Poll: Should Ray add GvG battles ?
This idea is great ! He should add GvG Battles !
This idea is very bad ! He should not add GvG Battles
I dont know what to say about it...
[Show Results]
 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
GvG battles
#11
I would prefer a system where each guild battles a beast of some sort and then the guilds are ranked based on the damage dealt to that beast.

And ranked accordingly. Fighting PvP in this game as it stands would require a completely new system otherwise it will just be a massive slaugther
Reply
#12
that is why this thread is in suggestion zone guys XD , and of course if this DO HAPPEN we gonna need a much fair system
Reply
#13
(09-18-2015, 06:37 AM)Omnia0001 Wrote: GvG in this form is a bad idea, it becomes a battle of the (wallets + time) between guilds. There's nothing interesting, fun, or neat about a system that punishes anyone newer or poorer than others.

If you wanted guild competition, utilize the one system that isn't directly affected by wallets at least- the Space Exploration system. I'd rather have Guild Pet Army vs Guild Beast system before these forms of competition are implemented. Co-Op opportunities are much more positive reinforcement for the community than instilling competition engines.

Um... the individual damage of each player combined in the guild should be what matters in GvG competition.
Smile
---Retired---
Reply
#14
(09-21-2015, 09:10 AM)Ragekai Wrote:
(09-18-2015, 06:37 AM)Omnia0001 Wrote: GvG in this form is a bad idea, it becomes a battle of the (wallets + time) between guilds. There's nothing interesting, fun, or neat about a system that punishes anyone newer or poorer than others.

If you wanted guild competition, utilize the one system that isn't directly affected by wallets at least- the Space Exploration system. I'd rather have Guild Pet Army vs Guild Beast system before these forms of competition are implemented. Co-Op opportunities are much more positive reinforcement for the community than instilling competition engines.

Um... the individual damage of each player combined in the guild should be what matters in GvG competition.
Smile

So you are saying that GvG should not be fair at all?



I mean yeah, you all support Ray...and he deserves it, but the bonus in damage is high. This means p2p guilds win no matter what.

I honestly don't want a GvG system.
You can usually find me here!
Reply
#15
(09-21-2015, 01:25 PM)Void Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 09:10 AM)Ragekai Wrote:
(09-18-2015, 06:37 AM)Omnia0001 Wrote: GvG in this form is a bad idea, it becomes a battle of the (wallets + time) between guilds. There's nothing interesting, fun, or neat about a system that punishes anyone newer or poorer than others.

If you wanted guild competition, utilize the one system that isn't directly affected by wallets at least- the Space Exploration system. I'd rather have Guild Pet Army vs Guild Beast system before these forms of competition are implemented. Co-Op opportunities are much more positive reinforcement for the community than instilling competition engines.

Um... the individual damage of each player combined in the guild should be what matters in GvG competition.
Smile

So you are saying that GvG should not be fair at all?



I mean yeah, you all support Ray...and he deserves it, but the bonus in damage is high. This means p2p guilds win no matter what.

I honestly don't want a GvG system.

Naturally.
They didn't pay hundreds of dollars in support to have their advantage not count.

I'm sure there will be guilds full of players who never supported the game, of course they'd be no competition vs. those who did and were equally/more active too.

If the system were "Click here to support the game with your $$$, but the reward you buy won't apply to actual competition within the game" Then, noone would buy it. The game would be un-supported and either cease to exist or be covered with ads.
---Retired---
Reply
#16
Naturally, this would make the game boring too. Supporting the game shouldn't be rewarded with 'handicapping' the competition for the person who spent the most.

There's a couple of games that have the fundamental "this number matters, if yours is bigger you pretty much win" and spending $$$ is the easiest way to make your number bigger. Those games were boring because unless you wanted to wage wallet & time wars with whomever was the current king of the server, there's nothing gained in progress.

