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'.



Reply With Quote