top guilds does not have enough players nor space in their cities to play actively on all provinces. I would say that the average between topguilds is to play active on 3-5 provinces. First thought might be that this would increase if the cost is lowered - but then again, automatic balance will sort this out, because if topguilds are able to advance faster and control larger areas in the later provinces, they will propably also leave the earlier provinces as they need the space and resources for the later provinces

I think that most players will recognize their own guilds in this: The reason that they also fight in the lower provinces is mainly because the cost in ME is so high that it is more affordable to also take some sectors in PE, InA, CA etc. If they could go all in on ME, they would prefer to do so as these sectors give much more power anyways


4) Yes, but remember that 5 or 6 guilds are just a number used in this example. All guilds that are enough strong to fight each other will fight in that province, and this will of course scale aswell. The average amount of sectors per guild on .EN will propably be lower compared to smaller servers, simply because there's more guilds that can compete against each other. But the good thing here is that the entire province will be used, regardless if it's a large or small server (gameworld), so no more NPCs


5)With the rest we would see advancing strategies with each new cycle as guilds came up with new/better ways to advance and to cut off other guilds. Areas which became known as prime realestate in the last cycle would be more heavily fought over in the early stages. What is the strategy you think exists now? As far as i see the most strategic part of gvg would be the advance into the new npc maps. In my reset proposal the goods costs are greatly reduced and expansion reduced by other factors so the goods costs will not get to high. A 8 week cycle would see the first 2 or 3 weeks of great activity followed by a few weeks of little activity with what i would expect an increased in activity near the end of the cycle to gain power or take away power from other guilds before the cycle ended.

5) I'm sorry, but I still don't see the positive effects in reseting it. Just because they keep their provinces doesn't mean that new strategies are not developed during time New ways to advance and cut of old guilds can still be applied even though the guild keeps their sectors. Good areas to control are discovered all the time, there's no need to reset the procvince to find this out

But I understand the problem, it's all just about looking on it from the right direction. For instance, the problem is not to discover good areas when it gets reset, but the actual problem is that it's impossible to try to claim an already owned area from another guild. And why is this? Because of the high costs of course There's no need to reset it all, just lower the costs and these things will come by itself


6 & 7) Yes, but the problem here is; why should the strongest guild be forced to pick some sectors here and there because they aren't allowed to take them all even if they could? There's a huge disadvantage in picking sectors that are spread out

I guess that this just comes down to that we have different views of how GvG should work, and that is absolutely nothing wrong, I just think that's the reason why we don't agree I see it more from this way: IF there exists one single guild that are capable of taking all sectors in the entire GvG, they should be allowed to do so. I know that it may sound very extreme, but this was also an extreme example, because it will never happen. And imagine a very small server where there's just 2 or 3 very large guilds. Then each of them should be allowed to take 1/3 of all provinces. That is how I see it

Yes they need to become stronger but how long will it take a guild full of IA-HMA players to be able to become equally strong as the guilds with 30+ players at the end of the research tree? Competition between guilds is great, competition between players with 90% attack boost, a full expanded city, an Alcatraz, and nothing else to do, against a player with a 9% attack boost, less than half the expansions no alcatraz who still has to devote resources to the research tree, and the continent sectors, well that is no competition at all.

Yes, I agree with this, but: No-one has said that those smaller players, that hasn't researched everything yet, need to be all alone in a separate guild. They could instead join a large or medium guild and help them as much as they can. That is what I did. When I started to play over a year ago I joined the top ranked guild while I was in iron age. After all, but this might just be my opinion, GvG is mainly for players in endgame, but of course smaller players can help aswell

In a perfect world adjustments to fix the stalemate would have been attempted in the gvg testing to see what worked and what didn't work. Seems they are starting to try a few things. With 1.20 the rebalanced the GB's i don't think that had any real effect. A short time later they 'corrected' the incorrect calculation of the support pools which cut most pools by about 80%. Now with 1.22 they've changed the the max sector defenses. I think this last change was at least in the right direction. I don't see any of these tiny adjustments making much of a difference. We could of course try your max of 5x100 goods siege cost, and nothing else. And if after a few weeks all but 5 or 6 of the guilds have been wiped off the map where do we go from there?

I totally agree with you that these things should have been tested more on the beta. I was one of many who was against the early release of GvG, it would have needed atleast 3-4 months more of development and testing. I also don't think that the goods-GB change was required.

