View Poll Results: Will these arrangements re-balance Guild Warfare and Championship Warfare?

Voters
212. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    66 31.13%
  • No

    108 50.94%
  • Some sort of

    33 15.57%
  • I don't know.

    6 2.83%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 26 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 254

Thread: Will these arrangements re-balance Guild Warfare and Championship Warfare?

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessetheone View Post
    As some of you guys said the changes in mechanisms of these 2 mini games in the last patch has sabotaged the balance, we’re thinking to make following changes to regain the balance. Please let us know how you like these ideas.

    Championship Warfare
    For players who participate in with stars above their names, they will get extra 10% to 20 % Tickets in every battle for each star they shall carry on.

    Guild Warfare
    We’ll significantly increase rewards for each battle players shall participate in.

    Please comment and we’ll collect your feedback. Thanks!
    I don't know exactly how the crowns will impact CWF, but I would have to guess not much. Each of the top 4 or 5 guys are probably going to have the same number of wins throughout the championship anyways. I mean think about it. It's the top 512 people spread across what 116 servers now. I made it last CWF and I only had 2 less wins than PussyRiot. Now this is obviously round wins. Are the crowns going to be given for individual fight wins?

    Before anything is done about G. Wars, it needs to be reverted back to original. We have about 6 fights a night and now that we lost two cities last night we might have 7. With these changes it is impossible for us to do anything about defending our 6 cities if we want to try and gain one back we lost last night.

    As far as just giving out more rewards that would work if you revert it back to the way it was. It would give losing guilds more of reason to join and play. Let's face it, most guilds don't really care about getting a rep city, they just want rewards for participating in g. wars. But the way it is now, has to change. A player loses WAY to much durability during fights. There is no reason a 76 mil player should lose to a 18 mil player 1 on 1.

  2. #12
    It is nice to have the appearance of a fair poll by posting for all to vote. It has been said every sever has one mega guild running all cities, with maybe 20 to 30 actives if lucky. That means the entire rest of the server also has a voice. Lets say 4 guilds also participate in GW on said server with aprx 10 to 15 players in those guilds. Which voice do you suppose will be louder?
    Last edited by Jakoda_6650940; 03-18-2014 at 06:39 PM.

  3. #13
    Lightbringer
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    572
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessetheone View Post
    As some of you guys said the changes in mechanisms of these 2 mini games in the last patch has sabotaged the balance, we’re thinking to make following changes to regain the balance. Please let us know how you like these ideas.

    Championship Warfare
    For players who participate in with stars above their names, they will get extra 10% to 20 % Tickets in every battle for each star they shall carry on.

    Guild Warfare
    We’ll significantly increase rewards for each battle players shall participate in.

    Please comment and we’ll collect your feedback. Thanks!
    I Don't feel like the CW needs to be tweaked at all yet. Very few have actually complained about it and we haven't had a chance to watch it actually have an effect, if any. Most of the complaints are knee jerk reactions by traditional power houses who are afraid their easy income will take a hit. I hope it does, but it might not even matter because they have already so far outpaced the rest of the field it's insane. I think one of the best solutions would just be to force top 4-8 to sit out from fighting 2 CW's and give them a 100% ticket bonus during that time. Should more than compensate them while allowing the field to catch up.

