Guilds and Warring - Page 2

xnervNATx · #41 03-15-2009, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSolider

The idea of "repping" your guild on another server is more or less based on the idea that "hey, my usual server is boring right now. how bout 3 of my guild buddies and me go to another server and kick some butt?"

that honestly make people whine more about how they owned other servers

Mark Sir Link · #42 03-15-2009, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ff7chocoboknight2

I don't think that guild shouldn't have the right to have an exclusive area for themselves. I also do not support removing guild gates. There is no point in having a guild area if other people are constantly inside of it bothering the guild.

I don't think there's a problem with blocking people from getting in the guild house itself, but preventing people from walking around it and giving players a large section of the overworld to sit unbothered is a problem

jacob_bald6225 · #43 03-15-2009, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximus_asinus

I've been saying for years that multiguilding was going to kill guilds, and not one person listened to me. If you want to increase guild activity, disable global guilds, and then create an ingame system with some actual rules and heavy restrictions on who can create a guild. Disable multiguilding, so a player's choice actually has consequences (I joined US, I can't get into Ventrue now). Multiguilding made guilds meaningless.

Liar, I agreed.

MiniOne · #44 03-15-2009, 05:34 AM

Global guilds fail since you can join as many as you like, as well as the dying playercount.

Remonq · #45 03-15-2009, 07:15 AM

i've been meaning to open up the rommiel levels but i just haven't gotten around to it. the only reason i closed mine off was because my guild members wanted it to be like that since all the other guilds had theirs. now it doesn't really matter since the guild is eventually dead. right now i'm just working on condensing the levels and making it looking acceptable to public viewing. just minor stuff. i've already deleted all the "security systems" except for one and the guild gate and the rear entrance from the village (which is also scheduled to be renamed) are all on schedule to be removed

Mark Sir Link · #46 03-15-2009, 07:26 AM

I'd remove the guildhouses of guilds below a certain activity level in the guild control panel

jacob_bald6225 · #47 03-15-2009, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Sir Link

I'd remove the guildhouses of guilds below a certain activity level in the guild control panel

Or make a "local" guild system for any guild with a guild gate/house that the leader can add members to(gives them access to the guild house) and apply similar activity ratings to people with with access to the guild house!

When the activity of your invite list hits below a certain point the doors just remain open.

See like this you could put people on the list that don't have a tag (your other list mates would just have to be more active). And it would be an incentive for giving out guild tags.

Unkownsoldier · #48 03-15-2009, 02:02 PM

To fix this problem is simple, back in the old days there was bragging rights but when all the braggers left no one cared. To promote loyalty you should only be allowed to join one global guild and be able to switch only every 6 months. This would force you to be loyal to the guild if you want to play. Next you have real estate as you know of in classic there is Venture point, there should be several of those for guilds as a base and one main castle for warring. Another thing is for ever hour you have the castle taken over each member offline or online gets 1-5 gc tickets depending on activity.

xnervNATx · #49 03-15-2009, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unkownsoldier

To fix this problem is simple, back in the old days there was bragging rights but when all the braggers left no one cared. To promote loyalty you should only be allowed to join one global guild and be able to switch only every 6 months. This would force you to be loyal to the guild if you want to play. Next you have real estate as you know of in classic there is Venture point, there should be several of those for guilds as a base and one main castle for warring. Another thing is for ever hour you have the castle taken over each member offline or online gets 1-5 gc tickets depending on activity.

about the guild switching each 6 months i approve

but the castle for warring is a bad idea since we already got mod fort.

about giving tickets out...that not needed lol

jacob_bald6225 · #50 03-15-2009, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unkownsoldier

To fix this problem is simple, back in the old days there was bragging rights but when all the braggers left no one cared. To promote loyalty you should only be allowed to join one global guild and be able to switch only every 6 months. This would force you to be loyal to the guild if you want to play. Next you have real estate as you know of in classic there is Venture point, there should be several of those for guilds as a base and one main castle for warring. Another thing is for ever hour you have the castle taken over each member offline or online gets 1-5 gc tickets depending on activity.

I disapprove about guild switching every six months, that is a needless handicap. If you could only join 1 guild it would breed loyalty.

Also the GC ticket thing is not a good idea either when the classic staff are trying to fix the fact that there are too many tickets and not enough prizes.

