Feedback Requested: Cross-Realm Arena and Guild Warfare

[DaBooMan]

since patch i have progressed nicely.. got thru heroics, what i dont like is the clamp on sails. i can only take 3 guys now, but eh.
Dawn said 1 city could give same rewards as the 3/5 we have now, so that leaves it like this, we all make an uber guild, cap in for 500% rep and 450% shrine buff, or they cap it at one city of each type per guild.. back to what we have now, i dont know what other realms are like but we get 4-5 attacking guilds a night, so if we have to cap, thats 6 teams out.

[Justified]

Matt as far as server one goes while we get along there are a lot of egos there as well. Meaning someone would want to prove they could beat us not join us etc. This being said, I don't agree that Spec and Groom would come over to warlords and make the server one sided. They have a point to prove which is they could beat us, just like our point would be to beat WH, or UpRising etc. At least this is how I see it as this is how it is on server 58. Everyone else in the other realms are not jumping to join my guild because I am the number one player. They want to prove they can beat my guild which makes the server for GW's a lot more fun. I don't think it would be possible for one guild to dominate for the reason I said before. It would be hard for us to beat Spec, or Groom, just like it would be hard for you guys to beat Cutt etc. And if someone didn't show up for GW's, which happens all the time it makes it even more interesting by someone losing a city and wanting to get it back the next night.

However I do agree with the fact of smaller guilds that have no chance being able to step in and cause it to be a problem. This would be my only concern.

[Morgan le Fay]

A couple of comments have said anyone who says cross-realm GW are enjoying their benefits too much to let go. Well I would have to say to a degree that's true.

Although I wouldn't want to lose my benefits, my concerns aren't just that. I'm considering the long term. Games such as these tend to end up with the big hitters in the top guilds/alliances/leagues. You can pretty much guarantee where the profit is, the top players are or will end up. This is by no means their fault it's just how games evolve. Ok currently on servers 1-10 there is a dominating guild in each realm. There are also at least 1 possibly 2 smaller guilds who may not have the city buffs but at least get to compete in Guild Wars for their assistant.

Merge the GW realms and these guilds will disappear. At least those smaller players get a chance as it currently is. As it's been noted, servers 11+ already have one dominant guild.

[Wildflower]

@justified
To have a evenly divided powerstructure sounds like the perfect scenario. In my experience perfect scenarios are an anomally . Enjoy it while it lasts!
Other servers show a different scenario that is really boring. Since both seem possible, why risk the chance of it not working out as it is working on server 58?

@Herby
Yes, I would be really pissed if the current buffs would be taken away since I not only worked hard for them, but also invested many gems, time, and involvement in my guild.
I love being part of a dynamic game, but such drastic rule changes midgame seem unfair. Had I known it was a possibility before hand, I would not have invested as much since I feel it would be pointless.

I think an additional Realmwars game where you can win buffs for a day untill you fight again is a great way to make the game interesting, without taking away the already existing buffs that people worked hard for since the beginning.
Bring in two bonus cities and bidding so 4 of 5 realms can fight every night and see who comes out on top.
Why piss people off by taking the current buffs and run the risk of a massive turnaway?

The only way I could see server wide Realmwars/Guildwars working on server 1-10 is if the current buffs actually stay attached to the guilds as they are now and a new gw would be set up for the entire server where you can actually win more buffs.
I would then make two bonus cities (as mentioned above) lvl constricted and daily, so that lvl 3 guilds could only fight for lvl 3 cities, lvl 4 guilds for lvl 4 cities (and so on) and they can't bid the lower lvl cities when they lvl up.
The next city would have the buffs of the previous ones as well as a new buff.

This will give smaller guilds a chance to buffs aswell and fight people with a more similar power lvl. It would give room for 4 guilds to fight each night and bidding will be important as well as politics.
They could even add lvl 2 cities I guess. It would entice guilds to grow, people to invest and would make for more interesting things to do.


