Curse

Tuoba Hturt Eht · Oct 17, 2005, 02:01 PM // 14:01

/signed

Pvp with only a few arenas to choose from is getting old for me.

Zhou Feng · Oct 18, 2005, 06:13 AM // 06:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Hand Of Death

I was also thinking on the lines of guilds getting monopolies and one thing I figuered out was something that would discourage gaining control of many lands. I thought that for every land your guild owned the higher the maintenance cost for each land. For example if you owned two lands each land would have a maintenance cost of 2k each a week. Well your guild gets a third land. Now the maintenance cost for each land is 3k a week so soon owning to much lands maybe become unprofitable and there would be no sense in keeping them.

I was thinking in terms of either controlling land or a variety influencing land to give support. In the first the upkeep idea coupled with a limit to how many land can be owned (I was aiming for five with upkeep being dependant on the land, like the better the land resources the more upkeep it takes) as well as how much is paid to mantain these lands... how this translates to game terms is unknown to me (what happens when payment is not achieved? Land rebels? Stops being a part of the Guild?)

Instead of "Land Control" we could go with the "Land Influence" though you could say its more like a mutual accord between Land and Guild instead of control. In this manner the "upkeep" would be seen through means of Guild Influential Reputation as its deducted in some way, perhaps something that has to do more with PvE rather then PvP (this idea is for PvE rather then PvP kind of like something else to inmerse players with)

Somone mentioned Guild Alliances and how Guilds could have the ability to build statues and such as well as indicate with which guild they where at war or allied or neutral (again a PvE thing)

The idea is to tie in all these for PvE to make players become inmersed with the Guild aspect in PvE ( we know what the Guild serves for PvP but currently it offers so little for PvE) Guild Politics, Guild Influence/Control Land are just ideas to improve on PvE.

The Hand Of Death · Oct 18, 2005, 07:16 PM // 19:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhou Feng

I was thinking in terms of either controlling land or a variety influencing land to give support. In the first the upkeep idea coupled with a limit to how many land can be owned (I was aiming for five with upkeep being dependant on the land, like the better the land resources the more upkeep it takes) as well as how much is paid to mantain these lands... how this translates to game terms is unknown to me (what happens when payment is not achieved? Land rebels? Stops being a part of the Guild?)

Instead of "Land Control" we could go with the "Land Influence" though you could say its more like a mutual accord between Land and Guild instead of control. In this manner the "upkeep" would be seen through means of Guild Influential Reputation as its deducted in some way, perhaps something that has to do more with PvE rather then PvP (this idea is for PvE rather then PvP kind of like something else to inmerse players with)

Somone mentioned Guild Alliances and how Guilds could have the ability to build statues and such as well as indicate with which guild they where at war or allied or neutral (again a PvE thing)

The idea is to tie in all these for PvE to make players become inmersed with the Guild aspect in PvE ( we know what the Guild serves for PvP but currently it offers so little for PvE) Guild Politics, Guild Influence/Control Land are just ideas to improve on PvE.

I still feel it should be land control because it seems that the guilds were to selfish and greedy to not own the land. I picture it as them fighting over control of the land and not influence and if they didn't get the desired affect they would do something about it.

The Hand Of Death · Oct 30, 2005, 03:24 PM // 15:24

Ok. I thought about how resources can be distributed. Well there can be an NPC added to the guild hall that is labeled something like Land Contract Holder or something like that. Here you can see the land contracts you hold and the stats of the land on them. What happens is that the spoils of owning the land are added to that NPC's inventory and what you can do is go to the NPC whenever to remove that earned amount from it. There is a limit to which the NPC can hold material for someone and if someones stash is full then their spoils that they were suppose to get is directed to someone else to prevent inactive guild members benefiting greatly from this.

jonnybegood · Oct 30, 2005, 03:42 PM // 15:42

/signed for complexity and a deep enjoyable activity aside from farming.

also it is war of guilds, like the name represents

Symeon · Oct 30, 2005, 06:22 PM // 18:22

I think the idea of putting more emphasis on the 'GUILD' in 'GUILD WARS' would be a good thing, though I'm not sure whether it would badly upset the balance of the game's different aspects or not.

Certainly as mentioned by some people previously it would be adding a lot of RTS bulk to the game, but if it's all for the sake of emphasising the importance of guilds in this game then I'm for it.

However, one thing I would be unsure about is whether guilds that are better at gvg/tombs/any pvp might easily whoop other guilds and take over all the land, thus exploiting it all rather a lot...

TheCrusader · Oct 30, 2005, 08:00 PM // 20:00

Want a better reason?

