Would this idea fix TW?
MageMERC - Harshlands
Posts: 1,600 Arc User
(sidenote - Ive never done a TW ....)
Im on HL and not including the upcoming reset Zulu looks to own the whole map soon with some resistance from Crimson, so I've been thinking....
Say at whatever time during the day there could be any number of TW at the same time. Now I dont mean on the same territory obviously. But If there could be 10 attacks starting at the same time, all over the map, well it would be impossible for one faction to defend all their territories wouldnt it.
A strong faction might own only 3, maybe 4 at the most so to be able to spread their players across concurrent attacks on all territories.
An incentive for getting more territories might be a greatly increasing reward system, say a base reward for one territory, 2 x that for owning 2, 4 x for owning 3 and 8 times for owning 4 for example.
I would think that under a system like this, 10-15 factions could own territories and there would be continuous attacks and TW all the time, making for very dynamic game play, plus even lesser factions could have a chance to own a territory without first having to r9 everything.
Maybe if this system meant too many TW, then limit the times to a certain number per day certain days a week, but still allow as many attacks to occurr concurrently..
Thoughts?
Im on HL and not including the upcoming reset Zulu looks to own the whole map soon with some resistance from Crimson, so I've been thinking....
Say at whatever time during the day there could be any number of TW at the same time. Now I dont mean on the same territory obviously. But If there could be 10 attacks starting at the same time, all over the map, well it would be impossible for one faction to defend all their territories wouldnt it.
A strong faction might own only 3, maybe 4 at the most so to be able to spread their players across concurrent attacks on all territories.
An incentive for getting more territories might be a greatly increasing reward system, say a base reward for one territory, 2 x that for owning 2, 4 x for owning 3 and 8 times for owning 4 for example.
I would think that under a system like this, 10-15 factions could own territories and there would be continuous attacks and TW all the time, making for very dynamic game play, plus even lesser factions could have a chance to own a territory without first having to r9 everything.
Maybe if this system meant too many TW, then limit the times to a certain number per day certain days a week, but still allow as many attacks to occurr concurrently..
Thoughts?
Post edited by MageMERC - Harshlands on
0
Comments
-
The limit of TW is 80v80.
Since you can have 3 pretty much simultaneous attacks, that more or less means that the strongest faction is capable of pulling off a 80v240.
And currently the strongest factions steamroll most of those 1v3s unless it's against 2 or 3 of the stronger factions on the server.
So really, it wouldn't do anything to fix that. The only thing it'd do is allow undeserving factions to own land via overworking the land-owning faction by overloading them with bids.
Really, unless you give the strongest faction some extremely unfair handicap, you're not going to see a change, because the best people will always be in the strongest faction.
Also, taking away the timing of TWs would pretty much take away any and all strategy elements and turn it into one massive rush fest. Not that the steamrolls aren't already like that.
And besides, making factions lose land because they get overworked is stupid. They should lose land because they're worse, not because they have 10 times more stuff to do than the attacker.I am Olba. Not Ol, not Baze nor Blaze. And even less would I go by Olblaze. Please, take a second to read a person's username.
If you see b:cute be sure to take a second, calm look at anything I said.0 -
i honestly dont think they care this much about tw
the main complaints of rewards came from the land owning factions which seems to be why they changed it
they want to promote ppl using their new guild base system
resetting the tw map seems elementary
that in mind as chaotic and more even as it would be putting an enormous number of attackers to the same defending faction time slot.. it doesnt fit with the way pw has handled tw0 -
MageMERC - Harshlands wrote: »(sidenote - Ive never done a TW ....)
Im on HL and not including the upcoming reset Zulu looks to own the whole map soon with some resistance from Crimson, so I've been thinking....
Say at whatever time during the day there could be any number of TW at the same time. Now I dont mean on the same territory obviously. But If there could be 10 attacks starting at the same time, all over the map, well it would be impossible for one faction to defend all their territories wouldnt it.
