Guild Feeding Rules Clarification (mods Read Plz)

May I ask how guild wars/guilds/alliances have anything to do with strategy

 

Which is what we're doing. But we want it to be done fairly. Just because someone walked down a path already doesn't mean you have to.

Yikes. I think you might be jumping to conclusions a bit fast there.

>Well no shit, this happens in real life all the time, and in any environment with enough development alliances will always form and competition is shafted; whether it be in nature
"just because people starve every day means that we shouldn't care about people starving in front of us". Just cause it happens elsewhere doesn't mean it needs to happen here.

>Oppose a large group in power, face consequences, simple as that.
And the next step is to deal with consequences, which is why I'm in the thread.

>Simply put; if you're not in a domineering position, you lose. Suck it up or wither and dry
Or become a real estate developer and cut everything down. Metaphor isn't literal, if the rules change, so does the power. If the ozone layer suddenly disappeared, the sun would come down and zap those trees like a microwave, and the fallen branches would provide shade and protection for the shrubs. Change the rules take the initiative.

>In a domineering position as the human, why should you let those roaches live? They don't help you, and they're pests to you and your fellow licensees inhabiting the property. No person in a domineering position wants to help those who aren't unless they see direct benefit to the domineer.
If everyone were ruthless, charity wouldn't exist. You don't give the homeless dude who pisses on the lampposts $5 because you think it'll help you. We're not asking for handouts, we're asking for change (and not the literal kind).

>But you're not gonna get anything done by whining. If you want fun or freedom from the Fed's oppression, it's never gonna happen unless you become a part of it yourself.
We're trying to change the game. And we're gonna get freedom by toppling Fed.

>Us 11 guilds worked for our map control, and we own it justly. We don't care how much smaller guilds are oppressed or how tyrannical we are, and you can bet you're gonna go through a million arguments and threads with no avail or fruit of your work.
Congrats, now feel free to watch it come toppling down, since while you don't care, the mods do.

>Stop trying
You'd have to put me 6 feet underground in a coffin first.

 

Different ways to take down a single guild: (draining bank, blockading high reward territories)
Taking an area: (two guilds attacking from opposite sides, targetting timezones where there is less activity)

Taking terrs don't take strategy it is just the way it is executed is the strategy.

________________________________

Tagged the wring person @Sylil

 

no i meant someone from the opposition lol

 

But you're forgetting one very crucial, crucia thing: No player or guild started out as a measly weed that will never grow into a tree, and no player or guild started out AS a tree. We all started on fair ground, but now that ground has become unfair due to the overinflation of the power at the top, but yknow what, you're right about one thing: I ain't getting any avail or fruit from my many speeches of this kind, not yet anyways. All your real life examples are TOTALLY on another planet in terms of scale.

And while I'll admit some of your points are true, you sure picked some really nasty, toxic ways of saying it. "Suck it up or wither and die." "beggar's clemency" "face the gorup in power, face consequences." You've let your power get to your head, and have lost the ability to relate to the perspective of the rest of us, and you're twisting the EVERLIVING crap out of my words, and for that, my words can offer no remedy. I'm just gonna forget about replying to this thread, but don't get me wrong: I'm not accepting defeat or giving justification to your oppressive attitude, OR agreeing with you, I'll just need to find some other way to wipe you away. Learn to speak kindly and see the other side from time to time, it's a good life skill. If u dont wanna see the other side, don't act like you know what it's trying to say.

I'll take my leave now, have a fine day

 

May as well reply in blocks, that essay hurt my hands before ;-;

AscendedKitten isn't my guild leader (or a leader of a guild at all tbt), she's 2nd in command of Imperial. I'm in Fox >.>

Well, I'm in Imp too as a community member, but that's besides the point. Anyway..

You basically seem to be wishing for alliances to be made up of /only the very best of the best/, which simply can't happen. That'd just make this entire situation worse. Imagine that the Round Table and Federation became one giant mega alliance, with any guild under level 50 kicked out. It's kinda like that.

Federation includes these smaller guilds with the goal of building them up to become bigger and better war machines. It's like what you guys are doing with PWF, Tsd, and Oce.

Lastly, my point in using GMY as an example wasn't to say that if they had a territory far away we'd jump out and snag it. It was to show that GMY uses an even lighter defense than one of the defenses you posed first as potential feeding defenses (80 lv100s, GMY uses 50), so isn't GMY technically feeding by your definition..? and you accused us of bending the rules ._>

Again with that elitist view of who should make up alliances. We just try to give smaller guilds a chance to get big is all. With Round Table constantly targeting them however, it makes that hard and generally just less fun for them.

