with the terribel rewards for placing under top 5 i would say: NO THX
with the terribel rewards for placing under top 5 i would say: NO THX
Situations like this are the main reason why a change in the Guild War system is needed.Originally Posted by smile4me2000_8923318
Players from servers 1-10 are too spoiled and don't want their precious 8 or 9 city total buffs taken away from them. They don't want to fight other big guilds everyday over these cities.
Jus my openion but the GW change and the Arena change would be horrible. Now if you were to add a separate Arena server for all players, to compete say Mon-Sat and set ur heros just for that specific event and confirm hero set up, which allows you to throw ur hat in the ring per sey, then have say Tierd rewards for all, the better rewards for top 100, top 50 top 10 then top 1-3 . That would be interesting....Awards collected on sunday and starts all over again on Mon.
I have characters in both large (servers 1-10) and small (servers 11+) games. A few comments ...
1) If you combine all arenas, then realms serve no real purpose. I strongly recommend keeping separate arenas. Consider giving the number six position a bigger bonus, because they get taken over by everyone larger than them (who they presumably cannot defeat) and cannot lose rank when defeated. Of concern is the ability for a big player at #1 to "lock down" the arena by consistently capturing the stakes. In addition to capturing all of the prizes, this prevents competitors from moving up in the arena. Suppose a player at number eight can defeat the #3 opponent. However, the #1 player consistently takes the #3 players stake, then the #8 player cannot move up to a higher position as they must fight the #1. There should be some way to move up without fighting for the stake.
2)Guild warfare on servers 1-10 needs to be grandfathered, due to all of the time spent organizing everything there. It would be a bit like changing the rules for a football game at halftime. What would make more sense would be adding a single, world wide location to each level with different benefits. For example: Beastiary- +5% experience from monsters killed. This could be added as a level 3 city to every server without unbalancing the game. It would give the big servers (1-10) something to really fight guild wars over, and provide another target for the smaller servers as well.
Herby,
It is not the fact we are spoiled. ALOLof us on servers 1-10 played beta. We joined live with a strategy. Many of us have changed the specifics of our strategy, but the over all strategy has stayed the same.
If any of us form beta who started 1-10 would go to a new server, we would employ different strategies because of how GWF is setup on those servers. SO to change a major part of the game, even though it may all just be a monotonous series of garrison B attack A every day, will make parts of our strategy useless, and we would have done totally different things from Day 1 if GWF was setup like it is on servers 11+.
So any change to GWF that does not allow the guilds to maintain what they already have ruins alot of work and strategy employed from Day 1 by the players. If we wanted to have GWF like 11+ we could just go play on those servers. However I will say base don many of the comments on the forums, The setup on 11+ is not a good idea period. On most servers it creates 1 uber guild that no other guild will ever be able to compete with.
I do agree theres really no competition on servers 1-10 for GWF at this point and many of us would like some type of inter-realm competition. But changing GWF on 1-10 to 11+ setup is not the answer.
Many very nice suggestions have been made not only in this thread but on other threads, and most of those ideas involve adding new content without undoing what has already been accomplished.
And before anyone argues that what we have on servers 1-10 which is 1 guild per realm being an uber guild and owning the realm, and just having 1 uber guild on the whole server owning everything like 11+ is basically the same thing I would say this:
On servers 1-10 we can add simple changes such as new content (ie. new cities any realm can attack or realm wars )and radically shake up the server, possibly breathing new life, excitement and money into the server and game without destroying the server. Make those same changes on 11+ and nothing happens.
I am all for some form of inter-realm warfare provided it is separate from the current make up of GWF.
Last edited by mattp169; 10-02-2013 at 06:16 PM.
I'd like to address what you see as "spoiled" with city buffs. It is true that there is one dominating guild on every realm, owning all the cities to get buffs. It is not that we are "spoiled" but rather, as matt said, have played since beta start. Much time, effort and money have been invested in these accounts. Many are high in power, high in levels, and things get much more expensive to upgrade. No acct can grow on what you get from assistant, arena award, daily income. The buffs from these cities are as vital to maintaining and growing accts and if taken away, many would suffer. It already takes ever increasing amts of gems, credits and gold to earn what you need for upgraded gear, talents, blacksmith. Most of these accts have invested a LOT in guilds to get them to the levels to get the cities to get the buffs.
