Guild Feeding Rules Clarification (mods Read Plz)

I’ll try to do this as quick as possible as im on my phone and don’t feel like typing up a big structured argument resulting in my hands falling off.

I’m not denying that Hax used feeding etc and that it gave a unfair advantage, but lets not pretend technicalities matter when it comes to methods that give an unfair advantage . You can say they do, I don’t care, my opinion stands. An unfair advantage is an unfair advantage. There is clearly a grey area in the rules when it comes to “defending lightly” but I see it as borderline feeding. So do others, same alliance or not.


“so your saying mods should act based off how long fed lasts”

Of course I am, the same alliance/guild should not be maintaining unchallenged overall dominance for unrealistic amounts of time.


Edit: Im not interested in having a massive debate over this, enough debating has been done in the first pages of this thread already. I’ve put in my opinion on it, if you disagree then thats great.

 

Why should a power not be allowed to keep the power just because they've held it for long periods of time, that is like saying a country can't hold a plot of land because they've had it for too long. Obviously if the power is doing something game breaking as Hax did with sniping territories (which is impossible now due to the timer). I don't understand why a guild would have to step down because they are essencially "winning too much"

 

You essentially just put a bunch of words in my mouth. Go ahead and read the key words I put in bold for you.

 

Even though Fed is being challanged quite thoroughly, if a group were unchallanged, why should that group have to step down? And even if a group were challanged, should all the time and money the Fed spent defending their territorries go to waste because they have been successfully holding them back?

 

Name one large rival of Federation that is actively impacting their dominance if the map.

You seem to be completely forgetting about the majority of guilds outside the 11 within Federation. If Federation is completely unchallenged for long periods of time and maintains constant control of almost all the territories within the map, it completely ruins the fun of guilds for everyone else. I doubt unrivaled monopolistic dominance of the map by one group for very large amounts of time is what they had in mind when they made guilds.

 

Then I don't understand what you are meaning by unchallanged overall dominance when I address the problem of taking away a position just because no one is putting in the work to accomplish the goal of taking control of the map. Additionally you were never clear on unrealistic time period is vague, and even if there was a number attached to it, it still doesn't make sense for a group's work to be revoked after a certain time period. If I'm putting words in your mouth I want to understand what you mean specifically instead of trying to piece together a bunch of bolded words you already stated.

________________________________

The Round Table is the main alliance attempting to overthrow the Federation and as far as I know they consist of
Bcr
oSo
GMY
CNM
TsD
Oce
and others that I can't name off the top of my head. And they have recently been putting good effort to overthrow the Fed. And of course I know that there are other guilds, allied territories get attacked daily sometimes not even from guilds that ate part of Round Table, the problem is that 90% of guilds are not strong enough or are willing to put in the time to overtake the current domination. Or they just don't care about map domination and are focused on more community aspects such as the former House of Sentinals and to an extent Titan's Valor. Regardless, I think that the purpose of guilds is to host a competitive environment where the people who are willing to put in the time and are strong enough, even if they have to band together, will come out on top, and that is the beauty of guilds.

 

Please go ahead and read over my original post, that's my standing opinion on the matter and I think it will clarify my viewpoint bit more. I think we are getting very far off track at this point, and to be honest a lot of what we are disagreeing on has to to with the basic ethics of how guilds should work.

Before I wrap this up, I simply ask you to try to see this from different perspectives. I know you are in Imp so your opinion is naturally going to be biased, but try to understand what i've said and consider others viewpoints.

 

No it's like saying a country shouldn't hold the entire earth with no other powers to challenge it.
And it's not a good system because new guilds cannot get territories unless they join fed, and the only way to take down fed is to do what you're fighting against, people creating massive alliances which's power can't be rivaled.

 

As you who is in Hax may have a bias I will have a bias as well, Itry to see from different viewpoints but I just don't understand why a rule has to be implemented because a group is holding the map for an extended period of time. Regardless as you said we have different opinions/viewpoints of guilds which is perfectly okay in the first place.

________________________________

You missed my point entirely, I made the analogy to say that it is wrong for a group to be revoked of their power just because they held it for a period of time, and I never said I was defending the guild system, I do agree with you that in order to be successful you have to be part of an alliance or team to overcome others, but regardless, is not the topic I was talking about anyway.

 

By the way, we aren't competitively warring and haven't for a some time (incase you weren't aware), so my bias is completely out of it. But either way I'm okay with agreeing to disagree.

 

but Fed doesnt actually have an unfair advantage, which i think i explained thoroughly enough in the main post

the only one i can think of is all the strongest guilds banding together to control the map which is kind of the objective of guild wars

so what exactly is fun then?
the whole point of guild wars is to compete against other guilds and see who turns out on top on the leaderboard.
why should the strongest guilds have to roll over and let anyone else have territories?
is basically being handed territories for free fun?

as i explained, Fed isnt doing anything wrong (which if you disagree, id like to know what theyre actually doing wrong and not just "oh its a grey area") so why should they have to be removed because no one else is willing to fight against them?

no, Hax used a bunch of guilds whose sole purpose was to feed Hax
in Fed, even if there are guilds feeding in the sense that theyre giving territories to other guilds for free, it doesnt actually help them control the map at all. most guilds are capable of affording full defences, and the main warring guilds certainly are, so its not like in Hax where the feeder guilds capture the territories and Hax then takes and defends them. If you say its the same except the "feeder guilds" also have some territories and defend them, well that is, in essence, an alliance. Another point to note, most of the guilds that are "feeding" to other guilds are the biggest and strongest warrers. so again, they are basically giving away territories to their allies.