Fundamentally, people should support the game financially if they enjoyed the game/support development. The gains for spending money are nice and I am glad to see that others enjoy using them, but this doesn't mean new game systems should be tailored around drumming up more funds.
Reply
#17
Quote:Naturally.
They didn't pay hundreds of dollars in support to have their advantage not count.

I'm sure there will be guilds full of players who never supported the game, of course they'd be no competition vs. those who did and were equally/more active too.

If the system were "Click here to support the game with your $$$, but the reward you buy won't apply to actual competition within the game" Then, noone would buy it. The game would be un-supported and either cease to exist or be covered with ads.


While supporting the game is a wonderful thing to do, and SHOULD give advantages (atleast in a co-op perspective), adding competition-based features that requires P2W will end up killing this game, as it did on countless others.

I don't care if someone spends 1k$+ on the game and has major advantage over me, I will still be able to enjoy it, as I am not a competition freak for the leaderboards and generally those people are pretty nice and won't mind giving a hand in challenges and what not.

On the other hand, even if I am not a competition freak, having a Player vs Player feature that takes into account the amount of money spent and which gives rewards based on that (basically : more money spent = more damage in GvG = more war won on week maximum battle number = (lots) more rewards) would basically turn this game into another P2W fest. And while P2W fests are nice for a while on the developper wallet side, generally you end up with a decaying community until what's left of the playerbase is the cashing playerbase, with less and less new players coming in to eventually replace quitting cashers.

I find the balance at this moment to be quite nice, the game obviously suggest paying, but at the same time you can see some progress as a F2P player (and generally a part of the F2P players end up paying to support/get a little bit of advantage when they really enjoy the game), while adding PvP / GvG or any other competition mode that rewards paying would leave a bad taste and make potential future supporters just nope out because they know they can never be on par with the bigger whales (while in a co-op perspective this does not matter as much, but people tend to get edgy in PvP environments)

Also, I have cashed in the past in different games that were more of a cash grab than this, sometimes too much to be worth mentionning, and I try to look at things from both point of views. I am currently a free player on this game, and enjoy it, even if the card pack thing is a bit on the limit for me. Still playable though and enjoyable, where PvP or GvG based on player DPS would not be.


My 2 cents and humble opinion, I have seen too many games get hungrier for money and turn from "awesome and refreshing game" to "avoid this p2w mess" in reviews, and then ending up dying / living off their few whales that still cash in. I hope this one remain sane and keep the balance in mind.
Reply
#18
So we aren't getting GvG battles ?

Bob what did you do ????

#BlameBob
Nice run 'til now.
Reply
#19
Before GvG, maybe implement PvP, based on that we can do GvG Tongue It's probably a bit early to talk about such a project.
Reply
#20
First off, I think for GvG only the leader has to be online to attack, or anybody to attack once battle started.

Maybe use some kind of math for a Guild damage, not individual damage, like... add all player lvls together % members = dmg.
GvG you attack Guild Halls, 1 lvl = 1k hp, can only attack once every 2 hrs (with enough players there's alot more likely someone's online to click attack once).

Top guild has like guild hall around lvl 16-17? (estimate) thats 16-17k.

My guild's hall is lvl 12, even though we're alot weaker in the IOU/rank score, that's 12k.

now, even though they might have lvl 300's in there, they've got the divide that total number more times so it would be really close battle, then we could add skill points, like the orb system but with Guild battle victory/loses, 1 victory = 100 exp, 1 loss = 50 exp, so it would take a REALLY long time for any guild to pull ahead, even top ranked ones.

Skills.

Attack Damage. (1 lvl = 1% extra damage per attack)
Defence. (1 lvl = 1% damage knocked off each attack)

Rewards: 10k stone put into the Guild Hall. (not too big of a reward at first but add's up.)

PS. all my guild lvls % 23 = 217 (rounded up/down) so my guild would hit for 217 every 2 hours and would take 6.5 days minimum to kill the top tanked guild at 17k hp.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)