Guild War, or Glitch Wars many now call them (lol), are but one event. I loved GW, when it was competitive. I would still love it if it were, but to change it now would be a step backwards. I believe, using exp on beta still, that it still leads to uber guilds that will, in time, load up and own them all, or maybe two guilds will battle it out. I think it's just the way it works in present. I'd agree that an additional event would be a better opportunity to bring back some excitement and challenge.
Ragnarok is auto - king of the hill = no skill, no strategy. LadyG is boring, and the earnings barely make it worth spending an hour a day. Arena is really just a way to earn more awards, any major movement or progress is limited at best, and yes the #1 spot has all the advantage. Banishes are fun, but there again, its generally the same people who win consistently. The recent changes in Carribean Pirates has totally changed that as well. To the negative. What used to be fun, and challenging has now turned into a dull, limited daily event where i don't really think more are getting across. Revenges were limited. It really is moving away from a true wargame to farmville ... all in response to whiners and low accts. imho.
I think don't change to the 1 GW system, or 1 arena. 1 Arena would be like taking the stats page, and put bubbles over our heads. Back to the drawing board for a different solution, hopefully an additional event.
Mattp169, you last post says it all. Tynon is an online game. So tell me why they would have 10 servers one way and the other 100 they have a different way. The game should be the same across the board on all servers period. After all its Tynon, not Tynon and Tynon 2. I play Tynon I didn't sign up to play Tynon 2. So why would it be any different if I logged onto server 1 or server 100.
Bottom line is something is going to change on servers 1-10 so everyone weather they like it or not better get used to that one single fact. Tynon is not going to continue to service 2 separate games the way it is now such as on servers 1-10 and then 11+.
Now added content is needed without a doubt in order for this to continue to be a long term game. Especially the way this game is setup now. The further along you get into a server, the longer you get stuck at quests etc. Which really drag out and make the game very boring at times.
I have to agree that something has to give. The problem is deciding what exactly that is. On one hand, you have servers 1 - 10, in which Guild Warfare is still realm based, and on the other, you have server wide GWF. weighing the pro's and cons... Look at activity on servers 1 - 10 compared to 11+. This could be a clue as to what needs to be done... OR it could be mere coincidence. It also could be the fact that alot of the server 1 - 10 players actually came from the beta and haven't moved on to new servers as quickly as tynon staff predicted they would. I am honestly thinking the latter, because of the gaps in adding content. It seems they weren't prepared for people to advance so fast and were banking on the fact that people would server jump to stay with the action. The fact remains that servers 11+ are way less active than 1 - 10. Tynon staff should have more of an insight as to the account creation habits between the 2 sets of servers and should look at those and the habits of new players to decipher the alts from real players, and add that into their consideration as well. We know where I stand on this issue from my multiple posts in this thread and others. I'd much rather see content added, but justified brings a great point that they can't serve 2 different version of the game at this point. My suggestion is still on the board for "Realm Warfare" instead of "Cross Realm Guild Warfare, and I would REALLY LOVE to see it implemented. This is my view on the matter.
VillainX - Wrath of Odin - Dark Realm - \/\/h○®εh○µ§ε
They did with Evony. For a long time there were medal drops from NPCs on the early servers, which were removed from the later. In Age 2, the first 19 servers are colonise only as oppose from na20 onwards where the attack button was implemented. There is precendant for this.
If they were going to change it to a server GW, they would've done so on the creation of s11+. There wouldn't be any point in Tynon having a feedback thread if there were going to do it anyway, they clearly wish to consider what the player base wants.
It's clear from even skimming this thread, few people want any changes to GWs or the Arena, except possibly added content. I've already offered up my opinion and if Tynon are as keen as I think there are about keeping the player base happy they will keep these two events as they are.
Forum Moderators are volunteers and are unable to fix in game problems
VillianX I agree with you that there is more players active on servers 1-10 than there are on servers 11+. However this is due to one significant fact. Tynon created servers 1-10 very slowly and allowed these servers to actually get full. However from server 11+ they started creating a new server every so many days weather the server was full or not. This is a fact regardless of what tynon wants to say. All you have to do is look at the number of players on the servers. Now this may b because they used larger servers on 1-10 than they did on servers 11+, or a different virtual setup. That I can not tell you. However with this being stated, it will also force tynon to merge servers somewhere down the path in order to keep the actual active players there.
Posting Permissions
