Some servers already have server-wide guild wars. The scenario plays out as stated, with one uber-guild taking everything over.Originally Posted by DaBooMan
That's why I suggest doing both. Perhaps some cities/buffs realm specific, a few others server-wide. You can make the server-wide buffs higher, but limited so as to cap the power guild that will inevitably take them over, while still promoting inter-realm competition for them.
"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
-Alice in Wonderland
"I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: if you **** with me, I'll kill you all."
-Gen. James "Chaos" Mattis, USMC to Iraqi tribal elders
Dawn never said teh rewards would be increased. I seriously doubt they would be. What would be the point then if the increased the rewards? All it will do is kill the servers faster.
Look at guys like me
In the smallest of the top 5 guilds
But I get all the city buffs
and I usually am ranked 2nd in arena so i get those rewards as well.
That lets me keep up with others. Yet I am only the 28th ranked player by power. I do pretty good, but if they merged the arena i would be in the top 25 is im lucky. And if they follow the same rewards structure I will fall further and further behind the bigger players. Even if they multipled all rewards x5 or x100 or x1k it wont matter I will never be able to move up unless others above me take a break or quit.
Then add in server wide GWF, Unless i PAID THE 150 gems to move realms and joined WH or Warlords, Im out the city buffs as well, and fall even further behind. I mean I love ya Boo and would have no issues being in WH, I dont want to have to leave many of my guild mates behind just so I can keep playing and stay competitive.
SO changing either thing is a server killer in my mind.
As I keep saying dont change things add new content...A second Arena and cities specifically for cross realm warfare
Arenas:
Would like to see a separate realm wide arena. As it stands now, many (12-15, other than the top 2 or 3, per realm I would guess) have been battling it out for top 10 spots for months. A combined realm wide arena replacing the current system would mean at least 10 of those per realm would be relegated to fighting it out for merely a top 50 spot. That blow unless rewards are dramatically improved between rank 50 and 10 would break a lot of players.
Having a separate realm arena with unique fun rewards and tiered to level ie rune slots which resets weekly would add a new dimension and add more reward options for lower powered players.
Guild Warfare:
The system on servers 11+ encourage all the strongest players to join one guild, it was poorly thought out, no offense. The current system on 1-10 is a lot better. Once again a separate (yes more content for you to work on and us to enjoy and a lot of us to pay well for) server wars would be welcomed, tie it into the quest map and allow guilds to capture an area and hold it if they can, tie the rewards and initial difficulty to the lvl of the area perhaps make it persistent ie attacks can happen at any time??
Ditto all of this ^^
Last edited by Scorn; 09-28-2013 at 12:21 AM.
I am a top player in server 1 and server 58. I have been asking for this from the get go. Here is where I think everyone is missing the point.
I love the idea of having two arena's. Or having a regular realm arena and a realm wide arena day. Or increase the rewards for more than just the top 5 if we went all out server wide arena. This would make the game so much more fun.
As far as server wide GW's. I have begged for this since they implemented it on the other servers. Once you get to a certain point in the game you get stuck and the game becomes very boring. Server wide guild wars keep it interesting. And keep me wanting to play more. For example I am bored on server 1 epically with GW's. However on server 58 it is interesting every night. I also disagree with one realm dominating. As in realistic terms humans are greedy. We want to be better than the other which means we want to beat the other top guilds. On 58, there is one top guild in each realm so there is no way one realm can dominate and we challenge each other every night. There are people I enjoy killing on a daily basis and would not allow them in my guild, and the same goes for them they enjoy killing me. Right now what fun is it to have one dominate guild on servers 1-10 where you one hit and done in GW.
And Matt as far as saying warlords would dominate, that's impossible. We would have a hard time killing spec, and boy, but they could only be in one city a night so it would make it more interesting. Same goes for us would be hard to kill Cutt but he can only be in one city.
I also agree with this post. "Please reconsider the costs of the lvl4 gem removal. I feel it is ridiculous to put that in place, it is way to high." I feel this has been the biggest complaint regarding equipment from the very beginning. Once I get mine filled I refuse to pay to remove them in order to create a large gem to embed. I already own the gems I should not have to pay extra to merge them together to create a larger gem to embed.
Last edited by Justified; 09-28-2013 at 12:17 AM.
Feedback:
I. Cross Realm Guild Wars is a great idea! (Like what we have in servers 11 upwards now)
This will thrust Guild Wars to the forefront of a day's activity. It is also set in the evening, for maximum player participation.
Players will have to learn strategy, to actually be able to be beaten, and to be able to beat other guilds.
Only the soothsayers and those people from servers 1-10 are opposed to it, because they are too much entrenched in their +150% coin/credits and +100% rep bonuses. They say there will be a lack of competition, but in each of their realms alone right now, there is virtually no competition already.
I don't think they remember when was the last time they bid over 200. They are afraid of letting go, and having to fight hard each day to retain the guild cities.
