Sneak Peek: Guild Battlegrounds!

[Justg]

We know sometimes you would just like to get out and mix it up with a rival guild, and 5 on 5 team deathmatch just doesn't do it for you. This is why we are building an entirely new system: Guild Battlegrounds!

Here is how it is currently designed:

Challenge:


A guild leader can challenge another guild to a time-limited battle through the Guild Info page. When a request is successfully sent, a system message will be displayed to all members of the challenged guild who are officers and are online: "<X> Guild has challenged you to a Battleground"

The Challenging Guild can choose the duration and minimum and maximum levels. Challenging a guild to a battle will have a nominal gold fee associated with it.
A challenge can also include a Wager. Wagering will have a scaling nominal platinum cost associated with it.

Acceptance:


Battleground Challenges will be seen in the Guild Battleground tab.

The only person who can accept a challenge is the Guild Leader. If there is a wager associated with the challenge, they must have the requisite amount of gold and platinum on their character.

When the challenge is accepted, we will create a specific battleground Arena. We don't yet know how large they can be, but our intent is for them to at least be 10v10. The size limits will be determined by device and game performance. We are considering spawning off instances for parallel battles if a map fills up.

Rules:


Each kill within the Battleground Zone counts as a point towards your team. At the end of the time duration, the team with the most kills is declared the winner. In the event the score is even, the Battleground is considered a tie.

When a winner is declared, a system Message is sent to the server

“<X> has defeated <Y> in a Guild Battleground!”
“<X> and <Y> have fought to a tie in a Guild Battleground!”

If a winner is chosen, the value of the wager will be sent to the Leader of the winning guild.

UPDATE 8/11/16


- Matches will be 15 mins (to allow for server shutdowns and prevent matches fromending in the middle of one)
- Matches will be up to 10 vs 10
- There will be a Max number of players option
- There will be no class restrictions
- We will have a tradable token system that is purchased w plat for wagering
- Red Room/ Blue Room ala CTF to start the match, all must be present to start
- 0 participants after start is a forfeit
- Players will respawn in random location after death

[Oakmaiden]

Wow,i dont pvp but this sounds like a lot of fun for those who do.I will spread the word to my guildies.

[Hercules]

Love this idea <3 :applause:

[reiewaun]

We know sometimes you would just like to get out and mix it up with a rival guild, and 5 on 5 team deathmatch just doesn't do it for you. This is why we are building an entirely new system: Guild Battlegrounds!

Here is how it is currently designed:

Challenge:


A guild leader can challenge another guild to a time-limited battle through the Guild Info page. When a request is successfully sent, a system message will be displayed to all members of the challenged guild who are officers and are online: "<X> Guild has challenged you to a Battleground"

The Challenging Guild can choose the duration and minimum and maximum levels. Challenging a guild to a battle will have a nominal gold fee associated with it.
A challenge can also include a Wager. Wagering will have a scaling nominal platinum cost associated with it.

Acceptance:


Battleground Challenges will be seen in the Guild Battleground tab.

The only person who can accept a challenge is the Guild Leader. If there is a wager associated with the challenge, they must have the requisite amount of gold and platinum on their character.

When the challenge is accepted, we will create a specific battleground Arena. We don't yet know how large they can be, but our intent is for them to at least be 10v10. The size limits will be determined by device and game performance. We are considering spawning off instances for parallel battles if a map fills up.

Rules:


Each kill within the Battleground Zone counts as a point towards your team. At the end of the time duration, the team with the most kills is declared the winner. In the event the score is even, the Battleground is considered a tie.

When a winner is declared, a system Message is sent to the server

“<X> has defeated <Y> in a Guild Battleground!”
“<X> and <Y> have fought to a tie in a Guild Battleground!”

If a winner is chosen, the value of the wager will be sent to the Leader of the winning guild.

Some questions for you:


- How much time would you folks like to skirmish for? 15 minutes? 1 hour? 24 hours?
- How large would you like these instances to be? 10v10? As big as possible? Variable?
- If an Arena is full with 10 players on each side, would you prefer a second Arena be created where more players can join to fight, or to keep all fighting to the single Arena?
- What other questions and concerns do you have?

Justg I believe the answer is simple.
Let the guilds decide the type :1)how many min or hours they want play,2),how much players to use.3)also u can put an other type first team reaches certain amount of kill win. Let the guilds decide and have around 10 option to pick on each from the three types I said

[aneshsinghblu]

will we the members of the guild have a way to give the master plat to help in the wager

[Rockingtigertiger Tiger]

omg i am exited XD it sounds like COD wager matches,looking forward to this new feature

[Twerk]

Battleground be like
5 mages
5 tanks

Gracias from rogues

[epicrrr]

Some questions for you:


1- How much time would you folks like to skirmish for? 15 minutes? 1 hour? 24 hours?
2- How large would you like these instances to be? 10v10? As big as possible? Variable?
3- If an Arena is full with 10 players on each side, would you prefer a second Arena be created where more players can join to fight, or to keep all fighting to the single Arena?
4- What other questions and concerns do you have?

1. Give us 3 options 30 mins, 1 hour, 1 hour 30 mins

2. 7v7 or 8v8

3. All in one arena, hopefully a siege type where we protect base that has 3 stage, on the 3rd stage is something to destroy protected by something that hits hard.

4.
*How GL choose who participate?
*Wagering, all on GL or taken individually?
*Will there be class nerf and buffs?
*Any pet limitation?
*Will effects and animation be reduced?

[Tippertwo]

Whoot! Waited for this for a long time!!

[ilhanna]

Is this the full extent of guild enhancement we can expect to get? No PvE or general guild management upgraded feature? Will it be possible to turn off guild challenge feature like we can with duel challenge?

[Niixed]

This is very exciting and cool. I need to digest it first, then I'll give some good feedback.

[Niixed]

Is this the full extent of guild enhancement we can expect to get? No PvE or general guild management upgraded feature? Will it be possible to turn off guild challenge feature like we can with duel challenge?

This is a great question... is it possible that other improvements will be part of this new system?

[Justg]

Is this the full extent of guild enhancement we can expect to get? No PvE or general guild management upgraded feature? Will it be possible to turn off guild challenge feature like we can with duel challenge?


This is a great question... is it possible that other improvements will be part of this new system?

This system is so large we wanted to get it out first. We have other ideas for enhancements as well but they will follow Battlegrounds.

[Zeus]

OMFG, this is amazing! The only thing is, can you guys add class restriction to this? The reason being is that despite the efforts made towards helping rogues out in PvP, they still get replaced by sorcerers and warriors in PvP. I feel like in an isolated area like guild battlegrounds, class restrictions would have its place.

1 hour skirmish sounds great. It gives enough time for there to be complex strategies and team play.

[Breakingbadxx]

Implement a class restriction or prepare to deal with drama threads.

As great as this addition is (and trust me, its awesome), leaving room for class stacking won't end well.

10 warriors with the glintstone mythic set (x3 additional axes thrown) vs ? = guess the winner.

[resurrected]

Damn! It's cool!
Imo there should be 15 mins time. Short clash and if they want they can clash again.
10vs10 would be cool with class restrictions. Whole area even 5v5 should have it.

[Zeus]

Damn! It's cool!
Imo there should be 15 mins time. Short clash and if they want they can clash again.
10vs10 would be cool with class restrictions. Whole area even 5v5 should have it.

I agree, since this is organized PvP, there should be class restrictions so that all classes can participate without feeling like another class can replace them. It would also discourage stacking and cheap tactics that may be used to lessen the experience of this amazing system.

Props to STG, buying platinum this weekend to support it!

[Breakingbadxx]

1). A maximum of 1 hour skirmishes are great (the time can be adjusted by 5 minutes up to a maximum of 1 hour).

2). 9 vs 9 (3 members of each class) or 15 vs 15 (5 members of each class).

3). All fighting should be kept in a single arena.

[Oaheuzihar]

Am i the only one who thinks it is a tad unfair for the guild leader to get all of rewards? They should at least get the chance to split it with guildies if they want, right?

Also, when is this coming out? Tomorrow? Next week? Next month? 3 years from now?

[Justg]

We are mid-way in development on this, so the timing is great for feedback.

What duration clashes are you guys interested in?

[Justg]

Am i the only one who thinks it is a tad unfair for the guild leader to get all of rewards? They should at least get the chance to split it with guildies if they want, right?

Also, when is this coming out? Tomorrow? Next week? Next month? 3 years from now?

This is to keep things simple. Your guild leader should be trusted enough to distribute proceeds.

As to when, the answer is not tomorrow, not next week, but asap. My GUESS is in a month or so.

[Anyona]

This is to keep things simple. Your guild leader should be trusted enough to distribute proceeds.

As to when, the answer is not tomorrow, not next week, but asap. My GUESS is in a month or so.

Does everyone in the battleground clash contribute to the prize fund or does it come straight from the GM's pocket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kriticality]

THIS IS INCREDIBLE!!!! yes yes yes yes yes wagering system!! Best thing i've read in a long time. So sick. Just give customization options. Maybe 3 team sizes. 3 match lengths. Perhaps if you do class restriction can be numbers divisible by 3. if not then idk. Will have to try 10 v 10 and see how it is. Sounds like it will be a massacre. Awesome!!! I need to think about it to come up with some suggestions. But super exciting guys!

[Zeus]

We are mid-way in development on this, so the timing is great for feedback.

What duration clashes are you guys interested in?

My points are:

A) Maximum of one hour clashes. Anymore than that is just asking for arthritis. Take it from a person who has to participate in multiple hour clashes.

B) Class Restrictions. In a closed environment like this, it's absolutely necessary. Otherwise, sorcerer and warrior stacks are essentially going to win everything and there's no room for a rogue.

C) Weapon sets specifically for this type of battle. Sell them as platinum packs and they are the only gear that can be used in the arena.

D) Leaderboards so people can know who the leading guild is in this aspect of the game.

E) All fight in one arena. 10v10 sounds epic!

This will put everyone on an even playing field and generate a lot of income for you guys as well.

[Befs]

Sounds great!

Can we use the classic "Forest Fight!" from PL? Fast paced gameplay there with this many players would be absolutely insane!

[Amsosorry]

Would be great with a class restriction

[Ireliaa]

nice guild with most tanks mages wins

[Zeus]

nice guild with most tanks mages wins

If there's class restriction, this won't happen. I trust developers that they'll make a spot for rogues too. :D

[Justg]

Does everyone in the battleground clash contribute to the prize fund or does it come straight from the GM's pocket.

The Guild Leader will need the coin on their character to challenge/ accept but there is no reaon he could not collect from members beforehand. It will be up to the guild how to handle fees and payouts.

