Guild Wars - an idea ....

[roy.ant_8586481]

I'd like to propose an idea of some minor adjustments to GW that I think could help the farce that this has turned into on some servers.

Firstly the background from the main server that I play:

One player is clearly dominant on the server (and because of him his guild is dominant), he has more than twice the power of the 2nd strongest player.
Four of the top seven players on the server are in a guild in a different realm to the top player.
Then the final realm has a fairly strong guild with 4 of the top 10 players.

In theory this should make some entertaining GW's, with some strategy on where you place your players to defend or attack etc. However ......

There is an agreement between the top 2 guilds that the one with the dominant player will hold 3 rep cities, and 2 gold cities, and they will gift 1 rep and 1 gold city to the other guild.
They have "mock" battles each day to get the rewards and as such can put all of their players against the 3rd guild when they challenge.

I've been thinking about how you "force" guild wars to actually be wars instead of this predetermined behaviour, and I've come up with the following idea's:

1) You must select an action every round in GW, including the option to hold your position. If you do not select an action for a certain number of rounds (2 or 3?) then you are removed from the battle.
2) If the battle is a draw because both sides have all of their players removed from the battle then the city is lost to NPC
3) If all players choose to hold position for a certain number of rounds (2-3) then a random player from each side is removed from the battle
4) There is a random opportunity to have a city attacked by NPC (maybe every 4th day an NPC attack occurs), essentially this would require a battle similar to taking over an NPC owned city. The longer your guild has owned the city the higher the power of the NPC that you have to defeat.
5) If you have not faced an attack on your city for a certain number of days (5?) then you will face an NPC attack.

Any player removed from the battle will not be eligible for the rewards.
Another idea that I like is to turn off server and private chat while GW is active.

I'm sure there's better idea for events and changes, however in my opinion this would be relatively simple to implement, not a huge change to the current, and would create a more competitive environment.

[KimmiKiss_7957669]

I like this idea, this has occur on our server as well, one guild has all cities and has given cities to another guild and the 3rd guild is a dupe guild with all their dupe accounts in it.

[JezebelMD_6540395]

I'd like to propose an idea of some minor adjustments to GW that I think could help the farce that this has turned into on some servers.

Firstly the background from the main server that I play:

One player is clearly dominant on the server (and because of him his guild is dominant), he has more than twice the power of the 2nd strongest player.
Four of the top seven players on the server are in a guild in a different realm to the top player.
Then the final realm has a fairly strong guild with 4 of the top 10 players.

In theory this should make some entertaining GW's, with some strategy on where you place your players to defend or attack etc. However ......

There is an agreement between the top 2 guilds that the one with the dominant player will hold 3 rep cities, and 2 gold cities, and they will gift 1 rep and 1 gold city to the other guild.
They have "mock" battles each day to get the rewards and as such can put all of their players against the 3rd guild when they challenge.

I've been thinking about how you "force" guild wars to actually be wars instead of this predetermined behaviour, and I've come up with the following idea's:

1) You must select an action every round in GW, including the option to hold your position. If you do not select an action for a certain number of rounds (2 or 3?) then you are removed from the battle.
2) If the battle is a draw because both sides have all of their players removed from the battle then the city is lost to NPC
3) If all players choose to hold position for a certain number of rounds (2-3) then a random player from each side is removed from the battle
4) There is a random opportunity to have a city attacked by NPC (maybe every 4th day an NPC attack occurs), essentially this would require a battle similar to taking over an NPC owned city. The longer your guild has owned the city the higher the power of the NPC that you have to defeat.
5) If you have not faced an attack on your city for a certain number of days (5?) then you will face an NPC attack.

Any player removed from the battle will not be eligible for the rewards.
Another idea that I like is to turn off server and private chat while GW is active.

I'm sure there's better idea for events and changes, however in my opinion this would be relatively simple to implement, not a huge change to the current, and would create a more competitive environment.