1) People get RICH off doing this? Hmmmmmmm I don't think they should get rich by just sitting there, do you?

2) If you want more GvG features the only thing that I would even remotely consider is maybe different types of games that are able to be played (ie: Capture the Flag).

3) There are OTHER games you can play that allow you to wage war, control land, politics, whatnot. To be involved in this most people would have to play longer to control land and stuff. I remember the devs said this game would be casual friendly and most casual gamers can't get involved in this just for the sheer fact that it would take time to do this politics. Why make a feature that only caters to the hardcore-ish gamers?

4) This would become the new "farming."

However there is one idea I do like, City Raids. That just seems fun to me.

So all in all /not signed

se7en18 · Oct 30, 2005, 08:13 PM // 20:13

this is maybe the most complicated idea ever. and secondly, since 90% of guilds that actually have active lvl 20 players have guild halls, 1-in-10 guilds would have these "tenant farmers" that gain them resources...

/no sign

The Hand Of Death · Oct 30, 2005, 11:25 PM // 23:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Symeon

I think the idea of putting more emphasis on the 'GUILD' in 'GUILD WARS' would be a good thing, though I'm not sure whether it would badly upset the balance of the game's different aspects or not.

Certainly as mentioned by some people previously it would be adding a lot of RTS bulk to the game, but if it's all for the sake of emphasising the importance of guilds in this game then I'm for it.

However, one thing I would be unsure about is whether guilds that are better at gvg/tombs/any pvp might easily whoop other guilds and take over all the land, thus exploiting it all rather a lot...

As it was earlier mentioned there will be a max number of lands a guild can control. Secondly also mentioned earlier the more lands a guild controls the more the maintenece cost is for each individual land so at some point ownership of lands will become unprofitable.

The Hand Of Death · Oct 30, 2005, 11:37 PM // 23:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCrusader

Want a better reason?

1) People get RICH off doing this? Hmmmmmmm I don't think they should get rich by just sitting there, do you?

2) If you want more GvG features the only thing that I would even remotely consider is maybe different types of games that are able to be played (ie: Capture the Flag).

3) There are OTHER games you can play that allow you to wage war, control land, politics, whatnot. To be involved in this most people would have to play longer to control land and stuff. I remember the devs said this game would be casual friendly and most casual gamers can't get involved in this just for the sheer fact that it would take time to do this politics. Why make a feature that only caters to the hardcore-ish gamers?

4) This would become the new "farming."

However there is one idea I do like, City Raids. That just seems fun to me.

So all in all /not signed

Im going to try and solve all your problems that you had with this.

1. No I dont think they should get rich by just sitting there either but they dont just sit there. They have to calm rebellions and fight to keep their land. There can be this system that gives people more profit for involvement so guild members who don't help don't get much or even anything.

2. What is wrong with new gvg features? I mean you are not tired of the gvg features we have now?

3. I will say it again as Zhou has said it many times. This is optional and doesn't have to be used by every quilds. It won't be just for hardcore gamers. Maybe the challenging will have a longer time limit so guilds will have time to respond to it and make arragnements for guild battle over it and after a guild has challenged to fight for a land they cannot challenge another land and once the battle over that land is fought over cannot challenge that land for like 2 weeks or something and cannot challenge that guild for a week so the guild has a resting period. Another thing is that once a guild is challenged no other guild can challenge them to prevent being surpressed and so that non hardcore gamers will have time to schedule the game.

4. It would not become farming. Per run you would get about how much per run? 1k-2k? Well profit per day from this would be like maybe 50-200g and maybe 3 pieces of cloth for a helpful member and maybe 20-70g and 1 piece of cloth for non helpful members. Don't know specifics but it would be made so that it wouldn't replace farming. Just have a small gain of money on the side besides farming. Maybe 200g would be a bit high. The guild leader would get the most because they are the one to pay for the maintence. So they would get 50g-200g in profit. So they would pay 1k for upkeep and get 1.2k in return so it still isn't a replacement to farming. Its not like a land is super profitable and you guild will get fat off it.

I hope this makes the idea more pleasing

Zhou Feng · Nov 06, 2005, 04:35 AM // 04:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Symeon

I think the idea of putting more emphasis on the 'GUILD' in 'GUILD WARS' would be a good thing, though I'm not sure whether it would badly upset the balance of the game's different aspects or not.

Certainly as mentioned by some people previously it would be adding a lot of RTS bulk to the game, but if it's all for the sake of emphasising the importance of guilds in this game then I'm for it.

However, one thing I would be unsure about is whether guilds that are better at gvg/tombs/any pvp might easily whoop other guilds and take over all the land, thus exploiting it all rather a lot...

