limit the number of territories of a guild to 10

2

Comments

  • Sandaili - Dreamweaver
    Sandaili - Dreamweaver Posts: 119 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Volpex - Dreamweaver wrote: »
    I propose to set a limit to the territory of a guild to avoid the monopoly of a guild on the other, causing an anomalous/abnormal situation server dreamweaver (Calamity example) . I'm surprised that the administrators have not noticed this anomaly.

    Interesting. I don't think it's a good idea but to each their own. b:cute
  • shammahbenjudah
    shammahbenjudah Posts: 34 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Sandaili - Dreamweaver wrote: »
    Interesting. I don't think it's a good idea but to each their own. b:cute

    So I guess you're saying its OK to keep on giving Cala a rough equivalent of $1500 every week for doing ... nothing?

    That really sucks when you count the number of really nice people who have left the game because they can't even afford to pay for the regens they use and have better things to do with their time than to spend weeks farming herbs for a days worth of regen.

    I could personally give a rip about doing TW's...PVP isn't my thing. I've "conquered the world" in other games and the competition and teamwork can be a lot of fun, but 5 years from now nobody will care, lol.

    While there are a lot of unanswered questions about the ethics Cala used to get where they are, I don't really even care about that.

    Its the ethics of a company that spawn the "Calas and Nefs" and patronize them without the slightest concern for the impact it has on the overwhelming majority of other players in the game.

    It is not financially ethical to give them free money, give them what they earn and nothing more.

    They may not be able to retro and even out the massive financial imbalance they've created, but they can sure as heck put and end to it now.

    We're tired of the dominant factions acting like they're so much more "elite" than everybody else when all they're doing is hiding behind PW's skirt-tails.

    Stop giving them free money...take the limits off and make all territories free for all in TW. Give everyone who wants a chance to play the game...a chance to play the game.
  • Asterelle - Sanctuary_1381265973
    Asterelle - Sanctuary_1381265973 Posts: 7,881 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    The problem is not in gaining land but that it its too easy to defend. Even if you have 50 lands you only ever gave to defend 3 at a time.

    Defending the whole map is no harder than defending only 3 territories. That doesn't make much sense at all.

    Attackers shouldn't be forced to attack a few at a time. They should remove the limit on simultaneous attacks.

    If you want to hold 50 territories you should be prepared to defend them.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Refining Simulator - aster.ohmydays.net/pw/refiningsimulator.html (don't use IE)
    Genie Calculator - aster.ohmydays.net/pw/geniecalculator.html - (don't use IE)
    Socket Calculator - aster.ohmydays.net/pw/socketcalculator.html
  • Technotic - Sanctuary
    Technotic - Sanctuary Posts: 591 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    All TW should be at the same time. Total chaos :O
    Say my name 3 times, I dare you.

    ~Technotic
    TrueMyths.Guildplex.com
  • DepheX - Heavens Tear
    DepheX - Heavens Tear Posts: 2 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    How about NO.

    Don't like Calamity holding the majority of lands?

    Start bidding.
  • KohakuNushi - Lost City
    KohakuNushi - Lost City Posts: 56 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Many Posted before sonthing lik ethis but , is realy good idea i wish Dev Teamread the borad sonthimes or at leats GM can tranfer the info ...But for real that no gona happend b:shocked
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Technotic - Sanctuary
    Technotic - Sanctuary Posts: 591 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    DepheX - Heavens Tear wrote: »
    How about NO.

    Don't like Calamity holding the majority of lands?

    Start bidding.

    Don't even care about Calamity. And your logic makes no sense. TW should all be at the same time. How are major battles done in real life? Multiple nations form together to attack from all sides, overpowering the super nation. In current TW, there are gaps between each battle making it so you can't all attack a super faction at once. And the normal battle time of a Super Faction vs. a regular faction is less than 60 seconds. The Super faction could set up gear again and be at the next battle by then. If everyone attacks at the same time, the faction can't cover all the land and would lose battles.

    TW should be all at the same time.
    Say my name 3 times, I dare you.

    ~Technotic
    TrueMyths.Guildplex.com
  • Mrvate - Heavens Tear
    Mrvate - Heavens Tear Posts: 406 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    imo I think the best thing to make TW more fun, and prevent 1 major faction from owning the entire map is have it so they don't get coin from it, or atleast alot less coin. This would also help alot with people wanting a coin sink. Instead of taking all that coin out, stop adding it.

