Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 56

Thread: The great new guild warfare!

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    here is my question to all of you:
    lets assume there is a guild holding all the cities, who got all the strong players, great strategists and mega coiners. the other 2 realms went dead and that flat server is waiting for the next merger of servers. now there is a couple of guilds left on the other realms with mediocre players that have a lot of alts and screamed for a change in GW "empower us!" (the same that cry about 'high seas'!?).
    why would you think they deserve any city?
    now after you answered that question i ask you a rhetorical one: why do you call it "fixed", "fun again" and "interesting" and assume there is strategy involved when the only strategy is the tactic to dodge the durability draining alts and advance when your spies tell you to advance?


    P.S @ Dawnseeker: what's wrong about "B to A" when they now just hold B and then run A after the first group attacked and if no one attacks they defend by default?
    Last edited by class662_4733823; 04-16-2014 at 09:05 PM.

  2. #2
    Sirius kaisim_2492829's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Expunged
    Posts
    2,206
    Quote Originally Posted by class662_4733823 View Post
    here is my question to all of you:
    lets assume there is a guild holding all the cities, who got all the strong players, great strategists and mega coiners. the other 2 realms went dead and that flat server is waiting for the next merger of servers. now there is a couple of guilds left on the other realms with mediocre players that have a lot of alts and screamed for a change in GW "empower us!" (the same that cry about 'high seas'!?).
    why would you think they deserve any city?
    now after you answered that question i ask you a rhetorical one: why do you call it "fixed", "fun again" and "interesting" and assume there is strategy involved when the only strategy is the tactic to dodge the durability draining alts and advance when your spies tell you to advance?


    P.S @ Dawnseeker: what's wrong about "B to A" when they now just hold B and then run A after the first group attacked and if no one attacks they defend by default?
    +1 excellent point
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    [...]This is likely a case of collective obsessional behavior (i.e. group delusion). This can spread rapidly through any group based on fear and rumors without any objective facts. We've seen it happen numerous times in Tynon already.
    Quote Originally Posted by Herby View Post
    The forums sure has fallen from grace, turning into a vent-fest, instead of people sharing ideas and techniques.
    Quote Originally Posted by riot View Post
    I choose to lose the way I do so I can get max tickets when I give up the CWF.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by class662_4733823 View Post
    here is my question to all of you:
    lets assume there is a guild holding all the cities, who got all the strong players, great strategists and mega coiners. the other 2 realms went dead and that flat server is waiting for the next merger of servers. now there is a couple of guilds left on the other realms with mediocre players that have a lot of alts and screamed for a change in GW "empower us!" (the same that cry about 'high seas'!?).
    why would you think they deserve any city?
    now after you answered that question i ask you a rhetorical one: why do you call it "fixed", "fun again" and "interesting" and assume there is strategy involved when the only strategy is the tactic to dodge the durability draining alts and advance when your spies tell you to advance?


    P.S @ Dawnseeker: what's wrong about "B to A" when they now just hold B and then run A after the first group attacked and if no one attacks they defend by default?
    Great Strategists? If you can't beat a dead guild just because they have alts, you've obviously been doing "B to A" for a little too long.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitiara_3214881 View Post
    Great Strategists? If you can't beat a dead guild just because they have alts, you've obviously been doing "B to A" for a little too long.
    you obviously are not getting the point and having a blonde moment here. we shall give you time to rephrase your answer.
    because i am a good guy, here is a pointer to bring you on the right track: i never said "we" are having troubles. i made up an example situation condensed from the previous worries and concerns. the question still stands for you to answer: "why would you think they deserve any city?"
    please don't come up with some stupid argument that every bum should have a ferrari or that guilds with "2 active players should have a city".

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by class662_4733823 View Post
    you obviously are not getting the point and having a blonde moment here. we shall give you time to rephrase your answer.
    because i am a good guy, here is a pointer to bring you on the right track: i never said "we" are having troubles. i made up an example situation condensed from the previous worries and concerns. the question still stands for you to answer: "why would you think they deserve any city?"
    please don't come up with some stupid argument that every bum should have a ferrari or that guilds with "2 active players should have a city".

    Well if that guild was say bubba and exec or PR and exec , etc SURE they deserve a city or 9

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by class662_4733823 View Post
    you obviously are not getting the point and having a blonde moment here. we shall give you time to rephrase your answer.
    because i am a good guy, here is a pointer to bring you on the right track: i never said "we" are having troubles. i made up an example situation condensed from the previous worries and concerns. the question still stands for you to answer: "why would you think they deserve any city?"
    please don't come up with some stupid argument that every bum should have a ferrari or that guilds with "2 active players should have a city".
    Why make up hypothetical situations then, and claim them as a basis for why changes to GW are bad? What it comes down to is, given SOME kind of competition, no one guild should control all cities. Just because you're done with competing within a server and are content with just mindly PvEing your way to an indefinite power number, doesn't mean that the game was intended to work that way. No this doesn't apply to older servers, its more of a basis for keeping the newer servers from ending up like the older ones, or at least postpone the one-sidedness that seems to plague server nowadays. Point is, if you're not losing cities, then this update doesn't apply to you. No reason to make hypotheticals up.

