Resipsa2
Member
by definition a guild is a group of people; and FoE has requirements for players and guilds already; this would simply increase number to fight GVG - say 5
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
DeletedUser8428
That is not correct. A guild is not defined as a "group". I am in a guild of 1 which is invitation only so that it stays that way. It allows me to GE (which I do) or GVG (which I do not) while continuing to play solo. Inno permits this.
While that may not be related to the dictionary definition of 'guild', and certainly many prefer to play differently, there is no 'group' requirement in an FOE guild
DeletedUser
guild
noun
\ ˈgild \
variants: or less commonly gild
Definition of guild
1: an association of people with similar interests or pursuits.
especially : a medieval association of merchants or craftsmen
2: a group of organisms that use the same ecological resource in a similar way
While it is possible to be in a one person guild, there is precedent in GE for treating different sized guilds differently. Maybe a slightly different version of this proposal could be only allowing a guild to hold as many sectors on each map as they have members. A one person guild could hold one sector per map, an 80 person guild could hold 80 sectors per map.
DeletedUser8428
I was not aware that Inno treats different sized guilds differently? There is no membership requirement when creating a guild..
DeletedUser29726
Guilds of less than 3 people are not eligible for guild championships in GE (but still can unlock and complete it).
Algona
Well-Known Member
Could you provide the link to the part of the official FoE Wiki that gave that definition?
No?
INNO's definition of Guild does not explicitly state a minimum number of players for a Guild.
Any definition from outside the game is meaningless wrt terminology INNO uses in the game.
No, there isn't.
The only precedent that can be taken from Guild Expeditions is that all Guilds can participate in Guild Expeditions even those Guilds with 1 and 2 members.
Is that the precedent you meant?
If you meant to cite GE Championships, keep that precedent in your pocket for when INNO implements GvG Championships.
Last edited:
DeletedUser
No thanks. I'll stick with using it here. Not only do you have to have 3 members (and at least one that participated in GE the week before) eligible to compete in them, but you are also only competing with guilds that are roughly the same size. So a 3 person guild will never go up against an 80 member guild, for example. And your guild's percentage in competing in the GE Championships is also based on number of eligible players. A 3 member guild only has to complete 144 encounters to be at 100%, whereas a 4 member guild has to complete 192 for the same percentage. And the number of Expedition points earned, which leads to Guild Power Points won, is also dependent not only on number of players, but their era. So, yeah, I'm going to stick with this point here.
Algona
Well-Known Member
Yup, all correct, except that is all about GE Championships, not GE.
Since the difference between GE and GEC is crucial when used as a precedent in the argument of limiting Guild size in GvG, you should explicitly specify to which you are referring.
GE allows all Guilds no matter the size. This is obviously an argument in favor of allowing one member Guilds to play GvG.
GEC limits the size of the Guilds. This is obviously an argument for limiting the size of Guilds in GvG.
So when you say:
You are wrong, the GE precedent treats all guilds the same wrt size.
You want to argue that the GEC limit precedent supersedes the GE precedent wrt the question of putting limits on Guild size in GvG, go right ahead.
But I don;t think it's too much to ask you to use terminology that is concise and avoids posting incorrect statements.
Last edited:
DeletedUser3882
I’m not arguing with you. I just wanted to say that there *is* GvG Championships already! It’s called the Guild Rankings!
I’m in disagreement with this proposal as well along with any and every further change to GvG other than reverting it back to its’ original and best version! No limits, no restrictions.
GvG is survival of the fittest. Only the strong survive. You want to win and keep winning? Get stronger. Period.
Since its’ inception, change after change after change for the worse has occurred simply to appease the whiners who can’t coordinate, build, level, work together... With all the whining, and changes to stop the whining, you’d think Inno would have done something to Plundering by now to appease those crybabies.
Stop changing GvG and making it worse! We have DCs and GE now for those who can’t strategerize!
There are simply some who will never be fit to lead an army. Simply cannot grasp the concept. Simply will not be successful in GvG.
