Jump to content
  • Sign Up

subversiontwo.7501

Members
  • Content Count

    1,278
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. And you don't realize that is a bug and not a feature? You don't realize that them other "really big guilds, huge guilds, who want large scale PvP" are suffering the same bugs as you do while this is being developed and fixed? You're throwing out two statements that just bang heads. Answer the question, stop stalling and stop dodging. Give the rest of us a reason to see anyting in your concerns that you have a reason to be concerned about, so we have a reason to agree with you or find common ground. As long as you're not doing that we can't sympathize with you or help you. You can ma
  2. You're just bringing in a number of different and unrelated things now. You're not answering the question. You can make a guild with the people whose personality, attitude, age-group and server-chat routines you like. The type of people you picked a server for you can pick a guild for. Then you won't be alone. If you choose not to join a guild you are choosing the random loneliness. What's stopping you? You can make that guild today.
  3. Like other players who are concerned about this you seem to distinguish between a collective with guilds and collective without guilds. The guild is just an ingame function to facilitate tools and functions for a collective. There's no magic about it, no exotic unknown. Like other players who are concerned about this you seem to have a very hard time navigating whether you have a collective or not. I'm giving you one pretty good example of that in the post that you completely misqouted and pulled out of context: The huge guilds you seen in this beta were made specifically for this beta. I
  4. You're making the mistake of assuming that what he is providing are ideas when he is mostly just stating oppinions about things that have been discussed for the past 10 years. I'm not saying people have to keep up with everything that has ever been discussed here or be original at every turn. However, if what was presented was truly ideas, good ideas that were well put together and he had done even a smidge of reading before blurting the thread out then maybe people would be more constructive in their replies. I had no interest in just shooting the guy down, I was mostly interested in hel
  5. You are making a couple of common mistakes here, but I also think they are genuine misunderstandings and something we can help you with: Tools and stuff: The first is that you are looking upon the squad as the social organisation. You want to be apart of it and you feel left out. It is an easy and understandable mistake to make. However, the social organisation of a public squad is the voice communication. The tag (and thus the content) is public. The squad is just a tool and its job is to function as a support dispenser. If you are playing certain classes that are kicked out of the
  6. This bit is pretty interesting. Early on in this thread (or what was originally Vallun's thread) I made a post regarding stat differences. The whole discussion about cleansing and access to what can be described as bonus effects (ie., certain debilitating conditions existing on abilities not specifically designed for that purpose) kind of sits on a similar balance. The classes that could utilize some of these things from Celestial stats tend to do them well enough to have them without Celestial stats (providing them gearing options no matter what) whereas the classes most prone to use Cel
  7. So you assume the reason for these issues are that siege is not strong enough and/or that it could be solved by making siege 30% stronger when heavily outnumbered? See, I'm starting to assume that you're not willing to listen and learn, but is the reasons perhaps not more that defending is impossible against a server that has better coverage and can take your objectives when they are not defended? Perhaps almost a decade of that being the case has made people less willing to defend and a result of that is that people are less knowledgable about defending? They assume simple suggestions to
  8. It is a good thing then, that you have the tools to make sure that 500 people around you are not strangers. I don't think that there is any dispute over the existance of "pride", I just think people are of differing perspectives on where it comes from, how it permeates and how context-dependent it is. In the end, it comes down to fears about the unfamiliar, fears about expectancy, experience tied to perspectives and just how open- or closed minded people are. Without any malice, as I alluded to above, most people I see concerned about Alliances or the Beta also have in common th
  9. If you read what I wrote you'd learn that it is exactly the thing it wouldn't solve. It would not help the worse against the better or the smaller against the larger but it would make it more difficult for evenly sized, dedicated or matched groups to fight over objectives and it would make groups more careful about who they brought or what they did. So you would create a problem without solving another, specifically solving the one you hope to. Siege is not a good way to attempt closing gaps in numbers, experience or dedication. You underestimate just how far ahead they push. You could do
  10. I am saying that it wouldn't change anything or not change the specific thing you are hoping for it to change. It would only change other things, if anything at all. The truth is that depending on who you are and what you do, you are going to look at the opportunities of 5+tower versus 25 loosely organised players in very different ways.
  11. Point 1 is simply your inexperience talking. Siege never filled the role that tower heroes have always hoped for. The main reason siege got nerfed had to do with how it shaped class- and build balance. It never impacted groups beyond forcing groups to be more selective about what they let in and how they organised. In short, it never stopped groups. It just made undertanked builds and classes (like Backliners or Staff Elementalists) less welcome in groups. It is always amusing to see players complain about tanky well-organised groups also complaining about the strength of siege, since the
  12. Agreed, that is sort of what I tried to describe. Alliances can't do that but scoring when paired with Alliances can. For years (literally, like since vanilla, old forums) I've argued for outnumbered to fill the role of just freezing matchup score. No one gets anything if one side falls below competition. I think that is a fair way of dealing with it where people in low-populated times get to choose between how much they want to play together or against oneanother. We can't get around the problem that SEA/OCX may be too small on their own, or that players in NA/SA who want to group t
  13. True, but that's the same under either system. If anything, the new system provides better options than gold or gems for other alliances to adapt to some alliances cross-region organisation. The same goes for prime time transfer balance by the way. Expanding tools beyond gems and gold to give more people access to the most powerful tools. The new system is more fair in that sense and even in the betas more groups started to entertain the idea of creating cross-region alliances. It isn't ideal to have more (and as such more evenly distributed-) cross-region groups but it is better to let them b
  14. Here are two issues with your post that is par for the course with many veiled concerns on the forums during betas: 1. Much of what you describe is no different under the old system or the new system. You may just be less subjected to it at the fringe of your live world compared to your beta world. That changes little for the system as a whole. It may also be a question of that you don't know your own server enough to see what people do to achieve the outcome. You only see the outcome and how it provides for you. Just by your phrasing you are assuming that the commanders somehow belong to
  15. It really depends on what- or how you mean they stack and manipulate the matches. I think you are bringing up a couple of different prospective issues which can be true or untrue: That 500 is possibly too large of a chunk relative population totals That players can manipulate and stack chunks of 500 onto chunks of 2500 too easily That chunks of 500 can manipulate matchup outcomes of 2500v2500v2500 too easily I'd say the first is a valid and the two other are invalid concerns The entire point of the systems change is to make issues two and three more difficult th
×
×
  • Create New...