| Author | Content | Date |
|---|---|---|
|
LUXY_ |
Rather then pointing out the negatives in peoples suggestions come up with some ideas of your own and post them, please try keep this threat to the point.
|
#31 2017/01/01 17:48:48 |
|
CCHRONE |
"JHAELIEN""LUXY_"The idea is to get the game to be fun for everybody, I have always actively pushed for as many people to take on DK at GVW as possible but it's not working I agree, Gandalfs ideas are great but I also think Maverick idea is good too, I think they both should be combined. Such as giving lower levels a handicap to make it a little more interesting and get lower levels interested in doing it.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="CCHRONE"][quote="JHAELIEN"][quote="LUXY_"]The idea is to get the game to be fun for everybody, I have always actively pushed for as many people to take on DK at GVW as possible but it's not working[/quote]
There's part of the problem right there it's not our fault if players don't want to show up and it's not your fault either and your approach is better I can see you trying to gather players to go rather than crying on the forum about it. I've seen some players attend gvw (capped or close to cap) lately that normally don't go because it seems they're only interested in going unless there's a massive handicap involved.
You've probably read Gandalfs ideas if not I highly suggest you read his post. Maybe a rework of the perks related to gvw in Gandalfs post might help get people there, however there's nothing we can do if people refuse to get off their backsides and attend.
[/quote]
I agree, Gandalfs ideas are great but I also think Maverick idea is good too, I think they both should be combined. Such as giving lower levels a handicap to make it a little more interesting and get lower levels interested in doing it.[/quote]
|
#32 2017/01/01 17:49:15 |
|
JHAELIEN |
"LUXY_"Rather then pointing out the negatives in peoples suggestions come up with some ideas of your own and post them, please try keep this threat to the point. I don't need to Gandalf has kindly already posted similar ideas to what I would have, so why repeat his ideas. One thing I will add though is maybe consider adding an npc that spawns at the start of gvw and remains there that offers free/half price pots and serums to make it cheaper for players to attend even if the pots and serums disappear from your invent once gvw has ended.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="JHAELIEN"][quote="LUXY_"]Rather then pointing out the negatives in peoples suggestions come up with some ideas of your own and post them, please try keep this threat to the point.
[/quote]
I don't need to Gandalf has kindly already posted similar ideas to what I would have, so why repeat his ideas.
One thing I will add though is maybe consider adding an npc that spawns at the start of gvw and remains there that offers free/half price pots and serums to make it cheaper for players to attend even if the pots and serums disappear from your invent once gvw has ended.[/quote]
|
#33 2017/01/01 17:51:26 |
|
DR3AD |
"JHAELIEN"One thing I will add though is maybe consider adding an npc that spawns at the start of gvw and remains there that offers free/half price pots and serums to make it cheaper for players to attend even if the pots and serums disappear from your invent once gvw has ended. This is needed for GVW and WOTW
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="DR3AD"][quote="JHAELIEN"]One thing I will add though is maybe consider adding an npc that spawns at the start of gvw and remains there that offers free/half price pots and serums to make it cheaper for players to attend even if the pots and serums disappear from your invent once gvw has ended.[/quote]
This is needed for GVW and WOTW[/quote]
|
#34 2017/01/01 18:20:26 |
|
CHARGE |
Is there a way to implement a system where the players can trigger a gvw? For example, after winning a gvw there is period of 24hrs where you have safe ownership. After that period any guild, apart from the guild village owners, can contest and effectively trigger a gvw. Benefits would include more pvp, wars at varied time intervals, harder to defend, easier to win, depend more on organisation and add a new dynamic to the game too. Same could work for WoTW.
/Charge
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="CHARGE"]Is there a way to implement a system where the players can trigger a gvw? For example, after winning a gvw there is period of 24hrs where you have safe ownership. After that period any guild, apart from the guild village owners, can contest and effectively trigger a gvw. Benefits would include more pvp, wars at varied time intervals, harder to defend, easier to win, depend more on organisation and add a new dynamic to the game too. Same could work for WoTW.
/Charge[/quote]
|
#35 2017/01/01 18:31:10 |
|
JHAELIEN |
"CHARGE"Is there a way to implement a system where the players can trigger a gvw? For example, after winning a gvw there is period of 24hrs where you have safe ownership. After that period any guild, apart from the guild village owners, can contest and effectively trigger a gvw. Benefits would include more pvp, wars at varied time intervals, harder to defend, easier to win, depend more on organisation and add a new dynamic to the game too. Same could work for WoTW. Wouldn't that mean you'd get individuals waking up at odd hours or even international players just triggering the gvw and taking it while the holders have no chance to defend due to being asleep for example?