Well that is the idea putting more emphasis on the Guilds and why they fight. Im thinking rather going more on the influence aspect instead of actual land control. More like the better the PvE Guild performs the more "influence" it gets and is able to gain support. But influence is a fickle thing so support from lands are constantly shifting.

So how do you gain then the support of this lands? Special GvG combats in all new maps in a style of duel of honor (or reminiscent to duels knights did to gain influence) The guilds challenge the current Guild who has influence and support if he turns it down his fame drops and his influence weakens as in he loses face. If he fights and is victorius he gains some influence points. If he loses he loses a hell lot of influence points. Im working on the specifics so people can stop saying that this is an rts idea, because now im relying on what the Manual states and it states Guilds where influential and would make the laws of the land.

Symeon · Nov 06, 2005, 08:15 AM // 08:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Hand Of Death

As it was earlier mentioned there will be a max number of lands a guild can control. Secondly also mentioned earlier the more lands a guild controls the more the maintenece cost is for each individual land so at some point ownership of lands will become unprofitable.

Ok, but with a max number of lands a guild can control it will still be the guilds that are better at pvp that control them and the lower guilds can't beat em. We'll fight for it, and then it will just get to a stage like feudal england where all the better pvp guilds stop fighting cos they've got max land, and just sit around for the rest of the game's life getting rich.

The Hand Of Death · Nov 10, 2005, 02:16 AM // 02:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Symeon

Ok, but with a max number of lands a guild can control it will still be the guilds that are better at pvp that control them and the lower guilds can't beat em. We'll fight for it, and then it will just get to a stage like feudal england where all the better pvp guilds stop fighting cos they've got max land, and just sit around for the rest of the game's life getting rich.

Well they may not be getting as rich as they can with less lands and you dont get a lot of stuff from each land especially if it is a big guild. Each new guild would get one land. So there would be enough lands for each guild out there. Then that land wouldnt benefit the guild until they clicked some button that said they were up to land gvg or something. Then so high rated guilds wouldnt take it from low guilds there would be some sort of guild rating that only allows them to fight someone who has a score 100 away from theirs so that gvg would be on fair grounds. If the button is off for guild land then they dont benefit from that land. If it is on they can recieve challenges and stuff along that matter. There would be a max and other factors to try and discourage guild to holding a lot of land like more and stronger land rebellion and higher costs.

Zhou Feng · Nov 14, 2005, 02:28 AM // 02:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Symeon

Ok, but with a max number of lands a guild can control it will still be the guilds that are better at pvp that control them and the lower guilds can't beat em. We'll fight for it, and then it will just get to a stage like feudal england where all the better pvp guilds stop fighting cos they've got max land, and just sit around for the rest of the game's life getting rich.

Not really. First this is really a PvE option. Second considering the "influence" idea lands dont stick with a Guild for long. Influence is a fickle thing, so is alliances. Therefore a Land Lord might break his support to a Guild at any given time. Perhaps he might stick longer the higher the guilds influence is but sooner or later influence is still a fickle thing. Furthermore if its the Land Own idea we can still balance it by not only the manteinance cost but also with the fact that land can simply break its ties with a guild for any number of "reasons". To make matter interesting however Gaining land control via force or via my influence idea requires time, kind of like representing the effort of the guild to convince the land owners to join their cause.

Zhou Feng · Dec 08, 2005, 05:46 PM // 17:46

Here it version 2.0!
These ideas are only effective in PvE. PvP Only characters cannot access these options. PvP Only Guilds may if they have a healthy number of PvE characters to be involved.

Land Control/Influence

Guilds where and are the greedy sort. Why just fight to see whose the best only? Why not prove it with domination/influence? Hence Guilds began to control/influence Lands to help them wage war against their opponents.

Most people may not take a liking to this idea. But the fact is its something new and interesting as well as giving a whole new way of playing GvG. Some may prefer Control, which to others may sound RTS like. Others may prefer Influence, which is designated in this way in the game's Official Manual. For terms of simplicity will call it Ownership of Land if its Control and Sphere of Influence if its by influence.

Ownership of Land

As it stands many worry about how Ownership would work or how it will be effective. After all won't Guilds get rich and fat out of Ownership? The answer is no. There will be a gain in their coffers yes, but Ownership of Land requires a sizable amount of upkeep too. This upkeep becomes higher the more amount of Land the Guild controls. Furthermore Guilds will have to be constantly defending their Ownership territories from other greedy Guilds. So as it stands a Guild has a limited amount of time to answer a challenge for Ownership. Rejecting it will allow the Opponent Guild to "Raze" the Land by attacking it and its NPC defenders. Razes will have a decent chance that the Opponent Guild subdues the land for themselves. If they do not succeed in this endeavor the Land itself might rebel due to the Owner Guild not defending them. An accept to such Invitation Guilds will face off. Unlike Raze and Subdue this battle is determinant: Winner keeps/gains All, Loser may not challenge again for a period of time this Includes if its the Ex Owner.

