Guild Siege changes or remove it

[Turbain]

There are many who are upset with the Guild Siege not sure what could be done to make everyone happy , some will be some wont be as with all done on wartune. The one point that was made that I think would make a few happy is change the rankings so it shows the 10v10 and 15v15 separate those .
Lots of unofficial facebook groups have a lot of stuff being said.
Lots of angry and frustrated players to say the least.
Many are even saying that this is close to the end of wartune so many with grievances at the moment .

[Katjuza]

As much as I wish that would make a difference, those who do get a response will either be told to contact support through the publisher's support link, or they will get a canned 'we appreciate your feedback' sort of reply. It's been tried before.

this is why i stopped to tell peeps to send tickets..hate that autoanswer mail..and when u dont comment in 2 days they send u mail that tells that they think u problem is over bc they havent hear of it..and when u answer that one they send u an auto answer mail again.. u call that support? I call it an very advanced bullying system.

[MemoryLane]

this is why i stopped to tell peeps to send tickets..hate that autoanswer mail..and when u dont comment in 2 days they send u mail that tells that they think u problem is over bc they havent hear of it..and when u answer that one they send u an auto answer mail again.. u call that support? I call it an very advanced bullying system.

Tickets are different from emailing a third party. Tickets for suggestions don't need to be kept open, by the way. Suggestion tickets are put in their own folder, regardless of if they are open or closed, and all suggestions are added to a list that's sent to the devs. When suggestions are forwarded from the forum, they are cross checked with tickets, and included as a batch, which helps show that a suggestion is what many players want to see. Ideally, there should be a mix of both tickets and forum comments, but at the very least, we want to see many forum comments, even if it's something as simple as quoting a point and saying you agree.

Tickets for bugs are also helpful, even if not immediately resolved, and are searched in the same way suggestions are when an issue has been forwarded from the forum. Sometimes, people only post on the forum and never return, and the first thing R2 does when an issue is forwarded is look for a ticket. Some servers seem to have an elected forum poster, and once the issue is posted by that one person, no one else from the server speaks up because they presume it's already been mentioned so there's no need to say anything else about it. Same thing happens with tickets - a single person will say an entire server has an issue, but only one person has reached out about it, so R2 has nothing to go on that supports it's an entire server with an issue.

Regardless of the type of ticket submitted, it's a good idea to mention things on the forum. The forum is where everyone can get together and be loud enough that they will be heard. This applies to suggestions and bugs - if you like a suggestion, post in that thread so we can show the devs most people want to see that suggestion happen (same if you don't like a suggestion - speak up). If you're experiencing a bug, post about it or post in an existing thread for it, this helps show the devs that it's not an isolated issue few are experiencing.

Back to the topic of guild siege: I've been told there will be an 8.3 survey soon, and siege will be a topic on it. The devs are receptive to feedback. It would be a good idea for everyone to get their opinions in line, and have a clear list of what you want to see changed about this event, and make sure you're mentioning those points on the forum to help support the cause. As always, I encourage everyone to be specific about what they want, or what they don't want.

[Pat2020]

I still say R2 Should get rid of this load of rubbish

[Katjuza]

Tickets are different from emailing a third party. Tickets for suggestions don't need to be kept open, by the way. Suggestion tickets are put in their own folder, regardless of if they are open or closed, and all suggestions are added to a list that's sent to the devs. When suggestions are forwarded from the forum, they are cross checked with tickets, and included as a batch, which helps show that a suggestion is what many players want to see. Ideally, there should be a mix of both tickets and forum comments, but at the very least, we want to see many forum comments, even if it's something as simple as quoting a point and saying you agree.

Tickets for bugs are also helpful, even if not immediately resolved, and are searched in the same way suggestions are when an issue has been forwarded from the forum. Sometimes, people only post on the forum and never return, and the first thing R2 does when an issue is forwarded is look for a ticket. Some servers seem to have an elected forum poster, and once the issue is posted by that one person, no one else from the server speaks up because they presume it's already been mentioned so there's no need to say anything else about it. Same thing happens with tickets - a single person will say an entire server has an issue, but only one person has reached out about it, so R2 has nothing to go on that supports it's an entire server with an issue.