[Ireliaa]

balance the classes first and solve the stack issue then you can go forward to 10 vs 10 pvp, otherwise its gonna be mage-warr fest

In AL there is no class role everyone is dps therefore there is no class restriction in any pvp

you are avoiding problems and trying to come up with new stuff without solving the core issues

class restriction requests indicates there is something wrong with balance

[ilhanna]

On the non-technical front I'm chary about the whole system notice that comes with this feature. I can only see it as potentials for more drama on top of the rest of pvp drama baggage. From guild management perspectives the fact that only officers are allowed to enter the fray might lead to more drama regarding promotion and rogue officers kicking entire guild unchecked. I know it's not something STS can control, just that there's potentials for that. I know the feature is going to be released anyway despite my misgivings, so any way to minimize the drama would be great.

How big the new client will be when this feature is released?

[VROOMIGoRealFast]

On the non-technical front I'm chary about the whole system notice that comes with this feature. I can only see it as potentials for more drama on top of the rest of pvp drama baggage. From guild management perspectives the fact that only officers are allowed to enter the fray might lead to more drama regarding promotion and rogue officers kicking entire guild unchecked. I know it's not something STS can control, just that there's potentials for that. I know the feature is going to be released anyway despite my misgivings, so any way to minimize the drama would be great.

How big the new client will be when this feature is released?

It is currently not the plan to only allow officers to join the Arena. Currently, any member of either guild can join the Arena once the Battleground has started.
That does bring up another good point of feedback though:

Who from the guild do you think should be allowed to participate in a Battleground?

[Majin Vineet]

I wont mind for having a another app / login screen or something for guild wars and keeping remaining pve app light.... Already my game closes on minimizing more then 5secs...
10v10 will surely benefit pc users...there will be a timer before war starts...teams can easily switch to smooth fast guildclash app (while chats will be same on both apps)
Just a idea... :)

[reiewaun]

Am i the only one who thinks it is a tad unfair for the guild leader to get all of rewards? They should at least get the chance to split it with guildies if they want, right?

Also, when is this coming out? Tomorrow? Next week? Next month? 3 years from now?

Leader is the one most trusted man,he splits it after, don't worry about it

[epicrrr]

It is currently not the plan to only allow officers to join the Arena. Currently, any member of either guild can join the Arena once the Battleground has started.
That does bring up another good point of feedback though:

Who from the guild do you think should be allowed to participate in a Battleground?

a special mark or icon whom the GL will assign kinda another promotion member>recruiter > veteran(will appear as a mark/icon), so only those that are marked will be eligible.

[Melthyz]

I wish another wager mechanism can be added that's for the general public instead of just the guilds. I wouldn't mind putting up a few gold just for some fun. For example, once the battle has been announced the general public gets 5 mins to place their bets with a NPC.

[VROOMIGoRealFast]

A) Maximum of one hour clashes. Anymore than that is just asking for arthritis. Take it from a person who has to participate in multiple hour clashes.


One of the initial thoughts of the Battleground design is that it would feel more like a war between 2 guilds, and less like a specific battle. Our expectations of a 6 hour Battleground for example would be that the guilds might fight a 10v10 at the start, then have 3v3 battles going on while players are eating or going to school/work, then have no competitors in the Arena because everyone is busy, and maybe pick back up to a 10v10 once everyone comes home for the night. This would allow the fighting to be spread throughout the day and allow players to pop in for 5 or 10 minutes to help their guild.

That said, would the community prefer the Battlegrounds to feel more like one very specific battle rather than a war?

[Ireliaa]

It is currently not the plan to only allow officers to join the Arena. Currently, any member of either guild can join the Arena once the Battleground has started.
That does bring up another good point of feedback though:

Who from the guild do you think should be allowed to participate in a Battleground?

guild leader should pick the participants from guild list to avoid random joiners since wager etc involved, simple as it is.

btw why do you guys ignore the concerns about class stacking, in 10 vs 10 its gonna be highly abuseable

[Zeus]

One of the initial thoughts of the Battleground design is that it would feel more like a war between 2 guilds, and less like a specific battle. Our expectations of a 6 hour Battleground for example would be that the guilds might fight a 10v10 at the start, then have 3v3 battles going on while players are eating or going to school/work, then have no competitors in the Arena because everyone is busy, and maybe pick back up to a 10v10 once everyone comes home for the night. This would allow the fighting to be spread throughout the day and allow players to pop in for 5 or 10 minutes to help their guild.

That said, would the community prefer the Battlegrounds to feel more like one very specific battle rather than a war?

One specific battle rather than a war would be better, IMO but that's just my opinion. :D

Is there any official response on class restriction?

[Ardbeg]

Great! I will buy a new popcorn machine tomorrow. I will need it when our usual suspects start using the wagering system.

[Ireliaa]

One of the initial thoughts of the Battleground design is that it would feel more like a war between 2 guilds, and less like a specific battle. Our expectations of a 6 hour Battleground for example would be that the guilds might fight a 10v10 at the start, then have 3v3 battles going on while players are eating or going to school/work, then have no competitors in the Arena because everyone is busy, and maybe pick back up to a 10v10 once everyone comes home for the night. This would allow the fighting to be spread throughout the day and allow players to pop in for 5 or 10 minutes to help their guild.

That said, would the community prefer the Battlegrounds to feel more like one very specific battle rather than a war?

wow thats a long long time, how the guilds are gonna handle this when players have enermous timezone differences, this may require to prepare 10 man to build a team for hours to be dominant over other. Its like Active guild > Strong member guild, why you dont want it as skirmish for maybe 1h matches

[Saud]

This sounds very nice StS!
you are killin it guys! i am very amazed how you guys get more fun ideas
..
ok so i am little bit confused
if the battleground started and all the players in the arena
and 1 player disconnect or had to go..how the battle will continue?
lets say they are 10-10, And one player left
it goes 10v9? or 1 player get eliminated ?
if he get eliminated, i see the same class from opposite get removed
..


I was thinking this could be pve idea ( but yes after the pvp plan is done)
wanna hear it?

[Kingofninjas]

10 v 10 should not be the smallest size. Some guilds, including mine, rarely have 10 players on at any given point in time, and the 10 who would actually take part in the combat are almost never on simultaneously.

[resurrected]

My points are:

A) Maximum of one hour clashes. Anymore than that is just asking for arthritis. Take it from a person who has to participate in multiple hour clashes.

B) Class Restrictions. In a closed environment like this, it's absolutely necessary. Otherwise, sorcerer and warrior stacks are essentially going to win everything and there's no room for a rogue.

C) Weapon sets specifically for this type of battle. Sell them as platinum packs and they are the only gear that can be used in the arena.

D) Leaderboards so people can know who the leading guild is in this aspect of the game.

E) All fight in one arena. 10v10 sounds epic!

This will put everyone on an even playing field and generate a lot of income for you guys as well.

question about C)
How much need cost pack in your opinion?
Will it be tradeable so non-plat players can use this as well?

[VROOMIGoRealFast]

wow thats a long long time, how the guilds are gonna handle this when players have enermous timezone differences, this may require to prepare 10 man to build a team for hours to be dominant over other. Its like Active guild > Strong member guild, why you dont want it as skirmish for maybe 1h matches

We have nothing against small skirmishes! Our initial thought was to give players choices of smaller Battlegrounds (1 hour or less) and all the way up to very long Battlegrounds (12 hours for example) so that guilds who have members from various timezones can still let their members participate in the overall Battleground.

It may be important to note that we plan for Battlegrounds to more closely resemble the current PvP TDM as opposed to Duels. Once the Battleground has been accepted, the Arena opens. The Arena will initially be empty, players from each guild will have to join the Arena to begin fighting. The Arena will remain open for the entire duration of the Battleground, and will allow players to come and go as they please. Guilds will not be penalized if they do not have 10 members inside of the Arena, so there is no penalty for having your guild take a break, or waiting until you have 10 members online to enter. That level of coordination would be up to the competing guilds.

[resurrected]

It is currently not the plan to only allow officers to join the Arena. Currently, any member of either guild can join the Arena once the Battleground has started.
That does bring up another good point of feedback though:

Who from the guild do you think should be allowed to participate in a Battleground?

Master should confirm before someone enter battleground. If player X want join then it pop up in GM notification bar and he can allow or deny him to enter.

[resurrected]

One of the initial thoughts of the Battleground design is that it would feel more like a war between 2 guilds, and less like a specific battle. Our expectations of a 6 hour Battleground for example would be that the guilds might fight a 10v10 at the start, then have 3v3 battles going on while players are eating or going to school/work, then have no competitors in the Arena because everyone is busy, and maybe pick back up to a 10v10 once everyone comes home for the night. This would allow the fighting to be spread throughout the day and allow players to pop in for 5 or 10 minutes to help their guild.

That said, would the community prefer the Battlegrounds to feel more like one very specific battle rather than a war?
Maybe if more players then time in arena is longer? Or we can pick up time that we are playing? I was thinking more like 5v5 will be 30 mins. 10vs10 60 mins.

[Energizeric]

A few suggestions:

1) I like the "war" idea as well. So perhaps the time options should be 15 minutes, 1 hour, 8 hours, 24 hours. The guild who makes the challenge can choose the time and then the other guild has the option to accept, or they could make a counter offer. Guild X could challenge guild Y to a 24 hour battle, but guild Y could decide that is too long and make a counter challenge back to guild X for a 1 hour battle.

2) I think 5v5 is what it should be, then if the first room fills up then a second room opens. Otherwise you are going to end up with lopsided fights too often. If guild X has 10 players waiting in the battle, and guild Y only has 5 players online, then there is no way for this fight to proceed as guild Y would be slaughtered. Keep in mind there are many smaller guilds out there that would be hard pressed to ever have 10 members online at the same time. So they would then be excluded from this battleground process if the only option is 10v10.

Another option is to not allow new players from one side to enter until there are an equal number of players from the other side present. For example, Guild X cannot have a 4th player enter until Guild Y has 3 players already in the battle. Then you can never be outnumbered by more than 1. Then a 10v10 battle would be fine.

3) I think officers should be able to accept a challenge. Sometimes the guild leader may not be online, or may be on vacation, etc. Officers have the responsibility of being able to kick guild members, so I think they should be trusted to accept a guild challenge.

4) This is just my opinion, but how about a 5v5 CTF guild battle with no time limit where the winning team is the one who scores 5 flags first? I think that would be tons of fun, and would actually give people a reason to finally play CTF as it was intended!

