Guild Siege changes or remove it

[R26211131]

how is possibile 7Road create a new sistem where almost everyone lose.. where is the fun ? guild siege has nothing to do with the rules of gaming .
First what is the idea ? 7road created sometin only for cashers not for players ( 150 balens per 3 att in siege)= not good at all
why someone without opponets he lose when all guild is on ( specially strong guilds ) = not good at all
u created a game where nobody is happy = not good at all
this new sistem is not helpin no1 and my suggestion is chamge this sistem or bring old imperial war.
why the guild who have more players they have to soffer only because a new idea of game makes everything and everybody unhappy
bring all points from harras and contribution to all guild = good
remove all kind of balens to spend in sometin that ppl can have fun without spending = good

[Centaur0001]

yup keep it forces guilds to learn to work as a team...
good speech centaur
at least 1 part of game where lag is minimized lol

Got to admit, lag is less of a problem here...specifically in Guild Siege.
Even so, I've already had rounds in Siege where my skills locked up, and others in my guild have reported they are blackscreening.
That's Wartune. Not them.
Hard to have a fair fight when you can't use skills, and the game is choosing the best ones it thinks of for your target.

7Road tests on internal lines...like being hardwired direct to the source...probably using superior machines for handling graphics.
So far as it goes, that's not a bad thing, but it's not something most players will ever have the luxury of seeing, so testing needs to be done that approximates a real world experience.
Most people are playing on external lines (not from within 7Road's building, or that of their vendors like Gamerocks, R2Games, &c.), there are different RAM and graphics and OS packages out there.
I don't get the impression that all 7Road updates are done on a "minimum requirements" system to see how the game plays.
I've NEVER had Support tell me the latest update was tested on a system with (fill in the blanks for how it's equipped including which browsers).
And they probably don't know.
I've NEVER seen it posted here that such testing was done on the latest patch, so a specific setup matched at home has a chance of getting you the same results.
To give people something they have a reason to hope would work, that should be provided somewhere...then, maybe debugging would go better, too. Sometimes, it *is* operator error by the players, but when 7Road doesn't give some basic info like this, we'll just keep getting canned answers on tickets that tell us to keep checking our end, rather than them taking their revenues seriously and fixing root cause on theirs.

[Centaur0001]

you would change ur mind after u get a few draws or no matched opponent lol for a whole season

I've had a couple with no matched opponent...would rather have one.

But, the argument you're making isn't against the event then. It's against how broken the game is that it's shunting people into too-few a number of competitive guilds because balance on each server (or cluster of merged servers) is so broken, and with no incentive to compete within the server. I can agree with that. The old guild battle system, keeping competition among guilds on individual servers was important, and its removal fundamentally hurt the game long-term. You could see a spread of guilds with different play styles that way, it was a fun event (when lag, graphics bugs, and exploits didn't get in the way), and it was only removed because that's what Wartune, unfortunately, tends to do...rather than fix the best events they show a breathtaking lack of both concern for their own games and of programming talent and throw away their best in favor of something new that's often just lousy. Not my opinion alone. Getting this back to a response about Guild Siege, you're telling me then, with 800+ R2Games Servers, 250+ on Kabam, add in Kongregate and Armorgames (am I missing anyone), and with well over 1000 servers co-mingled, they can't find more appropriate matching at least a majority of the time? Really, that's total baloney. How many active guilds are out there? I can't think it's less than one per two servers. Even if you break that down by saying no competition between US West and US East and so on, except where there's already an issue for time zone with not enough activity, a US Server should be matching among a couple of hundred guilds of varying stripes. That shouldn't be so horrifically bad.

So, if you're NOT seeing matching of any quality, the matching algorithm is flawed, badly...and that's how I think we all are seeing it.

What I'm also saying about matching is the imbalance doesn't make sense. I look at stats for cross-server matching, and we seem to draw guilds twice as strong (by BR) or stronger about four-fifths of the time, not just in Guild Siege. So, I'm not in one of the "Top 10" guilds...I'm still in one with a respectable ranking, with a core of committed and veteran players, and the matching basically suggests it's not worth our time to come in and play. (Yes, I could take the other view and say we're so active and strong for our BR that we're drawing stronger guilds because we demolish competition which is anything like equal...which is actually somewhat true...but taking this the way the game has taken it, we're rewarded for our activity by being put against opponents that make the event completely non-competitive, therefore destroying balance and the desire to play the event and the game. That's definitely the wrong "reward" for playing hard. And since not all servers started at the same time, and not all guilds are created equal, that's a punishment that doesn't make sense.)