We put 1000 mobs occasionally as well, which for them honestly take the same amount of time. ERN's got a pretty damn good war team, 1000 lv100s and 1000 lv50s takes the same amount of time for them on average. My point before however was that we assist them so that they can keep up in a 4v1 assault, not what you thought though.

I use "supposed to own" in that it's what they're assigned in the alliance (HoL with Nesaak, for example). Also, guilds usually don't claim their assigned territories after a point because they lose motivation due to being constantly attacked the second they take something (DsQ, HoL, Mox, you get it. Only ERN has escaped this, go them)

Fun fact, HoL stopped attacking because I had to leave >.> Galaxy couldn't solo as fast as I could because he was using a rather awful build at the time (50s gave him problems occasionally, oof). But, yeah, having them keep up was kinda the goal here.

Tnt's said this. Multiple times. Plus, if you just took it, you'd be forced to hold it's territories, otherwise Federation could come right back in and sweep them right back. Also, if I can ask, why Round Table out of all the possible names?

That's an opinion that I'll have to disagree on. Alliances, in my eyes, are groups of guilds that are meant to help each other out. Whether it be attacking, defending, hosting events for each other, it's just a group of friends working toward a shared goal and maintaining control once they've reached it. If we just betrayed our allies the second we took control of the map, it'd be completely pointless, as it will have just achieved nothing in the end :p

There's that elitist view again..

Look, Federation isn't evil. We do like helping out small guilds sometimes. So how is a newer tiny guild supposed to stay on par with a massive guild when they've had no time to be built up or maintained? If I asked the question of why PWF and Tsd and Oce are all in your alliance, it'd be the same situation.

So while I can, why are they there? They're not frickin giant powerhouses that deserve territories after all (your words, rephrased).

oh lol

That works, feel free to do that. Apologies again >.<

Well yeah, Federation is powerful enough now to not need to beg for members. Hell, we've been like this for awhile. There's no need to advertise an application when our alliance is already strong enough; any more guilds and we'll start losing them due to low territory assignments for certain guilds.

That's the thing, we /have/ done something. We got Tnt banned because we couldn't take more of his trash talking and reported him multiple times.

Now he's unbanned, and we have no idea why. But at least he doesn't talk as much anymore I suppose.

 

Although we are a war alliance, that doesn't mean that every member of a guild is solely there for the purposes of war. You make it sound like we're using every single member possible to war against one guild, which isn't true. Many of the guilds in Federation accept players who aren't war capable or just want to join their community. You're viewing this from a 1v11 perspective, which is pointless. It is obvious that numbers who are capable of warring have the advantage here. This obstacle should encourage, not discourage, the formation of an opposing alliance (which it has done) instead.

 

I saw this post and I just wanted to clarify some things.

While it's true that Fox is indeed a powerful force within the community, and a factor when it comes to the issue of guild power, we do not in any way support the "if you can't beat them, join them" mentality outright. Most applications that we get that use statements like "I want to be in the #1 guild" or "I wanna be on top" aren't given a second thought, mostly for the reasons that you stated, with it being anti-fun and egotistical. This rule also applies to Federation, as most guilds won't even see a vote unless they've shown that they have the prowess and skill in wars to be worth being in the alliance in the first place.

Fox, in many ways, has been more community-oriented than war-oriented. We've prioritized our members first, and our war efforts second, promoting a community of getting to know each other and just having fun. It's only recently that the warring section of Fox took off, and even then the people that we go to for wars are a subset of a subset of people. They do not represent Fox as a whole, and even then they're community members first. We will never accept people just to have them be in the #1 guild, or to coast to being relevant through our position in the community.

Along with that, the defenses we use were planned out and tested over weeks of warfare against other people. Even then, they're unreliable at best, since most people know their way around them. You can't just use a defense at random, because people will get through it or you'll bankrupt yourself.

Just a clarification, as casting Fox in a bad light isn't something I'll take lightly, especially if it isn't even correct.

 

@Reti I know I said in my most recent post I was done posting here, but I want ti apologize; by saying "easy to say since you're in fox" probably wasn't the best way for me to say what i was trying to: I was referring to the fact that all the people in Federation and therefore the power players seem to be rallying the same opinion and invalidating the rest of other peoples'. That was an oversight on my part, as I feel extremely strongly about competition which just seems completely strangled right now due to issues I'm passionate in defending.