    P.S. Ive only dyed my hair blonde once in my life, for your info.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattp169 View Post
    Well if that guild was say bubba and exec or PR and exec , etc SURE they deserve a city or 9
    Even bubba or exec or PR couldn't take a city with just the two of them even against 20-30 10-100M players. So no I dont think small guilds should have cities, but I do think guilds of AMPLE numbers without those top 5 uber guys in the server should have a chance at at least one city.
    Last edited by Kitiara_3214881; 04-17-2014 at 08:00 PM.

  7. #7
    Sirius kaisim_2492829's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Expunged
    Posts
    2,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitiara_3214881 View Post
    Why make up hypothetical situations then, and claim them as a basis for why changes to GW are bad?
    [...]
    Even bubba or exec or PR couldn't take a city with just the two of them even against 20-30 10-100M players. So no I dont think small guilds should have cities, but I do think guilds of AMPLE numbers without those top 5 uber guys in the server should have a chance at at least one city.
    i think what he was trying to tell you is that we have that situation on many servers, if not all of them. i am allowed to host one of those top guilds. on our server we are holding all but 2 cities because we gave away 1 city to each "runner up" for free. i also agree that some guilds shouldnt be allowed to have cities that they couldnt earn in a normal situation. its kinda like a war in real life when the small country gets swallowed by the big country because they had 10x the soldiers. dont forget this is a game, a war game. so if someone is able to recruit all the best soldiers/army why shouldnt he be allowed to hold the cities... i totally get class's point and i think you absolutely wrong.

    and your example you did doesnt even show remotely the same situation. it was said if someone acquired ALL the big soldiers, etc ... again, if there is an absolute majority of lets say 95% of the ACTIVE server pop, why should the remaining 5% have anything?
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    [...]This is likely a case of collective obsessional behavior (i.e. group delusion). This can spread rapidly through any group based on fear and rumors without any objective facts. We've seen it happen numerous times in Tynon already.
    Quote Originally Posted by Herby View Post
    The forums sure has fallen from grace, turning into a vent-fest, instead of people sharing ideas and techniques.
    Quote Originally Posted by riot View Post
    I choose to lose the way I do so I can get max tickets when I give up the CWF.

  8. #8
    Ironheart Cuddles_1461020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    +Scandal+
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by class662_4733823 View Post
    the question still stands for you to answer: "why would you think they deserve any city?"
    A lot of people throw out this deserve word, while insinuating that their monopolized guild/server should "rightfully" have and maintain all 8+ cities.

    To answer your question:
    #1-- it's not your game. It's Tynon's game.
    #2-- it's not your server. It's Tynon's server.
    #3-- the Tynon staff and developers have stated repeatedly that they do not want one guild holding all the cities. It is not how they want the game.

    Therefore: A monopolized guild does not "deserve" all the cities, which entails that another guild "deserves" one or more of those cities.

    PS-- Try to avoid Strawman arguments next time and tell us which server you speak. In other words, have the balls and tell us who you are


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

  9. #9
    Forum Moderator Morgan le Fay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Clarity
    Posts
    2,023
    Quote Originally Posted by class662_4733823 View Post
    here is my question to all of you:
    lets assume there is a guild holding all the cities, who got all the strong players, great strategists and mega coiners. the other 2 realms went dead and that flat server is waiting for the next merger of servers. now there is a couple of guilds left on the other realms with mediocre players that have a lot of alts and screamed for a change in GW "empower us!" (the same that cry about 'high seas'!?).
    why would you think they deserve any city?
    now after you answered that question i ask you a rhetorical one: why do you call it "fixed", "fun again" and "interesting" and assume there is strategy involved when the only strategy is the tactic to dodge the durability draining alts and advance when your spies tell you to advance?
    So you are saying that GWs shouldn't be competitive, fun and interesting for all because only the top guild 'deserves' to win.

    This patch was really for future new servers and merges, rather than existing ones. However, it's made GWs less of a dead event on most servers and given everyone a chance to enjoy a real fight rather than 5 minutes B to A done and dusted, thank you all.

    Quote Originally Posted by kaisim_2492829 View Post
    +1 excellent point
    You would agree to class662, you both have the same IP address.

    Forum Moderators are volunteers and are unable to fix in game problems

  10. #10
    Sirius kaisim_2492829's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Expunged
    Posts
    2,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan le Fay View Post
    So you are saying that GWs shouldn't be competitive, fun and interesting for all because only the top guild 'deserves' to win.

    This patch was really for future new servers and merges, rather than existing ones. However, it's made GWs less of a dead event on most servers and given everyone a chance to enjoy a real fight rather than 5 minutes B to A done and dusted, thank you all.
    for many it still goes "B to A" and for others it now goes "C to B to A". its like you are comparing a chess game with "go fish" and this isnt chess. "painting a big with lipstick" is what i think the correct term is. if you wanted it more interesting instead of just trying to flame others then you would have intergrated other good suggestions that for example came from matty.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    [...]This is likely a case of collective obsessional behavior (i.e. group delusion). This can spread rapidly through any group based on fear and rumors without any objective facts. We've seen it happen numerous times in Tynon already.
    Quote Originally Posted by Herby View Post
    The forums sure has fallen from grace, turning into a vent-fest, instead of people sharing ideas and techniques.
    Quote Originally Posted by riot View Post
    I choose to lose the way I do so I can get max tickets when I give up the CWF.

Posting Permissions

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