Whenever there is a Rebellion treat as being a Raze except this time its Owner Guild who must defeat NPC defenders through a succesful Subdue. Also notice that Raze and Subdue will affect adversely Land profits. Subdue has a similar failure rate to Raze, therefore even if a Subdue seemed succesful the truth of the matter may be that the Subdue was NOT succesful freeing up the Land. An ex Owner Guild may not vie for control of this land for a reasonable period of time. Other Guilds may Vie for Control of this Land. To vie control for a Land specifics are still yet to come.

Sphere of Influence

Perhaps a simpler idea and more in tune with the Guild Wars manual. Sphere of Influence is deducted by how well the Guild performs in Special PvE only GvG Maps. These Maps ARE NOT AVAILABLE to PvP Only characters.

Lands are not controlled like in Ownership. Instead Lands offer their support to whichever Guild has a higher influence rating. So therefore say a Guild has 100 Influence he might or may not get "Invitations of Support" from various lands. A 1000 Influence Guild would have the highest Influence rating and may have a higher chance of Lands sending invitation. The Guild chooses which invitation to accept.

Some lands are more profitable then others but require that the Guild retain a specific Influence rating. So therefore X Land profits 1000 in Gold but requires Guild to have a Influence rating of 500 or better. Influence is a fickle thing. Therefore a Guild must be constantly active in GvGing or Influence begans to degrade slowly at first then as time passes by faster. So the Guild must mantain its Influence rating. Also each Land offering support has an Influence Upkeep cost so every certain time (A week perhaps) All lands under influence of Guild deducts from this Guilds overall Influence. So the X Land in the above example has an Requisite: Guild Influence Rating of 500 or better but deducts 75 Influence every week. If Guild doesn not meet a Lands Requisite the Land will break off its support with no string attached.

Everytime a Guild loses a GvG in the special PvE ONLY maps (about ten or so) they lose an amount of their Sphere of Influence. In this same way everytime they win they will obtain some influence. Rejecting a challenge causes Influence Loss. Ignoring a Challenge causes Influence to drop steadily while the Challenge remains. Challenges remain for an X amount of time, which at that alloted amount of time the Challenge expires but affects Influence of Challenged Guild.

More specifics for both ideas coming soon. I want people to read carefully and think which idea they like. In my opinion I like them both but the Sphere of Influence is for those people who claim Ownership is "RTS and bad for GW" since this one is based around what the OFFICIAL MANUAL states.

actionjack · Dec 08, 2005, 06:04 PM // 18:04

Yes on the added conflict... but still few kinks to work out.
For one, as we all know, GW is all one world, and shred world like in many MMO, thus hundred of Guilds exist at once. (thus the need to greate each individual instanize guild halls) So how many plot of land would there be? There need to be alot, and would still eventually lead to only hand full of guild controling them. Also should not exclude a certain type of player, ie the PvPer. And Iffy on the bonues.

Here is my rough idea... which is also very kink too.... but would be nise to see something like that. (maybe a Battle Ground Map)
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=88007

Zhou Feng · Dec 09, 2005, 04:32 AM // 04:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by actionjack

Yes on the added conflict... but still few kinks to work out.
For one, as we all know, GW is all one world, and shred world like in many MMO, thus hundred of Guilds exist at once. (thus the need to greate each individual instanize guild halls) So how many plot of land would there be? There need to be alot, and would still eventually lead to only hand full of guild controling them. Also should not exclude a certain type of player, ie the PvPer. And Iffy on the bonues.

Here is my rough idea... which is also very kink too.... but would be nise to see something like that. (maybe a Battle Ground Map)
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=88007

The reason Im excluding PvPers is because this is mostly a story based gimmick and more related to PvE rather then the PvP part since PvP is non story based just plain old lets go at each other's throats.

As for how much territory this is the reason why Im beginning to lean on the Sphere of Influence idea. With the Influence idea since there is no actual control and Influence is a fickle thing a Land may offer their support but break it whenever requirements are not met. Due to how Influence would be solved, a Hot Guild today will not be tomorrow if it doesnt work hard to mantain its Influence. This will allow Lands to be freed up in a Daily basis. Also remember this world is huge. We seem to be able to explore only a few "open" sections of it. So there are probably a good deal and sizable amount of Lands to be influenced about. Im also working on perhaps an idea to tie in with Guild Politics. Where Lands can grant their support to various allied, neutral or enemied Guilds. Sides this is all speculative idea. ArenaNet might cannibalize some ideas but not add everything or nothing at all.