A strong faction might own only 3, maybe 4 at the most so to be able to spread their players across concurrent attacks on all territories.
An incentive for getting more territories might be a greatly increasing reward system, say a base reward for one territory, 2 x that for owning 2, 4 x for owning 3 and 8 times for owning 4 for example.
I would think that under a system like this, 10-15 factions could own territories and there would be continuous attacks and TW all the time, making for very dynamic game play, plus even lesser factions could have a chance to own a territory without first having to r9 everything.
Maybe if this system meant too many TW, then limit the times to a certain number per day certain days a week, but still allow as many attacks to occurr concurrently..
Thoughts?
Then you'd have the opposite problem, where controlling more than 5 lands is impossible.I
AGOREY0 -
Longknife - Harshlands wrote: »Then you'd have the opposite problem, where controlling more than 5 lands is impossible.
where is the problem with that?
territories are there for fighting over them, aren't they? b:puzzled
@olblaze its 200vs240 if you manage 100% participation of your factioni am waiting for you my little flagcarriers b:kiss0 -
Longknife - Harshlands wrote: »Then you'd have the opposite problem, where controlling more than 5 lands is impossible.
I think that was the whole intention of introducing this idea.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]0 -
I completely agree the system is back-a&&-wards. It should be harder to hold multiple lands, not easier. As it stands now, the more lands you have the more money you get, which means you can equip your members with more cash shop ****. Yet there are artificial limits as to how many battles a faction can have against them at one time, which obviously is no problem handling for the best guilds.
The idea of making it near impossible to hold the map does kill the whole e-peen ego of it, but that is easily replaceable by the e-peen ego of being able to hold onto the most amount of territory at a time (i.e. it would be a feat to manage/hold 6-10 territories whereas most factions can barely hold 1-3.)
The whole rewards structure can easily be modified to make TW still appealing. Make the land-based rewards almost exponential.
In all honesty, it would be beneficial to PWI to have more factions owning and fighting for land, after all, it is a pay to win game. Simple math would tell you more people participating TW = more people buying cash shop ****.0 -
(sidenote - Ive never done a TW ....)
This is where I stopped reading.I completely agree the system is back-a&&-wards. It should be harder to hold multiple lands, not easier. As it stands now, the more lands you have the more money you get, which means you can equip your members with more cash shop ****. Yet there are artificial limits as to how many battles a faction can have against them at one time, which obviously is no problem handling for the best guilds.
You don't know much about TW.
Protip: A guild that owns the ENTIRE MAP, would get about 6mil per member. Since it's actually very uncommon for a guild to control the entire map, let's say 5mil.
Lets have a breakdown of the expenses shall we?
Charms: an archer/sin/mage might use one platinum charm, but most will use two at least, some cata barbs can burn up to 4 per TW. So the average is about 3mil in charm usage every week.
-3mil
Apothecary: You can farm herbs or you can buy them. As most people know it's far faster to farm coins and buy herbs than it is to farm herbs. A typical TW weekend will see the use of about 500k-600k of apoth in TW.
-500k
Crab meat HP pots: Easily 50 in about half an hour, if you're stingy with it. So if your big TWs last 2 hours and you have 2 of them then that's about 400 which is 72 tokens which ranges from 720k to 1.3mil depending on if there is a pack sale.
-1mil
So let's add this all up shall we? 3mil + 1mil + 500k =...... 4.5mil
So all this we get 500k.
So yes, through the entire TW weekend we don't even get enough to buy ONE gold.@olblaze its 200vs240 if you manage 100% participation of your faction
When have you EVER seen 200 people online in a faction? For the biggest faction on the server in a triple attack weekend, 120 is as good as it gets.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"My understanding of women only goes as far as the pleasure. When it comes to the pain, I'm like any other bloke - I don't want to know."0 -
NiaJade - Harshlands wrote: »Questions for you:
1 - When was the last time coin was given out for owning land?