    And on the idea of a cap on territories I think it is a poor idea, because if it was put in I'd see it more likely then not making it be 1 major faction still owning the entire map, just they'd be using sister factions to do so.
  • Technotic - Sanctuary
    Technotic - Sanctuary Posts: 591 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Make all TW at the same time. Nef is all over Sanc right now and they aren't going to lose any land. They get a ridiculous amount of coin each week and a lot of them dump money into the game to get even more power. They're just going to keep getting stronger.
    Say my name 3 times, I dare you.

    ~Technotic
    TrueMyths.Guildplex.com
  • Theavenger - Sanctuary
    Theavenger - Sanctuary Posts: 69 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Lets see
    Put a limit on= no possibility of controlling the whole map; no world domination; unhappy clans.

    Dont put a limit on= World domination= heapings of cash for the clan= one very rich happy clan= no real chance for anyone else to try to become a very rich happy clan.

    hmm...
    the way i see it there should be chaos. I think it should be a continued struggle, not some faction effortlessly wiping out every other faction in existence. *hint*Nefarious*hint*

    So really, i think I'll go with the idea of removing the limits on attacks at the same time, and i think the money that you need to declare war is really dumb too. PW has a very bad habit of putting cash\item requirements on EVERYTHING

    It would also be nice if there was some way to balance one faction to another, to keep one clan from like recruiting all the freakin lvl 100+s on the server or something. (not a limit. i despise limits.)

    I don't think there should be a limit on the amount of land a clan can own, that like...defeats the #1 purpose of TW. everyone wants world domination; let them, if they can. but make it fair at the same time.
    Don't like Calamity holding the majority of lands?

    Start bidding.

    Right, cuz it's so easy to get all that money and create a successful enough faction to take them back. When i see you do that, I'll admit it's very possible.
  • Technotic - Sanctuary
    Technotic - Sanctuary Posts: 591 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Agreed with everything said + we need TW to be at the same time XD
    Say my name 3 times, I dare you.

    ~Technotic
    TrueMyths.Guildplex.com
  • DepheX - Heavens Tear
    DepheX - Heavens Tear Posts: 2 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Technotic - Sanctuary wrote: »
    Don't even care about Calamity. And your logic makes no sense. TW should all be at the same time. How are major battles done in real life? Multiple nations form together to attack from all sides, overpowering the super nation. In current TW, there are gaps between each battle making it so you can't all attack a super faction at once. And the normal battle time of a Super Faction vs. a regular faction is less than 60 seconds. The Super faction could set up gear again and be at the next battle by then. If everyone attacks at the same time, the faction can't cover all the land and would lose battles.

    TW should be all at the same time.

    Ok that makes sense, because of your inability you think its right for 25+ factions to gank a single faction who cannot possibly defend all their lands at once. So to make up for your fail these guilds who have earned there success in PWI need to be punished.

    Also your using real life scenarios in a video game setting. I'll leave you this...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7w64fbqYQY
  • Technotic - Sanctuary
    Technotic - Sanctuary Posts: 591 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Uhh.... thats the point in WHY all TW should be at the same time. Makes it so 1 faction can't own all the land. Wow.. Did you not even bother to think about the post or even read it for that matter?

    If every faction ganked on 1 Super Faction that owns the whole map, that Super Faction couldn't possibly defend all that land and would lose a large amount of it. That is called war. Whats going on now is, "Hey I'm a super faction and I'm better than all of you as long as you don't all work together. Please wait in line to get ran over." Think real life for a minute(omg yes I said real life), If the US just started bombing the **** out of the world, ALL the other nations would fight back. The US can't say, "oh hold on, i'm fighting this guy. Wait your turn."

    If TW was at the same time, it would balance the Regular to Super Faction ratio. The Super Faction could still defend a good 5 to 10 pieces of land against multiple attacks. But when the faction owns almost the entire map and we can only do 1v1 battles, of course they're going to win. There is no chance.

    For you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkWH8DB7b0&feature=related
    Say my name 3 times, I dare you.

    ~Technotic
    TrueMyths.Guildplex.com
  • Cyanea - Lost City
    Cyanea - Lost City Posts: 107 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    They used to have an official page stating that no faction could own both Tier 1 cities (Archosaur and Thousand Streams). They no longer say that, but I think that they should implement this rule.

    And once they have implemented this rule, they should take back one of these two citys from factions that control both -- they should give the faction leader of the faction that owns them a choice and a deadline for that choice.

    Of course, Lost City has been much cooler than any other server in this context.
  • Technotic - Sanctuary
    Technotic - Sanctuary Posts: 591 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Your faction should be in either group 1, 2, or 3.

