Curse

Weezer_Blue · Jul 24, 2005, 01:38 PM // 13:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanquisher

Sorry for being rude, but the poster is an idiot if he believes this is a good idea, and any subsequent posters thinking this is a good idea are equally challenged.

I agree. And sometimes rude bluntness is required.

quanzong · Jul 24, 2005, 01:41 PM // 13:41

Do you know what a Coalition is? Its a group of a lot of guild together that form together to take out the big/overpowering guilds they cannot take alone. The top 15 guilds cannot handle them alone, unless they form alliances with each other and more. 15 vs 5000 the coalition easily win, the top 15 guilds will get overthrown for aggressive behavior. Some guilds like Sissy Boys dont recruit anyone and have 8 players max, other guilds have 60 players, bigger guilds will win, this might make some guilds recruit more often. Yeah the jail thing, on Rotk 6 they had to execute or release an officer after they been in jail for year, but I think 3 days should be good enough time before deciding what to do with your captives. You can only get captured if beaten in there base or in the battlefield, you wont get captured while defending a base and the enemy doesnt take it because its considered that there fleeing. But if your captor has been killed, while in same battle he captured you, then your automatically released.

Flame · Jul 24, 2005, 01:49 PM // 13:49

Sounds to me like the qualms you have because you can't get eight people to Guild Battle. So, you want huge battles that will cause massive lag for many players, unfair odds, and a lack of all things intelligent. Instead of having a balanced 8v8 based on skill, you have a hugely one-sided battle because one group attracted more griefers than the other.

Do you know what an agreement is? What if the top 15 guilds agree "We are satisfied with our position," and whenever some pissy 'coalition' of a few people shows up, because I highly doubt you can get more than three or four guilds together, all top fifteen guilds help defend. And kick the collective ass of the coalition, executing them all so that, since they can't whisper each other, they cannot find each other to attack again.

Aaaaagh, I'm guessing the reason you are not sure whether they are both idiots and savants is that you do not know what a savant is. Otherwise, you would not even have made that statement.

quanzong · Jul 24, 2005, 02:05 PM // 14:05

Well then, make a system where it shows which guild is #1, and the top 25 guilds cannot be in coalitions. In Rotk its unbalanced LOL, Dong Zhou has 25 people 3 guilds, Liu Ye has 1 guild 3 people, or Cao Cao with 1 guild 9 people.
Lets just say you can bring 10 people into battle + troops for 1 guild/team, and that must be the attacker or defender. Your allies nearby your guild or the guild your attacking can bring 10 people + troops per team, and each member of coalition can bring 5 people + troops per team. And only 1 alliance guild can help you, but they must be adjacent to your guild. Also if you have guilds nearby you get additional +10 people, but can only get max of +20 people. Coalition members only appear when they attack there target, not defend.

So if your in Coalition against someone huge (Dong Zhou) Dong Zhou has 1 alliance member Zhang Lu, and guilds nearby so 35 people + troops for Dong Zhou. And the attacker team has 2 allys near Dong Zhou and in Coalition of 12 to stop Dong Zhou since you can bring 1 ally + your team + 11 coalition members they would have 75 people + troops. Battle be 75 vs 35. Thats why Coalitions are helpful to take down powerhungry guilds.

madness2k4 · Jul 24, 2005, 02:06 PM // 14:06

All I have to say this idea sinks.

quanzong · Jul 24, 2005, 02:09 PM // 14:09

Maybe if you go more into depth instead of saying "it sucks" I could pursuade you into liking it by using the Boomerang method.

Weezer_Blue · Jul 24, 2005, 05:20 PM // 17:20

Well, first of all, all massive battles end in AoE zergfests. There's no other way to look at them. Secondly, the top guilds would always win, especially if they teamed up. Thirdyly, if you can form a coalition to simply overpower a good guild, where the hell is the skill? This idea reeks.

quanzong · Jul 27, 2005, 12:55 PM // 12:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weezer_Blue

Well, first of all, all massive battles end in AoE zergfests. There's no other way to look at them. Secondly, the top guilds would always win, especially if they teamed up. Thirdyly, if you can form a coalition to simply overpower a good guild, where the hell is the skill? This idea reeks.

1. Everquest has 50 people in some zones with monsters, Guild wars can do that too except they have 50 people with troopers.

