Guilds Guild Wars Revamp Idea

Pvp just doesn't work as a serious system because it is horribly unbalanced. Builds literally either 1) never die (like regen builds) or 2) one shot you instantly. (poison or vanish assassin) If that isn't terrible balance, then what is. There's a reason why hunted mode has devolved into prof grinders just running away instead of actually fighting back, they know that they will get literally one shot and die if they don't run.

 

Sorry, I did mention at the bottom though...

Sure, you may get pulled into a war once if you chose to opt in, but defenders do receive a shield so they won't immediately get attacked again.

Which is a fair mechanic. Also, guilds cannot attack downwards in tiers. The matchmaking system is similar to CoC, so even if you do snipe lower-elo guilds, you will get less elo for winning. And vice versa.

Guilds can only attack similar tier or higher. In virtually all games that have matchmaking similar to this, the top 0.001% take much longer to find matchmaking due to simple logistics that the pool of potential matches is much smaller. Now, even with this being the case, there would still be plenty of guilds in the same tier allowing for plenty of matches to still occur.

Again, this idea falls apart because matches are based on castle tiers. Of course, alliances will find ways to bolster their alliance at the end of the day. There is simply no avoiding it all-together. However, "smurfing" would be impossible because you wouldn't fall in a lower bracket of competitors. You'd only lose elo, hurting only yourself. Even if you farmed another guild by purposefully attacking them and them losing over and over, you would only go up because elo gains go down as the difference increases.

Thanks! And yes, they would still be able to exist, but their impact would be much lower.

First of all, it actually does not change the system, as territory wars could stay as is. Second of all, please actually make points that are arguable and productive to the thread before posting.

PvP would be balanced for it. Here's a suggestion that does that: https://forums.wynncraft.com/thread...l-improved-pvp-includes-demonstration.269919/

 

So if a small guilds owns a territory most guilds won't be able to attack it? I get your thinking behind it but that seems a bit unbalanced to me

 

Again, you ignore the entire point of my message. A high level guild at say level 81 would still face a drastically lower amount of guilds than if they had been level 79 previously, and it discourages elo focused guilds on levelling because it lowers the amount of guilds they can face.
Shields are a meh way of fixing incessant defending for small guilds, until everyone has already been attacked, and now everyone is back to territory wars.

Smurfing in my opinion wouldn't change much if we were to use castle tiers instead of elo, as a new guild could be created specifically to farm elo, then gamethrow to lift elo to guilds higher in level. A small change to your suggestion would be to change the elo to exp, in order to help guilds reach higher levels while removing the problems that can come from incessantly grinding an arbitrary number that resets every month.

Finally,

I just gotta bring this up again, but you completely avoid the problem that you have clearly stated to be the focus of the post. Instead, you bring up pvp, which arguably is unbalanced, adding it to guilds and just confusing the entire focus of this feature as a whole. As Pally said, nothing positive would be added, we will just begin to see more people asking why there are two different war types, with two entirely different gameplay aspects, while major guilds would either continue territory wars, or start new ones to "smurf."

 

really great idea! :D

 

This just comes with the territory of being a high-level guild, like how I mentioned this occurs with plenty of other games when it comes to matchmaking the top 1% of players. However, you do raise a fair point of not wanting to level up to "smurf" for elo. And sure, I'll give you that point, but I will also add in that there is still a benefit of leveling up as you gain war slots for more members to participate in wars. Which would help when you face off against higher-tier guilds who will have increased war members.

Sure, this could be the case but say if you want to boost a tier 5 guild. You'd have to level it up all the way to t4 at least which is a lot of Exp to grind, and then potentially get matched up with them. I do like your idea of giving guild Exp per wars though, and you could also have wars that have been requested (not randomly found) be nonrated games to avoid boosting.

I'm not going to go over the PvP again, TL;DR is that it would be balanced for it and I linked a suggestion for balancing it earlier.

This idea does resolve the two problems I mentioned though. The impact of alliances in this suggestion compared to the current state of them would be much lower, given that players wouldn't have control over who they attack. New guilds would be able to climb in a way that doesn't make them the target of the entire map and would face off against 1 guild at a time. Not multiple guilds passing off territories to one another. It also resolves the #2 issue of territory wars being insanely boring. I'm sorry, but if you think the current territory wars are a good end-game, then you have very high patience to sit around battling low-tier mobs on and on. Sure, there may be confusion about it at first. But I don't think it'd be too hard to grasp if you renamed the current guild wars to Territory wars and named this suggestion 'Guild Wars' or 'Guild Battles' just to distinguish it more.

Thanks for the input though, you've been one of the first people to actually raise good points about the suggestion itself.

Thank you! :)