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 20 of 26 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 254

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

  1. #191
    Lightbringer ChickenWing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Hangmen
    Posts
    994
    Quote Originally Posted by Cuddles_1461020 View Post
    The only solution I can think of at the moment would be to remove the defending side's Offline-force but not the attackers'.
    Sounds good to me.

  2. #192
    I dont think defenders should be able to garrison past D...or hell Garrison at all, I dont understand why if youre the defender you get the initiative to "attack." Defenders are already stronger because of afk alt offliners. Something needs to change to offset afkers.

  3. #193
    Lightbringer
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    572
    Quote Originally Posted by Cuddles_1461020 View Post
    It gets a little bit tricky, because if you remove the massive wall of AFK defenders on BOTH sides, then you have the B --> A 1 turn GWs all over again. Same if you fix the durability to the way it was. Then we'd have the opposite problem (the old problem) of me soloing entire armies. *yawn*

    So the question is:
    How do you make B --> A turn1 a bad tactic, without having the massive wall of Offline defenders at G? The +20% at camp F doesn't help when you're at 50% power and the opponent outnumbers you 3 to 1 (because of AFK defenders).

    The only solution I can think of at the moment would be to remove the defending side's Offline-force but not the attackers'. (if the attacker doesn't succeed then defenders win anyway, so defenders don't need to defeat A anyway). If you remove both then it's B --> A charge turn1 game over.
    This update already massively shifted the advantage towards the attackers giving them huge power bonuses and putting the numbers in their favor. All that needs to happen is a shift in how durability is lost. Either scale it to HP lost, or half it to 2 lost for a win and 5 lost for a death, or even 2.5 for a win. the attackers don't need any more advantages. If anything logically it's the attackers who should have A cleared. the defenders would almost always have extra forces in their home base of defense who weren't out marching about.

  4. #194
    Lightbringer ChickenWing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Hangmen
    Posts
    994
    Quote Originally Posted by DrthCaedus View Post
    This update already massively shifted the advantage towards the attackers giving them huge power bonuses and putting the numbers in their favor. All that needs to happen is a shift in how durability is lost. Either scale it to HP lost, or half it to 2 lost for a win and 5 lost for a death, or even 2.5 for a win. the attackers don't need any more advantages. If anything logically it's the attackers who should have A cleared. the defenders would almost always have extra forces in their home base of defense who weren't out marching about.
    I don't understand how the attackers have an advantage. I tihnk it's the defenders who have an advantage.

    - Afk defence doesn't help take the city for the attackers, whereas afk defence helps defenders protect it.
    - Defenders start with a 20% buff, which either neglect the attacker's buff or boost their own.

    ALl the defenders have to do is stack afk defence in G and move their troops forward to diminish the attacker's durability. It works whatever the buff is.

  5. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenWing View Post
    I don't understand how the attackers have an advantage. I tihnk it's the defenders who have an advantage.

    - Afk defence doesn't help take the city for the attackers, whereas afk defence helps defenders protect it.
    - Defenders start with a 20% buff, which either neglect the attacker's buff or boost their own.

    ALl the defenders have to do is stack afk defence in G and move their troops forward to diminish the attacker's durability. It works whatever the buff is.
    What he said.

  6. #196
    Ironheart Cuddles_1461020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    +Scandal+
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by DrthCaedus View Post
    This update already massively shifted the advantage towards the attackers giving them huge power bonuses and putting the numbers in their favor. All that needs to happen is a shift in how durability is lost. Either scale it to HP lost, or half it to 2 lost for a win and 5 lost for a death, or even 2.5 for a win. the attackers don't need any more advantages. If anything logically it's the attackers who should have A cleared. the defenders would almost always have extra forces in their home base of defense who weren't out marching about.
    I don't quite understand the logic, but I like your two solution proposals (either run durability based on health-loss, or scaled back 2 / 5 durability loss)


    Cuddles' Law: The volume of a player's whine is directly proportional to his/her VIP level.

  7. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by Herby View Post
    This is a very good and effective way to balance out the negative buff the Crowns give.
    A win-win solution, if ever there was one.

    It gives other players a bigger chance to defeat the previous CWF winners, while giving Crown holders an incentive to keep on playing despite the increasingly difficult odds being stacked against them.



    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
    The losing side should lose -20 durability.

    Or make it so that the winning side loses durability based on a proportion relative to their opponents power.


    Opponent has 100% of attackers power or more : 5 durability lost
    Opponent has 80-100% of attackers power : 4 durability lost
    Opponent has 60-80% of attackers power : 3 durability lost
    Opponent has 40-60% of attackers power : 2 durability lost
    Opponent has 20-40% of attackers power : 1 durability lost
    Opponent has below 20% of attackers power : no durability lost

    Example: Round 1. Defenders garrisoned at B attack the base at A on round 1. Someone with 5mil power battles a guy with 3.5 mil power and wins. 3.5mil power is 70% of 5mil, therefore the 5mil player would lose 3 durability on winning that fight. Then he fights five 5k alts. 5k alts all get defeated by the 5mil guy and he loses no durability for fighting any of them since 5k is well below the 20% threshold of 5mil. You would need alts of at least a million power to take 1 durability off the 5mil player, since 1mil is 20% of 5mil.

    I feel that this idea would put the damper on alts, so that alts would no longer be used to spam guild wars battles at least. (People will still use them for other purposes anyways though)
    I'm not too sure I like Herby's idea entirely, since Maria can skew health lost in battle. However Herby is on the right track with his suggestion.

  8. #198
    That looks familiar, Perawind, and I like it just as much as when I wrote it a little while ago. I do NOT like losing no durability in a win regardless of power - there's always a price to pay in a battle, even if it's just being slightly out of breath.

  9. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by perawind_8762856 View Post
    Or make it so that the winning side loses durability based on a proportion relative to their opponents power.

    Opponent has 100% of attackers power or more : 5 durability lost
    Opponent has 80-100% of attackers power : 4 durability lost
    Opponent has 60-80% of attackers power : 3 durability lost
    Opponent has 40-60% of attackers power : 2 durability lost
    Opponent has 20-40% of attackers power : 1 durability lost
    Opponent has below 20% of attackers power : no durability lost

    Example: Round 1. Defenders garrisoned at B attack the base at A on round 1. Someone with 5mil power battles a guy with 3.5 mil power and wins. 3.5mil power is 70% of 5mil, therefore the 5mil player would lose 3 durability on winning that fight. Then he fights five 5k alts. 5k alts all get defeated by the 5mil guy and he loses no durability for fighting any of them since 5k is well below the 20% threshold of 5mil. You would need alts of at least a million power to take 1 durability off the 5mil player, since 1mil is 20% of 5mil.

    I feel that this idea would put the damper on alts, so that alts would no longer be used to spam guild wars battles at least. (People will still use them for other purposes anyways though)
    I'm not too sure I like Herby's idea entirely, since Maria can skew health lost in battle. However Herby is on the right track with his suggestion.
    If it's based on power... I would find ways to boost my power up... like putting magic attack on herja and stuff like that.

  10. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by g346007_1906957 View Post
    If it's based on power... I would find ways to boost my power up... like putting magic attack on herja and stuff like that.
    So would others. Preferable to seeing every lineup have Maria.

Posting Permissions

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