|
Guild Forts - Too many or Not enough?
Just a simple question; I'm curious as to whether you believe there are too many guild forts right now, or if there is not enough. I guess we can throw in a 'just right' in there too for middle ground. This thread is not really reflective of any kind of staff opinion or hinted direction.
Please explain the reasons for your opinion. |
Hey chief. I feel that there could be benefit from more territory to explore. If that entails another fort, then good. If introducing another fort hinders production of, say, a town or new wilderness, then it's not needed.
For the sake of healthy expansion, I voted more are needed! |
Quote:
I voted that the amount of towers is fine as is. |
I don't think one more would hurt, but where would it go? Big City? Balamb? Maybe you could make some kind of "tutorial" tower for new players in Balamb. You could also expand on the map...
|
Just right.
If we had more there would be no competition and if we had less it would be impossible to hold. |
The problem with this pole is that in pretty sure a lot of people who don't even tower are going to vote , however I think that there should be at least one more fort as the player count is increasing towers get laggier with 3 guilds trying to attack at the same time , also experienced towerers in any type of guilds are probably bored of having the same tower and would probably like something new to keep it interesting , personally I quit tower now because it's too repetitive and becomes booring over a year /2 year time period . Sorry for the layout of this writing on an iPhone
Quote:
|
their should be a big city tower being inside the volcano
so big city is visited more than once by people also their are big skilled guilds that take like 2 towers at the same time and guilds that are on 24/7 and wont budge from their fort another tower means a new opertunity for guilds to take it more towers shall be my vote it should be special like sardons tower not just a room its got traps and hallways |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
It'd have traps like sardon, but the traps would be some kind of arrow traps or lava. And I'd definetly go get that new tower. Also if you can't think of any old towerers... Then you must play 1 minute per month. |
Quote:
Who , there are a lot of people that tower because it's too repetitive now , I have 7 guild hats now and I hate towering because it's the same thing over and over again |
I believe that the amount of forts is right but its actually really gay tbh. There are just guilds with OP Players therefore it's boring. Snow Fort is always boring.all others aswell except sardons. Sardons is the party highlight of all towers. York maybe is nice aswell but since mod town got a new design mod tower is **** aswell. Well its a b4stardization of mod town... Graal was so nice , now its boring AF
|
*votes not enough so you might make another*ah graalproduction.
|
Anybody want to explain why they voted too many?
|
There was too many when they added the fourth, three or less should be it.
Adding a 'new' tower isn't going to boost competition it's going to make it easier for multiple guilds to divide the space and peacefully AFK each at a different fort to hit 1,000 hours. Half the guilds with towers now are allied with each other. The less towers there is, the more competition there will be since guilds will have no choice but to actively attack/defend. |
I voted the "Just Right" option.
My reasoning behind this is that the number of forts have never been the problem (I'm assuming everyone is willing to admit there are problems with the fort system) of towers. The addition of the one at York Town did not change a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. Not saying it should be taken away, but no work needs to be done as far as the number of towers is concerned. The issue lies elsewhere, in the "meta" so to speak of the towering game. Currently it's a rotation of guilds who are buddies just cycling to 1k hours through Sardon's, while all of the other guilds on the map just recruit those passing by to help them hold vs pkers. The way recruiting to tower for a guild works takes priority over the number of towers, as I think any issues that are present in the system aren't caused by the towers themselves, but the guild system. |
Quote:
I like swamp alot though its fun and deadwood aswell but Having traps or baddies would be cool maybe add a cave tower were their are bandits roaming who shoot you with Darts if you. kill one they Serve you but by taking a tower they automatically serve the owner of the tower We need more why would you want the number to stay the same we want more towers for more opertunities for a larger playercount, more ideas and more variety I dont want to tower snow for 1000 hours if i wanted to go to 1k i would take different ones so i dont get bored of deffending a tower and a lava tower would be awsome maybe a lava city in the volcano with a lava tower qith the city caled molten city with Fire Golems walk (they are nice though) and fire demons live there and try killing you |
I think a good idea for an tower layout would be one large hall maybe with maybe a 4-5 player width and extreemly long, having to actually scroll up the level to keep to the end. It would be fun to see the defending guild and attacking guild clash in a format like this
anyways, the only tower for ACTUAL NEW GUILDS (not recreations) is MoD. And MoD just sucks so much. back in the old day it used to be possible to take castle with just 7 or 8 players online and hold it. It would be nice to see that again |
If there's too many then that means more competition. Just wish guilds didn't truce so much. How can you develop dominance if you practically aren't being attacked due to having an alliance with 6/7 of the forts. I'm currently in my 5th towering guild and I will say it is the most time consuming thing you can do in Graal. But other than that, it's still a great way to develop skills that you can apply in real life (Leadership, Team Building, Responsibility, Organization, etc.)