I wasn't trying to sound like I knew better than you about your guild in itself. I'm just frustrated with the bigger picture, not trying to put any one piece of the picture in a slanderous position. Again I probably shouldn't have said it that way; I just wanna clear the air so that people won't catch onto the wrong idea that I'm holding "any one apple in the barrel" in contempt.

 

>AscendedKitten isn't my guild leader (or a leader of a guild at all tbt), she's 2nd in command of Imperial. I'm in Fox >.>
Sorry, I'm unable to read. I'll probably take a break after this.

>You basically seem to be wishing for alliances to be made up of /only the very best of the best/, which simply can't happen. That'd just make this entire situation worse. Imagine that the Round Table and Federation became one giant mega alliance, with any guild under level 50 kicked out. It's kinda like that.
Well I just wanted to make a point that Federation isn't a merit based guild, but mostly a connection based guild. But yeah, that vision of a mega alliance makes me shudder a bit.

>Lastly, my point in using GMY as an example wasn't to say that if they had a territory far away we'd jump out and snag it. It was to show that GMY uses an even lighter defense than one of the defenses you posed first as potential feeding defenses (80 lv100s, GMY uses 50), so isn't GMY technically feeding by your definition..? and you accused us of bending the rules ._>
Well the idea of what you're doing is that Federation is defending Federation assigned territories extremely lightly, for the express purpose of giving those territories to the guild that that land is assigned to. GMY isn't feeding (in my book), since they seem to simply be warring for the fun of it, and they don't even have level 100 mobs yet (i think? not sure what guild level you need). Again, I don't understand what GMY is doing, so I'm kinda unqualified to speak for their reasoning behind it, but I know for sure they're not trying to give territories away, which is why I don't believe it's feeding. Kinda like if a Federation guild placed 10 mobs in one of your free for all territories. There's no designated recipient, so it's not feeding.

>Again with that elitist view of who should make up alliances. We just try to give smaller guilds a chance to get big is all. With Round Table constantly targeting them however, it makes that hard and generally just less fun for them.
Our problem with your smaller guilds is that they're in the Federation. Divide and conquer. If you're not awake to hold your territories, the alliance shouldn't be able to save you. I'm not saying people in the alliance should be in the same timezone, but if they're not there to fight, they shouldn't be able to wake up to a quick walk in the park to get their stuff back.

>We put 1000 mobs occasionally as well, which for them honestly take the same amount of time. ERN's got a pretty damn good war team, 1000 lv100s and 1000 lv50s takes the same amount of time for them on average. My point before however was that we assist them so that they can keep up in a 4v1 assault, not what you thought though.
The one day I was there for the ERN assault, we had to constantly detour and stop to remove 300 mob defenses, or else they'd outpace us as we fought 1000 mob defenses. A good war team can't change spawn rates.

>I use "supposed to own" in that it's what they're assigned in the alliance (HoL with Nesaak, for example). Also, guilds usually don't claim their assigned territories after a point because they lose motivation due to being constantly attacked the second they take something (DsQ, HoL, Mox, you get it. Only ERN has escaped this, go them)
But each of the guilds you listed has had a ton of assistance from Federation in defending their territories. We've sieged all the guilds you've listed, and we've attacked any defense from Federation guilds that had 300 or under defenses, and now they're just filled with 910 mob defenses. Clearly once the guild has given up, you guys transition to a slightly less lighter defense.

>Fun fact, HoL stopped attacking because I had to leave >.> Galaxy couldn't solo as fast as I could because he was using a rather awful build at the time (50s gave him problems occasionally, oof). But, yeah, having them keep up was kinda the goal here.
And the amount of assistance that being in alliance provided when defending was insane. For siegeing what you described as a weak guild, that took much to long, since HoL was able to keep up with us through taking 300 mob 'light defenses' (i still think they're feeders >.>)

>Tnt's said this. Multiple times. Plus, if you just took it, you'd be forced to hold it's territories, otherwise Federation could come right back in and sweep them right back. Also, if I can ask, why Round Table out of all the possible names?
Tnt is... Well he's Tnt. He's me guild leader, but he's not the leader of the round table. Ideally a lot of guild would hold all the territories, and just beat back Federation until a plan can be worked out for everyone. This mostly comes to when we get to that point though, since it's gonna be a long slog. As for Round Table, I just wanted to promoted the idea of equality among members, since feelings of inequality drove us to leave Federation in the first place.

