Dont like the new GW

[Dawnseeker]

it is a match when the defending guild has to defend 6 cities and can only spare 8 people. Second it's called tabs...when i used the 20 alts example it would only take 10 of those people running 2 of them, that's 3 tabs, not too difficult.

Its a good thing if guilds can't easily defend 8 cities at once. You have to prioritize and use strategy. And each of the fights will be a lot tougher. Sounds like a good thing overall.

[charles.molnar_8339810]

It depends on the server, Dawn. On mine, the dominant guild also controls a known alt guild with around forty members so that they can harvest maps from themselves.

[jd78_3604385]

A player on my server at 50m took out our guild (9 players) we had,total of around 350m.

[mattp169]

Its a good thing if guilds can't easily defend 8 cities at once. You have to prioritize and use strategy. And each of the fights will be a lot tougher. Sounds like a good thing overall.

Dawn

Seriously you dont get that this over powers small players and alts?

Cut the changes in half
and we get the effect you were going for without all the complaining
5% power boost per city
2 durabilty for a win
5 durabilty for a loss

There no reaosn why 1 50m power player sohuld take down a guild of ccombined power of 350m power

[charles.molnar_8339810]

Perhaps the durability loss should be tied to the power of the opposing player in the event of a victory. Loser has greater power than the victor, -5 durability to the victor; loser has 75-100% of the victor's power, -4 durability to the victor; loser has 50-74% of the victor's power, -3 durability to the victor; loser has 25-49% of the victor's power, -2 durability to the victor; loser has 24% or less of the victor's power, -1 durability to the victor. This would reflect the tiring nature of conflict while not allowing a swarm of twenty one million power players to eliminate someone like Execdude from a guild war entirely on their own.

If this were combined with the power bonuses afforded to guilds doing battle against seriously entrenched foes (those with more than three cities) it could balance things relatively well without skewing it in favor of a horde of low powered alts.

[amaka3128_738684]

This changes give to much power to alts for sure..
Also, in the Terms of Conditions: c. You shall not have more than one Account at any given time, and shall not create an account using a false identity or information, or on behalf of someone other than yourself.

So why are there even alts in this game? I personally hate them, and at 50m power I don't have any alt, which is very rare when I look at players at my server.. Some of them even have 5 or 6, just for the CW and farming them after.. I think the real problem is that there are actually alts allowed on servers.

[DrthCaedus]

This changes give to much power to alts for sure..
Also, in the Terms of Conditions: c. You shall not have more than one Account at any given time, and shall not create an account using a false identity or information, or on behalf of someone other than yourself.

So why are there even alts in this game? I personally hate them, and at 50m power I don't have any alt, which is very rare when I look at players at my server.. Some of them even have 5 or 6, just for the CW and farming them after.. I think the real problem is that there are actually alts allowed on servers.

It's not that they are allowed. They are expressely banned. The problem is because this is a free to play game it is very difficult to track players and determine if someone is an alt solely off of IP addresses. It takes weeks of data tracking player interaction, active times, etc. to determine with even a little certainty. Ucool simply does not have the staff, especially with the massive alt farm that is Evony to keep track of.

[trahevony_4745091]

.....especially with the massive alt farm that is Evony to keep track of.

What?!?!?! alts in evony....well i never....

[Cuddles_1461020]

There no reaosn why 1 50m power player sohuld take down a guild of ccombined power of 350m power

Welcome to my server. My life. I'm tired of soloing entire guilds. It's boring as hell. (Even sitting at B watching them attack in swarm/waves as my durability goes -1 every fight, also boring).

I'm so glad we lost a city with these new changes. FINALLY we have something to battle over. A challenge!

Perhaps the durability loss should be tied to the power of the opposing player in the event of a victory. Loser has greater power than the victor, -5 durability to the victor; loser has 75-100% of the victor's power, -4 durability to the victor; loser has 50-74% of the victor's power, -3 durability to the victor; loser has 25-49% of the victor's power, -2 durability to the victor; loser has 24% or less of the victor's power, -1 durability to the victor. This would reflect the tiring nature of conflict while not allowing a swarm of twenty one million power players to eliminate someone like Execdude from a guild war entirely on their own.

If this were combined with the power bonuses afforded to guilds doing battle against seriously entrenched foes (those with more than three cities) it could balance things relatively well without skewing it in favor of a horde of low powered alts.

+1. I had the same idea but a different scale.
My scale was different because of the following Question ... how do you differentiate between the new player and the alt?
Answer: the new player is between 5% to 25% your power. The alt is under 5% your power.

[sh0tyme83_7854100]

Its a good thing if guilds can't easily defend 8 cities at once. You have to prioritize and use strategy. And each of the fights will be a lot tougher. Sounds like a good thing overall.

Can someone please explain to me why this is a good thing? I don't see the logic at all behind this change. All that's going to happen is that lower power guilds are going to fight over rep cities. The big guilds will keep the coin cities, jengu, and the last two cities.