2. No they wont, form a coalition and there out of here.

3. Yes, because its to prevant what you just said,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weezer_Blue

top guilds would always win

With Coalition it keeps this game alive, no guild can overpower a coalition, but that guild can stay alive IF it allies with everyone around it, that would just mean it could not grow or weaken. But chances are slim, because maybe guilds around you looking for a coalition to destroy you and take over your guilds.

Guild Master · Jul 27, 2005, 03:03 PM // 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanquisher

Sorry for being rude, but the poster is an idiot if he believes this is a good idea, and any subsequent posters thinking this is a good idea are equally challenged.

No, you're not sorry. Every single post by your guild is rude in every single way. If people like it, they will get it one time or another. People didn't think that combining Square-Enix and Disney characters into one single game would be a good idea. But how did it come out? With a big bang! So if they like this idea, they will get it.

Mithie · Jul 27, 2005, 03:22 PM // 15:22

I hate this idea. It's just going to degenerate into mass chaos, very fast.

quanzong · Jul 28, 2005, 01:40 PM // 13:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mithie

I hate this idea. It's just going to degenerate into mass chaos, very fast.

What about this idea do you hate? Maybe I could pursuade you to liking it.

Iceciro · Jul 28, 2005, 01:47 PM // 13:47

The only really negative part I see are the permanant consequences for failure.
Unfortunantly, that makes up a great deal of the whole idea...

Mithie · Jul 28, 2005, 01:51 PM // 13:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by quanzong

What about this idea do you hate? Maybe I could pursuade you to liking it.

Well, part of the guild wars mythos is about organized guilds battling each other for the privledge of being on top. But with all the features you're pushing, it seems like there won't be this sort of organization. Guild mates today might have no way of finding each other tomorrow. Guilds will mean nothing more than a temporary party to play together. A guild which went from bottom to top might have competely different members, therefore destroying much of the unity and comeraderie of what it means to be a guild.

quanzong · Jul 30, 2005, 12:32 AM // 00:32

You dont have to get destroyed easily though, just ally with people around except for 1 or 2, and you wont loose so fast. If you played Rotk 10, I found out that alliances are good in that game and is tough not to be in alliance with 4 other equal sized enimies. This doesnt allways end up in failure, it just depends what your guild does, if it thinks its the best of the best and doesnt ally with anyone its looking for failure, but if it allies with others around them its looking for great future. Lastly, its not likly that they will EXECUTE you everytime you get captured, people need money, and thats where this exchange for 10k for you to be released, or something.

Try looking at the positives rather than looking just at the negetives.

wolfy3455 · Jul 30, 2005, 03:10 AM // 03:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by quanzong

Try looking at the positives rather than looking just at the negetives.

If you try to do that, theres not much to look at.

johnnylange · Jul 30, 2005, 03:22 AM // 03:22

Boooooooooooooooooo!

chaos dragoon · Jul 30, 2005, 05:52 AM // 05:52

i am agaist this idea.i wouldnt like my charecter being wiped.

ManadartheHealer · Jul 30, 2005, 06:02 AM // 06:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanquisher

Sorry for being rude, but the poster is an idiot if he believes this is a good idea, and any subsequent posters thinking this is a good idea are equally challenged.

Here is a man who stated his mind and wasn't afraid to tread on a few toes. And I happen to agree with him

quanzong · Jul 30, 2005, 10:37 PM // 22:37

Ok, so
Negetives = EXECUTION, not being with same guild
Positives =Alliances, better guild battles, Coalitions, Increase of new members within your guild, possiblility to gain more area.
And you say theres not enough Positives? Positives overule negetives. EXECUTION isnt that bad, you have a PvP character, he dies so what, create another one JUST LIKE HIM. All that happens is that you dont start with your favorite guild when you rejoin Rotk style, I dont believe getting executed and starting same character with same guild is a good idea, because then people wouldnt care if they got executed, and execution would be obsolete in this game. In Rotk era you dont see all the new officers going straight to one ruler because they were BORN to goto him, they are new and start a new life under a NEW ruler.

Now I dont see why being EXECUTED is such a biggy, since its PvP character, and you restart with everything you had at 1st, since fame and rank are on ALL of your characters and not just on certain character. Getting your PvP character wiped isnt so harsh, you can create a new one, EXACTLY the same.

Lagg · Jul 30, 2005, 10:41 PM // 22:41

I want whatever it is he's smoking.