Regarding the last part; Well, if there's only 5 or 6 of the guilds left on the province, they have done a really, really good job and deserve to be there alone (in my opinion)

Got a question for you. In the worlds you are taking part in gvg where are you on the research tree and what is your attack boost? How does that compare to most of the other players in your guild?

I'm done in the research tree and currently I have +69% offensive boost. The guild that I'm in reached level 10 yesterday and we are not playing on .EN

 

[DeletedUser100488]

Tried to browse all the pages here,and didnt find this,so here it goes: main thing I dislike in GvG is the fact that a ME player can actively participate in Iron age GvG,for example.
1 ME player can more easily take out sectors then 10,or more players that are in Iron/EMA.Why? Cos it's a lot easier for him/her to build lots of Iron age units,then for those players that are still trying to advance.
And the fact that it's a "bit" harder to get 10 players online at the same time.It's doable,but nevertheless a lot harder.
There should be a block that prevents you from fighting in more then,eg,2 ages below your current age.
That way,maps would get a constant change.
Ofc,a change in siege costs would be helpful also.Very helpful for lower end players willing to play the GvG part of the game.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

Tried to browse all the pages here,and didnt find this,so here it goes: main thing I dislike in GvG is the fact that a ME player can actively participate in Iron age GvG,for example.
1 ME player can more easily take out sectors then 10,or more players that are in Iron/EMA.Why? Cos it's a lot easier for him/her to build lots of Iron age units,then for those players that are still trying to advance.
And the fact that it's a "bit" harder to get 10 players online at the same time.It's doable,but nevertheless a lot harder.
There should be a block that prevents you from fighting in more then,eg,2 ages below your current age.
That way,maps would get a constant change.
Ofc,a change in siege costs would be helpful also.Very helpful for lower end players willing to play the GvG part of the game.

I also find a problem in the attack boost they get compared to an average EMA/IA player

 

[DeletedUser2989]

@ mtbom, The problem with that is that it then forces guilds to seperate members based on their current age. There are some gulids out there that are a mix of advanced players in the ME and new players in the earlier ages and those advanced players are able to help the lower age members of the guild in GvG. It's all well to say "what's so bad about people forming strick same age guilds?" and my answer to that would be that there are naturally many people who don't get along and forcing people to change guilds if they move up an age will create many more small guilds and more isolation.

Another thing to consider is that when a ME player fills their town with IA military buildings and goods buildings they are often giving up their ability to participate in other ages. Sure anyone can fight anywhere but if they gain a presence everywhere it is hard to maintain. All those sectors that ME guy takes could be lost if he switches back to ME buildings to fight in ME.

 

[DeletedUser100488]

@ mtbom, The problem with that is that it then forces guilds to seperate members based on their current age. There are some gulids out there that are a mix of advanced players in the ME and new players in the earlier ages and those advanced players are able to help the lower age members of the guild in GvG. It's all well to say "what's so bad about people forming strick same age guilds?" and my answer to that would be that there are naturally many people who don't get along and forcing people to change guilds if they move up an age will create many more small guilds and more isolation.

Another thing to consider is that when a ME player fills their town with IA military buildings and goods buildings they are often giving up their ability to participate in other ages. Sure anyone can fight anywhere but if they gain a presence everywhere it is hard to maintain. All those sectors that ME guy takes could be lost if he switches back to ME buildings to fight in ME.

This change wouldnt force anyone to form a guild of strickly the same age players.No.It just blocks you/me from fighting an totally unfair battle,plus giving lower end players an additional reason to participate in GvG at all.
We're not talking about what would an ME player lose if they fill a town with IA units.We're talking about the odds in a fight,and keeping the maps interesting.

All those sectors that ME guy takes could be lost if he switches back to ME buildings to fight in ME.

True,but thats the same for all players on server.But the ME player has loads of coins/sups so it's not an issue to switch every few days if they're willing to do so.
Also,an HMA player that played actively in IA GvG,when entering LMA,loses the ability to play in IA GvG.This would mean constant map changes,and would likely provide more interest in GvG.
Another thing to consider:awards given for ME GvG and IA GvG are very big.So a guild thats got #1 in ME GvG is gaining way more points then a guild thats #1 in IA GvG.
So why do ME player even consider playing in such low ages?Bored?Maybe.
My op is this: fighting in ME/PE takes a lot more coordination and time dedicated to get a sector,keep it,and so on.
So,you get 2 ME players,thats easy to coordinate,they build IA units in numbers that matches 15-20,eg,EMA players,and they conquer what they want.
Tell me,whats more likely to happen: getting 2 players online at the same time,or getting 20?