>That's an opinion that I'll have to disagree on. Alliances, in my eyes, are groups of guilds that are meant to help each other out. Whether it be attacking, defending, hosting events for each other, it's just a group of friends working toward a shared goal and maintaining control once they've reached it. If we just betrayed our allies the second we took control of the map, it'd be completely pointless, as it will have just achieved nothing in the end :p
If alliances help each other out in all aspects of guild wars, that makes it so that the only way to beat that alliance is with another alliance with more people. And the only way to beat that alliance... you get my point.

>Look, Federation isn't evil. We do like helping out small guilds sometimes. So how is a newer tiny guild supposed to stay on par with a massive guild when they've had no time to be built up or maintained? If I asked the question of why PWF and Tsd and Oce are all in your alliance, it'd be the same situation.
The elitest view is quite realistic in my opinion. Ideally, if there was no alliance, anyone would attack anything. Take Lava Lake for example. It's the most contested piece of land in the game, because it gives so many resources. If you can't hold onto it, you lose it. If a tiny guild attacked it, noone would think twice before taking it back. They wouldn't stop to think "oh, think of the small guilds, they deserve the best spot until they get bigger." Also PWF, Tsd, and Oce are guilds with nothing to lose. Actually, every guild not in federation pretty much has nothing to lose. They're in the alliance to gain something. HoL is in the alliance to hold onto something. Big difference in my book.

>So while I can, why are they there? They're not frickin giant powerhouses that deserve territories after all (me, rephrased)
Again, ideally the most valuable pieces of land are claimed by the powerhouse guilds that can fight for them, and the smaller guilds fight for the the less valuable pieces of land. It's not that they don't deserve anything, but they don't deserve more than they can earn either.

>Well yeah, Federation is powerful enough now to not need to beg for members. Hell, we've been like this for awhile. There's no need to advertise an application when our alliance is already strong enough; any more guilds and we'll start losing them due to low territory assignments for certain guilds.
Fair point, though begging isn't the word I'd use. But the guild map looks awfully monocolored to me.

 

Holy sh**t you're getting way, way too intense and philosophical about this. IT's hard for me to even grasp what you're saying because of your over-eloquent wordplay, metaphors, and stretching of my words to the absolute extreme.

This seems to be getting very personal between just us two, so I'd appreciate that you and i take any further banter into a PM. The discussions of this thread have veered WILDLY off the original poster's intended course, and I'd prefer to opt out of fueling the flames any further.

>I'm done here<

 

@Moderator

 

This thread's been temp-closed. Should be re-opened soon.

 

This thread's now open. Please keep this thread polite when adding something to the discussion, comments have been deleted.

Warnings will be given if a person does not respect our forums rules.

 

o o f

 

After reading the extensive amount of arguments on this thread, I guess I’ll throw in my two cents because why not. I say we give this time, and see if Federation is challenged before imposing new rules as power-checks. I see no problem with Federations current dominance and their tactics are no less shady than previous dominant guilds/alliances, as long as it doesn’t turn into another [Hax] situation (Such as completely dominating the map for a year+). If Federation turns into that type of situation, I see no reason as to why power-checks should be put in place for Hax and not Fed.


To sum it up, Federations dominance is still relatively new, lets give it some time before asserting new rules to check their power.

 

The only rule that was put in place to limit Hax was the banning of feeder guilds. They would take their members and put them in to subguilds which would attack non-Hax territories and not even defend. Then Hax members would be waiting at that territory to snipe it back from the subguild. This allowed a single guild to have a war strength equal to that of MANY guilds, and people almost universally agree it was unfair, which it was.
However, what Federation is doing is not unfair like the feeder guilds were. Defending lightly is just not even remotely the same as what Hax did, and does not artificially increase the war strength of the alliance as a whole.

 

um whats actually shady about it?

so your saying that mods should act based on long Fed lasts? again considering Fed isnt actually doing anything shady, mods should just put power checks in place for Fed just so they can kill it and let someone new come to power?

again, cuz Fed isnt actually doing anything shady.
if anything, the bigger guilds that are always able to war are actually giving away territories to the smaller guilds whose territories are getting taken

 

do people actually read the actual thread smh

 

You're doing the same thing but instead of one guild you have a few smaller guilds.

Anyway, in my opinion this is not a good system to have, one group shouldn't control everything. However, I don't think changing the rules to ban what they're doing should be the way we handle this. The problem is, the only way to take down a big alliance like this is to make another big alliance, however, when Federation would be defeated that alliance would control everything. Which is the concept they would be fighting against in the first place. To be fair I think the whole group will eventually fall apart, when they've fallen apart some sort of rule limiting the size of alliances could be put in place.