Regardless of the type of ticket submitted, it's a good idea to mention things on the forum. The forum is where everyone can get together and be loud enough that they will be heard. This applies to suggestions and bugs - if you like a suggestion, post in that thread so we can show the devs most people want to see that suggestion happen (same if you don't like a suggestion - speak up). If you're experiencing a bug, post about it or post in an existing thread for it, this helps show the devs that it's not an isolated issue few are experiencing.

Back to the topic of guild siege: I've been told there will be an 8.3 survey soon, and siege will be a topic on it. The devs are receptive to feedback. It would be a good idea for everyone to get their opinions in line, and have a clear list of what you want to see changed about this event, and make sure you're mentioning those points on the forum to help support the cause. As always, I encourage everyone to be specific about what they want, or what they don't want.

thank u memorylane for a perfeckt answer as usual

[R2139428048]

Doesnt matter if you win or loose in siege...the whole thing with siege is extremely boring....imp war was a hell of alot more fun...all guildies come together and fight against another guild in real time, that is fun...well if it werent for the lag then...I dont understand why a big company like 7road/r2 doesnt afford better hosting/servers/bandwidth..I mean if the big x x x tubes would be laggy they would loose all customers and same goes for you too...soon.

[shellyghazal]

After the epic failure for the christmas and new years events as well as all the events that now even new players cant do. I am done. I have wasted over a year on a turned based game that has no real challenge, only afk for devo everyday. What a waste of time. They only want people that are willing to spend alot of money every week. Thanks but i would rather spend my hard earned money on a game that is not Pay to be Top player... Take a look out there people. There are much more challenging games that you actually have to learn your skills and learn how to play your toon to fight. not wait for your turn. This game is a waste of brain space , time and money. The game is called greed , lag toon..... nothing more to say that is good

[Jompero0]

1. Purchase attempts must be lower, there is simply no point that couple of strong players can wipe entire opponent guild into draw for few balens. Example one guild has 3x150m and other has 15x150m end result could be tie.
2. AI battles arent fun,but that is aspect they cant change I assume but at least fix the obvious flaws with AI play? If they are willing to change AI patterns, Im sure people (me included) will be willing to point out worst of current patterns.
3. What comes to points/durability, if possible it should be dynamic system. Matching takes in account both guilds BR and divides durability accordingly. Example: Guild A has 60m BR and Guild B has 40m BR. Durability pool is 50k. Guild A gets 30k and B 20k. Each hit takes off 300 or 500 or something per hit but system adds multiplier so that full wipe of opponent amounts to 50k points for either of the teams. That way higher BR does get the adventage (less hits needed for max points) they kinda deserve but lower BRs have the change to fight. Just gotta make pool "big enough"
4. Back line (the strongest) could have bounties on. Similar system as chests in Rumble. If they survive defender gets like 500 extra points for each survivor.If they are killed, killer team gets the extra.
5. Of course the matching is biggest issue, could we bring back the IW style matching? 1st fights 2nd, 3rd fights 4th etc. ? Previous points doesnt help with badly matched fights but brings more sense into closer fights.
6. THIS IS SEPERATE FROM PREVIOUS POINTS. Let Siege run 24hrs in similar fashion as Crystal War ? Maybe 2x30 min periods during fight days where members can atk opponent. And make posts work same as IW. That would give real-time fights. If you are one of 10 or 15 strongest in guild and are defending post you can attack only when you arent under attack by opponent. This would add more strategic element but understandably adding real-time fights into AI event might not be possible.

Just some ideas, didnt read whole thread if some were suggested earlier.

[Zegert]

at least change the way of selecting opponents... what is now is nonsense... the enemy is either prohibitively strong or too weak... no pleasure from the event

[FireAndIceS8]

Many good suggestions above - but my vote would still be to completely remove this ridiculous event. Would it lose us a ton of valuable stuff? No, it wouldn't.

