The great new guild warfare!

[class662_4733823]

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?

[kaisim_2492829]

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

[BGB]

Yes we are holding 7 cities, and I don't really mind losing one.. But its how we are losing it.. See the point of holding cities when 1 person with 76m power can kill an entire guild with maybe around 500m power twice whitout healing or dieing? Because I don't.

You are losing why? This is the math on GW. You hold 7 citys. Each city you hold gives the other guild 10% Bonus. Say they have no citys, This would be 70% And if they are the challenger they get 50% health after each win since they are the challengers. My suggestion. Drop Koleton, The chests are not worth the boost the other team gets for gw. Also drop any other city you DO NOT NEED. If you have reached your REP level. Drop Em. I could be wrong. But the last gw i was in a week ago had this setup. Dawn. I want my ticket responded too asap.

[Kitiara_3214881]

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.

[class662_4733823]

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".

[mattp169]

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

[Kitiara_3214881]

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.

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.

[Jacobe_8068494]

No not a good thing ... Ill go play something else.

[kaisim_2492829]

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?

[Cuddles_1461020]

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