GW/city Suggestion

[Cuddles_1461020]

I have a suggestion and would like feedback... +1, -1 etc

Introducing ... the GW handicap (that works like the Champ War)

The more cities/lands a defending guild controls, the opposing guild gets a +10% stat-boost (per city).
For example:
-- if dominant guild owns 8 cities (which is very common currently), then challengers get 80% boost (like World Boss bonus).
-- if dominant guild owns 5 cities and challenger owns 1, then challenger gets 50% boost defender gets 10% boost. etc


The reason this handicap makes sense is because it is harder for an Empire to fend off invasions as the empire has more borders to defend. Furthermore there are travel/deployment challenges (delays), that give a localized (barbarian) force an advantage to exploit the Empire's logistical weaknesses.

But more importantly, it prevents server-domination while increasing competition, without imposing a cap or limit.

[DrthCaedus]

It's an interesting Idea, but it would only really help the new servers (100+) on the older servers the dominant guilds have already progressed so much farther than the others that it wouldn't be a help. Also I think that an 80% boost is just too much. I prefer to just straight up put a cap on the number of cities allowed. 5 cites 66% of a specific level if there are multiples in a level.

[Cuddles_1461020]

Also I think that an 80% boost is just too much.

Yes I agree it is too much, but so is one guild controlling 8+ cities. And even the strongest /most organized empires have had great difficulty combining 8+ nations into one and defending them all. (we seem to be in agreement of *a* cap; the question is about whether to instill a cap per guild-level, city-limit, or the above handicap bonus like CW)

[jorgumander_7292057]

it would help on our server. We're the first merged server.

[Andy]

I proposed this in the Server Killers http://bbs.tynon.com/showthread.php?6209-Server-Killers tread and was completely ignored. This is what I proposed with some more detail and an alternative.

If what we are trying to fix is GW, how about some sort of handicap system, similar to what is used in CW, where the loosing Guild gets a power increase for the next fight? This will work on new and exiting servers. There would have to be some sort of time limit where the bonus is reset, mnay be they are reset each Sunday.

A better idea would be to have the bonus added every time when a player is healed, maybe 5% or 10% that way it would not carry over into the next days fight and there would be no complicated management of why gets what. There would be a limit on how much total boost each player can get. Maybe 50%

[Cuddles_1461020]

I proposed this in the Server Killers http://bbs.tynon.com/showthread.php?6209-Server-Killers tread and was completely ignored.

Yeah and I imagine mine/Andy's ideas are similar (the Handicap. I modeled mine after CW)

I put it here on its own thread hoping for some feedback.

[Andy]

I edited my post to include my idea posted in the other tread (that i no longer support) and an alternative. The basic difference between your idea and mine is that you based yours on the number of cities the defender has and mine is based on being killed, like in CW.

[Joker]

The way Gw is setup now is not too bad the problem is that players form super guild nd the servers go inactive, so instead of chaning the whole Gw setup we should get the city buffs changed so that they are not so game changing for a guild in case they hold them all. I remember dawnseeker also asking us for new city buff suggestions and imo i the lvl 4 city buff is changed people will not be so keen in forming a super guild in the server.

[DrthCaedus]

Personally I feel like neither of those ideas address and help to prevent to problem of guilds becoming too dominant, because in that scenario it is still likely that one guild can control all cities. I think that option should just be removed entirely. That is the only sure-fire way to prevent one guild progressing much faster than the rest on the server. It may create 2 uber-guilds instead of just one...but hey it's better than nothing.

[Andy]

Personally I feel like neither of those ideas address and help to prevent to problem of guilds becoming too dominant, because in that scenario it is still likely that one guild can control all cities. I think that option should just be removed entirely. That is the only sure-fire way to prevent one guild progressing much faster than the rest on the server. It may create 2 uber-guilds instead of just one...but hey it's better than nothing.

True, but my idea would make the less powerful guilds able to compete with stronger one and therefore be competitive. It will also work on exiting servers that have Uber=Guilds as long as there are other guilds that can be build up with the other players available in the Realm to be competitive. I prefer changing GW so that it can be competitive over changing the exiting buffs. If there is competition, one Guild will not be able to hold all the cities.

One problem is that there may not be Guilds of a sufficient level to attack all the cities that the Uber-guild has, but this can be fixed by removing the cooldown period from the Guild upgrade. It would still require the members of the non Uber Guild support the guild with contributions to be able to upgrade.