    Group 1 means you can fight for level 1 areas.
    Group 2 means you can fight for level 2 areas.
    Group 3 means you can fight for level 3 areas.

    Simple.

    Just another idea to put out there.
    Say my name 3 times, I dare you.

    ~Technotic
    TrueMyths.Guildplex.com
  • NightRaptor - Dreamweaver
    NightRaptor - Dreamweaver Posts: 2 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Another way would be to combine the following:

    1) Reset the map every month? 3 months?
    2) All battles fought simultaneously
    3) Blind bids for attacking a territory, and only one bid per faction per territory each week
    4) No limits on how many territories can be attacked, or owned, or defended

    That would allow a lot more factions to potentially own land and participate in TW but still allow the more powerful factions to get the bigger share they deserve.
  • Technotic - Sanctuary
    Technotic - Sanctuary Posts: 591 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I don't agree with TW reset. If it does, make it once a year or something.

    But I do think all TW should be at the same time.
    Say my name 3 times, I dare you.

    ~Technotic
    TrueMyths.Guildplex.com
  • Dreaded_Fate - Lost City
    Dreaded_Fate - Lost City Posts: 219 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Resetting the map every 6 months would be alright. As long as they announced the date so guilds could prepare and know they aren't spending money on a territory that will be reset in a week.
    [EvilMarlon - Sanctuary] It would be nice to be a male veno i tryed a veno and my dad saw me and he thought i was **** it took me a whole month for him to even talk to me again. <-- LMAO b:chuckle
  • lol963
    lol963 Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    +1 to making it harder/more challenge for the faction to hold more lands(in reallity isn't that more land equal more pressure?). Instead of putting cap.
  • shammahbenjudah
    shammahbenjudah Posts: 34 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    DepheX - Heavens Tear wrote: »
    Ok that makes sense, because of your inability you think its right for 25+ factions to gank a single faction who cannot possibly defend all their lands at once. So to make up for your fail these guilds who have earned there success in PWI need to be punished.

    Also your using real life scenarios in a video game setting. I'll leave you this...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7w64fbqYQY

    What a crock. The only true inability we're addressing is the inability of dominant factions to prove themselves to be truly dominant. It isn't ganking them to ask them to earn the money they get...is it?

    And if they "cannot possibly defend all their lands at once", then what right do they have to hold all those lands? Their success is a joke if they never have to prove themselves.

    We're suggesting that PW fix this failed TW system, not punish a single faction. But when you take it in perspective...its really the other factions being punished because they can't participate.

    Face it...the dominant factions don't want the system to change because they KNOW they couldn't handle a free for all TW and they don't have the brass to stand up and really defend what's theirs. Heck it doesn't surprise me that most of the TWs against them now are bidded out by their b*tch factions and they don't even have to really show up and fight.

    The current TW system is FAIL and everyone with their nose up in the air over their "dominance" is just as failed...it means nothing.
  • shammahbenjudah
    shammahbenjudah Posts: 34 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Here's another interesting figure that may help bring this into perspective. Looking at all of the current maps on our servers, I counted 182 territories that will simply not be available for bids in the next TW.

    Since the maximum number of players who can participate in a single TW is 80, this means that potentially 14,560 players will not be able to play the game. And that's only counting attacking factions.

    If only 25% of those players would have bought a gold HP charm for the event, that's $14,560 PWI won't be getting because there won't be an event. As much as PWI loves to sell stuff, this must have been a complete oversight on their part.

    I know these figures represent the maximum potential and if TW was FFA it would surely be less. But the whole point is that's a whole lot of people to exclude from the game. And since this IS a business, you would think one would take every advantage to maximize profits.
  • _BaMbOo - Dreamweaver
    _BaMbOo - Dreamweaver Posts: 68 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    This isn't a problem in ALL the servers, so there isn't a problem with TW at all.
  • LoveLamp - Dreamweaver
    LoveLamp - Dreamweaver Posts: 2 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    First.. Limiting lands doesnt make sense.. what happens once you hit 10 lands.. you just have to sit there and not attack?? And since your that ultra power faction no one will attack you resulting in a very boring existance.

    The reason everyone cant attack at once is it simulates realy war.. you cant attack the middle of a country with out passing the Border which is guarded and they see you comming. Secondly the everyone attacking is simulated through the bidding process. If 2 rivil armys show up at the border attacking they have to fight first.. so the person with the bigger wallet = bigger army in this case so he wins the fight and gets to attack the border. Lastly tell me how its already not fair.. 3 wars = 80*3 = 240people.. and since faction is capped at 200 that leaves you 40 people shot. 66 people per war assuming your entire faction gets online for a TW which never happens... So what is so hard about haveing 3 factions attack with 80 people online? Your telling me all the other factions are soo crappy that they cant win 80 vs 66?
  • shammahbenjudah
    shammahbenjudah Posts: 34 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    _BaMbOo - Dreamweaver wrote: »
    This isn't a problem in ALL the servers, so there isn't a problem with TW at all.