One of the biggest problems for me is the sheer BOREDOM of this event. We used to have such fun on a Saturday night for an hour, with real fights, strategy was involved and we generally had a great time. Now we are reduced to zero participation with each other and dumb AI fights - every second damn day!! We need this like we need a new hole in our head!

But, hey, they took away the fun of Class Wars too, and good old CSGB, and a decent BG, and tanks, etc, etc, etc... so what difference does one more sucker punch to the players make?!

[theghosthimself]

IW was basically **** to the lag when fighting 4 against 4 on a tower , specially now with even the goddesses if people wanna go back, then go a step further to the older csgb and gb's.
How ever game evolve's so need players, guild siege is more strategically and gives guilds the chance to gain points ,as well gain personal points as a guild member(the last part all depends on how much a guild works together ,if ya have a bunch of selfish between then most of the guild only will see guild rewards.

They should how ever separate the 10vs10 from the 15vs15 in ranking systems.
and to put the point on rewards for the amount of time to use your 4 energy points when ever you want on the 24hr rewards are not bad at all



Seems these days all players do is complain and demand ....and y'all still here so it is not as bad over all as ya'll state all the time hihi that said have a great day
For rest we can only hope the dev's will see the light in the web and change to html5 and we get rit of the flash lag shockwave crash etc.

[Centaur0001]

I wanted to play Siege for a little while to get an idea of whether it was really a good or bad event, or mediocre, rather than just giving a knee-jerk reaction. Perhaps, if everyone takes a deep breath, they'll remember when IW first got implemented, and everyone hated it, and some here are already wishing for the "good old days" for an event I and my guild always found flawed. But, not necessarily looking for perfection, I'm also willing to disagree with some here, and my impression at this point is probably going to differ from some. I'm also going to have some related comments that don't seem to be related to the event, but impact play.

So far, I think the idea behind Guild Siege is actually a decent one. In the sense of getting everyone involved, it even lets the "little guys" in a guild get involved using the Harass function, and, within some limits, allows teamwork to prevail against some stronger players. If your guild has active players who play the event, the guild is rewarded. There's a sense and a game logic to that I (and, it seems, others on my server) find very appealing.

However, the entire game is infested with lag, which got substantially worse with the graphics-intensive implementation of the Goddess system (which really nobody likes, though some are content to take the buffs it gives), and took a quantum step upwards with Patch 8.3, to the point of spontaneous crashes, blackscreens, battle freezes in many rooms, skills not working during combat, and so on. Whether I like or dislike Siege, EVERYTHING is impacted by this out-of-control lag that keeps us from even seeing combat, or, in a majority of Siege battles for me and my guild, where there's so much lag we see only about one attack we're making compared to three of four auto-attacks made by the target player on auto-pilot. If you want to know what's not fun, it's having a higher BR than the player you're hitting, then having no chance because your skill cooldown works at one-tenth speed, or the screen freezes or moves like it's on a strobe and nothing happens. It's not a fair fight at that point. It's not fun.

There's also a profound problem with matching in this event.

The whole problem I see with this event is that it's not a guild battle to win... it's a fight to try to make them lose, too. If you don't have 1 or 2 high-end cashers willing to buy extra attempts (1 casher can attack 16 times, in a 10v10 that's over half the battlefield), or your guild isn't big enough, you're done before you even get started. We're into the 3rd round of this matching and our guild is now up against the same guild we just lost the last two battles to. How can we keep matching with them when they've won 2 and we've lost 2?!?! Something is hinky.

I don't have a problem at all when part of winning strategy is to find ways to make an opponent lose, too. Depending on what's going on, that's how strategy works, and I'm happier with some strategy, not just brute strength or brute spend deciding events...and, in fact, that's a genuine necessity. That said, I'm not certain I understand SmuttyRebel completely in her/his comment in that being an actual problem.