That is the way it is and frankly, the way it should be. This is combat. Lead, follow or get the fudge out of the way! Of those three, only one inherently requires speaking at all. Those in the latter two categories are inherently required to shut their yap and step aside!
So why do we keep discussing these things?!?
Last edited by a moderator:
Salsuero
Well-Known Member
Which tiles get dropped by the system when someone leaves your guild and you control too many tiles? You're in the middle of protecting your holdings when you reach a hard limit because you don't have enough guildmembers and your tiles start getting taken from you by other guilds, even though you have the means to hold them by force, but not by technicality?
Terrible idea in my opinion.
DeletedUser
Maybe so. I was just throwing the thought out there. Doesn't really matter to me what they do to the current form of GvG, I'll just wait for the replacement feature when it comes, and hope it's much more enjoyable than what we've had.
qaccy
Well-Known Member
In this theoretical situation, I'd like to assume that the guild would still keep all sectors. However, the guild wouldn't be able to take (or re-take if lost) any sectors until back below its limit.
Salsuero
Well-Known Member
Right. I would imagine the same theory, but... basically you'd have to give up the power to play GvG until you dropped enough sectors or recruited enough leeches to make up for this limitation. That to me doesn't feel very much like empire building. Imagine if they told kingdoms in the middle ages or colonial times: woah now, you can't take any more territory... you don't have enough citizens... come back when you've had some babies or give up some of your land to gain more. Just seems very anti-FoE to me. Sure, the world might arguably have been in a better place, but it's not "realistic" in terms of the desire behind expanding an empire. You're supposed to be able to expand until you can't expand... just like empires did. Not get stopped by some arbitrary rule that says you're too small to expand any further, despite having the might and the will to do so. Yes, there "could" be a rule that says this. I just think it would be a terrible rule, based solely on my opinion.
qaccy
Well-Known Member
@Salsuero
I know your opinion is against such a limitation, but I'd like to point out that your examples could also work perfectly fine as justification for it.. Expanding is limited by resources, right? The real world might not have 'said' that whoever was expanding needed to 'have more babies', but these expanders were certainly still limited by multiple factors. One-man armies were definitely not conquering much of anything, you know? GvG expansion being based on guild headcount could absolutely fit within the definition of 'expand until you can't expand', as these ancient empires were also limited by the resources they had available (relative to whatever opposition they may have faced). This wouldn't really be adding anything arbitrary IMO, but it would definitely bring all members within a guild closer to parity as suddenly each individual member becomes much more important simply by virtue of having more land available.
However, there's one other question on my mind: With the current systems in place, how limiting would this addition really be and in what ways? We're already essentially limited to around 30 sectors in a single age because of how many goods each additional sector costs. Most guilds settle somewhere in the low- to mid-20s. I'm not sure adding in a headcount would really limit any guild that's already at the top except for in the AA map. Would definitely hinder guilds with smaller headcounts, but again - were one-man armies really doing much conquering in real life?
I know your opinion is against such a limitation, but I'd like to point out that your examples could also work perfectly fine as justification for it.. Expanding is limited by resources, right? The real world might not have 'said' that whoever was expanding needed to 'have more babies', but these expanders were certainly still limited by multiple factors. One-man armies were definitely not conquering much of anything, you know? GvG expansion being based on guild headcount could absolutely fit within the definition of 'expand until you can't expand', as these ancient empires were also limited by the resources they had available (relative to whatever opposition they may have faced). This wouldn't really be adding anything arbitrary IMO, but it would definitely bring all members within a guild closer to parity as suddenly each individual member becomes much more important simply by virtue of having more land available.
However, there's one other question on my mind: With the current systems in place, how limiting would this addition really be and in what ways? We're already essentially limited to around 30 sectors in a single age because of how many goods each additional sector costs. Most guilds settle somewhere in the low- to mid-20s. I'm not sure adding in a headcount would really limit any guild that's already at the top except for in the AA map. Would definitely hinder guilds with smaller headcounts, but again - were one-man armies really doing much conquering in real life?