II. Server-wide arena would be an interesting concept.
This would be like Ragnarok but on a grander scale, and 24/7, not just 1 hour a day.
A few limitations would ensure this would be a success.
- only being able to fight a player once every 3minutes
- arena reset once a week
- significant rewards for the top 20 players. not just the top 5
Last edited by Herby; 09-28-2013 at 12:38 AM.
Guild Warfare: All guilds will compete for the same cities, regardless of Realm.
Arena: All players will fight for ranks in the arena From Dawnseeker
A) Arena: BAD IDEA. I can tell you exactly how this ends up. Like Heavens Palace.. from top to bottom, like shuffling a deck of cards. People's 2nd, 3rd, 4th spots currently, etc., would be much lower and daily reward much lower than it is today. Gems, leadercards, everything farmed from top to bottom. Bad idea. Saving or protecting your goodies would be really impossible, unless you are the lucky top player.
B) GW: BAD IDEA On a daily basis, it would be bad because the guilds would tend to fill with high players so they can get max benefits. It is hard, costly and time-consuming to build new guilds and get them up to speed to compete, which is why its not happening. So the same issue would ensue as is in the current system which is 1 dominating guild on ea server.
I play beta still, and with the system of one set of cities for all players, it still encourages 1 or 2 guilds to get top players to keep the max cities for max buffs. And eventually the other players lose out on perks and fall even more behind. I would rather see some way to get guilds built up to levels to compete easier= faster and cheaper, so ea realm can actually try to compete. Also, something seems a bit 1-sided with the way the city in GW is set for defense. All attacking players in A, all defenders in B... if B is strong, hits A.. end game. There is no room to try to spread out, use some strategy, or get any lead into it. The only way that happens, is if attackers are stronger and can push through. So perhaps look at the set-up.
I also do not like this idea. I do not want server-wide stuff to replace the inter-realm setup we have now.
I don't like the idea of server-wide GW in any way, shape, or form. GW as it is now should stay. It would only be okay if you wanted to add an additional city or two that the entire server could fight over, but do not take anything away from the current realm-wide guild wars.
A server wide arena would only be cool IF 1) the prizes for stakes and rank rewards were increased, and 2) it was in addition to the realm-wide arenas, not instead of.
So as everyone else except one person has said, please do not change the GW and arena that already exists! Add new content, do not change what the existing content that we have already designed our strategy around.
Justified
I am not wrong about 1 guild especially warlords or WH dominating. I would guarantee this would happen. You know on server 1 most of us get along quite well with each other. If a few of us wanted to go to warlords or WH from one of the other 3 guilds, most of us would be allowed in if there is room. Thereby consolidating the power. Now when i originally posted and said warlords would dominate I meant that but had my math way off. I just rechecked my math and discovered all 5 guilds of us are alot closer in power then I first thought.
But when things are that close its that much easier to dominate. 10 people dont show up for GWF one night, 10 extra show up another night. 2 or 3 players change realms and guilds. It happens within a realm. The same thing will happen server wide. Server 1 will be dominated by 1 guild within 30 days of this change guaranteed.
Plus lets not forget about all those other guilds sitting around in the realms not holding cities with tons o' tons of guild funds Wont be hard for someone to get those weaker guilds who have 0 chance of winning to bid on their city so a guild with a chance of winning gets out bid.
And then those smaller guilds who are trying to build up will be hurt with fewer cities to bid on so they will jump at the chance to bid on your cities so they get rewards, even if they have 0 chance of winning. Thereby making it harder for one of the other top 4 guilds to get in on the action.
All the strategies we employed to dominate a realm can be used to dominate the server. It will happen. Servers 1-10 are not full of dead accounts and dead guilds.
What I think several of these people that do not want server wide GW has not participated in them. Even as a top player there comes a point where you get stuck for weeks at a time. This makes the game very very boring. The addition of server wide guild wars would actually make the game fun again for everyone. Where is the challenge at all in GW's now for server 1-10. There is none. On server 1 right now, you could take any one of our top 7 guys and that one person could beat any single other guild in our realm. Heck our top 5 guys could beat the rest of the entire realm by themselves. This makes for a very boring server once you reach a certain level.
Where as on server 1 there are 5 top guilds total, which would make GW's very interesting again. And if losing the benefits you have already is the driving force, then I would have to go with Dawn's idea of holding one city and increasing the rewards for that city. But then again by doing this you would essentially be doing the same thing as we are doing now.
Herby and justified and all others on server 1 who think it would be interesting to have GWF setup like servers 11+
It will be interesting for about 2 weeks or so.
Then it will be right back to boring. One guild WILL DOMINATE and there by weaken every one else on the server, letting that 1 guild out pace everyone and make themselves so strong that not even the top 70 players not in that guild could compete against them.
It has happened in all 5 realms, why do you think it wont happen server wide? Servers 1-10 are not 11+ our player make up is totally different.
Posting Permissions