I'm in a guild of some size, but without the spend-crazy cashers. (Some spend, but I don't think we have anyone spending more on the game than their home mortgage costs, for example.) We've had a couple of Siege rounds facing inferior guilds, based on both their total BR (battle rating) and individual BR, to the point where the BR of every one of our active players (which includes players well outside our Top 15, perhaps 40th or 50th place) is higher than either 14 or 15 of their defenders. Not much of a challenge. (It also happens in that situation these are guilds full of alts, with one person apparently running 20-30 toons or more, which is something for the game administrators to address, but that's another issue.) It's not much of a battle in that regard, but it's perhaps constructive for us in being able to practice things, and have a little satisfaction from a complete win. More difficult is when the reverse happens, which is nearly every remaining Siege round, where the Top 15 fielded against us all have a BR 15M-25M more than our strongest player. Even if you debuff a player 6 times in there, it's difficult or impossible even to beat the weakest, nevermind stronger players. The matching has been horrifically bad. Unless, of course, the devs want every round to seem like the old Roman concept of "Christians vs. Lions" in their arena. Even as a spectator sport, that's boring in a hurry...as a participant, there's little point, and little reason to spend (which is what the devs will care about here). We've had ONE real Siege where there was overlap enough in BRs to call it a battle...even though we were on the losing end, we had a fair shot at about 12 or 13 of the opponents in there, if we were active enough, and if you're going to be objective, that's not so bad.

So, what would I suggest to correct this issue of matching? First, make sure you're getting the widest possible sample of guilds. For example, make sure it's possible (as in the old Cross Server Guild Battle) that our Kabam/GameRocks server can face ArmorGames, Kong, R2Games, not just other Kabam servers (I think MiniClip and others are gone now)...I've seen, I think, R2Games opponents, but not the others. Second, use data you already have in a different manner...you already have daily rankings by guild BR...take also the number of active players that compose that BR, use that to find the average active BR in a guild, and add a matching factor for that. (I'm NOT saying to match ENTIRELY by this, but add a factor using it.) Having said this, I also anticipate the usual problem of guilds shopping around (guild jumping, &c.), to get adjusted matchups again, or adding a ton of noob players to lower their average and get kinder matches...except for the week after server merges, just adjust that ranking so you're not counted in the average or eligible for the event until you've been in the new guild for 2-3 days, by which time you're part of the new average, and nobody can tinker with the totals that way. (In my opinion, such events are about whether you can beat the other team, not cheat your way to an easier opponent. My problem is matching already isn't giving us fair fights...no need to make the problem worse.) I don't necessarily have a problem either with an occasional pummeling or easy round, but when it's nearly every match, that's pretty awful.

I don't think enough starting energy is given. I do know a couple are spending for extra energy in Guild Siege in my guild...all their choice. If you wanted to add a little more starting energy but also require one more attack to zero an opponent, that might not be bad. But, again, it's a useless exercise if matching stays bad and you can't win (or can't lose!) a battle...at that point, it's just a time-waster, and even more of a turn-off for a team on the losing end of a mismatch.

Perhaps also having 20 instead of 10 or 15 opponents is a worthwhile option, too. It will allow more people to score from a successful attack, make selection of Harass targets more important so improves strategy, will allow the use of more energy (so an adjustment starting everyone with 1-2 more energy per round makes some sense), and should encourage more general activity by larger guilds. Those at the top of the food chain shouldn't mind, either, I'd think...they have enough strong players, and probably need more opportunities to score successful battles to gain rewards.

As much as I wish that would make a difference, those who do get a response will either be told to contact support through the publisher's support link, or they will get a canned 'we appreciate your feedback' sort of reply.

