Armor, Weapoint, Guild and Quest. Create the difference!!

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Fei wrote:

      Max guild member on CBT3 was 100, people reached that cap without difficulty in 8 days, i don't see why it's a good news to have zerg and factory guild getting castle...

      Like i said on another post having 100 member at every siege will bbe possible, some guild leader will just mass recruit before siege and use some people as meatshield to win a siege, then after the victory they will prolly kick them out of the guild. Then they will do it again to defend or attack another castle etc etc... Since there is no penality kicking player out of clan and no challenging guild quest ( like L2 had ) to reach that 100 players cap.


      I don't think this will be as easy as you make it sound. The combat mechanics appear to reward coordination of players, something that new teammates normally lack. I would not be surprised if smaller guilds that have been playing together for an extended period of time roll over the zerg recruitment style guilds for objectives like castles. This happens in most games, small tactical groups are able to roll over the zerg due to coordination and superior game knowledge. Ohh soo many memories of busting a zerg in WvW in GW2 with just a handful of friends.
    • Prowl1124 wrote:


      I don't think this will be as easy as you make it sound. The combat mechanics appear to reward coordination of players, something that new teammates normally lack. I would not be surprised if smaller guilds that have been playing together for an extended period of time roll over the zerg recruitment style guilds for objectives like castles. This happens in most games, small tactical groups are able to roll over the zerg due to coordination and superior game knowledge. Ohh soo many memories of busting a zerg in WvW in GW2 with just a handful of friends.

      Well dude i played every CBT ;/

      The combat mechanic only rewards farmer, people with enchanted stuff and those know how to play their class, but surely NOT coordination since the game is totaly solo and without any teamplay or class synergy.
      That why little group like you said are totaly screwed versus zerg, and the guild witch won the main siege on CBT3 was the guild with more than 80+ members, while other guild barely reached 50 members.

      Ike wrote:



      No, you are right there is no alliance system like L2 had. If you are friendly with a guild, you need to be cearful to not hit them in sieges

      Another game design absurds, it would be much clever to allow clan allliance ( like 3 max ) and to reduce the max number of ppl per clan like 50 max. So to get the number, clan would ally to each other and start some politics, instead of only mass recruiting... Dont forget also that making ally make you enemy with others clan by default.
      How a thing so simple can't be understand by game designer ? how the fuck, for real !

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Fei ().

    • Fei wrote:

      Another game design absurds, it would be much clever to allow clan allliance ( like 3 max ) and to reduce the max number of ppl per clan like 50 max. So to get the number, clan would ally to each other and start some politics, instead of only mass recruiting... Dont forget also that making ally make you enemy with others clan by default.
      How a thing so simple can't be understand by game designer ? how the fuck, for real !


      Do you think they plan it for the future? Or do you think they just didn't take it into account? Since koreans are obviously getting the game too early.
    • Onimaru wrote:

      I'd imagine that a more cut and dry alliance system will be implemented at some point. Though having friendly fire sounds kind of like something that should be mandatory, at least for sieges. It would add realism to them and create more need for strategy.


      Whoops I just blew up our reinforcements, sorry guys! If you wanted to troll, friendly fire would be the sure fire way to do it. Soo much fun could be had if this was implemented.
    • Prowl1124 wrote:

      Onimaru wrote:

      I'd imagine that a more cut and dry alliance system will be implemented at some point. Though having friendly fire sounds kind of like something that should be mandatory, at least for sieges. It would add realism to them and create more need for strategy.


      Whoops I just blew up our reinforcements, sorry guys! If you wanted to troll, friendly fire would be the sure fire way to do it. Soo much fun could be had if this was implemented.


      It should be for the siege weapons at least, and maybe aoe attacks. It would be epic if someone sacrificed capturing a castle just to troll their allies, actually sounds like EVE.
    • troy00114 wrote:

      Onimaru wrote:

      It should be for the siege weapons at least, and maybe aoe attacks. It would be epic if someone sacrificed capturing a castle just to troll their allies, actually sounds like EVE.


      but the punishment if caprured should be severe

      Every punishment should be severe if you ask me, the time where carebears and PKs can die without any consequences needs to end. Even more so when it's GvG, the risk and cost of attacking a castle should be at least close to the potential rewards.
    • Apollonius wrote:

      @Fei I agree with your comment on the lack of class-synergy and current state of affairs. Though, personally I stand for the "lack" of an alliance system, I'd like to see a more delicate guild system with join/leave penalties ala Lineage 2.

      Now there's an idea. They should let us set our own penalties and minimum time for quitting a guild, something like negative experience or money. For example if one were to join a guild and then quit a few days later when the minimum amount of time was a week then they'd lose X amount of experience and/or money.
      Hell, I might just start requiring a joining fee or a security deposit sometime after launch to filter out the less dedicated players. Something to think about anyway.

      As for alliances, I would just like an official system for tracking who's with who and how the rewards are distributed. For example if two guilds wanted to they could split the profits made from trading 50-50 between them, or the costs of GvG expenses could be split a certain way, etc.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Onimaru ().

    • Onimaru wrote:

      Apollonius wrote:

      @Fei I agree with your comment on the lack of class-synergy and current state of affairs. Though, personally I stand for the "lack" of an alliance system, I'd like to see a more delicate guild system with join/leave penalties ala Lineage 2.

      Now there's an idea. They should let us set our own penalties and minimum time for quitting a guild, something like negative experience or money. For example if one were to join a guild and then quit a few days later when the minimum amount of time was a week then they'd lose X amount of experience and/or money.
      Hell, I might just start requiring a joining fee or a security deposit sometime after launch to filter out the less dedicated players. Something to think about anyway.

      As for alliances, I would just like an official system for tracking who's with who and how the rewards are distributed. For example if two guilds wanted to they could split the profits made from trading 50-50 between them, or the costs of GvG expenses could be split a certain way, etc.


      Why we need leaving penelaty i think is not good idea.
    • dzseridian wrote:



      Why we need leaving penelaty i think is not good idea.


      It's to partially to discourage zerg recruitment, and to encourage thoughtful recruitment of members for the long term success of the guild. Zerg style guilds are notorious for fast and loose recruitment, which tends to lead to a prolific turnover rate of membership. If they were faced with some sort of stiff penalty, these guilds would most likely be more cautious of the members they invite leading to an overall better experience for all parties involved. There is much more about this topic, but this is just one of the glaring reasons why you might want to have a leaving penalty for a guild.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Prowl1124 ().