so how would you have multiple groups that are all even? this isnt like the warring states period in china where you can have multiple factions in a delicate balance with each other, and even then they ended up being conquered by the strongest state which is basically how the whole world works.
when the War Syndicate tried to be fair and gave up an entire province to other guilds, all that ended up happening was that they were easily defeated by the Coalition that had been growing in said free territories because of their naive ideals. again, the whole point of guild wars is to control the whole map, and even if you (the ruling alliance) tries to share it in the end itll only come to bite you in the ass

so how would you have multiple groups that are all even? this isnt like the warring states period in china where you can have multiple factions in a delicate balance with each other, and even then they ended up being conquered by the strongest state which is basically how the whole world works.

exactly, thats the whole cycle of alliances ever
1. huge alliance takes over the map
2. a while later someone else comes up and takes it or the alliane dies off
3. repeat
huge alliances are always toppled by either internal disputes, in the case of the Coalition, or having grown weak and being overpowered by a stronger alliance, as in the case of War Syndicate
eventually Fed will die as well, its just a matter of which it will be, internal disputes (which is unlikely since Fed is basically the victors of the whole Coalition civil war fiasco meaning they would obviously be careful with that kinda stuff) which would take longer, or being toppled by a stronger alliance (which is also unlikely seeing as how the opposition seems more bent on whining than actually getting stuff done, meaning youd have to wait for the members themselves to quit the game thereby weakening the alliance allowing the opposition to take everything)

________________________________

also whew i did not plan to write that much but oh well

 

While your other points have issues which I might address later, this one sticks out to me.

How does having set territories let guilds compete to reach the top of the leaderboards? Sure, being in the alliance automatically gets you up near the top of the leaderboards, but that's it - you're stuck there. Being in an alliance doesn't let you compete against other guilds, it just lets you take back territories from people who take them. As such, alliances go against what you call the point of guild wars.

 

well theres always the ffa territories
also each guild is assigned territories according to their contributions meaning although you may not be the top of the leaderboard you'd at least have some territories which you otherwise wouldnt. even if you were outside the alliance, youd still probably never be at the top of the leaderboard cuz you just dont have that kind of warring capability. being in the alliance is a sort of mutual agreement that benefits all guilds within by providing them with assigned territories and of course aid from other guilds in the alliance to help you keep your standing. even within the alliance, the strong will still always be on top. if you jsut dont have the power to be number one, you cant jsut expect the stronger guilds to *cough* feed you so that ur number 1. although your guild may not be the number 1, its not like each guild is completely exclusive of everyone else, but its also a community so as an alliance you are number 1. also, its not like everyone else will just roll over and not do anything (although they kinda do but that just means youve succeeded) so you'll always have competition against other guilds.

________________________________

also that point was in response to Avidify saying that if Fed controls the map for too long then more regulations (or basically some way to get rid of it) should be put on it because it ruins the fun for other people, to which i said basically handing territories to other people just because theyre sad wont really be fun either

 

I just wanted to point something out real quick. So if one alliance is controlling the whole map that makes it unfair for the little guilds? If every guild was by themselves with no alliances, would the small guilds have a chance then? I don't think they would because why would a big guild just ignore small guilds taking territories, which are most likely gonna be easy to take and probably won't fight back as much as the bigger guilds. The whole one alliance controlling the map doesn't really change anything for how the small guilds could hold things. If anything alliances help small guilds in a way of letting them join and letting them have some territories.

 

I very much thank everyone here, I have read some quite interesting arguments today, but for now, I would like to remain neutral in this discussion. I do have one question I would like to ask though, as it seems it is something nobody has asked yet.

How would you enforce a possible alliance cap?

I believe this is a quite interesting question because as shady or sad as it may sound, each guild is bound to make deals and create truces with each other behind the scenes. The banning of communication between guilds is practically impossible as I see it right now, mods can after all not force a guild to attack another?

As I said, I do not personally have an opinion on how the rules should be interpreted, or how they should be changed. I am glad to hear that they are currently being reworked by the mods so the foundation of guild wars can become more clear, stable and less up for interpretation. A statement made by the mods about how they believe the guild war community should be treated and handled would be very nice. Though I do believe the question I posed is definitely something to consider when discussing the topic of alliances and how long of a leash they should be given.

 

exactly

 

It's been awhile since I posted here, may as well shoot myself in the face by doing that now I guess

Where should start..
Ah!

Yes of course, not like /you literally led a war with Hax to wipe out THI earlier today/. Nah, that's nonsense.

This isnt even a question that should have to be asked. For literal years alliances have come and gone just fine, but now all of a sudden when a few large guilds get overly salty that they arent in power anymore, rules have to be put in place and used instead of fighting it out like every other alliance has?

Looking straight at you, BCr (and Hax a little too honestly).

Point is, thats damn low. Build up your guilds and actually fight for the map like the rest of us have had to do, and stop with the bullshit feeding accusations.

Lastly, care to hear the newest accusation? Apperently, Fox's 910 mob defense is now feeding too! Yay!

smh

 

I wonder...
Would that one 80 mob defense count as "feeding"?
If you are actively warring, you should know what defense I'm talking about.

 

at this point if the defense is under 1k mobs and theres even a single mob below lv80 it gets accused of feeding so

 

But then we need to ask ourselves, do we actually want that? Do we want a guild system where newcomers and smaller guilds don't stand a chance at gaining territories unless they join the mega alliance that owns the entire map? And my answer to that would be no. However, I don't think we should change the rules to give a disadvantage to a specific group that probably worked hard for what they have.