Server Killers

[Hellraiser_5484650]

Maybe we shouldnt take the server killers brand as a bad thing. Maybe its there way of coming out saying were doing a really great job working together. They probably just wish they could be as well coordinated as us.

[huling30_3141301]

I hate u all. this is the simplest post I can say

[Jewels]

I hate u all. this is the simplest post I can say

i hate u too my under cover guild mate

[Riot]

This sounds all too familiar for server 103 as well.

If they can't have the top players in their guild to benefit them, then they get all mad and start drama.

It would be good if there was also cross server guild war. This would make it more interesting.

[Morgan le Fay]

It's just something players say to the strongest guild when they can't fight the strong guild nor do they wish to leave their own guild. Complaining is all it is, really. If you can't beat them, join them; if you don't want to join them, then so be it -- don't complain about them dominating the server. That's how I see it.... This is a PvP game.

^This, exactly this.

And before everyone bleats on about city buffs (not saying they aren't a factor but in reality it's less of a problem then most think) I played Evony for 3 years. When an alliance or alliance family became a dominant force, it was all that alliance's fault for killing the server, taking all the big players, out farming everyone, taking away everyone else's chance to grow, in Age 2 daring to own all the Historic Cities etc etc. Those who complained never went to join that alliance, they'll rather moan about it instead.

There will always be a 'dominant' guild and no amount of changes will alter that. Jewels congratulations to your guild, whatever is said about uber guilds their dominance wasn't handed to them on a plate it was worked for. I will also extend thos congrats to all uber guilds on all servers. Well done chaps!

[Andy]

^This, exactly this.

And before everyone bleats on about city buffs (not saying they aren't a factor but in reality it's less of a problem then most think) I played Evony for 3 years. When an alliance or alliance family became a dominant force, it was all that alliance's fault for killing the server, taking all the big players, out farming everyone, taking away everyone else's chance to grow, in Age 2 daring to own all the Historic Cities etc etc. Those who complained never went to join that alliance, they'll rather moan about it instead.

There will always be a 'dominant' guild and no amount of changes will alter that. Jewels congratulations to your guild, whatever is said about uber guilds their dominance wasn't handed to them on a plate it was worked for. I will also extend thos congrats to all uber guilds on all servers. Well done chaps!

Actually there is a change that would force having more that one dtong guild, but it would not be easy to implement. Limit the total amount of power that Guild can have and also the number of top players. This would force the formation of multiple Guild that are competitive.

As I said, this is not easy to implement because the limits need to be relative to the total 'active' power in the server and defining who is a 'top player' would be hard.

[Riot]

It would be easier to set limit on how many cities 1 guidl an own. I proposed Guild level -2. Thus lvl 3 guild can own 1 city, level 4 = 2, lvl 5 = 3, lvl 6 = 4, lvl 7 = 5, lvl 8 = 6

[Morgan le Fay]

Actually there is a change that would force having more that one dtong guild, but it would not be easy to implement. Limit the total amount of power that Guild can have and also the number of top players. This would force the formation of multiple Guild that are competitive.

As I said, this is not easy to implement because the limits need to be relative to the total 'active' power in the server and defining who is a 'top player' would be hard.

But you'll be limiting the top players and forcing them out of guilds. So once a player had built up pass a certain point he/she wouldn't be able to join any guild. Whatever the argument for and and against uber guilds this is a very social game and that kind of implementation would kill it.

It would be easier to set limit on how many cities 1 guidl an own. I proposed Guild level -2. Thus lvl 3 guild can own 1 city, level 4 = 2, lvl 5 = 3, lvl 6 = 4, lvl 7 = 5, lvl 8 = 6

Ahhh see where your're going with that but the flaw is a lv8 guild would still have the best benefits. Yeah it'll slow it down but it won't change much in the long run. Lv8 guilds tends to have the highest rollers so gain the contribs faster. Once at lv8, will own the lv4s,6,7 and 8 cities. In short the best buffs and the most growth.

[hjam_8879649]

There are ways to make it a bit better for those who cant progress in GWs for whatever reason , but in the end, those with less are still going to bitch and complain becasue they dont have "as much" as the top guild on the server. So I dont really see making changes to GWs a cure for all the drama that takes place here and in game.

[Andy]

But you'll be limiting the top players and forcing them out of guilds. So once a player had built up pass a certain point he/she wouldn't be able to join any guild. Whatever the argument for and and against uber guilds this is a very social game and that kind of implementation would kill it.

True, it is too late to do it on established servers. Maybe it is something that they can do for Tynon II (I wish there was a 'tongue in cheek' smiley).