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="JHAELIEN"][quote="CHARGE"]Is there a way to implement a system where the players can trigger a gvw? For example, after winning a gvw there is period of 24hrs where you have safe ownership. After that period any guild, apart from the guild village owners, can contest and effectively trigger a gvw. Benefits would include more pvp, wars at varied time intervals, harder to defend, easier to win, depend more on organisation and add a new dynamic to the game too. Same could work for WoTW.
/Charge[/quote]
Wouldn't that mean you'd get individuals waking up at odd hours or even international players just triggering the gvw and taking it while the holders have no chance to defend due to being asleep for example?[/quote]
|
#36 2017/01/01 18:36:18 |
|
ASBJORN |
The above idea is kinda like when you try take a castle on Albion online once you have set the wheels in motion all online members of the owner guild are notified and have to get back there and basically just slaughter everyone or be slaughtered . Once your dead tho your dead as an attacker can't just die then revive back . Owners can tho
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="ASBJORN"]The above idea is kinda like when you try take a castle on Albion online once you have set the wheels in motion all online members of the owner guild are notified and have to get back there and basically just slaughter everyone or be slaughtered . Once your dead tho your dead as an attacker can't just die then revive back . Owners can tho [/quote]
|
#37 2017/01/01 18:49:05 |
|
GINGESTRO |
My Suggestion:
All players at GVW have same stats. Only items/weps/armour/access make the difference. It would cater to hardcore players as their items will make a big difference and would cater to more casual players as there's far more of a level playing field.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="GINGESTRO"]My Suggestion:
All players at GVW have same stats. Only items/weps/armour/access make the difference.
It would cater to hardcore players as their items will make a big difference and would cater to more casual players as there's far more of a level playing field.[/quote]
|
#38 2017/01/01 21:06:56 |
|
MULTIV |
"CCHRONE"As I said in your previous thread Multiv The flaws you speak of are already there. Thats currently happening at the moment anyway (With DL letting Dominance win a few days ago) The point is that if the actual guilds are much smaller people are more likely going to want to compete for themselves. If people really want to co-ordinate and let other guilds win then fair enough, but atleast we will be more likely to see differnt winners every week. Its not in the best interests of 30/40 people to share a guild village between themselves every 3/4 wars when they can try and win it for their "own guild" every week.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="MULTIV"][quote="CCHRONE"]As I said in your previous thread Multiv
Although I agree with some ideas but some others I do disagree with, I disagree with limiting guilds to 10 players, if you limited a guild to 10 players and made a chat for everyone to join, say you have 2-3 Coven or DL guilds then all those will do is swap the GV to each guild so the GV Stat Reduction doesn't go down too far. Too many flaws imo[/quote]
The flaws you speak of are already there. Thats currently happening at the moment anyway (With DL letting Dominance win a few days ago) The point is that if the actual guilds are much smaller people are more likely going to want to compete for themselves.
If people really want to co-ordinate and let other guilds win then fair enough, but atleast we will be more likely to see differnt winners every week. Its not in the best interests of 30/40 people to share a guild village between themselves every 3/4 wars when they can try and win it for their "own guild" every week.
[/quote]
|
#39 2017/01/01 21:15:02 |
|
JARAGOONDOO |
I like InTheFace's idea about making alliances something "official", and sharing the % debuff between allied guilds. If you wanna help a guild, then you better officially ally with them (or else!).
But I also do think there should be a cap to the %; not something arbitrary (a lot of people are mentioning 80%). Monitor GVW properly to find what cap works best (might be different caps for HSoma and Dsoma)
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="JARAGOONDOO"]I like InTheFace's idea about making alliances something "official", and sharing the % debuff between allied guilds. If you wanna help a guild, then you better officially ally with them (or else!).
But I also do think there should be a cap to the %; not something arbitrary (a lot of people are mentioning 80%). Monitor GVW properly to find what cap works best (might be different caps for HSoma and Dsoma)[/quote]
|
#40 2017/01/01 22:05:57 |
|
PATHOLOGIST |
Best Idea would be to attend the GVW.
