Immediate Necessary Guild War Changes

[Sir William]

Is no one willing to address the biggest logical fallacy being presented here?

Why should those of us with better armors feel ba about farming guilds/players with lower tiered armors?

The whole point of guild wars is to put one guild against the other. Everyone knows there is seemingly no rational match-up system based on guild size/level/elemental bonuses/etc..

Everyone who is still using big four or worse knows they're not seriously competing for top 10 or even top 50 prizes. They understand they're aiming a lot lower.

But they're still choosing to be in a guild and partake in guild wars despite all of these roadblocks.

[Meepo]

The top guilds will still be ahead of lower guilds because of better armors, because they will BEAT the lower guilds. However, the winner among the top guilds, ie. who comes first instead of second, should be who spends resources better. The game should reward HAVING resources, which places the top gemspending guilds on top, but also reward EFFECTIVE USE of resources, placing the high level guild that uses their energy more efficiently at the number 1 spot, as opposed to the number 2-10 spots. If gemspending alone were the only factor determining who is on top, it merely becomes a battle of attrition to see who runs out of money to spend on gems first.

In other words, BORING!

[busteroaf]

why should someone relying on luck instead of gems deserve a lower reward? Next thing you're going to suggest Gree add a armor shop where people can directly buy specific armors to make the game more buy gems = better rewards...
At times I wonder if everybody on the forum is still actually having fun playing the game...

The point of the spending gems was that it required more effort. And please, tell me that if you spend gems, and someone beats you by "luck" that you don't feel cheated or that you didn't waste money in some way. For those ready to jump in on the counterpoint, yes, probably the same way that people feel cheated when people lose to those who spends gems. It works both ways. As stated before, anytime there is a "pay-to-whatever" option, there will always be people on both sides of the fence. Continue reading below.

-I'm not talking about rainbows and butterflies, I'm talking about not wasting any effort fighting further when victory is already ensured. I'm saying that if you win, all the rewards are free for you to take. I am not patching up anyone's wounds, or holding anyone's hand. I am ensuring that my strikes against the opponent are all effective in order to achieve the desired result with minimum effort. Again, the numbers I suggested aren't perfect, but consider a large guild, a medium guild and a small guild. The large and medium guild both beat the small 101-100, to ensure that no effort is wasted. That puts them both ahead of the small guild. However, the large guild beats the small guild 1001-1000 putting them ahead of the medium guild. In other words, the large guild will be on top, medium in the middle and small at the bottom. If wars last long enough, it's highly unlikely for a small guild to luck out and claim first place.

The words I've made bold in your quote speak volumes more than anything else to me. You want the best rewards for minimal effort. Well to that end, I want the better-est (yes, I know) rewards for putting in more effort. If I win and you win... we've both won. If I put in more effort to win a big win, why should I not get rewarded as such? Also, I understand your example. It makes sense, but not everyone wants to put in minimal effort. As long as there is SOME way to get extra points beyond the normal victory points, there will be someone, a group, or guild who does just that, goes above and beyond, you know, that icky Buster style, I want to leave no trace of my opponents, to get that extra bit of victory points. Also, a win of 101-100 hardly seems to have the "when victory is already ensured" look to it. 101-100 seems more like a battle to the end. 100001-100 seems more "ensured" to me.

Back to your victories hold more weight idea... if you go on victories alone, you need some sort of system in place where you can say "you both won with 40 wins, but Guild Y had _____ while Guild Z only had _____, therefore, Guild Y is the overall winner." I doubt everyone will be happy with saying "yay, we tied with 10 other guilds for first. Lets all celebrate." Am I wrong in wanting an outright winner? Again this goes back to bonus points or some sort of factor that separates guilds after a win. In one of your original posts, you said the guild that wins 100001-100 should get the same points/win for the guild that wins 101-100. If one person can get 101 points, then what is the point/fun in having 40 people playing? Why should the whole guild be penalized for wanting to get 101 points themselves? These are honest questions I'm posing to you and your system.

Again, I want to clarify, I don't disagree with your idea. It does have merit, it just needs to be fleshed out. But getting it to work, and changing the way people play these wars will be the difficult task. Also, I'm just showing that there will always be others who don't fit into the way YOU think things should be done, just like you don't like my (and other people's) idea of bashing someone over and over, or Eun's ideas for that matter.

