Patch: More Balanced Guild Warfare

[koja6049]

The fact that 20 players of ANY power can beat a player of ANY power saddens me. 20 alts of 5k power can bring down someone of 120M power, for example.... Add in a decent power player and a 60-80% bonus due to holding cities and you have yourself a bad time.

simple solution: hold less cities!

[ChickenWing]

The fact that 20 players of ANY power can beat a player of ANY power saddens me. 20 alts of 5k power can bring down someone of 120M power, for example.... Add in a decent power player and a 60-80% bonus due to holding cities and you have yourself a bad time.

That's only true if you hold all or most cities. I think it's a good thing that a guild can't hold everything. A stronger guild can hold more, and can decide what it wants to hold. It's still good to be the strongest.

Perhaps there is a problem with the durability thing. As people have mentioned, it makes alts way too important in GW.

[sh0tyme83_7854100]

There is this argument, and there's also the fact that the game can be fun and challenging. I think Tynon is trying to find a balance between both. Until this patch, the game was only PvE for most servers. Now, we have to fight to hold our cities. B to A is no longer a decent strategy. The ubber players will still be ubber, and the ubber guilds will still be stronger. It's just going to be more challenging.

What guild wars were you watching? I'm part of an ubber guild and have the 4th most power on our server and we lost 2 cities and I was beaten by a 16 mil person? That's not balanced. That's far from it. We also have a guy that is almost 200 mil power and he was even beaten down.

[ChickenWing]

What guild wars were you watching? I'm part of an ubber guild and have the 4th most power on our server and we lost 2 cities and I was beaten by a 16 mil person? That's not balanced. That's far from it. We also have a guy that is almost 200 mil power and he was even beaten down.

I'm on server 106. My guild is the ubber guild on the server, and we lost 2 cities tonight. I,ve seen people taken down in the same manner as you've mentionned. To be honest, I like it.

[Jewels]

I don't have a problem with not having all the cities -
my problem now is we will never be able to get rid of Koleton and it will add to our 3+ disadvantage!!!

[ChickenWing]

I don't have a problem with not having all the cities -
my problem now is we will never be able to get rid of Koleton and it will add to our 3+ disadvantage!!!

Wrong. You can have an alt guild of yours take it from you (unless the city level is too high).

[Jewels]

the work it would take to build up a alt guild (funds) from scratch to lvl5 to take koleton - would seriously drain the fun for people from the game -
I hate busy work in real life - not gonna start it here.

[mattp169]

well
II have said before that gwf did not work the way it was. Im not sure if this change make sit any better or if it makes it worse- yet. I do think however that they should have tried 1 change at a time. I think the durability change would have been good enough. I am not sure why holding 9 cities should give an guild of part time non paying customers with tiny little accts a 90% attack bonus. Im sure we will work it all out in the end, but this is interesting to say the least. I think may be over the top or it may be just what we need. Perhaps only a 5% attack bonus per city instead of 10% or lose 2 durability per win and 5 per loss. Im not sure I get why they chose such high numbers. This is a good attempt at the devs part to try and revitalize gwf. And this system may not be perfect yet. But could work out as is or may need some fine tuning. time will tell on this one. But some word form on high would be nice

[Deucalion]

well
II have said before that gwf did not work the way it was. Im not sure if this change make sit any better or if it makes it worse- yet. I do think however that they should have tried 1 change at a time. I think the durability change would have been good enough. I am not sure why holding 9 cities should give an guild of part time non paying customers with tiny little accts a 90% attack bonus. Im sure we will work it all out in the end, but this is interesting to say the least. I think may be over the top or it may be just what we need. Perhaps only a 5% attack bonus per city instead of 10% or lose 2 durability per win and 5 per loss. Im not sure I get why they chose such high numbers. This is a good attempt at the devs part to try and revitalize gwf. And this system may not be perfect yet. But could work out as is or may need some fine tuning. time will tell on this one. But some word form on high would be nice

Well in any case, it slows game play and income that much more. That is the goal, no doubt. Mission accomplished.

[ChickenWing]

Well in any case, it slows game play and income that much more. That is the goal, no doubt. Mission accomplished.

We should not always assume the worst from Tynon. People had been complaining a lot about Guild Warfare. They only listened to the complaints. As matt said, we will work it out and come up with some suggestions to fine tune it.