• 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:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

Forwarded: Idea to stop "Ghost Guilds" - Simple, Much Needed

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser1081

I think restricting GvG to guilds that have existed at least a week (or whatever) would be more helpful than requiring a minimum number of members. I also think it shouldn't be possible to grant freedom to hexes you've held for less than 24 hours. As it is now, a "ghost guild" can do its damage and release all the hexes before it even makes it into the register of guilds, so you can't even check who the members were in order to complain to them, negotiate with them, congratulate them or whatever you're inspired to do. Guild member lists aren't supposed to be a secret, but apparently the register is only updated once per day, so fly-by-night guilds can do their damage anonymously, which is very far from okay.

At any rate I strongly encourage the development team to take some action on this problem at long last. It's hugely disappointing that it's been allowed to continue for so long, especially since beta players were already pointing it out as a major problem months ago, and begged you not to unleash it on the regular servers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

At any rate I strongly encourage the development team to take some action on this problem at long last. It's hugely disappointing that it's been allowed to continue for so long, especially since beta players were already pointing it out as a major problem months ago, and begged you not to unleash it on the regular servers.

I think the reason why there has been no action so far is that there's a difference between how players behave on one world in testing, and how it actually works over many live servers and worlds. Therefore the gameplay on live worlds and feedback on GvG is being considered and options being discussed before something is put into place. As Remorce said in his post elsewhere, it is easy to think up rules and quick solutions, just more difficult to put a workable solution into place that doesn't have other unintended consequences and will then require more fixes to solve that....
 

DeletedUser1081

No, it really hasn't been very different at all.
But I'm not here to debate with you, Hippocrytia.
I'm leaving feedback for the development team.
Thanks for letting me do that in peace.
 

DeletedUser

No, it really hasn't been very different at all.
But I'm not here to debate with you, Hippocrytia.
I'm leaving feedback for the development team.
Thanks for letting me do that in peace.

That's okay, I was just trying to provide a bit of feedback from this side - where we'd also like some action. It's also difficult when we don't have any solutions yet and can't say anything new. But I am hopeful that it will be resolved soon.
 

DeletedUser

As others have proposed, a 1 or 2 day period before others can join different guilds is a simple solution.
Another might be a 1 or 2 day period before a newly created guild can attack in the GvG.

Just do something already...
 

DeletedUser

Imposing a time limit on someone joining a new guild alone will not combat the problem. In my original post, I mentioned a more specific problem that's become a real issue. If you refer back, you will see that we have on specific player guild hoping, then every few days creates a new guild called "win battles!". He stays in this guild for a few days. I have little doubt that if the game forced him to wait a "cool down" period, that he would have no problem doing that, and then continuing what he's been doing.

This is why I suggested multiple minimum requirements. I don't believe that any one single requirement would take care of the majority of the problem. I'm not sure any limitations at all will 100% resolve the problem...but making it much tougher should discourage enough to satisfy everyone.

So, let me explain why I think the suggested ideas would help:

A minimum members in a guild alone would not prevent a group of peeps from forming a guild to take down sectors (although this alone would prevent one person from being able to form a guild to siege sectors just for pvp point). However, this combined with one of the other requirements below would really help. I do like the minimum cool down period idea. That would discourage many issues even outside of GvG. Combined with a minimum amonut of members, it would be much harder to find 10 or so people willing to leave their guild if they couldn't return to their main guild for some time. And finally, if it were combined with a minimum amount of time the guild needs to exist for, it would again be tough to find people willing to leave their main guild to form a ghost guild if they knew they wouldnt be able to attack sectors for a few days.

To be quite honest, in order to prevent both of the problems we are facing (multiple member ghost guilds and single member temporary guild to fight for pvp), it appears all three of the ideas would need to be implemented.
 

DeletedUser

Imposing a time limit on someone joining a new guild alone will not combat the problem. In my original post, I mentioned a more specific problem that's become a real issue. If you refer back, you will see that we have on specific player guild hoping, then every few days creates a new guild called "win battles!". He stays in this guild for a few days. I have little doubt that if the game forced him to wait a "cool down" period, that he would have no problem doing that, and then continuing what he's been doing.

So this is about one particular player? It's a big change to ask for in order combat one player, and if that's the reasoning behind it - it's unlikely to be implemented. It needs to be a solution that will fit in many worlds for everyone.
 

DeletedUser2989

That's a lot of requirements, I don't disagree that people would find their way around the restrictions but if you consider say 100 people that are doing the current "ghost guilding" seperately and in groups. Apply 1 restriction, lets say the timer so that they can't participate in GvG for a week in a newly created guild or upon joining a existing guild. We may find that 30 people are put off by this and stop ghost guilding, we may find that 70 are put off. We won't know until it's tested and we may well find that only 2 of your 3 requirements are needed to stop 90/95 of the 100 people ghost guilding (just to continue my example).