2 - Take out the coin used for cata scrolls, building towers
3 - Then take out coin for future bids
4 - How much was left to distribute to the guild members?
5 - Members then:
- pay for repairs
- pay for new charms
- venos pay for Phoenix food (to repair loyalty when killed)
I think.. your dealing with a negative here even if the members do get $.
Then members need to continually refine, boost armor/weapon, and even dig/farm/buy pots for the next war.
1. coins are coming back
2-5. who pays everything for factions who don't already own territories?
therefore the argument about expenses for tw is invalid!
go and farm for your charm! b:byei am waiting for you my little flagcarriers b:kiss0 -
Rawrgh - Raging Tide wrote: »When have you EVER seen 200 people online in a faction? For the biggest faction on the server in a triple attack weekend, 120 is as good as it gets.
120 is pretty low for a top faction, it was more like 160 on my server. Also you totally ignore that costs are incurred by both sides of a tw.
The only way to TW for free (or at profit) is to join the large land owning faction. There is no real incentive at all to try to build up a smaller faction that is forced to fight an expensive, losing battle against the strongest faction on the server.
TW balance improved a lot on Sanc when they removed the pay incentive. I don't know why the other servers got it so screwed up. Considering how much more costly it is for attackers than defenders they really need to add a mechanism that makes defending a large amount of land more difficult.[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.html0 -
160? I'd like to see an SS of 160 people online in a faction. Most I've seen is 130, and then consider the people that are AFK.Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »120 is pretty low for a top faction, it was more like 160 on my server. Also you totally ignore that costs are incurred by both sides of a tw.
The only way to TW for free (or at profit) is to join the large land owning faction. There is no real incentive at all to try to build up a smaller faction that is forced to fight an expensive, losing battle against the strongest faction on the server.
TW balance improved a lot on Sanc when they removed the pay incentive. I don't know why the other servers got it so screwed up. Considering how much more costly it is for attackers than defenders they really need to add a mechanism that makes defending a large amount of land more difficult.
Why shouldn't the big factions get a small portion of their costs back? They put in the work, the put in the blood sweat and tears and they deserve their rewards.
Most dominant factions will do what they can to keep out bandwagon jumpers. There is no real incentive to build up a smaller faction? What about all the people complaining about one dominant guild, that's the problem, is that a smaller faction would rather complain about one guild controlling the map rather than do something about it. Stopping one guild from controlling the map, that should be your incentive to build up a smaller faction.
If you cant win a TW with a 2:1 advantage in numbers, you don't deserve to win.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"My understanding of women only goes as far as the pleasure. When it comes to the pain, I'm like any other bloke - I don't want to know."0 -
Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »120 is pretty low for a top faction, it was more like 160 on my server. Also you totally ignore that costs are incurred by both sides of a tw.
The only way to TW for free (or at profit) is to join the large land owning faction. There is no real incentive at all to try to build up a smaller faction that is forced to fight an expensive, losing battle against the strongest faction on the server.
TW balance improved a lot on Sanc when they removed the pay incentive. I don't know why the other servers got it so screwed up. Considering how much more costly it is for attackers than defenders they really need to add a mechanism that makes defending a large amount of land more difficult.
pretty much pvp-servers which still have problems with that...
recent cashshop activity made many people leave who pvped for the sake of pvp...
most remaining see it as seriouz buisiness and e-peen enhancement...
a time ago people were joking about when warsoul sale would be...
now rank9 is far superrior for most classes and its available from cashshop!!! b:shutupi am waiting for you my little flagcarriers b:kiss0 -
Rawrgh - Raging Tide wrote: »Most dominant factions will do what they can to keep out bandwagon jumpers. There is no real incentive to build up a smaller faction? What about all the people complaining about one dominant guild, that's the problem, is that a smaller faction would rather complain about one guild controlling the map rather than do something about it. Stopping one guild from controlling the map, that should be your incentive to build up a smaller faction.
