Immediate Necessary Guild War Changes

[busteroaf]

Can't be bothered.

So you're lazy?

Explains why you're bad with words then and why you need clear and concise explanations. That sucks. Oh well. So, what kind of job do you have then?

Sorry, I've answered this many times. It looks like you will have to go back and actually read my "essays" to find the answer. I would wager I have referenced my own job about... 20-30 times in threads.

[Alitia]

Sorry, I've answered this many times. It looks like you will have to go back and actually read my "essays" to find the answer. I would wager I have referenced my own job about... 20-30 times in threads.

I don't have to go back and read your "essays". Why would I do that? I'm lazy. I don't know why I bother. I think I shall remove myself from this thread and just live a life outside of the virtual world now. I suggest you do the same. I think that would be much more fun than these pointless exchanges. You have a nice day now.

[Meepo]

You should all consider the implications of my suggestion more carefully.

-A victory system means resource management will become a driving factor that determines positions on guild leaderboards. This means:

1. Top guilds are unaffected, because they have pretty much INFINITE resources. They will remain at the top.
2. For guilds without infinite energy, the way they spend their limited energy will determine their positions.

Please think about how it could work before referring to things like football, or you will seem very stupid. Spending money should give a large advantage, but shouldn't be the only advantage.

[busteroaf]

You should all consider the implications of my suggestion more carefully.

-A victory system means resource management will become a driving factor that determines positions on guild leaderboards. This means:

1. Top guilds are unaffected, because they have pretty much INFINITE resources. They will remain at the top.
2. For guilds without infinite energy, the way they spend their limited energy will determine their positions.

Please think about how it could work before referring to things like football, or you will seem very stupid. Spending money should give a large advantage, but shouldn't be the only advantage.

If you are saying "in addition to the point standing leaderboards" yes, the above statement can apply. Your original suggestion being the following correct?

The system I have in mind is that the points for beating an enemy guild in battle should be higher. You can by all means feel free to bash on a single person, but it should be the actual VICTORY against your opponent guild that yields you the rewards, not the bashing of that person. A guild with 3/3 wins should be placed higher than a guild with 2/3 wins. Sure, there should be rewards for getting more points in a particular battle, but the current point system focuses too much on "overkilling" your opponents, and not enough on "victory" over your opponents.

I quoted this to make sure I'm following along... being not good with the english language and all. Damn maths....

Again, this needs to be stated as "in addition to the current system we have." It is unlikely that a guild will win 1,000,000-0 once, and with that one win, get a high ranking on the leaderboard, and call it quits. It will take multiple high point victories to rise to the top. But you, you want to be rewarded for wins and resource management. Go for it. The two can co-exist. But if you think they are going to give the best rewards for minimal wins, you're dead wrong.

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.

Another quote regarding your idea. Your victory system doesn't encourage a spending guild to do anything, they will still get their wins on points, since ultimately, that is what decides wins. This was point #1 right? Top guilds are unaffected because they will spend money to win. Again, this seems geared toward non-spending guilds. Again, I want to make sure I'm understanding you right.

Now follow my next thought process here.

Also, just because a guild doesn't have infinite resources (which I don't think any of the guilds do) doesn't mean they can't toss in their occasional share of gem spending to gain an advantage in one of those wars, just to notch another win. A non-spending, limited resource guild is close to a win, but "out of resources." Do they say "you know what, lets just pack it up try again next match and hope we're lucky for a win." Or do you think they might say "you know what, let me buy some more energy and go for that win." With a couple more victories, comes the next tier of prizes. Don't you think that as they approach the next prize tier, they won't be tempted to spend a few more gems to get that last victory? This then turns them into a spending guild, with access to more resources than the non-spenders.

Congratulations. You just found another way for Gree to make money. The "Wins" leaderboard. Again, dominated by money. Kinda makes you sick to your stomach doesn't it?

Now to the football:

The football analogy deals with the "ensured" victory statement you keep making. I'm stating, there is no such thing. You are never guaranteed a win. The team that went up with a second left, by most anyone's standards, would have been 99.9% guaranteed to win. But the other team didn't give up. They came back to win. Did the other team think "sweet, 1 second left, its in the bag!" You can't be sure, but I wouldn't doubt it. Now follow along.

Say you're up 2k (or any comfortable lead) points on a guild that seems to not be fighting you. In your eyes, that is a comfortable lead because they appear that they've thrown in the towel. You've looked at the log, and they haven't won a single match. Also, they haven't tried to battle you since the very start of the match. What if everyone says "Cool, we won, I'm going to go do laundry or whatever for the next 30 minutes." Then, the opposing guild wakes up, starts whacking away at the wall, since they can't beat any of your team, and magically they shred that lead. You log in with a few minutes to go, realize you're only up by 200 points now. You first try to contact the other guild members, and then you try and start a battle, but oh no, the game is lagging and you can't start your battle fast enough. Connection error. You know its close to the end, and guess what? By the time you get your battle started, the war is now over and you lost because you thought you had a comfortable lead and were saving your resources for next time. You thought you had it in the bag, so you more or less gave up. That is what you get for stopping early.

