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 8 of 26 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 254

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

  1. #71
    Lightbringer
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    572
    Quote Originally Posted by Herby View Post
    Two things that most people who complain about alts running over their big accounts:

    1. A single player can hardly login more than 5 accounts (same or diff browsers, doesn't make a difference) before flashplayer begins to slowdown and crash.

    To run GWs with these "alts", you need to log them in all at the same time.


    2. The only way a really smaller player can beat a bigger player is if the bigger player's durability has hit 1, or really low levels.

    Believe it or not, some players until now, do not understand how durability affects them in guild wars, so they rant out whenever they get beaten by someone 1/20th their size, but is at 100 durability vs their 1 durability.

    1. In my experience while playing Evony flash can usually handle about 15-20 browser tabs being opened at once rather handily. It may be different for Tynon, but I would expect most browsers could handle at-least 10 for the 45 minutes a GWs can take, if it takes that long. Also most guilds would only need to have each member create 2-3 accounts to overrun the larger guilds.

    2. We aren't worried about say a 2-5 mil player actually beating a 50-100 mil player, the problem is the durability loss. We all know that.

  2. #72
    Justice
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by DrthCaedus View Post
    1. In my experience while playing Evony flash can usually handle about 15-20 browser tabs being opened at once rather handily. It may be different for Tynon, but I would expect most browsers could handle at-least 10 for the 45 minutes a GWs can take, if it takes that long. Also most guilds would only need to have each member create 2-3 accounts to overrun the larger guilds.

    2. We aren't worried about say a 2-5 mil player actually beating a 50-100 mil player, the problem is the durability loss. We all know that.
    I think the city bonus is way too high as well!! And remember this only affects a small amount of realms in servers 1-10 where there are more realms with no competition than those with. So only the realms with an actual GW will suffer losing the buff cities. Unless the encouragement to create alts to take some grows. I doubt that tho, because they won't have the funds to get high enough city level. But they sure could beef up small guilds.

  3. #73
    Lightbringer
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    572
    Quote Originally Posted by MisChief View Post
    I think the city bonus is way too high as well!! And remember this only affects a small amount of realms in servers 1-10 where there are more realms with no competition than those with. So only the realms with an actual GW will suffer losing the buff cities. Unless the encouragement to create alts to take some grows. I doubt that tho, because they won't have the funds to get high enough city level. But they sure could beef up small guilds.
    True, and it wouldn't be difficult to get multiple alt guilds to lvl 3 or even 4 if people were dedicated. so smaller guilds could start to dominate stronger guilds on the lvl 3 cities with alt guilds, and then go after the lvl 4s with the main etc.

  4. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Herby View Post
    Two things that most people who complain about alts running over their big accounts:

    1. A single player can hardly login more than 5 accounts (same or diff browsers, doesn't make a difference) before flashplayer begins to slowdown and crash.

    To run GWs with these "alts", you need to log them in all at the same time.


    2. The only way a really smaller player can beat a bigger player is if the bigger player's durability has hit 1, or really low levels.

    Believe it or not, some players until now, do not understand how durability affects them in guild wars, so they rant out whenever they get beaten by someone 1/20th their size, but is at 100 durability vs their 1 durability.
    You are so worng its not funny today.

    First 20 members all running 4 alts at one time in gwf can and will happen so there goes that point
    secondly with the power boost a player can now beat a player up to 4-6 times their power regardless of durability

    Now you are correct alot of people dont understand durability. But with the power boost of 90-100% with holding 9-10 cities and then teh power boost form each camp, a 200m power player can be beat by a 45m power player or smaller depending on setup,hp etc regardless of durability. And to me that just doesnt make sense to let happen.
    Cut the power boost and durability change in half - problem solved. Smaller guilds not quite as powerful as the uber guild have a chance and alts wont be that big of an issue

  5. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by mattp169 View Post
    You are so worng its not funny today.

