Haha, are you SURE about this?
I think its time for a little update since my last post.
On one server I play one guild still holds the vast majority of the cities even though 10 different cities were bid on tonight. How did they hold them? 8 of the guilds that bid were nothing but alts used to block bids of other guilds. It adds up to approxiamately 250-300 alts just on one server owned by 1 guild alone.
On my other server, 1 player and his army of alts now owns 3 cities. 3 other cities are now held by a guild with about 10-12 active and alot of alts. So now 60% of the cities available are owned by less than 1% of the active server population.
I know this poll is supposed to stay open for a few more days. But I am seeing people say goodbye and exchanging personal info to meet on other games. Regardless of anyones personal opinion of the patch, it is destroying the game population in more ways than one. I personally would suggest reverting back immediately to the old GW setup before you lose everything. Unless your plan is to reduce the active players to fit in about 10-15 servers. In that case, you're doing a wonderful job.
oke it might well be that hundreds of games are adjusted. but i do think if a mayor adjustment has been done one is playing a different game to earlier. Ppl might not have joined, had they known the game would be changed that way.
the one who says i want to hold all cities has misread my opion. in the adjustments i suggest the small guilds could well take profit from the cities. and in the current new system they dont because after they win the city they are bashed out by one of the stronger guilds leaving them without earnings. which cant be done in the system i suggested
also if on a server one cant develop because of the system not because of the abilities of an opponent and an opponent on another server doesnt have the same problem an unfair power difference will develop while in the system i suggested everybody can compete at championship with everybody of his own level all the time only dictated by once own abilities, put in time and put in money and not by influences of the system
One of the new-found challenges with the current -5 / -10 setup:
Guild X attacking, has a force of 40 that signed up, 10 of which are alts. Active attacking force: 15 (of the 40), 3 of these are alts.
Guild Y defending, has a force of 40 that signed up, 10 of which are alts. Active defending force: 15, 3 of them alts.
Result: after a long series of skirmishes, Guild X manages to make it to F on turn 15. Has on average 50 durability. F --> G. 15 (at 50 durability) vs 25 (at 100 durability) ... no chance. Again on turn 29 F --> G, this time with about 10% average durability, no chance.
Bottom line: Because the inactive sign-ups (which typically alts like to stuff) are significantly greater number than the active participation, this gives a newfound challenge to attacking forces that not even the +20% boost can offset. In other words, seizing a city is incredibly harder now because active participation numbers is no match for offline-signup numbers.
Agree with the dislike of the new change to GW. no comment on CW as i am not stong enough to get anywhere yet lol. Back to GW with the new changes, guilds with the larger numbers usually win by sending wave after wave of their weak players saving their strong players to clean house after the weak players wiped out everyone's Durability leaving no real chance for a win.
This is what the Romans did. They'd send out the young ones first. Then their aged veterans. Then their strongest veterans (in between-aged) to clean up.
The challenge is in how to make power AND numbers matter in GW, and not either-or. It's shifted to the other side (numbers).
Bottom line in the new system is even if you get lucky, best you can do is trade off, or hold one for a day. Where you have multiple guilds bidding, you sometimes have to let one go to hold another. It will, or has, settled out to the same as if the cities were limited, and you just handed half to the other side. I can't think of any way to regain them, if guilds are close in power. Barring a total mess up, of course.
Dawnseeker, Tynon really needs to fix the durability issue in GW. The game is becoming infested with alts more and more. TO support our point, I want to explain how our battle went tonight.
It was a very tough battle. DUe to the buffs given to the other guild we were attacking as well as the 20% bonus they had from holding camps at the beginning, we had a hard time getting to F. When all of their players were finally cleared, what happened? We had a strong buddy in F ready to hit G. SO that buddy hit G, and guess what? 35 afk defenders were her welcome party. Our buddy went down of course, and whenever we managed to clear the way to F, we knew a ton of alts were expecting us in G, ready to take out our durability to 5.
Many suggestions were made. All are good. I hope Tynon will instill one of them:
- No afk defence
- Fix the durability back to what it was
One of those will do, but please, do something.
It gets a little bit tricky, because if you remove the massive wall of AFK defenders on BOTH sides, then you have the B --> A 1 turn GWs all over again. Same if you fix the durability to the way it was. Then we'd have the opposite problem (the old problem) of me soloing entire armies. *yawn*
So the question is:
How do you make B --> A turn1 a bad tactic, without having the massive wall of Offline defenders at G? The +20% at camp F doesn't help when you're at 50% power and the opponent outnumbers you 3 to 1 (because of AFK defenders).
The only solution I can think of at the moment would be to remove the defending side's Offline-force but not the attackers'. (if the attacker doesn't succeed then defenders win anyway, so defenders don't need to defeat A anyway). If you remove both then it's B --> A charge turn1 game over.