The raid system sucks. Don't get me wrong, it's a good idea but should be a suppliment to a grander system so that  guilds can war each-other.

Each leader would have to agree on the terms - items in vault to bet, money, points... or the ultimate bet - a disband. (in this situation you would need to reserve the guild name for the leader to re-make for 72 hours so no one is a punk and steals it)

The leaders would also bet on the time frame and basis of the war which should ultimately be attacks on each-other but could be supplimented with things such as average guild growth, highest guild growth, most attacks in guild, etc which would give the winner more ground. So even if one crew attacks the other crew and wins the most, if it's my a minimul margin and the other crew won other set compet*tions that were decided at the war proposal then it could boost that crew to a victory.

I have more thoughts on this but would like to get sime input.

Raiding doesn't suck. I like the way raiding works, it just is a bit obvious who'll win when it comes to guilds, because the difference in power between most guilds is huge. When you're raiding someone closer to your power, it's a bit more challenging and interesting.

it's been a while since i last posted something in the forum, but this seems a good place to start again.


about the stakes: i would keep it simple and keep it at money and points, vault items would overcomplicate it.

the idea about the possible disbanding as a term however is a good one but you it's doesn't really feel complete.

you might put it like this(only an idea):
-everyone is kicked out of the guild but the leader stays.
-no invites/joining possible for 3 days.

this makes the losing guild vulnerable to raids and limit the things it can do. and you don't have the problem of stealing the guilds name.

the part about xp stripped to help is a bit flawed in my eyes, I'd rather make it that there would be stakes for every single stat you mentioned.

for example:
-number of attacks(main bet): 10000 points
-average xp growth from attacks between guilds(sub bet): 50 million credits
-highest xp growth from attacks between guilds(sub bet): 2000 points
-most xp stripped from attacks between guilds(sub bet): 500 points

so the main bet would still determine the loser, but the losing guild could still get part of what it lost back, or it could lose even more. but i would keep the disbanding stuff to the main bet.


Dam it cyberkilla why are you faster then me. sorry if it's not really coherent but it's 3 in the morning and I've got allot on my mind.

the thing about the battlefield is interesting but it isn't compatible with this idea. however you could make 2 types of war one for people who are about keeping it simple and like to just attack and another for guilds who are a bit more organised.



you could make a map with multiple rooms that need to be kept by a guild. and can be captured by raiding the room(like the current system), people from the guild who occupy it are the defenders(or the guild that first reach it) and people of the attacking guild must be in the room. you could make certain rooms give advantages to a certain team so that they wouldn't just rush to the enemy "flag room".

for example:
-2 flag rooms(1 for each guild, lose this and you lose the game)
-4 arms room (gives a boost when you're the attacker in a raid)
-4 armour room (gives a boost when you're the defender in a raid)

now you can add several things to this, for example if you get killed by a person of the opposing guild who meets you on the map you get moved back to your flag room, the same if you're a defender from a room losing a raid or the attacker and you lose a raid, but i would disable the single killing from people inside the buildings.

if you put the maximum time people can join a raid inside a building to 5 minutes and add a guild chat so the guild leader/commanders can give orders. this could be a fast strategic part of the game where guild members have to work together.

Counting PvP attacks may not be as predictable as you think. It's more based on activity than power when it comes down to it. In a 30 vs 30 crew where the 2nd crew can only succsessfully attack 1/2 of the 1st crew they could still easily win if they are more active and logon to be able to hit once every 12 hours as opposed to the 1st crew if they are less active and just log on once.

Your battleground idea is very interesting but it is too big. This project on it's own would be substantial.

I have an idea regarding "territories" that crews could take over in the worlds and get higher exp/cash when they attack there but the idea needs a LOT of thought before proposal and at this point in the game with the balance of power (or lack there of) between the crews would probably have to wait.

I like raids but do not agree with raids being able to take items from vaults unless it's an agreed upon bet. All you would do is promote dummy mule accounts to safe keep items. And if points were the question then the leaders would start safe keeping points.

scorchio it fundimentally makes no sense. If a crew loses a "war" then they have lost. All bets on the table are the bets. This is no gentlemans game of poker where you are playing with your buddies and go "well you lost, but you played a good game so you can keep your buy in" which is a bad example anyway because I wouldn't do that lol.

p.s. disband also implies that all crew upgrades are lost.

those sub bets aren't for helping the losing crew, if they lose those sub bets they will lose more then the main bet alone. and if people don't want to involve them they just don't bet on them.

BTW i was just picking up on you're idea of adding them to the war, because i think it would be to much variables to count if you want to add them to the final result.