Whats the point of keeping out people who come for money? As long as they show up for those defenses they'd earn their coins. It's naive to think that the large factions aren't full with lots of people in it for the pay.
In Sanc I had friends who absolutely hated the people in their faction but stayed in it for free coins lol.[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.html0 -
Lol I don't know about your faction but our faction keeps those people who are in it out.
Reason being?
They show up uncharmed often
They moan and whine about TW pay constantly
They usually have bad gears.
I'm in one of those large factions, and we try to keep everyone out who we feel is in it for the coins. Is it perfect? No, obviously some slip through the cracks, but we do what we can.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"My understanding of women only goes as far as the pleasure. When it comes to the pain, I'm like any other bloke - I don't want to know."0 -
NiaJade - Harshlands wrote: »The argument for TW expenses is not invalid.
You have done TW.... right?
You know.. real TW? Not the run in > hit the crystal a few times > then let the attacker break it while you stand to the side buying pots?
It would all flow together better if charms weren't such a "necessity." The chances of removing them in some way are slim to none, but the idea of it would seem much more attractive.0 -
MageMERC - Harshlands wrote: »(sidenote - Ive never done a TW ....)
Im on HL and not including the upcoming reset Zulu looks to own the whole map soon with some resistance from Crimson, so I've been thinking....
Say at whatever time during the day there could be any number of TW at the same time. Now I dont mean on the same territory obviously. But If there could be 10 attacks starting at the same time, all over the map, well it would be impossible for one faction to defend all their territories wouldnt it.
A strong faction might own only 3, maybe 4 at the most so to be able to spread their players across concurrent attacks on all territories.
An incentive for getting more territories might be a greatly increasing reward system, say a base reward for one territory, 2 x that for owning 2, 4 x for owning 3 and 8 times for owning 4 for example.
I would think that under a system like this, 10-15 factions could own territories and there would be continuous attacks and TW all the time, making for very dynamic game play, plus even lesser factions could have a chance to own a territory without first having to r9 everything.
Maybe if this system meant too many TW, then limit the times to a certain number per day certain days a week, but still allow as many attacks to occurr concurrently..
Thoughts?
i loved your idea, but u know the answer. ..................my signature says everithing..
its all about money and made in china
if they dont care about me why would i care about them
complaining, complaining for what??nothing will change the game is going to a quick end0 -
Rawrgh - Raging Tide wrote: »Crab meat HP pots: Easily 50 in about half an hour, if you're stingy with it. So if your big TWs last 2 hours and you have 2 of them then that's about 400 which is 72 tokens which ranges from 720k to 1.3mil depending on if there is a pack sale
How can you be in two 2-hour TWs? A TW only lasts for 3 hours. Kinda makes me question all your other points.0 -
_UnSin_ - Archosaur wrote: »How can you be in two 2-hour TWs? A TW only lasts for 3 hours. Kinda makes me question all your other points.
Think that is assuming the TWs are at different times.0 -
I dont know where to begin.
Why this idea is bad?
Well with 3 attacks already that is
240 vs. 200 (assuming full attendance)
That is 80 vs 66 (1 with 67) members.
If you cant beat another faction with a 14 member advantage you don't deserve to be on the map.
Focus on making yourself better instead of asking that the rules be changed because you arent good enough.0 -
angellicdeity wrote: »If you cant beat another faction with a 14 member advantage you don't deserve to be on the map.
If you can't defend all your lands, then you don't deserve all your lands. I really don't understand why factions with more land than they can defend are getting a free ride.0 -
-
Considering I've seen the #1 guild on a server being able to hold out against a combined attack of #2 and #3, consider this:
With the suggested system some people say you won't be able to hold more than 3 lands, but if that were the case, there would be around 16 factions represented on the map. I'll just assume this will be the top 16 factions of the server. Are you honestly telling me that the #1 guild of the server won't be able to hold out against #17, #18, #19 and #20 (after they gain their fourth territory)? Of course it would also depend on your neighbours, let's say you have 2 average sized neighbours, as the best factions will generally stay clear of eachother to gain the maximum amount of territories. So maybe you'd have to fight off faction #9, #10, #17 and #18 simultaneously..