Unkownsoldier · #51 03-15-2009, 08:56 PM

Yet if you read the other announcements they have a plan and effect that may take place in the near future changing that.

xnervNATx · #52 03-15-2009, 09:00 PM

ok . add more tickets. if no one spend them you will have more people holding tons of tickets

Oni · #53 03-16-2009, 12:37 AM

we shuld hav guilds
and waring

xnervNATx · #54 03-16-2009, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oni

we shuld hav guilds
and waring

ya but there like 1 guilds active on 4

ff7chocoboknight2 · #55 03-16-2009, 09:05 PM

Guild houses do not take up that much room. They are all in places where players normally wouldn't get to, like on a cliff.

I still think that Kull's Castle should be a Guild Fort...

Rufus · #56 03-16-2009, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ff7chocoboknight2

I still think that Kull's Castle should be a Guild Fort...

Why do you think that?

ff7chocoboknight2 · #57 03-16-2009, 09:09 PM

It's not being used and why not?

Rufus · #58 03-16-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ff7chocoboknight2

It's not being used and why not?

In Graal The Adventure, Kull's Castle turned into a fort once the quest had been complete. While I would like to see all six forts that were in Graal the Adventure being brought back (MoD, Snow Town, Destiny, Babord, Floydia, and Kull's) there are various reasons why they shouldn't. At current, there is only one fort being used and that is MoD. We have four forts at the moment, but only three are functional as Swamp Town fort was never finished. The playercount can not and will not ever be able to handle all six forts being used if they're brought back, and obviously we can't even handle three anymore, so the number should really be kept low. It's a good idea to reuse quest levels and give them a purpose after the quest, but at we can't actually access it due to swimming limitations at the moment so it would be pointless.

The fort system needs a serious revision. I hope one day that the playercount can allow for taking control over all forts rather than just one, but I don't see that happening sadly.

xnervNATx · #59 03-17-2009, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ff7chocoboknight2

It's not being used and why not?

people HARDLY go to mod , why should we need kull's castle added

BlackSolider · #60 03-17-2009, 03:05 AM

Mod is a once or twice a week thing, as far as I see. Not that I'm on 24/7 like some of you.

MysticX2X · #61 03-17-2009, 03:38 AM

No one is on 24 hours a day 7 hours a week, sir.

Doesn't matter about MoD unless guild activity can rise up. Guild activity is out of Classic Management control (Unless they want to go to the extreme and doing local limited guilds), so this thread isn't going to serve it's purpose.

Rufus · #62 03-31-2009, 01:09 AM

Each fort should have its own theme and could maybe even be connected to the different Graal types that are situated close to them. An example would be Snow Town actually making use of one of the two types of ice tile that I've given Classic (the ice tiles used in CTF Ice or Ice Sumo) sliding around, making the floor crackable, and the ability to fall through the tiles onto the next floor down. If an elemental theme was pursued rather than just having random attributes for each, they'd feel much more consistent and different to each other. Basically what I'm suggesting is giving each fort its own settings and features, making them individually different and fun in their own way, giving people a reason to actually visit them outside of MoD.

Luda · #63 03-31-2009, 01:11 AM

I agree, also a fire based one could remove .5 hp every 5 seconds until you reach the top?

BlackSolider · #64 03-31-2009, 01:43 AM

An elemental theme would be cool and all, but it will be all for naught if guild activity + rivalries stayed at current levels. In addition, it would be nice if we got a prize for capturing/holding forts.

maximus_asinus · #65 03-31-2009, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rufus

Each fort should have its own theme and could maybe even be connected to the different Graal types that are situated close to them. An example would be Snow Town actually making use of one of the two types of ice tile that I've given Classic (the ice tiles used in CTF Ice or Ice Sumo) sliding around, making the floor crackable, and the ability to fall through the tiles onto the next floor down. If an elemental theme was pursued rather than just having random attributes for each, they'd feel much more consistent and different to each other. Basically what I'm suggesting is giving each fort its own settings and features, making them individually different and fun in their own way, giving people a reason to actually visit them outside of MoD.

Most likely players would choose the normal version, as in something that doesn't modify the player's movement or health. I'm certain that players would rather not slide around when they're PKing. The idea of different themes is nice though.

jacob_bald6225 · #66 03-31-2009, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximus_asinus

Most likely players would choose the normal version, as in something that doesn't modify the player's movement or health. I'm certain that players would rather not slide around when they're PKing. The idea of different themes is nice though.

Ya I would go to the regular one but I think different themes would be best without the bells and whistles of sliding and degenerating health.

'Offical' guild wars could be cool too in which the two highest ranking members online set the terms of victory and first guild to reach the terms wins. Like have a window open where they can set what determines victory (Kills after certain time, first guild to 500 kills, other stuff).