Flaxx · Dec 09, 2005, 09:31 PM // 21:31

I like the sound of land ownership, it could give way to all sorts of new guild interaction and stuff. yay.

The Hand Of Death · Dec 14, 2005, 01:30 AM // 01:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhou Feng

Here it version 2.0!
These ideas are only effective in PvE. PvP Only characters cannot access these options. PvP Only Guilds may if they have a healthy number of PvE characters to be involved.

Land Control/Influence

Guilds where and are the greedy sort. Why just fight to see whose the best only? Why not prove it with domination/influence? Hence Guilds began to control/influence Lands to help them wage war against their opponents.

Most people may not take a liking to this idea. But the fact is its something new and interesting as well as giving a whole new way of playing GvG. Some may prefer Control, which to others may sound RTS like. Others may prefer Influence, which is designated in this way in the game's Official Manual. For terms of simplicity will call it Ownership of Land if its Control and Sphere of Influence if its by influence.

Ownership of Land

As it stands many worry about how Ownership would work or how it will be effective. After all won't Guilds get rich and fat out of Ownership? The answer is no. There will be a gain in their coffers yes, but Ownership of Land requires a sizable amount of upkeep too. This upkeep becomes higher the more amount of Land the Guild controls. Furthermore Guilds will have to be constantly defending their Ownership territories from other greedy Guilds. So as it stands a Guild has a limited amount of time to answer a challenge for Ownership. Rejecting it will allow the Opponent Guild to "Raze" the Land by attacking it and its NPC defenders. Razes will have a decent chance that the Opponent Guild subdues the land for themselves. If they do not succeed in this endeavor the Land itself might rebel due to the Owner Guild not defending them. An accept to such Invitation Guilds will face off. Unlike Raze and Subdue this battle is determinant: Winner keeps/gains All, Loser may not challenge again for a period of time this Includes if its the Ex Owner.

Whenever there is a Rebellion treat as being a Raze except this time its Owner Guild who must defeat NPC defenders through a succesful Subdue. Also notice that Raze and Subdue will affect adversely Land profits. Subdue has a similar failure rate to Raze, therefore even if a Subdue seemed succesful the truth of the matter may be that the Subdue was NOT succesful freeing up the Land. An ex Owner Guild may not vie for control of this land for a reasonable period of time. Other Guilds may Vie for Control of this Land. To vie control for a Land specifics are still yet to come.

I got a bit to add to the land control part if you don't mind. I think that only one challenge should be able to be made against a guild at a time. For instance, if the top guild had a piece of land that three other guilds wanted then only one of then could challenge at a time so that a small guild who's members are unable to fight that much can breath easy knowing it is only one battle they have to fight. This would help larger guilds keep more land and I haven't thought of anyway to stop this other than land cap amounts or land rebellions and such but I was thinking of a guild like mine which is small and would have a hard time meeting up to the demands of stacked challenges.

Some battles could be more geared to PvE players so they could get into this. An ettin attack on a new ascalon settler's farm in Kryta so that PvE people could get into it.

xBakox · Dec 14, 2005, 02:24 AM // 02:24

/signed

I think it is overall a good idea. It is not like the current Guild Wars, but we do need something to spice it up now anyways. Also there arent any actualy wars now, though I swore thats what the game was called??

. The plots are good, maybe even the resources you gain are based on areas, like you get wood if you have a Krytan plot, granite slabs for Ascalon, tanned hide for jungle, bones for desert, and so on and so on. All the resources/ gold would be put into a guild bank that only the leader and officers have access to (or prehaps even have a new rank called Resource Officer) and they decide how much to "pay" all teh guild memebers and the peasants, or if to even pay anyone.

Only problems would be corrupt officers keeping it itself, but 1) a good leader should'nt promote those people anyways and 2) Im sure that in real guilds from history corrupt people have destroyed compelte empires (like the Orrian scribe). Also what could be a problem is high ranked guilds owning everything.
Maybe have a limit that you can only control a few plots without having people rent them out? Not sure on this one, but high ranked guilds owning everythign could work if you think of them as major "countries" and the renting guilds as factions and orders. Perhaps there could be a choice for renters to rebel, which, if they had a better public opinion among the peasants than the Rulers than more peasants would join the renters instead of the monarchy. Just spitting out ideas here so if there are any questions or clarifications on what I jsut said Ill check this out tommorow.