    First 20 members all running 4 alts at one time in gwf can and will happen so there goes that point
    secondly with the power boost a player can now beat a player up to 4-6 times their power regardless of durability

    Now you are correct alot of people dont understand durability. But with the power boost of 90-100% with holding 9-10 cities and then teh power boost form each camp, a 200m power player can be beat by a 45m power player or smaller depending on setup,hp etc regardless of durability. And to me that just doesnt make sense to let happen.
    Cut the power boost and durability change in half - problem solved. Smaller guilds not quite as powerful as the uber guild have a chance and alts wont be that big of an issue
    YOu know the more i think about this - the whole concept is a great one, but either cut it in half or
    instead of every guild getting teh power boost by default - the guild has to pay for the boost with guild contributions
    SO if you are attacking a guild that holds 4 cities you can pay 1k contributions for a 10$ power boost up to 40%
    That could make it interesting in other ways.

    But regardless the durability change needs to drop in half

  6. #76
    Justice Riot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Triads
    Posts
    1,112
    The browser based is making it way too easy to run alts and causes significant problems.

    All this can be fixed if they come out with the client version of this game and do away with the flash based games.

    But I agree they need to readjust the durability and buffs down to 1/2 of what it is today.

  7. #77
    Lightbringer
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    572
    Quote Originally Posted by Riot View Post
    The browser based is making it way too easy to run alts and causes significant problems.

    All this can be fixed if they come out with the client version of this game and do away with the flash based games.

    But I agree they need to readjust the durability and buffs down to 1/2 of what it is today.
    Client based turns it into a completely different type of game and would require a massive amount of re-coding. Not worth it. Ucool is browser flash based gaming and they won't be changing any time soon.

  8. #78
    Ironheart Cuddles_1461020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    +Scandal+
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by Herby View Post
    Two things that most people who complain about alts running over their big accounts:

    1. A single player can hardly login more than 5 accounts (same or diff browsers, doesn't make a difference) before flashplayer begins to slowdown and crash.

    To run GWs with these "alts", you need to log them in all at the same time.


    2. The only way a really smaller player can beat a bigger player is if the bigger player's durability has hit 1, or really low levels.

    Believe it or not, some players until now, do not understand how durability affects them in guild wars, so they rant out whenever they get beaten by someone 1/20th their size, but is at 100 durability vs their 1 durability.
    I agree with all this with one exception.....
    The alts that sit in G (or A) that are offline that collected their guild benefits. One person can have dozens of these. If each of these (under 1mil) bots drain 5 durability, it changes battle outcomes, especially defending guilds (because the attacker HAS to get through this new wall of alts).
    This is why I propose the "no offline defenders" even if they collected benefits.

    The problem with the health-->durability model is that I can still solo entire armies B-->A. (Boring.) Unless you scaled it differently where 1% damage takes off more durability (alts do less than 1%), etc..

  9. #79
    I play on server 87 and I want you to know this new GW change is terrible, We are the big Guild in our realm with no other big guild to fight, now you penalize us for being big by handicapping us to the point that a guild with little to now power can with the city. This is absolutely ridiculous. We have already shared cities with friendly guilds and now you are sabatouging our efforts to make this a great realm. What a stupid system!!!!! We are the ones who spend the money not the little guilds and you make it hard on us, so what is the incentive to grow now? So at the moment I will not be spending further gems on this game, it makes no sense to do so!

  10. #80
    Justice
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Cuddles_1461020 View Post
    I agree with all this with one exception.....
    The alts that sit in G (or A) that are offline that collected their guild benefits. One person can have dozens of these. If each of these (under 1mil) bots drain 5 durability, it changes battle outcomes, especially defending guilds (because the attacker HAS to get through this new wall of alts).
    This is why I propose the "no offline defenders" even if they collected benefits.

    The problem with the health-->durability model is that I can still solo entire armies B-->A. (Boring.) Unless you scaled it differently where 1% damage takes off more durability (alts do less than 1%), etc..
    I disagree with the logic you use on G. By the time the attackers reach G they have enough buff to plow thru the idles. And don't forget that people killed on the way, recovering in G don NOT defend until the last 1 round before heal, so they don't count at all. And I am not sure about your guilds, but mine don't have any members with dozens of alts. Again, exaggerating to make a point in fact invalidates that point.

Posting Permissions

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