Guild Wars and sisters guilds


#390

image can be described with all details that would ever matter to the gw, ofc describing image is much slower so i called it easier access

im still writing a response to the part about dev intention brb :slight_smile:


#391

There is no way your guildmates could get a good enough grasp of the board from textual description in order to help you.

The whole “game extension” and “easier access” thing is clearly just one big joke, it makes no sense.

To begin with, the comparison was with setting easier defense for an allied guild, which is something done completely in-game, yet the fact that it can affect the results is enough of a reasoning for many of you to call it “cheating”. Yet when I bring up discord, which is an external program that can change the results to a much greater effect, your excuse is “it’s an extension to the game”? Why would that even matter? it affects the results, it should be forbidden. That was your reasoning earlier, it should still work now.


#392

they can catch a grasp of the board within the game as you can set pvp defense for each other when one doesnt have such units, discord doesnt pull anything that wasnt already possible within the game within a guild
also you can tell them each gem or each pixel one by one if you wish to so they could draw it themselves, obviously its nonsense to list and draw gems but its not like with discord you are bringing out informations that were impossible to share
the informations guild chat can share is only limited by time
and if you really dont want to accept the guild chat as “good enough” then take forum pm as the forum is being official tool given by devs.

what makes no sense is comparing “giving easy points” to “talking about teams” :wink:

the discord is just talking about teams and game strategy even if with use of pictures, talking is different then transfering actual points/resources within the game. sure you may say its not free they still have to physically do their battles but its like giving a 100$ worth product for one single penny its basically giving free, so dont even try to hide behind that detail

also i would like you to use actually valid arguments not just phrases like “nonsense” (or make no sense) so we could maintain an actual intelectual debate please


#393

This is post number 30 in this topic.
It’s by one of the devs and it essentially says all there is to say on the issue of alliances in GW (bolding by me).

So PLEASE, let’s move on from this endless rehashing of the same points. The devs have spoken!
If you don’t agree with their position you can just elect not to play GW (and hope that they change their minds at some point?). Or you just deal with the fact that whether you like it or not ALLIANCES ARE PERFECTLY LEGAL IN GUILD WARS.

Give it a damn rest already!


#394

oh i am not judging anyone, not even debating about guilds that possibly are doing it now (and what i think about it)

i am talking about how to take this concept in the future if devs decide to take more clear stand,
to find a solution that might make most sense or be most accepted by the community here therefore “may be” accepted by devs too?

also devs said more then that id you didnt notice :wink:

this concerns the guilds that did it in past or doing it now:

this concerns future devs strategy towards it:

so lets discuss about gw future and the development of gw alliances concept as this is something that is still developing :slight_smile:
i dont see why ppl should “give a rest” to this part of conversation


#395

Someone seriously attempting to argue that coaching teammates from the same team/guild is the same as fixing matches between opposing teams.

:flushed::flushed::rofl:


#396

yes but logic will remain victorious :laughing:


#397

fair point, within that aspect of conversation we go back to the basic concept of:

i would like a clear response from you do you really want to riddiculte the actual fighting/tactic(and luck) chellenge presented in the gw and go back to “pvp” being the “hardest” game mode?
honestly? you sure are allowed to prefer it any way you do, but if you may please tell me :slight_smile: i know i do like the chellenge and harder fights that gw presented before this alliance concept.

(thats not a logical fight just comparing personal preferences)

but at the side note:

(TL DR: i think gw alliances being legal will destroy the game long shot, and if game is destroyed you would suffer too)

id like to highlight the aspect where if the gw was about social deals and not actual game it could lead to popularity of the game and game’s profit dropping and in consequence not paying off the whole gw-development investment
the answer to - if that would be the case - lies within the type of playerbase the game is aimed to, and the type of playerbase that will like that kind of character of the gw’s,
currently the majority of playerbase and the games main aim is probably (i am guessing that) casual players who likes a solo play (in a collectin game with gem-matching, fighting and strategy elements)

the gw “social deals” playerbase is definitelly not as solo play/casual game oriented, would that new playerbase suffice?
or maybe that type of gw character would still not drive too significant amount of current playerbase off?

sure i dont have answer but i think its highly probable that this kind of gw character would rather damage the game much more then help it grow

(and that will be for devs to decide)
but dont you think it looks rather logical? :slight_smile:


#398

while not completely impossible, It is impractical to share, virtually impossible, if you will. It’s the same thing, and you know that. why do you still hang on to that excuse, I don’t know.