Regards to the # of forts, 7 is fine. It's not too much nor not too less. |
Quote:
|
I believe that if we added 1 more no one would feel a need to complain, why not put 1 in onnet forest or onnet town ?
or burger refuge but thats just me:love: |
Quote:
|
I think having another tower that makes use of bombs and arrows would be cool. Also, it could have a battlefield similar to York's but a bit bigger with places to shoot arrows and sling bombs. Another reason for a new tower is that doubling or attempting to take a tower during weekends and vacations is near impossible with the average of 11 players defending each tower.
|
Quote:
|
Hmm a tower where the waterfall is? Guarded by the zorbis
|
"Just Right"
Several years ago, I would have said "not enough." Back when all towers had 250hp, and were easy enough to defend for a strong guild keep for a month without losing. Towers were changed a few times to make them a lot easier to take. And now the guild system has been abused by recycling the same group of members into new 1k guilds / guilds make truces with every guild they have a friend in. Theres still a couple towers that are easy to hold, and a few towers that are easy to take. What we have is a good balance. If they added 1 tower for a round number of 8, i wouldnt ever want more than that.. |
With the playercount increasing so rapidly, I think it is important for the number of towers to increase as well. More playercount = more players in towers, which means only stronger guilds will be able to hold them. This destroys the ability of someone who is new or newer to the game that isn't part of a well-established guild to take and control the tower for any significant length of time. Only the guilds that are extremely managed and significant in the community are able to hold towers at this point, and I think with these guilds comes a certain degree of exclusivity that is unfavorable toward newer players. More towers could be added to alleviate this issue by spreading people out.
Of course, you don't want the map to get too crowded. But I am always a proponent of expanding the map, as long as it is done in quality, because I think a larger world becomes more immersing and the most fun I've ever had on Classic was exploring around the map. |
If everyone just crimes into the same towers as player count increases the lag will
Be even worse than it is now , nobody wants this as it makes the game less enjoyable over all , even for the people who don't tower. However this is my last post in this thread as I've realised a lot of the people discussing this 1 Tower a really small amount / don't even tower at all , therefore they can't comprehend how towering is at now . 2 A lot of the people discussing this , I've spotted to be some people who just AFK in graal City or inside the main arena room , I don't know how these people can give a valid opinion on towering systems if they barely do it them selves |
The player base is rising, it only seems natural to use some space on the map for a new tower or two to make room. This is also my own opinion but, the old towers are getting a bit old so ofcourse I'd love to try some new ones maybe out in the ocean or on clouds or underground who knows.
|
my reasoning for 'not enough guild forts'
-Player count increasing -A better chance for new guilds to bloom up |
Removing one would be good, adding more competition
|
Quote:
|
I'm not saying towers should be used for exploration, I'm saying that new towns should always be a consideration and towers could be a component of these towns.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Spoiler
|
Quote:
How about balancing the system in place somehow, not necessarily removing the hats, but making it more fair/accessible to all players and not just the 16-hour-a-day hat fiends? |
Quote:
However, you are correct that noob guilds have little chance of holding towers for a long time (but then again, that has always been this way). It does seem like there are fewer noob tower guilds that dont have at least 1-3 experienced towerers. |
I think the number of towers is just right, maybe if one was in Belle (or whatever it was renamed to), that would be a good addition-- and could be used very well seeing as how isolated Belle is, making it a good place to defend, although it is a little too close to the castle.
Personally though if more towers were added I'd like to see the themes and play style have a little more variation, maybe and underwater tower where your movement is slowed because you are swimming, maybe you can only stay in the tower so long before you are warped out so that you don't drown, that could make defense a lot more interesting. Or maybe towers where the objective isn't just to hit a single flag, but to have multiple flags, throughout the tower that must be claimed, that way you have to plan your attacks/defenses better rather just rushing a flag. TL;DR I don't think that more towers should be added for the time being unless they actually contribute something new to PvP. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
I think there should be more towers, even though some are inactive (like deadwood). I suggest an easier way to transport to forts.
Town teleportation anyone? It will make it easier for guilds to meet up and make a plan! |
I think the question you should be asking is "How can we make guild forts less boring and pointless?"
I mean, guild forts, hours, controlling a piece of the map... it means nothing |
Just throwing out an idea here but I was always fond on the idea of having multiple flags for one tower. For example if you had a large amount of guild members at the tower you would have two flags however if you had a reasonably small amount of guild members you could be put in the single flag zone. The benefits of this would be a lot more smaller guilds could take towers a lot easier which would also encourage skill (well as much skill as you can get on this game:P). The defenders would have to think a lot more logicaly and also would face them with the decision of using a small guild or a larger one. I can think of a lot more but i don't want to overcomplicate things.
|
Quote:
|
Less guild forts=More guilds attacking a single fort at a time.
|
If we remove the hat, it will make uncompetitive, if we leave it like this, more corruption will occur to almost every guild.
do not add/remove towers. just add a new reward system. |
Quote:
Quote:
honestly towering is fun but in the end people do things for rewards Quote:
example: Ur guild just took over Mod Tower u control mod Meanwhile i ride on my black donkey to mod handle furniture and buy a Light orb I pay the price, every member of the guild that owns mod gets 5% of my purchase |
I feel that guild fort's flags have way too much health
and it also doesn't help that it's boring going to the top every time just to take a flag down to 0, there needs to be various ways to capture the fort such as taking down the gates then circling the forts to take the defense down and gather up in the last room to own the fort. there could also be levers, switches, some cube pushing puzzles and many more ways to capture the fort.. there could have been so many unique ways to capture each fort instead of making it a boring flag kill fest. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
lolz, not enough guild towers? why need more? so we can just have a peaceful towers? isn't guild towers supposed to be challenging? not relaxing?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin/Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.