So because you happen to be on a server that has only 1 power guild you suggest Tynon put in effect rules that pentalises all servers?? The server I'm on has 3 high level guilds and a couple that can take a city if there's a major battle between the big guys. A very important part of all the guilds strategies is the placing of members that can't physically be there for whatever reason. And, of course, those attacking have to figure a way to get around this strategy. That's actually part of the fun of the guild wars.

I understand the frustration of being on a server where one guild has all the power. I was on one like that and moved. And servers with that sort of imbalance usually end up relatively dead. Since mergers have finally started, I'm sure there will be a change on these servers anyway.

[Revan]

So wait... You are saying that we should have to keep moving rather than wait for reinforcements. And that it should be rather difficult for all of the cities to be held by players on most servers even if they are owned by different guilds.

[JezebelMD_6540395]

So wait... You are saying that we should have to keep moving rather than wait for reinforcements. And that it should be rather difficult for all of the cities to be held by players on most servers even if they are owned by different guilds.

What I'm saying is that taking a player out because he/she hasn't moved in however many turns isn't the solution. It's an integral part of the strategy of a guild on just where to place the members that can't be actively present. And, as for moving, well if you want to continue to be on a server where one guild owns everything then stay there.

[roy.ant_8586481]

So wait... You are saying that we should have to keep moving rather than wait for reinforcements. And that it should be rather difficult for all of the cities to be held by players on most servers even if they are owned by different guilds.

Sorry, maybe this wasn't entirely clear. If ALL players choose to hold position. Essentially this only intended to eliminate the mock battles where a guild attacks a city purely for the GW rewards, never intending to actually fight because they have an agreement in place on who owns the city.

Yes, it would be difficult for guilds to hold all cities, but whats the point of playing if its too easy.

[ChickenWing]

1) You must select an action every round in GW, including the option to hold your position. If you do not select an action for a certain number of rounds (2 or 3?) then you are removed from the battle.

I especially despise this idea. Making it in time for GW is sometimes really hard. Having the option to be afk defence is just normal. Afk defence isn't as good as active defence, so I don't see why we should be penalized even more.

3) If all players choose to hold position for a certain number of rounds (2-3) then a random player from each side is removed from the battle

Not a good idea either. It's a good strategy to hold D, for instance, when you are defending. I don't see why we should have that option removed.

2) If the battle is a draw because both sides have all of their players removed from the battle then the city is lost to NPC

I don't agree with this either. The negative side is that, sometimes, a defending player who manages to get a draw when defending really did a good job. Attacking the attacker's city is impossible, but defending is possible. This usually happens when there is a lot of afk defence in the attacking guild.

4) There is a random opportunity to have a city attacked by NPC (maybe every 4th day an NPC attack occurs), essentially this would require a battle similar to taking over an NPC owned city. The longer your guild has owned the city the higher the power of the NPC that you have to defeat.
5) If you have not faced an attack on your city for a certain number of days (5?) then you will face an NPC attack.

I like those ideas! They could certainly spice things up a bit.


Overall, I think your ideas are geared towards preventing ubber guilds from making agreements together. However, you neglect to take into account how your ideas would affect normal guild wars. I believe they would prevent a lot of the strategy currently going on.

[DrthCaedus]

I can support 1, 4, and 5. 1 because I like how much more realistic it makes it. In an actual battle if someone can't make it or shows up late they aren't magically fighting anyway, Force them to show up or possibly lose the city. This would help keep GWs more competitive. 4 and 5 are wonderful ideas. It would be nice to have a difficult NPC challenge. As it sits right now my guilds GW consist of us showing up, garrisoning in B and then marching A on the first round. Would be fun to structure it so we had to fight a whole GWs.

[MisChief]

No. That is too restrictive for people who don't do that. It's a mess now, and has lag and glitches from time to time. If they tried to do all that I cannot imagine the mess!! What if someone logs in late? What if someone somehow is glitched into the wrong city, as happens fairly often. I am for leaving GW as is. You can't redefine a whole event due to one server's '"deal".

[KimmiKiss_7957669]

I honestly think it shouldnt allow afk players to defend, that you should have to JOIN the fight like it says. Just saying. If you wanna keep your city then you better be there to defend it.