Algona
Well-Known Member
I posted a half dozen replies to this post and deleted them all. Abuse seemed obvious.
But
SL's idea does not hurt Guilds of moderate to larger size, as you point out Support Pool dwindles quickly, siege costs get prohibiive.
No, that rule would not hurt moderate to large Guilds, it would help them.
By restricting a five or ten person Guild. On MK, my Guild of about 75 members currently has five (5) seriously active GvG players.
The five of us have lvl 80 Archolders with powered combat GBs. We produce the Treasury Goods we spend and the troops we need to control oh, I dunno, I'm guarding 20 CE sectors right now, with a dozen or more sectors in multiple eras.
The five of us could be a Guild that does 133.3 GEC week in and out. But because of a rule about Guild size, we'd be limited to only 5 Sectors per Era?
This is fair how? Larger Guilds have less competition? Smaller Guilds have an artificial impenetrable barrier?
A five member Guild loses a player and therefore a fifth of all holdings?
Abuse? What happens when that large Guild sends a couple members to join a smalle Guild and then pulls themout. Bribes members in a small Guild?
Last edited:
DeletedUser29726
Well I mean the small guild of active fighters could recruit inactive newbies to increase their sector count - and if their 133.3 GEC was important they could make those extra players bronze age recruits with some effort. It'd mostly be a barrier to ad-hoc making a ghost for a few days to do cheap fighting - instead the preference being to find an off-map guild who will give you trusted to make your trouble. I personally think it'd be more headache than a valuable feature though.
qaccy
Well-Known Member
@Algona Hey, it could definitely be worked around. A lot of stuff in this game can be 'worked around'. For example, treasury donations from GBs such as the Arc (as you mentioned) allows anyone to 'work around' the 'intended' design of gathering GvG goods by dumping hundreds, if not thousands of goods into a treasury every single day. Quests that ask for large numbers of productions can be 'worked around' by building a bunch of super-small blacksmiths. The line between 'abuse' and 'workaround' is probably up to an individual's discretion and personal bias and I think this limitation would certainly be polarizing if it was ever put into the game. Every other change meant to discourage guild-hopping or the 'scorched earth' tactic in GvG whipped folks into a frenzy as well. This one has a pretty different angle, and you're right in that it does benefit larger guilds. But...why is that a bad thing? Shouldn't recruiting more players be something you want to do? This would just be another reason to do so IMO.
It's not like this is ever going to be something we deal with in the game, though. I get the impression that some people (not necessarily you, Algona) are thinking this is something that Inno's actually considering doing.
It's not like this is ever going to be something we deal with in the game, though. I get the impression that some people (not necessarily you, Algona) are thinking this is something that Inno's actually considering doing.
Resipsa2
Member
"an association" ... " a group"
DeletedUser8428
Fortunately for some of us, Innogames ignores the dictionary definition and permits single-person guilds.
Algona
Well-Known Member
And when that player moves on the Guild loses 1/6 of their holdings.
It's major effect would be to limit competition large Guilda get from small guilds.
That's not a workaround, that's a designed function of three GBs INNO put into the game.
I know you're not suggesting the circular reasoning that my opposition to an idea that limits the size of Guilds can be resolved by having a bigger Guild, Right?
Especially since I've been in a Guild at or near 80 Guildies for 4 years except when I've benn Peddling and joined Guilds with 40+ members and never had the experience of bot worrying about
recruiting or retention or trying to get 80 people to deal with each other nicely or whining about players not pulling their weight in GE, GvG, Aiding, Styx GBs, donations to Treasury, or all the other joys of truing to deal with 80 people with disparate goals.
Just because i think this is an awful idea, it doesn't mean other folk won't find this mighty appealing. :Like every player who complained about ghost Guilds and any large Guild who sees an easy way to eliminate serious competition from small Guilds.
Three steps: A Proposal. A couple dozen votes. One dev saying," Why not?"
So yeah, I am taking this seriously.