If you can't win against that, then no you don't deserve holding 4 territories. Besides, this is assuming your neighbours will attack you, the top faction, instead of one of their weaker neighbours. Which is also not very likely. Naturally you won't be able to get the entire map anymore, but you should be able to gain at least quite a few territories as the top faction. If not, you just suck at properly distributing your defenses against the weaker factions. I'd say having more factions TWing would be good for the server, as according to some it's the only worthwile endgame content. So the more people are enjoying their endgame, the better it is for the server, and less whinging.
And before somebody insists I can hold no opinion, because I am not currently in a big land owning faction, I have been, just not on this server. I know how TW works and it's beyond boring being in the biggest faction when people have given up fighting you properly. It's not worth the extra money that's for sure. Adding to that, currently the TW rewards are what? maybe 2 million in mirages per lvl 3 territory? People still fight right now, so that would mean that when the old system is restored, 1/5th of the territories you own currently should still be sufficient to fight for 'salary'. Then again, under this suggested TW system, I would not be opposed to an exponential increase in TW payments, as, unlike now, it does indeed get harder instead of easier to maintain a large amount of territories.0 -
_UnSin_ - Archosaur wrote: »If you can't defend all your lands, then you don't deserve all your lands. I really don't understand why factions with more land than they can defend are getting a free ride.
Totally agree with this point. In response to Rawgh's favourite phrase: "if your faction cant win 2v1, you dont deserve to win" :
If the dominating faction can beat 3v1, then yes that faction fully deserve to hold 3 lands. The attacking faction DO NOT deserve any land because they cant win by numbers here.
If the dominating faction can beat 10v1, yes that faction fully deserve to hold 10 lands
If it cant beat 15v1, then too bad the faction's strength is at 14 lands. If you want more land, then work to further strengthen your faction, and NOT:
- your guild put in the same amount of effort, your guild +1 land every week
- other guild put in the same amount of effort as they put in last week, they get no land
- by fairness, every guild should put in MORE effort to get additional land to what they are currently holding, be it zero or 20 lands.
Why should nonfactor get a land because of 15v1 since they dont work anything for it beside ganking?
See, gathering 15 other factions and have them agree to attack at the same time alone is not "dont work for anything". It also require coordinations, although its obviously not as much effort. That is why because the effort they put in is only that much, they deserve only ONE land, while your faction which put in 15 times more effort, your faction deserve 15 lands.
And even if they do win a 15v1, your faction at most lose ONE land? With that strength you can easily get it back. And a consistent 15v1 every week isnt too easy either. Even if you dont claim that land back, other factions will. This is in accordance to your theory of "weak faction should not hold any land".
So with this method for TW, the no. of land a faction hold clearly indicate its strength as a faction. On a scale 1-100 with 100 being the perfect guild, based on Harshland, my estimate:
The current system:
Zulu - Strength: 80/100 - 50 Lands
Crimson - Strength: 70/100 - 4 Lands
Vallaha - 40/100 - 0 Lands
Omerta - 30/100 - 0 Lands
Unity - 30/100 - 0 Lands
As you can see it clearly does not reflect the strength of a faction.
The new system:
Zulu - Strength: 80/100 - 8 Lands
Crimson - Strength: 70/100 - 7 Lands
Vallaha - 40/100 - 4 Lands
Omerta - 30/100 - 3 Lands
Unity - 30/100 - 3 Lands
Reflect better?