So if they went through and applied 1 at a time to beta (possibly live to see if it reacts differently as Hippocratia mentioned a few posts above) they could see how many are needed and which ones are more effective and implement the least buggy and easiest to code solution. They don't need to over complicate what might be a simple solution, mean while they avoid adding more bugs that my unintentionally affect other features or break guilds accidently.
 

DeletedUser

No, this is to combat all of it. The final straw of me actually creating this post was the specific situation. But it applies to all of it.

And according to many, a fix is already being worked on, or discussed at least. So I just thought it could help by creating this post for everyone to put their thoughts on paper. One idea could lead to another, to another, and so on. Who knows. Didn't hurt to discuss.


The only reason why I don't see any benefit over implementing ideas/fixes slowly and dragging it out is because all the suggested ideas wouldn't affect anyone negatively that isn't using any of these tactics. So I don't see what it would hurt to just implement a fix, whatever that may be, all at one time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser2006

and what about the guilds sitting on the top of the points table by using this ghost guild thing??? they have already taken the advantage of this tactic and sitting on the hot seat like a BOSS...
 

DeletedUser

and what about the guilds sitting on the top of the points table by using this ghost guild thing??? they have already taken the advantage of this tactic and sitting on the hot seat like a BOSS...

If that's the only way they got there, then they will find it more difficult when new conditions are put in place. They may not stay there very long if they cannot adapt and fight without resorting to this tactic.
 

DeletedUser

Hey, we're fifth and haven't done it. People need to realize that while the majority of top guilds may have used these and other tactics, that did not get them where they are. The top couple guilds in A world, while I do know they have participated in said tactics, I can also vouch that this did not contribute to their success. They had a well thought out plan, they are organized and active. They have really only used such tactics on other top guilds. I have yet to see tactics used to pick on smaller guilds or to gain success.

Point being, I don't really believe these tactics are what lead guilds to the top, and I don't believe when they are stopped that the top guilds will fall. That isn't what i'm concerned about when it comes to ending these tactics.
 

DeletedUser8813

the time limit and min number of players is too easy to circumvent ,guilds are already in place with the required amount of players and the big guilds are calling them sister guilds..we have guilds on en5 that have no modern era troops highest scoring player in guild has 5 k points and yet they hold modern era sectors and are heavily defended..just another way around the ghost guild saga
 

DeletedUser2989

the time limit and min number of players is too easy to circumvent ,guilds are already in place with the required amount of players and the big guilds are calling them sister guilds..we have guilds on en5 that have no modern era troops highest scoring player in guild has 5 k points and yet they hold modern era sectors and are heavily defended..just another way around the ghost guild saga

In that case that guild is not a "ghost guild" and we wouldn't be aiming to stop that. I think this is trying to more specifically target those guilds that pop up, take sectors and then disolve and release all the sectors. If your jumping into a sister guild or allied guild and taking and holding sectors with them then that would be fine. Afterall this is to stop "ghost guilds" and we have to be careful that is all it stops.

Now if you used the sister guild to attack and drop sectors (with no intent to keep anything) then there might be a problem. As you'd be avoiding the seige costs that your "home" guild would otherwise be paying, Inno could (yet might not) come up with a rule where the offending guild could get warnings or "barred" from GvG (while being able to continue playing the game as normal).
 

DeletedUser11899

I agree with some sort of time restrictions in order to slow down mercenary behaviors.
Reducing to the half -for example- the scored PvP points from GvG battles also it would discourage a little bit these behaviours.
In fact its more difficult to defeat the defence of your neighbour rather than a GvG defence, where you normally are fighting against armies with 0% of defensive boost.
 

DeletedUser1081

In fact its more difficult to defeat the defence of your neighbour rather than a GvG defence, where you normally are fighting against armies with 0% of defensive boost.

That depends a lot on the GvG hexes you attack, and on your neighbours. Points for GvG battles seems fair enough, since the other rewards are so astonishingly paltry, but maybe it should be a separate ranking system where the points for GvG fights go to whole guilds.
 

DeletedUser7719

Once all the rules (and any extra features that we may have not heard of) are added. I think all the GvG rewards will be raised (and maybe even a few new ones ;))
 

DeletedUser

I vote NO for this, mainly because of:

1) This won't stop ghost guilds... I've already found one way to get around it ;)

2) I can't actually say that I'm against ghost guilds, it's a smart tactic (even if some may not like it), and I think that it's part of GvG.

3) There's a reason for ghost guilds, solve that problem and the amount of guild jumping will automaticly be reduced, no need to add even more limitations in the game. Reduce the siege costs and ghost guilds will not be so usefull anymore :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top