As last thing: I'm not writing this as a complaint about ME players(cos I'm HMA player atm),but cos GvG in this way is not good,in a lot of things,one of them being way over powered in comparison to IA players,and they CAN play the same map.And are playing.
Imo,the awards given in GvG should go up,the siege cost down,and a block for more advanced players installed.
How the things are atm,we had GvG maps done in a month,which is silly.
Also,a number of days needed to reach,eg, lvl30 is very,very interesting.Cant be done in any normal amount of time,even on established servers.But thats another thing to discuss.


Edit: If GvG was designed to keep the players interested in the game for a while more,then any goods requirement should be removed from GvG.
Let the guilds fight,and not worry about goods.They still need troops,and they take up a lot of space,otherwise used for normal progress in game.

 

[DeletedUser]

@ mtbom, The problem with that is that it then forces guilds to seperate members based on their current age. There are some gulids out there that are a mix of advanced players in the ME and new players in the earlier ages and those advanced players are able to help the lower age members of the guild in GvG bose 802. It's all well to say "what's so bad about people forming strick same age guilds?" and my answer to that would be that there are naturally many people who don't get along and forcing people to change guilds if they move up an age will create many more small guilds and more isolation.

Another thing to consider is that when a ME player fills their town with IA military buildings and goods buildings they are often giving up their ability to participate in other ages. Sure anyone can fight anywhere but if they gain a presence everywhere it is hard to maintain. All those sectors that ME guy takes could be lost if he switches back to ME buildings to fight in ME.

Its great proposal however i don't think they will implement it, I will support you

 

[DeletedUser17143]

The way I would like GVG to work would be.

GVG maps reset at the start of each month, so that all guilds have to battle for sectors again. This would mean that the cost of sieges would need to be reduced and a max limit per siege added.
We could have it where a guild can only take part in 3 maps at a time. So if a HQ is owned in HMA, LMA and PE, the guild cannot attack sectors in other era maps. This would stop larger guilds taking sectors in lower eras if they are active already in 3 higher eras, giving a chance to smaller guilds.

Its probably impossible to do anything like this now anyway with the current prestige and level system. To many will complain if it was to change. But it could work for the next era map or the medal map some have been taking about.
Reset every month, and top 10 guilds get prestige bonus similar to the way medals are given in PVP.

 

[DeletedUser2989]

Its great proposal however i don't think they will implement it, I will support you

I'm not sure what proposal is great there wasn't one in that quote, but thank you.

 

[DeletedUser]

Having just read this thread I apologise if I missed anything said earlier, but I agree with desypete that GvG needs a shake up every so often otherwise the largest guild will just go on conquering and conquering. Now I realise this is not always done legitimately due to the often discussed ghost guilds etc but that is a fact and that loophole still exists (with no signs of the devs wishing to close it just yet) so the big guilds still use it daily with no punishment.

So my thought a few weeks ago was to get out of the big guilds in GvG, form my own tiny guild and help the little guys out with battles vs the big guys. The only benefit I get out of this is some more interesting game play in the stagnating GvG world and some more battle points for me. Of course I lose out in troop costs etc. So what is the problem here ?....it seems it is suspected that I am fighting for some favours to myself (eg monetary gain) which is against the rules. If I was demanding money or something else I could understand it, but I'm clearly not.

So the guild hoppers from the large guilds are allowed to get away with fightrng for others for favours to themselves (protection from that guild and help with their own guild fights etc) and they are also allowed to form one new guilds for low siege costs but the little guy doing it my himself (and not even sieging himself) loses out. Nice one !

 

[DeletedUser2989]

What cliff has pointed out is what I see as the problem with implementing rules specifically for GvG against clearly complex breaches. Now I can't verify the accuracy of exactly what cliff did but the above example is one reason why making rules against ghost guilding is difficult/risky. Rule 4 seems rather broad and now with GvG it's a bit broader. From the sounds of things if your guild looks anything remotely like a mercenary guild your at risk. To me sounds a bit silly but this is what rule making and not mechanics fixing does.

Guild hopping and ghost guilding might be better discussed in a different thread though because I'm not sure that solving the problems there would stop the stalemate in GvG.

 

[DeletedUser]

One thing I think people need to keep sight of, is that GvG is a construct from Inno, devised to make people log into the game more frequently and to buy more diamonds.