I knew it would come to that.

Yes I said it’s nonsense, but I did provide a valid arguments why it is so. You are the one hanging to one word and ignoring the actual arguments.

As for why I used that word, It is because there is limit to how much nonsense one could push away with valid arguments. There are things that are such nonsense that the poster himself should know it, and is using it just to stick to their opinion no matter what.

For example, imagine the following conversation:

You: Alliance should be forbidden, it is unethical.
Me. No it’s not. I know because my aunt went to the park yesterday.
You: That does not negate my point. you didn’t say anything about GoW. Does your aunt even play GoW?
Me: What are you talking about? She saw a dog there! a Dog! This clearly proves you are wrong!
You: Again, you did not explain how your aunt or the dog are of consequence to the matter at hand.
Me: No, the dog was brown. this is definitely relevant and proves my point.

At some point you will have to call me out on my nonsense. or ignore me and not reply which could make someone with lesser intelligence assume I have won the arguments. Both options aren’t favorable, but one has to make a choice.

Same thing happened here. I mean, did you seriously just suggest that it’s viable for someone would describe a whole game board in order to get help? or each pixel, even? or, wait, you then called it nonsense yourself, but this is really just one step further from your previous claim that I called nonsense. So basically you agree with me about the ridiculousness of your claim - but I’m not allowed to say it?

(much like you did before, I will answer your last post a bit later).


#399

right, you did provide a valid argument that i could debate about, i might have mentioned the “nonsense” too early but i felt you bring it second time and just plainly bothered me, my bad

i love it, got me a laugh, ill need to remmember to give a like in 40 minutes :heart:

now back to the actual argument :slight_smile:

i think that actually describing(or showing) exact gem board situation is not really needed to successfully help each other in the gw fighting concerning team making and strategies, so regardless to how “hard” it would be, that aspect is actually not as “significant” as the whole concept of discord -

if the rest of discord possibilities, besides the “showing gem situation on board” was not able to successfully aid guild wars in the way you stated as ‘similiarly unfair’ to my arguments about ‘giving points being unfair’ and only the ‘showing gem situation’ could achieve that, then i would accept the point that ‘guild chat is not good enough’, hoewever the board situation is not the main reason of why it could possibly be ‘similiarly unfair’

without that one aspect (of showing board situation) you still keep the heart of ‘what you held as the main points’ for discord to be as ‘similiarly unfair’ as my points that ‘easy defense was unfair’ - however without that one aspect your argument as a whole doesnt hold a stand

i know you may disagree that the exact board situation is significant and we get to the matter of opinion which doesnt solve it, but here:

forum pm is enough practical,
so my argument stands and keeps actual sense :slight_smile:

also will you address this?

dont you see the resemblance? why are you trying to prove a point that they are at the exact same “level” of “fairness”?


#400

Counterquestion: Why are you trying to use a subjective concept such as “fairness” to mold a clearly defined rule to your liking? There is no room for “fairness” in the rules. The rules are what the devs set them to be, and they state very clearly that cooperation between guilds is not illegal.

They may change that rule in the future, but for now you’re doing nothing but repeating the same arguments. You’re probably hoping that if you (and others) complain long enough the devs will change the rule to your liking. I’ve no problems with that but considering the fact that @saltypatra has already stated that the arguments posed in this topic have been taken under advisement by the team, is there really a need to add another 200 posts stating the exact same thing?


#401

i thought i exp[lained myself in here:

its basically like debating about any future request or released or non-released feature

im not repeating them, yet, at least as far as only my words are concerned (if someone else said the same thing, doesnt mean im not allowed to say it)
and as far as my convo with @yonizaf we both more or less are touching different detail each time, i wish we could go back to the main points, not those details but it seems they are needed to get somewhere for now

the parts i repeated myself was to ask a reply concerning that parrticular subject where where the first time i did not receive one

anyway, if you wish not to discuss this subject then you are free to mute the topic for yourself, after all this topic is about this subject precisely

or do you mean you want to derail it?


#402

Who’s ‘we’, though? Clearly not the devs, because you (kind of) agreed their preference shouldn’t matter, only the rules they set. Who then? Different players want different things. There is no simple method to determine “what do the playerbase want”. I will tell you my own observation though.

Many players (in the endgame at least, but then that’s the main crowd we are talking about here) mostly care about the end results, not the theoretical way the game was supposed to be played. You can see that in PvP, where it became a standard to many to put easier defenses, either in order to help others get snotstones, or in order to get easier teams to fight and more revenge battles (easy gold and trophies).

Now, I could ask you the same: do we want PvP to be about “getting easy rewards”, or do we want them to be about valiantly defending your kingdom, and challenging yourself by invading the hardest opponents? Game theory suggests the latter (that’s why they called it ‘invade’ and ‘defend’, rather than ‘collect rewards’ and ‘give rewards’), but as far as I can see many people feel otherwise, and I am not in a position to decide if they are wrong, and I don’t think you are either.

Who ever said that pvp should be an easier game mode? the difference should be solo play vs team play, not easy vs hard. The fact that some people choose for pvp to be an easy reward cruise does not change the intended game theory behind it, and if you believe in that game theory you should fight just as hard for single troop pvp defenses to be illegal, for the same reasoning.

as for my personal preference, once again I will refer you to PvP, or more accurately, the weekly trophy leaderbboard (which by the way is not dev-intended, and is privately managed by one of the players).

The main competition on the first spot on these leaderboards is between my guild an Intrim. Many of my guildmates care greatly for these results, and I care for my guildmates (more than the actual results, actually), so, like many of them, I usually set a single-troop defense to increase my trophy output. Is it a bad sportmanship? I don’t know, not sure if I care. To my knowlenge, the competition has many people doing it as well.

Same thing applies to Guild Wars. My guildmates are highly competitive, they would like to win the war or at least get as high position, and I do not wish to disappoint them. That is honestly the only reason I play guild wars at all - if I wanted to challenge myself I would probably choose another game that is more about actual challenge and less about how bad the RNG decided to hit you today. As such, I would definitely concentrate on my best chance of getting points (not by doing anything illegal, mind you), rather than challenging myself.

(e.g when re-rolling the opponent by going back was possible, I would totally do that. Sorry to disappoint.)

As I currently see it, Guild Wars by itself seem to be destroying the game in a not very nice way - people getting stressed, fighting, leaving their guilds or even the game… I don’t remember any other feature introduced that caused so much negating reaction.

So, does that mean Guild Wars should be made illegal? (wait, that would make no sense, so) should it be removed? I don’t know. the devs are supposedly the experts on what good and bad for the existence of the game. Many times when forum members claimed that X destroys the game, the devs commented that the game is actually doing better, both in player count and financially. For that reason, I generally avoid such claims (“X will destroy the game”) and I think you should too. Let the devs handle that part, it’s the one thing they are good at.

It was just an example. Fact stands that without discord, there is no way our guild could ever get the same GW results. Even if we tried using game chat for the same effect we would fail. it being technically possible is completely irrelevant, it is practically impossible, and that’s all that count in this context.

(as for the forum, it is still an external platform that most players don’t use. there is no reason to assume that using a PM to help a guildmate win GW was ‘intended by devs’, and anyone who do it would still have a seemingly unfair advantage against people who only interact in-game).

I did not reply to that person, because saying something like “how could anyone seriously think X” is not a real argument, it’s an informal fallacy. I usually avoid replying to such. There is simply nothing in there that is worth replying to.

for you, however, I would say this:

  1. “fairness” is subjective. you might think that an alliance is unfair, someone else could claim that helping a guildmate win (in the way I described above) is even more unfair, because in the end the main gameplay is single-player, so more people thinking on the best move is like three people playing chess against one. And then a third person will think that both are equally fair, because “all’s fair in love and war” or something. If only there was a universal standard for fairness… but there isn’t. Sorry to inform you.

  2. saying that a GW alliance is the same as ‘fixing matches’ is in itself a comparison, and not necessarily a valid one. the term ‘fixing matches’ refers to losing a match on purpose only when it’s against the rules (which is usually because gambling is involved). letting someone else get more points when it is allowed is a valid strategy, that can sometimes be observed in team racing for example.
    Besides, an alliance is not even even losing to each other, since you don’t lose points for defense loses, so in essence it’s just helping each other get more points - which may or may not be fair in your opinion - but that’s not what match-fixing means.

TL;DR; I should have split that respone :sob:


#403

Actually, match fixing is the rigging of result or outcome.

Which is certainly what is being discussed in this thread.


#404

Even if my guild seems to be the one with the highest number of members who left/switch guild due to GW, I think that we always talk from the point of view of bracket1 players.

Only the devs knows the real complete numbers


#405

as much as i enjoy single elspeth defenses, i still want the pvp to keep the majority of competitive 4 troop defenses like it does atm - if it turned out to a majority of 1 troop defenses with an occasional real defense i think that would destroy the game similiarly to the gw alliances thing :slight_smile:
but thats just me :slight_smile:

let me show you why gw case is different and more important then pvp case:

lets face it - if gw alliances and giving easy gw defense were officially perfectly accepted and legal eventually the top bracket would all be doing it and therefore the top bracket would - depends how bracket shuffling work - be almost locked or completely locked and not reachable from outside of the alliance method

for comparison purposes - lets assume an edge case that - fighting easy defenses in pvp ‘locks’ the top pvp rewards similiarly and is is nearly impossible to reach those top pvp rewards without it, so if you fight strong pvp defenses you couldnt reach the top pvp reward

in that case the pvp would still not have as strongly negative impact as the gw cause:
everything that pvp ranking reward table offers is available to farm in unlimited quantities for every player on their own using different then the ‘easy’ method, also the top reward doesnt even offer a significant quantity of it

with gw it is different as these rewards arent really farmable (they suppose to be in future lootable from guild chest but you know farming guild chests and seals is limited) so it would force a player to do it ‘the easy’ way and not allow to ‘ignore it and farm the amount of rewards on his own using a different way’ or to loose the resources despite having time and wish to farm/fight for it


#406

I have no intention of derailing any topic. I am just getting a bit tired of reading the same arguments (though worded differently) over and over again. :wink:

But I can of course easily remedy that by not reading it anymore (which I will do from now on), and which in hindsight I should probably have decided to do after post #30 in this topic. :slight_smile:

Better late than never, I guess… :smiley:


#407

im not saying pvp in general should be easier the guild wars despite the actual level of difficulties

im saying that the current difficulty level of pvp would remain the “hardest” as the gw alliances would render the gw “very easy” for the top xD
but if you consider additional requirements for gw (color bonuses) you would agree its a natural courase of action for it to become more difficult if we take game mechanics into consideration at all (they are nearly ingored with the alliance strategy)

have to go for now


#408

Rigging the results = affecting the results in a way that is against the rules. Anything that is within the rules is fair game and couldn’t be considered rigging. This is true for every game, not just for GoW.


#409

The whole discussion here is from the point of view of the top brackets. I don’t think the whole subject of GW alliance and its results would be relevant to casual players.