Guilds Remove Rule 18 Or Enforce It +98

Rule 18 wouldn't even be necessary if they made having more players in war actually beneficial. As I said, after a certain amount of players in a war, any additional players make barely any the difference.

The reason why sub-guilds even exist and are widely used is because having a ton of players in one war is barely an advantage to an enemy if they have at least a few warrers. As I stated earlier as an example, a guild with 4 players warring and another with 8 players warring, twice the number, war almost just as efficiently and as fast, barely an advantage.

No one would have to result to sub-guilds to begin with if they actually made having more players in a war have an actual advantage, because it seems that after you reach a certain amount of warrers, additional players don't really make as significant an advantage.

 

Okay.

To clarify, you have a well acknowledged point that you yourselves are also victim to subguilding. I'm not trying to claim that guilds like Imp and Fox don't use subs. We are in agreement here.

My original point was that Fox shouldn't antagonised in this thread because their use of subs is not unique and a multitude of other guilds use the same strategy, Hax included. If you are insisting that Hax no longer practices the use of subs then I'll concede that, but what doesn't change is that they once did.

The full war logs (from which I tried to find 2 decent screenshots) from 6 months ago serves as objective evidence that disproves this statement that you make:

It's quite clear in the logs that VnE runs many attacks on AVO, alongside other guilds I previously named like BCr, and none of them attack each other nor do they attack Hax.

And Art, if this statement that you make is directed at me:

Note this:

You continue to claim that you're being "misquoted" whilst ignoring my offer to correct any inaccuracies I have inadvertently made, nor do you ever elaborate on what it is you're being misquoted about.

I have already made an effort to correct inaccuracies about VnE that BapCai has informed me of, as you can see reflected in our conversation (my first post here is on page 5 if you have trouble finding it), but I have yet to hear anything like that from you.

You make all the emphasis on "being objective" in this thread but it is then you who continues to defend yourself with an 'I'm right but nobody understands me' attitude with no further explanation.

 

IT's because I've already laid out all my thoughts and opinions on this in that big long wall of text I put, and trying to "correct any inaccuracies" would jsut be being repetitive. For one, one of your inaccuracies is the fact that we are using Fox as the main example here, but we're not specifically targetting fox nor are we trying to treat this as a partisan issue. Now, if Rule18 never existed, chances are this thread wouldn't be made and we wouldnt waste time ranting about any guild using it because we could just return it with our own medicine. I also find it irritating how partisan this issue's become with all the Fox and Imp people clustering all their poinions into the same, and a multitude of the other aisles' guilds doing the same. This is not a partisan issue; its is a fundamental issue with a rule that exists alongside all the other rules in the game on the official thread, so the argument is that it should be enforced, or removed.

What I'm trying to say here is that you and multiple other people here have responded to my statements with saying that I'm saying "subguilds are unfair" and that is not what I am saying. What is unfair is that they are being used in a way that is stomping rule18 into the ground, and as long as it exists in its current form on the official rules repository it should be abided by, and I enforce that for ALL guilds.

Want an example? Here are some of your own words. @Qzphs

I never said subguilds are inherently against the as-written rules. I'm saying that the way they are being used by certain guilds now and certain guilds in the past as a means of feeding back/maintaining the parent guilds' territories are against the as-written rules.

 

We have been getting multiple reports on this thread, so, please, everyone chill down. Don't open up flame wars and don't say things that will make us have to take actions against any of the participants, O.K.? Just be nice to each other, and follow the simple rule about not saying something to someone that you wouldn't want said to you.

And I know that you all are going to ask, but all that I can say at this time is that we, mods and admins, hear your concerns. We have been discussing this, but, I'm sorry, I'm not at liberty to say anything other than that.

-Peace everyone.

 

I assume this means the rule will be clarified along with the next guild update. Which I am really hoping will adress many issues brought up here, such as an alternative to sub guilds to make it more efficient to have bigger guilds. (Although please if this happens don't make it super hard for small guilds to actually hold territories. There always needs to be a way for guilds to take out a bigger enemy if they work hard enough.)

 

It's a fuedal society. Of course they have vassiles. (Fully support your idea)

 

Another problem with this entire situation is that it’s an unenforceable rule.
Subguilds are not a concrete thing. Who decides what is and isn’t a subguild? There have been and still are tons of guilds that are called subs but whose owners will swear that they aren’t a subguild and just an ally.
There is no definitive answer to the question “What is a subguild?”
The only part that could be enforceable is members of a bigger guild leaving and temporarily making a smaller guild, but even that is completely subjective. Who’s to say they didn’t legitimately plan to stay in that guild? What if they joined a pre existing guild that was just inactive?
Unless someone suggests some legitimate, non-flawed ways to classify guilds as “subguilds”, this rule is completely impractical to enforce, especially considering hundreds or often thousands of wars happen every single day.

 

Then we have two options open to us
1. We can just remove the rule which was another suggestion of this thread. The OP's point after all was just to receive some clarity on a rule.
2. We can make it so there is a certain point you have to hit to enable wars such as a number of people, levels, emeralds stored, or time passed. This way it becomes difficult for a guild to suddenly break into many sub guilds, while also making it so that no regulation is needed on the rule.

 

#1 is fine

#2 is useless really, leveling guilds is super easy and there's over a hundred guilds people have access to over level 40 that can be used as subs. Plus, it's super easy to level a guild, I got my old guild (Arisen, [Ris]) to level 40 in the span of a week. Wouldn't do too much really.

 

1 part of the community wants guilds with high amount of active ppl to be awarded for its activity and the other doesn't want subguilds in the system cause it gives certain guilds the power of X amount of guilds. In my own opinion I don't think subguilds should exist and should be dealt with. Guilds aren't meant to scatter your ppl around different guilds with only a few members. They meant to bring ppl together and have fun/do things together.
A way to solve this could be to allow guilds to do multiple wars at once (with a limit (maybe increase limit for higher level guilds)) and increase mob spawn rate for wars with more than 3 ppl (too).