I think there should be enough guilds out there that no matter where you are ranked, there should be some level of challenge out there for you most weeks. And some level of chance to win or lose in many weeks. If you draw an exceptional situation, then matching is bad or you get no match once in a while. If you're the number one guild by cross-server BR, and by such a margin that there really is no competition, then, congratulations...you've made it so you'll win every time. But, I think even for the number one guild, there's an opponent or two out there who will represent a challenge. Or am I mistaken?

So, back to the response...if this game can't match me most weeks for this event, and do it better than it's doing it, that's a matching problem Wartune needs to sort out urgently and well. It's not a problem with Guild Siege, per se.

When @nikchefville says "it sucks big time....is no more fun"...well, Wartune, you know as well as I do, you can set up simple matching algorithms that can give most guilds a nearly 50-50 grouping of stronger-weaker opponents (yes, all of you out there, this CAN be done, and if done properly will eliminate 85% or so of the gross mismatches...consider the rest an incentive at that point for your guild to get stronger, and that's a percentage we can live with). There are lots of ways to approach this one, and they need to be considered. One consideration that should be removed is spend. On this, if you get the appropriate matching, that keeps the game healthy and alive, and keeps the most players playing, and that handles the long-term issues with spend. The revenue issue is not to waste great programming effort with short-term greed, and to let your long-term returns and game health triumph.

Now, how do I know this "CAN" be done? I've programmed for a living in a field that makes computer chips. I've done internal (within a company) quality control on such things (to help make sure the electrical connections on your CPU work, for example). I've done things professionally that encompass these kinds of issues quite nicely. Not just as a player who will tell you events get stale quickly when they're not competitive, but as a professional who has had to develop a complex set of programs, I have a pretty good idea this can be accomplished. Often, I'm paid to know.

All of you saying this isn't fun, you need to stare back at 7Road (the devs), ask why they'd spend so much time and talent to develop an event, then not give it the proper chance to succeed by providing something as simple as better overall matching and a much less laggy environment on which to play the game. If it's greed to the point of blatant stupidity...which many on my server say daily in a variety of ways...all I can do is encourage people to walk away from that attitude and get with their own program. Literally. We all deserve better. And if you're unwilling to provide a fun game in a fun environment, why have you any right to expect we'll stay and spend in any numbers. I just want what's reasonable and possible for the player community, and I think the Guild Siege event has a lot of the right ideas. What people responding to me are saying is that event is being killed, like perhaps a lot of things, by factors that are other than the mechanics of the event itself. That applies also to events like Castle Wars, too, where mismatches are pretty much nightly fare, and I'm again in a guild that always sees stronger opponents there (it's actually more like 90% or more of the time in CW) so often that players are turned off and have stopped doing the event. So, Wartune, fix the matching, listen to the players here who are telling you nothing about the quality of the game but are saying it's no fun the way you've set it up, trying to exploit immediate cash so much you might INSTANTLY kill the event and the game...rather than to get a long-term return on the investment of time and effort you put into creating a nice new event.

One last item that has a bearing on this. It's been mentioned in this thread that players try to exploit events. That's true. Finding the loophole to increase rewards or win when you don't deserve it...well, just my approach, but I have my fun by actually trying to compete, not to see if I can cheat or spend better than everyone else. A limitation in how Wartune has to approach events is to anticipate negative exploits. I think I'm reading here people who really just want to play hard and have fun, and there's everything right about that. But, I want to do justice to how Wartune has created a culture of certain players within the game by its own fast-buck approaches to things, and some come in and should basically name their toon Citibank or MasterCard, or as I saw commented about an event in World Chat at one point, "but there's got to be a way to game the system to get what we want (from a particular event)." Um...really? How about...I don't know...PLAYING THE EVENT! Playing hard and winning when you earn it? Our problem is not being allowed to win when you earn it, or being uncompetitive, and so on.

