limit the number of territories of a guild to 10

shammahbenjudah · February 2010

Zarrathustra - Harshlands wrote: »

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.

Its possible the defenders utterly destroyed their opponents, its a bit hard to compete with people making over $1500 a week free money...imbalances things pretty dramatically IMO. But its also likey, and this is another concern about the system's integrity, the opponent is in bed with the dominant faction and just bought out the bid so nobody else could seriously challenge them.

FWIW there will be 10 TWs on DreamWeaver over 2 days this week...well beyond my expectations but still a sad number, under 25% of the potential.

Shredclaw - Sanctuary · February 2010

When the expansion came out, something was seen that hadn't been around for a long time. Neutral territories. Why can't that happen more often? Bring on a Wraith army that can attack territories, and return them to that neutral status. Make its difficulty relative to the number of territories that the target faction owns. The more territories, or the more money that faction brings in from those territories, and the stronger this army will be. Nobody will know where this wraith army will attack until after the bidding. Give those factions a chance to actually EARN the money they rake in, and not just slap every other faction out of the way.

Kyourimaru - Lost City · February 2010

I for one dont believe one guild should be able to own most of the map, or even half at that.

One of my ideas is not limiting the territories one guild can have, but changing the system on how many wars you can have at once, for instance~
If your guild has 3 territories:you can have only one war per time slot (so they could have another war on the other TW day as well)
6 territories:you could now have two simultaneous wars
9 territories:3 wars
12:4 wars etc etc

Gasoline - Lost City · 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.

Perfect World has been running for over 6 years. Pretty sure developers noticed this trend ages ago that 1 (or rarely2-3) factions will dominate the entire map eventually.

Its always been like this on most servers, including the ones not run by PWI, but for some reason they wanna keep it like that.

I personally dont see how a 10 land limit would be possible. What is a big and stronger faction going to do once they have 10 lands and cant expand anymore? Uninstall the game? Disband the faction? Accept the fact that they're wont be any more TWs?

Alltho some sort of limit with territory's would be rather good. At least if they would follow the rule about 1 guild not owning 2 lvl 1 lands which they dont even care about today >.<

Maybe also some restriction about lvl 2 Territory's.

Volpex - Dreamweaver · March 2010

ok no limit territories, but from what I hear no one is happy when a faction has a majority of the territories, because from that moment on, also has the monopoly of resources then any other faction will never, repeat never have the slightest chance of changing the situation, so the game from a competitive point of view is dead.

Interesting are the proposals of a majority of neutral territory, or the proposal of Kyourimaru to vary the number of contemporary wars in proportion to the number of territories.

guilds or third-tier third level conquer territories, those territories under the 2nd level, etc.

the focus is on excessive resources into the hands of a faction,when this is established, there is no turning back, forever, (This will be good or not ?)

Sorry Little english

health for all by Volpex

Geddon - Raging Tide · March 2010

ok, here are my thoughts:D

Limited territories is not an option, but more attacks might be the solution.

Now here comes the problem of 200 members defending all at once when others can have up to 80 members per attack. Some territories have to be left unguarded.
Here are 2 options,
1) Pick out the strategically most important territories and defend them ( who's attacking and so on + dividing your forces depending on the attacks strength) and npc reinforcements if you have many territories to defend at once.
2) Shared TW maps... they had to be larger which also would make TW more fun (don't just stand in the middle and kill everyone), but the main point is that attackers are allied into a one large force against the defenders force, it might be difficult for the defending faction because of being massively outnumbered but with cooperation, timing and skill - victory might be achieved. If you can't win then oh well, can't control the server with 200 members anyway.

This is just my opinion and I dont want to be flamed because of thisb:surrender

Theavenger - Sanctuary · March 2010

Okay, in this game it is becoming ever more increasingly prevalent that Money=Power.
I wish GM\devs would start doing something to change that, but I think they like the $$$ that gets shoveled into their bank account daily, so they're not gonna do much about that.

Anyways, back to the whole money=power thing i was talkin' about.

Yeah well actually theres not much to say. Nef, owning basically the whole map with the exception of maybe three territories, gets piles of the cash every week. Thus, they can easily afford the best weapons\armors out there for their members, which also helps them become a bigger pain in the rear end to everyone else.

I think it needs to be harder to maintain territory ownership, ( I have to go with the mob army idea, and kill the early warning and attack limits; Also, slash or do away with that expensive price to declare war and bid and ****. that's just stupid.)

When is anyone ever going to seriously consider making the game fair for everyone, instead of just the people with the deepest pocket?b:angry

Volpex - Dreamweaver · May 2010

Another way to counter the dominant super power of faction may be the formation of alliances between smaller factions, forming a "meta-faction" that goal may well be more effective against the dominant faction. in practice play in the game what is in reality a O.N.U. -> the 'unity is strength.
I am pessimistic but there is no interest in changing the state of absolute domination of certain factions on the other.

alliances could be a road

knio · May 2010

Let them be. If they have enough power to keep it, let them keep it.

If you're so peeved about it, level up, join another guild to take them on, and do so. Don't just whine about it. Do something about it.

But I agree with the more than three defenses per hour.

konariraiden · May 2010

You both fail. This is a necro. Fear my awesome siggy.

b:angry

limit the number of territories of a guild to 10

Comments

Categories