Guilds [coming Soon Partly, 95% Approval] Improved Guilds [ Includes... Trailer...? & Detail ]

guild update whooo!! bumpbumpbump

 

bump bump.

 

This thread is ok, its been then the current situation with guilds but it falls short in some aspects.

Like it doesn't address alliances to much (yes it addresses sniping) but sniping is only one part of guild alliances.
If I were to get on Wynn right now and attack certain guilds, their alliance would immediately come and defend them. Also, these massive guild alliances have players on 24/7 warring constantly. Guild wars would still be more about persistence rather than skill. "How long am I going to continue to war?" Warring teams will almost always prevail over mobs. The warring system purposed would be better but mobs can only do so much. Higher leveled mobs would probably still not be used for the same reason they aren't right now, they cost more money. I don't see how the benefits of using them outweigh the costs. The problem I see is that every guild is equal in terms of warring ability. Allowing one war per guild is completely stupid. Of course, there should be a cap on how many wars you do, but it shouldn't just be a single war. (that might be controversial or unviable due to technical issues but that's what I think). I think allowing guilds to war multiple territories would help break alliances (it would also stop people from creating sub guilds). Let's be honest here, guilds that put in the most work warring should control the map. This would help break up large alliances into tinier ones and stir the pot a bit.

I'm pretty anti-guild war anyway, so I am biased. I think guilds should be completely redone and focused on something like the guild objectives you suggested.


p.s I love the dueling, betting, and guild housing aspect of this thread keep those. also plz dunt hurt me it's just my opinion

 

So, I'm a bit confused here as to what you're trying to say. First, you said, "Guild wars would still be more about persistence rather than skill" as if that's a bad thing, and then you said, "Let's be honest here, guilds that put in the most work warring should control the map." So which one is it? I do agree that guilds being able to attack more than one territory at once wouldn't be too bad of an addition if possible (though as you said, there 100% would have to be a cap of like three territories or something, otherwise it'd be very easy to abuse). It also seems to me like you think alliances are bad/should be stopped which I disagree with. Guilds in large alliances put a lot of effort into growing and maintaining their guilds, so it makes sense that they should be rewarded for that. Technically anyone can start an alliance, but there's no guarantee that anyone will ever join it or that it'll be successful.

 

Sorry, I should have been more clear, I meant to say that guild wars would not fundamentally change at all. The current system is attacking a territory, clearing out all the mobs, and defending. Which would essentially be the same system thing that is being proposed in this thread. I'll elaborate on what I meant by guilds that put in the most work should control the map. I meant that guilds that are full of active players who are skillful, powerful, and somewhat persistent should control the map, not guilds that have people on 24/7 doing a basically meaningless task all day. There is almost no skill or meaningful thought required in warring, you kill 1000 mobs which are usually level 50s, and that's it. A new system should reward guilds for something that isn't just doing that over and over and over again. Also, alliances aren't even recognized in the game; they're just a by-product of people wanting to control the map, there is no /guild ally command, alliances either should be recognized in the game or they should be completely outlawed. I would argue a system where every guild is on their own, would be fairer than these large clusters of higher-level guilds. New guilds are forced to take a side if they want any chance of controlling the map. That side is almost always with the alliance block that currently controls the map, which makes opposition to that block even harder.

 

Is this a bad thing? Sure it is the same thing with just some tweaks, but I don't think many players would mind that. It keeps a sense of familiarity and allows players to continue doing what they do without having to make major adaptations to a complete overhaul of how Guild Wars do. The only reason they're so mindless right now is that they're fairly easy and take so long to do. This is due to people always putting down level 50 filler all the time because there is no great incentive to putting down 22ks when they will be stomped easily anyway.
The goal of the proposed changes were to make it so Guild Wars were more difficult, financially viable, and also change it up slightly. It would help encourage guilds putting down harder defenses and also make them more enjoyable because there is a relative challenge to them. I don't think that Guild Wars need a massive overhaul as of right now, and if it did get one I'm not even sure how well it'd be received. It'd have to be based off the implementation and the idea.

I didn't include this due to Salted's design principle that Guilds should not provide any direct Gameplay benefits to players that are in one. Guild Halls were supposed to be this new reward for guilds to strive for and build up. It serves as a symbol of prestige, a place for guilds to socialize, and provide small bonuses to guilds.

I'm so-so on Alliances, but even I think they should be allowed and not prohibited. Territories exhibit a level of competition and rule. You could consider Territories as land and Guilds as Kingdoms. In this scenario, it's going to be common for these "Kingdoms" to forge Alliances to protect their land. Taking that away from players would kill a large part of why Guilds exists and why many Guild members stick around. I've met many people that one of their reasons for sticking around Wynncraft was not only Guilds, but the politics that comes with it. If you force players to cooperate on their own, it will kill that reason.