If you remove Guild Siege and put just about any other event they'll come up with in its place, if you don't fix the matching and the lag, you wind up back at the same point, being critical of things in Wartune that need fixing, even if the event is super. Don't confuse the two. I'm happy with Guild Siege. If I'm unhappy, it's the way it's executed in terms of matching, and I'm unhappy with graphics prettiness again being allowed to lag us to death to the point many can't play the game, and I'm unhappy Wartune Support in those cases just brainlessly tells players it's the player's fault for lag when a real-world connection to the game has problems because of the overdeveloped graphics no matter who you are or where outside the 7Road offices you are located. For now, thumbs up from me for Guild Siege.

Let's see if Wartune will actually address the real issues you're having here to make it a fun gaming experience as it deserves.

[theghosthimself]

yup keep it forces guilds to learn to work as a team...
good speech centaur
at least 1 part of game where lag is minimized lol

[nikchefville]

I think this is a fundamental disagreement. What I see here is exactly what this game should be doing for us, which is encouraging teamwork. You're never going to get an exactly even matchup, even if there's a point at which lopsided gets carried away (which is what I feel is happening now). A great guild isn't just about how strong your players are, but about how much more that team has helped make them than they'd be elsewhere. Those used to brute force (or brute cash) can't see that...never will. They correctly point out it's about immediate payout...but they're right only to a point. In the long term, can you play as an effective team, where people get active, the weak ones do their share (in Siege that means doing Harass when you can't directly get through opponent defenses), and when you seem to be overmatched, does the teamwork help overcome the stronger players on the other team? If you're in a large guild, especially those struggling to hang on to people on mature servers, this gets people involved. It's a win.

Sometimes, you can get a fairly equal match, and it's not a matter of higher BR, but of who is willing to just get in this event and play...and play hard. Be a great guild and make even the newer players or the less-spendy players or the ones whose play style has given them lower BR a chance to be part of the winning team, and that is a win for the whole guild. If you get an event where you simply count on the top 2-5 players for a guild carrying you, there's not as much point for everyone else to even enter the room. And that makes bored players that go away.

IW tried very hard to be about who would buy the most movement points using balens, and it really was a boring event. I think many in my guild played it just because that's how you got certain rewards, but many were happy to log in with 1 minute left and claim rewards while doing other things in-game for the rest of the event. Siege lets you get on in your own good time...if that's 3AM when everyone else is asleep, fine, no penalty...and when you've done what you came to do, you're not held up there dying of boredom, you just leave. It lets people in the guild say "hey, just get in and give it a couple of minutes and help the guild," and makes it easy. In a balanced match, it's also going to take you time to decide who you should attack, who else in your guild can or should attack some people, so you're left with preferred targets if you're playing it smart.

Maybe I'll change my mind after playing the event more. It's not perfect, and I'll keep my eyes open. But, this far along, I'm really not willing to get down on this one unless I see a reason to change my mind. With so many other things going on that are a major problem right now, this is a comparative bright spot. I still hear some returning players are dismayed by the amount of game change, and some leave again because there's just nothing familiar anymore. (Though that's not strictly true with modified WB and a couple of other things, but they have a point about too much change that doesn't work well.) If the lag gets fixed...and STAYS fixed this time...Siege isn't such a bad event.

it sucks big time....is no more fun

[Xharry005x]

I think this is a fundamental disagreement. What I see here is exactly what this game should be doing for us, which is encouraging teamwork. You're never going to get an exactly even matchup, even if there's a point at which lopsided gets carried away (which is what I feel is happening now). A great guild isn't just about how strong your players are, but about how much more that team has helped make them than they'd be elsewhere. Those used to brute force (or brute cash) can't see that...never will. They correctly point out it's about immediate payout...but they're right only to a point. In the long term, can you play as an effective team, where people get active, the weak ones do their share (in Siege that means doing Harass when you can't directly get through opponent defenses), and when you seem to be overmatched, does the teamwork help overcome the stronger players on the other team? If you're in a large guild, especially those struggling to hang on to people on mature servers, this gets people involved. It's a win.