[busteroaf]

The top guilds will still be ahead of lower guilds because of better armors, because they will BEAT the lower guilds. However, the winner among the top guilds, ie. who comes first instead of second, should be who spends resources better. The game should reward HAVING resources, which places the top gemspending guilds on top, but also reward EFFECTIVE USE of resources, placing the high level guild that uses their energy more efficiently at the number 1 spot, as opposed to the number 2-10 spots. If gemspending alone were the only factor determining who is on top, it merely becomes a battle of attrition to see who runs out of money to spend on gems first.

In other words, BORING!

Your use of the word EFFECTIVE has a giant gaping hole. What exactly is effective? Effective for me is using scouts and communication programs to set up battles and coordinate attacks. Effective for another guild would be having someone who doesn't need to spend any energy, but instead changes their name every 30 seconds, thus resetting the line-ups. The same GM just rotates armors every minute, instead of actually fighting. Both are effective tactics, but on totally different ends of the spectrum. Your view of effective may differ from mine. Which one of us is being more effective?

[Meepo]

Well, the point I'm trying to make is that you spending more already gives a HUGE advantage, but shouldn't be absolutely guaranteed that you win. The one who spends 350 gems on maxing his training fields will end up ahead of the one who spends 1000 gems on DPCs (in most cases). That's the thing I mean when I say minimum effort/resources and this shouldn't be any different in guild wars.

I know it needs to be fleshed out, but GREE pretty much uses iOS as a test server. How could it possibly get worse than the first war, where only a quarter of people could participate.

[Sir William]

Well then doesnt your idea of effective gem spending not reinforce the idea of farming a weaker member in the first place?

Why spend 15 gems for 4 energy to hope to win all 4? Why not be efficient and find someone you KNOW you can beat four times.

Sure you may lose the first one for lack of foresight on elemental advantages, and maye one or two infrequently due to misses and line up change, but if your argument is that the top awards should rest with those who are the most efficient with their gems, then farming weaker players is extremely efficient.

[Sir William]

Moreover, if you have a guild like untouchables, RR or rparty that are not only spending a lot of gems but doing so wisely and efficiently then what issue is it you have?

Should, by your own admissions, the top prizes not be ours fair and square?

[Meepo]

Your use of the word EFFECTIVE has a giant gaping hole. What exactly is effective? Effective for me is using scouts and communication programs to set up battles and coordinate attacks. Effective for another guild would be having someone who doesn't need to spend any energy, but instead changes their name every 30 seconds, thus resetting the line-ups. The same GM just rotates armors every minute, instead of actually fighting. Both are effective tactics, but on totally different ends of the spectrum. Your view of effective may differ from mine. Which one of us is being more effective?

Effective for me means using scouts, communication, name changes, armor changes, and managing your energy efficiently in order to get as high on the ladder as you possibly can at the end of the day. A medium level guild can scout out an enemy guild and say "these guys are way too strong for us, we should conserve energy for next battle", whereas a strong guild would manage energy so that they win as many battles as they can, as fast as possible.

[Meepo]

Well then doesnt your idea of effective gem spending not reinforce the idea of farming a weaker member in the first place?

Why spend 15 gems for 4 energy to hope to win all 4? Why not be efficient and find someone you KNOW you can beat four times.

Sure you may lose the first one for lack of foresight on elemental advantages, and maye one or two infrequently due to misses and line up change, but if your argument is that the top awards should rest with those who are the most efficient with their gems, then farming weaker players is extremely efficient.

Maybe you don't have to beat them four times to ensure victory, why not just beat them three times to ensure the win, and giving yourself the best possible position for next battle as well.

Yes a top guild like RR who not only spends a lot of gems, but spends them effectively deserves to win, and will win. However if RR doesn't spend energy effectively and Untouchables does, then Untouchables should win.

I'm sorry if I seemed totally against beating a single person into the ground as it is a valid strat. However, the victory system encourages saving energy for next battle rather than expending all resources on a single battle to go 1000000000-100 against another guild.

[Alitia]

Your use of the word EFFECTIVE has a giant gaping hole. What exactly is effective? Effective for me is using scouts and communication programs to set up battles and coordinate attacks. Effective for another guild would be having someone who doesn't need to spend any energy, but instead changes their name every 30 seconds, thus resetting the line-ups. The same GM just rotates armors every minute, instead of actually fighting. Both are effective tactics, but on totally different ends of the spectrum. Your view of effective may differ from mine. Which one of us is being more effective?