(WARNING: RANT AHEAD) The canned answers by support really need to stop at some point. Even the "un-canned" ones often ask me to do something I say I've just tried, and it's pretty obvious my replies (usually things they asked for in the first place!) aren't being read much of the time. The canned ones cross the line to insulting...after an unworked ticket gets auto-closed, and I write back to say the issue is still a problem and the ticket needs to be re-opened, I'm often told I need more patience after Wartune Support auto-closed the ticket in the first place. Part of the solution involves events like Siege, in the sense of at least trying to satisfy player-customers. Auto-close might be better adjusted to happening after a month or more. Support should be tasked to give more complete answers, even if it's still "canned" in one sense (perhaps the better word is "standard")...at least voice the comment they're aware of a heavy problem with graphics latency (lag), and being told it impacts certain events is actually feedback they need...maybe even give us an idea of WHEN and HOW this will (or might) be effectively addressed. So, for battles within the Siege room, against a single player, when the Goddess graphic appears and covers up the battle so you can't see what skills are being used (even your own) but get a lag penalty for being in the room with the graphic, will we be stuck with that forever because nobody wants to cover up their beautiful artwork (in which case, tell us now, and many will just leave today...it's THAT bad, 7Road...get a clue!), or is there a plan to remove the active Goddess graphic and leave the "tray" to display the active Goddess, like the Titans tray? (We went through this before with the storm of "CRIT" graphics in combat, and were promised 7Road understood and would never do this to us again. So much for that promise.) Don't just take my ticket and keep telling me to "try stuff" to get a fix on the issue when server load and graphics lag caused by the game is the only issue, and it needs to be addressed by the devs and only then can it be solved. Read the responses. Respect the players. Tell us what's going on. Don't waste your time and ours with what is basically just pushback...which will let you spend more time in properly responding on each ticket. When you treat us like dirt on your shoes, you should expect resentment, and, frankly, since we're here by choice for fun, each single response of that sort is reason to leave...nevermind the dozens some have endured after playing for a time...nevermind that tickets, by themselves, are a goodwill gesture on the part of your players to be part of a solution to an existing issue (in most cases) by making you aware and giving you a chance to fix the problems with the game. Instead of wasting my time tracking down a problem on my end that simply doesn't exist, we can be a lot more constructive in diagnosing and fixing problems with the game, giving better suggestions, and so on. The further demand for a screen cap when it's simply impossible to provide (ie my game spontaneously crashes very often when entering battle in sylph expedition...seriously, what do I screen cap of any value for a spontaneous crash?)...the responses often demand something that proves the devs or the support staff don't understand the game enough to be sitting in their chairs...which is only a shame. (END RANT)

Also reading above, I see a couple of comments about the game needing to evolve, and also the idea we're not getting back old events. Evolution...ok...but the speed of that evolution being so fast it virtually guarantees bad problems is itself a big problem. Not getting back old events...not necessarily a fan of that part of the answer. World Boss got a nifty fix...not perfect, but has made it more the fun event it deserves to be. People seemed to run hot and cold about Tanks, but for those who liked it, it was a fun event, and after earning a maxed-out tank level, it was a shame for me to see it go...I'd like it back, after graphics issues are properly worked and resolved. The original Guild Battle was also fun, up to the point where people could one-shot the target, or could spend enough not to allow them to get killed, and then suddenly spend killed the event and made it lop-sided...many put up with its many graphics issues because it really was a nifty event, up to the point where greed killed it...many wish we could have it (or something that has a shell that looks like it) back, and I'd be in favor of adding that alongside the Siege event, rather than replacing one with the other...which also makes more sense to a ranking within the server you're on, and engaging all the top guilds there to try to make good things happen within the guilds. There's a game logic to that I believe is healthy, and which we miss now, most of all on some of the dying servers.

I'm happier with Guild Siege so far than I thought I would be. There are really too many competing events within the game right now, and most of what has been done since the 8.0 patch has hurt game play in either meaninglessly adding events or graphics clutter that seems to have lost us about 28%-30% of our actives since 8.0, with a fair number leaving just after the 8.3 patch. My guild does a pretty good job of communicating, so when people leave, they tend to let the leaders know, and know why, rather than just going silent forever. I don't think Guild Siege is actually a problem, even though I think some tweaks might make it stronger, and saying so is really what this thread is about. I don't believe it really needs major modifications...though, if someone came up with good enough ideas, I'd certainly be interested in hearing them. The problems with the event, and with Wartune in general right now, are the lethal, game-killing graphics issues. They need to be solved. I know it was said there are some things we're stuck with. But, I'd really like to see the Goddesses just removed...they only give a higher BR number, and for those who are defending it, that's like a game of pinball where you've already got the high score on a machine, and you're just addicted to seeing your score go up after a point, even if it really doesn't carry any real meaning with it...for Wartune, dudes and dudettes, if you're already around 100M BR or higher, you've already got the high score, and you really don't NEED the Goddess except that you're addicted to seeing your BR numbers going up. You're just as unhappy as the rest of us that lag is so bad. You'll be happier playing as a player instead of as a BR addict anyway. We're here for fun. You'll still have the "high score" if they went away. Don't sweat it, and let's do what's good for the game.

