limit the number of territories of a guild to 10

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

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.

How about NO.

Don't like Calamity holding the majority of lands?

Start bidding.

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.

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.

Agreed with everything said + we need TW to be at the same time XD

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

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.

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.

+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.

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.

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?

50/50...

Either that, or no one gets land

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.

_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?