Also, you said football doesn't count because you a team only plays one game at once. Last time I checked, that is how war is. Football teams have to fight another battle next week. Yes, its not immediately after the current game, but trust me, it still takes a lot out of you. Any sport does. Why do you think that teams start putting in backups? To not injure their best players, and start resting them as soon as possible (you know, saving resources) for the next game. Every last hit they take is that much more they have to rest from.

So, while you're saying my comparison to football is viewed as stupid, I would beg to differ. I also didn't resort to name calling.

[Meepo]

Yes, I mean that gemspending and resource management should coexist and compliment each other.

When I said a 3/3 guild should be placed above a 2/3 guild, I didn't mean to sound that it should be strictly the case. If the number of victories is close, for example, two guilds are 30/50 and 33/50, then the war point accumulation from battles should be a significant factor to determine which guild is on top. However, it is when a guild with 10 wins places higher than a guild with 50 wins that a problem arises. Top guilds would win most of their battles anyway, provided a good matchmaking system, so it shouldn't affect their position on the leaderboards. --> benefits BOTH gem spending and resource management. My idea is aimed to differentiate between the middle and low guilds. Nowhere did I say that gem spending is bad, or that guilds shouldn't spend a few gems in order to muster a few extra resources to win a battle.

Yes, victory is never ensured, but there can be a point where the chances of winning are beyond reasonable doubt. Your football example of being 3 points up with 1 second left is not beyond reasonable doubt, as it only takes a fraction of a second for the QB to throw a pass to a receiver in the end zone, or for a field goal. Beyond reasonable doubt means something like being 9 points ahead with 2 seconds on the clock.

As for your example of being up by 2k and losing by them chipping at your gate, that is not what I mean by the "enough but only enough" approach. I mean that you should save your resources, while still being aware of what your opponent is doing. I never said anything about going to sleep for half an hour. It is about managing resources for next battle, while still being aware of the situation of the current one.

For the football thing, remember that in war, there are more than two parties participating. Remember that there could be neighbouring countries waiting for the chance to fight you, similar to KnD's guild wars. Sure players' energy could be spent, but they are trained to recover within time for next game. In war, resources like food, weapons and machinery take much longer to generate. Squandering resources unnecessarily to defeat one opponent should lead to a disadvantage in a subsequent fight (again, I am not referring to people with infinite gems). If America were to use all its nukes on a single enemy, they would run out of nukes for use on other countries (weird example but you get the point).

I don't care whether GREE makes money or not. It doesn't affect me. I'm just saying GREE has staff making money decisions for them, so the opinions of the players shouldn't be based on GREE's revenue, but on the general enjoyment that the players would receive, because they are also key stakeholders in the game.

[Matty-cakes]

Miyabi is one of my new favorite people! & that's saying a lot considering I hate almost everyone.

Isn't he great?!?! If anyone gets anything out of this ridiculous thread I hope it is the fact that Miyabi (Centurions for life) is so cool.

In fact, you should all PM him. I know he would appreciate the chance to tell you all his tips and strategies for KnD.

[Miyabi]

Isn't he great?!?! If anyone gets anything out of this ridiculous thread I hope it is the fact that Miyabi (Centurions for life) is so cool.

In fact, you should all PM him. I know he would appreciate the chance to tell you all his tips and strategies for KnD.

Lol matty, stop this pm thing, here is not our Line.
(Pm vincent or justice....)

[gardibolt]

All I know is that next time Gree wants to have a mini-war and not hand out rewards, they should make gem spending impossible. It would be an interesting experiment

[Eunuchorn]

Meepo, all your points are already in place for non-spending guilds. What exactly is it you want to see implemented?

[knights]

Lol matty, stop this pm thing, here is not our Line.
(Pm vincent or justice....)

Miyabi, forgot to congratulate on the win. Think you guys can hold up against RR if its a 3-day war?

[Meepo]

Meepo, all your points are already in place for non-spending guilds. What exactly is it you want to see implemented?

I'm suggesting that the bonus for winning against other guilds be much higher, so that the main source of war points come from winning battles rather than attacking to rack up guild points. There would still be points for attacking, but they'd be lower in proportion to the win bonus.

[Jordon1992]

Stress reliever? Not so much. Reading people's comments & ideas just reinforces my belief that the human race is retarded & needs to be eradicated asap.

lmaoo yess this was the most educated comment here

[Eunuchorn]

The win bonus is already ridiculously huge. Your idea is sh*t.

[KayOrzz]

The win bonus is already ridiculously huge. Your idea is sh*t.

they prolly didn't win much battles to notice anything significant eun, gotta pardon the ignorant on that matter

[Meepo]

It is not ridiculously large. It is way too small in proportion to what you get for simply attacking other players.

What numbers are you getting for winning? Your high win bonuses are derived from accumulating points during battle and not from victory itself.

I guess increase is the wrong word for me to use here. It should be rescaled.