    Interesting logic...so since everyone doesn't starve to death...there isn't a problem with hunger at all...?
  • Yulk - Heavens Tear
    Yulk - Heavens Tear Posts: 1,951 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    50/50...

    Either that, or no one gets land
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Thanks for Flauschkatze for siggy b:cool

    VIT > STR > DEX > MAG... GG
    HA > LA > AR... GG

    HA + VIT = win b:bye
  • _BaMbOo - Dreamweaver
    _BaMbOo - Dreamweaver Posts: 68 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    shammahbenjudah wrote: »
    Interesting logic...so since everyone doesn't starve to death...there isn't a problem with hunger at all...?

    Interesting logic...so since you cannot post a constructive answer...you use an analogy that makes so relevant sense to this topic.

    b:chuckle
  • Olba - Sanctuary
    Olba - Sanctuary Posts: 1,776 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    shammahbenjudah wrote: »
    Interesting logic...so since everyone doesn't starve to death...there isn't a problem with hunger at all...?

    Your analogy is logically flawed.

    Starvation implies hunger, but hunger does not imply starvation. Therefore, starvation is a subset of hunger. Just because something happens in a subset does not mean that it has to apply to the rest of the superset. In terms you should understand: All starvation is hunger, but not all hunger is starvation.

    Also, "hunger" itself, defined as desire for food, isn't a problem at all. Starvation, which implies either death or hunger to an unhealthy level, is kinda bad. Though, the cruel truth is that starvation is only a "problem" because saying that it is not a problem is inconsiderate as it implies that people dying doesn't mean anything.

    And besides, there are some problems which simply do not have realistic solutions. Whether the said solutions would satisfy everyone or just a small portion of the population is another matter.

    And actually, the point that was present, "the situation is not the same on all servers", is a tremendous interest, since it shows the differences in the population and the internal dynamics of the servers. Which, from a social psychology point of view, is damnedly interesting.
    If you disregard what I say because of who I am or because of the contents of what I said, you are a fool.

    Everyone wants to be different, but when you're different you wish you were normal.
  • shammahbenjudah
    shammahbenjudah Posts: 34 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    LoveLamp - Dreamweaver wrote: »
    First.. Limiting lands doesnt make sense.. what happens once you hit 10 lands.. you just have to sit there and not attack?? And since your that ultra power faction no one will attack you resulting in a very boring existance.

    I have to agree with you about the limitations. I think a faction should be free to hold as many lands as they can. But even with the limitations, the "ultra power' thing gets spread around a bit more and can't be monopolized by one faction, so I'm sure TW's would still be far more active than they currently are...at least on the PVE servers.
    LoveLamp - Dreamweaver wrote: »
    The reason everyone cant attack at once is it simulates realy war.. you cant attack the middle of a country with out passing the Border which is guarded and they see you comming. Secondly the everyone attacking is simulated through the bidding process. If 2 rivil armys show up at the border attacking they have to fight first.. so the person with the bigger wallet = bigger army in this case so he wins the fight and gets to attack the border. Lastly tell me how its already not fair.. 3 wars = 80*3 = 240people.. and since faction is capped at 200 that leaves you 40 people shot. 66 people per war assuming your entire faction gets online for a TW which never happens... So what is so hard about haveing 3 factions attack with 80 people online? Your telling me all the other factions are soo crappy that they cant win 80 vs 66?

    Well, the RL simulation thing has been worked over a bit by both sides. While I can see both perspectives on it, you have to bear in mind that this is a playground of sorts. And it makes no sense to have more of this playground closed to others than open. If I were among the many who just started the game and wanted to TW, it wouldn't take me very long to just go find a new playground because I'll never get to play on this one.

    As far as RL simulations go though...IRL countries unite against each other to fight a comon enemy...they don't take turns or bid on who gets to attack. If everyone in the world decided to attack *Insert country name here* at once, the only thing stopping them is that country's ability to defend itself.

    One of the issues a lot of folks are having with the bidding process vs. a faction holding 35+ territories is they easily have enough money to outbid virtually anyone they don't want to fight...all they need is an alt or a b*tch faction to bid for them. At this point it doesn't matter how many show up, does it? I think the bidding process is cool to a point, but I'd like to see it make a way around this particular issue and TBH the only way I can see to fix it is FFA TW.