I know Rawgh you want your faction to claim credit for being "strong" but taking the entire map is really too much. There are hundreds of faction out there which want to enjoy TW against guild of their own calibre. By pleasing your ego, it comes at the expense of EVERY other faction, disallowing them to have a fun TW. And I'm sure you are sick and tired of fighting nooby faction as well.0 -
_UnSin_ - Archosaur wrote: »It doesn't matter if those TWs start at diff time, the last TW starts 18 minutes after the first one starts.
so u never had TW on saturday and sunday? or friday and saturday? (or fri and sun lol)
:b0 -
ThanosQRt - Dreamweaver wrote: »so u never had TW on saturday and sunday? or friday and saturday? (or fri and sun lol)
:b
Don't think he's TW'd at all. Or he'd know you can and often times do have 3 wars in a day.Some people risk to employ me
Some people live to destroy me
Either way they die0 -
ThanosQRt - Dreamweaver wrote: »so u never had TW on saturday and sunday? or friday and saturday? (or fri and sun lol)
:b
Yes, you are quite correct. I am wrong on that part. I was only thinking of one day.
I apologize to the person I have wronged.0 -
Xarathox - Dreamweaver wrote: »Don't think he's TW'd at all. Or he'd know you can and often times do have 3 wars in a day.
I know about the 3 wars a day. That's what my argument was about when I said a TW only lasts 3 hours and that the last TW starts 18 minutes after the first one. However, now that I thought more about, I take back that statement. I am completely wrong on that part too. I also forgot that there can be two TW sessions on Saturdays/Sundays; the early one and the late. But then again, I don't know if we still have the early sessions; I've not seen one in a long time.0 -
RAlSTLlN - Sanctuary wrote: »It would all flow together better if charms weren't such a "necessity." The chances of removing them in some way are slim to none, but the idea of it would seem much more attractive.
TW without a charm and tell me how that goes lol
As far for charms, I've always had next to no problem farming a plat or two for an upcoming tw. Idk but to me its not what your faction should be doing for you, you should be helping out you faction. Example: Faction may be low on apoth so if you're a squad leader or even a member, take some sort of initiative and supply your squad. Takes me ~600k on what I consider necessary apoths (IG, White Teas, Dews). Dunno, just a thought. I've never done a TW with pay so it's always been 100% loyalty.
As for changing TW...I think it's fine as it is. We have seen some new factions rise up and take lands. History repeats itself so it's bound to happen again.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero~0 -
Back before genies and packs existed, I would run TW uncharmed constantly on my veno. It was fun with me in my arcane armor getting stunned and beat on by 2 bms yet they were unable to kill me. Dropping 5 players in a row as they were attacking me, and without my pet.
Back when it was more based on skill, rather than simply your gear like now.0 -
What this guy said.angellicdeity wrote: »I dont know where to begin.
Why this idea is bad?
Well with 3 attacks already that is
240 vs. 200 (assuming full attendance)
That is 80 vs 66 (1 with 67) members.
If you cant beat another faction with a 14 member advantage you don't deserve to be on the map.
Focus on making yourself better instead of asking that the rules be changed because you arent good enough.
And, to add to it, having 80 online for TW is fairly common, where as for the guild getting triple attacked they might have about 120 on average. 200 never happens.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"My understanding of women only goes as far as the pleasure. When it comes to the pain, I'm like any other bloke - I don't want to know."0
Categories
- All Categories
- 181.9K PWI
- 699 Official Announcements
- 2 Rules of Conduct
- 264 Cabbage Patch Notes
- 61K General Discussion
- 1.5K Quality Corner
- 11.1K Suggestion Box
- 77.4K Archosaur City
- 3.5K Cash Shop Huddle
- 14.3K Server Symposium
- 18.1K Dungeons & Tactics
- 2K The Crafting Nook
- 4.9K Guild Banter
- 6.6K The Trading Post
- 28K Class Discussion
- 1.9K Arigora Colosseum
- 78 TW & Cross Server Battles
- 337 Nation Wars
- 8.2K Off-Topic Discussion
- 3.7K The Fanatics Forum
- 207 Screenshots and Videos
- 22.8K Support Desk