Due to how Territories encourage this competition of limited space, it's nearly impossible to make it fair for all Guilds to have access to this land without adding some sort of complex systems or restrictions. I do wish that it was more fair, but this is how Territories are meant to be played out essentially. Now of course those Guilds can join an Alliance, but of course on their own they won't be as an effective forcce.

 

100 likes O_O

Most likes I've ever gotten on a single thread.

 

Am surprised this hasn't gotten a response from the upper staff yet. @ Salted. heh,heheh.

Bump for the last thread of hope for the guild overhaul this server needs. I haven't seen an MMO before where guilds have been such an underprioritized aspect of the game, when it really is the one thing responsible for many, many veteran players sticking around/inactive but willing to come back.

 

This should really be added

 

bumping this

 

bumpity bump

 

10 more 10 more 10 more

 

i like your idea, and as someone said above me, the amount of wars should be at least pumped up by max 3 IMO, why this? to make conquests a little bit more brutal and make it better for those at the top of the food chain, on the other side we have those on top of the food chain xD those guilds already have millions of emeralds in their banks so to dent them everyone has to attack them to meagerly "drain" them of their resources, to that I propose the next change:

- Increased cost of mobs PER territory owned

why this? to balance the game for territory hoarders or conqueror guilds because of said emerald banks, that would make controlling a whole region incredibly hard if not impossible to sustain, be aware that im not suggesting an exponetial increase which would be absolutely mental, just a gradual increase that starts making controlling more than 4 teritories harder a lot harder, for example:

1 territory=normal mob price.
2-4 teritories = increase of mob costs of 5% per level
5-8 territories = increase of mob costs of 10% per level
8-10 territories= increase of mob costs of 20% per level
and so on, this will make warring a little bit more interesting since your proposed increase of winning rewards of 20% of mob cost, since that would make attacking the top guilds "profitable" if we take into account this and that would also make them truly defend their territories with the best they got or lose them to really hold their ground, some will like this some will not, but it can be tweaked to provide a challenge for controlling a lot of regions.


i agree on all of your ideas, keep the good work m8 and i hope these changes get added :D

 

I don't agree with that at all. The guilds "on top of the food chain" should not be punished for their hard work, IMHO.

 

im not saying they should be punished, in fact, what i want is that they truly defend their regions, and by that i mean they put good mobs in it not just feeders, i have to say that while i might seem biased, only thing i want is balance, it might be too harsh and of course there are better tweaks than my proposed cost, another solution to incentivize terrain control in sumber of troops... as of now max of 1000 is allowed but what about a new max of 1500 for what might be a capital? dunno, i want them to be more interactive instead of feeding scraps to their roster (more could be added to this capital thing like main entry point of guild hall or better bonus xp, another thing that came to my mind is that you require at least 4 territories to create a capital/guild hall)

now that i noticed, yeah it might be to harsh to start with the 2nd territory at 5%.. could be until 6th and increasing like I proposed every 5 territories, what do you suggest m8?

 

Increasing the cost of defending a guild territory will not solve the feeder problem. If anything, it'll probably worsen it. Guilds defend with "feeder mobs" (1k level 50s) generally, and that's because it's cheaper, and even if they were to defend with bosses, level 100 snipers and honor guards and whatnot, someone with a decent build and skill pots can come along and solo it. Nova's suggestion included making guild wars harder and more strategic, and territory defense costs lowering the more often a territory is attacked. Which, IMO, would solve the feeder defense problem much more efficiently than increasing prices for guilds who have more territories. If Nova's suggestion is added, the territories that are often attacked will likely have difficult and fun defenses, because it would become both affordable and worth it.

 

Yep, i have to agree that i did not foresee that it will worsen it, im a solo warmonger (for now) and it kinda dissapointed me that all guilds that hold territories only use the feeders (at least where i have been) because its way cheaper to sustain, with Nova's proposition of increased rewards per capture it could solve this problem of not being rewarding, i do agree that cost of troops for a territory thats basically a ffa should do have the low cost, what I want to see is more Variety of sorts, if a guild wants to hold a city its ok, i have nothing against that, holding a big chunk of the map kinda bothers me but I do know that defending that chunk is being active and paying attention 24/7 which imo is way too tryhard, respectable af because of the dedication people put into it, i just wanna see guilds not only put time in their defenses like a guardian (hehe) but with troops so people like me who solo war (dunno how many people do it) either git gud to claim a zone or get teammates... dunno m8, dont wanna come as salty because "I cannot hold a territory" because i know im not capable of it as a "solo" player, just wanna see more variety hehe, still i totally approve all of Nova's ideas for a change in the guild system.

I think guilds that hold a lot of territories should be rewarded for it, maybe bonus emeralds for adjacent territories? dunno, but something that makes it worthwhile not only for showing but that has a real use aside from emeralds and guild xp

 

1 supporter away from 300!

 

300! Everyone pull out your flagon of mead at the Delta bar and drink up. Just chug it down. It's on a roll!