My vote is Guild Siege should stay. Let's discuss if there's any actual need or desire to refine it. I think it's better than Imperial War was, especially when IW forced you to sit in the room after your energy was used and wait for more, and forced you to be there at the end to get guild rewards...Siege improves nicely on that. It's different than either GB or CSGB used to be, and doesn't really replace them. It's a nifty event, it has some strategy that is healthy for the great guilds who enjoy strategy in addition to incentive to grow stronger. I think it has a place. I wish the graphics issues would get addressed quickly, so perhaps I could view that place more objectively, instead of through the haze of frustration just about every player is now experiencing (the ones that can log in, that is...some are even having a hard time getting or staying in the game on my server!!!...but I digress), and maybe I'll change my opinion, in one direction or another, when everyone has a fair chance on a less lag-intensive platform. But, I don't hear anyone so far on my server saying Guild Siege, as an event, is a bad one, and in a guild of nearly 200 I'm hearing with matching fixed most players think the event itself will be fun.

[SmuttyRebel]

I don't have a problem at all when part of winning strategy is to find ways to make an opponent lose, too. Depending on what's going on, that's how strategy works, and I'm happier with some strategy, not just brute strength or brute spend deciding events...and, in fact, that's a genuine necessity. That said, I'm not certain I understand SmuttyRebel completely in her/his comment in that being an actual problem.

The problem, as I see it, is that in every battle in this game we go in with the mentality of winning. Doesn't matter if it's World Boss placement on the leader-board, an Ares battle, or killing sylphs in atoll for essences. Now we have a guild battle that we have to go into, not with a winning mentality, but with a 'can we make them lose, too?" Where's the motivation to 'win' when you can't unless your opponent is SO weak that they can't touch you? We have our smallest harass their strongest, that is the extent of strategy in this current form. Unless you count the expectation(?) that the cashers in your guild will want to spend for the benefit of everyone (that has already been pushed too far, just a few weeks in). Some of the matchings have been so off that in one of them, our strongest player was weaker than their weakest and their strongest was nearly 3x ours. Where does strategy fit in to that?

One thing I'd like to see changed is that guilds be placed in the brackets automatically based on the number of active players. I'm sure the one guild we faced that was so far off should have been in the 15, but picked the 10 knowing they could wipe everyone out by having so many more higher BR players. Provide a loophole that greedy players can exploit and they'll ruin the game for everyone.

[theghosthimself]

One thing I'd like to see changed is that guilds be placed in the brackets automatically based on the number of active players. I'm sure the one guild we faced that was so far off should have been in the 15, but picked the 10 knowing they could wipe everyone out by having so many more higher BR players. Provide a loophole that greedy players can exploit and they'll ruin the game for everyone.

wonder how many active in your mind are set for that ..since full harrassing towers on a 15 vs 15 is 9 full active players for 2 towers so that is already 66 for getting all towers on 6 debuff then you gotta count the amount of hits needed per tower worsted case 4 hits per tower is 15 more player so need a guild with at least 81 active's basically without counting refill's I do not think there are many guilds around with that many players



But see it on the bright side if you have a team working together all get personal rewards so it is not that bad after all for 4 clicks like all new things they put in game everyone need to get used to the changes.... People should put more pressure on getting the lag less makes all the rest a bit more fun

[MemoryLane]

One thing I'd like to see changed is that guilds be placed in the brackets automatically based on the number of active players. I'm sure the one guild we faced that was so far off should have been in the 15, but picked the 10 knowing they could wipe everyone out by having so many more higher BR players. Provide a loophole that greedy players can exploit and they'll ruin the game for everyone.

If that were to become a thing, then the guilds who don't have 10 active players won't get to play at all. Some guilds are small by choice, or they are what remains of a formerly very active guild.