Something needs to be done soon - the amount of new 'players/alts' is escalating and i don't think that is what tynons motivation to the patch was...
Something needs to be done soon - the amount of new 'players/alts' is escalating and i don't think that is what tynons motivation to the patch was...
Why are we being lectured on what is "fair" by those who monopolized their 9+city servers and chased away server population?
Cuddles' Law: The volume of a player's whine is directly proportional to his/her VIP level.
i actually like the GWmore exciting
but the durability is an issue and would like to see -2 or -3 per win and -5 or -6 per loss.
buff?.... i think its ok, but 5% - 6% per city would be better balance IMO
I agree. Needs more refining.Originally Posted by Riot
i actually like the GW
but the durability is an issue and would like to see -2 or -3 per win and -5 or -6 per loss.
buff?.... i think its ok, but 5% - 6% per city would be better balance IMO
Being used as lab rats on untested patch. Then hung out to dry and losing buffs not equal across the board. Being criticized for not using strategy against forces we had no control over with buffs that didn't allow for any strategy when they run you over. This is Tynon's idea of fixing GW. Which doesn't affect so many. They will continue to hold all the cities, not affected by any of this and very quick to judge and say yah it's great. (But not in my backyard)
we gave way 3 rep cities and lost 1 coin due to miscalculation of patch effect since yesterday.
we will get it back over time and we aren't not too worried about it. now we have 4 city buffs
i agree cities should be rewarded to other deserving guilds who try hard.
No one is taking into account the huge disparity between servers
*1-10 - 5 realms - each realm holds cities and fights their own gw's (goin out on a limb but guessing they only have 1 fight a night)
*10+ 3 realms and server wide gw's
*some servers dead with only 1 guild with cities and maybe a alt or small guild to provide gw's
*a newer server with a PR (riot) that is so out of the box huge
*or a server like ours 71 with 4-5 guilds doing battle in gw's each night
the patch probably doesn't effect each type of server in the same way (as listed above)
and i agree that being told "use strategy now" when thats how we got the cities and had kept them when fighting 3-4 wars a night is a unfair statement when 'you' don't play on our server.
when u fight 4 wars against huge numbers and are trying to split your 20 core players between all 4, then post how your strategy has helped keep those cities.
Last edited by Jewels; 03-20-2014 at 05:01 AM.
You are mostly correct. But for one thing - server 2, 5 realms, but we have on avg 5 battles per nite. There are several small guilds that bid, and one big one here. So for us/me, it was never 1 fight per night. The big guild and us were/are very close in power, so when the city buffs were added to them it was ugly. (for us) For the other 4 realms here that is not the case.
I'll put in a table to refine it then. Maybe some others could comment on it and instead of just complaining we can offer the devs a solution.
Durability Loss in Guild Wars
(Based on Loser's Power compared to Victor's Power, WITH power adjustments for cities owned)
Loser < 10% Victor's Power: Victor -1 Durability
Loser 10% - 25% Victor's Power: Victor -2 Durability
Loser 26%-50% Victor's Power: Victor -3 Durability
Loser 51%-75% Victor's Power: Victor -4 Durability
Loser 75% - 100% Victor's Power: Victor -5 Durability
Loser 100%+ Victor's Power: Victor -6 Durability
With Real Numbers:
Assuming a victorious player with 100M power facing ten enemies: five 5M power alts; three 30M power real players; one 60M power player; one 80M power player; winning all ten fights, with control of eight cities as compared to the attackers (who then receive a 50% buff)
Each 5M power alt: buffed to 7.5M: < 10% of victor's power: victor loses 1 durability per win (-5 total)
Each 30M power : buffed to 45M each: 45% of victor's power: victor loses 3 durability each (-9 total)
The 60M power: buffed to 90M: 90% of victor's power: victor loses 5 durability (-5)
The 80M power: buffed to 120M: 120% of victor's power: victor loses 6 durability (-6)
The grand total durability loss is now -25 to the victorious 100M (if indeed she was victorious, facing all those foes including the last one). Rigors of war reflected, vastly smaller guilds given a chance to unseat existing superpowers, if they coordinate. By the same token, those with superior tactics and formation strategies, though they can beat much stronger players, also suffer from damages as they do so.
In the real world we call that a 'proposed solution' instead of 'pointless harping without any ideas how to fix things'.
You cannot compare power levels to determine durability loss.
Power is too easily manipulated.
I will reiterate my proposal:
Use how much HP a player loses in each fight, to determine the durability loss of the winner for that fight.
The less hp lost in a fight, the less durability lose for the winner.
Therefore, small alts will only do -1 durability loss to "real" players.
0-10% hp lost -1 dura
11-20% hp lost -2 dura
21-30% hp lost -3 dura
31-40% hp lost -4 dura
41-99% hp lost -5 dura
This corresponds to how a fight really happens, as more "health" a unit loses, the less effective it will be in future fights (durability loss).
Losers of any fight should lose -10 durability, regardless of how much hp they chop off the winner.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote