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 3 of 25 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 254

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

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Justice
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post

    Thanks for the feedback guys.

    I can say that we definitely don't want one guild holding every city, as has been happening. It's not interesting if a there's no chance for losing

    If this is the true end goal then limit the cities one guild can hold. That would include every guild on every server, and not single out the few realms or servers that have only one or 2 with any real challenge for them. If you don't then people may flock more to the big guilds that easily hold all the buff cities to get the benefits, rather than make GW more competitive. It's just discouraging to see what you worked hard for, fought for every nite, swept away with a few keystrokes by Devs. I reiterate, this was not tested prior to being put on. Unannounced, and really unexplained just how the mechanics worked. Defending guild could not see this extra city buff, and therefore were left baffled as to why it was so slanted. No one changed anything, no alts were poured into the guild on either side, but the change was drastic. Again we say; "We have just been Tynoned" Bent over and .........

  2. #2
    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.


    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]



    sounds like very very good suggestions!! the gwf now is pathetic - tons of tiny alts run amok on the dura of real players.

  3. #3
    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.

  4. #4
    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.

  5. #5
    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.

  6. #6
    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.

  7. #7
    Lightbringer
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    572
    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.
    first...wouldn't really effect you that much. Second it's silly to base it on power. No reason I should lose 5 durability when I beat a player that can only take 1 more hit due to having fought plenty of other battles only because they happened to start with the same power or more than me. Best solution is scale it with lost health from 1-10 1 durability for ever 10% so:

    0-10%=1
    11-20%=2
    ad infinitum

  8. #8
    Well to be honest NOONE knows how many people are unhappy withe CWF change. About 3 people on the forums said they think its unfair to the past winners, and 10 or more said they like it as is. SO even though 1 of the 3 complainers is the biggest spender, I am not sure it needs changed yet and before you make an adjustment you should let a couple cwfs play out to see if the crown system even changes anything


    In regards to GWF though we have had 6 or more people who have never posted or posted in a very limited fashion complain about these changes plus plenty of regular forum players. SO I think that says that the changes are so drastic that it has brought people to the forums to complain so a change may be necessary.

    Increasing rewards does not solve the issue this change made which is basically the 20 smallest players on the server could take a city form the 20 strongest.

    While I sort of like the concept that was done I think it went way too far at once. I suggest one of the following tweaks.

    1.Cut everything you did in half.
    5% power boost for a maximum of 50% per city owned to the attackers
    2 durability loss for a win - 5 durability for a loss
    OR
    2. Keep 1 change and disable the other.

  9. #9
    Lightbringer
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    WhoreHouse
    Posts
    579
    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.

  10. #10
    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.
    You're on server 1 Boo. There's no one to fight GWs with.

    This change only affects those servers with REAL Guild Wars. (server-based, not realm-based)

Posting Permissions

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