Why are you asking silly questions like 'Which one of us is being more effective?'? No matter what your perspectives of effectiveness are, there are external factors affecting your effectiveness. Results will show your effectiveness and which view is more effective, but with every take using an effective tactic regardless of what it actually is, there will be factors that affect your effectiveness. There won't be a tactic that is more effective than another unless you can make predictions that will give you the upper hand, and reduce the number of external factors.Since you can't predict the way the system does these line ups, etc., you'd rather take the easy way out and have GREE prevent such things that inconvenient you and your team's efficiency.

Anyway the results won't always stay consistent. Well that's what I believe. There's just more than just 1 or 2 factors affecting your effective tactics that are not within your control. If you could or can control those factors then maybe you can prove which who is being more effective.

And I'd just like to say, this forum's title and its argument is not necessary at all. It is not necessary to make these changes. You people are just annoyed you can't farm and beat the pulp out of other members guild because of these things you find an inconvenience to your way of battling. Like people don't want to beat your members into a pulp and get the best rewards they possibly can while you amongst all those gem spender guilds just spend your money to have a greater chance of beating everyone who can't to the ground. Imagine how those people feel and your buddy wants these changes to be implemented, leaving weaker guilds and their members with even a smaller chance to achieve a good rank and good rewards. If these guilds have a fighting chance, you wouldn't want to give it to them when you're already one of the top guilds in the entire game.

[Eunuchorn]

The roster moving around is no reason to lock names entirely. Should just order it the same way all the time regardless of names.

I've said this multiple times already.

[Miyabi]

Maybe you don't have to beat them four times to ensure victory, why not just beat them three times to ensure the win, and giving yourself the best possible position for next battle as well.

Yes a top guild like RR who not only spends a lot of gems, but spends them effectively deserves to win, and will win. However if RR doesn't spend energy effectively and Untouchables does, then Untouchables should win.

I'm sorry if I seemed totally against beating a single person into the ground as it is a valid strat. However, the victory system encourages saving energy for next battle rather tuhan expending all resources on a single battle to go 1000000000-100 against another guild.

I used to think like u, play smart n conserve energies.
But face the truth in gree guild wars, u dont spend, u hardly get in top10, u think almost half the guild can wait for the next battle in about 1.5hrs? And just to use 4-6 battles for the next match?
By the time u spend waiting and see the leader boards u can already see the points jumping up in top10 and ur guild being push down.
Playing smart to scout, counter elements, change names, conserve energies is yes to some point, but face the fact is that lots of players are gemming in top10, bottomline this game is merely pay n buy to win, u cant depend on tactics n conserve energies to win high.
Once u are in top5 u can see that every hour counts, and cant afford to wait to stay in high.

[Meepo]

I've said this multiple times already.

My apologies, it just seemed very drastic when you went IMMEDIATE NECESSARY GUILD WAR CHANGES: A. lock names

[Alitia]

Well then doesnt your idea of effective gem spending not reinforce the idea of farming a weaker member in the first place?

Why spend 15 gems for 4 energy to hope to win all 4? Why not be efficient and find someone you KNOW you can beat four times.

Sure you may lose the first one for lack of foresight on elemental advantages, and maye one or two infrequently due to misses and line up change, but if your argument is that the top awards should rest with those who are the most efficient with their gems, then farming weaker players is extremely efficient.

Farming weaker players extremely efficient. That is fine but wanting to prevent these weaker players the ability to defend themselves is just greedy. Sine RR is one of the top guilds in knd, why does it bother your team so much that name changes should not be allowed during a guild war? It is probably the only way weak guilds can defend themselves and stop their opposition from obtaining the maximum points they can in that 1 hour. Just because it frustrates your team and interrupts their flow of efficiency, so it has to be prevented? I think not. Your team chooses not to do that, because you don't need to do you? RR is a strong guild that's has been at the top for how long? RR has attained many great rewards only others could only hope for. And if you a relatively strong guild uses this tactic then, deal with it. There are a lot more weaker guilds than stronger ones in the game so think of it as giving the weaker guilds a fighting chance.

The point I'm saying is that, eun shouldn't find it necessary at all to make these changes.

[Alitia]

My apologies, it just seemed very drastic when you went IMMEDIATE NECESSARY GUILD WAR CHANGES: A. lock names

I second that. My apologies. Buster is just seems quite aggravated so I reacted. So just lock the list line up. I'm ok with that.