    The GW's needs to be re-evaluated. My guild on 82 is the most populated, contains 8 out of the top 12 and 13 out of the top 24 power players on the server. holding 1-5 by a fair margin. We have always strategically planned our GW's that is why we have been able to hold all the cities. In all our battles we had our opponents outmatched. losing 5 durability a fight until we lost and lost an additional 10 is just far too much. After 1 battle at B or D we were almost all scratched already being taken down to 70% power and if we hadn't died low health. We had 6 fights and lost 2 only because the opposing side had alts in a battle we would normally have won easily. Not to mention they had a huge power boost because we held 9 cities. I agree with Matt. Everything should be halved 5% power for maximum of 50% and lost 2 durability per win. We've always lost 10 so I think that can say the way it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaBooMan View Post
    Although we haven't needed to for a while we have still always divided our power into the cities we had to defend never took anyone for granted.
    This way the new GW change has made very little difference to us.
    I know some other guilds on server lost cities due to not planning GW as they should.
    A bit judgmental when you don't know what it's like. We plan very well every night due to usually fighting 5-7 battles if we're lucky 4. This just gives far to huge of an advantage to a small attacking force and is asking for large amounts of alts to be created. It needs to be re-evaluated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Riot View Post
    CWF:
    I do like this changes being proposed. It provides more of a balance, however, it would be good to put a progression and a cap on both sides and when the person starts to lose the CWF's they should also start to lose the stars 1 at a time.

    I would like to suggest a progressive star buffs:
    1 - 3 stars 5% boost to the opponent = 10% extra ticket per level (to the crown holder)
    4 - 5 = 4% boost each crown = 12% extra ticket per level
    6 - 7 = 3% boost each crown = 14% extra ticket per level
    8 - 10 = 2% boost each crown = 16% extra ticket per level

    Cap at 10 = 35% boost and 130% extra ticket

    The reason for the inverse proportion is due to the difficulty of winning at the higher crown levels.

    GWF:
    Durability needs to be adjusted to balance out a guild full of ALTS or enforcement of alts by Tynon.
    If the alts cannot be enforced (which is against the TOS of Tynon), then I would suggest a progressive durability loss based on health as I seen on Herby's post.

    Thank you for gathering our suggestions.
    Could you quit looking out solely for yourself? There is no need to adjust CW, there hasn't been a problem with it yet. And the crown system will balance itself out over time already. The point of the system is to cause people like PR, ED, and Bubba to lose CW. They shouldn't then lose crowns and make it easier for them to win next time. It's intended to make them fight for it more and give other players a chance. Leave it alone and let's see how it works out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lockecole_5393515 View Post
    Whats to keep the other guild from making alts? Why not just make appropriatly powered players fight each other, so your biggest guy can hit their biggest guys, and unless youre HUGELY outnumbered, you'll win that way, since its a 1:4 ratio in win/loss durability, unless the other team has 50+ heros to your ten, you'll win every time. And honestly if you have to split your small guild up that much then you shouldnt be holding that many cities. Nothing keeping you from inviting more members/making alts, and if you dont want to, accept the fact that you shouldnt own 4 cities.
    You don't seem to understand, this gives far to great an advantage to the attacking guilds. An attacking force of 15 shouldn't be able to take out a defending force of 8 with more than double the power, but the system gives the attackers a 45% power boost and then forces most of us to drop to 70% power within 2 fights giving the attackers an additional 30% power boost in relation to us for 75%. It's just to out of balance and needs to be adjusted. Don't get me wrong, I want it to be a competition again, but not a one way slaughter of the guilds that have worked their asses off to level, take, recruit, and hold everything. When you have the majority of the power and the largest population on the server you shouldn't be easily taken out. Gain a little perspective.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Herby View Post
    The problem with the new rules in Guild Wars is that strong players are now being spammed with tons of alts to get their durability down to 1. Alliance leaders have even asked their members to create multiple alts each, no matter how small, in order to whittle down the enemies big players. Increasing rewards for players will not do anything to change this.

    Some suggestions:

    1.
    Make durability loss of the winning side proportional to health left.
    - 80-100% hp remaining = 5 dura loss.
    - 60-80% hp left = 4 dura loss.
    - 40-60% hp left = 3 dura loss
    - 20-40% hp left = 2 dura loss
    - 1-20% hp left = 1 dura loss
    [U]The losing side should lose -20 durability.
    Get this done asap, Tynon, and let the big players feel big again! Or better yet, scale it based on power: someone of equal power fighting will lose 5 durability when they win; beating someone 20% less power will give -4 durability, beating someone of 40% less power will give -3 durability, etc. That way making 20 new alts would not be a viable tactic as they would only give -1 durability...not as helpful as -5 durability like it is now.
    -- Neriya, Beauty of Aphrodite, Server 78.