You'll find that if you played and got to 100, got gear, there's all the balance you need. |
#41 2017/01/01 23:04:27 |
|
ACAELUS |
"PATHOLOGIST"Best Idea would be to attend the GVW. Great post |
#42 2017/01/02 00:26:43 |
|
DEIMOS |
Lower levels want fun, maybe introduce a level restricted event? Unrelated to gvw's
And yes you should expect to not do much of anything to capped players as a nub but when you are in the 80's you should be useful somehow except the fact that capped dsoma chars can happily tank anyone into the mid 90's without much drama, that is exactly the reason why a lot of dsoma gvw's are won by nobody else attending, it's a pointless effort
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="DEIMOS"]Lower levels want fun, maybe introduce a level restricted event? Unrelated to gvw's
And yes you should expect to not do much of anything to capped players as a nub but when you are in the 80's you should be useful somehow except the fact that capped dsoma chars can happily tank anyone into the mid 90's without much drama, that is exactly the reason why a lot of dsoma gvw's are won by nobody else attending, it's a pointless effort[/quote]
|
#43 2017/01/02 08:52:22 |
|
CHRONOS |
"PATHOLOGIST"Best Idea would be to attend the GVW. so the newer player base that the game seems to have at the moment can do nothing until they reach lvl 100? nice one GG may as well say "Hi play this awesome game but you cant compete with anyone until you have committed around 2k hours" people enjoy games were they can compete not just get smashed. The multiple GV idea seems cool , but would have to be a lvl cap on them but then you would just get people making "twinks" as lets be honest people who play soma love exploiting anything they can in game.......
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="CHRONOS"][quote="PATHOLOGIST"]Best Idea would be to attend the GVW.
You'll find that if you played and got to 100, got gear, there's all the balance you need.[/quote]
so the newer player base that the game seems to have at the moment can do nothing until they reach lvl 100? nice one GG
may as well say "Hi play this awesome game but you cant compete with anyone until you have committed around 2k hours"
people enjoy games were they can compete not just get smashed. The multiple GV idea seems cool , but would have to be a lvl cap on them but then you would just get people making "twinks" as lets be honest people who play soma love exploiting anything they can in game.......[/quote]
|
#44 2017/01/02 10:15:15 |
|
DURFEL |
"INTHEFACE"I personally see nothing wrong with guild alliance, but perhaps it would be a better idea to actucally make it a thing (some kind of title above players name's) Let the village owners only be able to ally with a maximum of one other guild. Which guild this is can change from war to war as individual guilds may decide. No one in any guild for less than one week can be in an alliance. Flag all of these “Alliance” owners with, say, a party bar (in another colour than red) for ease of identifying who is on whose side. Make it so only these two “allied” guilds can hit non-allied players. Non-allied players can only hit the “alliance” members and not each other. 5% reduction of str, dex and int on each GVW win down to a max of 70%. This applies to the allying-in guild members too. 10% per GVW increase back up to 100% for loosing guilds in subsequent wars. A reasonable prize (Incentive) for winning guild – say 10,000,000 barr for 1st win, 6,000,000 for 2nd consecutive win, 3,000,000 for 3rd and zero for any subsequent consecutive wins thereafter, winning guild leader to share out as they see fit. Prizes could alternatively be rare 1st win, then hardened 2nd win then untagged 3rd win item of choice for each winning participant as an alternative to barrs maybe………. I love the free pots and waters NPC idea too. Maybe make the GV entrance wider too.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="DURFEL"][quote="INTHEFACE"]I personally see nothing wrong with guild alliance, but perhaps it would be a better idea to actucally make it a thing (some kind of title above players name's)
Then for said alliance i.e DL and dominance ( or any other guild alliance's) to share a % nerf
of course the alliance guild to the gv holders would have access to gv feathers
maybe for 2nd defence is a 5% nerf to the gvw winners and a x amount nerf to the alliance guild [/quote]
Let the village owners only be able to ally with a maximum of one other guild. Which guild this is can change from war to war as individual guilds may decide.
No one in any guild for less than one week can be in an alliance.
Flag all of these “Alliance” owners with, say, a party bar (in another colour than red) for ease of identifying who is on whose side.
Make it so only these two “allied” guilds can hit non-allied players.
Non-allied players can only hit the “alliance” members and not each other.
5% reduction of str, dex and int on each GVW win down to a max of 70%. This applies to the allying-in guild members too.
10% per GVW increase back up to 100% for loosing guilds in subsequent wars.
A reasonable prize (Incentive) for winning guild – say 10,000,000 barr for 1st win, 6,000,000 for 2nd consecutive win, 3,000,000 for 3rd and zero for any subsequent consecutive wins thereafter, winning guild leader to share out as they see fit.
Prizes could alternatively be rare 1st win, then hardened 2nd win then untagged 3rd win item of choice for each winning participant as an alternative to barrs maybe……….
I love the free pots and waters NPC idea too.
Maybe make the GV entrance wider too.
[/quote]
|
#45 2017/01/02 18:07:33 |
Please sign in with one of your characters to reply