Sometimes, you can get a fairly equal match, and it's not a matter of higher BR, but of who is willing to just get in this event and play...and play hard. Be a great guild and make even the newer players or the less-spendy players or the ones whose play style has given them lower BR a chance to be part of the winning team, and that is a win for the whole guild. If you get an event where you simply count on the top 2-5 players for a guild carrying you, there's not as much point for everyone else to even enter the room. And that makes bored players that go away.

IW tried very hard to be about who would buy the most movement points using balens, and it really was a boring event. I think many in my guild played it just because that's how you got certain rewards, but many were happy to log in with 1 minute left and claim rewards while doing other things in-game for the rest of the event. Siege lets you get on in your own good time...if that's 3AM when everyone else is asleep, fine, no penalty...and when you've done what you came to do, you're not held up there dying of boredom, you just leave. It lets people in the guild say "hey, just get in and give it a couple of minutes and help the guild," and makes it easy. In a balanced match, it's also going to take you time to decide who you should attack, who else in your guild can or should attack some people, so you're left with preferred targets if you're playing it smart.

Maybe I'll change my mind after playing the event more. It's not perfect, and I'll keep my eyes open. But, this far along, I'm really not willing to get down on this one unless I see a reason to change my mind. With so many other things going on that are a major problem right now, this is a comparative bright spot. I still hear some returning players are dismayed by the amount of game change, and some leave again because there's just nothing familiar anymore. (Though that's not strictly true with modified WB and a couple of other things, but they have a point about too much change that doesn't work well.) If the lag gets fixed...and STAYS fixed this time...Siege isn't such a bad event.

you would change ur mind after u get a few draws or no matched opponent lol for a whole season

[Centaur0001]

Where's the motivation to 'win' when you can't unless your opponent is SO weak that they can't touch you?

I think this is a fundamental disagreement. What I see here is exactly what this game should be doing for us, which is encouraging teamwork. You're never going to get an exactly even matchup, even if there's a point at which lopsided gets carried away (which is what I feel is happening now). A great guild isn't just about how strong your players are, but about how much more that team has helped make them than they'd be elsewhere. Those used to brute force (or brute cash) can't see that...never will. They correctly point out it's about immediate payout...but they're right only to a point. In the long term, can you play as an effective team, where people get active, the weak ones do their share (in Siege that means doing Harass when you can't directly get through opponent defenses), and when you seem to be overmatched, does the teamwork help overcome the stronger players on the other team? If you're in a large guild, especially those struggling to hang on to people on mature servers, this gets people involved. It's a win.

Sometimes, you can get a fairly equal match, and it's not a matter of higher BR, but of who is willing to just get in this event and play...and play hard. Be a great guild and make even the newer players or the less-spendy players or the ones whose play style has given them lower BR a chance to be part of the winning team, and that is a win for the whole guild. If you get an event where you simply count on the top 2-5 players for a guild carrying you, there's not as much point for everyone else to even enter the room. And that makes bored players that go away.

IW tried very hard to be about who would buy the most movement points using balens, and it really was a boring event. I think many in my guild played it just because that's how you got certain rewards, but many were happy to log in with 1 minute left and claim rewards while doing other things in-game for the rest of the event. Siege lets you get on in your own good time...if that's 3AM when everyone else is asleep, fine, no penalty...and when you've done what you came to do, you're not held up there dying of boredom, you just leave. It lets people in the guild say "hey, just get in and give it a couple of minutes and help the guild," and makes it easy. In a balanced match, it's also going to take you time to decide who you should attack, who else in your guild can or should attack some people, so you're left with preferred targets if you're playing it smart.

Maybe I'll change my mind after playing the event more. It's not perfect, and I'll keep my eyes open. But, this far along, I'm really not willing to get down on this one unless I see a reason to change my mind. With so many other things going on that are a major problem right now, this is a comparative bright spot. I still hear some returning players are dismayed by the amount of game change, and some leave again because there's just nothing familiar anymore. (Though that's not strictly true with modified WB and a couple of other things, but they have a point about too much change that doesn't work well.) If the lag gets fixed...and STAYS fixed this time...Siege isn't such a bad event.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?!

[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

[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.