[aneshsinghblu]

The Guild Leader will need the coin on their character to challenge/ accept but there is no reaon he could not collect from members beforehand. It will be up to the guild how to handle fees and payouts.

is there not a platinum fee associated with the wager?
instead of using platinum. . use another token system which can be bought with platinum and made tradable

[Kakashis]

I don't particularly pvp at end game, but wouldn't mind giving this a try! I like the idea of it being a long war vs a quick battle.

[JesuisCharlie]

I like but because it's a community war and there is fun and finally prices i would like to see, like Zeus s idea, an armory for each class before enter Arena where you can chose between various gears and pets pre determined

It will be very cool if every Arlorians will participate even just 5min and get fun without spend millions golds on gears. Not sure they will if they keep die.
If your looking for a true war, make your content enjoyable for everyone! At least this one.. :)

To me, sorry but there is actually NO SKILL TO PVP, just buy best gears and put full noble fury/mind/finesse jewels or para/eyes and do the job. Even if i like AL the pvp is a catastrophe a PAY TO WIN where rich wear the best vanities and ignore poors, trash talk, feel invincible and are ridiculous.. Its like in real life, a private club pour les fils a papa!
For finally close the day with a BBQ on paradise pier with rich mates, standing on the sand with in mind "jesus, dam im the best"

Then in one word it isnt skill>gears>luck at all but gears>skill>luck since most of pvp players are OP and rich players and the little number of curious players or casuals is rushed, trash talked and finally disgusted forever for the profit of dummy farmers and nobrain players with only in mind LEADERBOARD.

This is the sad and THE TRUE REALITY!! And i presum its why most of ban are pvp players.
When you enter the arena sometimes you dont know if its a joke with clowns in jesters or a real mature battle with muscles, blood and respect of the other.. There is so strange behavior that i had many time worries about the good health of few peoples.

In addition, not everyone can spend many time of farming for pvp or merch with platinums when there is good offers..I think its time to FINISH THE JOB and make pvp or your futur guild clash enjoyable for EVERYONE and not only the rich. If you don't do this, well its another "good" content without plus.

THIS, and This only will be a great thing. My english suck but i hope its okay. I wrote the only point that disguse me on the game, thanks.

[Vixenne]

My only say in this is that I hope this BG is played as it is. Not surprised if there are some people are already planning on making a dummy guild just to smash over and over and "win."

Best of luck.

[theleftykid]

I say make the battlegrounds sounds like DOTA, the map and the type of game. Need something to be destroyed or conquered since there would be uneven balance of players, in addidtion the dexterity and hits of the players is also by chance.

[Energizeric]

My only say in this is that I hope this BG is played as it is. Not surprised if there are some people are already planning on making a dummy guild just to smash over and over and "win."

Best of luck.

As was mentioned above, every time a guild wins a battle, it will be announced to everyone over the system chat. So if one guild keeps winning against a dummy guild, everyone will know it. In fact, nobody will really care unless two guilds of significance are fighting each other. So beating a dummy guild will just be a waste of time and an embarrassment to the guild involved.

[Tippz]

Guild leader only? How about those members who participate? Any rewards for them?

[konafez]

As great as this sounds I see a whole mess of potential problems

1. Guild dummy farming ..as vix pointed out , I can see people foaming at the mouth to do this already

2. Class stacking.. yeh its going to happen..just be ready for it

3. Blocking ..if it can be done it will be done

Then when you add wagers , you multiply your average forum backlash by 10,000....oh the drama..the drama!

Then your going to get the guilds that throw up huge wagers..example. <derpguildA> puts up a wager of eleventy billion gold then runs to the forum and brags that there so op no one will fight them..and drama insues...

This falls under the post I did a wile back saying "When you add new features you need to hope for the best but plan for the worst" . Well when PvP and wagers come together..your going to see some of the worst

Buckle up buckaroo... its gona get ugly in here

[Luciano Lobo]

A few suggestions:

1) I like the "war" idea as well. So perhaps the time options should be 15 minutes, 1 hour, 8 hours, 24 hours. The guild who makes the challenge can choose the time and then the other guild has the option to accept, or they could make a counter offer. Guild X could challenge guild Y to a 24 hour battle, but guild Y could decide that is too long and make a counter challenge back to guild X for a 1 hour battle.

2) I think 5v5 is what it should be, then if the first room fills up then a second room opens. Otherwise you are going to end up with lopsided fights too often. If guild X has 10 players waiting in the battle, and guild Y only has 5 players online, then there is no way for this fight to proceed as guild Y would be slaughtered. Keep in mind there are many smaller guilds out there that would be hard pressed to ever have 10 members online at the same time. So they would then be excluded from this battleground process if the only option is 10v10.

Another option is to not allow new players from one side to enter until there are an equal number of players from the other side present. For example, Guild X cannot have a 4th player enter until Guild Y has 3 players already in the battle. Then you can never be outnumbered by more than 1. Then a 10v10 battle would be fine.

3) I think officers should be able to accept a challenge. Sometimes the guild leader may not be online, or may be on vacation, etc. Officers have the responsibility of being able to kick guild members, so I think they should be trusted to accept a guild challenge.

4) This is just my opinion, but how about a 5v5 CTF guild battle with no time limit where the winning team is the one who scores 5 flags first? I think that would be tons of fun, and would actually give people a reason to finally play CTF as it was intended!

This + I prefer the war option with a 24 hours period.

[Bira]

I have a few concerns :

1) this game shouldn't revolve around Purge, Magnum and horror. Not all guilds are capable of producing 10 players.

2) To further point #1, putting a class restriction would prevent many guilds from participating because of a lack of membership, able bodied players or a lack of players with skill and gear to compete. I think most non-pvp guilds are unable to furnish 10 players, let alone players having to fit into predetermined class restrictions.

3) If the time limit is infinite, 24 hour or something to that tune, what will happen during periods where Team A has 10 players but Team B only has 3 players? Will it becomes 10v3? Being that wagering is allowed, my concern is that the team who can keep their side filled with 10 the longest, will become the winner.

4) Is there going to be a bet limit? We all know some guilds and players can easily out muscle other guilds in terms of gold. We don't want to bankrupt people in a matter of weeks

5) Many people already complain about lag or frame skipping when there are too many people in one map. Won't 10v10 make this worse?

6) There should be a 5 minute timer at the start of each match that allows a team to forfeit, without penalty, in the event that they are unable to create a 10 man team.

7) Will there be a max damage limit per class so that lesser geared players stand a chance?

8) To add to point #7, would it be possible to scale everyone's stats down to be equivalent of the weakest over player of each class, so that it's a battle of skill and not gear?

9) My final and greatest concern is that smaller guilds will lose their members to larger pvp guilds.

[Fredystern]

At least 5v5 and max 15v15
We choose it ourself the time
Make a spectator arena, we cannot attack but can move around the map, and when we swap we chould vote who could join us in the clash, its like giving option, and we can boot other if they dc
Dont got any question only suggestion

[Serancha]

10 v 10 should not be the smallest size. Some guilds, including mine, rarely have 10 players on at any given point in time, and the 10 who would actually take part in the combat are almost never on simultaneously.

I agree. There should be some limitation on it so that we don't end up with a bunch of merged guilds just joining up so they can outnumber and overpower any smaller guilds.

[will0]

I recommend option to choose versus number of players for each team (team of 4 / 6/ 8 players )if condition not met the battle will not proceed and a countdown timer and cancel the battle.

Allowing guild's allies to join the battle will ease the issue for smaller guilds with low number of members to join their counterpart.

[Universalpro]

This is exactly what we have been looking forward to!
GUILD WARS
There will obviously be a lot of drama related to this so here are my suggestions:
1. Keep the smallest size to 6v6 and then 9v9, 12v12 and 15v15
Why these numbers? As everyone else suggested class restrictions is something which is necessary for this idea to be a success.
2. A gold fee is fine but i dont think platinum would be a good idea. Not every guild leader will have platinum in their accounts and the other guild members also cannot transfer platinum to the guild leader
3. Leave the selection of the members to the guild leader! We trust our guild leaders that much dont we?
4. In order to avoid dummy farming keep the minimum time to 1 hour. I mean this is a guild war, small clashes would just be like TDM imo.
5. Make it possible for the team members to leave for a short time and rejoin the game

Other remarkable points :

1. Absolutely loved melthyz idea of letting the public make the wager, i know this might be difficult to implement but if it becomes possible it would be awesome

2. Also loved zeus's idea for introducing sets which can only be used for guild wars!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Safiras]

Can there be some tower defense type of game? Instead of number of kills contributing to total score. I think this could make things fairer amongst the classes. Rogues are squishier hence they die alot faster but they deal more damage to single targets than the other two classes. Thus they would be more in demand than in a typical CTF or TDM clash. A full tank party in a tower defense game would not work as they would take too long to bring down the opposing team's tower. A mage being fairly balanced in offence and defence would also be useful on both defending their own tower and assaulting the opposing tower. Then the map should have limited mana recovery spots so that mages have to heal their teammates so that they can dish out more damage to the towers without having to wait for mana recovery.

Maybe this idea isn't the best, but I feel it would bring more balance to the classes in a guild war in the current situation where the classes are not balanced in CTF and TDM. You have to create a unique environment with new objectives so that players will focus on something other than just killing the other team over and over again. I feel that would make PvP more fun, at least for me.

[extrapayah]

getting strong on the gambling aspect...

[Energizeric]

Then your going to get the guilds that throw up huge wagers..example. <derpguildA> puts up a wager of eleventy billion gold.....

That's a lot of gold! LOL

[konafez]

That's a lot of gold! LOL

Yes it is for some of us

..but that's zeus's potion budget for the week

[Aerodude]

Just a few things please
1. EQUAL GEAR FOR ALL
2. NO KDR
3. LIMITED PETS(2-3 arcane,2-3 myth....)
PLEASE IM EXCITED

[Breakingbadxx]

I have a few concerns :

1) this game shouldn't revolve around Purge, Magnum and horror. Not all guilds are capable of producing 10 players.

2) To further point #1, putting a class restriction would prevent many guilds from participating because of a lack of membership, able bodied players or a lack of players with skill and gear to compete. I think most non-pvp guilds are unable to furnish 10 players, let alone players having to fit into predetermined class restrictions.

3) If the time limit is infinite, 24 hour or something to that tune, what will happen during periods where Team A has 10 players but Team B only has 3 players? Will it becomes 10v3? Being that wagering is allowed, my concern is that the team who can keep their side filled with 10 the longest, will become the winner.

4) Is there going to be a bet limit? We all know some guilds and players can easily out muscle other guilds in terms of gold. We don't want to bankrupt people in a matter of weeks

5) Many people already complain about lag or frame skipping when there are too many people in one map. Won't 10v10 make this worse?