    IF all TWs were scheduled at exactly the same time and IF one faction didn't have a massive free money advantage, the 80 vs. 66 scenario would create some potential for allowing the TW situation to eventually balance itself out given status quo. The first "IF" is variable but the second "IF" is just a fantasy at this point.

    I believe the suggestion to reset all territories is a good first step in balancing things...but I don't think it will do as much good as just making TW FFA or even making certain territories only available to certain level factions.

    The fact is there are way more people in this game who are frustrated with the TW system than there are enjoying it. And that's the imbalance that matters most.
  • shammahbenjudah
    shammahbenjudah Posts: 34 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    _BaMbOo - Dreamweaver wrote: »
    Interesting logic...so since you cannot post a constructive answer...you use an analogy that makes so relevant sense to this topic.

    b:chuckle
    Olba - Sanctuary wrote: »
    Your analogy is logically flawed.

    Starvation implies hunger, but hunger does not imply starvation. Therefore, starvation is a subset of hunger. Just because something happens in a subset does not mean that it has to apply to the rest of the superset. In terms you should understand: All starvation is hunger, but not all hunger is starvation.

    Also, "hunger" itself, defined as desire for food, isn't a problem at all. Starvation, which implies either death or hunger to an unhealthy level, is kinda bad. Though, the cruel truth is that starvation is only a "problem" because saying that it is not a problem is inconsiderate as it implies that people dying doesn't mean anything.

    And besides, there are some problems which simply do not have realistic solutions. Whether the said solutions would satisfy everyone or just a small portion of the population is another matter.

    And actually, the point that was present, "the situation is not the same on all servers", is a tremendous interest, since it shows the differences in the population and the internal dynamics of the servers. Which, from a social psychology point of view, is damnedly interesting.

    b:laugh

    No...really no flaw in the logic...its the same thing, just addressed from a different perspective. Just because the problem isn't completely pervasive, that doesn't mean it is no problem at all.

    Hunger exists in varying degrees...some face it once or twice a day while others live with it constantly and there are still others who cannot address it and are overcome by the consequences.

    Its very similar to the way the server dynamics are playing out here. There are a couple of interesting things I've seen that seem to have some bearing on the differences.

    The biggest one is the difference in PVE and PVP servers. The PVE servers are the ones with the monopolization issues.

    The exception is the new server where there is a good balance of territory ownership. I would attribute much of that to having more experienced players who came to the server together for just that purpose...all starting at the same time with a clean slate.

    The dynamics of a PVP server will be much different. If one doesn't want to be PK'd often then one must consider making very strong alliances in the actual game which creates a fair percentage of reasonably strong, militant factions. They will compete both in and out of TW creating a completely different environment from a PVE server.

    The tendency of a PVE server will lean strongly toward a social environment where factions may be more like a group of friends who hang out and adventure together. Many don't want the grief of open PVP but may enjoy TW on more of a "recreational" level.

    The other interesting thing seems to be the age of the server. The middle aged PVE servers are completely monopolized. Unlike the new server where many experienced players have gone, Dreamweaver for example was very quickly monopolized when there were far fewer experienced players to come to the server. They banded together and took advantage of their experience to establish the monopoly long before many new to the game players were in a position to compete with them. While the first monopoly quickly collapsed, the second one followed picking up some of the first one's strength and still advantaged with experience.

    Well...so far that's all cool, fine and dandy except for the fact that the server is insanely imbalanced now far out of proportion to the reward a bit more experience should offer. The situation with Cala and Nef is just too screwed up for it to clear up by itself.

    Has anyone been counting the number of weekly TWs on these servers? I'll take a guess and say six this week between the two servers...maybe ten but that's a bit optimistic. How much fun is that?
  • Zarrathustra - Harshlands
    Zarrathustra - Harshlands Posts: 8 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I think the entire system is in desperate need of seem serious revision. Isn't part of the problem the system itself ? Doesn't the guild controlling all these territories know a week in advance who is going to attack it and where ? Naturally they will prepare accordingly. Any revision would have to start with doing away with the advance warning system.

    I have never participated in any of these "Siege" battles but based on the system announcements, they don't seem to last very long. You see a message stating "So and So is attacking, so and so" and then 40 seconds later, So and So has been defeated. I take it the monopolistic guild is utterly destroying the attacking guild and doing it rather quickly. Doesn't seem to be worth the coin you have cough up just to participate. At least not if you are the attacking guild trying to pick up the crumbs.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories