BAN on '1 Member' GUILD FIGHTING GVG

Status
Not open for further replies.

Resipsa2

Member
BAN ON '1 MEMBER' GUILD FIGHTING

Proposal:

Ban and prohibit one (1) member Guilds from fighting GVG on the Guild Continent Map.


Current System:

One player ('1 member') Guilds can be created and dissolved and re-created limitless times daily to fight (to disrupt and unfairly harass) other guilds.

Abuse prevention:

prevent abusing GVG by eliminating single person 'ghosting' tactics.

Visual Aids:

none


Conclusion:

First, the very definition of 'Guild' is an association or organization of persons or members. It is a plural entity for the benefit of MORE THAN ONE PERSON. Thus, the very fact to a GUILD can remain in existence with only ONE MEMBER is both against its design or purpose and its meaning. Second, many of good players, members and founders have quit FOE do to growing tired and weary of continuous '1 member' attacks in GVG. Third, there is a significant unfairness to allowing single member guild fighting - which is their low cost of goods for fighting. Fourth, i can find no '1 member' guild holding four or more tiles on a regular basis, thus they do not fight for Guild purposes, but for PvP or bullying purposes. Fifth, this proposal does not stop a 1 member guild from existing, or even holding current tiles; it would only prevent them from fighting GUILD (an association of members) vs GUILD (another organized group of members).

 

jaelis

Well-Known Member
I agree with Shady, this is easily bypassed by ghost guilds, plus it unfairly impacts people who legitimately want a single person guild for point farming or something.
 

awcrapilost

I dont think single person point farming is legitimate. GvG points are meant to be gained from GUILD action, and pvp points from the hood. Setting a minimum for initial sieges would be the best option though still.
 

Ruby Rainfall

Well-Known Member
The definition of 'Guild' is "A GROUP of like-minded people".....

Whichever way you look at it, 1 person can never be considered a 'Guild'.....and 2 people is a Pair.

I would support a proposal that establishes a set number of people being considered a 'Guild'.
 

qaccy

Well-Known Member
A guild is any amount of people flying under the same banner. That's Inno's definition to set, not ours.

You want to hurt ghosting, get the troop cost for sieges re-instated. Ghosts may not have to spend goods to siege, but if they had to spend troops it would make it much easier to defend against them. But considering this would also greatly limit point-farming in general, I suspect that won't happen either.
 

Oskie66

Active Member
I agree with this proposal. Perhaps there are ways to get around this fix (bringing a friend etc) but it is a start. Oh and yes one person does not a guild make.
 
Last edited:

Shaunypoo

Active Member
Would this possibly promote the creation of alt accounts? If someone truly wants to fight alone, and it is that easy to create and administrate an alt account without being caught, would this "solution" possibly cause other problems? Maybe that player that really wants points and they figured it was easier to get them through GvG rather than PvP? Now those players might go back to the hoods and start picking on those poor, helpless neighbors. And heaven forbid, they might even plunder. Won't someone think of the children?
 

Oskie66

Active Member
The key word is "if". I don't think it is worth the risk, but someone might.
What is there to stop those with one man guilds now from creating alts? There will always be ways to break rules. This proposal is a step in the right direction. Rome was not built in a day. Besides I think a ghost guild made up of alts would be heavily scrutinized.
 

Shaunypoo

Active Member
What is there to stop those with one man guilds now from creating alts? There will always be ways to break rules. This proposal is a step in the right direction. Rome was not built in a day. Besides I think a ghost guild made up of alts would be heavily scrutinized.
The thing stopping them is that they don't need to make an alt to have a ghost guild, they can still do it with only one player. This proposal may prevent a small number of ghost guilds from forming, but how many actual ghost guilds are prevented to justify a change that may affect people who are in a one-person guild who aren't ghosting? There are some people who just want to go off by themselves and fight and hold land and see what they can do without doing it for another guild. This is unfair to those people.
 

Tygari

Member
I am against this.
There may be some people abusing 1 person guild setups but I bet there are lots more playing fairly.
You have no right to take away those players way of playing for something easily bypassed and won't fix anything.
This proposal is both broken and selfish and should never be implemented.
Those that are ghosting will simply ghost with more.
 

bptexas

Active Member
I disagree. The definition of "guild" aside, "Ghost guilds", regardless of number of members, are a problem, but this will not solve it.
 

Ruby Rainfall

Well-Known Member
I believe there should be a minimum requirement for a guild to attack on GvG.

So sure, you can set up a guild with friends if you like, but if you want to start fighting, you will need at least x amount of people.

I also think there needs to be a Payment to Enter a map.

So to enter Iron Age, the payment might be 100 of each goods.

Once a guild has the right amount of people ....lets say 10 as an example......they can then Open Iron Age Map up to fight by paying the 100 of each goods.

The actual siege costs need not change.

Then, if they want to go onto EMA.....payment might be 250 of each goods......and so on and so on.

This way, if someone wants to Ghost they would need a lot of goods to enter each Map plus a few members. Once they leave the map, they would have to pay again.

This would curtail the problem of ghosting yet leave the genuine guilds free to get on with it as normal.
 

AllSteady

New Member
Another way is to require guilds to "unlock" the ability to fight on each map. The amount of goods per age has to be high enough to dissuade ghost guilds while low enough not to discourage established (but smaller) guilds. 500 of each good/age seems about right. This would be nothing for large, established guilds and also an amount that small guilds could gather in a relatively short time period.

But it would be a very high cost for those who often create/dissolve ghost guilds.

Guilds would only have to pay this once. Once an age is unlocked, they could reland if kicked off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.