@Morgan
I agree fully, though this is already an issue. A guildcap of 30 members would have been the best way to make sure guilds stay alive and competitive as long as the upgrades were also less high.
I think it is imperative to add content that allows the smaller powered players the smell of victories. At the moment there are hardly any interesting PvP choices for lower powered players.
It may well be a reason players become inactive after a while.

Just my thoughts here. It is late so they may be well flawed. I am human after all .

Night!

[Warchild]

I have accounts on some of the new servers as well as the older server i personally like the way the arena and guild wars are done on server 2 where we have 5 realms instead of the 3 realms like server 78. to merge the realms guild wars and arenas will cause more problems than it is worth because of the fact their more active guilds than cities which will not let some guilds have wars because of being outbid by a bigger guild with more funds

[mattp169]

I think not only will this happen
but one guild will some how get enough of the smaller guilds to bid enough on the cities they already own to prevent guilds who can win to have a chance at getting the city, thereby locking up the city, letting that guild devote the majority of their players on attacking a new city. This will let that one guild out pace the other big guilds and eventually dominate.

It will happen we all know it will, you can deny it all you want, but it will happen and kill the server.

And justiied...
Spec and groom may not team up
but spec might team up with another major player...and even though I am in the same guild I am just speculating,
Or maybe boo and groom team up or cut and groom or cut and spec or cut and boo, etc etc. It would only take one team up in the top 4 to end the server with this suggested change to GWF. And I think it would happen. The only counter is if the other 2 in top 4 teamed up as well. But depending on who teamed up with who and how many people they bring with them would determine the eventual outcome, and 1 guild would still dominate.

[Dawnseeker]

I edited my post about cities because people seemed to have skimmed it without reading and drawn the wrong conclusions. If we collapsed the bonuses from GW, we would only let guilds hold a single city in each tier.

So, in that case, at least 5 guilds would hold level 3 cities, 3 guilds level 4 cities, etc. At a minimum.

[xxdannisouthxx_7889427]

I edited my post about cities because people seemed to have skimmed it without reading and drawn the wrong conclusions. If we collapsed the bonuses from GW, we would only let guilds hold a single city in each tier.

So, in that case, at least 5 guilds would hold level 3 cities, 3 guilds level 4 cities, etc. At a minimum.

In other words, what's the point of GW then? Why not just give each guild a city when they reach a certain level?
Based on a few of the above posts the concern seems to be more focused on the maneuvering within a particular server, vice the welfare of the game as a whole. I don't see any particular solution that is going to solidify the holds guilds have on current cities, prevent anyone from threatening said hold, preventing anyone from preventing them from threatening another guild's hold (the post regarding small guild blocking/savvy political maneuvering). In other words, don't change anything and run the current scenario to its logical conclusion where rapid expansion occurs until every guild and/or player has his/her own server.

In a game based on warfare, which itself is the clash of irreconcilable wills attempting to exert force over one another, there seems alot of risk adversity. I think a combination of realm and server-wide PVP events is the best solution, offering a buffer for the entrenched and new frontiers for the adventurous. I certainly hope to see it.

[koja6049]

It is actually very simple to discourage big players grouping together into one big guild. By simply giving a penalty for big guilds.

Example, if the guild has a 100% rep buff, and the guild has 100 members, it is divided evenly so that each member only has 1% rep buff.

Also, can introduce an upkeep cost for the big guilds. like a daily contribution tax/rep tax multiply by guild level to stay in a guild.

You can think of many other ways too not limited to the above. This is the basic mechanism for game balancing, by boosting weaker players/guilds and penalizing bigger players/guild to a certain degree so that the gameplay evolves and gets more interesing

[Morgan le Fay]

My apologies Dawn I misunderstood. Although that would spread the benefits out and prevent a single dominant guild it kinda nerfs the point of having cities and taking part in guild wars. I know my guild friends are quite happy having a one round guild war for the rewards and buffs that come with it. They don't see the point of making it any more exciting for less than an hour a day.

As for nerfing the amount of people a guild can hold, I don't think it'll be fair to do that on established servers. Our guild has become like a family and it would unfair to pick and chose who stays and who goes.