So, now all the top guilds have spent their stockpiles of thousands of goods, are having to build and rebuild constantly to adapt to different threats / opportunities / people quitting; it is also draining coin and supply. When PME / PME GvG / 2nd ME GB launches the pressure to compete / complete will make buying that 10 Euros worth of diamonds seem that little bit more worthwhile.
To summarise then: when thinking of any change to the game, run the rule over it "Will this change make it less likely for people to buy diamonds". If the answer is yes, it won't happen.

An example being the "unattached units filter". I think most people expected it to be a check box "hide unattached"... instead we got a visual clue which makes it faster than waiting for the tooltip, but does not 100% remove the chance of accidentally using and losing unattached and potentially needing to heal them with diamonds at the end of the battle screen...

 

[Amy Steele]

The above posts were removed or edited today because they breached forum rules and/or were off-topic.

Please keep this thread on topic folks.

 

[DeletedUser276]

So my thought a few weeks ago was to get out of the big guilds in GvG, form my own tiny guild and help the little guys out with battles vs the big guys. The only benefit I get out of this is some more interesting game play in the stagnating GvG world and some more battle points for me. Of course I lose out in troop costs etc. So what is the problem here ?....it seems it is suspected that I am fighting for some favours to myself (eg monetary gain) which is against the rules. If I was demanding money or something else I could understand it, but I'm clearly not.

So the guild hoppers from the large guilds are allowed to get away with fightrng for others for favours to themselves (protection from that guild and help with their own guild fights etc) and they are also allowed to form one new guilds for low siege costs but the little guy doing it my himself (and not even sieging himself) loses out. Nice one !

Actually you had City for Hire for your city name in in your player profile you offered to help other guilds siege and you specifically stated in return for goods or some donations of fp's. That is actually requesting payment for merc work. Which is against the rules which was why you were "suspected" of breaching Rule 4 of the ingame rules. As previously stated though please stay on topic to the thread and no offset tangents.

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually you had City for Hire for your city name in in your player profile you offered to help other guilds siege and you specifically stated in return for goods or some donations of fp's. That is actually requesting payment for merc work. Which is against the rules which was why you were "suspected" of breaching Rule 4 of the ingame rules. As previously stated though please stay on topic to the thread and no offset tangents.

I hate to correct you, as you are clearly right, but most of what you said in the above statement is actually untrue. It said, "Gun-for-hire" in a joking way and then mentioned (again in a joking way) some voluntary (key word) pol/mot. Still, its kind of irrelevant what I say on that so...... to keep on track with the thread I stand by my comments regarding GvG stagnation and agree with some of the other comments here that something needs to be done to make it more interesting. The regular flushing idea seems a particularly good one, especially if the guild that were top (or top 3) at the time get some sort of "prize" for finishing in the top few. It would then become like PvP (but for guilds and on a longer time scale). That way, GvG would always be interesting and there may some extra excitement (and special tactics) towards the end of each flush when the top few guilds may be close in the table.

 

[DeletedUser99692]

Well as a founder of a guilds of both seasoned and novice players who have put a great deal of time and resources into gaining sectors I am sickened by your proposal. I have experienced this type of hit squad in action and to say it is demoralizing is the mildest comment I can commit to words on this forum. This is not being done to free up sectors to give other guilds a game. It is being done so that the leading guilds in those areas can take high power sectors to increase their holdings. Its not being altruistic it is just a cheating way of increasing established guild power and ensuring that the second conquering of the sectors in question are accomplished in 1 siege regardless of the duration.
The answer is an expansion of the GvG sectors to give guilds of all skill levels the opportunity of testing their metal in this area of the game and reaping some of the much lauded but very limited benefits that gaining GvG territory brings to a guild.

 

[DeletedUser4879]

What I've found is not to take this GvG stuff to seriously!
By that I mean I play the game as before and help a little
in GvG when resources and troops are at hand! I'm playing
ME and my city is set up for it! It just wouldn't enter my
mind to stuff that up in order to play a lower level!!
I see a lot of rebuilding going on to adapt fighting lower levels,
which in my way of thinking is just a bit foolish! The return is
rather poor!! All I'm waiting for is a new age to continue my
game!!

 

[DeletedUser2989]

The answer is an expansion of the GvG sectors to give guilds of all skill levels the opportunity of testing their metal in this area of the game and reaping some of the much lauded but very limited benefits that gaining GvG territory brings to a guild.

How does expanding the avaliable area to take enable guilds to prove their skill? doesn't that just enable guilds who can't handle taking on other guilds to take on more NPC's. Lets face it the NPC's are no challenge to take out it's the other guilds, so by making more sectors your avoiding the challenge.