6) There should be a 5 minute timer at the start of each match that allows a team to forfeit, without penalty, in the event that they are unable to create a 10 man team.

7) Will there be a max damage limit per class so that lesser geared players stand a chance?

8) To add to point #7, would it be possible to scale everyone's stats down to be equivalent of the weakest over player of each class, so that it's a battle of skill and not gear?

9) My final and greatest concern is that smaller guilds will lose their members to larger pvp guilds.
1). The game has had many PvE additions which didn't seem to revolve around PvE specific guilds like Elite Runners etc. There should be a minimum player capacity of somewhere around 6 vs 6.

2). Not having a class restriction will just leave more room for drama and class buffing/nerfing (some of the problems PvP is currently suffering from). If you don't meet the requirements for a guild war...there is still regular PvP.

3). Apparently guild A should only join when they have enough players to go against guild B at any point during the war.

4). There may or may not be. I don't think it would really matter if there wasn't.

5). G pointed out 10 vs 10 so this should be a possibility without lag or frame skipping.

6). Both guilds should have their players ready before going to war.

7). People spend millions on gear for a reason.

8). People spend millions on gear for a reason.

9). If a guild is good at a specific aspect of the game, its only logical that they will be more desirable. (E.g. Just like a weapon that is really good for PvE).

[Skypain]

class restriction - agree
Guild battleground ranking - agree
Time limit - an hour is already long. Maybe 15-30 mins is fine. Battle should not only be based on number of kills. Should be other options to win a battle using strategy. Kills can only determine winner when time expires when other options are not achieved. Just my suggestion.

[matiusjohntw]

I think u need to add some option like allowing guildmate/friend/random guy to join clash.

And the reward i think will be good if not just plat, but gold too.

For the time option, i suggest short15min/medium30min/long1hour.

I agree with class restriction, and maybe pet restriction? Haha or even no pet option would be good.

I think not only the guild master that can be accept challenge, pls let officer/alt gm do as well. So we can do clash even our master not online.

Last, i have idea system to stop/pause the clash while 1-2 char got DC eventually. So ganging will not happen.

Thanks

-Topsorc

Sent from my ASUS_Z00RD using Tapatalk

[Oaheuzihar]

This is to keep things simple. Your guild leader should be trusted enough to distribute proceeds.

As to when, the answer is not tomorrow, not next week, but asap. My GUESS is in a month or so.

Only problem is you can't distribute plat, can you? Can you gift plat? (I'm noob so idk)

[Iockedcrate]

just don't add kdr for it so every player no matter how good is in pvp can enjoy it without fear of bad kdr

[Zeus]

I have a few concerns :

1) this game shouldn't revolve around Purge, Magnum and horror. Not all guilds are capable of producing 10 players.

2) To further point #1, putting a class restriction would prevent many guilds from participating because of a lack of membership, able bodied players or a lack of players with skill and gear to compete. I think most non-pvp guilds are unable to furnish 10 players, let alone players having to fit into predetermined class restrictions.

3) If the time limit is infinite, 24 hour or something to that tune, what will happen during periods where Team A has 10 players but Team B only has 3 players? Will it becomes 10v3? Being that wagering is allowed, my concern is that the team who can keep their side filled with 10 the longest, will become the winner.

4) Is there going to be a bet limit? We all know some guilds and players can easily out muscle other guilds in terms of gold. We don't want to bankrupt people in a matter of weeks

5) Many people already complain about lag or frame skipping when there are too many people in one map. Won't 10v10 make this worse?

6) There should be a 5 minute timer at the start of each match that allows a team to forfeit, without penalty, in the event that they are unable to create a 10 man team.

7) Will there be a max damage limit per class so that lesser geared players stand a chance?

8) To add to point #7, would it be possible to scale everyone's stats down to be equivalent of the weakest over player of each class, so that it's a battle of skill and not gear?

9) My final and greatest concern is that smaller guilds will lose their members to larger pvp guilds.

Class restrictions would bear no effect on this because it can start as a 5v5 and increase later. The only reason one wouldn't want class restrictions in a guild war where bets are being placed is because they plan to abuse class balance themselves. It's not like random pvp, where putting class restrictions would stop games.

It's an organized match, so players have plenty of time to come up with classes. If the system can't be fair and impartial for class balance then there's no point in this system. In fact, this will encourage guilds to have all classes in their guilds - not just warriors and mages.

The whole point of guild wars is to show who's strongest, no? That's why there's a scaling mechanism in place for guild wars.

[Azebro]

I would be happy if arranged matches do nothing more than stop blocking.
My concerns:
1) No to class restrictions. This is war, so if <Tanks R Us> wants war then thats their choice and we have the option to accept the challenge or not. STS has been addressing balancing issues in the recent updates, so I don't want to downplay their efforts.
2) Wagers. To avoid unnecessary drama, I suggest rolling out this feature at a later date and only if guild wars is a flop without it.
3) Size. I think 5v5 is a good starting point. However, even with 5v5 we will see many smaller guilds disbanding just to war, which is sad.
4) Skills. Will skills need to be adjusted to handle more than 5 targets?
5) Damage. Will damage from players and pets need to be lowered in bigger wars? 10x arcane pet AA can wipe out an entire team.

Thanks,

[VROOMIGoRealFast]

Loving all the feedback so far everyone. A few more points for clarification based on what I'm reading:

1) Wagers between guilds will only be in gold. Guilds will not be allowed to wager Platinum against each other. Our reference to platinum in wagers is that Guild Leaders will have to pay platinum in order to wager gold. Battlegrounds no gold wager can be completed with no platinum cost.
2) Dummy farming will not be an issue with Battlegrounds because there is no planned leaderboard associated with Battlegrounds (for this exact reason), and because no new gold is being given to players. The gold wagered and rewarded comes from the Guild Leaders, so if you were to Dummy Farm another guild, it's really just a roundabout way of trading =P.
3) There is no intent for a maximum wager, but remember that both guilds have to agree to the wager. If a guild challenges you to a 10million gold battle and you can't afford that, you just don't have to accept the battle.
4) Because there is no choosing of side, blocking should not be a problem. The only way to block in this case would be if a member of your own guild is blocking. Hopefully in which case they'll receive a swift guildkick ;)

[Breakingbadxx]

Loving all the feedback so far everyone. A few more points for clarification based on what I'm reading:

1) Wagers between guilds will only be in gold. Guilds will not be allowed to wager Platinum against each other. Our reference to platinum in wagers is that Guild Leaders will have to pay platinum in order to wager gold. Battlegrounds no gold wager can be completed with no platinum cost.
2) Dummy farming will not be an issue with Battlegrounds because there is no planned leaderboard associated with Battlegrounds (for this exact reason), and because no new gold is being given to players. The gold wagered and rewarded comes from the Guild Leaders, so if you were to Dummy Farm another guild, it's really just a roundabout way of trading =P.
3) There is no intent for a maximum wager, but remember that both guilds have to agree to the wager. If a guild challenges you to a 10million gold battle and you can't afford that, you just don't have to accept the battle.
4) Because there is no choosing of side, blocking should not be a problem. The only way to block in this case would be if a member of your own guild is blocking. Hopefully in which case they'll receive a swift guildkick ;)

This is good, thanks.

Now, can we know the stance of the developers on introducing a class restriction (max of ? of each class) in this feature?

It could really make or break this awesome feature.

[Zynzyn]

AL is somehow getting better and better. Thank you G!

- How much time would you folks like to skirmish for? 15 minutes? 1 hour? 24 hours?
A match should last 3 rounds, 15s mins each round.

- How large would you like these instances to be? 10v10? As big as possible? Variable?
6 vs 6

- If an Arena is full with 10 players on each side, would you prefer a second Arena be created where more players can join to fight, or to keep all fighting to the single Arena?
Second Arena

- What other questions and concerns do you have?
My suggestion is to implement class restriction ( not more than 2 of each class in a 6vs6 guild war). Reward/score for wins should be shared by all the guild members involved in that clash. Wins should be based on whichever guild scored most kills in the limited time-span.

- What members of the guild should be allowed to participate in the Battleground?
Any regardless of role.

[intrepd]

Loving all the feedback so far everyone. A few more points for clarification based on what I'm reading:

1) Wagers between guilds will only be in gold. Guilds will not be allowed to wager Platinum against each other. Our reference to platinum in wagers is that Guild Leaders will have to pay platinum in order to wager gold. Battlegrounds no gold wager can be completed with no platinum cost.
2) Dummy farming will not be an issue with Battlegrounds because there is no planned leaderboard associated with Battlegrounds (for this exact reason), and because no new gold is being given to players. The gold wagered and rewarded comes from the Guild Leaders, so if you were to Dummy Farm another guild, it's really just a roundabout way of trading =P.
3) There is no intent for a maximum wager, but remember that both guilds have to agree to the wager. If a guild challenges you to a 10million gold battle and you can't afford that, you just don't have to accept the battle.
4) Because there is no choosing of side, blocking should not be a problem. The only way to block in this case would be if a member of your own guild is blocking. Hopefully in which case they'll receive a swift guildkick ;)

Since there is wagers then it should be as fair as possible, which means there should be class restrictions, I'd say that 9vs9 the max while 6vs6 is the least, there should be an option to pick how long/ and how many, there should be class restriction though, or else class stacking between tanks and mages will definitely be the best
Just an idea make it 6vs6 the least with 2 of each class, and 9vs9 the max with 3 each class since we are wagering then the teams should be the same to it is fair.

[Potato is me]

maybe the option to hire at most 1 mercenary (someone not in the guild)?

[Lunarpvp]

This will put everyone on an even playing field and generate a lot of income for you guys as well.

Weren't we trying to avoid this path lol.

[Fsuryo]

The time shouldnt be more than 30 minute

[Lawpvp]

Timers as well as team members should be variable. Ideally we would be able to set them to whatever we want within a certain range (ex: 4-10 players, 15 min - 4 hours). If this would be to make applicable then perhaps give us a few options for each. (Ex: 30 min. 1 hr, 2 hr, 3v3, 6v6, 9v9).

I personally think the gm and officers should choose who is allowed in from the guild, aswell as being able to accept a challenge(by putting up their own gold if they are not the gm). If they can kick people, y not accept a challenge?

However I am against platinum being used for wagers. Seeing as how the current plan is for only the gm to be able to accept challenges, this could become a significant plat burden upon the gm. Especially if a guild participates in multiple challenges per day. While i realize many of the latest updates to the game have $ incentives through plat spending (housing, pet animacy), pvp has always been free to enter and should remain so. Paying platinum just to accept a challenge from a guild is not something I will ever find myself doing.

As for the challenges themselves, someone has mentioned the ability to counter propose a challenge with regards to the gold reward, player number and time. I think this would be a great feature should it be implemented. I also think there needs to be a limit on how much 1 guild can challenge another to avoid spam, maybe only 1 active challenge at a time regardless if its accepted and ongoing or sitting idle.

Personally I would love to see a 1v1 option for the guild challenges. Put up your best individual fighters against an entire enemy guild to see if any of them can beat you. Also swap players between your own team to make it a guild oriented battle.

Thats all I've got for now

[Zeus]

Timers as well as team members should be variable. Ideally we would be able to set them to whatever we want within a certain range (ex: 4-10 players, 15 min - 4 hours). If this would be to make applicable then perhaps give us a few options for each. (Ex: 30 min. 1 hr, 2 hr, 3v3, 6v6, 9v9).

I personally think the gm and officers should choose who is allowed in from the guild, aswell as being able to accept a challenge(by putting up their own gold if they are not the gm). If they can kick people, y not accept a challenge?

However I am against platinum being used for wagers. Seeing as how the current plan is for only the gm to be able to accept challenges, this could become a significant plat burden upon the gm. Especially if a guild participates in multiple challenges per day. While i realize many of the latest updates to the game have $ incentives through plat spending (housing, pet animacy), pvp has always been free to enter and should remain so. Paying platinum just to accept a challenge from a guild is not something I will ever find myself doing.

As for the challenges themselves, someone has mentioned the ability to counter propose a challenge with regards to the gold reward, player number and time. I think this would be a great feature should it be implemented. I also think there needs to be a limit on how much 1 guild can challenge another to avoid spam, maybe only 1 active challenge at a time regardless if its accepted and ongoing or sitting idle.

Personally I would love to see a 1v1 option for the guild challenges. Put up your best individual fighters against an entire enemy guild to see if any of them can beat you. Also swap players between your own team to make it a guild oriented battle.

Thats all I've got for now

The system would be free to enter, but if you want to place bets, then you would need to pay.

[Bira]

The system would be free to enter, but if you want to place bets, then you would need to pay.

If they force us to spend plat, this would no longer be a free to play game. Maybe a farmable currency should be allowed in exchange

[Zeus]

If they force us to spend plat, this would no longer be a free to play game. Maybe a farmable currency should be allowed in exchange


I'm sure they will announce something like bet kits.

[Breakingbadxx]

On the topic of large guild wars (up to 10 vs 10 and above), a problem that should be pointed out is visual effects of: pet passive attacks, pet arcane abilities and player skills; which all obstruct player identification.

With such a large amount of players present, I don't think the red and blue circles at the foot of players currently present in PvP for team identification will be a good idea.

Alongside the circles, allowing a red and blue version of the vanity that was awarded for khalizzas (I think this was their name) PvE contest or heraldic set to be automatically equipped to players when they enter the zone should solve this.

The vanity should be automatically removed upon exiting the zone.

[Lawpvp]

I'm sure they will announce something like bet kits.

I would support something like this, a very reasonable compromise.

Personally im against class restrictions because as a twink, we just don't have the problems endgamers have, and class restrictions to solve their problems, at the dispense of twinks by creating new problems for us is not a satisfactory solution for the community as a whole to the imbalance endgamers currently face imo.

Rogues before the arc weapons were the strongest class in twinks, after the arc weapons, i havent done much testing, but I have no doubt they will be on par with tanks, if not better, while mages while likely be getting the short end of the stick. My friends and I have beaten 3 tank lineups in tdm using 3-4 rogues. In fact we tend to have more rogue heavy lineups than most due to our rogues being better. Mages are the least common class in twinks, and our guilds are smaller as is, so a class restriction would make it harder for us to fill up teams.

Its impossible to say im just trying to preserve tank/rogue stacks because they are far from optimal. It just happens to be the case that tanks/rogues are more common than mages.

But +1 for store bought "betting kits" or whatever they would be called as a subsitute for having to spend plat to wager on a guild battleground

[Fredystern]

4) Because there is no choosing of side, blocking should not be a problem. The only way to block in this case would be if a member of your own guild is blocking. Hopefully in which case they'll receive a swift guildkick ;)

So if someone in my team was blocking got kick they was get kick from the map? It will great if it works like GH they teleported ourside of GH

[Niixed]

Some questions for you:
- How much time would you folks like to skirmish for? 15 minutes? 1 hour? 24 hours?
- How large would you like these instances to be? 10v10? As big as possible? Variable?
- If an Arena is full with 10 players on each side, would you prefer a second Arena be created where more players can join to fight, or to keep all fighting to the single Arena?
- What other questions and concerns do you have?
- What members of the guild should be allowed to participate in the Battleground?


Length of Skirmishes

Players should be allowed to select how long each skirmish will last. Provide a list, say 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 45 minutes, and 60 minutes.

Number of Players

Skirmishes should be a minimum of 3v3 up to a maximum of 10v10. Less than three doesn't provide enough impetus for a skirmish. More than 10 would feel a little pointless and a lot chaotic.
Caveats:

Each side is required to have the the minimum number players to begin the skirmish.
Once the skirmish begins, the maximum number of players on each side cannot exceed the original number the skirmish began with.
Players can be swapped during skirmishes.

The 3v3 option will let smaller guilds participate in the new system as well! I think it's important to be as inclusive as possible.

War Format

Multiple skirmishes that are part of a larger war would be the the best option, in my opinion. Guild Masters set up the maximum number of skirmishes in advance, which should always an odd number. Allow GMs to select from a list, say 3, 5, 9, 15, and 25. Whichever guild wins half +0.5 of the number of set skirmishes, that guild wins the war and gets the prize.

For example, <Fluffy> and <Scraggly> go to war with one another. The GMs decide to set the maximum number of skirmishes to 3. The guilds fight and each wins one skirmish. On the 3rd and final skirmish, <Fluffy> prevails and wins the war.
<Skraggly>'s honor is impugned, so they challenge <Fluffy> to another war, this time the max skirmishes are set to 25. They are evenly matched, and after a grueling battle, <Skraggly> rejoices when it narrowly achieves 13 skirmish victories over <Fluffy>.

This way, the war goes on for as long as it takes for all the necessary skirmishes to be fought.

Player Selection

The GM or officers should be granted the ability to invite players from their guild, similar to the party system. GM's have to set up the war, but officers should also be allowed to set up a skirmish.

Stacking Issue

With the option of having up to 10 players on the same side, the risk of a stacking stalemate is extremely high. As with current clashes in CTF, the team that stacks the most and the best will win every time. A stack of 10 warriors or 10 mages (or 5 warriors AND 5 mages) would destroy the fun and wreck the game. I posted a suggestion to fix this very issue, implementing a rule of Diminishing Returns (http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?367089-How-To-Fix-The-Class-Stacking-Issue-in-PvP), which could help to discourage stacking as a strategy.


"Diminishing returns" is just another way of saying that each time you add one more of the same thing, it benefits you a little less.

Example 1: If you're very hungry, the first sandwich tastes great. The second sandwich fills you up even more. But, because you're now too full, the third sandwich makes you sick to your stomach.

Example 2: You buy one car, giving you the ability to drive anywhere on demand. You buy a second car as a backup alternative to the first car, but the expenses start adding up. You buy a third car purely for vanity, but the costs of managing and maintaining all 3 cars is large enough to create a lot of additional work.

I took a little time to lay out what a Diminishing Returns scheme might look like when applied to skills or whatnot. These are only my suggestions. Any skill with AoE damage or an AoE benefit could potentially qualify.



Sorcerer Skill Candidates











Frost Bolt (Charged Only)
DR Proximity
DR Duration
DR Damage*


First Sorcerer
14 meters
3 seconds
100.00%


Second Sorcerer
**
**
75.00%


Third Sorcerer
**
**
56.25%


Fourth Sorcerer
**
**
42.19%


Fifth Sorcerer
**
**
31.64%








Gale Force
DR Proximity
DR Duration
DR Damage*


First Sorcerer
9 meters
5.5 seconds
100.00%


Second Sorcerer
**
**
75.00%


Third Sorcerer
**
**
56.25%


Fourth Sorcerer
**
**
42.19%


Fifth Sorcerer
**
**
31.64%








Fireball
DR Proximity
DR Duration
DR Damage*


First Sorcerer
14 meters
3-4 seconds
100.00%


Second Sorcerer
**
**
75.00%


Third Sorcerer
**
**
56.25%


Fourth Sorcerer
**
**
42.19%


Fifth Sorcerer
**
**
31.64%








Time Shift
DR Proximity
DR Duration
DR Damage*


First Sorcerer
5 meters
10 seconds
100.00%


Second Sorcerer
**
**
75.00%


Third Sorcerer
**
**
56.25%


Fourth Sorcerer
**
**
42.19%


Fifth Sorcerer
**
**
31.64%








Curse
DR Proximity
DR Duration
DR Damage*


First Sorcerer
4-6 meters
5-7 seconds
100.00%


Second Sorcerer
**
**
75.00%


Third Sorcerer
**
**
56.25%


Fourth Sorcerer
**
**
42.19%


Fifth Sorcerer
**
**
31.64%








Lifegiver
DR Proximity
DR Duration
DR Heal*


First Sorcerer
6-8 meters
15 seconds
100.00%


Second Sorcerer
**
**
75.00%


Third Sorcerer
**
**
56.25%


Fourth Sorcerer
**
**
42.19%


Fifth Sorcerer
**
**
31.64%








Rogue Skill Candidates











Noxious Bolt
DR Proximity
DR Duration
DR Damage*


First Rogue
14 meters
2 seconds
100.00%


Second Rogue
**
**
75.00%


Third Rogue
**
**
56.25%


Fourth Rogue
**
**
42.19%


Fifth Rogue
**
**
31.64%








Shadow Storm Shot
DR Proximity
DR Duration
DR Damage*


First Rogue
14 meters
5 seconds
100.00%


Second Rogue
**
**
75.00%


Third Rogue
**
**
56.25%


Fourth Rogue
**
**
42.19%


Fifth Rogue
**
**
31.64%








Shadow Veil
DR Proximity
DR Duration
DR Damage Reduction*


First Rogue
8 meters?
20 seconds
15.00%


Second Rogue
**
**
11.25%


Third Rogue
**
**
8.44%


Fourth Rogue
**
**
6.33%


Fifth Rogue
**
**
4.75%








Combat Medic
DR Proximity
DR Duration
DR Heal*


First Rogue
6 meters?
15 seconds
100.00%


Second Rogue
**
**
75.00%


Third Rogue
**
**
56.25%


Fourth Rogue
**
**
42.19%


Fifth Rogue
**
**
31.64%








Warrior Skill Candidates











Skyward Smash
DR Proximity
DR Duration
DR Damage*


First Warrior
12 meters
4 seconds
100.00%


Second Warrior
**
**
75.00%


Third Warrior
**
**
56.25%


Fourth Warrior
**
**
42.19%


Fifth Warrior
**
**
31.64%








Windmill
DR Proximity
DR Duration
DR Damage*


First Warrior
4 meters
10 seconds
100.00%


Second Warrior
**
**
75.00%


Third Warrior
**
**
56.25%


Fourth Warrior
**
**
42.19%


Fifth Warrior
**
**
31.64%








Vengeful Blood
DR Proximity
DR Duration
DR Heal*


First Warrior
6 meters?
20-25 seconds
100.00%


Second Warrior
**
**
75.00%


Third Warrior
**
**
56.25%


Fourth Warrior
**
**
42.19%


Fifth Warrior
**
**
31.64%








Horn of Renew
DR Proximity
DR Duration
DR Damage*


First Warrior
6-8 meters
15 seconds
100.00%


Second Warrior
**
**
75.00%


Third Warrior
**
**
56.25%


Fourth Warrior
**
**
42.19%


Fifth Warrior
**
**
31.64%








Pet Candidates











Korruption
DR Proximity
DR Duration
DR Mana Reduction*


First Player
15 meters?
10 seconds?
10.00%


Second Player
**
**
7.50%


Third Player
**
**
5.63%


Fourth Player
**
**
4.22%


Fifth Player
**
**
3.16%








Weapon Candidates











Dragon Sword
DR Proximity
DR Duration
DR Proc Damage*


First Warrior
6 meters?
10 seconds?
100.00%


Second Warrior
**
**
75.00%


Third Warrior
**
**
56.25%


Fourth Warrior
**
**
42.19%


Fifth Warrior
**
**
31.64%



* Each subsequent activation is reduced by 25% in this case. In my OP HoR example, I used 33%, but it seemed too steep upon further consideration.
** DR Proximity and DR Duration (timer) are determined by the first player which activates the skill, aa, or proc. The numbers are based on the actual range and cooldown of the First player's skill and the resulting area is centered on the player. Once the timer expires, the next player to use the skill, aa, or proc receives the full benefit once again.

[Tanpanama]

Good idea Garry! :-)
10v10?
That will make player farm 1by1 in spawn :D
Hope simple map pvp like a duels map for guild bettleground :D
Btw when your planning this system update ?
Thanks.

[kinzmet]

If we could integrate storyline to why theres guild war it would be great! Like, Arlorians allied themselves in guilds and helped each other to succeed, and strive for the better future. But the mysterious dark force that pushed the evil in Arlor made its move again. Earlier it affected Jarl, opened gates of hells for Mardom, made Captain Redtide haunt the seas, unleashed Inan'hesh, Tarlok, Ursoth, and other malevelent beings upon the land of Arlor! And now its affecting the heroes of the Arlor to fight each other in a cataclysmic clash of power to rule the the land forever.........

....will the Arlor be smited into oblivion? Or a guild of heroes will rise and unify the divide nation as one and spread peace once again.....



I just felt the RPG should never left the storyline behind, because its RPG...

[scarysmerf]

Love the idea of a guild battle been waiting for this for a long time :) but I don't agree on paying plat to wager a small gold fee im a guild master so I can understand but what if u dont buy plat or the free plat offers dont work for u? What if u had no plat could u pay extra gold instead of the plat fee? I buy plat maybe once a month and I use all if it to merch items or deeds

[Eternyl]

1). A maximum of 1 hour skirmishes are great (the time can be adjusted by 5 minutes up to a maximum of 1 hour).

2). 9 vs 9 (3 members of each class) or 15 vs 15 (5 members of each class).

3). All fighting should be kept in a single arena.

9v9, 12v12, & 15v15 is good. And instead of or maybe in addition to class restrictions, you could include a maximum # of a certain class. Limiting skirmishes to 2 or 3 warriors per team would be good. A map full of lava spouts from 10 warriors with glintstone set isn't fun for anyone.

Also, I would like my guild kdr tracked of course ^_^

[Zeus]

9v9, 12v12, & 15v15 is good. And instead of or maybe in addition to class restrictions, you could include a maximum # of a certain class. Limiting skirmishes to 2 or 3 warriors per team would be good. A map full of lava spouts from 10 warriors with glintstone set isn't fun for anyone.

Also, I would like my guild kdr tracked of course ^_^

Warriors are not the main issue, they can be combated. It's the fact that sorcerer stacks remove the need for a rogue.

[Nepos]

We need a room to spectate/spectating mode

[Breakingbadxx]

We need a room to spectate/spectating mode

That would be nice.

[Fredystern]

Warriors are not the main issue, they can be combated. It's the fact that sorcerer stacks remove the need for a rogue.

I was thinking that how a clash without rogue, i think its took alot of time. In my brackets nearly all clash always use 1-2 rogue instead of mage, in my brackets mage only a supporter as they should do.

In my opinion if they stack mage at same time they got unlimited mana, but try to counter it using 2 war 1 rog 1 mage squad, its much better than 1 war 3 mage, me myself only use 3 mage 1 war if clash againts 4 warr, since there was alot of heal in them rogue aim wont hurt so much so i think wwe need stun :)

I usually run with 2 mage(i was one of them) and 2 rog since it was the fastest way to kill an enemy in clash without war

[Zeus]

I was thinking that how a clash without rogue, i think its took alot of time. In my brackets nearly all clash always use 1-2 rogue instead of mage, in my brackets mage only a supporter as they should do.

In my opinion if they stack mage at same time they got unlimited mana, but try to counter it using 2 war 1 rog 1 mage squad, its much better than 1 war 3 mage, me myself only use 3 mage 1 war if clash againts 4 warr, since there was alot of heal in them rogue aim wont hurt so much so i think wwe need stun :)

I usually run with 2 mage(i was one of them) and 2 rog since it was the fastest way to kill an enemy in clash without war

It doesn't work, at end game, sorcerers do a lot more than just support. They also do a lot of damage. Trust me, I've tried every strategy in the book.

[kinzmet]

Dimitrian would have gwas'd over this.

Wonder whatever happened to that nab :/


I'm not seeing his posts for more than a year now too.. maybe his retired :/

[Naughtiest]

So lets say its 10 v 10. One guild gets 11 kills on an uneven battlefield eg 7 v 4. The rest join. Its 10 vs 10 and the winning team all 10 of them die and stay dead for the rest of the duration. What now?

[Sliceshee]

Looks interesting :)
And at this point I wanna ask, would it be possible to add one more promotion for guilds?
Co-Master

[Breakingbadxx]

Add a respawn timer of 5 seconds +

Instant respawns don't bode well with large scale battles.

[kinzmet]

It would be great if the challenger can choose rules of the war.
Select time frame of war (from 24hrs war to only 30mins) The 24hrs set up can solve the time difference issue.
Type of war, ex. kill-count war like in TDM, or wave-per-wave wars (Players will gather in one room where the exit is blocked (like in arena). After a timer a message will announce "First wave" then the block will be removed. Then all the player who dies in the first wave will be respawned at the start (like in arena) until a winner of the wave is decided, the last guild standing will recieve the score. The total scores of the wave after the time expires will determine who won the war)
Select the gears allowed, a simple check list (like in liquidation). Top gears should be Epic, or legendary or Mythic or Arcane, depends of what they would choose.
Select pets rarity allowed
Select the Levels min and max allowed
The other guild being challenged could see these rules set by the guild issuing the challenge. And can decide to accept it or not.

[fortunefiv3]

Needs good detailed maps, multiple points of defense/attack. Something to defend. Maybe take inspiration from DotA


Another thing would be randomized powerups, like a speed elixir, damage, damage reduction. Something that could put a team over the top or bring a team back off the ropes

[pump]

Guild leader only? How about those members who participate? Any rewards for them?
When it happen maybe rdy by Halloween event?

[Robhawk]

I was thinking about quitting the game again but you got me with this one, lol.

[Blank119]

Wow, this is great, i have another suggestion, how about this,

The rules will be same,however will change mechanics a little bit, how about each guild has a one Crystal , and the first one who break it will win, the crystal should have high def and hp so it will not be easily break and pvp are allowed inside so player can def their guild crystal, this guild battle ground should be 3 times a week, 1st day preliminary, 2nd semi, and 3rd final. The winner in guild battle ground will recieve champion banner and champion title and will expired after 7d not tradable, since it will only exclusive for champion guild every week, this should be 10v10 or 15v15 it depend on guildleader who member he will choose, ihope u like my ideas, feel free to add ty,


There should be no class or equipment restriction inside, LOL, it will just destroyed the guild war system, in every rpg game , there is no item nor class restriction in guild war LOL, no need to implement it if there is class or item restriction it will be boring guild war, ty ty

[Justg]

Very fruitful discussion thus far, I have updated the OP with these clarifications/ additions:

UPDATE 8/11/16


- Matches will be 15 mins (to allow for server shutdowns and prevent matches fromending in the middle of one)
- Matches will be up to 10 vs 10
- There will be a Max number of players option
- There will be no class restrictions
- We will have a tradable token system that is purchased w plat for wagering
- Red Room/ Blue Room ala CTF to start the match, all must be present to start
- If a team has 0 participants in the Arena after start, that team will forfeit
- Players will respawn in random location after death

[Zeus]

Very fruitful discussion thus far, I have updated the OP with these clarifications/ additions:

UPDATE 8/11/16


- Matches will be 15 mins (to allow for server shutdowns and prevent matches fromending in the middle of one)
- Matches will be up to 10 vs 10
- There will be a Max number of players option
- There will be no class restrictions
- We will have a tradable token system that is purchased w plat for wagering
- Red Room/ Blue Room ala CTF to start the match, all must be present to start
- If a team has 0 participants in the Arena after start, that team will forfeit
- Players will respawn in random location after death

Are there going to be obstacles in this arena? This is very useful for classes so they can hide and snipe or wait out cooldowns.

[Justg]

Are there going to be obstacles in this arena? This is very useful for classes so they can hide and snipe or wait out cooldowns.

We're thinking no obstacles.

[Zeus]

We're thinking no obstacles.

Okay, thanks! Should be interesting. :D

[soon]

We're thinking no obstacles.

I need to buy a Speed set

[Sevencent]

New players that don't get how to do as much will be abused by untrustworthy gm's.

[epicrrr]

No obstacle? Any update for the map; is it going to be just a brawl? Attack and spam buttons? No obstacle = no coordination no tactics. Just pure button smash.

[Niixed]

No obstacle? Any update for the map; is it going to be just a brawl? Attack and spam buttons? No obstacle = no coordination no tactics. Just pure button smash.
I agree with epic... an open field without obstacles will reduce the fun substantially. No obstacles practically guarantees a mindless mosh pit of X vs X, like current clashes in CTF except worse. Even caged animals do better with obstacles, how much more with gamers? ;)

[yubaraj]

I agree with epic... an open field without obstacles will reduce the fun substantially. No obstacles practically guarantees a mindless mosh pit of X vs X, like current clashes in CTF except worse. Even caged animals do better with obstacles, how much more with gamers? ;)

Yap that's true.

In addition, how about adding trulle as option. It will add more versatility and challenge and obviously reduce spamming attacks.

I miss those days when fighting alongside. It was nice to hear "noob trulle user"

[Justg]

No obstacle? Any update for the map; is it going to be just a brawl? Attack and spam buttons? No obstacle = no coordination no tactics. Just pure button smash.

Obstacles are pretty easy to add and subtract, I am sure we'll iterate on the map as we go.

[epicrrr]

Obstacles are pretty easy to add and subtract, I am sure we'll iterate on the map as we go.

Cool. We're pretty hyped for this and will eagerly wait each update :)

[Blank119]

how many times we could play guild battle ground? is it weekly or everyday? is there any ranking for guildwar? is there any exclusive price for champion if is weekly?

[Alwarez]

I'm ready for threads like "I just lost billion of gold because classes not balanced".

[glendame]

2v2, 3v3, 4v4,5v5 up to 10v10 as suggested, to accommodate smaller guilds. As some guilds don't have 10 powerhouse members online at the same time. Time limits 5mins interval starting at 10mins up to like 1hr 30min or so. Bets should be locked-in individually if possible and collected in auction or PvP cashier, individually. Also, an option for replacement/s as some may confirm to join and when war starts they, don't come online.

And NO class stacking please. Devs can figure this out. Or give an option to assign class and both guilds should agree and confirm.

[glendame]

Let's get ready to rumble. Nice job sts. Good luck!

[Zeus]

2v2, 3v3, 4v4,5v5 up to 10v10 as suggested, to accommodate smaller guilds. As some guilds don't have 10 powerhouse members online at the same time. Time limits 5mins interval starting at 10mins up to like 1hr 30min or so. Bets should be locked-in individually if possible and collected in auction or PvP cashier, individually. Also, an option for replacement/s as some may confirm to join and when war starts they, don't come online.

And NO class stacking please. Devs can figure this out. Or give an option to assign class and both guilds should agree and confirm.

Yes, class stacking sucks and ruins the experience for all...but developers are hesitant to implement it.

[Breakingbadxx]

From the information we have so far, its going to be warriors + mages vs warriors + mages skirmishes without a doubt.

Currently rogues are the easiest class to kill in team PvP. I speak from fresh experience, it literally takes 0 effort to kill a rogue in a team battle. To be truthful, i almost feel handicapped by having a rogue on my team (no offence to the rogue community).

This is from 4 vs 4 alone.

[Muteds]

cant wait for this !
warbyasah, emejing :eagerness:

[epicrrr]

From the information we have so far, its going to be warriors + mages vs warriors + mages skirmishes without a doubt.

Currently rogues are the easiest class to kill in team PvP. I speak from fresh experience, it literally takes 0 effort to kill a rogue in a team battle. To be truthful, i almost feel handicapped by having a rogue on my team (no offence to the rogue community).

This is from 4 vs 4 alone.

Down here at low level pvp we still value rog, esp those who knows how to chacha and with at least semi gear. We still need their crit. Class stacking warriors we usually counter with korrupt and put in a lot of rogs.

Rogs bane is another rog. They can one shot each other while rejoining fights, and they will snipe each other when nekro shield/nekro is down so its up to warriors to keep em up. A pro warrior make or break a clash. Mage well they hurt esp lightning. :)

-14

[Zeus]

Down here at low level pvp we still value rog, esp those who knows how to chacha and with at least semi gear. We still need their crit. Class stacking warriors we usually counter with korrupt and put in a lot of rogs.

Rogs bane is another rog. They can one shot each other while rejoining fights, and they will snipe each other when nekro shield/nekro is down so its up to warriors to keep em up. A pro warrior make or break a clash. Mage well they hurt esp lightning. :)

-14

Yes, but at end game...GL with any of that as a rogue. The heals are so intense, that any damage is outhealed by the heal cycle. :D

[marsu4u]

Purge & Magnum can finally settle their differences!

[Fsuryo]

Warior+mage?
Pft dude, its purely being a war era, a domination. A team with 10 war would eat any random classes team. Mage? Rog? Die

[Breakingbadxx]

Warior+mage?
Pft dude, its purely being a war era, a domination. A team with 10 war would eat any random classes team. Mage? Rog? Die
A team of 2 warriors 2 mages and 1 rogue can dominate a team of 5 warriors.

Before you ask...yes, this is the current AL.

Now, lets apply this to 10 vs 10:

*5 warriors 3 mages 2 rogues can dominate 10 warriors.

*A team consisting of warriors and mages will dominate a team solely consisting of warriors alone. (Why? A healing cycle that outheals all damage taken) > also why rogues aren't useful vs such a team.

So no, a 10 warrior team can't 'eat' a class diverse team.

[glendame]

A team of 2 warriors 2 mages and 1 rogue can dominate a team of 5 warriors.

Before you ask...yes, this is the current AL.

Now, lets apply this to 10 vs 10:

*5 warriors 3 mages 2 rogues can dominate 10 warriors.

*A team consisting of warriors and mages will dominate a team solely consisting of warriors alone. (Why? A healing cycle that outheals all damage taken) > also why rogues aren't useful vs such a team.

So no, a 10 warrior team can't 'eat' a class diverse team.


In paper yes. In accuatlity, maybe not.

[Breakingbadxx]

In paper yes. In accuatlity, maybe not.
There is no 'maybe' in experience. I speak from that experience.

I'm not putting theories on the table. This is fact.

How many have complained about warrior stacking in AL 2016 as opposed to mage stacking?

[glendame]

There is no 'maybe' in experience. I speak from that experience.

I'm not putting theories on the table. This is fact.

How many have complained about warrior stacking in AL 2016 as opposed to mage stacking?

U got 10v10 experience? Lol u think 10 mage will survive 10 warriors? Not even in a 5v5 mage will survive. Zzzz not experienced at all

There is no complaining of mage stacking as it does not impact PvP the way warriors stacking do. That's a fact from experience at being no 2 spot in tdm with NO dummy farming!

[Breakingbadxx]

The only reason people complain about mage stacking is because they arent used to it and pretty much everyone has already complained about warrior stack in the past and given up.

Since we are throwing facts around, here's one for you, a warrior stack will always be better than a mage stack.

More people have complained about warrior stack in the past 3 years of my AL experience than all complaints across all of the legends franchises.

It's the same handfuf of people complaining about mage stack, is it nott?
It would be wise to focus on the period 'guild battlegrounds' is being released rather than dwell on the past.

What reason would there currently be for complaining about warrior stacking?

'A warrior stack will always be better than a mage stack?' > sorry but many active PvP players (including me) will disagree with that 'fact'.

It is all too well known that a warrior stack is currently beatable using a class diverse team. I recently participated in a tdm clash:

Our team: 2 warriors 1 mage 1 rogue
The opposition: 3 warriors 1 mage (4 warriors at one point)

*All their warriors had the mythic glintstone axe set in their possession*

We won 5 matches in a row with each score not exceeding 20-9 before they decided to give up.

They stacked warriors and this was the result.

If they were to use 2 warriors and 2 mages instead, our class diverse team would've been dominated without a doubt (a theory proven by numerous cases with consistency).

Fact.

[xxalivexx]

Well this gold and platinum betting won't get you plenty of emails when the time comes, you already know kids will spend mamas money and get mad when the platinum they paid for is gone, then they email you making up excuses, I'd say you think about that platinum betting the most, other than that really sounds great, I'm prepared for this, release this fastttttt, very little patience sts, PLEASE FOR ME. :gorilla:

[Breakingbadxx]

These so called "active PvP players" are they by any chance you and your warrior friends?
Let's ask those asking for a buff to the rogue class for balance on the issue of mage stacking removing the need for the presence of a rogue in team PvP.

Sarcasm aside, take your time to look at the numerous threads (including those made by the developers themselves) on the subject of PvP balance and tell me how many times the word 'warrior' came up compared to the word 'mage'.

After that, let's keep the discussion on guild battlegrounds, thanks.

[Breakingbadxx]

Back at ya, bro.

Have a good day!
I don't understand why you quoted one of my comments and also quoted one section of another of my comments for that response.

[Zeus]

The only reason people complain about mage stacking is because they arent used to it and pretty much everyone has already complained about warrior stack in the past and given up.

Since we are throwing facts around, here's one for you, a warrior stack will always be better than a mage stack.

More people have complained about warrior stack in the past 3 years of my AL experience than all complaints across all of the legends franchises.

It's the same handfuf of people complaining about mage stack, is it nott?

No, a warrior stack will not be better than mage stack. Sorcerers can heal 8K HP per second while still putting out insane damage.

And yes, you read correctly...8K HP per second.


Let's ask those asking for a buff to the rogue class for balance on the issue of mage stacking removing the need for the presence of a rogue in team PvP.

Sarcasm aside, take your time to look at the numerous threads (including those made by the developers themselves) on the subject of PvP balance and tell me how many times the word 'warrior' came up compared to the word 'mage'.

After that, let's keep the discussion on guild battlegrounds, thanks.

Not to mention, sorcerer is the most popular class as of right now. I wonder, why would such a weak class be the most popular unless of course, it's actually very overpowered if used correctly? :D

[Anyona]

This thread is about Guild Battlegrounds, not which class is the best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Breakingbadxx]

This thread is about Guild Battlegrounds, not which class is the best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The existence of a 'best class' affects guild battlegrounds.

[Anyona]

The existence of a 'best class' affects guild battlegrounds.

It really doesn't, wait until what devs say about rogues, rather than posting your opinion on every pvp related thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[soon]

It really doesn't, wait until what devs say about rogues, rather than posting your opinion on every pvp related thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



They will still say something? before implementing the new PvP?

[Anyona]

They will still say something? before implementing the new PvP?

Yes, they're just not adding anymore threads on the topic due to the amount of unconstructive drama type of replies


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Niixed]

I had an additional thought, that it is problematic that the rules put GMs as the only possible initiators of combat. Combat is dependent on both Guild Masters being online at the same time and, presumably, both must also be a part of of the battle as well? A vital benefit of having clashes take place in CTF is that they can be started or joined at any time. GM-only initiation of PvP means having to schedule and places quite a burden on GMs who would have to stay online and manage the winnings/antes if Guilds wished to have a series of battles. It may be ill-advised to make Battlegrounds quite so GM-dependent.