  5. #15
    Im waiting, I want to see how gwf will go now that we don't own all of them. After losing 3 of 10, will the attackers still be able to mow us over? Or will it now be a actual fight to keep what we have?
    Yeah Yeah, I know I don't look like that, but a girl can dream.

  6. #16
    [/U]2.
    Disallow players who have the same IP and/or MAC address from logging in more than 1 avatar in the same guild wars city battle.[/QUOTE]

    My boys and I both play tynon on the same laptop how would this affect it?

  7. #17
    Lightbringer
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    572
    Quote Originally Posted by lugnut_fxi_6829524 View Post
    [/U]2.
    Disallow players who have the same IP and/or MAC address from logging in more than 1 avatar in the same guild wars city battle.
    My boys and I both play tynon on the same laptop how would this affect it?[/QUOTE]

    It would make you unable to play at the same time. IP restrictions aren't effective for this sort of thing. College campuses often have the same IP across the whole campus, same with some apartment complexes. Or what if RL friends get together and play in a coffee shop or something? too many negative repercussions.

  8. #18
    Lightbringer
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    572
    Quote Originally Posted by Herby View Post
    Do you honestly think RL friends get together and play tynon together?

    Be realistic please.
    I do...maybe you shouldn't make assumptions and be a presumptive obnoxious jack ass...

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by sh0tyme83_7854100 View Post
    I don't know exactly how the crowns will impact CWF, but I would have to guess not much. Each of the top 4 or 5 guys are probably going to have the same number of wins throughout the championship anyways. I mean think about it. It's the top 512 people spread across what 116 servers now. I made it last CWF and I only had 2 less wins than PussyRiot. Now this is obviously round wins. Are the crowns going to be given for individual fight wins?
    I think it's supposed to make it so after the top 4-5 players get a lot of wins, the 6-10th top players would then have a shot at getting first.

    Edit: and something does need to be done about GW

  10. #20
    Ironheart Cuddles_1461020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    +Scandal+
    Posts
    317
    I'm glad that we're all looking for solutions here (instead of whining).

    Overall I like the change Tynon has done, but it may have been done a little too extreme. 1 to 2 durability loss ratio (win/lose) is a bit high. Losers losing 20 durability (-5 for winner) seems a bit more realistic ..... and it stands to reason that weenie opponents would drain less durability than a challenger drains.

    I like the scale, but I do have a concern with it, and I'll give an example:
    Let's say I am a 100mil power player. And I go B --> A solo vs the following power people:
    -- a 55m power player
    -- 42m
    -- 35m
    -- 27m
    -- 25m
    -- 5 players between 15m and 19m
    -- 5 players between 10m and 15m
    -- 5 players between 5m and 10m
    -- 5 players between 1m and 5m
    -- 15 players under 1m

    I lose only 10 durability to the top5, and 1 durability to all the rest. I win easily with 55 durability remaining, having solo'ed 40 people.
    *note: I'm tired of soloing armies. It's boring as hell. Please for the love of God give me a challenge.

    The difference between an alt and a new player is
    alt is under 1mil power typically
    new players are between 1m to 20m.
    In other words, by doing -1 durability to less than 20% health, this penalizes new players and not alts. The alts are about 1 to 5% health of their rivals! (new players between 5 to 20%).


    Here's a scale that I propose (to try to differentiate between new player and the alt)
    - when facing a foe 50%+ their power = 5 dura loss. <--- the weaker rival
    - when facing a foe 30-50% their power = 4 dura loss. <--- the standard semi-active player
    - when facing a foe 10-30% their power = 3 dura loss <--- the standard new player
    - when facing a foe 5-10% their power = 2 dura loss <--- the very new player, or beefed up alt
    - when facing a foe under 5% their power = 1 dura loss <--- the standard alt

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •