What's new

Anything 3.5 related

So you skimmed through the entirety of my post and didn't read a single thing? You say screenshots, plural, however only one of the screenshots is from their patch notes (which I even explain why I brought it up, you would've known that if you actually read the post) and the other is our 3.0b patch notes. This isnt making you look good Sparkle, if you're going to reply to your players you might want to actually read what they're saying. Just because you omitted the fact the change was for siege reasons from your patch notes doesn't mean it wasnt done for just that.
I've read everything you wrote, don't worry about it. But did you read everything that was mentioned by us?
One of our goal is to remove alt guilds from the top, so only active guilds that are interested in progress, not just in some ways around, could stay there.
A good example is a guild "Fun Police". You should know this guild, as it's one of the guilds you are in as well.
It has 50 members in it, but guild is not active at all. Half of the members are not even level 55. It has 10 characters of lvl 1 and 12 characters of lvl 20 and lower. This guild is either alt or dead. What's the goal of this guild?
 
I've read everything you wrote, don't worry about it. But did you read everything that was mentioned by us?
One of our goal is to remove alt guilds from the top, so only active guilds that are interested in progress, not just in some ways around, could stay there.
A good example is a guild "Fun Police". You should know this guild, as it's one of the guilds you are in as well.
It has 50 members in it, but guild is not active at all. Half of the members are not even level 55. It has 10 characters of lvl 1 and 12 characters of lvl 20 and lower. This guild is either alt or dead. What's the goal of this guild?
If you actually played the game and knew anything about the game and its players you would know why there are guilds like that. Pikazoo, the leader of Fun Police, is currently pirate and so hes holding the guild on side characters until he comes back to East because he doesn't want to lose all the progress he put into the guild (the progress that you and the rest of the admins think the players are undeserving of) and so he has a place he and his friends can go when they come back east. The guild is doing no harm whatsoever by existing.
 
You keep saying that this change with the guilds is taking something from you, but if guild is active it’s not losing anything, it will keep getting EXP and in such a way continue its progress and even getting extra bonuses.

As I understand all your guilds are active, correct? I don’t think somebody will be speaking for the alt, dead or inactive guild, right? So, that means guilds will keep progressing and will not lose anything.

If 1200-1400EXP is a lot for the guilds, what amount of daily EXP you think active guilds can afford?

I actually LEFT my active guild because we were too small scale / busy irl to be able to reach the upcoming requirements. So thanks but no thanks, I'd rather not have the requirements.
 
I've read everything you wrote, don't worry about it. But did you read everything that was mentioned by us?
One of our goal is to remove alt guilds from the top, so only active guilds that are interested in progress, not just in some ways around, could stay there.
A good example is a guild "Fun Police". You should know this guild, as it's one of the guilds you are in as well.
It has 50 members in it, but guild is not active at all. Half of the members are not even level 55. It has 10 characters of lvl 1 and 12 characters of lvl 20 and lower. This guild is either alt or dead. What's the goal of this guild?

To be a small tight knit group who doesn't care about the rest of the faction but doesn't care for pirate or player nation either? Check my previous post I guess, seeing as I was in a group like that.
 
Because Erenor is much stronger than T7.
When you compare both prices, don't forget that T7 craft cost is increased in 3.5 and we already cut Erenor leveling up price by 30%. We'll not cut the price and remove nerf.
Could you explain how t7 is more expensive next patch? Logically since regrade chances have increased then the t1 cost should be decreased. But even excluding that just the craft cost has decreased for t7. Needing 250 archeum essence instead of 316 mana wisp is a huge decrease in cost (like 40,000 gold) and for metal weapons melee can farm taris now so that should decrease too. So idk what you mean by saying t7 has an increased cost next patch.

Also, reduction to 30% sysnthesis is pretty good, that makes erenor a little bit more viable.
 
Do you think 172-180 EXP per day is a burden for an active guild?
@Sparkle
Yes. I do not want to run guild packs or do patches, or even dumb world bosses everyday. Its boring and I don't think I should be punished for not wanting to do them given I've already dumped considerable gold and time into helping my guild hit 6.
 
Do you think 172-180 EXP per day is a burden for an active guild?
The requirement is not unreasonable, but yes, it is a burden. I apologize for using more analogies but it's the only way that I can think of to help represent the problem. (It's a stupid analogy too) Imagine you decide to start doing pushups, you do around 100 a day. You enjoy doing the pushups. Then imagine you get a coach to help you workout, he tells you to do at least 50 pushups a day. Obviously this should be no problem considering you already do 100 a day. But you are no longer doing the pushups because you want to, you are now doing the pushups because you have to. That's why it is a burden.
 
If you actually played the game and knew anything about the game and its players you would know why there are guilds like that. Pikazoo, the leader of Fun Police, is currently pirate and so hes holding the guild on side characters until he comes back to East because he doesn't want to lose all the progress he put into the guild (the progress that you and the rest of the admins think the players are undeserving of) and so he has a place he and his friends can go when they come back east. The guild is doing no harm whatsoever by existing.

Actually, that guild was going to be used to siege, that's why there is so many alts in it. I have 3 level 1's in it, so it met the requirements to bid on a scroll etc. at the time back in the day. All it needed was the member requirement as guild level carries guilds to sit in top 20
 
Ok, what about this? But we'll do it for all guilds then, starting from level 1 till level 8:

Guild doesn't loose EXP at all, but, if guild doesn't obtain required amount within 1 week (from Mon till Sun), guild is going to be removed from the Ranking list for the next week. If guild gains needed amount next week - it returns back to the Ranking list.

Guild needs to gain the following amount of EXP within a week if they want to stay in the Ranking list next week:
level 1 - 1000 EXP
level 2 - 2000 EXP
level 3 - 3000 EXP
level 4 - 4000 EXP
level 5 - 5000 EXP
level 6 - 6000 EXP
level 7 - 7000 EXP
level 8 - 8000 EXP

Of course, we are removing all offered free bonuses (extra buff and Guild Bank) as well.

BUT, later we'll implement a system that will allow ANY level guild to be able to obtain extra buff and access to the Guild Bank.
Access can be provided for 1 week and buff as well as access to the Guild Bank can be prolonged each week. Guilds will need to pay with the certain amount of EXP and gold if they want to have access to that extra buff and Guild Bank or prolong it.
Buff and Guild Bank will also have several levels, depending on the guild level.​
 
Actually, that guild was going to be used to siege, that's why there is so many alts in it. I have 3 level 1's in it, so it met the requirements to bid on a scroll etc. at the time back in the day. All it needed was the member requirement as guild level carries guilds to sit in top 20
I agree, this was definitely a problem, but I still do think it is possible to change the requirement so that it doesn't involve some sort of punishment, while also taking that siege eligibility away from alt guilds like that.
 
Ok, what about this? But we'll do it for all guilds then, starting from level 1 till level 8:

Guild doesn't loose EXP at all, but, if guild doesn't obtain required amount within 1 week (from Mon till Sun), guild is going to be removed from the Ranking list for the next week. If guild gains needed amount next week - it returns back to the Ranking list.

Guild needs to gain the following amount of EXP within a week if they want to stay in the Ranking list next week:
level 1 - 1000 EXP
level 2 - 2000 EXP
level 3 - 3000 EXP
level 4 - 4000 EXP
level 5 - 5000 EXP
level 6 - 6000 EXP
level 7 - 7000 EXP
level 8 - 8000 EXP

Of course, we are removing all offered free bonuses (extra buff and Guild Bank) as well.

BUT, later we'll implement a system that will allow ANY level guild to be able to obtain extra buff and access to the Guild Bank.
Access can be provided for 1 week and buff as well as access to the Guild Bank can be prolonged each week. Guilds will need to pay with the certain amount of EXP and gold if they want to have access to that extra buff and Guild Bank or prolong it.
Buff and Guild Bank will also have several levels, depending on the guild level.​
@Sparkle I love it, it has the best of both worlds, no punishment, but also makes it harder for alt guilds to be used in sieges. I'm all for this change compared to the others. I hope everyone else will be too.
 
Actually, that guild was going to be used to siege, that's why there is so many alts in it. I have 3 level 1's in it, so it met the requirements to bid on a scroll etc. at the time back in the day. All it needed was the member requirement as guild level carries guilds to sit in top 20
Sweetie, Sparkle said it has nothing to do with sieges :)
 
Ok, what about this? But we'll do it for all guilds then, starting from level 1 till level 8:

Guild doesn't loose EXP at all, but, if guild doesn't obtain required amount within 1 week (from Mon till Sun), guild is going to be removed from the Ranking list for the next week. If guild gains needed amount next week - it returns back to the Ranking list.

Guild needs to gain the following amount of EXP within a week if they want to stay in the Ranking list next week:
level 1 - 1000 EXP
level 2 - 2000 EXP
level 3 - 3000 EXP
level 4 - 4000 EXP
level 5 - 5000 EXP
level 6 - 6000 EXP
level 7 - 7000 EXP
level 8 - 8000 EXP

Of course, we are removing all offered free bonuses (extra buff and Guild Bank) as well.

BUT, later we'll implement a system that will allow ANY level guild to be able to obtain extra buff and access to the Guild Bank.
Access can be provided for 1 week and buff as well as access to the Guild Bank can be prolonged each week. Guilds will need to pay with the certain amount of EXP and gold if they want to have access to that extra buff and Guild Bank or prolong it.
Buff and Guild Bank will also have several levels, depending on the guild level.​
What's the point of removing them from the ranking? Nobody has ever complained about guilds being on the ranking list. In fact it'd just make your server look more dead than it actually is and turn away players. Make it the 1200-1600 exp per week you said earlier and maybe thatd be a better implementation, but it's still pointless.
 
What's the point of removing them from the ranking? Nobody has ever complained about guilds being on the ranking list. In fact it'd just make your server look more dead than it actually is and turn away players. Make it the 1200-1600 exp per week you said earlier and maybe thatd be a better implementation, but it's still pointless.
The ranking matters because this change needs to be in line with the 3.0b update. in 3.0b update they made it to where only top 20 guilds in ranking can siege, and the problem was that there were alot of dead/alt guilds sitting in the rankings preventing other guilds from being able to siege. And they didn't like how alt guilds were allowed to siege, and I can agree, it's a problem when one guild owns all the castles through their alt guilds. But yeah, that's why they are revolving the change around the leaderboard.
 
The ranking matters because this change needs to be in line with the 3.0b update. in 3.0b update they made it to where only top 20 guilds in ranking can siege, and the problem was that there were alot of dead/alt guilds sitting in the rankings preventing other guilds from being able to siege. And they didn't like how alt guilds were allowed to siege, and I can agree, it's a problem when one guild owns all the castles through their alt guilds. But yeah, that's why they are revolving the change around the leaderboard.
I'm aware of the 3.0b siege changes and brought it up in a previous post because Sparkle keeps saying that this has nothing to do with Siege changes even though on the RU server they said this is being done for that exact reason.
 
I'm aware of the 3.0b siege changes and brought it up in a previous post because Sparkle keeps saying that this has nothing to do with Siege changes even though on the RU server they said this is being done for that exact reason.
Even if it has nothing to do with the sieges it still does solve the problem revolving around the sieges, and so I'm all for it.
 

Guild needs to gain the following amount of EXP within a week if they want to stay in the Ranking list next week:
level 1 - 1000 EXP
level 2 - 2000 EXP
level 3 - 3000 EXP
level 4 - 4000 EXP
level 5 - 5000 EXP
level 6 - 6000 EXP
level 7 - 7000 EXP
level 8 - 8000 EXP​

Does this imply that (with the current siege qualification mechanics) a guild could lose their ability to bid or potentially lose their ability to hold a castle if they don't achieve 7k XP in a week?

Example: <The Privateers> does not get 7k XP the week before siege week (they would not be in the rankings top 20) so any guild that beat a bid on the castle would be a hand over, or if no one bid the zone would be demolished.
 
Even if it has nothing to do with the sieges it still does solve the problem revolving around the sieges, and so I'm all for it.
The problem around sieges was created by their own custom changes. If those changes were never made the server would've had much more fun pvp and sieges, more castles would be passed around, et cetera. There are many active guilds in the top that could siege, but they decide not to, and so because of their own changes nobody else on the server who are lower level guilds could.

They are trying to do a bandaid fix for the problem rather then removing the problem they created themselves.
 
I'm aware of the 3.0b siege changes and brought it up in a previous post because Sparkle keeps saying that this has nothing to do with Siege changes even though on the RU server they said this is being done for that exact reason.

Can you link me to my words as looks like I said it not even once but "keep saying"?
The only thing I kept saying is that main goal is to remove dead, alt or inactive guilds from the top. This alternative offered will help to do it.
You will be surprised seeing how many active guilds we have and will remain in the Ranking list even if inactive guilds are removed from it.
What you are asking for right now is to let alt guilds keep staying in the ranking list. What is the purpose of it?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top