[resurrected]

I had an additional thought, that it is problematic that the rules put GMs as the only possible initiators of combat. Combat is dependent on both Guild Masters being online at the same time and, presumably, both must also be a part of of the battle as well? A vital benefit of having clashes take place in CTF is that they can be started or joined at any time. GM-only initiation of PvP means having to schedule and places quite a burden on GMs who would have to stay online and manage the winnings/antes if Guilds wished to have a series of battles. It may be ill-advised to make Battlegrounds quite so GM-dependent.
Solution : Officer also should be able to accept or challenge guilds to war

[Breakingbadxx]

Solution : Officer also should be able to accept or challenge guilds to war
Not all but maybe some officers selected by the GM can be given this ability.

[resurrected]

Not all but maybe officers selected by the GM can be given this ability.
I believe if GM makes someone Officer then he trust him... and option just to select some officer ( s ) will require more work than just unlock this Option to officers too.

[Fsuryo]

Hahahaahahahahahaha. I'm noob, idk much about pvp, like all of you, a pro. Right? Clasess clasess overpower bla bla bla..

Please add maximum classes at battleground system, maybe someone would stop crying.

Sorry my bad english. Im a nab :3

[Fsuryo]

Not all but maybe some officers selected by the GM can be given this ability.

Server memory etc etc etc XD

[epicrrr]

I had an additional thought, that it is problematic that the rules put GMs as the only possible initiators of combat. Combat is dependent on both Guild Masters being online at the same time and, presumably, both must also be a part of of the battle as well? A vital benefit of having clashes take place in CTF is that they can be started or joined at any time. GM-only initiation of PvP means having to schedule and places quite a burden on GMs who would have to stay online and manage the winnings/antes if Guilds wished to have a series of battles. It may be ill-advised to make Battlegrounds quite so GM-dependent.

Would be awesome if sts adds a new title specifc to battlefrounds. The "Battle Officer" He/She can accept battleground war and other officer function. The idea is have this title revolve (or stay) around trusted officers at the discretion of thr Guild Master - he will be responsible for strategy, tactics etc .

[cheifpiece]

Lol I'm intrigued and excited \(*.*)/*

[kinzmet]

Its time to make a new Guild position!

Guildmaster
Senior Officer
Officer
Recruiter
Member

The Senior officer can do everything the Guildmaster can except transfer of leadership, disbanding guild and can only promote someone up to Officer rank. Of course the Senior Officer can issue or accept Guild war in behalf of the Guildmaster.

[smallunicorn]

When will the Battlegrounds be released? I would really like to see how this evolves.

[noisy]

When is this going to go live?

[Justg]

When is this going to go live?

We're still working on it and it is a client update, we hope to have it out soon. But you guys know how things get in the fall, no promises except asap!

[Rosybuds]

This sounds good I dont PvP either in A/L I Loved it in D/L but Idk I just prefer farming in A/L, Anyway So all the PvPr's are going too Love This Brilliant idea Guys The team seem too be coming up with lots of new events and they all seem too be great you guys are all working in Sync & its Spot On Kudos To You All.. :)

[Elirym]

Are there any screenshots of new battlegrounds? And what is maximum player count for battles ? Sorry haven't read entire thread.

[woia]

When will this come out to?

[Hiocade]

I hope you guys release screenshots of it sometime soon! I'm looking forward to it.

[mssweety]

It says 15mins if im not mistaken? sounds very less if u consider the rg or the talk's about use this pet or this u heal first u second or if they wana change the strategy.. idk just a thought
I agree with the idea that u can choose.. 30mins /1hr/ 1.30
And i didnt get that part.. so only officers are able to play in this battleground?
And what if our master doesnt pvp at all which is a fact in our situation she still has to be in the clash?
and i think GM shouldnt be the only 1 who can decide about the clashes accept or send request for the battleground. And thats why i also dont agree that the GM should get the rewards, those who parcipitat (or how ever to write) should split the reward and they should be the one to pay aswell..
but not everyone will have plat so i would say instead of making this something where STS can win AGAIN make it based on gold.. like each player gives 50k if 30mins.. 100k if 1hr or something like that.. would be more appriciateable for everyone.
Sry my english isnt so great so might have misunderstood some parts.

[Dex_addict]

We know sometimes you would just like to get out and mix it up with a rival guild, and 5 on 5 team deathmatch just doesn't do it for you. This is why we are building an entirely new system: Guild Battlegrounds!

Here is how it is currently designed:

Challenge:


A guild leader can challenge another guild to a time-limited battle through the Guild Info page. When a request is successfully sent, a system message will be displayed to all members of the challenged guild who are officers and are online: "<X> Guild has challenged you to a Battleground"

The Challenging Guild can choose the duration and minimum and maximum levels. Challenging a guild to a battle will have a nominal gold fee associated with it.
A challenge can also include a Wager. Wagering will have a scaling nominal platinum cost associated with it.

Acceptance:


Battleground Challenges will be seen in the Guild Battleground tab.

The only person who can accept a challenge is the Guild Leader. If there is a wager associated with the challenge, they must have the requisite amount of gold and platinum on their character.

When the challenge is accepted, we will create a specific battleground Arena. We don't yet know how large they can be, but our intent is for them to at least be 10v10. The size limits will be determined by device and game performance. We are considering spawning off instances for parallel battles if a map fills up.

Rules:


Each kill within the Battleground Zone counts as a point towards your team. At the end of the time duration, the team with the most kills is declared the winner. In the event the score is even, the Battleground is considered a tie.

When a winner is declared, a system Message is sent to the server

“<X> has defeated <Y> in a Guild Battleground!”
“<X> and <Y> have fought to a tie in a Guild Battleground!”

If a winner is chosen, the value of the wager will be sent to the Leader of the winning guild.

UPDATE 8/11/16


- Matches will be 15 mins (to allow for server shutdowns and prevent matches fromending in the middle of one)
- Matches will be up to 10 vs 10
- There will be a Max number of players option
- There will be no class restrictions
- We will have a tradable token system that is purchased w plat for wagering
- Red Room/ Blue Room ala CTF to start the match, all must be present to start
- 0 participants after start is a forfeit
- Players will respawn in random location after death

This sounds amazing!!!

[Easyhunt]

Any news about battle grounds?????

[Major Bato]

when is this coming out? i cant wait

[Perceval]

Maybe an option for in-house battles?

[Meowtho]

cant wait [emoji14]

Wysłane z mojego SM-A500FU przy użyciu Tapatalka

[resurrected]

cant wait [emoji14]

Wysłane z mojego SM-A500FU przy użyciu Tapatalka
None cant damn ! I gonna starting gearing up at final announced muwahahaha

[VISHNU (sparkstrom)]

I guess 8th Nov is over. When update gonna come?

Sent from my Lenovo K50a40 using Tapatalk

[Justg]

We're wrapping up this client, it is not on the immediate horizon but we'll get it out soon!

[Blazerland]

We're wrapping up this client, it is not on the immediate horizon but we'll get it out soon!

nice...im sure pvp fanatics are excited

[Willisch]

I really really really think there should be class restrictions. Any 10v10 will EASILY be trumped by a 10 warrior team at almost all the twink levels.

I know at lvl 10-12, it's already very possible for just 2 warriors to survive a 5 man team.

[Recieve]

wooord, is this released yet? :O

[Monday Couple]

waiting for this one, hope release as soon as possible :)

[Ginnygog]

Can't wait to play :)

[pump]

We have nothing against small skirmishes! Our initial thought was to give players choices of smaller Battlegrounds (1 hour or less) and all the way up to very long Battlegrounds (12 hours for example) so that guilds who have members from various timezones can still let their members participate in the overall Battleground.

It may be important to note that we plan for Battlegrounds to more closely resemble the current PvP TDM as opposed to Duels. Once the Battleground has been accepted, the Arena opens. The Arena will initially be empty, players from each guild will have to join the Arena to begin fighting. The Arena will remain open for the entire duration of the Battleground, and will allow players to come and go as they please. Guilds will not be penalized if they do not have 10 members inside of the Arena, so there is no penalty for having your guild take a break, or waiting until you have 10 members online to enter. That level of coordination would be up to the competing guilds.
Im worried about the lvl issues that will take place in bg because im a lvl 14 tank in a 13-14 pvp guild but our enemy uses 15 players to win which is unfair for us 14s that spent millions on gears but ofc 15 gears are cheap abd over powered for us 14 so I just imagine the 15 guilds using 10 lvl 15 vs 10 lvl 13 and 14s simply because 15s get to use fortified jewels on there gear but lvl 14s can just use standard jewels on gear so thats a huge difference and its just 1 lvl away it may seem like a dumb suggestion to some of you but if your a 14 and pvp on a daily bases you will see how I feel atleast can you make a 14s vs only 14s and 15s vs 15s only all same lvl so it can be equal for us (twinks) thanks for reading :) -Ripn

[Q_Nyx]

Excited! Can't wait for this :)

[Redjellydonut]

Will this be our Christmas gift? :3

[epicrrr]

any new screenshots to lift our gaming spirit up? :)

[Hosphin]

WHOA CANT WAIT! please release as soon xD

[rainmm]

Nicee ;))))

[Kingslaughter]

I think guild battlegrounds launch in next year...lol

[Siraj]

hope it comes soon

[Hosphin]

Make it in a New MAP! all in one side and all others in other side a clash battle in the middle, maybe something like LOL or MOBA, this way will be better, in CFT with random spawn there will be group killing to win!

ur making a new system with the oldest map! cmon!

[Elleabridges]

I appreciate that there is a pvp aspect to the game. However this game was initially set to be a pve game. Guild's need features thAt keep getting ignored. One important one is the fact that officers can kick every member and recruiter. There has to be a way to protect this. Allowing officers to only kick one or two members within a certain amount of time is a easy programming fix. We also should had been given option of decorations in guild halls when they houses came out. Lastly u add a new position for guild's but put it between members and recruiter? Should had been between recruiter and officer....

I've played as a gm for over 2yrs now in game and have yet to see positive guild improvement. I do know my ideas and thoughts are not original so why the wait?

[Victimzz]

What if guild master id offline and members wanna fight? Pls let officer accept too ty

Sent from my MyPhone my86 DTV using Tapatalk

[Gambled]

This thread is pretty old, is this still happening and if so, when?

[Shrexxxk]

nice idea sts

[kaidences]

can't wait :D